Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[caz]

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?

Hi Fish,

Was it not recently discovered that a Charles Cross, carman working for Pickfords, had been involved in a fatal collision with a child back in 1876? The verdict on that earlier occasion was accidental death and no blame attached to Cross - yet that was the name he went by, not Lechmere.

Have you any evidence that this was a different Charles Cross, Pickfords carman? If not, isn't this good evidence that he did use the name in other circumstances, and it cannot therefore be described as an 'anomaly' when he did so 12 years later, when taking time off work to attend the Nichols inquest?

Do you imagine his workmates and employers would not have been agog for news of his role in this horrible affair, and would not have remarked on the fact that he posed as Charles Cross for his court appearance, if they only knew him as Charles Lechmere?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The fact that the police do not entertain suspicion against a person is in no shape or form equvivalent with that person automatically being innocent. The policemen who visited Christies house left it with no suspicions raised against him - although the fence in his back yard was partly supported by a human femur bone - which the boys in blue missed.

Yes, but would they have missed it if Christie had lied to a policeman, claiming a fellow officer was currently in his back yard, where his dog had just been burying a bone?

Don't think so somehow.

What we are being asked to consider is that a guilty Lechmere went out of his way to approach PC Mizen, with the murder weapon on him and not knowing if he had avoided getting fresh blood on him, and to claim that a policeman was already in Buck's Row, attending to a woman who could merely be drunk - when she would very shortly be found by PC Neil, nearly decapitated. Granted, both adjectives begin with the letter d, but there the resemblance ends.

And then he attended the inquest, knowing he'd have to lie again, by denying PC Mizen's version of events - and still no eyebrows were raised.

Who knew Mizen would turn out to be such a pushover?

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, but would they have missed it if Christie had lied to a policeman, claiming a fellow officer was currently in his back yard, where his dog had just been burying a bone?

Don't think so somehow.

What we are being asked to consider is that a guilty Lechmere went out of his way to approach PC Mizen, with the murder weapon on him and not knowing if he had avoided getting fresh blood on him, and to claim that a policeman was already in Buck's Row, attending to a woman who could merely be drunk - when she would very shortly be found by PC Neil, nearly decapitated. Granted, both adjectives begin with the letter d, but there the resemblance ends.

And then he attended the inquest, knowing he'd have to lie again, by denying PC Mizen's version of events - and still no eyebrows were raised.

Who knew Mizen would turn out to be such a pushover?

Love,

Caz
X

Well put Caz,

It really not very likely is it? Especially when we consider that he could have avoided all of this with ease by simply walking or even running away as soon as he heard footsteps in Buck’s Row.

[Fisherman]

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.

Neither possibility is unlikely at all. The streets adjoining Whitechapel Road would have been where the business was done, and so prostitutes would frequent them.

Equally, if Lechmere contacted Nichols on Whitechapel Street and she suggested to go to Bucks Row, why on earth would he turn the offer down? You are the first to tell me that Bucks Row would have been traversed by myriads of workers in the early hours, so he wouldn´t run much of a risk, would he?

[Fisherman]

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?

Has it dawned on you that we don´t know when he arrived in Bucks Row, Herlock? So how do we know that he made the decision to killer her 20 to four? What if he decided to do so a quarter of an hour earlier? What stands in the way for that? That he would feely lie about not killing Nichols but never about the time he arrived in Bucks Row?
Different killers will be differently equipped to control themselves. There is no definitive scale, there are only killers who differ from case to case.

[Fisherman]

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

Ant the explanation for why is...?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Was it not recently discovered that a Charles Cross, carman working for Pickfords, had been involved in a fatal collision with a child back in 1876? The verdict on that earlier occasion was accidental death and no blame attached to Cross - yet that was the name he went by, not Lechmere.

Have you any evidence that this was a different Charles Cross, Pickfords carman? If not, isn't this good evidence that he did use the name in other circumstances, and it cannot therefore be described as an 'anomaly' when he did so 12 years later, when taking time off work to attend the Nichols inquest?

Do you imagine his workmates and employers would not have been agog for news of his role in this horrible affair, and would not have remarked on the fact that he posed as Charles Cross for his court appearance, if they only knew him as Charles Lechmere?

Love,

Caz
X

We don´t know that the "accidental carman" was the same man. If you ask me if it not an educated guess, I will say that it IS a guess.
We really should not do our work like that, Caz.

Have you noticed that IF this was also Lechmere, then we have TWO examples of him giving the name Cross to the authorities, both of them in connection with violent deaths.

Whereas he told all other authorities that he was called Lechmere - at least as far as we know.

[Fisherman]

Yes, but would they have missed it if Christie had lied to a policeman, claiming a fellow officer was currently in his back yard, where his dog had just been burying a bone?

Don't think so somehow.

What we are being asked to consider is that a guilty Lechmere went out of his way to approach PC Mizen, with the murder weapon on him and not knowing if he had avoided getting fresh blood on him, and to claim that a policeman was already in Buck's Row, attending to a woman who could merely be drunk - when she would very shortly be found by PC Neil, nearly decapitated. Granted, both adjectives begin with the letter d, but there the resemblance ends.

And then he attended the inquest, knowing he'd have to lie again, by denying PC Mizen's version of events - and still no eyebrows were raised.

Who knew Mizen would turn out to be such a pushover?

Love,

Caz
X

Lechmere would be in the clear at the inquest, even if he told a lie. It would be his word against Mizens, and no evidence to tell either way. His priority when meeting Mizen would have been to get past him, and he did.

But you miss the point I am making about psychopaths. Almost every serial killer has psychopathic traits. And psychopaths LIKE playing games and lying. They very often entertain a sense of superiority, and are not afraid that they wil be outwitted or found out.

Who would know that the two policemen who tended to the Thai youngster outside Dahmers hiome would be such pushovers? They handed Dahmers murder victim over to him, when Dahmer claimed that the boy was his lover.

Once we try to apply our own thinking and reactions to what we think a serial killer would do, we will inevitably get it wrong. The problem is that most people do. Those who read your post will think "Yeah, she´s right, nobody would do that" - and they will be totally and utterly right. Even the police in victorian days would have agreed with you - and I think they did. They rasoned that a man who did what Lechmere did could not be the killer. But he could, and his actions would be very much in sync with how a psychopathic serial killer may go about things.

[MrBarnett]

What refuses to lie down and die, though, is the fact that he apparently didn't mention the name Lechmere to the police or the coroner.

He may well have been known as Cross at his workplace, but he clearly knew what his 'official' name was. Isn't it odd that he didn't mention both names?

Someone, (apologies, I can't remember who) once posted a long list of examples of people using alternative names when appearing at the Old Bailey. All sorts of reasons were given, including the informal adoption of a stepfather's surname. And the reason the poster was able to pick up on the alternative names? Because the subjects felt it was proper to reveal both names in court.

Why would Charles Allen Lechmere have not felt the same way?

Personally, I'm convinced that he would have done, but chose not to have the name Lechmere connected to the case.

[caz]

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.

Yeah, great advantage that, Fish. Calling yourself Cross after your stepdad and getting yourself suspected in the 21st century of several ghastly murders because this is claimed to be an 'anomaly'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

What refuses to lie down and die, though, is the fact that he apparently didn't mention the name Lechmere to the police or the coroner.

He may well have been known as Cross at his workplace, but he clearly knew what his 'official' name was. Isn't it odd that he didn't mention both names?

Someone, (apologies, I can't remember who) once posted a long list of examples of people using alternative names when appearing at the Old Bailey. All sorts of reasons were given, including the informal adoption of a stepfather's surname. And the reason the poster was able to pick up on the alternative names? Because the subjects felt it was proper to reveal both names in court.

Why would Charles Allen Lechmere have not felt the same way?

Personally, I'm convinced that he would have done, but chose not to have the name Lechmere connected to the case.

Bingo!

[Fisherman]

Yeah, great advantage that, Fish. Calling yourself Cross after your stepdad and getting yourself suspected in the 21st century of several ghastly murders because this is claimed to be an 'anomaly'.

Love,

Caz
X

Maybe in your universe, the concept of hiding your true identity by using an alternative name is unheard of...? You can take my word for it - it happens.

And if it helped him stay away from the gallows in the 19:th century, I kind of suspect that he would not worry all than much about having it revealed in the 21:st.

[caz]

Well put Caz,

It really not very likely is it? Especially when we consider that he could have avoided all of this with ease by simply walking or even running away as soon as he heard footsteps in Buck’s Row.

Ah, but if he was a psychopath, HS, he'd have been a stranger to panic and his idea of fun would have been to stick around and see just how many people he could fool without the slightest mishap.

And of course, if he was the killer, he did manage to fool everyone on the planet, right from Nichols to Coles and very possibly beyond, until he was long dead and beyond causing any more harm.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Neither possibility is unlikely at all. The streets adjoining Whitechapel Road would have been where the business was done, and so prostitutes would frequent them.

Equally, if Lechmere contacted Nichols on Whitechapel Street and she suggested to go to Bucks Row, why on earth would he turn the offer down? You are the first to tell me that Bucks Row would have been traversed by myriads of workers in the early hours, so he wouldn´t run much of a risk, would he?

If Lechmere had killed Nichols and not run into Paul and Mizen what if a day later or two days later they had decided to put an officer or two patrolling the collection of streets around and including Buck’s Row in the early hours looking for possible witnesses, it would have been hard to deny that he was near the body, his quickest and regular route to work.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Has it dawned on you that we don´t know when he arrived in Bucks Row, Herlock? So how do we know that he made the decision to killer her 20 to four? What if he decided to do so a quarter of an hour earlier? What stands in the way for that? That he would feely lie about not killing Nichols but never about the time he arrived in Bucks Row?
Different killers will be differently equipped to control themselves. There is no definitive scale, there are only killers who differ from case to case.

If he’d have decided to kill her 15 minutes earlier at say 3.25 and the murder took 2 minutes or so why did he loiter around for 13 minutes until Paul got there?

Paul said that he was standing in the road waiting for him. How long do we think that he’d have been standing there?