Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[FrankO]

That doesn’t mean that I expect the answers to have pointed at Cross as at least Nichols, but who knows?

Of course, that should have read: '...at Cross as at least Nichols' killer,...'

Now, off to bed...

[caz]

On the bubble issue. I would suggest it is dangerous to set too exact a view of what sort of person the Ripper was.

So, Lechy, you don't think that it is setting 'too exact a view' to see the ripper as someone who would wait for a stranger to reach him and his victim, then bluff it out with him, before doing the same with a police officer, and eventually with everyone at the inquest - namely Charles Allen Lechmere?

How much more exact a view can one set? Or do you just enjoy living dangerously?

Also, how important is it to the theory in general that Paul was too far away to hear what Cross was telling Mizen? As I see it, if Cross needed to lie to Mizen, he also needed Paul to have shifted himself first, and we don't know that Paul obliged. If he did so, that would have been down to Paul and a lucky break for Cross, since Cross could hardly have engineered things that way.

It's all a bit tenuous, isn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"So, Lechy, you don't think that it is setting 'too exact a view' to see the ripper as someone who would wait for a stranger to reach him and his victim, then bluff it out with him, before doing the same with a police officer, and eventually with everyone at the inquest - namely Charles Allen Lechmere?
How much more exact a view can one set? Or do you just enjoy living dangerously?"

I think that if you give this some afterthought (when will somebody invent pre-thought?), you may realize that poster Lechmere may have meant that although an identity can be suggested on basis of the circumstantial evidence, we cannot possibly know what exact type of person he was.
I know you, Caz, since you post out here, and I can identify you by those means - but I am not inside your head.

Or am I?

"how important is it to the theory in general that Paul was too far away to hear what Cross was telling Mizen? As I see it, if Cross needed to lie to Mizen, he also needed Paul to have shifted himself first, and we don't know that Paul obliged. If he did so, that would have been down to Paul and a lucky break for Cross, since Cross could hardly have engineered things that way.
It's all a bit tenuous, isn't it?"

I donīt see that this applies. Not at all, in fact. If the scenario we suggest applies to some - or even a substantial - degree, then we are dealing with an opportunist, a man that shaped his plan according to what happened around him.
He could not have know that Paul would have arrived in Buckīs Row. Does that make the suggestion that he was the killer "tenuous"? No, it only tells us that he met with something he could not predict - and dealt with it.

When looking for a PC, he may well have shaped the plan to lie about the PC, and decided to tell Paul to go on ahead, and this seemingly was how it went down - the Echo is pretty clear on the point. But that is not to say that Lechmere did not have a plan B, is it?

There is nothing at all tenuous about the Lechmere bid, Caz. It presents an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that takes us down a very logical path, from the extra time he would have had at hand in Buckīs Row and all the way down to the Mizen scam. Along the way he HAD to take risks, but every killer takes a risk. It comes with the game, and it will open up possibilities to get caught. That applies to every killer throughout history, no exceptions. And in that respect, they all face a situation where they choose risk over safety.
If you see that in itself as "tenuous", then you have some sort of point. But it is not a point that detracts from the Lechmere theory.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Fishy,

I was asking Lech, but you'll do I suppose.

I just think everything has to be so exactly the way you need it to be, or the whole theory collapses.

You know next to nothing about what went on inside the ripper's head; nothing at all about what was going through Cross's head from the time when he first saw Nichols (dead or alive); yet in order for Cross to be turned into the ripper you have to have an exact series of thoughts going through this man's head, followed by an exact series of actions, that combined to allow him to get away with this and all the subsequent ripper murders.

The circumstantial evidence you have presented could equally be used to argue that Cross was an innocent passer-by who wanted to get to work on time and didn't particularly want to get himself involved with this dead or drunk low class woman lying in Buck's Row. That doesn't make Cross innocent, or even much more probably innocent, but it does mean that more is needed to make his guilt the likelier proposition.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I just think everything has to be so exactly the way you need it to be, or the whole theory collapses."

But Caz, everything that happens, happens in a totally exact way! Killerīs dont kill the same victim by means of knife, strangulation and rifle - one thing, and only one, is what kills in each case. It is therefore exact.

And to be fair, there is slack in a good many departments in our theory too. And in other parts, slack can be created! I suspect that one thing that has you thinking along these lines is that we "need" to put space inbetween Lechmere and Paul. But to be fair, whoīs to say that Lechmere did not tell Paul on the way down Buckīs Row that he thought the police were lazy buggers, suggesting that they should tell te first PC they saw that a colleague of his had requested help. "That should put fire in his tail", sort of. And then itīs hush-hush if somebody asks something.

The possibilities are there. The more important thing is to see the relevance in shaping the lie the way he did - it tallies very well with a man who wants to stay away from police interest.

"You know next to nothing about what went on inside the ripper's head; nothing at all about what was going through Cross's head from the time when he first saw Nichols (dead or alive); yet in order for Cross to be turned into the ripper you have to have an exact series of thoughts going through this man's head, followed by an exact series of actions, that combined to allow him to get away with this and all the subsequent ripper murders."

As I have shown, this is not true. Well itīs true that we canīt tell what went on in the mind of the Ripper or Lechmere (though I think it is one and the same mind we speak of here ...), but it is not true that the scenario is a locked one. But the closer we get to the guy, the more exactly we must pinpoint him, in a sense.

"The circumstantial evidence you have presented could equally be used to argue that Cross was an innocent passer-by who wanted to get to work on time and didn't particularly want to get himself involved with this dead or drunk low class woman lying in Buck's Row. That doesn't make Cross innocent, or even much more probably innocent, but it does mean that more is needed to make his guilt the likelier proposition."

I donīt see it that way - but I understand if you do. You see, what I do is that I recognize the pulled-down dress, the refusal to prop up, the fact that he chose to accompany Paul, the false name, the lie to Mizen as things that ALL look like pointing to guilt, although I admit that taken one by one, they may all be explained as unsinister.
But then I ask myself if there is any way to check this, and I realize that there is: If he killed Nichols, then he is probably the Ripper. Can we then in any manner couple him to any of the other deeds? And lo and behold - there is that almighty correspondance inbetween the murder spots and times and the routes that seem likely that he used PLUS the times it is likely that he used them!!!
And this tallies perfectly.
Why did not Nichols die on a Saturday night, and Stride at 3.40 on a Tuesday in Berner Street? Such things would cast doubt about the validity of our bid. But this never happened!
Why did not some of the victims die a mile north of Hanbury Street? Why did not one of them fall prey a mile west of Broad Street, at 3.00? Because, I think, that was not along his working route.

You see, much as we hve all the parts from the Nichols murder morning that we may interpret as innocent (with a stretch - lying to a PC is not a small thing, nor is it to give a false name to an inquest!), we still have to realize that the follow-up test fails the man totally - he ticks ALL the other murder boxes. All of them. The Pinchin Street Torso included, geographically.
The much more reasonable argument is - according to me of course - that if you have all that bad luck with the Nichols case, making you look like a liar and con artist, then you canīt possibly have as bad luck as to nail all other murder places too!

So he did it, if you ask me, Caz. Make the experiment of comparing him to Montague Druitt, and see how many murder spots you can place Monty in. Check how many times he used an alias. Find out if he ever lied to the police.
His name appears on a document that tells us that a senior policeman favoured him, whereas other senior policemen favoured others, and in no case are we allowed to know exactly why. We only know that they cannot even be put on the spot the way Lechmere can.
And in that respect, yes, these suspects are EXTREMELY open to any interpretation, and nothing has to be exact at all, since we have not a iota on them, practically speaking. But that, I donīt see a a land of opportunities - I see it as barren wasteland until something useful surfaces.

Which it already HAS in Lechmereīs case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Caz
Please accept my sincere apology for neglecting to answer you post.
The discussion started thus:

Frank O made this point
“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.”

Frank O took an a priori view that the Ripper, whoever he was, would act a way that he had proscribed.
That being that he would be alert at all times.

I would take the view that whoever the Ripper was, he could have acted in a variety of ways, so long as the manner proposed is within certain sensible bounds.
Hence with regard to the ‘should I stay or should I go’ discussion, it is possible, in my opinion that a culprit if semi disturbed might opt to fight (turn and face his disturber) or fly (run for it).
If someone presented a case for a culprit other than Charles Lechmere that has that culprit run off, perhaps at the sound of Charles Lechmere’s approaching feet, then I would not make an a priori claim that such a proposition is unlikely and that the culprit would necessarily always have turned as I suggest Charles Lechmere did.
It has been argued to me that a psychopathic serial killer would be more inclined to calmly turn and bluff it than panic and run, but that is an arguable point.
If a theory depended on the Ripper doing cartwheels down Bucks Row after committing the crime, then I would say it was far-fetched and argue against the possibility

Frank O stated his belief that for him the Ripper must be someone who could not get carried away with himself and operate, even momentarily, in a ‘bubble’.
I believe this is unrealistic. Again so long as a proposition is based within sensible bounds I do not think it is good practice to rule out a theory just because it does not conform to a narrow preconception
If a theory was based on a ever alert Ripper then I would not argue against it on those grounds alone, just as I wouldn’t rule out a theory that was based on the culprit getting into a zone or bubble while at the peak of his murderous activities.
I would however probably immediately rule out a theory that depended on the culprit swigging from a big can of beer and singing popular ditties while ‘Ripping’ away without a care in the world.

Can you see what I am getting at here Caz?
When presenting a case for a culprit, inevitably you are ascribing certain behavioural patterns to conform to the known evidence.
(Unless your culprit is someone like Maybrick, Tumblety, Druitt, Kosminski etc etc. where you can just say he did it with no discussion of the whys and wherefores on the actual ground.)
To rule out a culprit purely based on preconceived – a priori – notions of detailed behavioural traits is in my view unrealistic.

[caz]

Hi Lech,

No need for an apology!

I don't think I have ever argued that Cross can be 'ruled out' as such, nor even that he should be. I would just prefer to see a grain or two of evidence in this sea of speculation. I realise that it's the same thing with everyone who has ever been suspected, but that's the problem in a nutshell. The best arguments, based on speculation alone, will never elevate the case against Cross above anyone else, no matter how suspicious you consider his reported (or presumed) behaviour to have been.

But what nonsense is it that I've been reading about the murders being uncannily in line with Cross's journeys to work?

And lo and behold - there is that almighty correspondance

Sounds like Fishy is at his pulpit again, but really, is there any evidence at all for Cross being en route to work on the mornings of Saturday Sept 8, Sunday Sept 30 or Friday Nov 9, at the right times and in the right places to have encountered and attacked Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly? Or do you absolve him of the murders that would be hardest to reconcile in this respect?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz, Caz ...!

Alrighty, letīs do it again!

When Lechmere left Buckīs Row at itīs westernmost point, he had a choice of two streets, if he wanted to use quick thoroughfares to Broad Street.

Those two streets were Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street.

Now, we cannot prove that these were the streets he used - we can only prove that if he did NOT use them, the he was not acting rationally. There were no other useful thoroughfares from Buckīs Row and onwards, that would have been as quick as these two.

I hope you see this?

Now, the quicker route (it would have been a matter of a difference of, say, two, three minutes) was Old Montague Street. We therefore humbly suggest that a carman, with knowledge of which routes are quicer and which are slower, would have prioritized the quickest route, on a daily basis. He may, however, have used Hanbury Street for a change every now and then, but the gist of the matter is that these are the routes he would use.

Of course there is no evidence that Lechmere walked these stretches on the murder mornings. But there is very good reason to believe that this was so, since they led him to work, and the mornings the women were killed on were working day mornings, excepting Stride and Eddowes..

It is straightforward, logical reasoning, and we know that most carmen did not take the odd day off every now and then if they could avoid it - it would cost them either money or their jobs.

So, once again:
Tabram - 30 yards from Old Montague Street.
Nichols - on Buckīs Row.
Chapman - on Hanbury Street.
Stride - in Dutfields Yard, in the exact area where he had lived fror many a year and a short stretch from 147 Cable Street where his mother and daughter lived - and on a SATURDAY NIGHT!
Eddowes - same Saturday night, and in the vicinity of Broad Street where he worked, although this time it can be reasoned that he fled Berner Street, looking for a place where prostitution was rife. Anyway, Houndsditch would have taken him straight to Liverpool Street Station and Broad Street.
Kelly - killed in Dorset Street, right beteen Hanbury and Old Montague - AND we know she used to work Leman Street/Commercial Street, stretching BETWEEN Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street- meaning that she could have picked up her last customer ON one of these streets.

To state that we have no evidence that he WAS on the other four spots at the exact times is a total waste of time. Everyboy KNOWS this already. But everybody ALSO knows that he HAD reason to be there at the relevant hours of the day.

Werenīt you the one who though I was too exact, by the way? And now you want me to pinpoint Lechmere at the exact spots and times? Hm?

The pattern is there.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Of course there is no evidence that Lechmere walked these stretches on the murder mornings.

Hi Fishy,

Good of you to admit that the rest of your post was just padding made up of speculation and wishful thinking.

Now what were you saying about a 'total waste of time'?

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

Frank O made this point
“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.”

Frank O took an a priori view that the Ripper, whoever he was, would act a way that he had proscribed.
That being that he would be alert at all times.

Na-ah, Lechmere. I wrote: ‘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…’ This means that paying attention would be the best & most logical thing to do for such a killer. Nothing more, nothing less. Furthermore, I never wrote that the Ripper would be alert at all times. Given the circumstances he ‘worked’ under, judging by the fact that he was never caught red-handed it seems that he paid enough attention to his surroundings to get away before anybody spotted him.

Frank O stated his belief that for him the Ripper must be someone who could not get carried away with himself and operate, even momentarily, in a ‘bubble’.

Na-ah again, Lech. I never wrote that I think he must be someone who could not get carried away with himself. Again, I wrote it was the best & most logical thing to do and that I have a hard time believing that the Ripper would be so careless that he let Paul approach him until he was about 60-70 yards away. Neil’s testimony supports the notion that it was possible to hear someone coming from ca. 130 yards away, the case evidence supports the notion that the Ripper was someone who, while ‘working’ on his victims, was still paying enough attention to his surroundings so that he got away before he was seen. That, to me, seems more likely than that he was working in a ‘bubble’. By the way, ‘momentarily’ would mean something close to 30 seconds if Paul walked at a pace of 7 km or 4.35 miles an hour, each step getting louder and louder. That would just be too long for my taste. But that's just me.

To rule out a culprit purely based on preconceived – a priori – notions of detailed behavioural traits is in my view unrealistic.

As you may further have read in one of my last posts, I wrote that I don’t rule Cross out.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Caz:

" what were you saying about a 'total waste of time'? "

Oh that! What I meant was that it is a total waste of time to point out that Old Montague Street was the fastest route to Broad Street, since you either donīt see the significance of this, or are sligthly phobic to the suggestion of Lechmere being the killer. And likewise, it was a waste of time to point out that Hanbury Street was the only other thoroughfare for Broad Street. It was a waste of time to tell you that he went to work from Doveton Street via Buckīs Row, and onwards to Broad Street. It was a waste of time to say that he did so six, perhaps even seven days a week at times. It was also a waste of time to point out that somebody who regularly makes this trek through the exact same district at the same time in the morning, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, will be among the small selection of men that trod the same streets at the same times with the same regularity, and will thus also belong to a smallish group of men that could be tied to the murder spots by means of this regularly reoccuring work trek.

This was all a waste of time, since - just as you so knowingly point out - we have no pictures of him doing so on the murder mornings, and we have no signed documents reassuring us that he did do the trek on these days.

Therefore, we must of course put him on par with all the other men in London about whom we cannot tell whether THAY did this trek on the murder mornings. And that will be approximately 99,99 per cent of the male population.

Way to go, Caz - thereīs a master sleuth slumbering within you. Very, very deep. Heīll be either drunk or dead, but for my part I think heīs dead

Thatīs was really all there was to it, Caz. You see, I know very well that we canīt pin him as being in place on the relevant mornings. But that does not mean that we canīt pin his working route - it would have been Hanbury Street or Old Montague Street - or both. And that is - with respect - where the murders occurred. That means that there is a connection. And the moment you realize this, none of us are wasting our time. As it stands, though, I apparently am.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

I see your still scrapping it out on them landing beaches .. Fair play to you sir ! My question is more to do with the the battle once , or if , you ever make it off the beach .. But seeing as there is no real likelihood of you doing so in the near future .. i hope you don't mind me asking the question in advance ..

What was CrossMere's purpose in taking the uterus's and other organs , and what did he do with them ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"What was CrossMere's purpose in taking the uterus's and other organs , and what did he do with them ? "

Ever thought of asking the Oracle of Delphi...? I donīt know. Trophies, food, necrosadism, a wish to strike fear into peopleīs hearts - you tell me, Moonbegger.

....and I would not be too sure about my take-off. It could be imminent - donīt forget to ask the Oracle when you see her!

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Remind me someone...bearing in mind that various persons have elsewhere contended that, absent a witness to decease, a time of death can't (or more correctly couldn't) in any case, be accurately established closer than about an hour, just what evidence is there to preclude a time of death at 0330 or shortly thereafter...let's say as late as ...oh...0331 or 0332...

Certainly not Neil, who visited Bucks Row at 0315 (witnessed by Sgt Kirby...The Times 03.09.88) and 0345...Incidentally where HAD he been for half an hour on an alleged 12 minute beat (cf JtR Sourcebook)...

But nonetheless, let's assume half an hour or thereabouts...

The body was discovered at 0345 says Thain...

Ah...and Doctor Llewellyn was promptly summoned by Neil via Thain...so let's check that out...the two PCs spent (judging, comparatively, and purely by the sort of timescales Paul proposes in his testimony), perhaps a couple of minutes over the body (0347) and Thain knocked up the doctor at 0349 (according to Begg it's only 300 yards away)...Allowing some waking up time and getting some clothes on, and trotting to Bucks Row...perhaps a generous 10 minutes in total, 0359 say...The doctor arrives promptly at 0401 and declares Polly's been dead no more than half an hour...bingo...

Add to this, there is a feasible witness for a scuffle if not a murder just after the passing of the train at 0330...If I contend this is a realistic timescale, where, please is the PROOF, not surmise please, that I'm necessarily wrong?

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"If I contend this is a realistic timescale, where, please is the PROOF, not surmise please, that I'm necessarily wrong?"

Where is the proof that you are right? Exactly - we canīt prove it either way. But when you say ...

"Thain knocked up the doctor at 0349"

... we can easily see that Dr Llewellyn disagrees - at 4 or thereabouts was when Thain reached his doorstep. And then the couple took around ten minutes to arrive back in Buckīs Row. And that does not point to 4.01.

But this has already been laid out in detail on the thread, so if you backtrack you can see the reasoning.

I think that we must realize that everything cannot have happened on the same minute - that is impossible. And I furthermore think that IF the police did any polishing on the times, then that would not have prolonged but shortened the time it took them to get the show on the road. And if we can bank on any of the characters having a functioning, high-class clock on his wall, then that somebody would have been Llewellyn. His estimation of the time must carry great weight.

All the best,
Fisherman