It was Lechmere.

[RareEarther]

I made my case to assist the prosecution in the previous thread.

***********
Scott Nelson
02-23-2008, 02:21 AM
It's a pity that Michael Conner didn't once mention the name of Derek Osborne in any of his three Ripperologist articles on Cross/Lechmere (No. 72 Oct. 2006; no. 78 April 2007, or last month's no. 87).

It was Osborne who first posited that Charles Cross was none other than Charles Lechmere (see Ripperana, no. 37, July 2001, p. 12-17

***********
It was Michael Connor who wrote 2 articles in 2006 that brought attention to him.
Later, others elaborated and a television program gave a convincing case that it was Lech.

Hot & cold wars ever since.

Regardless, I am rational.
It was Lechmere.
Convince me otherwise.

[Rainbow]

I personaly can't.

Think about it, a man had been spoted near a freshly killed, still bleading woman, whom still had some movement in her chest ( Paul had thought she still breathing ) , he didn't let Paul touch the woman, this man later gave a different name, a false statement to a policeman, most of the crimes happened in his rote to work, he knew the roads and police movements because he always goes at this time, he was even late to his work that night, and Paul was in a hurry to work when he spoted him, Lechmere is a local carman who transports meats and it is normal to him to have blood on his clothes... and furthermore, any other killer couldn't be identified till today

If he wasn't, then I think those woman had committed suicide!


Rainbow°

[Mike J. G.]

I made my case to assist the prosecution in the previous thread.

***********
Scott Nelson
02-23-2008, 02:21 AM
It's a pity that Michael Conner didn't once mention the name of Derek Osborne in any of his three Ripperologist articles on Cross/Lechmere (No. 72 Oct. 2006; no. 78 April 2007, or last month's no. 87).

It was Osborne who first posited that Charles Cross was none other than Charles Lechmere (see Ripperana, no. 37, July 2001, p. 12-17

***********
It was Michael Connor who wrote 2 articles in 2006 that brought attention to him.
Later, others elaborated and a television program gave a convincing case that it was Lech.

Hot & cold wars ever since.

Regardless, I am rational.
It was Lechmere.
Convince me otherwise.

Allo, there. I'm not sure if it really works like that. If you're absolutely convinced of any one suspect, then it's down to you to prove it, not for someone to disprove it. I'm guessing that the amount of evidence for Lech is as lacking as most other suspects, hence why we're no closer to solving the mystery.

Personally, while I enjoyed the documentary on Lech, I didn't find it all that convincing, any more so than any other suspect. I do find his involvement in the Nichols case interesting, but purely because he was actually there as a witness to the "post-crime" scene.

I've lurked here for a long time and have read a lot of the Lech threads, and while I appreciate the effort being put into it, I think that a lot of the effort is forced, as it is with other suspects whom people choose to favour for one reason or another.

The problem is, when you have a suspect and you've written your piece about him and are selling it online, you're going to keep up that train of thought even when the tracks are hitting dead-ends and the routes don't make any sense.

[Mike J. G.]

I personaly can't.

Think about it, a man had been spoted near a freshly killed, still bleading woman, whom still had some movement in her chest ( Paul had thought she still breathing ) , he didn't let Paul touch the woman, this man later gave a different name, a false statement to a policeman, most of the crimes happened in his rote to work, he knew the roads and police movements because he always goes at this time, he was even late to his work that night, and Paul was in a hurry to work when he spoted him, Lechmere is a local carman who transports meats and it is normal to him to have blood on his clothes... and furthermore, any other killer couldn't be identified till today

If he wasn't, then I think those woman had committed suicide!


Rainbow°

When you put it like that, it certainly seems convincing, but under closer scrutiny it isn't as solid as it is when you put it in bullet-points.

[drstrange169]

>>Think about it, a man had been spoted near a freshly killed, still bleading woman...<<

If true it is exceedingly strange that neither man got any blood on themselves or saw blood exiting Mrs. Nichols body.


>> ... he didn't let Paul touch the woman ..<<

Really? Could you show where either man claimed that to be the case?


>> ... this man later gave a different name ... <<

A fact now firmly established to be common in court cases and in thiose cases, not associated with guilt of any kind.


>> ... a false statement to a policeman ...<<

Some with an agenda have alleged a false statement was made. To date nobody has shown it to be a fact.


>> ... most of the crimes happened in his rote to work ..<<

To make this claim, the exact part of Broad Street Station that Xmere walked to, needs to be known, to date nobody has found that information. There were possibly as many eight entrances to Broad Street Station, most would require Xmere to detour from his route to pass by some murder sites.


>>... he knew the roads and police movements because he always goes at this time ...<<

Do you know the police movements on your route to work? I certainly don't and I suspect I'm not alone in that. In fact, the whole point of Sgt. Kirby checking on Neil and others was random inspections.


>> ... he was even late to his work that night ...<<

He says he arrived at work at four o'clock. What was his start time?


>> ... Lechmere is a local carman who transports meats ...<<

That has been speculated by some who have an agenda, but is there any factual evidence that Xmere's job involved meat delivery?


>>... and it is normal to him to have blood on his clothes... <<

Again this is simply something that has been made up without any factual basis.


And this in a nutshell sums up the case against Charles Allen Lechmere, stories, guesses and innuendo presented as facts.

He may or may not be the killer, but nothing in your post is credible evidence against him and there's the rub.

[GUT]

I'll take it a step further.

My dad was a carrier for nearly 60 years.

At times meat was one of the things he carted, most he ever got was a slight pink stain.

Most meat carcasses were (yep even back in 1888), delivered wrapped in cloth. Do you know why??? Because the cloth would be soaked in water keeping the meat cool and fresh.

No evidence what routes he took to work, or even that he took more than one.

No evidence that he carted meat.

No evidence that he would regularly be blood stained.

The evidence there is in the "Mizen Scam" supports Cross' version more than Mizen's.

I know I keep harping on about evidence, I also know that Cross/mere isn't the only witness that this total lack of evidence applies to.

I can find evidence that certain persons were suspected by one or more police officer, but yet to find any evidence that any of them was Jack.

[Rainbow]

Evidences ?!

Who talked about evidences here ?!

It is about logic... a man had been spoted near a freshly killed, still bleeding, who still have some movements in her cheast...

You want to add another player to the scene, a phantom killer, to make them Three!

Three men at 3:40 am at the same spot while the poor woman suffer her death...

Its behind all the logic in the world, as Rareearther said, I can see it , you can't.. it is realy simple as this...

You want to send us to a world of fantasy, were the killers have wings , they can fly in the sky and jump 20 meters ... a world full of those suspects whom we even don't know were did they live in 1888, or maybe you want us to pick an ill man from an asylum , who eat from garbage... to make him the most cleaver searial killer in the world, or a poor teacher who committed sucide, make him a doctor and throw every thing on his shoulders..

You want evidences, then look for it, I have found mine!

Rainbow°

[drstrange169]

>>Evidences ?! Who talked about evidences here ?!<<

I believe it was Gut and I, we're funny that way. No more to be said.

[Harry D]

It was Lechmere.

Oh no, it wasn't.

[Mike J. G.]

Evidences ?!

Who talked about evidences here ?!

It is about logic... a man had been spoted near a freshly killed, still bleeding, who still have some movements in her cheast...

You want to add another player to the scene, a phantom killer, to make them Three!

Three men at 3:40 am at the same spot while the poor woman suffer her death...

Its behind all the logic in the world, as Rareearther said, I can see it , you can't.. it is realy simple as this...

You want to send us to a world of fantasy, were the killers have wings , they can fly in the sky and jump 20 meters ... a world full of those suspects whom we even don't know were did they live in 1888, or maybe you want us to pick an ill man from an asylum , who eat from garbage... to make him the most cleaver searial killer in the world, or a poor teacher who committed sucide, make him a doctor and throw every thing on his shoulders..

You want evidences, then look for it, I have found mine!

Rainbow°

There's no actual evidence to suggest there was any life still in Nichols, nor is there any evidence to properly determine her actual time of death. It's like you just keep posting the same nonsense for the sake of it.

[drstrange169]

The fact that any thread that debates Charles Allen Lechmere always degenerates into nonsense, speaks volumes;-)

[Rainbow]

There's no actual evidence to suggest there was any life still in Nichols, nor is there any evidence to properly determine her actual time of death. It's like you just keep posting the same nonsense for the sake of it.

These are my evidences, from the inquest itself, if you don't like them, then... don't..

And all of your posts are just accusing others of posting nonsense, better to just keep watching than commenting, isn't that what security officers just do ?! watching ?!

ohn Neil, police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard. The reply was "No." Sergeant Kirby came after, and he knocked. The doctor looked at the woman and then said, "Move her to the mortuary. She is dead, and I will make a further examination of her." We placed her on the ambulance, and moved her there. Inspector Spratley came to the mortuary, and while taking a description of the deceased turned up her clothes, and found that she was disembowelled. This had not been noticed by any of them before. On the body was found a piece of comb and a bit of looking-glass. No money was found, but an unmarked white handkerchief was found in her pocket.
The Coroner: Did you notice any blood where she was found?
Witness: There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck.
The Coroner: Did you hear any noise that night?
Witness: No; I heard nothing. The farthest I had been that night was just through the Whitechapel-road and up Baker's-row. I was never far away from the spot.

The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman

These (nonsense) had convinced me..

As I told you, go and find your way. don't expect others to help you while you are just setting and enjoying your cafe and doing NOTHING .


Rainbow°

[Rainbow]

Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete.

Lechmere had been trapped like a mouse in a tube.


Rainbow°

[Rainbow]

Cross at the inquest:

The other man (Paul) placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."

Lechmere refused to touch her, ... weird...., he was curious to stop and look at her and stop another man and go to her, but then refused to help her or to touch her..

Paul was a normal man, Lechmere wasn't.


Rainbow°

[Herlock Sholmes]

Congratulations.

You are the first person that I've ever heard of who feels that evidence is not needed!

Why are you incapable of reading was is being said and ACTUALLY responding to it rather than going on about 'coincidences' and 'phantom killers.'

If you had taken the time to read the research, which has been pointed out to you, about the name for example you wouldn't keep making the same errors. There is a huge amount of ACTUAL WRITTEN PROOF that people often used other names and it was often, as in Lechmere's case, because they took the name of their step father (Mr Cross) after their real father (Mr Lechmere) had died. He even used the name Cross on a census!
He didn't give a FALSE name. He gave the name that he used. But just to add to this. If he'd given a name like Fred Smith and then tried to hide away from the police then that WOULD have been suspicious. But he didn't. He gave the name that he used and, this is the clincher by the way, he gave his REAL address.

NO ATTEMPT TO HIDE
NOTHING SUSPICIOUS
NO MYSTERY

Now, any reasonable person would say.......oh ok, so there's no point in going on about the name thing then.

But you still will I bet. In desperation!

By the way, I'll waste my breath again by saying read the detailed research done on timings. THERE WAS EASILY ENOUGH TIME FOR SOMEONE TO KILL NICHOLLS BEFORE CROSS FOUND HER. EASILY.

And finally, please, please, please stop going on about coincidences. It's completely meaningless (and very annoying)

Herlock