Jack The Ripper solved?

[Lechmere]

There is evidence that Barnett and Hutchinson were interrogated - hence the lack of long term suspicion.
I think the police were incorrectly looking for a different type of suspect - as evidenced by the lead suspects who we now about - including the early lead suspects who were cleared such as Pizer and Iscenscmid.

[Jon Guy]

AThereafter there are about 100 records of Charles Lechmere’s life and how he recorded his family name in diverse sources – marriages, births, deaths, baptisms, funerals, trade directories, censuses, electoral registers, rate records and school records and the name is always given as Lechmere..

All "Sunday Best" names. Names that were in his favour to use, in a legal sense, and for his family.

The key to this argument would be to show that he called himself Lechmere at Pickford`s.

Apart from when he went to the police in connection with a brutal murder –
.

He gave a witness statement.
It wasn`t going to affect any inheritance, the name on his grave, his ability to vote, the legality of his marriage, his banking and the business attached to it.

Unlike other ‘first finders’ when the second person (Paul) happened upon the scene, this ‘first finder’ (Lechmere) had not raised the alarm. The other ‘first finders’ immediately went and raised the alarm, so lessening any suspicion on their shoulders. This is an anomaly.
.

John Richardson

[caz]

Hi Caz,

He might have misplaced it temporarily and wrongly assumed he'd left it in the room, thus accounting for his need to vindicate its presence there when found.

That makes no sense, Ben. Why would he need to 'vindicate' the presence of a red hanky at the murder scene, if nobody could identify it as his own, and they had no reason to even consider the possibility? If they could connect it to him, why on earth would he draw attention to it? You argue that he was dismissed as a time-wasting attention seeker, ie A Man was not considered a credible suspect, if he existed at all. Obviously in that case they couldn't have found a red hanky at the scene or they'd have demanded to know how Hutch knew about it. So unless you are suggesting that finding a red hanky would have made all the difference and convinced them that A Man did exist, and had given it to Kelly before murdering her, mentioning it could have been a total disaster for a guilty Hutch.

It would hardly have been a comfort to him that "nobody was asking about it". The fact it wasn't published in the press that a red handkerchief was found - and its owner accordingly sought - wouldn't have provided any measure of security to the killer if he owned it and thought he left it there, unless he was silly and deluded enough to believe that no mention in the press meant no interest at all on the part of the police. So yes, there is a compelling and logical argument for Hutchinson incorporating the hanky detail into his story if he was the killer and believed he'd left it by accident in the room.

Not remotely, Ben, as my first paragraph makes clear. Add the fact that a guilty Hutch would already have been seen by Lawende wearing the red neckerchief when preparing to kill Eddowes, and his mention of it would have been suicidally stupid if he could have left it at the Kelly crime scene, and not necessary if he hadn't.

An absent hanky need only indicate - for Hutchinson-believers - that Astrakhan man reclaimed it before he left.

That's not a good reason to mention it though, in connection with A Man, who couldn't have looked more different from Lawende's red-neckerchiefed suspect - while Hutch is meant to have been his identical twin, ie the very same man.

In both scenarios - killer or mere attention-seeker - there was an obvious incentive to establish some sort of common ground that united his bogus, ostentatiously dressed individual with the genuine sightings of the ordinarily-dressed presumed ripper. The red rag would have done the trick in that regard.

Again, I can't see how a red rag establishes any possible 'common ground' between two descriptions that are otherwise so utterly at odds with one another. And it didn't do the trick if he was dismissed as an attention seeker, and A Man and his red hanky quickly forgotten about.

If Hutchinson was guilty, it was already "imperative" in his mind that they believe his account. A bogus explanation of how the hanky made it into the room (if he mistakenly believed he'd left it there) would only have increased the likelihood of the police believing it.

A fine line. He needed no explanation if the hanky was not meant to be his and couldn't be connected to him. Admitting that he knew about an item at the crime scene (if he thought it could be there) would have been a risk he simply didn't need to take.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

That makes no sense, Ben. Why would he need to 'vindicate' the presence of a red hanky at the murder scene, if nobody could identify it as his own, and they had no reason to even consider the possibility? If they could connect it to him, why on earth would he draw attention to it? You argue that he was dismissed as a time-wasting attention seeker, ie A Man was not considered a credible suspect, if he existed at all. Obviously in that case they couldn't have found a red hanky at the scene or they'd have demanded to know how Hutch knew about it. So unless you are suggesting that finding a red hanky would have made all the difference and convinced them that A Man did exist, and had given it to Kelly before murdering her, mentioning it could have been a total disaster for a guilty Hutch.



Not remotely, Ben, as my first paragraph makes clear. Add the fact that a guilty Hutch would already have been seen by Lawende wearing the red neckerchief when preparing to kill Eddowes, and his mention of it would have been suicidally stupid if he could have left it at the Kelly crime scene, and not necessary if he hadn't.



That's not a good reason to mention it though, in connection with A Man, who couldn't have looked more different from Lawende's red-neckerchiefed suspect - while Hutch is meant to have been his identical twin, ie the very same man.



Again, I can't see how a red rag establishes any possible 'common ground' between two descriptions that are otherwise so utterly at odds with one another. And it didn't do the trick if he was dismissed as an attention seeker, and A Man and his red hanky quickly forgotten about.



A fine line. He needed no explanation if the hanky was not meant to be his and couldn't be connected to him. Admitting that he knew about an item at the crime scene (if he thought it could be there) would have been a risk he simply didn't need to take.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz,could Mr Hutchinson have been Kelly's pimp?his behaviour standing round for all that time by millers court was certainly odd or could he have hung round till Kelly had finished with her clients to ask her for money.His description of the Jewish gentleman he gave to the police which was very accurate to accurate for a fleeting glimpse but if he spent some time in his company escorting him to Kelly he certainly would have had a good look at him also he couldn't very well tell the police he was Kelly's pimp could he.

[The Good Michael]

Hi caz,could Mr Hutchinson have been Kelly's pimp?his behaviour standing round for all that time by millers court was certainly odd or could he have hung round till Kelly had finished with her clients to ask her for money.His description of the Jewish gentleman he gave to the police which was very accurate to accurate for a fleeting glimpse but if he spent some time in his company escorting him to Kelly he certainly would have had a good look at him also he couldn't very well tell the police he was Kelly's pimp could he.

McCarthy would have known. Some speculate that McCarthy served as a pimp. Hutchinson, no. It would have come out from members of the Court. Hutch was just a guy with a story.

Mike

[Monty]

To me, the big problem with all the "Everyday Joe " suspects, Lechmere,Barnett,Hutchinson is that the Police lost interest in them really quickly.....Not even a hint in later memoirs etc

Lost interest Steve,

Or drew conclusion?

Monty

[Rob Clack]

A reluctant as I am to get involved in this particular debate, the critics of the Lechmere case, as is usual, base their critique on false premises.
This is understandable to an extent as no book has (as yet) been written about Charles Lechmere as a suspect, putting the arguments together coherently and in context, and most accounts of the murders in print cover his involvement in a demonstrably inaccurate manner.
By contrast several (including the e-book by Garry Wroe which is on this site) have been written about Hutchinson over quite a few years – giving different slants on his candidature as the Ripper. We even have theories that Hutchinson was really Joseph Fleming.

Charles Lechmere’s mother bigamously married Thomas Cross in February 1858.
Charles Lechmere and his sister Emily were baptised as Lechmeres in January 1859
The 1861 census, when Charles Lechmere was 11, his name was given by his step father as Charles Cross, and his slightly older sister was recorded as Emily Cross. A census is not a public document or event, unlike a baptism for example. We do not know the circumstances behind Thomas Cross’s decision. It is quite likely that Charles Lechmere was unaware what information his step father gave the enumerator.
Emily – the sister – died in July 1869 – as Emily Lechmere.
Thomas Cross died in December 1869.
Charles Lechmere married as Lechmere in July 1870.
Thereafter there are about 100 records of Charles Lechmere’s life and how he recorded his family name in diverse sources – marriages, births, deaths, baptisms, funerals, trade directories, censuses, electoral registers, rate records and school records and the name is always given as Lechmere.

Apart from when he went to the police in connection with a brutal murder – almost certainly in the aftermath of Robert Paul’s newspaper story on the evening of Sunday 2nd September (Lloyds Weekly News).
In this newspaper story, Paul said ‘I saw a man standing where the woman was’. Not ten feet away. A perfect alibi?

Unlike other ‘first finders’ when the second person (Paul) happened upon the scene, this ‘first finder’ (Lechmere) had not raised the alarm. The other ‘first finders’ immediately went and raised the alarm, so lessening any suspicion on their shoulders. This is an anomaly.

This victim also, uniquely in this series, had two ‘first finders’. The other being PC Neil and until the appearance of Paul’s newspaper story Neil was regarded as the true ‘first finder’. Another anomaly.

This victim is also the only one in this series – canonical and non canonical – whether the abdominal wounds were covered and the victim was not left ‘on display’. This is suggestive that the culprit was disturbed. Even if that isn’t the explanation for the wounds being covered we have another anomaly.

Then we have the discrepancy between what PC Mizen claims Lechmere told him and what Lechmere claims he told PC Mizen. Another anomaly.

Given the history of the use of surnames by Charles Lechmere – based on what we know – can it be said that ‘Cross’ was an alternative family name? Can it be said that he was ever ‘known as’ Charles Cross – apart from at the inquest? I would suggest that his use of the name was an anomaly.

But let’s forget all this and get back to discussing madmen, middle class homosexuals, plots, conspiracies and foreigners with barely any connection to the East End – these are much more likely culprits.

Thankfully I base my opinion on the Official Police files and the newspaper accounts and not what other people have written in books.
But Lechmere was aware of the name Cross and used it. If he was so secretive about not being known it was a plot that failed miserably as it didn't take long for his address and place of work to be known.
As for first finders, Lechmere and Paul weren't even sure Nichols was dead. So nothing sinister there.
There is nothing in the 30000 posts to suggest Lechmere was the Ripper and certainly not enough to write a book on. Still if someone writes a book on Vang Gogh as the Ripper. Then who knows.

Rob

[pinkmoon]

McCarthy would have known. Some speculate that McCarthy served as a pimp. Hutchinson, no. It would have come out from members of the Court. Hutch was just a guy with a story.

Mike

Hi Mike,why would Mr Hutchinson hang round and pay so much interest to Kelly it would have been cold that night so to hang round when she was with a client is strange behaviour.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike,why would Mr Hutchinson hang round and pay so much interest to Kelly it would have been cold that night so to hang round when she was with a client is strange behaviour.

3 schools of thought (at least) on this. One is that he was waiting around to kill her (also makes no sense to me). Another is that he was an opportunistic man hoping to rob or somehow get money from the client because to an unemployed groom/plumber the client appeared to have money. Another school of thought is that he wasn't around that long and made much of the story up in order to sell his story, so to speak, to law enforcement with the hope of getting some money. I believe In a bit of a mix of the 2nd and 3rd ones. Also, if he had no money as he said, following an interesting situation is at least cheap entertainment.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Jon
Appearing at a police station to give a statement and appearing at an inquest are also ‘Sunday best’ events. I should have thought.
There are no staff records at Pickfords – I have checked.
John Richardson denied seeing the body so he can’ count as a ‘first finder’

Rob
Yes we can be sure that Lechmere was aware of the Cross name because we know he chose to use it with respect to the Polly Nichols case.
It is a moot point as to whether or not Lechmere knew that Nichols was dead.
Paul gave contradictory accounts. Lechmere was a bit vague in his statements – which caused confusion for generations of Ripper writers. But we don’t pay those books any heed! Do we?
If Paul and Lechmere knew she wasn’t dead then they callously left an unconscious woman on the street when they could have just knocked up a neighbour.

PS We have 4 books on Hutchinson - and no one really knows who he was for sure.

[Sally]

And as if by magic, a Cross thread appears!

Ed

It's a pity you haven't written a book. I for one would like to read it.

In the meantime, I'm afraid Jon is quite correct: the 'official' evidence doesn't tell you what he called himself, at that time, and in that place, outside of officialdom. Come now, I'm sure you realise that.

Since, regrettably, we have no way of telling whether he was called Cross at Pickfords, or not; we are left with conjecture which cannot be weighted by later legal records.

That said, since he was able to pronounce himself as Cross in 1888; whilst giving the correct place of work and home address; logic suggests that there is more to this story than a simple affair of a 'false' name.

It is evident that this is the majority view - and, rightly or otherwise - until TL can produce something more solid with which to implicate Crossmere, it's going to remain as such, I think.

[Jon Guy]

Ed

Appearing at a police station to give a statement and appearing at an inquest are also ‘Sunday best’ events. I should have thought.

He would have given the name Cross to the police, as a witness.
The police would have given this name to to the Coroner`s office, and hence it`s use at the inquest.

John Richardson denied seeing the body so he can’ count as a ‘first finder’
.

Okay, Richardson doesn`t count then.

But Cross did raise the alarm?
He immediatley approached Paul to ask for help (by putting his unbloodied hand on his shoulder). Theythen both went to Nichols to see if they could help, and realising there was not a lot they could do, both went off looking out for a policeman.

[Rob Clack]

Rob
Yes we can be sure that Lechmere was aware of the Cross name because we know he chose to use it with respect to the Polly Nichols case.
It is a moot point as to whether or not Lechmere knew that Nichols was dead.
Paul gave contradictory accounts. Lechmere was a bit vague in his statements – which caused confusion for generations of Ripper writers. But we don’t pay those books any heed! Do we?
If Paul and Lechmere knew she wasn’t dead then they callously left an unconscious woman on the street when they could have just knocked up a neighbour.

PS We have 4 books on Hutchinson - and no one really knows who he was for sure.

I'd rather get it straight from the horses mouth if I can. Most books tend to biased towards a writers chosen suspect and I have no doubt any book proposing Lechmere as a suspect would twist the facts to suit the writers needs. We already have it been said in a couple of posts that Lechmere was found standing over the body, which as we both know is completely untrue, imagine if that got in a book.
Lechmere and Paul being callous is not a criminal offence. And since we know Lechmere used the name Cross on at least one occasion then it is possible he used it on other occasions. All we know about Lechmere is what is in the official papers, hardly enough to suspect him of anything.

Rob

[Fisherman]

since he was able to pronounce himself as Cross in 1888; whilst giving the correct place of work and home address; logic suggests that there is more to this story than a simple affair of a 'false' name.
.

Yes. Which is why both Edward and I have elaborated on this precise point threehundredandeightynine times.

Some Sherlock wannabies tell me that if he wanted to hide his identity from the police, he would have given a false name, a false job place and a false address. The fact that this, if checked out and discovered, would have the police searching all over London for him with the general idea that he would be the killer, is something that seems not to bother them.

It is adamantly and abundantly clear that Lechmeres aim was not to hide his identity from the police - giving his real address and real working place ensured this.

So, just as you say, there would have been more to his not divulging his real name. What leaps to mind is that he could have been hiding his identity from his family and friends, so that they were not to understand that he had been found with Nichols. And such a theory is of course trengthened by the fact that he attended the inquest in working clothes, singling himself out for the press to remark upon. If he did not want his family and friends to know that he was involved in the Nichols investigation, then it would be a strange thing to do to leave home in his Sunday best, leaving his working clothes at home.

Next indicator of a reluctance to reveal to the papers and public who he was is of course his leaving out his home address when witnessing, although the Star managed to get hold of it as the only paper.

This all fits together (yes, Monty, it does) as a suggestion of why he said "Cross" when he should have said "Lechmere".

There is - as I have pointed out ninetyfour times - another option at hand: the name Lechmere could have rung a bell with the police if he had been accused of something in the days, weeks or months leading up to the inquest. If the fictive Mrs Dread had approached the police and accused Lechmere of indecent assault, without any legal action being taken due to a lack of evidence, then he would perhaps be very reluctant to take the chance that any of the policemen that had handled the errand was in place at the inquest or read the papers afterwards, thinking "Hey, wasn´t that the guy who ...?"

These are two different explanations, both of them speaking of "more than just a false name", Sally. Either could be true - or untrue. Either way, the bricks are readily at hand for building a case against our carman.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

God help anyone who is first to find a body and looks to the second person on the scene for a bit of support.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, the poor creatures! They should of course be awarded a license of guaranteed innocense after having suffered such an ordeal. Good thinking!

Fisherman