Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

You need to set up a school and teach people out here how to argue - and how to research what is argued before it happens.

Arrogant.

I don´t know if I will spend any time on answering the slightly more unaerobical posts that have also been offered. It´s not as if the originators have your willingness to be reasoned and sound, and so I suspect it may be a waste of time. We´ll see.

Arrogant.

I am glad to have it confirmed that having a door between you and an object actually has a tendency to hide that object from sight - the fewest have been able to realize this on the thread before..

Nonsense. No one has suggested that.

I myself will not choose the Vanderlinden proposition over my proposition

Unsurprising as you won’t take the opinions of medical experts on TOD’s over your own.

I´d start by ruling out that Phillips may have been monumentally wrong and that coincidence only made all three parameters of establishing TOD jibe with his suggestion when Chapman had de facto only been dead an hour or less.
That has never rung true to me, and it does not do so now either.

Of course you would. It’s speaks against Lechmere being the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish. Yes; I was just about to get to that. So at sunrise I tied my shoes on the back porch. I found it quite natural to allow the spring door to press against the side of my body as I sat down on the steps, particularly since I didn't want to step down into the yard in my stockings. The door blocked my view. It's not as barmy as it appears just reading it on a computer screen, and I suggest that interested parties try it if the opportunity arises. I will give your theory a pass, with the obvious caveat that Richardson himself claims he would have seen the body.

I like it better than Vanderlinden simply dismissing Richardson as a liar. What he failed to consider is that Chandler was simply the Duty Inspector and would not have interviewed Richardson while trying to protect what was a very chaotic crime scene; there is utterly no reason to believe Richardson changed his testimony as he claims or implies in the article.

As for the potato, and digestion--I wasn't convinced. Chapman was thrown out in the middle of the night; she may have stashed a potato in her pocket to eat later. We don't know when she took her last meal, so the argument is dubious. Still, I can see how one might accept it; it's at least internally consistent with the 2 a.m. theory. But the door is nowhere mentioned. What mythical creature left the door open between 5 a.m and 5.45? It was during that same span that Cadoche heard the slap against the fence. And Vanderlinden selectively quotes Cadoche in the article. Cadoche later states that he was CERTAIN that the noise came from No. 29. All the best.

Measured. Collected. Reasoning. Sound.

You need to set up a school and teach people out here how to argue - and how to research what is argued before it happens.

Thank you for sharing your door-opening experiences. I am glad to have it confirmed that having a door between you and an object actually has a tendency to hide that object from sight - the fewest have been able to realize this on the thread before.

Of course, it is not the same door and the same yard, and of course it is not the same Richardson either - but it is nevertheless a practical and useful effort that goes some way to underline what I am saying.

I myself will not choose the Vanderlinden proposition over my proposition. Nor will I pick my proposition over his. It may be one way or the other for me, and if I am to rule anything at all out, I´d start by ruling out that Phillips may have been monumentally wrong and that coincidence only made all three parameters of establishing TOD jibe with his suggestion when Chapman had de facto only been dead an hour or less.
That has never rung true to me, and it does not do so now either.

The potato? Yes, she may have taken one potato with her and consumed later. What nags me, however, is that for some reason, when the stomach content was looked at, it tallied with the cold body and the rigor chronologically. These matters form a far stronger triumvirate in my eyes than "5.20 Cadosh", "5.30 Long" and "On the steps? No ...or wait a second" Richardson".

On Cadosh, Wolf should have mentioned the certainty on his behalf you refer to - but such certainties seem to dissolve to a degree when they are coupled with an uncertainty from the same source.

I always say that the four little words used are a red flag for me. "Will You?" "Yes!" and "No" are a tad too good to be true. That´s not saying that it could not be that two witnesses will be able to tell the whole story by catching just four little words - but I find it a bit over the top, not least when I couple it with the witnesses´ dead certain timings that will not dovetail.

Anyways, thanks for that breath of fresh air offered by your reasoned post. I don´t know if I will spend any time on answering the slightly more unaerobical posts that have also been offered. It´s not as if the originators have your willingness to be reasoned and sound, and so I suspect it may be a waste of time. We´ll see.

[FrankO]

There's a world of difference between having delusions of invincibility when reading press coverage, contemplating your next murder and/or reliving previous crimes at your leisure, and being so reckless as to remain at the scene of a crime when you hear footsteps approaching. Psychopaths may or may not be more daring than "normal" people, but they're seldom stupid.

I more or less agree, Gareth. Psychopathic serial killers may come out of the woodwork in direct connection to one of their crimes when they fear they will be caught or become a serious suspect if they don’t, but I’ve never come across one who did so just to “play games”. In the end, even though they may grow bolder over time, I think none of them want to get caught and prefer to split unseen if they can.

[Elamarna]

Thanks, Steve! I'm excellent! Have been very busy with life. A few ups and downs. Let's touch base soon... I understand you're busy!

I'm sure nothing can weaken their "case" against Cross/Lechmere in their minds. I wouldn't expect that. However, for his part Christer has sung the refrain many times "NOT ONCE in all his dealings with "authority" did he use the name (Cross)". Now it appears that he did. Once that we know of. Twice if we count the census giving the name Charles Cross.

And....it's a rather odd strategy, isn't it? This idea that he's giving this "false" (but not quite false) name when he must... both in 1876 and 1888 he give the name Cross... to what end? He's not running. We know in 1888 he gave his actual address and employer. In 1876 we know he's a carman with Pickford's. Cross or Lechmere... a bad result affects him identically, doesn't it? In 1876 - under Cross or Lechmere - he'd have been sacked from Pickford's, made to pay damages, etc. In 1888 - under Cross or Lechmere - after showing himself at the inquest , if he'd have been suspected of and found to have killed Nichols he'd have been hanged and he'd be dead... be he called Cross or Lechmere. I'm unsure what we're supposed to think he was trying to get away with? It's one thing if he'd have been asked his name by Mizen and he'd said something other than his name and then disappeared. But Mizen didn't ask his name. Mizen didn't KNOW his name. He gave that name, Cross, appearing at the inquest... voluntarily. Had things gone badly there, had he killed Nichols... Cross? Lechmere? What did it matter?

The full research on the incident in 76, involved looking at how many other Carmen were in london called Cross, ONLY one other was found in 76, he lived South of the River, and his employer is not listed, and while he rather than "our" man may be the "Cross" in question, it must remain a very high probability that the the Man who we know worked for Pickfords and lived in Doveton street was the individual involved in the incident.

If that is indeed the case it goes along way to explaining away the use of Cross in 1888, if that was the name that Lechmere used at work.
Such of course seriously undermines the major argument for Lechmere as the killer of Nichols, the attempt to suggest that this strengthens the case in favour of the killer argument, while defining logic, is an obvious preemptive strike, so to speak, in a somewhat futile attempt to blur what the 76 report really tells us.

Of course without an address for the "Cross" in 1876, the name issue remains unresolved.

I very much agree with your reasoning above.



steve

[Patrick S]

Patrick, hi hope you are ok?

Ed has suggested on facebook, that rather than weaken the case it actually strengthens the case against Charles, in that he may have used Cross when the situation needed it. i personally find such clutching at straws and completely unrealistic.

of course attack is the best form of defence.


Steve

Thanks, Steve! I'm excellent! Have been very busy with life. A few ups and downs. Let's touch base soon... I understand you're busy!

I'm sure nothing can weaken their "case" against Cross/Lechmere in their minds. I wouldn't expect that. However, for his part Christer has sung the refrain many times "NOT ONCE in all his dealings with "authority" did he use the name (Cross)". Now it appears that he did. Once that we know of. Twice if we count the census giving the name Charles Cross.

And....it's a rather odd strategy, isn't it? This idea that he's giving this "false" (but not quite false) name when he must... both in 1876 and 1888 he give the name Cross... to what end? He's not running. We know in 1888 he gave his actual address and employer. In 1876 we know he's a carman with Pickford's. Cross or Lechmere... a bad result affects him identically, doesn't it? In 1876 - under Cross or Lechmere - he'd have been sacked from Pickford's, made to pay damages, etc. In 1888 - under Cross or Lechmere - after showing himself at the inquest , if he'd have been suspected of and found to have killed Nichols he'd have been hanged and he'd be dead... be he called Cross or Lechmere. I'm unsure what we're supposed to think he was trying to get away with? It's one thing if he'd have been asked his name by Mizen and he'd said something other than his name and then disappeared. But Mizen didn't ask his name. Mizen didn't KNOW his name. He gave that name, Cross, appearing at the inquest... voluntarily. Had things gone badly there, had he killed Nichols... Cross? Lechmere? What did it matter?

[Elamarna]

Fascinating. Has Christer or Ed addressed this? My assumption is that it's either ignored or considered not the same Charles Cross working for Pickfords?

It would seem a stretch to think that this isn't the same man. It was stated in 1888 that Cross was a carman and had been an employee at Pickford's for twenty years. By 1876 he'd have been at Pickford's about eight years. Same name. Same profession. Same employer.

Thanks for the information.

Patrick, hi hope you are ok?

Ed has suggested on facebook, that rather than weaken the case it actually strengthens the case against Charles, in that he may have used Cross when the situation needed it. i personally find such clutching at straws and completely unrealistic.

of course attack is the best form of defence.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Fascinating. Has Christer or Ed addressed this? My assumption is that it's either ignored or considered not the same Charles Cross working for Pickfords?

It doesn't get brought up that often, oddly enough, and I don't recall many Lechmerites trying to stamp out this particular fire, in fairness.

It would seem a stretch to think that this isn't the same man. It was stated in 1888 that Cross was a carman and had been an employee at Pickford's for twenty years. By 1876 he'd have been at Pickford's about eight years. Same name. Same profession. Same employer.

Pretty compelling, isn't it? The only tiny niggle might be that this incident happened in North London, but then delivery drivers get around a bit by definition.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fascinating. Has Christer or Ed addressed this? My assumption is that it's either ignored or considered not the same Charles Cross working for Pickfords?

It would seem a stretch to think that this isn't the same man. It was stated in 1888 that Cross was a carman and had been an employee at Pickford's for twenty years. By 1876 he'd have been at Pickford's about eight years. Same name. Same profession. Same employer.

Thanks for the information.

If I recall correctly Christer made the point that it’s it strange that he used the name Cross twice, both times when someone died

[Herlock Sholmes]

Many of the documents that bear the name Lechmere are documents that have been signed "Lechmere" by other people. People, that is, who asked him "Name, please?" and got the answer "Lechmere" from him. Always.

Guess this line of research just died out.

No chance. Whoever signed it it was still an official document. Lechmere would have known that a document was being filled in. A document that would have existed and could have been referred to in the future. Someone saying “name please” is not the filling in of a document. It’s a conversation. To a working class Victorian, not as used to bureaucracy as we are, using Cross would have seemed like no issue.

Try another line of obfuscation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I´ll do the old "pick one thing" trick:

"The neck wounds were not hidden"

No? Paul pulled the clothing down. Exactly how do we know that the neck wounds were not hidden up to that point?

If you think it rude of me not to answer the other points, I´ll have you know that I have other things to do. If there is one specific matter where you feel you finally hit then head on the nail, then please notify me, and I will answer that particular point.

How is it suspicious that the clothing was pulled down when it was done by Robert Paul?

“Exactly how do we know that the neck wounds were not hidden up to that point?“

We don’t of course, but you’re trying to suggest that covering the abdominal wounds was a deception so how could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have decided to check her neck for a pulse?

[Patrick S]

My pleasure, Patrick

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28333

Fascinating. Has Christer or Ed addressed this? My assumption is that it's either ignored or considered not the same Charles Cross working for Pickfords?

It would seem a stretch to think that this isn't the same man. It was stated in 1888 that Cross was a carman and had been an employee at Pickford's for twenty years. By 1876 he'd have been at Pickford's about eight years. Same name. Same profession. Same employer.

Thanks for the information.

[Patrick S]

Yes, she was eating a potato. But how does that preclude the possibility of her sticking one in her pocket, or taking half away with her?

If I was penniless and sick and eating a clandestine meal and someone tossed me to the streets, I would have stuck part of it in my pocket--or at least tried to.

I am merely stating we do not in fact know when Chapman last ate, though I concede that Vanderlinden/Fisherman's argument is internally consistent. But if her meal was interupted, she may well have sought food elsewhere. Too many unknowns.

I agree. Just wasn't sure if my recollection was correct.

[rjpalmer]

Others may be able to confirm... Didn't John Evans see her eating a baked potato between 1:30 and 1:45? Not that someone couldn't have assumed she was eating it then and she in fact consumed it later. I've just always thought she was seen EATING potato as she was, as I recall, in the kitchen.

Yes, she was eating a potato. But how does that preclude the possibility of her sticking one in her pocket, or taking half away with her?

If I was penniless and sick and eating a clandestine meal and someone tossed me to the streets, I would have stuck part of it in my pocket--or at least tried to.

I am merely stating we do not in fact know when Chapman last ate, though I concede that Vanderlinden/Fisherman's argument is internally consistent. But if her meal was interupted, she may well have sought food elsewhere. Too many unknowns.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi, Sam. I have either forgotten or missed this. Can you direct me to more information?

My pleasure, Patrick

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28333

[Sam Flynn]

No, crazed psychopaths would NOT tend to lie low, Caz. That is one of the things that tell them apart from us. They are often narcissists too, and thus not capable of understanding how anybody could catch them at all, regardless of who they kill, how they kill and when they kill.

There's a world of difference between having delusions of invincibility when reading press coverage, contemplating your next murder and/or reliving previous crimes at your leisure, and being so reckless as to remain at the scene of a crime when you hear footsteps approaching. Psychopaths may or may not be more daring than "normal" people, but they're seldom stupid.