Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Lechmere]

Like you mr lucky I do not think it is likely that the police tracked down and raided Paul just so he could be another witness at the inquest. Charles Lechmere's testimony had precluded the necessity of having Paul testify. Paul added nothing to the tale.
But if Paul was raided after the chapman murder, as seems likely, and if he was questioned about it - and possibly the tabram murder ( as Paul did live close to bucks row - 2 minutes walk away) then why was he reticent about this with the press?
Well that isn't really a difficult question to answer. Did he want it known that he was suspected of murdering three women in a very brutal manner? That's not exactly something I would Want to advertise. The example of pizer was in front of him.

[Mr Lucky]

Well you know best.

Hi Caz

I don’t ‘know’ anything, I’m just another crackpot with a theory

Why do you think Paul was fetched up in the night? I'm presuming it was because the police had reason to question him about the morning of the murder. He was just another innocent witness, after all is said and done, but his honesty and reliability had yet to be established.

No, that’s the point, I don’t think that the police just want him to give a statement or just wanted to establish his reliability or anything as mundane as that. I think they have fetched him up in the middle of the night because they genuinely believe that Paul is the killer. I don’t think they would have wasted the time and resources doing this, otherwise.

Is there anyone else connected to the murders raided at night like Paul was?

What I find really fascinating is why Paul think he’s been raided because of his statement in Lloyd’s rather than him being suspected of the murder.

But, to be fair there's a vast amount of information connected to the Bucks Row murder that I find fascinating, that everyone else (including others putting Cross forward as a suspect) have no interest in whatsoever, so it might just be me!

Not sure I see what you are driving at with this, or how you are relating it to Lechmere's actions.

Sorry, I believe that Cross killed Nichols, and so on that basis I would suggest that the police think Paul is the murderer due to Cross misleading them.

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky:

" I gave you the answer"

Nope - you gave me an opinion. Yours.

I'm stating as a fact that on the 3rd of September 1888 the Star Newspaper printed 'Carman Cross was the next witness, He lived at 22 Doveton street'

Sorry, it's not an opinion, that's what the Star printed.

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"The murders all happened very close to one another, so it's no coincidence at all that they also happened within easy walking distance of where most witnesses you care to name would either have lived, lodged or worked."

Close to - yes. But IN LINE WITH on an everyday basis? Not at all! A man that lived in Bakerīs Row and worked in Ellen Street would be near - but there would be no explanation as to why he killed along the thoroughfares Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street. A man who lived in Dorset Street and worked by Victoria park? Same thing. Many men lived nearby, but only the fewest had reason to travel this area in an east/westernly direction every day at around 3.30-4.00. And once you find such a man, you need to connect the dots with the southern exception of Berner Street too. Plus - and this is the hard part, only ONE of the men who had some sort of connection to this area at the times we are speaking of, was actually found by a Ripper victim, did actually give a phony name to the police/inquest and was actually pointed out by a PC as having fooled him on the murder morning.

The geographical indications very clearly points Lechmere out as a likely suspect, since EACH AND EVERYONE of the spots are compatible with the times and paths he would reasonably have used. No raving about how scores of men would have had a reason to be in the general vicinity changes that a iota. "Completely ridiculous" relates very well to not accepting this, since it is blatantly obvious.

"I would argue it the other way round and say that the killer would have been a damned fool to have his 'whole pearlstring of murders happen in all the wrong places if you needed to look innocent' - especially if he had already drawn a sackload of attention to himself with the early Buck's Row murder."

Which he apparently never had, Caz! And if the police did not suspect him, then the pattern of murder spots was as much of an enigma to them as to everybody else. It is not until we have a man that uses these streets as an everyday thoroughfare that we can see this pattern, and it all becomes very clear.

"My feeling is that the killer was smart enough not to dirty his own doorstep"

What about what history teaches us, Caz? How many examples do you need of killers who have done this exact thing - killed in what they perceive to be comfort zones? Killed where they know the premises and actually feel sheltered by this knowledge? What do you think the police looks for in serial killer cases? Connections, Caz! Are the murdered victims connected to each other in any way? Did they have a mutual aquaintance? OR DID THEY ALL MOVE ALONG THE SAME PATHS? It is basic, very, very basic to check this parameter, and the police ALWAYS does, for the simple reason that it is likely to pay off. Have you noticed how scores of serial killers get dubbed to names involving cities, areas, rivers in the papers? Why do you think this is? The Genessee River killer, the Green River killer, The Rostov Ripper, The Butcher of Kingsbury Run, The Frankford Slasher, The Long Island Ripper, The Boston Strangler, The Cleveland Strangler, The Clairmont killer, The Gainesville Ripper, The Jacksonville killer ...?
How did this come about? Was it because these killers were smart enough to travel and kill, never striking in the same area twice? No, it was not. It was because they all preferred to kill within their comfort zones, and because as long as the police were not on to them, the patterns created by their murders told the police very little. Once they were in custody, though, it was all very logical and easy to see. So your hunch that this killer - before the age of cars and common transport in the real sense - would have been smart enough to travel into the area and strike, after which he travelled out again, is something that will have to stand for you and you alone. History is riddled with foul characters - some of them with very high IQ:s! - who have killed on their doorsteps, since they perceived the area as a comfort zone. End of lesson!

"The only bad luck he had was to be suspected, so many years after his death, of being Jack the Bloody Ripper, by someone with "scam" on the brain, and no room left to allow for normal human actions and reactions, which inevitably produce coincidence, mishearing and misunderstanding."

Do you know what a mishearing and/or misunderstanding is? It is option two - when what is recorded MUST be wrong. In this case, once you stop to hope for misunderstandings and mishearings and look at what WAS recorded, you will find that it all forms a straight line, all the bits corresponding with one and other. Why not try THAT angle? The angle that he DID give the wrong name, that Mizen DID hear him say what he adamantly claimed he HAD heard him say, that he DID omitt to give his address at the inquest, that he DID touch Nichols, only to suddenly say that he refused to touch her. Why re-interpret when it is all in accordance - accordance with a killer?

"You don't know that they didn't pop into Pickfords, where his details would have checked out if everyone there knew him as Cross, which is entirely possible and plausible, given his known family background."

I only know that his REAL family background said Lechmere, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And I know that the cops did NOT find out what his real name was, otherwise they would have published it in their reports. So itīs more of the same - it points clearly in one direction, and you are ready to go through fire to re-interpret once again. Big surprise, huh?

" it wasn't a crime to use his late stepfather's name, but how would it have been to the killer's advantage to do so, if it could so easily have been discovered that this was a one-off use, just for the cops? "

Oh. Oh-oh. Oh-oh-oh..!!!! Listen, Caz, and listen good: IT-WAS-TO-THE-KILLERS-ADVANTAGE-AS-LONG-AS-THEY-DID-NOT-CHECK!!! That is how it was to the killers advantage - it allowed him to stay undetected by the ones he knew!!!
They did not check. Once more: They did NOT check. Third time: They did NOT check!!! It could only have been a disadvantage if they HAD checked, but you know what? They did NOT.
He was a killer, seemingly. He ran a risk, seemingly. Is that odd? Is that strange? He killed out in the open streets, and eviscerated to boot - now, thereīs STRANGE for you. He could do that - but he could not give a false name to the police...?

"What, so every man they ever suspected, or pulled in for questioning, had low foreheads 'and all that stuff' did they? Another myth.."

Myth? So frenology was not in demand in 1888? The nazis did not measure skulls in the 1930:s? A myth? Utter ignorance, Iīm afraid! Read up, and THEN you may have something to offer other than a total lack of insight in the topic. I suggest Trowīs recent book on the Torso Murders, where he makes a very good overview of this precise thing, how the police of the day worked to the standards of frenology, believing that physical differences could tell then about inclinations to criminal behaviour. Of course they did not only act on these things, but the truth of the matter is that it WAS a factor. And before you speak of myths, you may want t read up on this.
To begin with, heres an excerpt from the Medical Dictionary:
"Phrenology. A medical ‘discipline’ popular in the 18th to 19th century, which was based on the now-quaint belief that there was a relationship between the structure of the skull and mental traits" Source: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedic....com/Frenology
End of THAT lesson, Caz!

"What used to make one or two posters stick like superglue to Hutchinson, as the man who outsmarted those dumb coppers, is now doing precisely the same for one or two Lechmere fanciers."

Since the parameters are not the same, how could this be? Your ignorance is once again showing, Caz.

"I'll criticise whatever I feel warrants criticism"

Like the existance of frenology in the 19:th century?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Thanks for the answer, but why would they have to fetch Paul up in the night if it was just to satisfy themselves that there was no evidence against him, what about all the other witnesses involved in the case that there is no evidence against, why weren’t they fetched up too ?

Can’t they just send an inspector round during the day like they did with Pizer ?

Also, just out of curiosity, when do you think Paul was raided ?

Hi Mr Lucky,

Well you know best. Why do you think Paul was fetched up in the night? I'm presuming it was because the police had reason to question him about the morning of the murder. He was just another innocent witness, after all is said and done, but his honesty and reliability had yet to be established.

Not sure I see what you are driving at with this, or how you are relating it to Lechmere's actions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

" I gave you the answer"

Nope - you gave me an opinion. Yours.

The best,
Fishermsn

[caz]

One interesting parameter would be the murder spots - if Lechmere WAS innocent, going to the police just to ensure that the cops did not take his appearance in Buckīs Row the wrong way, then surely the subsequent murders will exonerate him by not falling along the two thoroughfares inbetween Buckīs Row and Broad Street? Such a coincidence would be completely ridiculous, so he could of course safely rely on ... hello...? whatīs this...? Me oh my - the killings DID occur exactly along these routes. Wow. That IS unlucky. Well, at least there was the one murder that did NOT fall along these unfortunate stretches, the one in Berner Street, and that would tell us ...yes...? WHAT!!!???

See what I mean?

No.

The murders all happened very close to one another, so it's no coincidence at all that they also happened within easy walking distance of where most witnesses you care to name would either have lived, lodged or worked. On top of that, literally thousands of potential witnesses could have been walking the same teeming streets as the killer while he was active, so I call it completely ridiculous to use this against Lechmere when it could so easily have been Paul, or PC Neil, or someone else entirely who reached that part of Buck's Row first and found a body there.

I would argue it the other way round and say that the killer would have been a damned fool to have his 'whole pearlstring of murders happen in all the wrong places if you needed to look innocent' - especially if he had already drawn a sackload of attention to himself with the early Buck's Row murder. My feeling is that the killer was smart enough not to dirty his own doorstep, with the aim not only of avoiding the very localised police searches, but of remaining free to come into and out of the area at will, anonymous in 1888 and forever.

Why was he so DESPERATELY unlucky as to produce something that so clearly resembled a scam shaped to get past the police? Where DO all these "coincidences", "mishearings" and "misunderstandings" come from?

So DESPERATELY unlucky, Fishy? The only bad luck he had was to be suspected, so many years after his death, of being Jack the Bloody Ripper, by someone with "scam" on the brain, and no room left to allow for normal human actions and reactions, which inevitably produce coincidence, mishearing and misunderstanding.

Did they check him thoroughly and just happened to miss his name? Or did they invest too much in him seeming honest and having contacted the police himself, not once but TWICE? You know which solution to this enigma I recommend!

And we are back to the bloody name thing again. You don't know that they didn't pop into Pickfords, where his details would have checked out if everyone there knew him as Cross, which is entirely possible and plausible, given his known family background. In any case, it wasn't a crime to use his late stepfather's name, but how would it have been to the killer's advantage to do so, if it could so easily have been discovered that this was a one-off use, just for the cops?

Keep in mind, Caz, that 1888 was a time when frenologists were still having an impact on how people, the public AND the professionals, shaped their pictures of what a criminal looked like. Low foreheads and all that stuff - this was still the order of the day to a great extent. Lechmere looked and acted in all the wrong ways to be a good suspect!

What, so every man they ever suspected, or pulled in for questioning, had low foreheads 'and all that stuff' did they? Another myth, put about by those with pet suspects who were never suspected at the time. The police were blind fools who knew nothing and either went after toffs in top hats or mad-looking creatures with low foreheads and staring eyes.

But I am equally satisfied that the police did NOT consider him a useful suspect, based not on police work as such but on contemporarily very common prejudices.

So easy to say, so hard to demonstrate. What used to make one or two posters stick like superglue to Hutchinson, as the man who outsmarted those dumb coppers, is now doing precisely the same for one or two Lechmere fanciers.

And I'll criticise whatever I feel warrants criticism, in the absence of any better factual information. That's what debating is about, and it's all we can do at this stage.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

I forget very few things. Thatīs why I clearly remember that I have told you that I am of the meaning that he did NOT give his address at the inquest, and also that I have explained to you exactly WHY I am of this opinion!

Hi Fisherman

No, you weren't giving an opinion you were asking a question -, 'why did our innocent carman not give his adress at the inquest?' So I gave you the answer, he HAS given his address, as this is what the star paper published that day tells us.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"Have you forgot, he did give his address at the inquest"

I forget very few things. Thatīs why I clearly remember that I have told you that I am of the meaning that he did NOT give his address at the inquest, and also that I have explained to you exactly WHY I am of this opinion!

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

There was no more evidence against Paul than there was against the man he spoke about to Lloyd's - who then came forward voluntarily to identify himself as the man who had found Nichols. But clearly the police still wanted to track Paul down and check out his story, so they would have wanted to do the same with the other man, had he not already come forward. But when Paul was 'fetched up in the middle of the night' he wasn't charged with failing to go to the police of his own accord, was he? So why would it have been any different for Lechmere, if he too had been 'fetched up in the middle of the night'?

The fact is, they treated Paul as a person of interest in their enquiries, so they would have treated Lechmere likewise, especially as he was already at the scene when Paul arrived. Therefore they would have satisfied themselves that there was no evidence, and nothing in the men's statements, that could be used against either of them.

Hi Caz,

Thanks for the answer, but why would they have to fetch Paul up in the night if it was just to satisfy themselves that there was no evidence against him, what about all the other witnesses involved in the case that there is no evidence against, why weren’t they fetched up too ?

Can’t they just send an inspector round during the day like they did with Pizer ?

Also, just out of curiosity, when do you think Paul was raided ?

[Mr Lucky]

why did our innocent carman not give his adress at the inquest?

Hi Fisherman,

Have you forgot, he did give his address at the inquest, it's in the Star -

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

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"All this is fair enough, but it would apply equally if Lechmere had innocently come across the body of Nichols, thought he had done his bit by alerting PC Mizen, then saw what Paul said in the papers and realised the police might suspect him if he didn't give them his own account."

Absolutely, Caz; it would. Which is why we need more to substantiate our suspicions, if indeed we harbour such sentiments (and we do!).
One interesting parameter would be the murder spots - if Lechmere WAS innocent, going to the police just to ensure that the cops did not take his appearance in Buckīs Row the wrong way, then surely the subsequent murders will exonerate him by not falling along the two thoroughfares inbetween Buckīs Row and Broad Street? Such a coincidence would be completely ridiculous, so he could of course safely rely on ... hello...? whatīs this...? Me oh my - the killings DID occur exactly along these routes. Wow. That IS unlucky. Well, at least there was the one murder that did NOT fall along these unfortunate stretches, the one in Berner Street, and that would tell us ...yes...? WHAT!!!???

See what I mean?

Besides, even if having the whole pearlstring of murders happen in all the wrong places if you needed to look innocent - why on earth would he pull the kind of stunt Mizen tells us about? Why was he so DESPERATELY unlucky as to produce something that so clearly resembled a scam shaped to get past the police? Where DO all these "coincidences", "mishearings" and "misunderstandings" come from?

Weigh it together, Caz. You try to pick and dismantle little details, but it does not pan out for you. Look at it the other way, ask yourself what the chances were...!

"the fact that he did come forward doesn't change anything about his reported behaviour on the night in question"

Nope. Such things only happen in American movies (sorry, U.S. ripperologists!).

"...and that is what the police had to satisfy themselves about."

Of course, of course. And...?

"If they had found any reason to question his role in the affair, his co-operation afterwards would not in itself have stopped them doing so."

No it would not. Conclusion? Did they check him thoroughly and just happened to miss his name? Or did they invest too much in him seeming honest and having contacted the police himself, not once but TWICE? You know which solution to this enigma I recommend!
Keep in mind, Caz, that 1888 was a time when frenologists were still having an impact on how people, the public AND the professionals, shaped their pictures of what a criminal looked like. Low foreheads and all that stuff - this was still the order of the day to a great extent. Lechmere looked and acted in all the wrong ways to be a good suspect!

"I don't believe it would have been 'all good and well', and enough to clear himself, if they would otherwise have considered his actions on the night suspicious, or 'very strange'. "

Nor do I. But I am equally satisfied that the police did NOT consider him a useful suspect, based not on police work as such but on contemporarily very common prejudices.

"And with this 'one chance and one chance only' to secure a lasting impression of himself as a decent, law-abiding citizen, he nearly blows it all with a silly false name that nobody would know him by?"

Nearly? How "near" was it? Do we know? I think not. But we DO know that he DID choose to give the wrong name, and I would suggest that giving the RIGHT name would have blown his cover visavi his wife, family and aquaintances. Weīve been over this ninehundred and ninetyfive times, and I have not changed my view. If Charles Lechmere killed Nichols, then he also decided to bluff his way out of Buckīs Row. And if he decided to bluff his way out of Buckīs Row, then he also decided against legging it - there and then AND in the future. If this was so, he had decided to stay put where he was - an inconspicous carman with a large family, a Mr Nobody. And if he wanted to cling on to that role - as clearly implicated by his choices on the murder morning - then a major ingredient in his chances to go on killing and lying low at the same time, would be to keep all information about his participation in the Ripper drama away from the ones who knew him. And what we know of him very cleary imlipicates that he did EXACTLY this.
Take a look at Moonbeggerīs find, for example - why did our innocent carman not give his adress at the inquest? Why leave it out and give the wrong name too? I can only think of one practical use - and that was to stay undetected by the ones who knew him. Your suggestion, on the contrary, would be that he simply forgot to give his address and that he was always called Cross at work - very practical indeed if you were called Lechmere in all other walks of life...?

Now, Caz, feel welcome to criticize - but please, please, please, PLEASE criticize OTHER parameters than the usual stuff.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

It could well have turned him into a suspect, and thatīs a big step towards the gallows as such. Even if there had been no direct proof, he would have had all the reason in the world to try and avoid suspicion. To me, thatīs all very easy and obvious.

As easy and obvious as legging it from the scene before Paul arrived would have avoided suspicion for all time?

We have evidently been talking at cross purposes here, because when you first talked about him vanishing 'off the face of the earth' I assumed you meant after he had bluffed his way past Paul and Mizen, without giving his details, and that all the 'would' or 'could' have 'legged it' comments were in that context, not in the context of disappearing before Paul even arrived.

And letīs not forget that Paul would have been a major nuisance to him if he was the killer.

Again, that would have held true from the moment he had been aware of Paul's approach, and not just after he blabbed to the papers. If he was such a major nuisance to him, he nevertheless gave Paul an alibi, while putting himself first at the scene. One man's word against another, and that was the best he could do.

"They'd either have learned his real name by then..."

And what would it tell them, finding out that he was Charles Lechmere and not Charles Cross? Any thoughts?

Yes. In that scenario, he is waiting for the police to come to him, not the other way round, so he has not yet given his name as anything to anyone. He didn't give a name to Mizen, did he?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz, he probably came forward after having read Pauls paper interview. When he read it, he read that Paul pinned him as "standing where the woman was". This would have made him think "Okay, so now the police know that there was a lone man standing right by the body at the more or less exact time when she died, a man of whom they know not what he was doing there". If this was what led him to the police, then this was because he realized that things looked bad for him. The cops would see that they had a man by the victim, his reason for doing so being totally unaccounted for.

Why would he wait for the cops to come looking for him? What good could that possibly do his cause? Is it not true that it could only harm him to stay away from the police? Every passing second increased the chances that the police would take an active interest in him as the potential killer.

Hi again Fishy,

All this is fair enough, but it would apply equally if Lechmere had innocently come across the body of Nichols, thought he had done his bit by alerting PC Mizen, then saw what Paul said in the papers and realised the police might suspect him if he didn't give them his own account.

He had one thing that worked very much in favour for him, though - he had voluntarily contacted the police on the murder morning. And the police knew that if there was one thing that a killer would try to avoid, then that thing would be a contact with the police three minutes after the murder.
And still, Lechmere actively sought out and contacted the police, informing Mizen about Nichols. This would be very, very much to his advantage - but only as long as he could be accounted for. If he stayed away, then the police would realize that he had not given Mizen his name, and that he had said something very strange to him: that another PC awaited Mizen in Buckīs Row.

But the fact that he did come forward doesn't change anything about his reported behaviour on the night in question, and that is what the police had to satisfy themselves about. If they had found any reason to question his role in the affair, his co-operation afterwards would not in itself have stopped them doing so.

But as long as he reported in himself, it was all good and well. That reinforced the impression that the police were dealing with a servant of the society, a benevolent man, a cooperator. He had one chance and one chance only to secure that this became the lasting impression with the Met - and that was to approach them himself, and on the double.

I don't believe it would have been 'all good and well', and enough to clear himself, if they would otherwise have considered his actions on the night suspicious, or 'very strange'. And with this 'one chance and one chance only' to secure a lasting impression of himself as a decent, law-abiding citizen, he nearly blows it all with a silly false name that nobody would know him by?

Surely some mistake!

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"So what, Fishy?"

??? Would or could are very different - thatīs what.

"My whole argument has been that he could have stayed put as long as he wasn't suspected of anything, and if the police had become suspicious, simply because, like Paul, he hadn't reported to them again of his own accord after that night when he had spoken to PC Mizen, what difference would it have made to what they could have done about it? "

Suspect him/not suspect him. Thatīs the difference weīre talking about.

"For the last time..."

Promise?

"What I can't see is why he would have feared getting 'an unwanted necklace for Christmas' by merely staying put and letting the police come to him if they could find him, like they did Paul. How would that have provided the police with any more evidence of his involvement in the murder than identifying himself when he did and attending the inquest?"

It could well have turned him into a suspect, and thatīs a big step towards the gallows as such. Even if there had been no direct proof, he would have had all the reason in the world to try and avoid suspicion. To me, thatīs all very easy and obvious.

"If you are suggesting that Lechmere lured Annie Chapman to Hanbury St to try and get Paul suspected, I find that highly unlikely."

I would not say that he lured her there. He could have found her there. But the next strike after the Buckīs Row strike took place a hundred yards or so from Pauls work-place - of which Lechmere was aware. So the implication is there, no matter if it holds true or not. And letīs not forget that Paul would have been a major nuisance to him if he was the killer.

"As for the name change, you have yet to turn this into evidence for murder."

My take on things is that YOU have yet to provide the evidence that it was innocent, and that people who regularly called themselves X in authority contacts normally/plausibly/habitually called themselves Y in murder case inquiries. Good luck with that one!

"They'd either have learned his real name by then..."

And what would it tell them, finding out that he was Charles Lechmere and not Charles Cross? Any thoughts?

Now please honour the "for the last time" passage and avoid telling me once again that he would had legged it in Buckīs Row, that he would not have gone to the police if he was the killer, and that name swops are perfectly innocent.

Thanking you in advance,
Fisherman