Give Charles Cross/Lechemere a place as a suspect

[lynn cates]

Sugden

Hello Lechmere. It's from Sugden, p. 161. (Yes, I know--secondary source.)

Now, I must be a good boy and be quiet about my lad.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Ah-ha - softly softly catchee monkey!
That was also my original intention!
Mrs Isenschmid was interviewed by The Star and it was printed on 18th September
It said:
"Her husband's friends are in Switzerland, and unknown to her".
This may be the source but if so it is somewhat vague. Also don't forget he had been absent form her close company for some weeks prior to his being locked up and maybe her information was out of date.

[Lechmere]

This picture illustrates the distances involved in Bucks Row.
The photograph was taken roughly at the location Cross was standing when he says he noticed Paul was behind him – some 40 yards away. Paul is represented by the closer white rectangle.
The further white rectangle is roughly the position of PC Thain when PC Neil noticed him.
Unfortunately there are a lot of building works in the area now.

[lynn cates]

happy wanderer

Hello Lechmere. Yes, he had been wandering for several weeks and had been arrested for occupying a house in Clerkenwell. He seems to have been alone.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

The report was Swanson`s summary on 19th Oct. The same one we were discussing earlier. The Police do appear to be digging a bit more than we are giving them credit for.

"The absence of the motives which lead to violence and of any scrap of evidence either direct or circumstantial, left the police without the slightest shadow of a trace consequently enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves as persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police"

He goes on ....

"Amongst such are the three slaughtermen ... . Their statements were taken separately and without any means of communicating with each other...."



"The utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being sent out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Enright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue." The Times 3rd Sept


The above sweep of the area by Detectives on Sept 2nd could have been when they picked up Cross, as he would appear the next day at the resumed Inquest.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"The report was Swanson`s summary on 19th Oct. The same one we were discussing earlier. The Police do appear to be digging a bit more than we are giving them credit for."

By and large, Jon, that would depend on who "we" are!

" enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves as persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police"

Not entailing Lechmere and the dwellers in Buck´s Row, thus ...

" Their statements were taken separately and without any means of communicating with each other...."

Yep - just as we have noted before. And their occupation, in combination with the character of the deed, would have been the main reason.

""The utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being sent out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Enright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue."

Uhum. But this is dated the 3:rd of September, two weeks before Spratling spilled the beans, right? And the combined presence of Spratling AND Abberline at the inquest tells us pretty conclusively that neither J division nor the Yard had spoken to the Buck´s Row people of the souther side of the street, excepting the Greens. This cannot be effectively challenged. Meaning that what we have here is a newspaper report that enthusiastically conveys what a likewise enthusiastic representant of the police has told the reporter.
The "many persons" Enright and Godley had interviewed did not live in the Buck´s Row houses unless the sergeants had been approached by these people, and "the neighbourhood" the plain clothes men were walking through would be the streets and premises adjoining Buck´s Row. And that is all fine, and it does imply that there was police activity, just as there should be. But it does not change the fact that Spratling was reprimanded by the coroner on the 17:th for calling at only ONE (1) house on the row of dwellings lining the street where the killing took place, just as it does not alter Abberline´s presence at that same occasion, an occasion that Abberline let pass by with solemn silence.

The police told the papers that they did all they could and that they had spoken to all sorts of people and that they searched far and wide. What else were they going to say? We have only spoken to very few people in the street? Not very likely, is it? But that was the case just the same.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Jon...
"consequently enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves as persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police".
The whole thing about Cross was that he was so inocuous that no suspcion was cast upon him. Indeed he made himself inocuous and contrived his overt involvement to reflect that impression. Also as he was a regular householder in regular employment and of solid English descent, he was not of the class upon whoim suspicion naturally fell. Nor did his regular employment entail the use of butchers or surgeons knives.
Had Cross been, say, a lodging house dweller not in regular employment then, yes, I would imagine the police might have taken more interest in him and might well have 'checked out' his story much more thoroughly.

"The above sweep of the area by Detectives on Sept 2nd could have been when they picked up Cross, as he would appear the next day at the resumed Inquest."
But they missed Robert Paul completely presumably? Even though he lived considerably nearer to Bucks Row than Cross did? And they failed to discover that Cross's real name was Lechmere?
It isn't really sustainable

[Ben]

I’ve never known a theory go down quite so badly and receive such a pasting as this one seems to be receiving, and I suspect it has a good deal to do with the omnipresent, obstreperous bulldozer tactics employed by those promulgating the theory. For feck’s sake, people, if you’re churning out reams and reams of repetitive, filibustering posts that aren’t convincing anyone, whilst sitting on some purportedly convincing “research” that keeps being talked about but never produced, best to shaddap with the former and produce the latter, surely?

Hi Fisherman,

"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."

This is what I’m talking about. There’s really no need to repeat yourself over and over and threaten further repetition. It gets the thread nowhere and wastes your presumably precious time. If you repeat, I’ll repeat, which will be a shame because you’ve been so much better recently when it comes to uthållighet krigföring. I’ve addressed this point already. If Cross was able to detect Paul’s presence from the moment the latter entered Buck’s Row, he had absolutely no reason to remain at the scene. He would have been well into his escape by the time Paul arrived at the crime scene. “Conning” his way out only makes sense as a proposal if he was taken more or less by surprise, and yet you appear to be arguing that he was not – that he had the opportunity to notice Paul considerably earlier.

“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”

Which both argues against his being the killer and goes some way to explaining why the vast majority of serial offenders don’t claim victims on their way to work. If Cross was familiar with his work route, he was also in a position to know the police beats (and monitor them particularly if he was the killer), as well as assess the likelihood of encountering anyone who knew him by sight. Obviously, he couldn’t try the same trick twice, and yet you contend he killed Chapman a mere week later, a little further along that same work route. Had he been spotted and recognised fleeing from the second crime, having cemented his false role as innocent body-discoverer at the first, he’d have been in far more serious trouble than he would have been if seen walking along Hanbury Street shortly after the Nichols murder before the discovery of the body.

It is not “rational” to forgo the opportunity for a quick and easy escape in favour of approaching a policeman with a murder weapon and hoping – against realistic hope - not to get searched. The policeman had only to hear from Paul that he had found a man near the body to draw his own conclusion. It is not “rational” to engineer a situation which establishes a false role as body-discoverer and inquest witness, only to commit a second murder a week later, along the same work route. A huge irony here is that the real killer did precisely that – flee from the scene – without any problem at all, and Buck’s Row was arguably the easiest of all crime scene to achieve this.

“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.”

But if my auntie had bollocks, she’d be my uncle. Yes, I realise I wheel that one out quite often, but let’s just take a moment to understand what this favourite analogy of mine actually means. It means don’t defend an implausible conclusion with an equally implausible “if” scenario. Carmen worked at notoriously early work hours, rendering it highly implausible that he “started work later that day”. These were not flexible work hours. Option B is just hopeless because it implies that Cross went straight back to his car after killing Chaman, and the less said about option C the better. Presumably Pickfords were fine and dandy about someone coming into work in Cross’s stead? It convinceth not.

No, Cross is an irrefutably poor candidate for Chapman’s murderer, based on the likely time of her death. But hey, maybe she wasn't a true ripper victim and Stride was?

“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.”

But we know he didn’t use it on the morning of 31st August, nor did he give any intimation that Hanbury Street was anything other than his usual route to work. The most likely explanation is that it was his preferred route, and given the alternatives, that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. There is no evidence that he ever used Old Montague Street, and that’s what we’re interested in, surely? Evidence?

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

Well, for starters, there are all those arguments you made in the early days against Stride being a ripper victim. Unless you disavow all those now, they would “point away” from Cross the Ripper having been responsible. If you didn’t think she was a ripper victim then, the “discovery” of Cross’s mother living not far away shouldn’t make any difference to that previous opinion. Why? Because it doesn’t change the crime scene evidence that made you argue against her being a ripper victim in the first place. It’s fine if you don’t think there’s any problem with your Stride-Cross theorizing, but a lot of other people do, and for good reason.

I’d definitely have a pause from the repetitive posting. It clearly isn’t having any positive impact on your attempt to implicate Cross, and is clearly creating a lot of antagonism generally (I can't believe you threatened to have Garry banned). I’m genuinely more interested in seeing this research that you and Lechmere keep mentioning. Focus on that now, please!

All the best,
Ben

[Cogidubnus]

Blimey O'Reilly

That's three times in three months I've found myself in agreement with Ben...Oh hell!

Dave

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fish, Lech, All
I have a general question(s): If bucks row was his usual way to work, whats the chances of him meeting polly at that hour which also just happens to be on his way to work in Bucks Row? Pretty good coincidence is it not? Whats the chance she was solicitating in Bucks row?

But even better yet would a cunning and street smart killer like Lech/JtR kill on the same path he takes (almost)everyday?

[Lechmere]

Ben
“If Cross was able to detect Paul’s presence from the moment the latter entered Buck’s Row, he had absolutely no reason to remain at the scene. He would have been well into his escape by the time Paul arrived at the crime scene. “Conning” his way out only makes sense as a proposal if he was taken more or less by surprise...”
Let me think – maybe if Cross did it, he was distracted a bit as he was occupied doing something that was important to him, and that is why Paul got a lot closer to him than he would have ideally liked.
I don’t think there’s anything else in your post that requires comment. It is purely based on your personal assumptions about what you think a serial killer would and wouldn’t do.

Abbey
My presumption would be that the Ripper picked Polly up on Whitechapel Road and she led him to Bucks Row.
I would also presume that serial killers, in common with many criminals, are more relaxed committing crime in an area that they are comfortable in – one they are familiar with.
My presumption would be that the Ripper was generally comfortable committing his crimes in locations his prostitute victims regarded as being discrete enough for engaging in the sexual act. Bucks Row fitted that bill.
My resumption is that the Ripper was a risk taker, but was also very quick witted and he relied on his wits to get him out of scrapes that his recklessness got him into.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm surprised to find a couple of facts being debated, such as Cross having touched the body (he did) and the police having been delinquent in their duties (they were). Based on the evidence, I would consider these to be pretty hard 'facts', but I see not everyone agrees.

Is it possible some here are arguing more against the theorist than the theory? As far as theories go, you could do a whole helluva lot worse than Cross, though as of yet I haven't seen anything that would alter his status from 'witness' to 'suspect'. But I'm not going to talk about the theory any more until I can read Fish's full thesis in Ripperologist. However, I would personally see merit in discussing the actions of the police on the night of the murder, if there are some who really do think they did a commendable and thorough job.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rubyretro]

If you repeat, I’ll repeat

Alka-Seltza. Trust me.

[Lechmere]

Tom
Every new theory should be vigorously tested of course, but in the Ripper world everyone already has their own theory and a new theory will always struggle for elbow room against pre conceived notions. A new theory based around an established character is all the more challenging.
Hence all sorts of spurious arguments are repeatedly raised and ‘obvious’ issues such as the police incompetence shown in the conduct of the Nichols case, or the body touching.
Similarly incredible chutzpah is shown by some posters decrying conjecture when it is known that the case against their own favoured culprit is constructed almost exclusively around conjecture.
The other thing that gets repeated is the thing about killing on his way to work. The thing about that is that has to be understood, if it was someone like him, the only opportunity they would have to commit the crimes would be then – it would be a case of Hobsons choice.
This leads to the same issue being repeated ad nauseam.
Th3ere is the added problem that Cross has many similarities with Hutchinson. They are amongst the very few ‘suspects’ (if I may include Cross as a suspect) where their behaviour ‘on the street’, by a crime scene, can be discussed. That invites opposition from certain quarters.
At the end of the day many are more comfortable discussing the more eccentric ‘suspects’ such as Monsieur Lautrec.

[Abby Normal]

Ben
“If Cross was able to detect Paul’s presence from the moment the latter entered Buck’s Row, he had absolutely no reason to remain at the scene. He would have been well into his escape by the time Paul arrived at the crime scene. “Conning” his way out only makes sense as a proposal if he was taken more or less by surprise...”
Let me think – maybe if Cross did it, he was distracted a bit as he was occupied doing something that was important to him, and that is why Paul got a lot closer to him than he would have ideally liked.
I don’t think there’s anything else in your post that requires comment. It is purely based on your personal assumptions about what you think a serial killer would and wouldn’t do.

Abbey
My presumption would be that the Ripper picked Polly up on Whitechapel Road and she led him to Bucks Row.
I would also presume that serial killers, in common with many criminals, are more relaxed committing crime in an area that they are comfortable in – one they are familiar with.
My presumption would be that the Ripper was generally comfortable committing his crimes in locations his prostitute victims regarded as being discrete enough for engaging in the sexual act. Bucks Row fitted that bill.
My resumption is that the Ripper was a risk taker, but was also very quick witted and he relied on his wits to get him out of scrapes that his recklessness got him into.

Hi Lech
Thanks for the response. If they met on Whitechapel Road i find it rather improbable that the cunning street smart killer would let her lead him to Bucks row which was his daily walk to work. he would have probably worried that he could be seen by folks who recognized him and that this was his route to work and that it would not be safe seen with a prostitute, let alone possibly getting caught attacking one! He could have easily suggested somewhere else close but off his beaten path, somewhere where he would have no fear of being recognized doing either-its the old "dont **** where you eat" reasoning.

On the other hand, he may have known, since he traveled Bucks row on a daily basis,sometimes a little earlier, sometimes a little later that perhaps during this time frame he seldom or never encountered anyone else (or a PC) so he knew it was safe?

Anyhow, eventhough I think Lech isnt really a viable candidate, as Tom said you can do much much worse and i find this thread fascinating. At the very least all the debate can help you hone and sharpen your theory on the stone of the criticisms. I too look forward to Fishs article and any new evidence you bring up.