Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Has it dawned on you that we don´t know when he arrived in Bucks Row, Herlock? So how do we know that he made the decision to killer her 20 to four? What if he decided to do so a quarter of an hour earlier? What stands in the way for that? That he would feely lie about not killing Nichols but never about the time he arrived in Bucks Row?
    Different killers will be differently equipped to control themselves. There is no definitive scale, there are only killers who differ from case to case.
    So are you saying that a killer could show control one day but maybe not the next? Was the ripper a killer that couldn’t control himself or a killer that could?
    Regards

    Herlock






    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Ant the explanation for why is...?
      If he’d been arrested after the Eddowes murder for example it would have been difficult/impossible for him to claim when questioned about Nichols that he was nowhere near Buck’s Row as it was on his route to work.
      Regards

      Herlock






      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Maybe in your universe, the concept of hiding your true identity by using an alternative name is unheard of...? You can take my word for it - it happens.
        But Lechmere didn't hide his true identity by using the name Cross! He could have been traced by the police at any time with the information he freely gave them. He identified himself as the witness who discovered Nichols and gave his real forenames and two addresses where he could be found if and when needed.

        The disadvantage would have been if the police had checked with Pickfords and drawn a big fat blank because they had nobody working for them by the name of Charles Cross. Questions would undoubtedly have followed if the police had wasted precious time establishing that his actual name was Lechmere and he went by that name on every other occasion.

        And if it helped him stay away from the gallows in the 19:th century, I kind of suspect that he would not worry all than much about having it revealed in the 21:st.
        How would it have helped him 'stay away from the gallows', to use a name for the inquest, which the police would soon have discovered was not his usual name if they had ever considered him a person of interest for other reasons? He was only safe from the gallows if a) he gave them no reason to check him out, and b) if they did check him out, he had given them no false information connected with his identity.

        Again, how could he possibly have stayed away from the gallows just by the use of a different surname, when all the other information he gave would have positively identified him at the time to anyone who knew him but a total cretin?

        I kind of suspect he'd be livid about being fingered as the ripper in the 21st century, when there's no evidence that he was anything but a decent, public-spirited family man, who caused no deliberate harm to anyone.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        Last edited by caz; 08-14-2018, 06:12 AM.
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          Bingo!
          I agree with Gary (and yourself seeing your response) that a likely explaination is that he didn’t want the Lechmere name in the paper.

          This however didn’t give him any advantage in escaping justice. Do we need to keep repeating that he gave the his correct Christian names, his correct address and his stepfathers surname. Not exactly ‘the man of a thousand faces’ was he?
          Regards

          Herlock






          "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            You are also very quick to quote the MO comparisons with regards to serial killers both past and present. Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide details of any serial killer that committed a murder in the dead of night and despite having the chance to escape un noticed, and unseen, chose to stay with the victim and front it out with a passer by/police officer?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            That's a fair question, Trevor.

            But for a fairer comparison, any such serial killer should also have been active before fingerprints, DNA, CCTV or the victim's blood [they couldn't even distinguish human blood from animal blood] could put him at or near the scene if he didn't do so himself and offer an innocent explanation for being in the vicinity at that time.

            Simply walking on towards his legitimate destination in 1888, after dropping the knife by the body, would have left him pretty much immune from anything the police could subsequently have tried to use to connect him directly to the victim.

            If the purpose of killing Nichols in Buck's Row was so he'd have a ready made excuse for being there around that time, he had even less need to stay at the scene to 'front it out' with whoever might be coming along. Leave that person - Robert Paul as it turned out - to explain what he was doing there. If Lechmere was unlucky enough to be stopped just a street or two away, closer to his place of work, they'd have had a job to pin the murder on him, when any number of other men on the move could have done it - Robert Paul being one obvious example.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              I agree with Gary (and yourself seeing your response) that a likely explaination is that he didn’t want the Lechmere name in the paper.

              This however didn’t give him any advantage in escaping justice. Do we need to keep repeating that he gave the his correct Christian names, his correct address and his stepfathers surname. Not exactly ‘the man of a thousand faces’ was he?
              Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                The same once went for Christie and Sutcliffe for example, so I´m fine with that - they too were more likely not guilty.

                Statistics will not help us , Herlock.
                Tim Evans and 'Wearside Jack' the hoaxer were wrongly put in the frame as easy targets. The latter was finally brought to justice for the crime he did commit, but the former was denied justice and executed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

                Like Evans, Lechmere was likely as not in the wrong place at the wrong time, and an easy modern target, left there with Nichols by a fleeing Christie or Sutcliffe, who managed to get away to kill another day [the following weekend in fact] unseen, unidentifiable and unconnected with this early murder of his.

                If only Lechmere had walked on by, he'd have been in no position to be identified today as either a reluctant witness or potential suspect. I'd need a good deal more imagination than I possess - and a great deal more evidence than Fish possesses - in order to label this man as a Christie or a Sutcliffe.

                I certainly can't see a Christie or a Sutcliffe hanging around one of their victims, persuading the next man to come along to inspect their handiwork! Yet they were both caught in the end because of other mistakes they made.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Last edited by caz; 08-14-2018, 07:15 AM.
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.
                  That’s a good point Gary
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.
                    I know this has been gone over hundreds of times

                    But I think there are two likely possible explanations surrounding the two names used, and both are easy to explain and to understand.

                    By the time Cross gave his inquest testimony I would suggest the authorities would have known his other name, so for clarification purposes when he entered the witness box and was asked to give his name, he would I suggest have had the question asked of him "Are you also known as Charles Lechmere"? when he answered in the affirmative there would be no need to question the two names thereafter, and that is why there is no suggestion by the authorities that the two names were used to pervert the course of justice, or create something sinister as Fish would have you believe

                    The second explanation is that he didn't want to be formally identified, as being a material witness, and might have later had to spend many hours sitting around at a court, at his own expense.

                    I refer to what Walter Dews says on the topic

                    " It is an established fact that many law-abiding folk are reluctant to communicate valuable information to the authorities in murder and other serious cases."

                    "Some people take the view-Why should I say anything"?

                    "If I do I have to go to the police court, hang about there in a musty room waiting to give evidence: my name and perhaps my photograph will be published in all the newspapers. Then I shall have to give evidence again at the Old Bailey or the Assize Court as the case may be"

                    "Another man hangs back because of a skeleton in his cupboard. He is frightened of cross-examination and what might be revealed."

                    "I myself have stood in criminal courts and listened to the cross-examination of witnesses until I have been led almost to wonder whether the witness has not been mistaken for the prisoner"

                    "The plain fact is that few people court the publicity which is bound to follow a person's close association with a sensational trial."

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      "The plain fact is that few people court the publicity which is bound to follow a person's close association with a sensational trial."
                      Good post Trevor, but I thought I'd just remind us that this was only an inquest held in a room in a school for poor boys - a sensational trial it certainly wasn't. With that in mind, would the protocols adhering to a criminal trial necessarily have been applied to their fullest extent? Would the authorities have really cared if a mere witness used his "work name" in this context? Would they even have thought of asking a witness whether he was giving his real name? Would it have even occurred to Cross to inform them otherwise?
                      Last edited by Sam Flynn; 08-14-2018, 07:44 AM.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        We have a man who found the body and so spent ‘some’ time alone with her. He then tells a provable lie to a Constable immediately after the event. It’s reasonable to assume therefore that the police might have at least found this of interest.
                        Hi HS,

                        I think a point to make here is that a guilty Lechmere could have had no idea that the police did not find this of interest, and were not going to keep an eye on him and his movements over the coming days, in case any other 'anomalies' arose in connection with this witness. After all, he had seen the victim but had then shown an apparent unawareness of her extreme and fatal injuries, when reporting the matter to PC Mizen and falsely claiming another PC wanted his assistance.

                        How could he have dared do the same and more just days later, in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, when once again on his way to work, with the police possibly watching his movements on account of his having demonstrably lied not once but twice, to Mizen on the morning of the murder and then at the inquest - not to mention that a simple discreet enquiry at Pickfords would have led to his rather sudden change of name being discovered?

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                          Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.
                          Do you think that Lechmere might have been concerned that the police might have decided to visit Pickford’s for a bit of background info? Lechmere’s character, his honesty, his reliability etc ? If they’d decided to do that his real name would have come out if he was employed under that name.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            Hi HS,

                            I think a point to make here is that a guilty Lechmere could have had no idea that the police did not find this of interest, and were not going to keep an eye on him and his movements over the coming days, in case any other 'anomalies' arose in connection with this witness. After all, he had seen the victim but had then shown an apparent unawareness of her extreme and fatal injuries, when reporting the matter to PC Mizen and falsely claiming another PC wanted his assistance.

                            How could he have dared do the same and more just days later, in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, when once again on his way to work, with the police possibly watching his movements on account of his having demonstrably lied not once but twice, to Mizen on the morning of the murder and then at the inquest - not to mention that a simple discreet enquiry at Pickfords would have led to his rather sudden change of name being discovered?

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Hi Caz,

                            It’s hard to accept that the police could have been so dull as to not, at the least, have kept Lechmere's in mind and also that Lechmere wouldn’t have been aware of this. As you say he might have been wary of being watched. I’m repeating myself here but even as the murders progressed and the police were being accused of either being incompetent or even worse not caring about the deaths of mere prostitutes and with the ensuing increase in pressure for results, no one thought of looking back at previous murders. Or if they did no one said “what about that bloke that found Nichols and then lied to Mizen? Worth another look?”
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.
                              exactly Gary

                              personally, I think that in all probability he used Cross, because it was in conjunction of a carman on his way to work and he was still known as cross at work. also if innocent-might just wanted to keep his more well known domestic name out of the papers to keep his family out of it.

                              But if guilty-as you say-someone who knew him as Lechmere , like family or friends, might have put two and two together-had an aha moment (if they knew anything else suspicious about him of course) and gone to police.

                              I could see a guilty Lech reasoning this way.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                Lechmere would be in the clear at the inquest, even if he told a lie. It would be his word against Mizens, and no evidence to tell either way. His priority when meeting Mizen would have been to get past him, and he did.
                                His next priority would have been to kill again the very next weekend on his way to work without being seen or recognised near the scene this time - or at any time in the future whenever he fancied killing again outdoors.

                                But if he knowingly lied to Mizen and played down his victim's condition, then lied again at the inquest, and gave a name he didn't normally use, there would have been a very real possibility of one or more of these 'anomalies' registering with the police without his knowledge and causing them to look discreetly into his movements to check he had nothing to hide.

                                But you miss the point I am making about psychopaths. Almost every serial killer has psychopathic traits. And psychopaths LIKE playing games and lying. They very often entertain a sense of superiority, and are not afraid that they wil be outwitted or found out.

                                Who would know that the two policemen who tended to the Thai youngster outside Dahmers hiome would be such pushovers? They handed Dahmers murder victim over to him, when Dahmer claimed that the boy was his lover.

                                Once we try to apply our own thinking and reactions to what we think a serial killer would do, we will inevitably get it wrong. The problem is that most people do. Those who read your post will think "Yeah, she´s right, nobody would do that" - and they will be totally and utterly right. Even the police in victorian days would have agreed with you - and I think they did. They rasoned that a man who did what Lechmere did could not be the killer. But he could, and his actions would be very much in sync with how a psychopathic serial killer may go about things.
                                But even as a psychopath Lechmere couldn't have safeguarded himself against the unknown when he decided to repeat the thrill on September 8th. Giving the police reasons to take an interest in his activities at such an early stage would not have been the smartest thing to do if he wanted to carry on murdering on the same streets and in the same fashion. Psychopaths may feel omnipotent but do they imagine they are also psychic?

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X