Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

If anyone needs to ponder it is you, and your pondering should relate to this misguided belief of yours that Lechmere was a killer. There is absolutely no evidence to even suspect him of this.

Even if he had have been the killer, he would have made good his escape when he heard footsteps approaching, that is what criminals do when they are in the process of committing a crime and fear imminent capture, that is what anyone would do, especially when they have that opportunity as did Lechmere.

You should accept this and move on. But you wont because your suspicion about this has now become and obsession, as has your belief that all of the torsos were murdered, and that the same killer was responsible for the WM.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ooooh - you almost won me over there ...

[Herlock Sholmes]

A lot of "might have" and "All I am saying" there, Herlock. And each to his own. What matters in the end is that we cannot exonerate Lechmere. All we can do is ask ourselves "Was it him?". And much as you answer that question with a "No", I answer it with a "Yes!".

The ‘cannot exonerate him’ point can be applied to Lewis Carroll and all but a very few ripper ‘suspects.’ It’s about likelihood’s.

He is the only case we know of in the Ripper matter where a witness does not use the name he is always otherwise using in contact with the authorities.

That could be a small, unsignificant matter.

In terms of whether he was guilty or not this point should not even be mentioned. He gave his correct Christian names and his correct address. It really could not be clearer or more indisputable that he gained no advantage, in regards to any crime, from using the name Cross.

But then, he is also the only suspect we have who disagreed with the police about what was said. And to boot, what Mizen claims that he said is entirely consistent with somebody with a need to bypass the police would have said.

Or, Mizen disagreed with him and was himself wrong. The difference is that you have to come up with a ‘scam’ to allow for this. Something for which there is no evidence.

This is not a good thing for a suspect. And it becomes a lot worse when it is coupled with the name matter.

A point reliant upon an invention coupled with a point of no consequence. Hardly conclusive!

Moving on, there is one case only where a Ripper victim with a cut up belly has her damages hidden - allowing for a bluff to be performed. And it just so happens that this case is the Nichols case. Lechmere could not walk up to Eddowes and say "maybe she´s just drunk...?"

As this was in all likelihood the first in the series it’s not wholly unsurprising that there was a small difference. He could of course avoided the necessity for the bluff by walking away when he had the chance.

So when we have the combined matter of the name and the Mizen scam, we can see that it all pans out here too - and it is the combined burden of the evidence that ensnares the carman.

As above.

And it goes on, point by point. It just so happens that the man who had the misfortune to have these things pointing against him fits the murder map geographically, case after case, all of them. It just so happens that Paul did not verify that he arrived just a few seconds after Lechmere - he could have said that he heard Lechmere walking and stopping short in front of him, but he never did. It just so happens that Mizen said that the body was still bleeding, the blood looking fresh, when he arrived at the site.

Mizen Scam - an invention/ the name thing - irrelevant/ geography - unless it’s being used to show that he could have been at the crime scenes - irrelevant/ the blood thing - again, if Mizen could have been wrong earlier, he could have been wrong about the blood. Steve has gone into this in depth (I don’t debate medical issues if I can help it.)

There are so many instances where Lechmere could have been absolved, but in none of them does this happen. We are left with a large heap of coincidences that really should and could not be there.

And there are questions like ‘is it likely that someone would kill on the way to work leaving himself little or no time to check himself for blood, clean up if necessary and get to work on time?’
Or, why would he be stupid enough to kill at a spot that he passed every day at the same time? Why didn’t he go out 30 minutes earlier and kill 4 streets away where he wouldn’t have been ‘connected’ in any way?’

So I say yes, of course Lechmere is the likely killer of Polly Nichols.

And, surprise, surprise, I’d say that taken as a whole he has to be considered unlikely.

You say that there is no evidence at all of a damning nature.

There isn’t.

After that, it is not up to you and me to make the call about who is the better judge of the affair. Others must do it for us; those who take interest in the case and want to form an opinion of their own. Not the ripperologists out here, entrenched to a very large degree in their thinking, and unwilling to allow for any other ideas than the ones they endorse themselves.

It’s unsurprising that you take that view. Usually things are judged by peers but you dismiss them in favour of people who have no knowledge of the case. Is this because the vast majority of people that have studied the case have concluded that Lechmere was an unlikely Ripper?

Lechmere cannot be completely exonerated like many others. This is hardly a ringing endorsement. We simply have to work too hard to add any substance to the case against him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All we CAN be certain of is that there is not a hint of evidence pointing to the police having investigated Lechmere. That is not proof that they did not, but it IS proof that he cannot be exonerated in this way. Either.

Or proof that nothing about anything that he said or did raised any suspicion with them either at the time or later on in the case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All the around 110 signatures qwe have from him are always Lechmere, never Cross - but for in combination with the Nichols inquest.

That doesn´t solve the question whether he called himself Cross on festive and sombre occasions, but it DOES lay down that we have a 100 per cent record of "Lechmere! but for the inquest matter.

And this you know VERY well already.

But he gained no advantage from this so, in terms of the case, it’s irrelevant.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gareth, it is long since established that Lechmere could have called himself Cross on occasion, or as an "everyday name".

It is equally long since established that he did use that name at the inquest and in his contacts with the police.

It is equally long established that Lechmere in all his remaining contacts with any sort of authority called himself Lechmere.

Apparently, Lechmere was his "official" name, if you will - whilst Cross may have been used in non-official circumstances.

But contacts with the police and an inquest are contacts with authorities, official contacts. And it is therefore an anomaly that he used Cross in this context.

He may have had a reason to do so that was not sinister in the least - but the anomaly remains there until such a thing can be proven.

This is the exact knowledge we have about the name. And we have had it for quite a while. It is becoming a tad repetitious, is it not?

It is becoming repetitious Fish. It should no longer be bought up with regard to the question of Lechmere’s guilt or innocence.

[Fisherman]

It is becoming repetitious Fish. It should no longer be bought up with regard to the question of Lechmere’s guilt or innocence.

Boy, could I predict that one!

[Fisherman]

But he gained no advantage from this so, in terms of the case, it’s irrelevant.

It is he and he only who could say if there was an advantage and what it looked like. It has certainly been suggested that he DID gain an advantage.

[Fisherman]

Or proof that nothing about anything that he said or did raised any suspicion with them either at the time or later on in the case.

... and so nothing stands in the way of the theory being correct.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere cannot be completely exonerated like many others. This is hardly a ringing endorsement. We simply have to work too hard to add any substance to the case against him.

All the hard work I see is people getting their pants in a twist trying to come up with innocent alternative explanations - dozens and dozens of them, for the simple reason that these are the numbers needed.

But do we really - REALLY - need to do this again? "Was! Wasn´t! Was! Wasn´t! Was, you tupid, tupid man! Wasn´t, you dummy!"

Perhaps we can lay the personal acrimony to the side and actually discuss in a better tone? I know, I am the only one using a faulty tone, evil me - but then it should be no problem for you to revert back to a better tone, should it?

[Trevor Marriott]

Fully agreed, Gary - that´s more or less how I see it too. It may have been very innocent, but when we add all the things together, the name thing does not exactly help his case. To my mind, it remains one of those gnawing matters that one should not have too many of if you want to look squeaky clean.

But if he was the killer all he needed to do was after meeting Paul, go on his way to work and not get involved thereafter. or as I said previously if he were the killer run off before Paul arrived at the scene. Either way, he may then never have been identified, but no as an innocent person he chose to come forward, and if he was the killer by doing that put himself in the suspect category as you would have us believe.

As Walter Dew tells us there were many people that may have be able to give vital information on these murders but chose not to come forward and give statements.information for varying reasons. These were all innocent persons not killers, if Lechmere had adopted that course of action would we be looking at him as a killer? But instead he chose to come forward of his own volition.

Not the actions of a killer by any stretch of the imagination

With regards to your previous comments which are out of context regarding Christie. the police mistakes you refer to were in connection to the search of his property, which at the time was not connected to Christie or his murders but Timothy Evans.

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?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course, the circumstances of Lechmere's discovery of the body - on his way to work - add a dimension that is absent from the other examples of his interaction with the authorities. He may well have identified himself as Lechmere to census-takers, registrars etc, but decided to use the name Cross when presenting himself as a Pickfords' carman on his way to his workplace - if he was known there by that name.

The likelihood is that his stepfather, Thomas Cross, was instrumental in his getting the position at Pickfords in the first place, in which case using the name Cross would have been the simplest way of presenting himself to his new employers. The use of the name Cross on the 1861 census is an example of such a 'simplification'.

And although we can't be certain that it is one and the same man, we have the 1876 incident where a Pickfords carman named Charles Cross killed a child in Islington.

The Cross/Lechmere anomaly cannot be definitively explained away, but we don't need to be overly creative to imagine a scenario, supported by the facts and reasonable assumption, where it is perfectly innocent.

Hi Gary,

Well summed up. Any further research is welcome. We can’t be definitive but it’s not unreasonable or unlikely that he felt some affection/respect for his stepfather and that he made the decision to use Cross in his everyday life. But he’d in all likelihood been told that when filling in official documents that he had to use his birth name. As we know, the Victorians weren’t as steeped in bureaucracy as we are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is he and he only who could say if there was an advantage and what it looked like. It has certainly been suggested that he DID gain an advantage.

And I’d be very interested in hearing what advantage he might have gained. I don’t recall hearing this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

... and so nothing stands in the way of the theory being correct.

And nothing stands in the way of a suggestion that Robert Paul was a ventriloquist who put false words in Lechmere’s mouth.

We can’t assume that the police were devoid of any intelligence or experience and so the fact that they didn’t suspect him has to count more in favour of his innocence than his guilt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All the hard work I see is people getting their pants in a twist trying to come up with innocent alternative explanations - dozens and dozens of them, for the simple reason that these are the numbers needed.

But do we really - REALLY - need to do this again? "Was! Wasn´t! Was! Wasn´t! Was, you tupid, tupid man! Wasn´t, you dummy!"

Perhaps we can lay the personal acrimony to the side and actually discuss in a better tone? I know, I am the only one using a faulty tone, evil me - but then it should be no problem for you to revert back to a better tone, should it?

I really can’t see how you can’t fault my ‘tone’ on this thread Fish. I’m simply raising my points against as you are raising your points for.

I have never have had any personal acrimony against you Fish. I agree that arguments on who’s fault it is that our debates get heated should be irrelevant. We disagree on that point. I simply disagree with you. I could be wrong. You could be wrong. I feel that you’re level of confidence is unwarranted but you are entitled to be confident if you feel confident.

[Fisherman]

I really can’t see how you can’t fault my ‘tone’ on this thread Fish. I’m simply raising my points against as you are raising your points for.

I have never have had any personal acrimony against you Fish. I agree that arguments on who’s fault it is that our debates get heated should be irrelevant. We disagree on that point. I simply disagree with you. I could be wrong. You could be wrong. I feel that you’re level of confidence is unwarranted but you are entitled to be confident if you feel confident.

Look at that first sentence of yours, Herlock!