Scenarios for other murders with Lechmere as culprit

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"That's just a quibble, Fisherman, the point remains, if the killer has pulled the dress up why can't Paul pull it down again?"

With respect, it is NOT "just a quibble". It is the correct description of what happened. Paul managed to pull the dress down some way, and that means that the weight of Nichol´s body would not have disenabled the killer to pull the clothes up in order to get at her stomach, nor had it hindered him in covering what he had done.

If Paul had not been able to pull the dress down at all, then we would have had a situation where the killer pulled the dress up, cut her abdomen, lifted the body from the ground, tucked the dress in under her and laid her down on it, effectively locking the dress and disenabling anybody to pull it down.

Interesting thought his would have been, it never happened. And I think the details are of great importance here, as ever.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I think the mother may have known he did the crimes.

On the issue of the dress, yes it must have either got caugh up when she fell or was put down, or Perhaps if her legs were straightened after she was down it Could have happened then.
However the killer clearly lifted the clothing higher after this to attack the abdomen. It is also clear that the killer then allowed the clothing to fall back covering these wounds in marked contrast to the display of the abdominal injuries in the other cases. The most obvious explanation for this is that the killer was to some extent disturbed and wished to disguise what he has done.

[Mr Lucky]

Myy hunch is that his mother sort of knew what he was doing

What, fibbing to the police about his name or murdering unfortunates?

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky:

"Paul has tried to pull the dress down, but he can’t."

But he COULD! He just could not pull it all the way down, but he DID pull it to her knees!

The best,
Fisherman

That's just a quibble, Fisherman, the point remains, if the killer has pulled the dress up why can't Paul pull it down again?

Best wishes

[Lechmere]

Myy hunch is that his mother sort of knew what he was doing

[Fisherman]

Caz!

Just had a break and some afterthought; what´s to say that Lechmere´s mother even read the inquest reports in the papers? Maybe she read about the murder and then that was it. She may have been disinterested or she may have found it too gruesome to read, even.

Next - even if she DID read the report, the paper she had chosen would govern what identity of the carman she was offered. If she got thew George Cross edition, why would she think: Holy crap - George Cross must be Charles Lechmere, my son.
Most people would, I believe, buy just the one paper.

Not to dishearten you too much, Caz, but these are realities that we cannot look away from. You can take heart in your point being the perhaps best one I have seen so far anyway - which goes some way to tell us how much useful criticism has been amassed against the Lechmere theory: precious little.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"The argument goes that Lechmere changed his name to Cross, not with any realistic intent to fool the authorities (since he gave them the means of locating and identifying him if they had wanted to do so, and therefore the means of discovering that Cross was an alias), but in the hope that his wife wouldn't get to hear about his gruesome 'discovery' and make things awkward for him. The argument goes that his wife was illiterate, they had recently moved to Doveton St and she may not have associated the name Cross with him anyway."

Well, whaddoyaknow? You got it slightly wrong again. Let´s mend it!

The argument goes, Caz, that he was very reluctant to let his identity slip out, courtesy of the newspapers. But whether he had reason to tell the coppers the wrong name or not, we can´t tell. He MAY have had the name Lechmere "burnt" for some reason - ponder, for example, the possibility that he had been implicated in a case of lewd behaviour at an earlier stage. In such a case, he would do well not to call himself Lechmere. You can see the sense in this, I take it?
So it´s a little bit more than you picked up on, Caz.

Furthermore, his wifes illiteracy is not an argument, it is a fact. She signed with a mark when she sigend, as did her parents.

There, that score´s corrected. On we go!

"But what about his mother, we keep hearing so much about?"

What about her?

"She would have known instantly what was going on if she saw or heard the reports of a Charles Allen Cross finding the body."

Or George Cross. Or Carman Cross. There were numerous suggestions. But congratulations, Caz - you make a good point!

"How was he going to shut her up? Did she not see her daughter-in-law or other grandchildren and share all the local gossip? I don't suppose for one minute that she would have suspected her son of the murders, but how could he have stopped her innocently nattering to all and sundry about her loving son's moment in the ripper spotlight, followed by "you'll never guess" - his dutiful visit on "the very night that two of 'em got done in, the first one just down the bloomin' road from us!"
I think that puts paid to any idea that the name Cross was used to fool his nearest and dearest."

Sadly not. If it had been the other way around - being named Cross and taking the name Lechmere from a long dead stepfather - it would have made for a better argument (not that it´s bad, but ...), since the name Lechmere was very unusual. But Cross was a common name. I fail to see why Lechmere could not just have said: "That´s George Allan Cross, he´s been with us for ages."

But all in all, it´s the best argument you have come up with so far, after a couple of months of wuddas and shuddas. It needs to be weighed in. But on the whole, unless she went to Pickfords herself since she suspected foul play, to ask about if any George Allan Cross worked there, it is not enough to put the suggestion to bed, as you suggest.

We may also be looking at him telling an inqusitive mother "Yes that was me, but don´t tell Elizabeth and the children. I don´t want to worry them with such a grisly thing." And then that would be it.

Please keep in mind that there is no family tradition of speaking about a family member having been a Ripper witness. It is as if it never happened. And if his mother DID find out and if she DID spill the beans, the odds are that this would have been very different.

But keep it coming, Caz. You just produced a very valid point, and they have been extremely few and far between. I hope that Edward takes the time to give his view too!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"Paul has tried to pull the dress down, but he can’t."

But he COULD! He just could not pull it all the way down, but he DID pull it to her knees!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"If Mizen thinks they work together, then it would be logical to assume that they either left together for work, or that they have come from work together, however if they are carmen then they would not be finishing work at that time but starting it, so I would conclude that they have both left together, and this is why Mizen thinks they work together. "

How´s THAT for simplicity? Mr Lucky, Mizen saw the men arriving at the approximate same time, drew the conclusion that they were in company, saw that they looked like carmen, and saw them take off down Hanbury Street, the two of them, Lechmere perhaps lenghthening his pace to catch up with Paul - we KNOW that they walked together when they reached Corbett´s Court.
That is really all Mizen needed - and a little extra on the side - to come up with the clever guess that they were working comrades.

"my views of the reliance of the press, not just the star, are extremely unorthodox!"

Which has me thinking that it is for some reason tied to your theory.... Yes? Otherwise, it makes no sense to argue the way you do in the matter, if you´ll excuse my French!

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

The argument goes that Lechmere changed his name to Cross, not with any realistic intent to fool the authorities (since he gave them the means of locating and identifying him if they had wanted to do so, and therefore the means of discovering that Cross was an alias), but in the hope that his wife wouldn't get to hear about his gruesome 'discovery' and make things awkward for him. The argument goes that his wife was illiterate, they had recently moved to Doveton St and she may not have associated the name Cross with him anyway.

But what about his mother, we keep hearing so much about? She would have known instantly what was going on if she saw or heard the reports of a Charles Allen Cross finding the body. How was he going to shut her up? Did she not see her daughter-in-law or other grandchildren and share all the local gossip? I don't suppose for one minute that she would have suspected her son of the murders, but how could he have stopped her innocently nattering to all and sundry about her loving son's moment in the ripper spotlight, followed by "you'll never guess" - his dutiful visit on "the very night that two of 'em got done in, the first one just down the bloomin' road from us!"

I think that puts paid to any idea that the name Cross was used to fool his nearest and dearest.

Or are we now going to hear that 'mother dear' was the soul of discretion or could otherwise be depended upon to be too old, too deaf or too stupid to know anything about anything?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

Paul pulled the dress down further but the dress had already been left by the perpetrator in a position that covered the abdominal wounds rather than leaving them on display – and this could be taken to suggest that the perpetrator was disturbed.

Hi Lechmere,

The point of interest for me here, is that Paul has tried to pull the dress down, but he can’t. It appears to be stuck, So if we speculate that the reason the dress can’t come down is because Nichols weight is on it, because it has become folded underneath her, then this would suggest that the dress has become trapped as Nichols fell on to it, rather than it being raised by the killer to enable the abdominal wounds to occur.

So are the abdominal wounds there because the dress is in that position, or is the dress in that position due to the abdominal wounds? Or is it a coincident, the dress ended up in that way, but the killer always wanted to attack her abdomen anyway?

Mizen testified that Charles Lechmere said he was wanted by another policeman. It is quite possible that Paul did not hear this part of the conversation. We can base this on the likelihood that Paul did not himself speak to Mizen - which means he needn’t have been too close. Also we know that Paul was anti-police and may have wanted to keep his distance from Mizen.

But Paul tells Mizen what he has seen, (which must have took some time) -

‘I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not.’ - Lloyds 2 nd Sept. 1888

If Paul did go off ahead while this conversation was taking place, and he was late for work don’t forget, then why would it suggest to Mizen that they weren’t together? It needn’t at all.

If they worked together then they are either both late or neither are late. If one is late and the other one isn’t then it would suggest that they didn’t work together!

As has been pointed out – there is a very rational explanation as to why only the Star got Charles Lechmere’s exact address while not a single other paper even got an approximation for it – and that is that the Star journalist asked for that detail during the lunchtime recess before he filed his copy for that evening’s edition.

But they didn’t ask for his name at the same time ? where's the rational explanation for that?

But I do look forward to reading your theory.... WHEN???

Hopefully soon ! Nearly done !

Best wishes

[Mr Lucky]

If they arrived together, and Lechmere said "you go along, and I´ll talk to the PC!", and then Lechmere set off after Paul, the Mizen would have had a VERY good reason to think so.
If they arrived together in Baker´s row, speaking together, that may have been more than enough.
And they were both carmen, seemingly.
It is not any harder than that.

Hi Fisherman,

If Mizen thinks they work together, then it would be logical to assume that they either left together for work, or that they have come from work together, however if they are carmen then they would not be finishing work at that time but starting it, so I would conclude that they have both left together, and this is why Mizen thinks they work together.

But there will be more things I don´t know. And there will be other things you don´t know. And Monty. And Edward. And anybody. Unless you disagree?

Actually, that’s really what I was getting at, perhaps I misunderstood you there

That, my friend, remains to be seen! Your take on the Star is not promising, I can say that much!

Ha-Ha, my views of the reliance of the press, not just the star, are extremely unorthodox!

Best wishes

[caz]

Caz
I’m never unfair.
But your post seems to be way off topic.
Suffice it to say that I don’t think serial killing runs in the family and I think it is slightly ridiculous to make ‘rest in peace’ and ‘what about the descendants’ claims. They apply to all potential suspects. No one alive today need feel guilty. That should be obvious.
In my opinion Charles Lechmere is the best suspect out there – by quite a long margin.
Finally it is natural for a proponent of a theory to be somewhat more enthusiastic about it than a casual observer. This naturally goes for all Ripper based suspect theories – and other historical theories.... and other non historical theories!

Hi Lechy,

But it was unfair to suggest that anyone on this thread who doesn't dance to the guilty Lechmere tune wants to see him dropped as a potential suspect. I have seen nobody going that far, so as usual it's all conjecture on your part. What most contributors have asked for are good, solid reasons for suspecting him of murder, and there are precious few in his case beyond his physical proximity to one of the victims, which is explained by the fact that he passed along Buck's Row on his way to work and nobody at the time thought the route he was taking, or the time he was taking it, was not in keeping.

I just thought that given your personal Lechmere 'connections', you'd be the one person entitled to be biased against this theory, and would embrace the call for stronger evidence. Yet here you are, with effectively only Fishy for company (because Mr. Lucky cannot agree with your reasoning) wading in for the prosecution.

I would find it terribly odd and rather depressing, if my partner was up here day after day arguing that I was descended from a serial mutilator, but I realise that might just be me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Scott:

"Of course. There seems to be no end to these "coincidences."

The oracle of Delphi was more talkative than you, Scott. AND clearer.

Let´s get it straight! Must the correlation inbetween the suggested workroutes, the position of Lechmere´s mothers quarters and the murder/dumping sites mean that Lechmere is guilty?

No, it must not.

Is it a clear indicator that Lechmere may have been involved in the crimes? Yes, that it is. If he used Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street to get to job as proposed, then the correlation is nothing short of amazing, also weighing in that Eddowes fell prey adjacent to a workroute he had used up til June 1888. That completes the picture.

I put it to you - and anybody else - that if the Met had been handed the material that has been published on the Lechmere threads, the behavior of the man and the geography and timing of the strikes, it would have them wetting their pants in anticipation.

Once again, a number of wet pants is no evidence of guilt - but they WOULD be indicative of a very strong circumstantial case.

If you disagree, it would be really, really nice to hear a bit more about your stance than the occasional discontent/ironic/sarcastic grumble. If there is good, solid criticism to offer that has not been offered as yet, I for one would welcome it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Saturday 29th to Sunday 30th September 1888.
The Double Event complete with apron drop and graffiti scribble.

Here is my conjecture for what may have happened with Charles Lechmere as the culprit.

It is Saturday evening. The only evening when most workers could let their hair down and have a night out unworried about having to get up next day to go to work.

Charles Lechmere goes to visit his mother, Maria, at her house on Cable Street. He does this regularly as one of his daughter’s, Mary Jane (aged 13), lives there. Mary Jane was his second eldest surviving child. Maria was to live with her grand-daughter right up until her death in 1901.

However these visits were uncomfortable as his mother lives with his ailing second step father, Joseph Forsdike (he died a little over a year later).

Charles Lechmere had always lived with his mother or very close to her and she had been a major influence on his own family. He had just three and a half months before moved away to another quite different East End district with his eight children (besides Mary Jane) – including the sickly baby Harriet, who had been born that March (and was to die in December 1890)

After an evening at Cable Street (Red A on map) and a pint in a local pub, at about 12.30 am Charles Lechmere made his way home – the route he would probably have followed is shown Green on the map.

Soon after he left, he saw a prostitute soliciting.
He approached her, and she took him to Duffield’s Yard (Blue S on the map). He knew this was next to a club that was predominantly used by the numerous local Jewish community.

He was slightly uncomfortable as there was a lot of noise coming from the club, although the yard itself was dark. He incapacitated her, then cut her throat. As he did so he heard a noise outside (this could be the altercation Schwartz says he saw, or the approach of Deimschutz with his cart, or something emanating from the International Working Men’s Club).

He stopped and hid in the shadows until it was clear and then fled. He could not afford to be compromised after what had happened at Buck s Row.
He had not had the time to slash her abdomen and felt fundamentally dissatisfied.
He needed to find another victim.
He did not want to continue on his way home. He knew that the area around St Botolph’s Church in Aldgate was favoured by prostitutes. He was more than familiar with the way there as it was until June his route to work (the Red Line).

He walked quickly to the Aldgate area (the Yellow Line) and after a short search found another suitable victim. She took him to Mitre Square. He felt more secure there and after subduing his victim killed her and fully satisfied himself. He cut off part of her apron and rapidly left the scene making directly for home.
Once he was a safe distance away he found a doorway into a quiet stairwell (the Yellow Blob) and left the bloodied apron piece on the floor. He fished into his pocket and retrieved a piece of chalk, that his daughter had from her school.
He wrote a message above the apron – the meaning was clear to him. It was a reference to the interruption that he had experienced while next to the Jewish Club in Berner Street. He placed the blame for him feeling compelled to kill twice in none night on the Jews. It was always someone else’s fault.

He then carried on his way, quickly following his normal route home from work (the Orange Line back to his house the Red B).

If it is necessary for the apron to be left after a delay, then Charles Lechmere could have first gone back to his workplace at Broad Street (Red C). He may have hidden his latest victim’s kidney in his stable area, among the tack and other equipment.