Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[curious]

Why would Mrs Lechmere neglect to tell her Family that her husband had been an 'innocent'
witness ? What sort of shame or shyness could she possibly have about that ? How could it have 'slipped her mind' ?

If she never told them, the most logical explanation is that Lechmere/Cross never told her that he was a witness.

Perhaps the minds the mention slipped was that of the listeners.

Is there anyone here on the boards who recall every story and every word their parents and grandparents told them about their lives?

I sure don't. Why would Mrs. Lechmere's children and grandchildren have been any different?

curious

[curious]

Caz:

"There's no point in debating with someone who is determined to see everything Cross is known to have said or done in the context of him being a killer who was trying to get away with it so he could kill again and again."

Equally, Caz, there seems to be little use in urging you to realize that when there are heaps of material pointing in the exact same direction regarding Charles Lechmere, then this calls for a realization that he may have been guilty. You seem very decided to defend the man against any accusation - lying to Mizen is OK, changing his name is OK, omitting to state his address at the inquest is "normal" and unsuspicious, having the slayings happen along his routes and at the times he would have been there is nothing out of the ordinary, etcetera, etcetera.

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

"No innocent explanations for his behaviour can hope to break through a barrier constructed in this way, can they? "

Have I at any stage denied that all we have on him can have natural explanations? Have I ever said that it is a stance that is untenable, that he was innocent? I think not.

I have said that I think he was the killer. That is not a position from which you vehemently argue his innocence, I´m afraid. It´s 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.

That may well be the best call you´ve made all along.

The best,
Fisherman

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!

curious

[Lechmere]

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.

[Fisherman]

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 don´t 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 Paul´s interview. Best blow out the fire before it catches ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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, don´t 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 that´s good. But I am not in any other place now than the one I´ve 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 don´t do so is larger. To my mind, significantly more speaks of guilt than of innocence.

Oh, and thanks, curious!

The best,
Fisherman

[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 don´t 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 Paul´s 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

[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

[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 don´t 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, that´s just it.

The best,
Fisherman

[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, don´t 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 that´s good. But I am not in any other place now than the one I´ve 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 don´t 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.

[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 don´t 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, that´s 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. . .

[Fisherman]

On the proposition that Lechmere was hauled in on his way to job on the Monday, Curious: I´ve been giving it some more thought, and I really don´t 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 Lloyd´s 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 it´s 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

[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.

[FrankO]

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

I think I´ve got a much BETTER case, since I don´t 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.

Other´s 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 Mizen´s 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

[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

[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.