Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ben. I started looking at Le Grand about 7 years after I started researching the case. I've never swayed from my belief that all of the canonical 5 were killed by the same man, although my opinion on Tabram has swayed like the wind over the years and continues to do so. In my case, fitting Le Grand in made sense of most of the little nagging mysteries, and did indeed open up possibilities that were not so apparent before.

In fact, I guess it makes sense that you, as Hutchinson's biggest supporter as Ripper, should be challenging Fish with Cross, as both 'suspects' were first introduced to the case as witnesses. However, the difference is that Hutch provided evidence that was questionable, had a prior relationship with the victim, was by his own admission loitering near the murder scene on the day of the crime, and came to be seen as unreliable by the police. If a link between him and Le Grand is ever found, it's case solved! But none of this is true in the case of Cross. It's for this reason I think it's crucial if Cross is going to be argued for that his researchers find SOMETHING we can sink our teeth into, preferably evidence of violence prior to or after the murder. SOMETHING. Otherwise, we might as well argue that John McCarthy was the Ripper because he sent someone to discover the body, conveniently staying behind, and then wouldn't admit to having a key to the room. Suspicious!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

However, the difference is that Hutch provided evidence that was questionable, had a prior relationship with the victim, was by his own admission loitering near the murder scene on the day of the crime, and came to be seen as unreliable by the police. If a link between him and Le Grand is ever found, it's case solved!

I think we're there already with Broad-shoulders and Pipeman! A short, stout man whose broad shoulders betrayed a military appearance, with Le Grand the obvious candidate for the older, taller man. A done deal, I think.

Seriously though, I agree with everything you say above. Le Grand and Hutchinson are legitimately suspicious. The problem with Cross is that while having the means and opportunity are all well and good (although I'd really dispute he even had the latter), there is just nothing about him or his actions that can reasonably be construed as suspicious.

All the best,
Ben

[mariab]

If a link between him and Le Grand is ever found, it's case solved!

Or I was thinking, a link to Birch. Or even to Aarons.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria. I think we have a Le Grand/Joseph Aarons connection by way of Aarons having employed the Grand one. Proving Le Grand knew Birch would by no means prove Le Grand was the Ripper. It would just mean he was likely involved in a FOURTH (or is it fifth?) Ripper case hoax.

Hi Ben. Completely agreed.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Hi Maria. I think we have a Le Grand/Joseph Aarons connection by way of Aarons having employed the Grand one.

Sure we do. And don't forget I'm hoping to look at their respective financial situation (through potential banking records), partly thanks to the LMA, partly thank to Debs.

Proving Le Grand knew Birch would by no means prove Le Grand was the Ripper. It would just mean he was likely involved in a FOURTH (or is it fifth?) Ripper case hoax.

Now who's being a minimalist?
I thought third hoax. Fourth if you count MJK. Fifth? Can you possibly have something on Smith/Tabram?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"That would only apply if Cross was taken completely by surprise, but for some mysterious reason, you're arguing the reverse. You're arguing that Cross registered Paul's presence the moment the latter turned right out of Brady Street, and still thought there was "no opportunity" to "leave the scene undetected"."

Ben, I ´m afraid you are jumping to conclusions again. You did it in your last post, and I am getting very tired of it, since you are constantly misrepresenting what I say and think.

Here´s the excerpt you need to look at:

"Now, the distance from the corner or Brady Street down to where Polly lay, was more than a hundred yards. The street was totally empty, but for Lechmere and Nichols, as Paul turned into it. It was lined on both sides by houses, accoustically turning it into a tunnel. Anybody standing up at Brady street, would easily have heard if somebody entered the narrow section of the street, down at the Board school, the shoes cloppering against the stone paving.
But Paul does not say that he heard a man walking in front of him, does he? So perhaps Lechmere was standing in the middle of the street for all that time it took Paul to walk the 110-120 years from Brady Street to Browns Stable Yard - half a minute or so?
Do people who find women lying on pavements really do this - stop for half a minute in the middle of the street, looking at the body, waiting, doing nothing?
Lechmere himself says he only heard Paul when he was forty yards off. Why was that? In a silent street? Why did he not hear the hurrying Paul, late for work, doing absolutely nothing to walk silently, instead pacing along as best as he could, already as he entered the street? Neil heard Thain pass the intersection as he stood by Nichols´body, 110-120 yards away, remember!

Strange, is it not? Not really, though, not if Lechmere noticed Paul immediately, aborting his strike and silently stepping into the middle of the street, and if there was nothing to hear for Paul. Then this anomaly is easily explained.
But the police did not catch up on this."

Read it as many times as you want to, and THEN tell me again that I have said that Lechmere heard Paul as he turned into Buck´s Row from Brady Street!

What I am saying - and what I will say as many times as it takes - is that the accoustic conditions would in all probability have been such as to ENABLE Lechmere to hear Paul when he turned into Buck´s Row. But since I do not know the EXACT conditions, and as I do not know EXACTLY how much sound Pauls footwear gave away, and as I do not know to what extent killing and cutting formed a sort of "bubble" around Lechmere, I of course cannot tell at what exact stage he noticed Paul.

Why not let me do these calls myself, without interfering afterwards and changing my views, Ben?

I think that it would be the reasonable thing to do for Lechmere - if he was the killer - to leave the scene silently and undetected IF THERE WAS TIME ENOUGH FOR HIM TO DO SO. He did NOT leave the scene, and therefore I believe that he judged it better to con his way out, after having established what Paul had seen. None of us stand any chance to guess just how long down the street Paul was when Lechmere would have taken this decision, and it´s simply useless to say "he would have run" without knowing how Lechmere evaluated his chances.

"Cross didn't have to make it remotely obvious that he was "fleeing" from anything. Remember that in your scenario, a distant gas lamp would have alerted Cross that a man had just turned onto the street. In which case, he had only to walk at an inconspicuous brisk pace in the opposite direction and so commence an "escape" that would have been well under way by the time Paul arrived at the crime scene, made tentative investigations, and went in search of a policeman."

If you have read my posts - a fair number of them - you will know that I have stated over and over again that doing this would involve the risk of getting spotted and remembered by any PC you passed on your way out. And - as I have also said numerous times - since he was on his way to job, we need to realize that he would have passed down Buck´s Row perhaps fifty times since moving to Doveton Street, meaning that any person he passed could have been somebody who already knew him by sight, and who could testify against him as being the person that left Buck´s Row immediately before that carman and PV came running out of it, yelling "Murder!"
It would, in short, have entailed numerous risks to run for it or even casually walk for it. And I don´t see those risks coming into play the way he dealt with things. If he was the killer, then he acted very rationally under quite some pressure, and made sure that he maximized his chances of leaving the murder site as undramatically as possible. You may state as long as you want to that he would have run, but please take a look at the outcome of the solution he chose before you call him stupid or illogical!

"All the less reason to commit another murder along the same route a mere week later, where he could have been recognised not only as "this carman that ran past me", but "this carman that discovered the previous murder victim and received heavy exposure as a police and inquest witness"."

You are forgetting, Ben, that as things turned out, Lechmere did NOT run past Mizen - he stopped and spoke to him instead, purportedly helping out. You are also forgetting that he was SUPPOSED to be on the streets at the early morning hours, meaning that Mizen would have had no reason to see him as anything but a man passing through on his way to work. You are also forgetting that the police had come to accept his story, thinking that Lechmere and Paul had arrived at Nichol´s body at stages in time that were so very close as to exclude Lechmere as a possible killer. Indeed, they never even seem to have entertained the possibility as such, in spite of the circumstances. Therefore, instead of becoming a suspicious figure, he seemingly got an alibi for the Nichols murder, courtesy of the police.

"As I've pointed out before, the likely time of Chapman's murder would tend to rule out anyone employed as a carman for the simple reason that most, if not all of them, would have been due at work considerably earlier."
A. He could have started work later that day.
B. He could have killed her on his way FROM Pickford´s, starting the days cart tours.
C: Any other useful explanation, like having hired somebody to do his work that day and telling Pickford´s - but not his wife and family.

Just don´t think that Lechmere could not have killed Chapman since we "know" that he started job at his usual time that day and since we "know" when Chapman was killed.

"But 4. doesn't have anything to do with crime scene evidence."

Here I will have to extend my gratitude to Tom for stepping in and doing the job for me.

"There is still no evidence that Cross had anything to do with Old Montague Street/Wentworth Street. "

And we can´t conclude that a person theoretically living in Mitre Square and working at the Duke Street club would have used Church Passage going to work.
I don´t think we need to revel in our knowledge that we do not have it on paper that Lechmere very possibly would have used the nearest road to his work. It remains a very, very valid suggestion that he did so, since this is what people normally do. After that, we may discuss in eternity the awful and sinister Old Montague Street gangs that he would do all he could to avoid - and it will get us absolutely nowhere.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"In all cases, the assessment of evidence must come before any suspect selection."

If there is anything in the Stride killing that points away from Lechmere having done it, then let´s hear what that something is.

"If people are excluding this, or the Stride murder, or anything else on the grounds that their favourite suspect can't have been responsible, I'd suggest that's the wrong way to go about it, simply because their conclusions are being swayed by extraneous considerations to the actual evidence."

Stride could have been killed by a paramour. She could have been killed by the Ripper. She could have been killed by a club member who had had a few too many and did not like her standing around on their premises. She could have been killed by the Thames Torso killer, who first tried to drag her along home to him to do his thing, but who was denied this pleasure, whereupon he tired of her and cut her neck. That was the case before I took an interest in Lechmere, and the exact same applies now.
Nothing in the crime scene evidence precludes any of these - or many, many other - solutions.

Just like Tom says, the opening up of new avenues of investigation do not have to depend on any changed evidence as such - and we all know that no evidence at all has changed in Berner Street as relating to Stride and how she died - but these new avenues may propose other angles of looking on things as they develop.

The really interesting thing here is that you seem to claim that I am not allowed to argue for Stride as a potential victim of Lechmere/The Ripper...?! Somehow, you believe - or choose to claim - that my pointing out that she MUST NOT have been a Ripper victim, disallows me to accept that Lechmere´s geographical connotations seemingly points to Stride belonging to a range of killings that all correspond to a pattern of routes that Lechmere would have used in his everyday life.
To me, that comes dangerously close to a Kindergarten level of discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom:

" think it's crucial if Cross is going to be argued for that his researchers find SOMETHING we can sink our teeth into, preferably evidence of violence prior to or after the murder."

Dennis Rader, Tom! He spent many a year in Wichita, living as an upright, unconspicious citizen, not being involved in any violence at all, but instead annoying people with his staunch going-by-the-book behaviour.
Of course it would be telling if we were to find that Charles Lechmere had earlier been found to have his closet crammed with eviscerated women, and yes, if we had had it on record that he threatened to cut his neighbours up, it would have been of interest.

But just as Raders neighbours and the local police had nothing at all on him, it may well apply that there was no such record about for Lechmere either.

I will, however, go on record with a dissertation myself in days to come, in which I will add an element that may make you realize to at least some degree why I´m after Lechmere for these murders.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

I think that it would be the reasonable thing to do for Lechmere - if he was the killer - to leave the scene silently and undetected IF THERE WAS TIME ENOUGH FOR HIM TO DO SO. He did NOT leave the scene,

Exactly...nailed it in one...Lechmere, killer or not, did NOT leave the scene...whereas with a hundred yard start, or even only a forty yard start, he very easily could have, via a quick sprint and either a right turn into Queen Ann Street, or a left into Court Street, or even doubled back by the school and down through Woods Buildings...but he didn't...he conferred with Paul and went looking for a copper, who they subsequently encountered only a couple of hundred yards away...and on this basis Lechmere is the ripper? Man I wouldn't want to share heads with a mind like that!

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"he very easily could have"

... but it is the "would he?" that is of interest here. I have no problems at all understanding that he COULD have run up til the time Paul stepped on his toes, Dave. And if I had had any troubles at all realizing it, I´m sure that there would have been numerous posters that were willing to point it out - like you, for example!

"on this basis Lechmere is the ripper?"

Pray tell me where I have stated that Lechmere is the Ripper on this basis? Would it not be sounder to start with the fact that he was alone with Nichols for an unknown period of time? Would it not fit the Ripper bill better that he used an alias? Is it not seemingly more telling that the victims fit his timetable, going to job and his mother´s? Is his refusal to help prop Nichols up not more telling?

Why do you suggest that Lechmere would have been the Ripper to my mind, based on his not running for it in Buck´s Row?

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

I will, however, go on record with a dissertation myself in days to come, in which I will add an element that may make you realize to at least some degree why I´m after Lechmere for these murders.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman,

As you have perhaps noticed, Cross-Lechmere interests me, but I have serious reservations on certain aspects, so I eagerly await that dissertation. Any hints at the big news?

curious

[Fisherman]

Nope - that would not be fair to the publisher. All good things ...

The best, Curious! You live up to your signature!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Right, Tom, I´ll return to that question of yours from yesterday:

"one test that I believe determines the validity of that suspect is - how much evidence does one need to EXCLUDE in order to make them fit? "

If I have understood you right, this can be rephrased:

Which are the main objections to the suspect´s candidacy? And I take it that you are not after other poster´s views on this, but mine only?

Then I´ll have to say that I find nothing at all that gravely militates against Lechmere being the killer.
There is - of course - the family man/faithful provider part, but we all know that there are many examples of men who have been serialists in spite of being good family men and responsible citizens on the surface. I have mentioned Rader before, and we may add numerous others, as I´m sure you will know. Peter Kürten is a clear-cut example that springs to mind.

Then there is the question why the killings stopped.Well, maybe they didn´t. There is the MacKenzie case, which has the same geographical connotations at the other murders committed in the area where Lechmere went to work, and, perhaps more interestingly, there is the Pinchin Street case, that - if committed by Lechmere - points to a changing agenda and MO. And in the end, there´s always Dennis Rader (and people like Il mostro de Firenze, for example) that show us that serialists can lay off for decades - or forever.

When it comes to the more detailed evidence, there is one thing that has had me thinking: the propping up business. The fact of the matter is that we only know about it because of Lechmere, who mentioned it at the inquest.
Why would he do that, I have asked myself. It is potentially incriminating.

The explanation I find for it is that I believe that Lechmere may have been very adamant about it in Buck´s Row. I feel that he may well have intimidated Paul, more or less, to avoid having him try and prop Nichols up. And if this is true, then he may also have reasoned along the lines that it would have been something that Paul was likely to tell the inquest about. Therefore, he may have wanted to take the edge of things by coming clear about it himself.

Other than that, no there is absolutely nothing I have pondered as any negative factor in Lechmere´s candidacy. Are you having something in mind yourself on this score?

PS. Once you publish on Le Grand, this question is likely to ricochet your way ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Why do you suggest that Lechmere would have been the Ripper to my mind, based on his not running for it in Buck´s Row?

Simply because you appear to be using it in this very fashion to try to prop up your argument...

Dave

[curious]

Nope - that would not be fair to the publisher. All good things ...

The best, Curious! You live up to your signature!
Fisherman

Ah, I misunderstood. Will your "dissertation" will be in a magazine or in book format? If a magazine, I would have called it an article. "Dissertation" led me to believe it would be here on the website.

We'll need to know where in case I need to arrange to get an issue.

Just so you'll know (if it matters) to convince me and perhaps others you will need

A. A stronger stressor than I have seen thus far (and I supplied my own to a magazine editor and he's never discussed it with me, so for whom are you writing the dissertation?)

B. More about C-L's life following 1888 -- things that speak to his incredible intelligence, for that is how I have come to envision a single Ripper for the canonical 5. And I'm very unconvinced about Stride, more unconvinced with Cross-Lechmere in the picture than when he was not. Anyway, as he is portrayed so cool and calculating following Nichols' murder, we will need some evidence of that in his real life.

C. You will have to really do a super job on Eddowes -- especially if you argue FOR Stride being a C-L victim -- with the way I tentatively have it figured, the double event does not really work for me -- today, it might tomorrow.

D. The apron -- what possible reason did he have for cutting the apron and carrying it to Goulston Street?

I'm sure there will be others. I have to get ready for work (and NO, I will not be stopping off to kill anyone on the way!)

Good luck with the dissertation.

curious and, as always, with a fertile imagination