Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Jenni Shelden]

Jenni:

"Surely the most obvious thing is that he used both names? Perhaps Cross was his Sunday name that he used so as not to offend his step father?"

His stepfather had been dead for very many years, Jenni - he would not take offence.

The best,
Fisherman

i dont know - ghosts can be funny b*ggers

[Fisherman]

Sally:

" It's not my theory, nor my personal faith in a potential suspect which is being tested by that pesky logic thing. "

in a sense it is, Sally. Your take on Lechmere is no less conjeture than mine. And the logic you apply ...well ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

" But he can say "Charles Allen (pick any other surname)", carman at Pickfords for 20 years, living at 22 Doveton, and she won't find out or smell a rat?"

It´s Chas. Andrew in the Daily Telegraph and George in the Times. No big giveaway for some reason.

" how, exactly?"

I was thinking like, say, tell the police. But there is of course also the possibility that he simply cared very much about her and just did not want her to find out about him. Maybe he was not afraid of her going to the police, but only of her getting to know. Have you read up on Kürten, the Düsseldorf vampire? He is a good example of this attitude.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jenni:

"Surely the most obvious thing is that he used both names? Perhaps Cross was his Sunday name that he used so as not to offend his step father?"

His stepfather had been dead for very many years, Jenni - he would not take offence.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"I'm looking at the last sentence in particular:
Quote:
Hiding it from the rest of the world, his neighbours included would fail the moment they said "Good morning, Mrs Cross!""

There is a comma missing after included. Big deal. The sentence as such is gramatically wrong until you add that comma. Look at the rest of the paragraph and hopefully you will see what I mean. Hopefully.

"Ted Bundy had no relevance to the point I made. "

Ted Bundy and every other serial killer had and have relevance to the exact point you made.

"That isn't. (It's not what you posted.) This is:"

Nothing circular about that either, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Wickerman.

I'll bet you were, considering the coverage they gave Hutchinson and his story!

Personally, I don't think The Star bothered much with truth when reporting The Whitechapel murders. They were selling newspapers, and it was far too important a story to let truth get in the way. Wasn't it said that the murders made the newspaper?

Regards

Observer

[Rubyretro]

It was. And I'd say that well, it appears to have been quite a plausible feat - Cadosch managed to do it, didn't he?

Well, Cadosch was an altogether different type of person, in different circumstances....but let's save that for a Cadosch thread.

The fact remains that it would have been extremely difficult for Lechmere to scarper..

[Wickerman]

As Wickerman has already suggested, Inspector Spratling also searched the area for bloodstains and found none.

I'd say that the blood stains were an invention, they are far too important to have been omitted from the inquest.

Regards

Observer

I was intentionally biting my tongue with respect to that interpretation. Afterall, this is another controversial claim by the ever-so controversial Star newspaper.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

Er, you were not quoting my post, Ruby. It was Sally's.

Love,

Caz
X

It was. And I'd say that well, it appears to have been quite a plausible feat - Cadosch managed to do it, didn't he?

[Sally]

Must? No - but you WANT it to. Different things, I´m afraid.

Oh Yes, they absolutely are, Fisherman. I'm not the one with 'wants' here though. It's not my theory, nor my personal faith in a potential suspect which is being tested by that pesky logic thing.

I've said all along that when new evidence is presented that does make a stronger case for Cross, I'll be quite happy to see it. I stand by that - so, sorry, but no use you pretending otherwise, I'm afraid.

[caz]

Just try and imagine the logistics of moving elsewhere, Caz..

Er, you were not quoting my post, Ruby. It was Sally's.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz:

"How on earth was giving his name as Charles Allen Cross, instead of Charles Allen Lechmere, then giving his home address and work details, a neck-saving exercise?"

Take it in four steps, Caz.

1. He does not want his wife to find out about his involvement.
2. If he says "Lechmere", then she will find out.
3. ... and then she gives him away.
4. Then we arrive at the neck thing.

2. But he can say "Charles Allen (pick any other surname)", carman at Pickfords for 20 years, living at 22 Doveton, and she won't find out or smell a rat?
3. ... and then she gives him away - how, exactly?

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Sally;233452]The thing is..

Why remain at the same home for years - why not pack up and go elsewhere, where his past would never catch up with him? (and of course we know he did stay there don't we, because of all those lovely records we can see on Ancestry)

Just try and imagine the logistics of moving elsewhere, Caz..

Leaving a secure job that you've held down for 20 years, telling the wife ....what ? The Lechmere's had only just moved to their address 6 months before (?) Leaving Mum -and the daughter who lived with her. Uprooting the kids and telling them...what ? Moving where exactly ? Finding the time off work to go house hunting and job hunting far away ? The expense of it !

I'm sorry but Lechmere was a bit stuck there, unless he abandoned the whole family and scarpered alone. Well after being a witness found alone with a dead body that might be a clear indication of guilt. Besides...he might have been fond of his family..

[Jenni Shelden]

Surely the most obvious thing is that he used both names? Perhaps Cross was his Sunday name that he used so as not to offend his step father?

Who can actually ever know?

Jenni

[Observer]

[Two large drops of blood ,clear and undeniable, which were visible on the Buck's-row pavement, 25 and 35 feet above the place where the body lay, were made by fresh thick blood, and were probably caused by something in the hands of the murderer as he walked away. Added to this is the slight abdominal hemorrhage, such as would be the case if the cutting were done after death]

So the killer of Polly, kept himself on the pavement , tight against the dark shadow of the school wall occasionally dripping blood !
CrossMere and Paul walked down the centre of the road together .

cheers

moonbegger .

The blood on the pavement in Bucks Roe is an old chestnut. As Citizen X states it was reported in The Star on the 5th September thus,

From Casebook press reports

"Furthermore,

THE TWO LARGE DROPS OF BLOOD,

clear and undeniable, which were visible on the Buck's-row pavement, 25 and 35 feet above the place where the body lay, were made by fresh thick blood, and were probably caused by something in the hands of the murderer as he walked away. Added to this is the slight abdominal hemorrhage, such as would be the case if the cutting were done after death."

Moonbegger

What makes you think that the article implies that the drops lay by the Board School ? To me the article implies that the blood that lay above where the body lay, that is up into Bucks Row proper. This provided there were any blood stains other than where Polly Nichols lay.

If I'm not mistaken these drops of blood were provided as evidence, (in Stephen Knights book,) to suggest that Polly Nichols body had been transported in a carriage to Bucks Row. Don't quote me though, I'm not 100 per cent sure.

Funnily enough one of the jurymen at the inquest asked Inspector Spratling if a trap had been seen in the road.

From Casebook Victims section

To Inspector Spratling

"A Juryman (to witness): Did you see a trap in the road at all?"

"No"

A Juryman:" Knowing that the body was warm, did it not strike you that it might just have been laid there, and that the woman was killed elsewhere?"

Witness: "I examined the road, but did not see the mark of wheels."

As Wickerman has already suggested, Inspector Spratling also searched the area for bloodstains and found none.

I'd say that the blood stains were an invention, they are far too important to have been omitted from the inquest.

Regards

Observer