Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"But all 100 years later and nothing like the Ripper, as far as murderers go."

Yes. And ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[CitizenX]

Ah, Fisherman,
The coroner in this case was Wynne Baxter. There was recently a very fine article in one of the publications that discussed Baxter and how in his inquests he went far beyond the scope of establishing the cause of death.

I wish I could recall the writer of the piece. I believe it was Cris Malone but could be wrong, and if I am I apologize to the writer.

oops, just looked at the clock and I'm very late!

It would be interesting to read that article.

It was thought quite strange at the time that Mary Kellys body was moved to Shoreditch and outside of Baxters jurisdiction, the resulting inquest being supervised by a police surgeon (Dr MacDonald). Maybe the powers that be also felt he tended to go beyond his scope...

[moonbegger]

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 this is

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

Hello Curious ,

Great post , makes perfect sense .

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"The coroner in this case was Wynne Baxter. There was recently a very fine article in one of the publications that discussed Baxter and how in his inquests he went far beyond the scope of establishing the cause of death."

... but it still stands that if the inquest had not secured Lechmere for the witness stand when Monday morning broke, then they had the date fixed anyway. Ergo, they were ready to go ahead without the carmen.

Which, of course, goes to prove that they did not invest much faith in them having played any instrumental role at all. Which, of course, further reinforces what has been said for very long now: they did not see much of a need to check any of them out. Which, of course, is exactly in line with the result - they never found out "Crossī" correct name, and Swanson wrote in October that the body was found by TWO carmen.

Thatīs as straight a line as you are going to find in this business.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

no trouble at home; no cheating or fighting at school; no problems at work; no dishonesty over money and so on; no 'oddball' tendencies that become clear when he is finally under suspicion, as Cross is now.

Love,

Caz
X

[/QUOTE]

-Trouble at home ?
-Fighting at school ?
-Problems at work ?
-" and so on.." ?

Surely, you're talking about a typical feisty teenage boy ?

The use of the word 'oddball' enrages me somewhat:

I remember an argument with my mother over the arrest of the Landlord in the Jo Yeates case (a case that I've mentioned before because it was a case that I was very interested in, as it unfolded).

I was outraged by the treatment, meeted out by the Press, viz ā viz the Landlord, deemed 'guilty' on no evidence at all.

My mother was convinced that he was guilty "because he is an oddball"

Make no mistake -You, Me, Fish, Moonbegger, Lechmere, Curious etc etc are all 'oddballs', because we spend a lot of time arguing minute points about a 19th century mutilating Serial killer on an internet forum...it's neither here nor there...
we'd probably be hung by the Press for it though, if ever we found ourselves near a murder scene..

The real killer in the Yeates case, meanwhile, exhibited totally 'normal'
behaviour and was perfectly intergrated into Society.

Of course his inner fantasies were totally 'odd', but he never showed them to the outside world -it was only due to computer forensics that we could know that he was turned on by blond women being strangled and bundled into car boots..

In 1888 Vincent Tabak's sick pulsions would never -could never- be discerned and he would surely have killed again. People like you would have been proclaiming his innocence high and low (he was checked out ! He had a girlfriend, he had a regular job)..although logically he was the man closest to the body in the time frame;

Meanwhile many people would have fitted up the Landlord 'because he was a
suspect at the time' or 'because he was a oddball'.

[Fisherman]

Spot on, Ruby.

Plus arriving to the inquest clad in a sacking apron, and lying to a PC by inventing a fake colleague of his is somewhat oddballish, as is encouraging a stranger to jointly feel a woman lying in the streets - but then refsuing to touch when asked to help prop her up.

But we only see what we want to see.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello retro ,

Make no mistake -You, Me, Fish, Moonbegger, Lechmere, Curious etc etc are all 'oddballs',

I resemble that remark

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Spot on, Ruby.

Plus arriving to the inquest clad in a sacking apron, and lying to a PC by inventing a fake colleague of his is somewhat oddballish, as is encouraging a stranger to jointly feel a woman lying in the streets - but then refsuing to touch when asked to help prop her up.

But we only see what we want to see.

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fisherman ,

You surely have to concede that the point Curious makes about CrossMere simply running into a copper on his way to work on the Monday, just like he did on the Friday is highly likely .. It explains his work attire at the inquest without the whole misdirecting the missus malarkey , a sub plot that really makes no sense at all .

Whether or not he was just told to show up at the inquest by said copper , or was taken to the station to make a report .. in which case his ex copper stepdad Thomas , would have been a good conversation piece to relieve some of the suspicious guilt that would have weighed upon him after Pauls Press rant the day before .

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"You surely have to concede that the point Curious makes about CrossMere simply running into a copper on his way to work on the Monday, just like he did on the Friday is highly likely .. It explains his work attire at the inquest without the whole misdirecting the missus malarkey , a sub plot that really makes no sense at all ."

Iīm afraid that I would never concede that it is "highly likely". I in fact think it extremely UNLIKELY.

Do you imagine a squad standing in Buckīs Row, waiting for him on Monday morning? Yes?

I find that an utterly improbable suggestion. But letīs - for one weird moment - work from the supposition that this was what was done, in spite of the date for the inquest already being set (what would they do if Lechmere did not turn up? Postpone? Phew...!)

Well then, here we are, in Fairytaleland, with a small group of men, Mizen being amongst them, hauling Lechmere in on Monday morning because they thought his presence utterly important.
Now, pray tell me: IF they thought he was of that magnitude - then why did they not haul Paul in too? They were in place, were they not ...?

Answer: No, they were not.

The best,
Fisherman
anticipating musings of how Paul took another route that morning ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Robert Paul was "hauled in".

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, 30th September 1888—

"Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing."

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Absolutely, Simon! But that was many a day later. He testifies on the 17:th, more than two weeks after Lechmere. By then, the police had his address and picked him up at home.
It has little bearing, I think, on the suggestion that Lechmere was treated to the same on the morning of the first inquest day.

And, like I said, if they picked Lechmere up on Buckīs Row - then why not pick Paul up too?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

I don't get the impression that either Curious or myself suggested that the police set up a roadblock at the end of Bucks Row ! But just maybe the police on the beat were told to keep an eye out for the two particular carmen. A simple question would have been all that was needed "was you one of the carmen that found the body on Friday?" suspicions must have been raised after Pauls article the day before and the realization that Neil was not the first to discover Polly . I dont think it was quite to the extent of [Get Carter] "And not alot of people know that"

I find that an utterly improbable suggestion. But letīs - for one weird moment - work from the supposition that this was what was done, in spite of the date for the inquest already being set (what would they do if Lechmere did not turn up? Postpone? Phew...!)

They would have pulled him in eventually , after the Lloyds article it was inevitable .. I don't think he was the main purpose of the inquest on that Monday ( indeed he was not even a factor when the inquest resumption date was scheduled ) but seeing as they run into him on his way to work ( if in fact they did ) Why not pull him in and get as much information as they could out of him ?

You know it makes sense Rodney !

cheers

moonbegger .

[curious]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;234561}

Could that be because everything you see is everything you look at?

a look at Ridgway, the Green River Killer, one of the most prolific serial killers of all time. Criminal record? No. Known addictions? No. Had painted cars at the same firm for THIRTY years. That is a very steady job, and it blows THAT particular "argument" of yours to kingdom come.



The monster of Florence - same thing. Dennis Rader - quit completely.



- but do it rationally.

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

OK Fisherman, if you had not entered the realm of utter desperation before, you have with this post.

I have looked seriously and honestly at what you have proposed, without a vested interest and without ego getting in my way. Obviously, you don't allow yourself that freedom.

Let's address Ridgeway here, shall we?
From what I read, just a quick peek, Ridgeway was just 16 when he took a 6 year old boy into the woods and stabbed him. Apparently the story is that Ridgeway laughed and said he had always wondered what it would feel like to kill someone.

Ridgeway had 3 ex-wives and a number of ex-girlfriends.

Absolutely no comparison to what we know at this point about Lechmere.

Then, there is Rader. Perhaps he did quit killing for years, but he could not leave it alone and was caught because he returned to his habit of sending taunting letters to the police, who were able to track the paper, the typewriter or something.

Again, while it appears he had a stable marriage, his work record was iffy. He kept changing jobs, was fired, had complaints lodged against him he was over-zealous as dog catcher -- there's that cruelty to animal things that often is found in the background of a serial killer.

And the Monster of Florence? Which one? From what I read, four people have been convicted for those crimes. . . .

and your command to Caz "- but do it rationally" is ludicrous and great irony.

curious

[curious]

It would be interesting to read that article.

It was thought quite strange at the time that Mary Kellys body was moved to Shoreditch and outside of Baxters jurisdiction, the resulting inquest being supervised by a police surgeon (Dr MacDonald). Maybe the powers that be also felt he tended to go beyond his scope...

It was a terrific article. I'll try to find it and tell you where you might get a copy.

[curious]

Curious:

"The coroner in this case was Wynne Baxter. There was recently a very fine article in one of the publications that discussed Baxter and how in his inquests he went far beyond the scope of establishing the cause of death."

... but it still stands that if the inquest had not secured Lechmere for the witness stand when Monday morning broke, then they had the date fixed anyway. Ergo, they were ready to go ahead without the carmen.

Which, of course, goes to prove that they did not invest much faith in them having played any instrumental role at all. Which, of course, further reinforces what has been said for very long now: they did not see much of a need to check any of them out. Which, of course, is exactly in line with the result - they never found out "Crossī" correct name, and Swanson wrote in October that the body was found by TWO carmen.

Thatīs as straight a line as you are going to find in this business.

The best,
Fisherman

Oh, Fisherman,
You are so funny. Dave comes on here with two examples, in the same year and just a month later, of people being taken off the street to an inquest, and you ignore it.

We don't know how Lechmere ended up at the inquest, but since he was in his work clothes,the simple, reasonable and RATIONAL explanation is that he was on his way to work . . .

simple easy and straightforward, without any need to turn yourself inside out trying to make up a story pointing to his guilt.

He appears to be an average guy who DID NOT need to rush to the police station to get his own story in, but an innocent man simply going about his business.

curious