Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

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

Yes, you have heard it, numerous times - not being recognized by people who knew his paths.

In combination with how I don´t think he mentioned his address - the one I believe the Star reporter got from a clerk - he would have blurred his identity.

True or not, is another thing. But that´s an advantage to just about any serial killer.

[Fisherman]

I´m off for now.

[MrBarnett]

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.

It's possible there is something out there that we haven't yet found which would clarify the name issue. I believe I discovered the family on a census-type record compiled by Charles Booth in 1887, while they were still living in James Street. The annoying thing is that no names were used, just the subject's financial and occupational details. There was also a comment appended, 'v.decent', which was not the norm on the survey of STGITE residents.

[MrBarnett]

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

He may have felt there was an advantage in keeping the name Lechmere away from the sordid case of the brutal murder of a prostitute in the East End.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He may have felt there was an advantage in keeping the name Lechmere away from the sordid case of the brutal murder of a prostitute in the East End.

I think this is quite possible Gary. Especially with Ma Lechmere alive and kicking. My point with Fish though is that it didn’t improve his chances of escaping justice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Look at that first sentence of yours, Herlock!

[Harry D]

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.

Good post. This is my problem with Lechmere as a suspect: all of the so-called 'red flags' can be innocently explained. He volunteered his home address, his place of business, and his first name. The only 'anomaly' was the surname, which had a familial connection via his stepfather. That's not incriminating behaviour imo.

Buck's Row was on his route to work. Now, had Lechmere been found off the beaten track, somewhere he probably shouldn't have been at that hour, we might be onto something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good post. This is my problem with Lechmere as a suspect: all of the so-called 'red flags' can be innocently explained. He volunteered his home address, his place of business, and his first name. The only 'anomaly' was the surname, which had a familial connection via his stepfather. That's not incriminating behaviour imo.

Buck's Row was on his route to work. Now, had Lechmere been found off the beaten track, somewhere he probably shouldn't have been at that hour, we might be onto something.

I agree Harry. I’ve never felt it likely that Lechmere would have killed on the way to work leaving himself around 15 minutes to check himself over for blood, find somewhere to clean up if necessary and then get to work. All this at a spot that he passed every day at the same time so even if Paul hadn’t have shown up he could have been ‘connected’ to. For eg one of his workmates might have said, after hearing of the murder, ‘don’t you pass down Buck’s Row on the way to work?’ Much safer to have killed elsewhere.

[Sam Flynn]

The "work route" argument also requires the (living) victim to have been on her own in Bucks Row at the same time, which is unlikely enough in itself, or - failing that - for Cross to stray from his normal route, find a victim, then bring her back to his work route and kill her, which is unlikelier still.

[Varqm]

Good post. This is my problem with Lechmere as a suspect: all of the so-called 'red flags' can be innocently explained. He volunteered his home address, his place of business, and his first name. The only 'anomaly' was the surname, which had a familial connection via his stepfather. That's not incriminating behaviour imo.

Buck's Row was on his route to work. Now, had Lechmere been found off the beaten track, somewhere he probably shouldn't have been at that hour, we might be onto something.

Agreed.If they wanted him all they have to do was look at his home/work address, which were the most important,and from there they could ask his real name.They knew what he looked like.Lechmere would have known this.The name change was irrelevant and had an innocent reason.

--

[Herlock Sholmes]

The "work route" argument also requires the (living) victim to have been on her own in Bucks Row at the same time, which is unlikely enough in itself, or - failing that - for Cross to stray from his normal route, find a victim, then bring her back to his work route and kill her, which is unlikelier still.

If we are being asked to believe that Lechmere saw Polly in Buck’s Row and with around 20 minutes to get to work he decided to kill her. This speaks of a certain lack of control. An urge triggered off by the mere sight of Polly. These types of killer obviously exist but surely they are more likely to be caught sooner rather than later to due a lack of caution? Are we to believe that Lechmere was just lucky that he managed to remain at large for 20 or so years? Can a killer with these urges simply learn to control them?

[Harry D]

If we are being asked to believe that Lechmere saw Polly in Buck’s Row and with around 20 minutes to get to work he decided to kill her. This speaks of a certain lack of control. An urge triggered off by the mere sight of Polly. These types of killer obviously exist but surely they are more likely to be caught sooner rather than later to due a lack of caution? Are we to believe that Lechmere was just lucky that he managed to remain at large for 20 or so years? Can a killer with these urges simply learn to control them?

I think it was mooted that Lechmere might have picked Polly up in Whitechapel Road.

[Sam Flynn]

I think it was mooted that Lechmere might have picked Polly up in Whitechapel Road.

In which case, he deviated from his work route and brought her back to his work route to kill her, which is scarcely feasible.