So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

Yes, Abby, because none of the above could possibly have put two and two together and twigged that Charles Allen Cross, Pickfords carman, who discovered a murdered prostitute in Buck's Row, was actually their hubby/family member/workmate, known only to them as Charles Allen Lechmere, Pickfords carman, who would have been walking that way to work, at the same hour of the morning.

Love,

Caz
X

It wouldnīt be a given, no. Many may not have known that he walked Bucks Row, he had only just moved to hos new lodgings. And the name came in many shades, George Cross, Charles Allan Cross, Charles Allen Cross etc. There were hundreds of carmen at Pickfords.
And in the end, it is not all about how efficient it was, but instead about why the effort was made.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Yes, the guy the Lechmerians approached and advised on the case happens to agree with their assessment. What are the odds?

It was Blink Films who approached Griffiths. I myself expressed a wish to have a murder squad detective appearing and looking at the case, and I voiced how I did not want him to be a ripperologist or have a deep interest in the case.
So Griffiths was not approached by "the Lechmereians" at all. He was in all probability contacted by Sam Taplin, who entered the production with no view of his own about who was the killer and left it cinvinced that we had found the Ripper.
Iīm sorry, but now matter how you twist and turn things, it remains that Grigīffiths is an authority and expert on matters like these, and his word carries great weight.
This is mirrored in your reoccurring efforts to nullify him. It it had been my businessman uncle who had voiced what Griffiths voiced, you would care a iot, but instead go ahead with the classical "what does HE know" and sneer at him.
Canīt do that with Griffiths, eh?


Well, no. Kosminski was named by several senior officials of the time, and supposedly got away with the murders on a technicality. That's not conjecture, those are first-hand reports from contemporary policemen. Lechmere was never treated as a suspect (for good reason). He was among the many witnesses who stepped into the spotlight and faded back into anonymity.

A Kosminski (whether it was Aaron is up for discussion, and some experts think he was interchanged with "David Cohen") was mentioned by some police bigwigs. And it was suggested that he had participated in an identification. None of this is verified or verifiable, and so all we pile up on his back is conjecture.

There is no way you can win, Harry. The sooner you realize that, the better and less space-consuming.

[caz]

I agree Fish
and perhaps to keep his more commonly used name out of the papers might have been done (if guilty) to perhaps keep it from wife, family members, friends, cowrkers etc. who might have put two and two together if they had seen or suspected anything suspicious from him.

Yes, Abby, because none of the above could possibly have put two and two together and twigged that Charles Allen Cross, Pickfords carman, who discovered a murdered prostitute in Buck's Row, was actually their hubby/family member/workmate, known only to them as Charles Allen Lechmere, Pickfords carman, who would have been walking that way to work, at the same hour of the morning.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: But sadly Lechmere has no way to defend himself and give the jury - us - his explanation, so we can't judge whether it's a sound or unsound one.

Precisely. That is why it also applies that he is not around to confess.

Added to this is the very real possibility that the same Pickfords carman was involved a dozen years earlier, in the collision which caused the accidental death of a child, and called himself Cross on that occasion, for reasons we have no way of knowing, but which can't reasonably be interpreted as sinister or suspicious.

A/ It is possible it was our man, but no certainty. If there was a Charlie Cross among his coworkers, it could provide him with a very interesting possibility to use that alias, for example. And of course it can be interpreted as something less than innocent if he gave an alias. It always can, it is only a question if we can see it or not.

So unless it can be ascertained that this Charles Cross was definitely not the Buck's Row witness, I would have to give Lechmere the benefit of the doubt, that his reasons were similar on both occasions, and not connected to any criminality on his part.

No, you would not have to do that - you choose to do so. It is up to each of us to make our own choice on this point, and it remains an anomaly that he used Cross over Lechmere, an anomaly that will not go away.

One obvious possibility is that he had been known as Charlie Cross at Pickfords from day one, so naturally used that name for both work-related incidents.

So he was Cross with the authorities if the matter was work-related? But how is it workrelated in Bucks Row. He was not at work, was he? And is it not a totally weird and impractical thing? "Letīs see now, I had dinner that I brought home from work, so am I Lechmere or Cross eating it?"

Also plausible is that he didn't want the Lechmere name to be connected with such distressing events. Why would he not have tried to spare Mrs Lechmere and the Lechmere offspring from local and playground gossip, following his discovery of a murdered prostitute on his route to work, if using the name Cross could have helped?

Itīs a possibility. As is the sinister version. If I was to check which is the more likely thing, I would try and see if there are any signs of him duping the police and/or having a working trek that took him close to the victims.

Again, I have to ask exactly what Lechmere would have thought to gain, by not revealing that name to the authorities, had he been the killer?

No, you donīt have to do that at all. You only need to go back and read my answer on dozens of threads, itīs the same answer over and over again.

How would that have helped protect him from suspicion, in the event of a routine check to confirm his identity, using the other details he had freely provided?

Check the old threads! It IS there. Clue: It was not about avoiding police suspicion.

We can only speculate what his reasoning would have been if guilty, but there is no evidence whatsoever that using the name Lechmere would have been the more risky option.

And no evidence whatsoever that it could not have been.

If anything it should be the other way round for anyone who believes he only adopted the name Cross in connection with the murder in Buck's Row, and was known as Lechmere in every other context.

Maybe you thought too long and deep about that, Caz. It didnīt come out very well.

[Harry D]

Who says I am relying uncritically on experts? I am saying that Griffiths thoughts are in line with my own thinking, and so it is him who agrees with me, itīs not the other way around.

Yes, the guy the Lechmerians approached and advised on the case happens to agree with their assessment. What are the odds?

Kosminski is about conjecture, while Lechmere is about facts..

Well, no. Kosminski was named by several senior officials of the time, and supposedly got away with the murders on a technicality. That's not conjecture, those are first-hand reports from contemporary policemen. Lechmere was never treated as a suspect (for good reason). He was among the many witnesses who stepped into the spotlight and faded back into anonymity.

[MrBarnett]

I really wouldn't be trying to push the position that JtR is reversing his MO and Signature and after Nichols, but if you want to do that, have at it.

However, that's going to be completely your choice.

I make mistakes. I don't claim to be infallible. Do you? I can even show posts where I go, aha, made a mistake. I wonder if you can?

Anyway, it seems you have a choice to make at this juncture.

Do you press on with this MO and Signature swapping claim or do you walk away from it and leave Fisherman to the consequences of his own making?

I have made no such claims. I just voiced my opinions about Baxter.

Now perhaps you can explain how you can give advice about using the latest peer reviewed data when you yourself cut and paste from years old Casebook pages.

[Fisherman]

Eliza claimed that while she was in the cells at the police court the next day, the man in the next cell called out 'I am Charlie, the man who murdered your husband; I am highly sorry.'

Given that he called himself Charlie, it has a ring of truth to it...

[Fisherman]

Batman: You mean like how you omit Bond agreeing with Baxter that all the C5 had their throats cut first.

No, I mean like promoting Baxter in one instance as more reliable than a medico, only to in the next breath not warrant him any trust at all.
As for omitting, maybe we need to omit that Bond never saw and examined Nicholsī body? And maybe we need to omit to mention how Bond said a few things that were a tad weird about the victims?

As we can see your idea that JtR is swapping MO with Signature is purely suspect driven with a disregard for the Coroners ability to overrule a finding with subsequent findings.

Yes, thatīs the way to go - call me purely suspect driven and try to discard everything I say as useless. Way to go, Batman! And letīs forget about what Gary pointed out a few posts back - how you get things wrong over and over again.
If we can manage BOTH those things, you may look fairly good. The best of luck with the effort!

You reject all the subsequent amendments by coroners and doctors, like Bond.

Since I have not commented on any amendments at all, I think you are lying by now. Plus you are elevating the idea that Nichols neck was cut first to an amendment, forgetting that this "amendment" was the brain child of a coroner that was in conflict with the medical opinion given by the doctor who actually examined the body.

We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.

"We"? You need a cold shower, Batman. If Bond and/or other medicos had examined Llewellyn and conclusively said that there could be no doubt that the neck came first, I would say thank you very much and accept it. But I am not ready to get my knickers in a twist over how Bond made a guess that he did not base on having seen and examined Nichols.
In the end, what Bond said was " All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut."
So he commented on the circumstances surrounding the murders, and not on the medical specifics in the Nichols case.

If your claims were true there would be no exhumations.

If Llewellyn said that Nichols abdomen was cut first, there would be no exhumations?

I see.

[MrBarnett]

Doesnīt get much more hands on than that, Gary. Fascinating stuff!

Eliza claimed that while she was in the cells at the police court the next day, the man in the next cell called out 'I am Charlie, the man who murdered your husband; I am highly sorry.'

[Batman]

All exhumations, for whatever reason, have to be authorised by a coroner. Were the inquest findings on Bessie and Mary 'overruled'?

The wording of your post is almost identical to that of the Casebook victim profile of Chapman (see below). Is that the latest peer-reviewed account of his life?


The bodies of his two previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women.

Of course, they are overruled. Science works this exact way also. If new information (new data) is obtained then a review of the work should be undertaken if the new data is significant. This very process of exhumations that change a cause of death is an example of it happening.

Anyway, this whole discussion is because a subject driven orientation of the case now wants JtR to swap his MO and Signature after Nichols. That's what this is about and you have tried to avoid this question put to you several posts back.

Is that what you really believe? That Lechmere swapped his MO and Signature after Nichols?

[caz]

There are possibilities to choose from, and it is hard to rate them. But it remains that if one researches Lechmere as a suspect, then the name business does not do him any good at all. I agree with what Scobie said in this context, "He is somebody who seems to be acting, to be behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like".

The name matter is just such a thing, regardless if it is innocent or not - no jury likes it unless a sound explanation is provided.

But sadly Lechmere has no way to defend himself and give the jury - us - his explanation, so we can't judge whether it's a sound or unsound one.

Added to this is the very real possibility that the same Pickfords carman was involved a dozen years earlier, in the collision which caused the accidental death of a child, and called himself Cross on that occasion, for reasons we have no way of knowing, but which can't reasonably be interpreted as sinister or suspicious. So unless it can be ascertained that this Charles Cross was definitely not the Buck's Row witness, I would have to give Lechmere the benefit of the doubt, that his reasons were similar on both occasions, and not connected to any criminality on his part. One obvious possibility is that he had been known as Charlie Cross at Pickfords from day one, so naturally used that name for both work-related incidents. Also plausible is that he didn't want the Lechmere name to be connected with such distressing events. Why would he not have tried to spare Mrs Lechmere and the Lechmere offspring from local and playground gossip, following his discovery of a murdered prostitute on his route to work, if using the name Cross could have helped?

Again, I have to ask exactly what Lechmere would have thought to gain, by not revealing that name to the authorities, had he been the killer? How would that have helped protect him from suspicion, in the event of a routine check to confirm his identity, using the other details he had freely provided? We can only speculate what his reasoning would have been if guilty, but there is no evidence whatsoever that using the name Lechmere would have been the more risky option. If anything it should be the other way round for anyone who believes he only adopted the name Cross in connection with the murder in Buck's Row, and was known as Lechmere in every other context.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

Of course they can. The bodies of his George Chapman's previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902 by order of the coroner.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women and the coroner’s court determined that Maud Marsh had been wilfully murdered by George Chapman.

All exhumations, for whatever reason, have to be authorised by a coroner. Were the inquest findings on Bessie and Mary 'overruled'?

The wording of your post is almost identical to that of the Casebook victim profile of Chapman (see below). Is that the latest peer-reviewed account of his life?


The bodies of his two previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women.

[Fisherman]

Baxter was a puffed-up, self-opinionated twerp.

I have to admit to a certain personal bias in the matter, though, because he once insulted several members of my family.

He was presiding over the inquest of a man who had been killed in a drunken brawl in Spitalfields. The victim's wife gave evidence and Baxter saw fit to question whether the couple were legally married. When the grieving widow insisted that they were, Baxter made a sarky remark about supposing it to be a 'Spitalfields marriage'. In fact the couple had been legally married for a decade. But even if they hadn't, how callous to ridicule a recently bereaved woman in that way.

As I say, the death occurred during a drunken brawl. My grandad was involved and admitted that he'd had 11 or 12 pints of beer and that the deceased was even more drunk. The wife, my grandad's cousin Eliza, was in the cells at Commercial Street police station at the time her old man was killed, having been arrested for being involved in an earlier drunken brawl in the Three Cranes in Brick Lane.

Baxter summed up by calling all those involved a 'right crew'.

Andy Griffiths strikes me as a self-effacing, competent policeman with vast experience of murder investigation. I'd take his opinion over Baxter's any day of the week.

Rant over.😉

Doesnīt get much more hands on than that, Gary. Fascinating stuff!

[Fisherman]

The intestines were noted as protruding from the wounds, and I'm sure it would have been noticed if they'd been sliced through in the process of cutting the abdominal aorta. If that vessel had indeed been severed first, then there'd have been copious amounts of blood in the abdominal cavity.

Yes, Gareth, I too am sure that it would have been noticed if the intestines were cut through. Doctors donīt miss out on such things. The real problem, though, is that we are not informed about how the abdominal damage looked, do we?

And who says that there was not copious (a maximum of perhaps 3-3,5 litres or thereabouts) amount of blood in the abdominal cavity? Llewellyn gives no measure.

I wonder how this thread turned into a Nichols abdominal wounds thread, by the way. Wasnīt it supposed to be about the geographical implications of the murders?

[Fisherman]

Joshua Rogan: Does Baxter actually establish this, or does his use of "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that..." show this is just Baxter's opinion of Llewellyn's opinion?

Any presentation of what somebody has said is just that: a presentation of what somebody has said. In that respect, what the papers report is the same, a representation of what was said.
We know that Baxter also tells us that Llewellyn opined that the abdominal wounds killed Nichols, and so there can be no case of the neck wounds having done that - as per Llewellyn/Baxter.


Swanson's Sept 19th report also says Llewellyn expressed the opinion that the abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat was cut, but like
Gareth, I would be happy to see where Llewellyn actually says that the abdominal wounds came first, as I'm struggling to find such a reference.

I would be very happy to see it too, since I believe that Helson muddled things unnecessarily.