Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Fisherman

You are a super clever guy but your theory here is quite ridiculous.

A man on his way to work found a dead body in the road.

End of story.

[Fisherman]

Stephen Thomas:

"You are a super clever guy but your theory here is quite ridiculous."

I would refute both of them claims, actually.

"A man on his way to work found a dead body in the road.

End of story."

Has been, yes, for 124 years. A few years ago, though, it was found that our carman had been using a name that he never used otherwise in official matters. And just like the poster Lechmere says, people did not normally use aliases unless they had a somewhat dubious background. Have a look at Mrs Maxwell, for example, stated by Dew and many other sources to be a very upright citizen - we donīt find her using any aliases, do we? And the same would have gone for most people in the East End - hardworking, honest people trying to make ends meet who would not come up with the idea of using differnt names in differing contexts.

That was an almighty indicator that Charles Lechmere was perhaps not all we had thought he was.

Next up was the added information on his geographical connotations. For now we could clearly see that this man, who had spent time alone with the first" canonical" victim, and who had given an alias to the police instead of admitting that he was born Lechmere, actually moved along paths that tallied extremely well with where the murder victims were found. And not only that, we could also see that the victims fell prey at the approximate hours when he would have been about.

I am not saying, Stephen, that it could not be a coincidence that this correlation was seemingly at hand. But I AM saying that it would be naïve in the extreme not to take a very active interest in a man where all of these things could be observed. I am also claiming that, without any doubt at all, he should have been the number one suspect in the case back in 1888 unless there was evidence that he was not guilty at the time.

I would also, once more, point to the fact that it is very obvious that the men in charge made the mistake of believing that Lechmere and Paul had found the body jointly, just as we can observe that for example Mizen believed that they were actually working together! From the Echo of September 3, Mizen speaking:
"By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

This was the picture that was sold in by Lechmere, and we may once more see that the same applies here as everywhere else in this case: there are two ways to read the evidence, one that frees Lechmere and one that speaks of guilt on his behalf. For there is nothing strange in a PC believing that two carmen who travel in company are actually working companions - but it also applies that this would have been the exact view that Lechmere would have preferred to convey. As long as he could keep the appearance up that he had not been alone on his route to work, and as long as it did not transpire that he had been the man that found Nichols, he was very much in the clear. And Mizen was never informed about the real circumstances, for some peculiar reason.

The best, Stephen!
Fisherman

[curious]

Tabram - no evidence that he ever took, let alone was in the habit of taking, the Old Montague Street to work. Thus no evidence that he passed George Yard.

Chapman - en route the work, but committed too late to have realistically been committed by Cross or any other suspect due at work considerably earlier.

Stride - not relevant if not a ripper victim, and you don't believe she was. Not much sense then in citing a Berner Street connection in your case against Cross being the ripper

Eddowes - see Tabram.

Kelly - see Chapman.

Pinchin Street Torso - see Stride.

All the best,
Ben

Hi, Ben,
You bring up some interesting points that, to my mind, do have valid answers when we consider Cross-Lechmere's life at the time of the killings.

I'm following this with interest, but unless the proponents of the theory arrive at a much stronger stressor than I understand or have see at this time, I remain very dubious. My own fertile imagination has conceived one that even accounts for the murders stopping. I'll be interested in seeing what the C-L folks come up with.

HOWEVER, back to your post:
"Tabram - no evidence that he ever took, let alone was in the habit of taking, the Old Montague Street to work. Thus no evidence that he passed George Yard."

No, but we know that a. he had A. a new baby at home, perhaps a sick baby with a short life expectancy.

B. New babies cry at inopportune times, and people living with them get little sleep.

It makes sense to me that if C-L were awakened at almost time to go to work, there was no reason for him to go back to sleep then be groggy when it was time to get up, or perhaps he had not gotten any sleep and it was almost time to leave for work. He may simply have gotten dressed and started off to work, piddling around a little in different areas since he had more time and wasn't rushing to work at the last minute.

If C-L was the ripper that's what I envision happening the morning Polly was killed.

"Chapman - en route the work, but committed too late to have realistically been committed by Cross or any other suspect due at work considerably earlier."

Time of death on Chapman has always been controversial even at the time. I personally have never believed the 5:30 a.m. time of death and can't understand how anyone does.

"Stride - not relevant if not a ripper victim, and you don't believe she was. Not much sense then in citing a Berner Street connection in your case against Cross being the ripper"


I've never been able to decide about Stride. I can see that C-L would be in the area on a weekend night, but killing right at his mother's house, where his child was living --- I'm not convinced.

"Eddowes - see Tabram."

I agree with you that this location is more dicy for the C-L proponents, but it is my understanding that many men often get out of the house when it is too emotional (see teenage girls or fight with the wife) or noisy (see weekends devoted to golf and sporting events). The distance is not too great for a "clearing the head" walk -- unprovable of course. But to me it ties in with what we understand of his home life at the time.

"Kelly - see Chapman."

Exactly, a controversial time of death and always has been.

Pinchin Street torso -- I have never studied it so I don't have any thoughts one way or the other.

I think there is enough about C-L that I'm very glad someone is researching him thoroughly.

Best,
curious

[FrankO]

Hi Frank! Good to have you chiming in!

I don't know how long I'll stick around, Fish, but thanks for the encouragement!

The grounds were searched, of course. And no weapon found. Which means that we must work from the premise that he stashed it on his person, if he was the killer.

Quite, and - my point - that he wasn’t as resourceful or cold-bloodied as you first suggested.

Also, a knife thrown over a fence, landing on the ground on the other side will produce a distinct sound when landing, iron on stone; CLANG! On a silent night, that would not have gone unnoticed.

If, as you also - rightfully - suggest, he heard Paul entering Buck’s Row from Brady Street (ca. 120 meters/130 yards), then he would at the very least have 1 minute to get rid of the knife. If it took Cross some 10 seconds to come up with the idea to wait for Paul as his ticket out of there, he could still have thrown it over the stable doors without much chance of Paul 1. hearing a CLANG! behind a some stable doors and 2. when he met up with Cross figured it was the knife thrown away by Cross. Furthermore, tossing it over the doors was just one option, he would have had enough time to silently lay it down anywhere not too far from the body. Hell, he even had enough time to get round the board school and altogether get out of there before Paul ever reached the spot where Nichols lay.

Another thing is that, if he was her killer, he didn’t wipe his hands on Nichols clothes: there was no blood – so, no smears either - on any part of her clothes except the back, on which she lay.

The time span given from his noticing Paul is of importance; it would have governed much of his decisions I feel. All in all, though, there is an obvious possibility that he only realized the use he could put Paul to AFTER the latter had arrived at the scene of the crime. But it could have come about earlier too. To me, the fact that Paul was intimidated by Lechmere, governs my thinking - I tend to think that the decision came after Pauls arrival outside Browns Stable Yard. Lechmere would have improvised his way out of things, the way I see it.

If Paul would have come from the other side (where the board school was), then I think you may have a point, but from Neil’s testimony we know that it was possible to hear someone at the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row and I highly doubt that Cross the murderer would not have heard Paul until he was too close to flee.

Therefore, he put an effective end to Pauls suggestion of a propping up - which would have been the only reasonable thing to do, try to get her in an upright position and bring her around - but no, the benevolent Lechmere, eager to help a woman in distress, had suddenly changed his tune at that stage. Guess why!

First of all, I would call Cross ‘eager to help a woman in distress’. He just saw something strange on the opposite side of the street and, after taking a bit of a closer look, discovered it was a woman. He doesn’t particularly come across as eager to help her. And understandably so, since she appeared to be dead and he himself being late.

And still, Frank, he opts for the SLOWER Hanbury Street instead of making up a minute or three by using Old Montague Street! Late, eh?

Going on the old 1894 ordinance map combined with Google Earth, Fish, I find the difference is about 100 meters in favour of Old Montague Street, so I would make that a minute. But perhaps the Hanbury route felt safer and I’m sure he himself wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference in time/distance.

The best!
Frank

[FrankO]

But the police did not catch up on this. They bought the version Lechmere served them, and they bought all of it. In a report, dated 19:th of October 1888, some seven weeks after the murder, Swanson writes ”The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Buck' s Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul carmen, on their way to work.”

And THAT, Steven, is how Lechmere "succesfully obsured his role"! To the police, the discovery of Nichols was a joint effort. The time gap inbetween Lechmereīs find and Pauls arrival was judged totally insignificant. And who provided the substantiation for this? Yes - Charles Allen Lechmere.

I don't know if anybody corrected you on this, Fish, but I'm not so sure about Lechmere serving them anything. First of all, Swanson wrote his reports in a sort of telegraph style, of which this is an example. Secondly, in a report by Abberline dated 19 September 1888, he wrote:
“I beg to report that about 3.40. am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, “carman” of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met, …”

The best,
Frank

[Stephen Thomas]

7Going on the old 1894 ordinance map combined with Google Earth, Fish, I find the difference is about 100 meters in favour of Old Montague Street

He must have preferred the scenic route.

[FrankO]

First of all, I would call Cross ‘eager to help a woman in distress’.

Of course, this should be "I would not call Cross 'eager to help a woman in distress'"

[FrankO]

Good one, Stephen!

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Quite, and - my point - that he wasn’t as resourceful or cold-bloodied as you first suggested."

Iīm not sure that I understand your argument here, Frank. I am saying that he would have realized that throwing away the knife would have not been an option, due to the sound it would have made.

"If, as you also - rightfully - suggest, he heard Paul entering Buck’s Row from Brady Street (ca. 120 meters/130 yards), then he would at the very least have 1 minute to get rid of the knife. If it took Cross some 10 seconds to come up with the idea to wait for Paul as his ticket out of there, he could still have thrown it over the stable doors without much chance of Paul 1. hearing a CLANG! behind a some stable doors and 2. when he met up with Cross figured it was the knife thrown away by Cross. Furthermore, tossing it over the doors was just one option, he would have had enough time to silently lay it down anywhere not too far from the body. Hell, he even had enough time to get round the board school and altogether get out of there before Paul ever reached the spot where Nichols lay."

... which is why we must factor in that he perhaps did not notice Paul all the way from the Brady Street crossing. We cannot know at what stage he DID notice him, but I would say that even if Paul was a hundred yards away, he would have heard the distinct sound of a metal object landing on stone. And maybe Lechmere did not WANT to throw away the knife at all - maybe he liked it very much, and wanted to keep it if possible. He may never even have contemplated a situation in which he threw the knife away.

"Another thing is that, if he was her killer, he didn’t wipe his hands on Nichols clothes: there was no blood – so, no smears either - on any part of her clothes except the back, on which she lay. "

But that does not mean that he did not wipe his hands on her clothes, Frank. In the darkness, he would not have known if he had any blood on him. He may have wiped them on her ulster anyway, precautionary, and if his hands were not bloodied, there would not have been any blood set off.

"If Paul would have come from the other side (where the board school was), then I think you may have a point, but from Neil’s testimony we know that it was possible to hear someone at the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row and I highly doubt that Cross the murderer would not have heard Paul until he was too close to flee."


... unless, of course, the killing and cutting had all his focus until it was too late to flee - he may well have been in a sort of bubble when cutting away, oblivious of things to some degree and not noticing Paul until the latter had come some way down the street.

" He doesn’t particularly come across as eager to help her. And understandably so, since she appeared to be dead and he himself being late. "

Dead or drunk, was what Lechmere thought, by his own admission. He would have realized - if he was innocent - that she could have had some sort of heart attack or anything like that too. And Paul told him that he thought sdhe stirred when he examined her. That would have been quite enough to call for something else than leaving her lying with no help at all.

"I don't know if anybody corrected you on this, Fish, but I'm not so sure about Lechmere serving them anything. First of all, Swanson wrote his reports in a sort of telegraph style, of which this is an example. Secondly, in a report by Abberline dated 19 September 1888, he wrote..."

No correction needed since I am right - Swanson DID write that the two carmen had found Nichols, and telegraph style or not, it is emphatically wrong. Now, Frank, I do not for a second believe that Swanson did not have access to the correct information, nor do I believe as such that Swanson thought the two carmen arrived in company in Buckīs Row, finding Nichols. But I DO think that Swanson uncritically accepted Lechmereīs version of events, and thus thought the time space inbetween the arrivals of the carmen was so small as to be of no interest. And that was bad policing, the way I see things.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish. Well, I'm glad you're willing to change your mind on things, even long held beliefs. That kind of flexibility is important, particularly when placing a suspect into the frame and see what happens. I don't want to give you too much grief, though with the both of us chasing a couple of Charles L's around Whitechapel, we were bound to butt heads I suppose.

When it comes to weighing the evidence with a suspect in the frame, 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? How does Cross equal out in that measure?

Also, I seem to recall you publishing an article some time back regarding theory that Joseph Fleming murdered Tabram. Do you still believe that or do you see Cross' hand in that now?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Of course, this should be "I would not call Cross 'eager to help a woman in distress'""

I actually had that counted out all on my own, Frank!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

TomW:

" I'm glad you're willing to change your mind on things, even long held beliefs."

Not that I want to disappoint you, Tom, but I have not changed any belief as such. I have come to think that option B may apply, thatīs all.

"with the both of us chasing a couple of Charles L's around Whitechapel, we were bound to butt heads I suppose."

Think we can sort that out just fine, Tom.

"When it comes to weighing the evidence with a suspect in the frame, 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? How does Cross equal out in that measure? "

Good question. Iīll have to give that some thougth before answering it!

" I seem to recall you publishing an article some time back regarding theory that Joseph Fleming murdered Tabram. Do you still believe that or do you see Cross' hand in that now?"

All I can say is that she died 30 yards from Old Montague Road/Wentworth Street, and at a time that puts gher into the Lechmere frame.

I am much more pessimistic about Fleming nowadays, since it surfaced that he was 6,7 not least. Also, I know now where in the George Yard buildings Tabram died - and it does not tally with my earlier estimation, making the scavenger scenario less useful.

The best, Tom - Iīll get back to you with an answer on the evidence bit on Lechmere!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

... which is why I think that opportunity was not there.

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". I cannot, for the life of me, fathom that one out. It is quite beyond question that Cross could have escaped undetected before Paul had made any distance into Buck's Row, let alone the hundred or so yards that stretched out between Buck Row's eastern entrance and the crime scene. In fact, the chances of him doing so very easily were vastly greater than average.

What I said was that Paul would take a look at what the man fled from, did I not?

Okay, but from what vantage point exactly? It is quite clear that both Cross and Paul did not register the body until they were relatively close to it. 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.

I also said that even if Lechmere had had the time to pass for example Mizen before the hunt was on, had he chosen Hanbury Street, then Mizen would be able to say that yes, there was this carman that ran past me, etcetera.

Indeed. 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". Not a problem, of course, for the real killer, who probably took a different escape route altogether (Old Montague Street?), thus explaining Mizen's failure to encounter him in mid-escape.

"But that does not in any way detract from the fact that there is every reason to suggest that he normally DID move along streets that took him past the murder places at the approximate hours that the Ripper victims were killed."

General murder region where thousands of others actually lived, yes. Appoximate hours that the ripper victims were killed? No. 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. The Kelly murder is equally problematic in this respect.

3. The practical outcome of all this is that if I had been asked if I would have voted for the A/ Ripper or B/ Somebody else as the more probable killer of Stride, I would have voted B.
4. After that, I have come to believe that Charles Lechmere is the best bid we have for the Ripper

But 4. doesn't have anything to do with crime scene evidence. As such, it should not have any bearing at all on whether or not you consider Stride a ripper victim. The latter determination should have been made on the basis of evidence from the crime scene - evidence that cannot possibly be changed by the "discovery" of a recently latched-onto "suspect". The same applies to the Pinchin Street torso. If you were formerly in the habit of accepting that crime scene evidence rules that one out as a ripper crime, Cross shouldn't make any difference.

I'm very surprised that you still haven't grasped this.

All I can say is that she died 30 yards from Old Montague Road/Wentworth Street, and at a time that puts gher into the Lechmere frame.

No. Still no. There is still no evidence that Cross had anything to do with Old Montague Street/Wentworth Street. There are other suspects who actually lived in Wentworth street, and literally a stone's throw from George Yard. That seems much more "in the frame" to me. Joseph Fleming was one of them, since you mention him, and no, it is very unlikely that he was 6'7". Debs' suggestion, that the entry meant to read 67 inches (thus 5'7"), is far more plausible.

Regards,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

But 4. doesn't have anything to do with crime scene evidence. As such, it should not have any bearing at all on whether or not you consider Stride a ripper victim. The latter determination should have been made on the basis of evidence from the crime scene - evidence that cannot possibly be changed by the "discovery" of a recently latched-onto "suspect". The same applies to the Pinchin Street. If you formerly in the habit of accepting that crime scene evidence rules that one out as a ripper crime, Cross shouldn't make any difference.

I'm very surprised that you still haven't grasped this.

Hi Ben. I might have to take issue with that. Let's say you're favoring a suspect who was illiterate, or maybe didn't know English. Out of necessity, you would exclude the Goulston Street graffiti from the evidence list. But if you found proof this man was not the Ripper, and switched to a suspect who could have written the graffiti, you would be more open to considering it. So, the evidence hasn't changed, but the insertion of that suspect has created new avenues of potential inquiry. If this is what Fish was getting at, then I'd have to agree with him. I've been there myself. If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

If I have misunderstood you, then I apologize.

No worries, Tom, it's quite possible that I'm still misunderstanding Fisherman!

In all cases, the assessment of evidence must come before any suspect selection. As such, the ripper-authorship (or otherwise) of the Goulston Street graffiti must be made on the basis of the evidence alone before any suspects are looked into. 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. I'm sure this doesn't describe you or I (others will dispute that; in my case, at least!), and I hope it doesn't describe Fisherman, but I'm a bit concerned by some of the misplaced tenacity in arguing so staunchly and suddenly in favour of Cross.

All the best,
Ben