Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[curious]

And remember the newspaper story that gave rise to this stop and check process had only appeared the evening before the early morning dragnet.

If it were true - and I think it is far fetched - then it is hardly a pointer to Charles Lechmere's innocence anyway.

Of course it is, Lechemere, and all of us on here realize that, but don't expect either you or Fisherman to see it that way.

You have made a great deal of Lechmere appearing at the inquest in his work clothes and how that points to his guilt.

If he appeared at the inquest in his work clothes because he was on his way to work when he was detoured to the inquest, that part of your argument, and one of the cornerstones, is totally destroyed.

And perhaps it was not a dragnet at all, but the patrolling PCs just keeping their eyes out after the briefing when they went on duty -- I suppose policemen check in and are updated on what's going on before their shifts start. All I know about that is TV and recognize that can be wrong. The story was read and talked about,then Cross/Lechmere encountered a PC on his way to work. See how simple and easy that is?

Add to the fact that Paul admitted to pulling down the dress, and poof -- there's another part gone. If it was too dark for Cross/Lechmere and Paul to have seen the cut throat, it was too dark to see the abdominal wounds.

Cross/Lechmere should have been checked out and you and Fisherman have done that -- but . . .

Everything I see points to him being a steady, hardworking good guy.

curious

[caz]

Maybe, Caz, I am not the taliban here ...?

Steady on, old bean.

I have said that I think he was the killer. That is not a position from which you vehemently argue his innocence, Iīm afraid. Itīs a position from which you take on all criticism that comes along and check whether your theory holds fast against whatever can be thrown at it. So far, it works eminently, apparently so much so as to discourage you from battling on.

I can't discourage you from thinking that if you must. But let me put it this way. If you thought the moon was made of cream cheese, and no arguments to the contrary were holding water for you, the fact that few people would bother 'battling on' would not be due to your theory holding fast, my friend.

In short, it's not for you to check if your own theory works, but for your peers. If all but one or two end up voting with their feet, do you seriously believe your millions of words on the subject will have proved you right about Cross's guilt?

Love,

Caz
X

[curious]

Hi Lechmere,

"Can you point to any other examples of a witness being brought to an inquest on the same day as they were plucked from the streets in some sort of dragnet."

If you don't mind my sticking my head in here for a moment, I've got examples of that very thing happening in Roderick Macdonald's court on October 4 1888.

Two bodies in two unrelated cases were found in Wood Green that afternoon--the bodies were reported a couple of hours apart. Since Macdonlad happened to be there nearby already holding an inquest with a jury, the police took the bodies and the witnesses over to where Macdonald was. He's there, his jury's there, everyone's there, and he opened inquests on each body, with the witnesses giving their testimony and making references to "today". One body was reported at 12.30 that afternoon, the second at 2.40 on the same, so it's very soon after these times that the inquests were opened.

These are two inquests that no one could have predicted, and the witnesses were rounded up and brought to the coroner immediately. I don't see Macdonald having time to prepare summonses, but I should say that Macdonald's officer in Wood Green was a police sergeant who was involved at the scene of one of these cases. In any case, these inquests opened very, very quickly.

I think these two cases may be extraordinary due to Macdonald being in the vicinity with a jury, but they do show that it was possible to bring in a witness off the street and have him directly produced at an inquest all on the same day.

However, I don't claim to know that it happened in the case you're discussing here.

Best,
Dave

Hi, Dave,
thank you for those instances that show it is possible that Cross/Lechmere could in some way have been detoured from going to work to testify at the inquest on the same day.

This makes so much more sense to me than that he went to the police station on Sunday and volunteered himself, there is absolutely no evidence of that.

It appears to me that his wearing his work clothes to court is evidence that he was on his way to work and got detoured.

I very much appreciate your coming up with these examples.

curious

[curious]

Hello Curious,
Sometimes it is not only that events are forgotten, sometimes it just is a desire to not spread tragic events. My grandmother is rare these days, less than a handful like her are left. She was the youngest child to a man that was in his 70's when she was born, and he lived well into her early years, Go Great gramps! Anyway, this places her into an extremely tiny group; she is the child of a slave, a slave set free in his teens, and he remembered the life as a slave until the day that he died. That is all that she will say about it, and I respect that. It is a monster of a bridge in American history, but it is her bridge to do with as she wants.

Thanks, sleekviper,
Yes, different people feel differently about passing on the past to their descendants.

Thanks for sharing this part of your story. Your grandmother is indeed in a very tiny group still alive and it is her bridge to do with as she likes.

Some families talk about the way things used to be, others don't. Some individuals in some families talk, others don't. I've learned that in my genealogy work as years ago, when I had uncles and aunts and great-uncles and great-aunts still alive I attempted to talk to them. Some passed on memories and others did not. Some individuals collect family stories, others seem not to.

I appreciate your respect and caring and pride that I feel you have for your grandmother and your ancestors.

I sincerely hope that we all manage to safely cross that terrible bridge someday.

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"Hope you don't mind my butting in, Fish..."

Never did, never will

" To get your scenario into the saddle, you have to add a few things of your own first which either aren’t particularly supported by any evidence or aren’t the most logical things to suppose."

Absolutely. This equipage wonīt get on the road without help. But I think I can safely say that none of the suggestions I make are in conflict with the known evidence or in any manner illogical. But letīs see what youīve got!

"Not that I suppose Paul did wore worn-down shoes, but you have to suppose Cross the killer was in a ‘bubble’, cutting away at Nichols in order for him not to notice Paul too soon."

Actually, no. I just suggest it as a possibility. But to be totally honest, we donīt know what his mindset was on that morning, do we? And that means that we cannot say that he would have run even if he heard Paul as he rounded the corner up on Brady Street. Maybe he welcomed the challenge? Maybe he decided to kill the newcomer, who had the audacity to interrupt his work - but changed his mind and decided to bluff him, just for jolly. Maybe he was amazed that it worked, having anticipated to need to kill Paul.

There are many uncertain factors here, Frank, and I do not need to have him in that bubble at all, thus. Itīs just the suggestion I find appeals best to me.

"Not paying attention to his surroundings would not be the best and most logical thing to do for a killer who sets out to kill out in the open in the way the Ripper did and who was eager not to get caught."

But we donīt even know that he WAS eager not to get caught, do we? Heirens was very eager to get caught, remember? And other serial killers have turned themselves in since they wanted an end to their sprees. Of course, it is a very reasonable thing to suggest, but it is no certainty.

"we do have rather strong evidence to support that Neil heard Thain at the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row."

Absolutely - and that is why I favour a solution that has him in that bubble - I think he would have been facing the Schoolhouse end of the street, since that was potentially more dangerous to him; somebody could come up from Winthrop street and happen upon him in very short time, and that imminent danger was not there from the Brady Street direction, which is why I think he may have given a bit too much slack there.

You see, your logic takes you in one direction, whereas mine takes me in another one - but both sets of logic work admirably and are totally viable.

"First, I have to correct you on that one, Fish: it’s not the Star but the Echo of 3 September. "

Yep. I do that exact mistake often for some reason. Thanks for correcting me on that score, Frank!

"Secondly, you have to look away from the Star, the Times and the Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian, who on Mizen’s behalf claim that both men walked on down Hanbury-street instead of just Paul."

Aha? Well then, letīs look at the Star (if nothing else, it should teach me to remember what was printed there and not in the Echo... ) Here goes:
"Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street."

Cross was accompanied by another man, thus. Distance inbetween them? Does not say. Could have been a yard. Could have been two. Or twenty. If they arrived together, perhaps chatting, and if then Lechmere broke away from Paul to talk with Mizen, it would still apply that Lechmere was accompanied by another man at that stage.

Both went down Hanbury Street. Yes. We KNOW they did. But where does it say that they did so arm in arm? What in this text precludes that the carmen rounded the Bakerīs Row corner, saw Mizen, Lechmere said to Paul "You walk on ahead and Iīll notify the PC", Paul did so, opening up a gap of, say, twenty yards, Lechmere notified Mizen and said "We are running late", letting the "we" strengthen Mizenīs thoughts that the two were accompanying each other (he said he thought they were working comrades), and then he hurried along down Hanbury Street, catching up with Paul.

Nothing in this text rules such a scenario out. The Echo, though, is clear in saying that there was another man with "in company with" (accompanying, thus!) Lechmere, and that other man went down Hanbury Street. The exact wording: "There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."
Now, if Paul was in company with "Cross", why is it that it is stated that he went down Hanbury Street, as if he did so alone? He could not have BOTH participated at the discussion AND gone down Hanbury Street at the same time, could he? No, he could not. But he COULD walk down Hanbury Street AND be in obvious company with "Cross" just the same, having proven that by arriving together with him and probably also by Lechmereīs telling PC Mizen about how the two of them were running late. He would thus have spoken of Paul as a man he knew, and a man travelling in his company.

I hope you see what I mean, Frank - I donīt need to change what is said in the Star at all. It is fully compatible with my take.

"Or others just think that if Cross was not the killer, the actual killer may have left the dress that way for the same reason Cross the killer may have left it."

But Cross the killer would have pulled it down to conceal the wounds, Frank, if I am correct. And that would have served the purpose of not giving him away at the feeling of Nichols together with Paul. If Jack the killer was disturbed by Cross the innocent carman, then Cross the carman would have heard him slip away, most probably. Therefore, Cross the innocent carman was probably not the man who scared Jack the killer off. And even if he WAS and failed to notice that there was a man running away out of Buckīs Row in that silent night, then it still applies that Jack the killer had a flair for leaving his victims on display, spread-eagled and cut up for the whole world to see. Apparently, he did not want to do this with Nichols? Straight legs and the clothing carefully pulled down to conceal things, although there was nobody who had seen him? He hid his work, with no need to do so, since he was already gone when Lechmere arrived on the scene?

I firmly believe logic and consequence and the other victims speak very much in favour of my take in this instance - though it cannot be ruled out that the killer - if not Lechmere - took other decisions in this one case and made other calls than otherwise.
I can accept that there could have been a different MO at work here - as long as it is very clear that the MO WOULD have been different.

"Others have to come up with reasons why Cross couldn't have legged it or why it would have been very risky, but I think especially Eddowes' murder shows that this man was perfectly able to get away without drawing any attention to himself."

That it does! But letīs not forget that after Nichols, he would have been forced to make his escape at every kill. The bluffing-out opportunity was no longer available to him.

All the best, Frank!
Fisherman

[sleekviper]

Hello Curious,
Sometimes it is not only that events are forgotten, sometimes it just is a desire to not spread tragic events. My grandmother is rare these days, less than a handful like her are left. She was the youngest child to a man that was in his 70's when she was born, and he lived well into her early years, Go Great gramps! Anyway, this places her into an extremely tiny group; she is the child of a slave, a slave set free in his teens, and he remembered the life as a slave until the day that he died. That is all that she will say about it, and I respect that. It is a monster of a bridge in American history, but it is her bridge to do with as she wants.

[Dave O]

Hi Lechmere,

"Can you point to any other examples of a witness being brought to an inquest on the same day as they were plucked from the streets in some sort of dragnet."

If you don't mind my sticking my head in here for a moment, I've got examples of that very thing happening in Roderick Macdonald's court on October 4 1888.

Two bodies in two unrelated cases were found in Wood Green that afternoon--the bodies were reported a couple of hours apart. Since Macdonlad happened to be there nearby already holding an inquest with a jury, the police took the bodies and the witnesses over to where Macdonald was. He's there, his jury's there, everyone's there, and he opened inquests on each body, with the witnesses giving their testimony and making references to "today". One body was reported at 12.30 that afternoon, the second at 2.40 on the same, so it's very soon after these times that the inquests were opened.

These are two inquests that no one could have predicted, and the witnesses were rounded up and brought to the coroner immediately. I don't see Macdonald having time to prepare summonses, but I should say that Macdonald's officer in Wood Green was a police sergeant who was involved at the scene of one of these cases. In any case, these inquests opened very, very quickly.

I think these two cases may be extraordinary due to Macdonald being in the vicinity with a jury, but they do show that it was possible to bring in a witness off the street and have him directly produced at an inquest all on the same day.

However, I don't claim to know that it happened in the case you're discussing here.

Best,
Dave

[FrankO]

Hope you don't mind my butting in, Fish...

I think Iīve got a much BETTER case, since I donīt have to change or add anything to make my scenario run like clockwork.

Then you should come over here and look at it from this view, Fish – and without those lenses suggested by Lechmere! They do sound bad. To get your scenario into the saddle, you have to add a few things of your own first which either aren’t particularly supported by any evidence or aren’t the most logical things to suppose.

Otherīs have to suppose that Paul wore worn-down shoes - not me.

Not that I suppose Paul did wore worn-down shoes, but you have to suppose Cross the killer was in a ‘bubble’, cutting away at Nichols in order for him not to notice Paul too soon. Not paying attention to his surroundings would not be the best and most logical thing to do for a killer who sets out to kill out in the open in the way the Ripper did and who was eager not to get caught. Furthermore, we do have rather strong evidence to support that Neil heard Thain at the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row.

Others must look away from the Stars claim on Mizenīs behalf that Paul walked down Hanbury Street as Lechmere spoke to the PC - not me.

First, I have to correct you on that one, Fish: it’s not the Star but the Echo of 3 September. Secondly, you have to look away from the Star, the Times and the Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian, who on Mizen’s behalf claim that both men walked on down Hanbury-street instead of just Paul.

Others have to reason that the dress could have been pulled over her by a gush of wind, or that the killer deviated from his other killings in this respect - not me. It fits me.

Or others just think that if Cross was not the killer, the actual killer may have left the dress that way for the same reason Cross the killer may have left it.

Und so weiter.

Allerdings. Others have to come up with reasons why Cross couldn't have legged it or why it would have been very risky, but I think especially Eddowes' murder shows that this man was perfectly able to get away without drawing any attention to himself. Given the time-frame, there's every reason to believe that he hadn't gone long before PC Watkins entered the stage.

All the best,
Frank

[Lechmere]

Curious
Can you point to any other examples of a witness being brought to an inquest on the same day as they were plucked from the streets in some sort of dragnet.
And remember the newspaper story that gave rise to this stop and check process had only appeared the evening before the early morning dragnet.

If it were true - and I think it is far fetched - then it is hardly a pointer to Charles Lechmere's innocence anyway.

[Fisherman]

On the proposition that Lechmere was hauled in on his way to job on the Monday, Curious: Iīve been giving it some more thought, and I really donīt think it works.

To begin with, the inquest had the purpose to establish the cause of death. And that could be taken care of without the participation of Lechmere.
When looking at the possibility that they waylaid him anyway, we need to consider the fact that Robert Paul had given an interview that was in the papers the day before the inquest. Therefore, information was at hand as to the name of one of the two carmen, plus there would have been a reporter or two around that could provide the coroner with information about how and where he had been found by Lloydīs Weekly.

This would mean that he must have been infinitely easier to find than Lechmere, a man without a name and with no known residence. And still, Paul does not appear at the inquest.

This implies to me that the coroner had decided that the inquest could fulfil itīs purpose without the carmen, and consequentially no efforts would have been made to find either of them.

I think this is fairly straightforward, Curious. It is clear that the coroner had set a date at which he would quite possibly have to make do without the carmen.

"You have not "always admitted that every detail I use in my accusation act against Lechmere can have one or more alternative explanations of an unsinister character"

I have obviously not always repeated this every time I have discussed him. But I have never denied that the alternative explanations MAY apply.

All the best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Curious:

"Of course, I never expected either of you to consider that the authorities knew his route to work and may have waylaid him . . .

In your opinion, they would not "chance" to locate him that way. Why not? If that was all they had."

Well, Curious, I was thinking that if they wanted him that badly for the inquest, then they would catch him first and set the date after that. Also, although he had chosen Hanbury Street on the Friday, it must have been obvious that this could have been to walk with Paul - other routes could also have applied, and I donīt think that the police would seal off half of the East End and position people in each street corner - people who did not even know what he looked like.

I am not in any way skipping to consider what is offered. I have considered it, and found it less credible, thatīs just it.

The best,
Fisherman

who mentioned Hanbury Street?

How about just stationing someone in Buck's Row? Or having the fellows on their beats keeping an eye out for him?

Did they have to know what he looked like? He was wearing a carman's work clothes and apron and the streets were nearly desserted. So, the patrolling PCs just checked out carmen until they find the right one.

Easy and explains the clothing. . .

[curious]

Curious:

"Congratulations, Fisherman,

You seem to have learned how to phrase things better than you did earlier and therefore your pounding is more with a rubber sledge hammer than a metal one.

Moderating your responses, being more reasonable, makes your posts less maddening.

So, congratulations on your progress.

I still don't buy Lechmere as the killer for reasons that I believe far outweigh the soft evidence you present.

But, you've come a long way, baby!"

Call me pigheaded - no, wait a minut, donīt do that - but I have actually always admitted that every detail I use in my accusation act against Lechmere can have one or more alternative explanations of an unsinister character.

If I have become easier to understand, then thatīs good. But I am not in any other place now than the one Iīve been at for the longest. And much as I keep saying that the alternative explanations may apply, I actually believe that the risk that they donīt do so is larger. To my mind, significantly more speaks of guilt than of innocence.

Oh, and thanks, curious!

The best,
Fisherman

I have called you pigheaded, and worse, then realized that no, that doesn't come close, we need a new word.

Easier to understand? no, just you are learning to word things so you do not sound so -------- I won't use the word it might hurt your feelings, but you are learning and so should be given a pat on the back when you deserve it.

You have not "always admitted that every detail I use in my accusation act against Lechmere can have one or more alternative explanations of an unsinister character" and that was maddening when you wrote calling him the killer and other stuff and it drew hostility your way.

I suspect that in your mind you thought that was understood, but how you worded things was not using the "maybe" terminology, you used definite words.

so, again, you are making progress.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Of course, I never expected either of you to consider that the authorities knew his route to work and may have waylaid him . . .

In your opinion, they would not "chance" to locate him that way. Why not? If that was all they had."

Well, Curious, I was thinking that if they wanted him that badly for the inquest, then they would catch him first and set the date after that. Also, although he had chosen Hanbury Street on the Friday, it must have been obvious that this could have been to walk with Paul - other routes could also have applied, and I donīt think that the police would seal off half of the East End and position people in each street corner - people who did not even know what he looked like.

I am not in any way skipping to consider what is offered. I have considered it, and found it less credible, thatīs just it.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Curious
A Jack the Ripper stopry would tend not to be forgotten - it is a little more interesting than 'my old man's a carman, he were's a carman's hat etc'.

By the way the placing of Paul by Polly's head was done by Charles Lechmere and Paul was not there to contradict him. If you read further it is clear that Paul repositioned himself futher down Polly's body, when he touched her hands, brushed her chest and yanked her clothes down a bit over her legs.

I don't think it is possible that the Police grabbed Lechmere off the street on the morning of the inquest. They would not have known his name and so the summons would not have been in his name. The only logical explanation is that he appeared at a police station after the inquest session on the Saturday - when unknown men who had called a policeman were known about - but before the end of play on Sunday. The most likely time would seem to be after the publication of Robert Paul's interview on Sunday late afternoon.

Also, the authorities would have had every witnesses address before hand - not just Charles Lechmere's. And he doesn't list every street that he would have gone down. Far from it. Just Bucks Row and Brady Street. Oh and Parson Street, wherever that was supposed to be.

Frankly, you and I both believe that a Jack the Ripper story is more interesting, but it is amazing what our minds remember and what they discard. There's no saying with certainty that the Lechmeres never spoke of involvement, just that their descendants do not recall ever hearing about it.

You may not think it is possible, -- of course it is possible -- but the authorities waiting for him along his work route would have achieved for them a necessary witness and would also account for his clothing -- something that destroys your argument and so will naturally not be considered by you. I find your version of Lechmere making a Sunday trip to the station to be particularly weak.

"Also, the authorities would have had every witnesses address before hand - not just Charles Lechmere's" you say-- and so they tried to find him where they expected him to be and voilå. In a deserted street, dressed in his carman's uniform, he was easy to find.

I think if the authorities knew only one way to possibly locate someone, they would likely use it.

The head position I will check out later, when I have an opportunity.

curious

[curious]

Curious:

"Is it at all possible that because the time was so short between Polly's murder and the beginning of the inquest, that authorities "grabbed" Lechmere for the inquest -- presented the summons to him, if that is the correct procedure -- while he was on his way to work?

That would explain his clothing, wouldn't it?"

I donīt think that he was grabbed by the authoritites - they would not chance to get hold of him that way, I believe. And just like Lechmere (the poster) says, they would only have the scarcest of information on him to go by. Besides, the inquest date was set, and they would have decided to do without him.

At any rate, I believe the best option is that he reported in himself on Sunday - as soon as he had realized the implications of Paulīs interview. Best blow out the fire before it catches ...

The best,
Fisherman

Of course, I never expected either of you to consider that the authorities knew his route to work and may have waylaid him . . .

In your opinion, they would not "chance" to locate him that way. Why not? If that was all they had.

In fact, that makes perfect sense, and Cross/Lechmere would not have had to "present" himself at a police station -- a weak point in your argument and it accounts for his clothing.

just my take, which naturally, you both will disdain, but it could have happened that way, perhaps more reasonably than that a reluctant witness showed up on Sunday at the station to shore up his story.

curious