The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[GUT]

, and which were a pure as Jurassic rain, god fearing, never-tell-a-lie Abe Lincoln types (Mizen).

Except wasn't mr can't tell a lie, Washington not Lincoln?

[GUT]

Like virtually ALL Jack the Ripper "naming the killer" theories this one is certainly destined for the dustbin, simply by virtue of the fact that so much time has gone by, so much has been lost, so much simply wasn't known then, and therefore cannot be known now.

And thus All suspect theories fall by the wayside.

[Abby Normal]

Except wasn't mr can't tell a lie, Washington not Lincoln?

well yes they were both known for their honesty. "cannot tell a lie" Washington and "honest" Abe.

[Abby Normal]

This has been a fascinating thread on the time deal and both sides make compelling arguments.

But the more I think of it the more I'm still hmmmmm?

1. according to lechs testimony it seems mere seconds that he discovers the body and Paul shows up.

so to me there is still the question of why they didn't notice each other before bucks row. If lech had described a more lengthy actions upon discovering the body-like I went and tried to see if she was alive, tried to help her, looked around for someone etc. then OK fine-enough time has passed for Pauls entrance that they are obviously far enough apart in there trips not to have seen each other on the way.

but the way Lech describes it -it could be mere seconds-he sees something in the middle of the road, stops, takes a look, takes a few steps toward it, stops looks again and then Paul appears. It seems like we are talking mere seconds-5 seconds even-but no more than 20 in my mind.

so to me this point is still unresolved. and still bugs me.

2. missing time-good arguments on either side, but the no real missing time side is swaying me. if he left at 3:20 then definitely missing time-red flag. If he left "about 3:30" then probably not-or at least its still unclear. so the missing time thing is still up in the air but has lost a little bit of its luster for me.

3. This one bothers me the most now-lech is seen near the body before he raises the alarm. whats the chances of that happening? Paul just happens to come upon him in the few seconds he notices the body and stops-but before he tries to find someone or call for help? on a nearly deserted area. has any witness in this case had same circumstances?

So still basically unresolved-nothing to exonerate or dam, but to me these just raise more questions than answers-which seems to be par for the course for Lech.

all can be easily explained away innocently, but these questions seem to add up with lech, but they also can be easily explained by him lying and he actually left his house at 3:00 and killed Polly. He still isn't in my first tier of favored suspects but hes a valid one IMHO-and at least one that deserves the attention and further research.

[GUT]

well yes they were both known for their honesty. "cannot tell a lie" Washington and "honest" Abe.

Ahhh I forgot that bit. Always remember ole can't tell alie George and his Cherry Tree.

[Sam Flynn]

Yeah nowhere useful especially as regards Lechmere.

Don't forget...

nowhere = "now" + "here"

[Pcdunn]

Yes, but...

Except wasn't mr can't tell a lie, Washington not Lincoln?

George Washington: Supposedly said "Father, I cannot tell a lie" [Revealed to be a made-up incident by an author of biographies for children.]

Abe Lincoln: Known as "Honest Abe" from his youth as a shop-clerk, when he would chase after short-changed customers to return their money. Apparently true.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/honesty.htm

[Fisherman]

This has been a fascinating thread on the time deal and both sides make compelling arguments.

But the more I think of it the more I'm still hmmmmm?

1. according to lechs testimony it seems mere seconds that he discovers the body and Paul shows up.

so to me there is still the question of why they didn't notice each other before bucks row. If lech had described a more lengthy actions upon discovering the body-like I went and tried to see if she was alive, tried to help her, looked around for someone etc. then OK fine-enough time has passed for Pauls entrance that they are obviously far enough apart in there trips not to have seen each other on the way.

but the way Lech describes it -it could be mere seconds-he sees something in the middle of the road, stops, takes a look, takes a few steps toward it, stops looks again and then Paul appears. It seems like we are talking mere seconds-5 seconds even-but no more than 20 in my mind.

so to me this point is still unresolved. and still bugs me.

2. missing time-good arguments on either side, but the no real missing time side is swaying me. if he left at 3:20 then definitely missing time-red flag. If he left "about 3:30" then probably not-or at least its still unclear. so the missing time thing is still up in the air but has lost a little bit of its luster for me.

3. This one bothers me the most now-lech is seen near the body before he raises the alarm. whats the chances of that happening? Paul just happens to come upon him in the few seconds he notices the body and stops-but before he tries to find someone or call for help? on a nearly deserted area. has any witness in this case had same circumstances?

So still basically unresolved-nothing to exonerate or dam, but to me these just raise more questions than answers-which seems to be par for the course for Lech.

all can be easily explained away innocently, but these questions seem to add up with lech, but they also can be easily explained by him lying and he actually left his house at 3:00 and killed Polly. He still isn't in my first tier of favored suspects but hes a valid one IMHO-and at least one that deserves the attention and further research.

Itīs a good thing you are around, Abby. There is a lobby of people who have taken it upon themselves to claim that there is not and never was anything at all to point to in Lechmeres case, but you hit the bulls-eye: the more you look at the carman, the more questions will pop up and demand an answer. And "bullshit!" isnīt that answer.

[John Wheat]

Like virtually ALL Jack the Ripper "naming the killer" theories this one is certainly destined for the dustbin, simply by virtue of the fact that so much time has gone by, so much has been lost, so much simply wasn't known then, and therefore cannot be known now.

The Cross/Lechmere theory - taken on faith - is intriguing. The idea that the man has been under our noses all these years, mostly unsuspected, is fascinating. Alas, it works best as a work of fiction because one must suspend disbelief, make assumptions, choose which press reports were inaccurate and which were rock solid. We must determine which witnesses publicity seeking police haters spouting lies from the stand (Paul), and which were a pure as Jurassic rain, god fearing, never-tell-a-lie Abe Lincoln types (Mizen). We must make inferences regarding timing at a time when such things were more than a little difficult. We must create blood "evidence" from adjectives that appeared in press reports, and assign the work of torso killers and various random murderers to our man in order to have him continue killing until age forces him to give it up in favor of - as best we can tell - the life of a shopkeeper.

Christer has done an excellent job of supporting and defending the theory. He's got answers for all comers. I - like most, it seems - have not found those answers compelling. In the end, I think the documentary may have served to convince those not all that familiar with the murders that his suspect may be Jack the Ripper. I know that many I've spoken to who are very familiar with the murders - many on these boards - contend that it had the opposite affect. It tries to hard, it sensationalizes, it makes implausible contentions and contrived contentions.

Perhaps Christer knows more than he's letting on. Maybe he's holding a hole card that puts Lechmere in the crosshairs. I have no idea. I just know that to date I've seen nothing that leads me to suspect the man in the slightest.

Hi Patrick

I agree largely with what you're saying. Although I think you're giving Christer too much credit. I find it highly unlikely he has anything up his sleeve as regards Lechmere. Also for some unknown reason he has gone to ludicrous lengths to finger a clearly innocent man.

Cheers John

[Patrick S]

Except wasn't mr can't tell a lie, Washington not Lincoln?

Never heard of Honest Abe?

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick

I agree largely with what you're saying. Although I think you're giving Christer too much credit. I find it highly unlikely he has anything up his sleeve as regards Lechmere. Also for some unknown reason he has gone to ludicrous lengths to finger a clearly innocent man.

Cheers John

I have researched Cross/Lechmere and I've found evidence that suggests - in my view - that he was a nothing less than an honest, very hard working, industrious, upwardly mobile family man who did well for himself at a time and in a place where that was no simple thing.

Christer's M.O. is to refute aspects of Cross/Lechmere's life with examples of "serialists" who share some characteristics with his suspect. Nevertheless its relevant to me and I'll keep pointing out that the man was married to the same woman for fifty years, he maintained steady employment at Pickford's for twenty plus years, he and his wife raised ten children and those children became - like Cross/Lechmere - fairly successful, productive adults. He improved his family's address throughout his life. He opened a shop in retirement. He left his wife a tidy inheritance when he dies in his 70s. And more, I've found no evidence of his ever having been arrested, accused of anything, fired from a job.

All that said, if Christer says he has more, it's incumbent upon me to take him at his word. If Christer says he genuinely believes in his guilt, then I will continue to take him at his word. I've no animus. I admit that I did at one time. I let frustration get the better of me more than few times in the course of these message board debates. In the end it's better - for me - to be a 'happy warrior'. More productive in the end, as well.

[MrBarnett]

Why leave out his early years, which were not exactly a bed of roses?

His father did a runner, leaving his mother, a Herefordshire woman who had probably thought she had made a good match by marrying into a prominent local family, to singlehandedly bring up two small children in London, where she perhaps had little or no support network.

She married (bigamously, I think?) a younger man, a policeman, also from Herefordshire and wound up in the East End - in Tiger Bay no less, when that term meant something.

And after remarrying, she had her children belatedly Christened with their birth name of Lechmere, a rather odd thing to do, I'd say.

Did any of this have a negative effect on the boy's personality? Who knows? Perhaps it wasn't him who dumped a torso opposite his childhood home.

But it's an interesting little story.



I haven't looked at Lech for a while, but I'm sure if I've got anything wrong or omitted anything significant from his early years, I'll soon hear about it :-).

[Fisherman]

Why leave out his early years, which were not exactly a bed of roses?

His father did a runner, leaving his mother, a Herefordshire woman who had probably thought she had made a good match by marrying into a prominent local family, to singlehandedly bring up two small children in London, where she perhaps had little or no support network.

She married (bigamously, I think?) a younger man, a policeman, also from Herefordshire and wound up in the East End - in Tiger Bay no less, when that term meant something.

And after remarrying, she had her children belatedly Christened with their birth name of Lechmere, a rather odd thing to do, I'd say.

Did any of this have a negative effect on the boy's personality? Who knows? Perhaps it wasn't him who dumped a torso opposite his childhood home.

But it's an interesting little story.



I haven't looked at Lech for a while, but I'm sure if I've got anything wrong or omitted anything significant from his early years, I'll soon hear about it :-).

You havenīt got anything wrong, Gary - not that such a thing is in any way a guarantee that you wonīt hear any criticism just the same. It may even be that what you hear does not deserve the rather awe-inspiring term "criticism".

Be that as it may, you make a good point. I am sure many strivers become striver on account of a wish to "show them", and that their lives are not always as commendable as it may seem at first sight.

[Fisherman]

If Christer says he genuinely believes in his guilt, then I will continue to take him at his word.

To me, this is one of then oddest suggestions I have ever heard - that I would not believe myself that the carman was guilty. I find it extremely hard to get my head around the suggestion. Why would I make such a thing up...?

We are speaking of a man who was found alone in a dark street, standing quite close to the body of a freshly killed murder victim, who by the press accounts from the inquest beld for many minutes afterwards - something that made the forensic expert Jason Payne-James suggest that he fits the murderers frame very well.

We are speaking of a man who then used another name than the one he otherwise used in authority contacts, and we have only this example - from the murder inquest - of him using this alternative name.

We are speaking of a case where the victims wounds were covered, in sharp contrast to the other Ripper victims - and where there would have been a need to do so for Lechmere if he was the killer.

Last, but not least, we are speaking of a man who according to a serving PC presented a lie, perfectly shaped to take him past the police.

That is a very compelling set of circumstances, no matter how we look at it. He ticks every box there is to tick, if he was the killer.

Why would I NOT believe in his guilt? Because scores of people can come up with innocent alternative explanations? It is the easiest thing in the world! Finding another man who fits the pattern of a killer the way Lechmere does is instead impossible, looking at the case facts.

[Patrick S]

Why leave out his early years, which were not exactly a bed of roses?

His father did a runner, leaving his mother, a Herefordshire woman who had probably thought she had made a good match by marrying into a prominent local family, to singlehandedly bring up two small children in London, where she perhaps had little or no support network.

She married (bigamously, I think?) a younger man, a policeman, also from Herefordshire and wound up in the East End - in Tiger Bay no less, when that term meant something.

And after remarrying, she had her children belatedly Christened with their birth name of Lechmere, a rather odd thing to do, I'd say.

Did any of this have a negative effect on the boy's personality? Who knows? Perhaps it wasn't him who dumped a torso opposite his childhood home.

But it's an interesting little story.



I haven't looked at Lech for a while, but I'm sure if I've got anything wrong or omitted anything significant from his early years, I'll soon hear about it :-).

I'd like to hear more about the torso found "opposite" Lechmere's "childhood home". It sounds like - as you say - an interesting story.