Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Fisherman]

Sally:

" Not a scrap of evidence for your conjecture"

Just like you, then. For claiming that he was innocent is just as much "conjecture". And in that case it is conjecture that needs to find an innocent explanation to the name swop and the Mizen scam.

I donīt have those problems. The two phenomenons are in line with dishonesty, not honesty. IF you can tell the difference?

"And your man could more plausibly be a man who simply didn't want to get involved, nor to involve his family, than a cunning (and yet at times catastrophically stupid) serial killer."

I donīt think that I would have you decide that, Sally. And I wonīt tell you why, since it is Friday and I would not wish to ruin your weekend.

Instead, enjoy it, and do something useful!

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Try to ADD something next time. A new idea, a fresh perspective... anything but "Ha ha! I donīt believe you!"

[Mr Lucky]

he left out his address when speaking in open court.

Hi Fisherman

Is your memory on the blink?, it was only a week ago I was helpfully pointing out that he has given his address in court, we know this because it's in the Star.

'Carman Cross was the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton Street' - The Star 3rd Sept. 1888

Best wishes

[Fisherman]

Nothing wrong with MY memory, Mr Lucky.

But guess what ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sal
You ‘know’ that Toppy wasn’t the witness Hutchinson?
Presumably that is based on your intimate knowledge about Toppy which has led you to conclude that there were “many similarities between his own life and that of Crossmere.”
I would be most interested to know what these profound similarities were.

DVV
When I first formulated my Charles Lechmere dunnit theory, I considered it possible that he was known as Cross at Pickfords and I mentioned it as a possibility some time ago. I may even have been the first person to point out the possibility based on his starting work at Pickfords the year before his step father Cross died.
However I also initially assumed that Charles Lechmere had given his details to Mizen – i.e. while on his way to work. It is now beyond reasonable doubt that he slipped past Mizen without giving any of his personal details and later appeared at a police station.
More and yet more records relating to Charles Lechmere have also come to light – a wide range of records. He always records his name as Lechmere.
Even if he had called himself Cross when he first started at Pickfords, which I think is unlikely in any case, then it is still ‘odd’ and an anomaly that he chose to call himself Cross when he went to the police after being compromised in Robert Paul’s first newspaper interview.

I will go back over the issues surrounding Charles Lechmere’s appearance in his work clothes at the inquest.

How did he come to the attention of the police.
They must have found him or he must have surrendered himself.

How would they have found him so quickly?
The newspaper story mentioning him – not by name, address or workplace - appeared late on Sunday afternoon and he was in court early Monday morning. Could the police have acted that rapdily?
We know they took some time to track down Paul and he used the same route as Charles Lechmere – at least down Bucks Row. They also knew his name, profession and the location where he carried goods.
It is scarcely credible that they found him.

That implies that he surrendered himself, but when?
Would he have handed himself in on his way to work on Monday morning? This seems to fly in the face of his reluctance to hang around on the Friday morning in case he was late for work.
If he intentionally went to the police to give his story, then logically it would have been at a time that did not impinge on his work day. Bearing in mind the release of the Robert Paul newspaper story on the Sunday late afternoon the most likely time for his appearance at the police station seems to be late Sunday afternoon.

He would have given his home address and workplace at the police station. Is it possible that the police used this information to summons Charles Lechmere on Monday morning – after he had set off for work in his work clothes?

If he appeared at the police station on Saturday – in other words his appearance at the police station was unrelated to the Robert Paul story – then it is more likely that the police would have summonsed him on the Sunday (via his home address) and he would not have turned up at the inquest in his work clothes.
If he appeared at the police station on Sunday evening could they have summonsed him at work on the Monday morning? He was due in work at 4 am apparently. He was a carman. His duties would have taken him out and about – delivering items and frequently waiting to be able to unload. It would have been most difficult to track him down.
But who would have made the decision to summons him and at what time?
Given that the inquest was taking place next morning, a relevant senior officer would almost certainly not have been on hand in the early hours to make such a decision – as they attended the inquest. It is much moiré likely that a relevant senior officer was present in the late afternoon on the Sunday – the time I would suggest is the most likely time he presented himself. That is why the most likely scenario is that he gave his interview and was summonsed more or less immediately afterwards.
That means he would have known that he wouldn’t be going to work (Robert Paul knew when he was eventually pressed to attend the inquest).

Even if he did think he might be able to go to work, why on earth did Charles Lechmere keep his apron on?
The conclusion I would draw is that he wanted to present himself as a respectful humble harmless industrious guy. His testimony is littered with ‘yes sirs, no sirs’.

The alternative explanations for his attire and for how he was summonsed are very convoluted.
The simple explanation is that he appeared at the police station on the Sunday evening and was summonsed before he left.
This leaves the awkward fact that he turned up at the inquest in his work clothes.

[Sally]

Fisherman

Just like you, then. For claiming that he was innocent is just as much "conjecture". And in that case it is conjecture that needs to find an innocent explanation to the name swop and the Mizen scam.

To begin with, the 'Mizen Scam' is not a proven fact, Fisherman, so I don't need to find an innocent explanation for it at all. It may have happened as you postulate, but until you can prove that it did, it remains a device of your own making - nothing more or less than that.

The use of the name Cross is interesting, but currently, nothing more than that. Since you are claiming that Lechmere was guilty whilst there are alternative exxplanations which require no guilt; the onus is on you to prove your case.

The same would apply to anybody who made a case or advanced a theory.

I donīt have those problems. The two phenomenons are in line with dishonesty, not honesty. IF you can tell the difference?

Do you not see that this is your personal conviction? It is not an established fact; nor is there overwhelming evidence that it is.

Putting aside your patronising comments, which are of no interest -

PS. Try to ADD something next time. A new idea, a fresh perspective... anything but "Ha ha! I donīt believe you!"

Why don't you add something new? Its your theory, after all, and all you have done for the last several months is repeat the same old arguments. Every single point that you make in respect of Crossmere's guilt can be countered by perfectly reasonable alternatives. An entirely different picture can emerge which suggests a man who simply didn't wish to be involved - and who could blame him for that?

If you can demonstrate that you are right and the other scenario is wrong, then go ahead.

I fear that you will need slightly more than personal conviction for that though.

[Sally]

Ed

Sal
You ‘know’ that Toppy wasn’t the witness Hutchinson?
Presumably that is based on your intimate knowledge about Toppy which has led you to conclude that there were “many similarities between his own life and that of Crossmere.”
I would be most interested to know what these profound similarities were.

Blah blah blah....

I'm quite sure you're not interested in my opinion Ed, since you know that Toppy was Hutchinson, eh?

I'm afraid that, that being the case, it would be you with the intimate knowledge, not I.

As for the similarities, you know what those are, pretending otherwise is just bluff and distraction - and a terrible bore.

There is no reason at all, based on your assumptions about Crossmere, that Toppy (assuming that he was indeed Hutchinson) couldn't have been a cold blooded killer.

Perhaps the clue is in the plumbing, eh?

[Lechmere]

Sal
But you've been giving your opinions even though you are not interested in suspect based Ripperology.
However when it comes to Hutch you seem to have hard and fast views. I thought that was a bit strange that's all.

Just so you know, I've never said that Toppy must be Hutchinson - although I think it is very likely.

As for the similarities... I would say there are no similarities between Toppy and Charles Lechmere beyond the bland facts that they were both overtly law abiding, married and had children - 'similarities' which would unite millions of Londoners at the time.
As personalities they come across as polar opposites - one a happy go lucky chancer, the other an obsessive and very particular fellow. One has characteristics that could be associated with a psychopathic control freak.

[Sally]

Ed

But you've been giving your opinions even though you are not interested in suspect based Ripperology.

You are correct Ed. I'm not, for reasons stated ad nauseum. It does not follow, however, that I won't have a view on the strength and weakness of a theory - any theory, up to and includiong proposed suspects.

The bottom line is that there is insufficient evidence to realistically point the finger at anybody - so far. I think it is fair in those circumstances to presume innocence until proven otherwise - or at the very least, the presence of very strong indicators. You don't have those with Cross, because other, innocent explanations might as easily apply. Your theory is not particularly special in this respect - the same could be said of many suspect theories.

The bottom, bottom l,ine is that we are working with a very small piece of the puzzle. We have only a little of the documentation for the case, cannot know the answer to a great many questions, and must therefore speculate. That is how a great many modern suspects have earned their place in my view - from simple lack of information. If we knew now what the police knew then, I have no doubt that our views would be completely different.

However when it comes to Hutch you seem to have hard and fast views. I thought that was a bit strange that's all.

Well, there we are. I don't think I've said I think he was a murderer though? There is a case for him as a suspect, but again, other explanations could apply. Perhaps it comes down to personal belief - but that's not for me. I believe what I can see - hard, empirical evidence.

Just so you know, I've never said that Toppy must be Hutchinson - although I think it is very likely.

Ah well. Each to their own.

As for the similarities... I would say there are no similarities between Toppy and Charles Lechmere beyond the bland facts that they were both overtly law abiding, married and had children - 'similarities' which would unite millions of Londoners at the time.As personalities they come across as polar opposites - one a happy go lucky chancer, the other an obsessive and very particular fellow. One has characteristics that could be associated with a psychopathic control freak.

But Ed, don't you see? You have no idea what their personalities were like. You have taken what you know about both and projected your own bias on to it. Your view is entirely subjective.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"To begin with, the 'Mizen Scam' is not a proven fact, Fisherman, so I don't need to find an innocent explanation for it at all. It may have happened as you postulate, but until you can prove that it did, it remains a device of your own making - nothing more or less than that. "

Same answer, Sally: YOUR take on things remains YOUR device of your own making (or "conjecture", that cherished term of yours!). And - once again - MY take tallies with the false name and the scam, whereas your does not. As for the scam not being a fact, we all know that; me, you, Ben, Lechmere, Donald Duck and the three Stooges.

If you had read all my ( and Donald Ducks) posts more carefully, you would have known this. But you apparently have not, since you write:

""It is not an established fact..."

Had your answer, Sally!

"... nor is there overwhelming evidence that it is."

No overwhelming evidence that giving a false name is more in line with dishonesty than with honesty? Sweet Jesus, Sally ... you DO say the strangest things! Or do you mean that lying to a PC is not in line with dishonesty but instead with being a stand-up guy ...?

"Why don't you add something new?"

Well, I already have, actually. I wrote a dissertation on the Mizen scam, remember, revealing the potentially very incriminating nature of it. Then I travelled to London to participate in an event where I gave a talk on the subject. Then I spoke to journalists here in Sweden about it, and contacted an authority on criminology who I hope to hear from in the future. I did - and do - lots of things, whereas you seem very happy to do no more than say "Ha ha! I donīt believe you!" Funny and relaxing though it may feel, it is very improductive as regards the case.

So you see, criticizing ME for not adding anything but the odd spew doesnīt cut the mustard, Sally. If it had not been for Edward and me, you would not be reading all the new Lechmere threads. And much as Iīm sure youīd prefer it that way, it was not to be.

"Every single point that you make in respect of Crossmere's guilt can be countered by perfectly reasonable alternatives."

But I donīt think you produce "perfect reason", Sally - not at all, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Seriouslly Fisherman, you ought to consider dropping the posturing. It does you no favours.

I say this because at the end of the day its your party, not mine. I don't need to demonstrate anything. You do, however, if you want your 'Lechmere bid' to be taken seriously.

Combative posting doesn't cut it, I'm afraid, it only makes your arguments look weak.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Combative posting doesn't cut it, I'm afraid, it only makes your arguments look weak."

Look whoīs talking!

And Iīm afraid most TRULY serious posters look at the inherent qualitites of the material only, not weighing in any petty personal dislikings and such things. What Lechmere did and how he did it is not in any way changed by how it is presented by us, 124 years later. It is a given thing, laid down in history and something that we can only study, not change.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Noticed you have trouble spelling "seriously" ...?
__________________

[Sally]

And Iīm afraid most TRULY serious posters look at the inherent qualitites of the material only, not weighing in any petty personal dislikings and such things. What Lechmere did and how he did it is not in any way changed by how it is presented by usd, 124 years later. It is a given thing, laid down in history and something that we can only study, not change.

But Fisherman - that's exactly what other posters have been doing for the last several months - looking at the inherent qaulities of the material, and generally finding it lacking.

We cannot change what happened 124 years ago - None of that makes a jot of difference to the fact that you have only your personal conviction - nothing more, nothing less. The facts are open to interpretation, particularly since we lack so much by way of contemporary documentation.

But anyway, whatever. I'm done with it, I think.

[DVV]

DVV
However I also initially assumed that Charles Lechmere had given his details to Mizen – i.e. while on his way to work. It is now beyond reasonable doubt that he slipped past Mizen without giving any of his personal details and later appeared at a police station.

How did he come to the attention of the police.
They must have found him or he must have surrendered himself.

How would they have found him so quickly?
The newspaper story mentioning him – not by name, address or workplace - appeared late on Sunday afternoon and he was in court early Monday morning. Could the police have acted that rapdily?
We know they took some time to track down Paul and he used the same route as Charles Lechmere – at least down Bucks Row. They also knew his name, profession and the location where he carried goods.
It is scarcely credible that they found him.

That implies that he surrendered himself, but when?
Would he have handed himself in on his way to work on Monday morning? This seems to fly in the face of his reluctance to hang around on the Friday morning in case he was late for work.
If he intentionally went to the police to give his story, then logically it would have been at a time that did not impinge on his work day. Bearing in mind the release of the Robert Paul newspaper story on the Sunday late afternoon the most likely time for his appearance at the police station seems to be late Sunday afternoon.

Hi Lechmere,

we should bear in mind that what the two carmen had seen in Buck's Row, and reported to Mizen, although intriguing/worrying, had little to compare to the crime scene discovered by Reeves in the Tabram case (she was lying in a pool of blood), or worse, by Davis in the Chapman case.

It even didn't look a crime scene - hence the carmen saying that there was a woman lying in Buck's Row, possibly dead, possibly drunk (the latter being less likely, they felt). It was, therefore, almost nothing out of the ordinary... and that was why, I think, Mizen did not really care.
When Paul and Lechmere left Mizen that morning, they didn't know they were witnesses of an extraordinary murder case that would soon be connected to those of Smith and Tabram (by the police, the papers). It only started to leak out in the afternoon, then it got printed in the evening newspapers.
Such being the case, Lechmere's "reluctance to hang around" (same reluctance on Paul's behalf, btw) shouldn't arouse suspicions.

But he heard or read more, perhaps on Friday afternoon, undoubtedly on Saturday morning. And then, understanding how important was the matter, and thus his own testimony, he came forward.
And he may have done so on Saturday morning, or evening, or on Sunday. It has in my opinion nothing to do with the Lloyds Weekly News, that he may have read, or not.

The fact that Lechmere wasn't summoned on Saturday is hardly a proof that he had not yet come forward : Mizen and Thain weren't summoned either, and they weren't on the run.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"that's exactly what other posters have been doing for the last several months - looking at the inherent qaulities of the material, and generally finding it lacking."

SOME posters find it "lacking", while other posters find it a good solution. And over the last several months, things have been added, scrutinized and compared. During this time, nothing at all has surfaced that disenables the theory to be spot on, albeit a lot of shudda-cudda-wudda has been offered, as Edward so aptly put it.

That, Sally, is exactly as it should be. It is what the boards are for. It is what discussing is about.

What is is not about - and should never be - is to offer "Ha ha - I donīt believe you", since that is a thoroughly anti-intellectual approach to any theory.

Another example of what it should not be about is saying "You need to add something new!", and when you have it pointed out to you that no matter how we look upon it, I am the one who actually lies behind the whole discussion (together with Edward, who has done far more research than I have on the man), you say I should refrain from "posturing"...? It is a deplorable manner of discussing things, and just as lacking as ever of any REAL contribution to the core issues of the case.

Next example:

"We cannot change what happened 124 years ago - None of that makes a jot of difference to the fact that you have only your personal conviction"

Iīm sorry, Sally, but I have LOTS more. I have the scam, the name swop, the background of the man, the geography of the murder sites, the testified about moves of him on the murder night, his appearance at the inquest, the interaction with Paul... I have mountains and mountains of information and facts that easily work together in an accusation act against Charles Lechmere. So donīt tell me I have nothing, Sally - it is patently wrong. Or uninformed. Or ignorant. Or whatever, but it is not the truth at any rate.

"I'm done with it, I think."

Iīm not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"It even didn't look a crime scene - hence the carmen saying that there was a woman lying in Buck's Row, possibly dead, possibly drunk"

Have a check, David - and find out who claims that this information was given to Mizen!

"that was why, I think, Mizen did not really care. "

You think that a PC would "not really care" about a potentially dead woman lying in the street? Nothing out of the ordinary, eh?

The best,
Fisherman