Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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?

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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".

[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]

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...?

[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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[Robert St Devil]

Richardson and Long aside, Fish, it's the alternate suggestion for Cadosch's "overheard person by the fence" around 5:30a that is the real chin-scratcher. Seemingly, wirh a dead Chapman lying in the yard, we would have someone (probably a woman) finding Annie Chapman's body, exclaiming "No!", and then proceeding to say nothing about the crime while allowing Davis to find her dead body a half hour later.

[Fisherman]

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.

Much ado about nothing, Patrick.

It is a fact that he used another name than he otherwise used in authority contacts. Trying to explain why is engaging in alternative innocent explanations. Again. To no avail.

Covering the wounds would have made it possible to fool Paul. In no other Ripper case does this happen. The only person who stands to gain from it, is somebody who is still on the spot.

It is a fact that he passed through the killing fields. Putting a suspect on the spot is vital to any investigation.

It is a fact that Louisa Lechmere inhabited 1 Mary Ann Street at the time of the Stride murder. It is equally a fact that Lechmere´s daughter was listed as living with her.

It is a fact that he disagreed with the police over what was said. Offering alternative innocent explanations is ... well, you will know by now.

It is, as you recognize, a fact that he appeared at the murder scene with the victim still bleeding, just as it is a fact that he did not come forward until he had been mentioned by Paul in the press.

You are still moving in circles, offering alternative innocent explanations, and it all ends up the way I predicted - they change none of the matters that make him a suspect.

The Mizen scam is your favourite attacking object, going by how you have spent your time on the errand.

Let´s fit it in with the rest!

Charles Lechmere could either not happen upon a murder site or he could not. As destiny would have it, he DID do that.

Once that happened, he could either arrive there alone or in company with somebody else - or at least be seen arriving. As destinby would have it, he arrived there all alone.

When this happens, you can either arrive at a remove in time that speaks of innocence on your behalf - or you can arrive at a remove in time that is entriely consistent with guilt. As destiny would have it ...

At this stage, he had drawn the short straw three times in a row.

And it goes on:

It just so happens that out of the five Ripper sites, this was the only one where the wounds were hidden. It was a one in five risk that this ould happenm and guess what? He drew the short straw, leaving four long ones untouched.

And it just so happens that out of all directions Lechmere could have walked to work, he had to use the one direction that took him past the killing fields. He wasn´t going north, he wasn´t going south, he was not on his way east - no, as destiny would have it, just by pure coincidence his work trek coincided with the killing fields! The poor, unlucky bastard - it seems he could not find a single long straw!

And so he eneded up at the inquest. And when you do, if you have a name you regularly use in your contacts with the authorities, one would have expected you to use that name with the police too - but no, by a cruel twist of fate, it transpires that he used another name instead.

And Paul! He either could have witnessed about how he heard and saw Lechmere come to a halt and walk out into the street and stop, or he could have been forty yards behind, a stretch that would be just enough to disenable him to see Lechmere - and apparently to disenable him to hear him too! And so, Robert Paul could not, owing to the next twist of fate, confirm what Lechmere said. Rotten luck, that!

And the Mizen scam? Well, it applies that Lechmere could either agree with the police or he could disagree with them. And guess what happens?
Furthermore, if Mizen told porkies, as you suggest, then he could either tell a porkie that was NOT consistent with how a lie construed by Lechmere to get past the police would look like, or he could accidentally come up with a version that was totally consistent with it.
And which straw does the unlucky carter draw this time. Well as destiny would have it...

It is simply not a sound suggestion that all of these matters and more were just a loooong line of examples of how our carman happened to get hold of the hort end of the straw every time he tried his hand at it. And that is exactly the position James Scobie tok up when saying "when the coincidences mount up - and they DO in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

Regardless, though, of how many coincidences we list, one, two, four, fifteen, thirty, a hundred, a thousand or a million, it always remains an unfallable truth that we can ALWAYS come up with alternative innocent explanations for each and every one of them.