The Mizen scam

[Rubyretro]

I throw you a well deserved bone

...

Moonbeggar, the idea of you throwing bones at Lechmere certainly made me laugh...I hope that you aimed at his head !

[Rubyretro]

What if Paul had actually said " up in the Middle of the Pro' " ? That would change things...

[Rubyretro]

You will only be able to see things from a one dimensional view point .. Your own !

That is absolutely not true ! I can also see them from Lechmere's and Fisherman's....

And i hope and prey you are never in a situation where you are in need a good friend

please don't prey on me

[Bridewell]

Bridwell
When looking at a case like this it is often useful to look for exceptions, for unusual happenings and see what might be the reason.
In the case of Cross/Lechmere it is the only instance ion all the ‘Whitechapel’ murders (canonical and non canonical) where someone was found over a body (yes I will insist on using that term).

That term appears in Paul's newspaper interview. It doesn't, however, appear in his inquest testimony which suggests otherwise.

It was the only instance where the people who found a body tampered with it.

Only one person found the body - Lechmere. Paul pulled her clothes down because they were 'raised almost up to her stomach'. That's not 'tampering'.

It is the only instance where they then abandoned it and the body was rediscovered by someone else.

True, if you accept that Liz Stride's body was first found by Diemschutz. There are some who think otherwise.

Another example of an exception is the fact that Cross/Lechmere wore his work clothes to the inquest.
Why?

My opinion on this was given in a previous post.

We also know that Cross/Lechmere was part of the prosperous hard working class – not the dirt poor who only had one set of clothes.

Carmen were notoriously badly-paid. Lechmere may have become prosperous in later life, but I've seen nothing to suggest that he was prosperous at this time.

By itself attending the inquest in his work cloths may mean nothing but in conjunction with everything else we can piece together about Cross/Lechmere and his seeming desire to prevent his wife from discovering his involvement in this case.The issue of his work clothes is just another suspicious behaviour pattern that can be associated with Cross/Lechmere.

I don't find his behaviour suspicious. He was a working man in a low-paid job.

I will remind you also for the umteenth time that Cross is a name that he is never known to have previously used. It was used on his behalf by his step father when he was about 11 in the 1861 census. This step father had been dead for 19 years by the time that Cross/Lechmere appeared at the inquest.

With respect, you're arguing with a claim I didn't make. What I posted was:
It wasn't a 'false' name though, was it? It was a name by which he had been known previously.
If the only reference to him as 'Cross' was its use on his behalf by his stepfather when he was about 11 in the 1861 census it's still a name by which he had been previously known.

Perhaps he would go to where he thought he would have a good chance of finding another victim. Aldgate perhaps? The route from Berner Street to the Mitre Square area would have followed Cross/Lechmere’s route to work when he was living at JAMES Street (which is about 300 yards from Berner Street) prior to his move to Doveton Street in June 1888. In other words it would have been a familiar route.

We don't know which route the killer took, do we? Whitechapel Road, Whitechapel High Street & Aldgate perhaps? Familiar to how many people as a route to work?

The apron/graffiti site at Wentworth Model Dwellings is on the direct route back to Doveton Street from Mitre Square.

If the killer lived on Doveton Street, it's one of the routes he could have taken to get home. It's the route back to Spitalfields - possibly beyond, possibly not.

Miller’s Court is on his way to work also.

If he was in the habit of walking along Dorset Street he will have passed the entrance, yes. If he walked along Commercial Street he will have come fairly close, but so will many others.

You will also notice that I said ‘possible feelings of powerlessness’. We have no way of knowing.

I agree. We have no way of knowing.

What we can say is that he had elements in his background which are classically present in cases involving sociopathic serial killers.

What specific elements are you referring to and who are the serial killers with whom he shares them? That's a serious question, by the way, inasmuch as I'm not saying there are none, just that I don't know of any.

You seem to think that the fact that he moved to an address that meant his walk to work traversed the killing field, just before the murders started is of no consequence.

I think it's of little consequence, because it's evidentially meaningless. If he'd lived at the address for the previous 5 years, would it diminish his credibility as a suspect? I would say not. So does the fact that he had just moved to the area add to his credibility? In my view, no, for the same reason.

I think you will soon be arguing that the sky is green.

No, but it might appear so if viewed through a yellow lens.

Lechmere, can I close by saying that the challenges made are not personal. I seek only to test the strength of the arguments put forward. You and Fisherman have obviously done a great deal of research on Cross / Lechmere and his profile is much raised as a result. I don't share your enthusiasm for his as a suspect, but I don't, for a moment question your sincerity.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

Ah Bridewell
Whatever 'some may think' there isn't the slightest piece of evidence that anyone found Stride before Diemschutz. It is telling that you introduce that in the course of being critical of 'supposition'. This is suggestive of debating style hypocricy - which is one of the hallmarks of the discussions about Cross/Lechmere - as all suspectology and indeed all discussion about virtually all aspects of this case (eg did the Ripper write the graffiti) is based on supposition.

One of the strengths (in my opinion obviously) of the case against Cross/Lechmere is that it isn't based on improbable leaps nor on ignoring contemporary evidence.
For example, I would suggest that anyone who we know the police looked at closely in 1888 (ish) is a weak suspect - that includes Barnett, Kidney, Hutchinson and Iscenschmidt.
I would also suggest that a candidate suspect is severely weakened if contemporary evidence has to be ignored or evidence which has come to light has to be discounted.
That would include Fleming/Evans (height), Hutchinson (the Toppy connection), Hutchinson again (the lack of a connection between Lewis's wideawake man and Hutchinson), Iscenschmidt (the newspaper account of his brother giving him an alibi), and so on.
Anyway to address some of the points you raised...
I would suggest that Cross and Paul both touching her body face and hands constituted tampering with the body. It is unsustainable to suggest otherwise.
The snippet that Cross was over the body isn't unfounded - it is based on Paul's newspaper interview. It is quite legitinate to use that in support of the contention that Cross/Lechmere was over the body! The first person the contradict that was Cross! But in fact Bucks Row was somewhat narrow. He could have claimed to be half way across the road and yet still virtually over the body anyway. It is an argument that is measured in a few feet.
If carmen were so badly paid how did he amass enough money to open a grocers shop? How did he ensure that his children were all bapitised properly? Answer - he was not poor.
If he just had one set of clothes and he had to attend court in them because he was so poor (even though the evidence we have suggests he was not poor) then why did he complete his ensemble by wearing his apron (which wasn't leather)? Surely the poverty struck fellow should have kept such a precious garment safe and left it indoors?
All the evidence we have points very very clearly to the fact that he would not have been going to work that day. So why wear the apron at court?
The most obvious answer was that he wanted to keep his appearance at court from his wife. The question is, why did he do that?
He also wanted to look all 'umble.
The significance of Cross/Lechmere moving to Doveton Street shortly before the murders started is that it meant that his personal environment changed. His route to work - the sights and sounds and smells changed. It also meant that he no longer lived in the immediate shadow of his mother. I would suggest that this was the trigger.

I will endeavour to provide you with some examples of mother fixated serial killers.
I don't take sensible critical debates personally - these discussions have actually firmed up a number of issues such as Cross/Lechmere avoiding giving his name to Mizen which I hadn't appreciated until quite recently.

[lynn cates]

A miracle!

Hello Lechmere. I know this is not the proper place, but if Isenschmid's brother gave him an alibi, then a miracle occurred. He had no brother in England.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

If carmen were so badly paid how did he amass enough money to open a grocers shop?

I have a dim memory (but maybe I'm wrong), that he inherited from his Mother
who had been left something by her 3rd husband ?

When did his Father die, do you know ? If he was connected to the wealthy Lechmere's, then maybe something filtered down -small, but enough to finance the grocer's shop ?

Not to say that he wasn't careful with money -but he had a large family, and carmen can't have been paid that much.

[Lechmere]

I have never seen any indication that he got an inheritance from his mother. His mother's family were poor which is one reason why this branch of the Lechmere's fortunes declined. His father died in the late 1870s.
I don't know why it is so regularly said that carmen were poor. He had a good steady job working for a reputable firm.
As I said the fact that he baptisd all his children (which had to be paid for) and that he ran his own household from before 1881 (unlike Toppy for example, the tradesman plumber who dossed around as a lodger until the 1900s) suggests that he was nowhere near dirt poor and would not have only had one set of clothes.

Lynn - when evidence is presented that JI had no brother then it can be said that he had no brother. Until then the evidence from the Star who were very well informed about JI and his doings, should in my opinion, be accepted. However the point I was really making was that by chosing to ignore or disregard that piece of information - because it somewhat undermines your case - it fundamentally weakens your case. The Cross/Lechmere case is not built on ignoring any information, from any source, that we have at our disposal about the man

[Bridewell]

Timings

Whatever 'some may think' there isn't the slightest piece of evidence that anyone found Stride before Diemschutz.

Morris Eagle's account:

"...About a quarter to 12 he left the club for the purpose of taking his young lady home...He returned to the club about 25 minutes to 1...I had been there about 20 minutes when a member named Gilleman came upstairs and said, 'There is a dead woman lying in the yard'. I went down in a second and struck a match. I could then see a woman lying on the ground, near the gateway, and in a pool of blood.....Another member, named Isaac, was with me at the time. As soon as I saw the blood I got very excited and ran away from the police..."

It depend on how accurate you think the timings are here. Eagles said he had been in the club "about 20 minutes" after his arrival at 12.35am. Diemschutz said he arrived back at the club "exactly at 1 o'clock on Sunday morning".

My post was (re Diemschutz finding the body):

'There are some who think otherwise'.

I don't agree with them. I think the likely explanation is that Eagles had been back at the club 5 minutes longer than his estimate of 20 minutes and that Gilleman was passing on news delivered by Diemschutz. There is, though, the 'slightest piece of evidence' that someone else may have found the body a couple of minutes before Diemschutz. Whether or not much credence is placed on that evidence is another matter - but it is there.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

story

Hello Lechmere. Thanks. The evidence comes from Mary Isenschmid. She claimed Jacob had no family in England.

Which part of the "Star" story do I ignore? Perhaps the part about his imminent release? Since he was held at Grove Hall and Banstead for over a year, that does not count as imminent?

And the story about a brother who is not in England?

It would be different if there were even a single item in the story which were correct. There is not.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Ah Bridewell
Whatever 'some may think' there isn't the slightest piece of evidence that anyone found Stride before Diemschutz. It is telling that you introduce that in the course of being critical of 'supposition'. This is suggestive of debating style hypocricy - which is one of the hallmarks of the discussions about Cross/Lechmere - as all suspectology and indeed all discussion about virtually all aspects of this case (eg did the Ripper write the graffiti) is based on supposition.

One of the strengths (in my opinion obviously) of the case against Cross/Lechmere is that it isn't based on improbable leaps nor on ignoring contemporary evidence.
For example, I would suggest that anyone who we know the police looked at closely in 1888 (ish) is a weak suspect - that includes Barnett, Kidney, Hutchinson and Iscenschmidt.
I would also suggest that a candidate suspect is severely weakened if contemporary evidence has to be ignored or evidence which has come to light has to be discounted.
That would include Fleming/Evans (height), Hutchinson (the Toppy connection), Hutchinson again (the lack of a connection between Lewis's wideawake man and Hutchinson), Iscenschmidt (the newspaper account of his brother giving him an alibi), and so on.
Anyway to address some of the points you raised...
I would suggest that Cross and Paul both touching her body face and hands constituted tampering with the body. It is unsustainable to suggest otherwise.
The snippet that Cross was over the body isn't unfounded - it is based on Paul's newspaper interview. It is quite legitinate to use that in support of the contention that Cross/Lechmere was over the body! The first person the contradict that was Cross! But in fact Bucks Row was somewhat narrow. He could have claimed to be half way across the road and yet still virtually over the body anyway. It is an argument that is measured in a few feet.
If carmen were so badly paid how did he amass enough money to open a grocers shop? How did he ensure that his children were all bapitised properly? Answer - he was not poor.
If he just had one set of clothes and he had to attend court in them because he was so poor (even though the evidence we have suggests he was not poor) then why did he complete his ensemble by wearing his apron (which wasn't leather)? Surely the poverty struck fellow should have kept such a precious garment safe and left it indoors?
All the evidence we have points very very clearly to the fact that he would not have been going to work that day. So why wear the apron at court?
The most obvious answer was that he wanted to keep his appearance at court from his wife. The question is, why did he do that?
He also wanted to look all 'umble.
The significance of Cross/Lechmere moving to Doveton Street shortly before the murders started is that it meant that his personal environment changed. His route to work - the sights and sounds and smells changed. It also meant that he no longer lived in the immediate shadow of his mother. I would suggest that this was the trigger.

I will endeavour to provide you with some examples of mother fixated serial killers.
I don't take sensible critical debates personally - these discussions have actually firmed up a number of issues such as Cross/Lechmere avoiding giving his name to Mizen which I hadn't appreciated until quite recently.

Hey Lech
What's up with this post? You mention hypocracy and then in this very same post you use things which you find makes Hutchs suspect hood less viable (toppy and the good family man argument) as well as in the past. Which also applies to Lech but even more so because Lech is married and hutch was single. Were you referring to yourself then when you used the term?

[Lechmere]

Bridewell - even that claim doesn't state that Stride's body was found first by someone on their own - didnt he claim to have found it with someone else and then one of the discoverers supposedly took fright? Or am I missing something.

Lynn - I haven't got my facts in front of me so i am in danger of talking nonsense (for once?) but I do believe that the info about who Mrs I thought her husband knew in London also came from the Star and she was actually nonspecific about who he didn't know - ie she did not specify that he didn't have a brother here. Maybe there is another source I am unaware of but when I asked you before and you were relying on an unreferenced secondary modern source.

[lynn cates]

Mepo

Hello Lechmere. Thanks. Yes, perhaps a MEPO file?

At your leisure, perhaps you could give me the file number and I could look it up. After all, NO suspect has been as carefully documented as he, and his files at MEPO are extant.

Now, back to Christer's original intent and I DO beg pardon.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

I am slightly unsure Abbey what you mean.
I have no idea whether Cross/Lechmere was a good family man and have never suggested he was. He was married in 1888 and arranged for his children to be baptised and he was a householder.
He may have been a brute to live with or even if he was the murderer he may have had warm feelings towards his immediate family.
From what I have been able to establish Toppy lived a disorganised and slightly shambolic life at least up to the early 1900s. That does not mean that he wasn't also a warm and caring husband and father. However what I think Can be discerned about Toppy as a man suggests that he did not have the character traits of a serial killer. I think what can be extrapolated from what we know of Lechmere can be made to fit that profile. This isn't of course proof of guilt it is just another straw in the wind.

[Lechmere]

Hmmm Lynn - you colonials don't do irony so I will have to take that comment at face value and check the police records for you.