Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Patrick S]

I am actually the first person to say exactly that: We are dealing with the same facts.

They are per se not tied to any explanation, not yours, not mine.

They are, one by one, all matters that add to the suspicions against Charles Lechmere.

I am saying that the more points of suspicion there are, the likelier they are to point to the culprit, and I don´t think that can be disputed.

I am also saying that every point of suspicion can supplied with alternative innocent explanations, but it also applies that the more such points there are, the less likely will it become that the alternative innocent explanations are the true explanations.

It is simple logic.

And as I say, it is all based on what you say: we are all dealing with the same facts.

There was a name swop.

The clothing covered the wounds.

He did go to work through the killing fields.

He did have ties to the Stride and Eddowes murder sites.

He did disagree with the police over what was said.

He did appear at the murder scene at a time when the victim was still bleeding.

He did not come forward until after Robert Paul had mentioned him.

...and so on, and so forth. Just as you say, these are the facts that we all need to deal with. Personally, how they make for a silly case, I am having all sorts of difficulties to see. I would have said that any other case of identifying the Ripper is far more silly in comparison.

But that is - of course - just me!

There was a name swop.

Not quite. A “name swap” is not a fact. Again, the official records of the Nichols’ inquest have been lost. Consequently, there is no evidence that Lechmere provided the name “Cross” to the exclusion of “Lechmere”. We are left to rely upon the published reports of the inquest, primarily in “The Times” and “The Telegraph”. Reporting of the inquest’s testimony was – at times – less than accurate. There are several examples of names incorrectly reported. Lechmere’s middle name is given as “Andrew” in “The Telegraph”. His first name was reported as “George” in “The Times”. Robert Paul is called ‘Baul’ (Telegraph). PC John Thain is called “Thail” (Telegraph). Mizen’s first initial is given as ‘G” (Times). These are more FACTS. Did Lechmere say he was Charles Andrew Cross? Did he say he was George Cross? We don’t know. We only know that he was reported as such in the press. It’s quite possible that that Lechmere was asked if he was known by any other names. He may have simply cited “Cross” and the reporters present chose to report this name rather than attempt an accurate spelling of “Lechmere”. The Telegraph also reports that Lechmere stated that he was a carman, “employed by Messrs. Pickford and Co”. This was Lechmere’s actual employer. Other reports have him providing is genuine address. It is apparent that Lechmere was not attempting to conceal his identity.

The clothing covered the wounds.

Let’s assume that this is a FACT. Remind me again what I’m supposed to make of it and how it implicates your man? If he killed Nichols and covered her wounds… why on earth we he prevent Paul from walking past him and insist he “come see this woman”?

He did go to work through the killing fields.

It’s a FACT that he lived in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green. It’s a fact that he worked at Pickford’s. Because of these facts…. Another fact: He found the Nichols’ body in Buck’s Row. He found the body because of these facts. Would it not be more suspicious if the FACTS were that he were, say, an assistant schoolmaster in Blackheath finding Nichols’ body in Bucks’ Row at 3:45am?

He did have ties to the Stride and Eddowes murder sites.

Is it a FACT that his mother lived near Berner Street on the night of the double event? Is it a FACT that one of Lechmere’s children lived with his mother on the night of the double event? Also, ALL of these spots are moments walks from one another. We’ve both been there and we both know it’s a very small geographic area and that many lived and died within it, often scarcely venturing outside it. Close to one spot… close to all spots. That is a FACT.

He did disagree with the police over what was said.

As did Robert Paul. It is a FACT that two men agree with respect to what Mizen was told (Paul and Lechmere).

Paul: “I saw (Mizen) in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.”

Lechmere: “They (Lechmere and Paul) went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead. The constable replied "All right."
Mizen: “Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.”
Lechmere: A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.
Paul makes no mention of anyone telling Mizen he was wanted by another PC in Bucks Row.

He did appear at the murder scene at a time when the victim was still bleeding.

The FACTS here have already been covered. It’s a FACT that he lived in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green. It’s a fact that he worked at Pickford’s. Because of these facts…. Another fact: He found the Nichols’ body in Buck’s Row.


He did not come forward until after Robert Paul had mentioned him.

That’s a FACT. What’s not a FACTS is why he would ever do such a thing? He’d escaped on the night of murder despite waiting with the body for Paul to arrive and forcing Paul to view the body and going with him to find Mizen. He’d escaped scrutiny from Mizen. He’d not been asked a name. Then he reads this (below) on Sunday in Lloyd’s. What is contained in this statement that compelled him to get to the inquest first thing the following morning?

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

[Fisherman]

No, it's being precise with the known facts time. Again. Which the outer skin would have done if she'd been outdoors for five or more hours.
Interesting that the words "remaining heat" were used, and not "remaining warmth".

Not very, no - if body heat was the term that was used as a starting point. Not otherwise either. The body was cold, end of story. I don´t think he could fry eggs on the "heatpoint" in Chapman.

Phillips would have been acutely aware - as I have pointed out umpteen times by now - that cold skin is not he same as a cold body, Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Ah - it´s linguistic time again!

No, it's being precise with the known facts time. Again.

That does not mean that she had reached 0 degrees celsius. It means that the body had taken on the ambient temperature.

Which the outer skin would have done if she'd been outdoors for five or more hours.

The exact phrasing should be: "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body." Maybe that allows for another interpretation than the body being totally cold...?

Interesting that the words "remaining heat" were used, and not "remaining warmth".

[Fisherman]

Let's concede that we're both dealing with the same facts. What's at issue is how those facts are interpreted and what seems most reasonable in our respective views. Both of our explanations are "alternative".

I am actually the first person to say exactly that: We are dealing with the same facts.

They are per se not tied to any explanation, not yours, not mine.

They are, one by one, all matters that add to the suspicions against Charles Lechmere.

I am saying that the more points of suspicion there are, the likelier they are to point to the culprit, and I don´t think that can be disputed.

I am also saying that every point of suspicion can supplied with alternative innocent explanations, but it also applies that the more such points there are, the less likely will it become that the alternative innocent explanations are the true explanations.

It is simple logic.

And as I say, it is all based on what you say: we are all dealing with the same facts.

There was a name swop.

The clothing covered the wounds.

He did go to work through the killing fields.

He did have ties to the Stride and Eddowes murder sites.

He did disagree with the police over what was said.

He did appear at the murder scene at a time when the victim was still bleeding.

He did not come forward until after Robert Paul had mentioned him.

...and so on, and so forth. Just as you say, these are the facts that we all need to deal with. Personally, how they make for a silly case, I am having all sorts of difficulties to see. I would have said that any other case of identifying the Ripper is far more silly in comparison.

But that is - of course - just me!

[Fisherman]

Where is it stated that Chapman was "totally cold"?

Ah - it´s linguistic time again!

But for a little remaining warmth under the intestines, Phillips found no warmth in her body. I take that to mean that apart from that exception, she was totally cold.

That does not mean that she had reached 0 degrees celsius. It means that the body had taken on the ambient temperature.

The exact phrasing should be: "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body." Maybe that allows for another interpretation than the body being totally cold...?

[Patrick S]

It´s like you said, Patrick: It´s the same old story over and over again. You sugesting alternative innocent explanations, and me pointing out that they lack any factual basis.

Let's concede that we're both dealing with the same facts. What's at issue is how those facts are interpreted and what seems most reasonable in our respective views. Both of our explanations are "alternative".

[Fisherman]

Not unlike Eddowes, then.

Read all about it in my forthcoming Ripper book, "From Elk".

Or "From Ilk". And which ilk, we know.

Maybe it will get it´s place on the shelve beside "The Manual of Unnatural ways to Open a Door".

[Sam Flynn]

Where is it stated that Chapman was "totally cold"?

[Fisherman]

Why is it lower between mid-morning and mid-afternoon than it is between late-afternoon and 9pm, then? Unless you're Spanish, most people don't sleep during the day, and most of us wind down in the evening.

It was always like that - we have higher evening temperatures than morning temperatures, due to how our engines are made to run.

The curve is no doubt the result of many weighed together temps, and the increases and decreases will quite likely hinge on varying activity levels.

Be that as it may, it changes nothing about how Chapman could not have been totally cold after a mere hour. No would she have any onsetting rigor if she adhered to the normal.

Isn´t it time to recognize that?

[Fisherman]

I won't deal with this recurring rudeness theme of yours. So, include that type of silly rhetoric as it suits you, just don't expect a response. I'm one name on a long list of those you've accused of not paying the proper respect to your theory, and to you personally. Let's not pretend otherwise. The boards are filled with your outrage directed at dozens of posters. So, I'll admit to any crime of ill-manners of which you accuse me and concede you are now and have always been a perfect gentlemen. It's of no consequence and a distraction. So, let's move on from it.

Read your post quickly. You begin by saying that there are many potential reasons to why he gave the name Cross instead of Lechmere.

If you had understood my former post, you would see that it is of no relevance if there are many potential reasons that he gave the name Cross instead of Lechmere.

The whole point is that none of these potential reasons make the fact that he DID give the name Cross instead of Lechmere go away. And so, just as you say, taken on it´s face IT IS SUSPICIOUS.

That is what remains, all of it. Until it can be conclusively proven that there was no sinister reason behind it, it is one further point of suspicion.

You make a loooong story of the Mizen scam, and true to form, you say that when scrutinized, it bears no importance. Or something such.

That may be your view, but the fact remains that you cannot produce any evidence at all that it was not a sinister matter. And therefore, it remains, just as the name issue.

Lechmere disagreed with the police over what was said on the murder night, and the wording proposed by the serving officer was one that is totally in line with a clever attempt on Lechmeres behalf to pass by the police unsearched.

It remains. It does not go away. It adds to the suspect status.

I could go over all of the other details too, and we would be doing the same rumba as ever: Lechmere was not the only one to walk those streets, the clothes could have blown down over the wounds, he may not have heard Paul since the latter may have worn rubber soles etcetera...

Suggestions that are in no way whatsoever in evidence. Therefore, they can not make the suspicion go away.

It´s like you said, Patrick: It´s the same old story over and over again. You suggesting one alternative innocent explanation after the other, and me pointing out that they lack any factual basis, and so the suspicion remains.

When the fog lifts, all the matters pointing to Lechmere are still there, each and every one of them. And they are many.

There is nothing you can do about that, I´m afraid, but to say that you think it is silly to believe in Lechmere as the killer.

Personally, I think that is a mistake, since any balanced judge can see that there is a very good case for him. Consequentially, if you had said "Although this is a good or even very good case, I personally feel that it is not..." or something such, you would get the ear of more discerning people. As it is, you seem to prefer the warm bath of cheerings-on by less informed people.

Not that I want to advice you on how to make a better case. I am happy as it is. And to be frank, once truly discerning people hear your arguments, they are bound to see through them sooner or later anyway. That, at least, is how I see it.

[Sam Flynn]

I bet that elk had been to the local pub and warmed up by the fireplace before he encountered your ex father-in-law. Plus he was wearing a fur that would have kept him warm for the longest.

Not unlike Eddowes, then.

Read all about it in my forthcoming Ripper book, "From Elk".

[Sam Flynn]

I concluded that it depends on the sleep before I even read your note.

Why is it lower between mid-morning and mid-afternoon than it is between late-afternoon and 9pm, then? Unless you're Spanish, most people don't sleep during the day, and most of us wind down in the evening.

[Patrick S]

And here you are, doing the exact same thing again that I warned against in my post to Patrick - saying that I must prove my point.

No, no. I have NEVER said you must prove your point. In my view, PROVING is something we cannot do. We can suggest. We can theorize. We can paint a picture that may cause us to have some suspicions, to think, "Maybe... Perhaps." In my view, you've never done that. You've not come close. And that's a shame because I rather like the idea. It's just that as I've looked at it, I see more to suggest it was NOT Cross/Lechmere than otherwise.

[Fisherman]

For the last time, It is not possible to estimate, or state accurately a time of death,not then, not now, so be told, and accept it, and stop trying to suggest anything to the contrary to fit your misguided theory on Lechmere. Listen to what experts tell you !!!!!!!!!!!

For the last time?

Gee, I have been waiting for THAT promise! Thank you ever so!

[Patrick S]

You should not be put off by the fact that I say that you have not contributed any useful evidence against Lechmere being the killer. You are in rich company, since nobody has, although it has often enough been suggested that this has happened.

The problem with how the Lechmere theory is being treated out here is that the criticism of it works from the idea that Lechmere would never be convicted on the existing evidence; "the scam does not prove him guilty", "the name matter is not any evidence that he did it", "the fact that his paths coincided with the murder district is not conclusive in any way".

The "name matter" isn't evidence. I echo that sentiment. However, taken on it's face, it is suspicious. It's clear the police either weren't aware of it, or they were and accepted it. As I've stated here dozens of times: There are many far more likely reasons the man would have given the name (Cross) aside from his having killed Nichols, remained with the body, wandered about in the night with Paul until he found a PC, told him about the woman lying in Buck's Row. I think it's important also to point out that we agree on this crucial aspect (unless your view has changed). NO ONE asked Cross/Lechmere his name on August 31, 1888. He didn't give it to Paul. Mizen didn't ask his name. Rather, he appeared voluntarily at Day 2 of the Nichols' inquest on September 3. Of course, you've explained that it's your view that he was "driven out" of hiding because of Paul's Lloyd's statement which appeared in print the previous day. Yet, when we look at Paul's statement we find nothing that would have compelled him to come forward. Here is the extend of Paul mentioning "the man" he met in Buck's Row:

"I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me..."

"The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman."

"... so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

That's it. Name? Hair color? Height? Clothing? No. No. No. And no. Paul even has the man staying behind in Buck's Row as he continues on in search of a PC:

"I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

"I" told him. What "I" had seen. "I" asked him. Not "we". Lechmere, were he your killer, should have been dancing with joy. He'd managed to kill a woman, grab the first man who happened along and essentially FORCED him to view his victim ("I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth"), enlisted him to set off in search of a cop, he'd found a cop, pulled his "scam" on him, and made it off into the dark without so much as having been asked his name. Now he reads the Lloyd's story which give no description of him at all and, in fact, reduces his role in the proceedings to next to nothing... and he's compelled to come forward? He's killed, escaped... and we're to believe he THEN shows at the inquest... after having escaped COMPLETELY? But, he takes a precaution: He gives the name Cross. Which isn't a false name per se. It's his step father's name. Yet, he gives his actual address and his actual place of employment. None of this bears any scrutiny at all, I'm afraid. And, it seems, most others agree.

The criticism is thus aimed at clearing Lechmere from accusations of having been the killer. And maybe that is not so strange, since I am consistently saying that I think he was.

On the other hand, I am quite aware that he cannot be convicted on the evidence existing. It also applies that I have said as much on different occasions - I suspect that if there was a trial against somebody today on the evidence amassed, there would not be a conviction. And I am fine with that, since a conviction in a case like the one against the carman needs to be conclusively underbuilt in a larger degree than what is the case.

It is therefore sound to point to the altenative innocent explanations in this context. No qualms there.

But what happens if we instead look at whether he is a viable suspect or not? Well, in that case, I would say that the alternative innocent explanations are useless.

Yes, it may be that Mizen was the one lying, and Lechmere the one telling the truth.

I'll just say this. Mizen is contradicted by Paul. Cross/Lechmere is not. Mizen was incriminated (for inaction once being told a woman was lying in Bucks Row) by Paul's Lloyd's statement. Cross/Lechmere was not.

Yes, it may be that it is a coincidence only that Lechmeres working path passed through the killing fields.

I'm glad to see this has been modified to "working path passed through the killing fields". It used to be "the victims were all found along his route to work", which was never true. As well, the times of the killings do not coincide as you'd hope they would with the man's likely commute (if we use what we know of it from August 31 as a guide). Also, you must create an alternative explanation for the "Double Event" (he was visiting his mother, right?). So two of the five aren't covered by this "path through killing fields" bit.

In the Lechmere case, however, the fact that alternative innocent explanations have been thought up has mistakenly been used to claim that there is no case against Lechmere. And that is, as I say, anti-intellectual.

I'd suggest that any "case" against Lechmere is necessarily so contrived that it's anti-common sense. It defies logic. It requires dependencies and assumptions based upon nothing aside from a BELIEF that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. BELIEVE this witness (because it serves the narrative). DON'T BELIEVE this one (because it doesn't). We must invent scams and motivations. That's the conclusion I've drawn relative to the theory. Others can draw their own. I just hope they do their homework before doing so.

It is not until we can PROVE that the scam was not an example of Lechmere lying his way past the police

Again. Why lie his way past the police? It was pitch black in Buck's Row. He could have just walked away... Toward Paul... away from Paul.. Cross waited for Paul to arrive at Nichols' body. Paul tried to avoid Cross but Cross touched him, asked him to come see. Cross went with Paul to find a PC. Cross didn't know if he would be searched, detained, asked to return to Buck's Row by Mizen (which would have required only two words: SHOW ME). He SOUGHT THE POLICE. And once doing so he "scammed" Mizen in an effort to "lie his way past him"? And once successfully "lying is way past Mizen he THEN show up at the inquest the following Monday... but gives the name Cross rather than Lechmere along with his actual address and place of employment.

it is not until we can PROVE that it was a coincidence that his routes took him through the killing fields, it is not until we can PROVE that the hidden wounds were the result of something different than Lechmere doing the hiding

Here we're asked to believe that Cross killed Nichols' mutilated her, covered it up so Paul won't see... then he approached Paul and when Paul tried to avoid him he touched his shoulder, asked him to come and see... then he tells Paul he thinks she's dead when Paul thinks he detects movement, goes of with Paul to find a PC and he tells Mizen "for my part I think she's dead". Again... WHY did he cover the wounds again? To obscure the fact that she was dead? Only to then tell both Paul and Mizen that he thought she WAS dead?

it is not until we can PROVE that his using the name Cross was not something sinister, it is not until we can PROVE that it was a coincidence only that he was with the body as it was still freshly kiled and still bleeding and so on and so on - that we can say that his suspect status is unwarranted.

Until that happens, he remains the one suspect that has by far the most potentially incriminating facts against his person, and no thought-out alternative innocent explanation in the world will change that.

This is why I say that you have contributed nothing at all in the way of clearing Lechmere from suspicion, Patrick. And it is also why saying, as you do, that Lechmere is a "silly" bid, is an anti-intellectual approcah to the whole matter. It is like saying that once we realize that Sirhan Sirhan may not have been the only shot when Robert Kennedy died, he is no longer a suspect. That kind of approach to what makes for a suspect status is what is silly here.

What you have done is the exact same thing as very many other posters have - you have realized that it is possible to come up with alternative explanations to the points of accusation against Lechmere. And let´s face it, if it was NOT, then we would have our killer!
If there has been any difference at all between you and the others who have realized that alternative innocent explanations can be offered, then it has been that you have given the impression - consciously or not - that your contributions in this field have been somewhat brighter or better than the rest, which is wrong - you do not differ from the rest in a quality perspective. You have at times been extremely pushy and rude, and in that regard, you have a position thad differs to a signifcant degree from the rest of the inventors of alternative innocent explanations. As regards the value of your criticism, though, nothing at all tells you apart from your peers in the fine art of conjuring up alternative innocent explanations. The examples you posted bear witness to that.

Now, you can of course produce an answer that shoots for things like how I say that you have been rude in the past, and you can counter that by saying that I have been ruder.

But you cannot change the fact that all of the points made against by Lechmere still stnad, and you cannot change the fact that they make him a very viable suspect.

If I can ask for something, I´d ask for a discussion of THAT parameter, but I do not harbour much hope that it will happen. To you, and to many other posters out here, the fact that other people also walked through the killing fields in the early morning is something you believe - or at least claim and/or infer - takes away from Lechmeres suspect status.

A-n-t-i-i-n-t-e-l-l-e-c-t-u-a-l!

If there was NOT potentially any other passers-by, then Lechmere MUST have been the killer.

His suspect status is what is very much elevated by the fact, nothing else.

I won't deal with this recurring rudeness theme of yours. So, include that type of silly rhetoric as it suits you, just don't expect a response. I'm one name on a long list of those you've accused of not paying the proper respect to your theory, and to you personally. Let's not pretend otherwise. The boards are filled with your outrage directed at dozens of posters. So, I'll admit to any crime of ill-manners of which you accuse me and concede you are now and have always been a perfect gentlemen. It's of no consequence and a distraction. So, let's move on from it.