Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

[Fisherman]

Let’s not get bogged down in terminology, but Lechmere must have understood the difference between his ‘street’ name, Cross (assuming he was generally known by that name) and his ‘official’ name, Lechmere.

And he must have known that he was expected to use his ‘official’ name in his encounters with officialdom. But in the Nichols case he didn’t, and it seems that when he ran over and killed a child in 1876 he also hadn’t.

Why might he have used Lechmere when he married, on every census he appeared on, when registering his kids at school or registering to vote, etc. but not on these two occasions?

What’s more likely, that they were oversights or intentional?

You know my answer, Gary; I am the guy who will stop short of nothing to castigate the poor, innocent carman and so I´d say that we are looking at a conscious decision on his behalf when he declined to use his "official" name.

Per se, I have no trouble at all accepting that people could - and were allowed to - use aliases back in these days. Nor do I have any trouble accepting that he could have been hired as "Cross" at Pickfords and so on.

What I am having trouble with is when people refuse to accept that it IS an anomaly when you otherwise always use the name Lechmere when dealing with any sort of authority, but then you suddenly change it for "Cross" when violent death is added. After that, we may of course produce all sorts of suggested reasons for it: he wanted to keep his family out of the business, he didn´t want the name Lechmere to get into the papers in combination with a sordid affair like the Buck´s Row murder, he always thought of himself as "Cross" when in the capacity of a carman and so on - but we must keep in mind that the very reason that these alternative explanations are thought up is that the nameswop IS an anomaly! And anomalies are exactly what we should look for when trying to identify our man.
To boot, there is also the strange fact that he did not give his address in combination with the run over boy some years earlier, just as it is a very clear possibility that he didn´t do so at the Nichols inquest either, and that further adds to the feeling that something is not as it should be. Once again, alternative explanations can be produced, and once again, the reason they must be is that this too IS an anomaly.

You are one of the posters who will readily admit this, although you are not professing to be a Lechmereian, and I salute you for that (the former, not the latter). It goes to show that one can debate the case without falsely claiming that there is no anomaly or anything suspicious involved.

Before logging out and going to the dark forests of Småland for four days (we have rented a small house in the middle of nowhere; we have a dog who is terrified of fireworks), I must of course also add that there is one further thing about the name business that I am having trouble with, and that is when some nitwit gets it into his head to claim that it the only thing I have to make my case against Lechmere, the way Trevor has now claimed that the fact that Lechmere found Nichols is the only thing I have to show for my theory. And, Trevor adds, somebody had to find her!

I really, really, really, really, really thought that we had come further than that. But obviously, some haven´t. To those, more than to anyone else, I wish an insightful New Year, an awakening and on their behalf, I promise to look into the possibilities to publish my book in braille.

To the rest, an ordinary but very Happy New Year!!

[FrankO]

When reading my take on things, Frank, one must keep in mind that I am searching for an unbroken path that is in line with Lechmere being the killer. That means that I favour facts that are part of that road if I find them as likely or likelier than the alternatives. It does not mean that I am unaware that I may be wrong, but overall, I don’ t think I am, generally speaking. The typical suspect is one who COULD be the Ripper. The many circumstances surrounding Lechmere makes him a suspect who could not NOT be the Ripper in my world. Once the book is out, the full basis for my reasoning will be presented. To judge the case for Lechmere, all the little bits must be taken into account.

I understand, Christer; it explains a lot. If only you’d written this before, I probably wouldn’t have posted anything on this thread to begin with. I should have realized that you’ve made up your mind a (long) while back and aren’t (much) going to change your mind with your book coming out. The only thing I would change in the above, though, is the word “facts” into “evidence”. Lechmere is a ‘decent’ suspect and I can see why you think he’s the best based on the material we have, but I think the weakness in the case against him lies in the fact that there’s no knowing (for either of us) some of the things you ‘hold against him’ and – as you know – I have trouble seeing a serial killer wait for someone he hears coming at, perhaps, a 100 yards away instead of getting out of there, whilst he still has the time. The best of luck on your book, Christer!

I have never held you anything but very high in regard and I am not going to change that now.

Thanks for that and likewise! And a very happy & healthy New Year to you too, of course!

[Trevor Marriott]

I am having trouble with, and that is when some nitwit gets it into his head to claim that it the only thing I have to make my case against Lechmere, the way Trevor has now claimed that the fact that Lechmere found Nichols is the only thing I have to show for my theory. And, Trevor adds, somebody had to find her!

[

Christer
Lets look at what you seek to rely on to build a case against Cross

1. Cross finds the body on his way to work, he gets up at the same time every morning and travels the same way to work. He probably clocks in or signs in, so all of his movements could and presumably were later confirmed by the police, so nothing untowards there and nothing to show he shouldnt have been in that location at that time. So at this point are there any grounds for suspicion against him?

2. Now you say he was the killer and when he heard Paul coming down he road, he made a decision to front it out by making an excuse of just finding the body. But this wasnt an excuse because he had just found the body. You have clearly invented a scenario to show he decided to front it out.

If he had been the killer he would have had the opportuntiy to make good his escape without being seen as soon as he heard footsteps coming towards him because it was still dark at that time. The scenario you have invented doesnt stand up to close scrutiny

3. He doesnt come forward immediatley but does subsequently go to the police and make a statement. If he had have been the killer why would he have come forward after all it seems that he had not given his name or work details to either Paul or any police officer at the time, and what was there for the police to suspect him? Paul was also tracked down and gave a statement.

4. However, having come forward and made a statement. You make a great play on the name he gave in the statement as Charles Cross. What cannot conclusivley be proved is why he gave that name, and at the same time gave his correct address, and his place of work, and it seems we do not know under what name he was registered with Pickfords, But you still make a great play of this name difference. But both names were technically his to use, without the suggestion that he was deleiberately trying to hide his identity. If he had have been the killer he would not have provided Pc Mizen or Paul with sufficient detail about himself for him to be traced.

5. You also make great play of the fact that all the murders were in the same location and Cross would have had easy access to those locations on his way to work or to visit a relative who you mention. But of course do you need reminding that Chapman Stride and Eddowes were murdered on weekend dates when Cross would not have been working, and Tabrams body was found at 4.45am and was seen as early as 3.30am long before Cross was up and about for work.

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 it is wrongto use this against Cross 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.

All in order Cross`s suspect status if poorly deserved, you have simply created a suspect out of nothing more than wild speculation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

You know my answer, Gary; I am the guy who will stop short of nothing to castigate the poor, innocent carman and so I´d say that we are looking at a conscious decision on his behalf when he declined to use his "official" name.

Per se, I have no trouble at all accepting that people could - and were allowed to - use aliases back in these days. Nor do I have any trouble accepting that he could have been hired as "Cross" at Pickfords and so on.

What I am having trouble with is when people refuse to accept that it IS an anomaly when you otherwise always use the name Lechmere when dealing with any sort of authority, but then you suddenly change it for "Cross" when violent death is added. After that, we may of course produce all sorts of suggested reasons for it: he wanted to keep his family out of the business, he didn´t want the name Lechmere to get into the papers in combination with a sordid affair like the Buck´s Row murder, he always thought of himself as "Cross" when in the capacity of a carman and so on - but we must keep in mind that the very reason that these alternative explanations are thought up is that the nameswop IS an anomaly! And anomalies are exactly what we should look for when trying to identify our man.
To boot, there is also the strange fact that he did not give his address in combination with the run over boy some years earlier, just as it is a very clear possibility that he didn´t do so at the Nichols inquest either, and that further adds to the feeling that something is not as it should be. Once again, alternative explanations can be produced, and once again, the reason they must be is that this too IS an anomaly.

You are one of the posters who will readily admit this, although you are not professing to be a Lechmereian, and I salute you for that (the former, not the latter). It goes to show that one can debate the case without falsely claiming that there is no anomaly or anything suspicious involved.

Before logging out and going to the dark forests of Småland for four days (we have rented a small house in the middle of nowhere; we have a dog who is terrified of fireworks), I must of course also add that there is one further thing about the name business that I am having trouble with, and that is when some nitwit gets it into his head to claim that it the only thing I have to make my case against Lechmere, the way Trevor has now claimed that the fact that Lechmere found Nichols is the only thing I have to show for my theory. And, Trevor adds, somebody had to find her!

I really, really, really, really, really thought that we had come further than that. But obviously, some haven´t. To those, more than to anyone else, I wish an insightful New Year, an awakening and on their behalf, I promise to look into the possibilities to publish my book in braille.

To the rest, an ordinary but very Happy New Year!!

‘The dark forests of Småland’ sounds like somewhere in Middle Earth. I envy you, I’m stuck in Tier 4 and am not allowed to go anywhere interesting.

I wish you and your family a Happy New Year. I’m looking forward to reading your book in 2021.

[FrankO]

Ah, one last thing about the open eyes, Christer, a thing that just occurred to me... You say Lechmere, if the killer, would have covered both abdominal and throat wounds. But, wouldn't it have been wise and in line with this to also close the eyes, just to be certain and prevent Paul from, for instance, slapping her face or shake her by the shoulders, because he thought she might just be drunk and then discover the cuts to the throat? I think I know what your answer is going to be, but I'm curious about your reasoning.

All the best,
Frank

[Michael W Richards]

As Trevor summed up, there were dozens or more of so-called potential suspects walking about with credible access to the murder sites as part of their routines. Not many came forward voluntarily to the police. If any. Maybe Hutchinson,.. if he believed he had been seen and could possibly be identified.

The pulling down of the clothing over Polly is significant, it reveals some understanding of displays in public, decorum and modesty perhaps. Things I personally do not attribute to the man who killed Polly then Annie. I dont see a care in the world for how this would play out in a public setting. In fact I believe that the displaying aspect of committing crimes in public was appealing to him. Unlike a man who abducts, perhaps tortures, then proceeds to make pieces of the victim that he can later discard somewhere. All in private. It was his personal hobby, it wasnt intended to shock. Jacks killings were, by virtue of the venues. Until Room 13 of course. Different animal there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘The dark forests of Småland’ sounds like somewhere in Middle Earth. I envy you, I’m stuck in Tier 4 and am not allowed to go anywhere interesting.

I wish you and your family a Happy New Year. I’m looking forward to reading your book in 2021.

It would be a bad start to the New Year to hear that Fish’s book has been delayed due to him being kidnapped by a gang of marauding Orcs.

[Kaz]

You know my answer, Gary; I am the guy who will stop short of nothing to castigate the poor, innocent carman and so I´d say that we are looking at a conscious decision on his behalf when he declined to use his "official" name.

Per se, I have no trouble at all accepting that people could - and were allowed to - use aliases back in these days. Nor do I have any trouble accepting that he could have been hired as "Cross" at Pickfords and so on.

What I am having trouble with is when people refuse to accept that it IS an anomaly when you otherwise always use the name Lechmere when dealing with any sort of authority, but then you suddenly change it for "Cross" when violent death is added. After that, we may of course produce all sorts of suggested reasons for it: he wanted to keep his family out of the business, he didn´t want the name Lechmere to get into the papers in combination with a sordid affair like the Buck´s Row murder, he always thought of himself as "Cross" when in the capacity of a carman and so on - but we must keep in mind that the very reason that these alternative explanations are thought up is that the nameswop IS an anomaly! And anomalies are exactly what we should look for when trying to identify our man.
To boot, there is also the strange fact that he did not give his address in combination with the run over boy some years earlier, just as it is a very clear possibility that he didn´t do so at the Nichols inquest either, and that further adds to the feeling that something is not as it should be. Once again, alternative explanations can be produced, and once again, the reason they must be is that this too IS an anomaly.

You are one of the posters who will readily admit this, although you are not professing to be a Lechmereian, and I salute you for that (the former, not the latter). It goes to show that one can debate the case without falsely claiming that there is no anomaly or anything suspicious involved.

Before logging out and going to the dark forests of Småland for four days (we have rented a small house in the middle of nowhere; we have a dog who is terrified of fireworks), I must of course also add that there is one further thing about the name business that I am having trouble with, and that is when some nitwit gets it into his head to claim that it the only thing I have to make my case against Lechmere, the way Trevor has now claimed that the fact that Lechmere found Nichols is the only thing I have to show for my theory. And, Trevor adds, somebody had to find her!

I really, really, really, really, really thought that we had come further than that. But obviously, some haven´t. To those, more than to anyone else, I wish an insightful New Year, an awakening and on their behalf, I promise to look into the possibilities to publish my book in braille.

To the rest, an ordinary but very Happy New Year!!

As much as I respect you....


you need some help







I used to kill people for a living (just words I know...but just happens to be the truth)

[Astatine211]

Yo. I'm just going to throw this out there but James Kelly had a very close friend called Walter Lamb who it is very likely he hid at their house after breaking out of Broadmoor this house just so happened to be 2 mins away right around the corner from where Nichols was murdered. If Kelly is JtR this could be how JtR managed to slip by the police doing their beats without noticing.

[Fisherman]

I understand, Christer; it explains a lot. If only you’d written this before, I probably wouldn’t have posted anything on this thread to begin with. I should have realized that you’ve made up your mind a (long) while back and aren’t (much) going to change your mind with your book coming out. The only thing I would change in the above, though, is the word “facts” into “evidence”. Lechmere is a ‘decent’ suspect and I can see why you think he’s the best based on the material we have, but I think the weakness in the case against him lies in the fact that there’s no knowing (for either of us) some of the things you ‘hold against him’ and – as you know – I have trouble seeing a serial killer wait for someone he hears coming at, perhaps, a 100 yards away instead of getting out of there, whilst he still has the time. The best of luck on your book, Christer!

Thanks for that and likewise! And a very happy & healthy New Year to you too, of course!

Have a little faith, Frank! I have said before and I don´t mind repeating it, that if anything should surface to clear the carman, then I will immediately accept it. I do not wish to be looked upon as somebody who made his mind up and refused to look in any other direction than one of guilt on Lechmere´s behalf. On the contrary, I am doing all I can to scrutinize every attempt to present him as an innocent man, weighing things together as best as I can.

Have I made my mind up? I don´t really like the term, since it points to a static stance, and I avoid taking such a stand. I prefer to speak about things "as they stand", because I know that they can stand differently tomorrow. But as things stand today, my take on things is that Charles Lechmere is the Ripper and the Thames Torso killer alike. And I would say that there is evidence enough in it to put both things beyond what is normally referred to as "reasonable doubt". In a court of law, I would declare him guilty.

Then again, a jury declared Timothy Evans guilt on grounds of thinking the case had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The term only means that no 100 per cent certainty can be had, but it would thwart the ends of justice if the accused was let free - since it would be unreasonable not to accept guilt.

That is where I am with the carman. The reasons for why I am there are given in the book. And I am 100 per cent certain that there will be those who do not accept the case as being proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Anyways, what I want to point out is that I am not holding my hands over my ears while shutting my eyes. I am reassessing things as vigourously as anybody else out here and more than many.

[Fisherman]

Christer
Lets look at what you seek to rely on to build a case against Cross

1. Cross finds the body on his way to work, he gets up at the same time every morning and travels the same way to work. He probably clocks in or signs in, so all of his movements could and presumably were later confirmed by the police, so nothing untowards there and nothing to show he shouldnt have been in that location at that time. So at this point are there any grounds for suspicion against him?

2. Now you say he was the killer and when he heard Paul coming down he road, he made a decision to front it out by making an excuse of just finding the body. But this wasnt an excuse because he had just found the body. You have clearly invented a scenario to show he decided to front it out.

If he had been the killer he would have had the opportuntiy to make good his escape without being seen as soon as he heard footsteps coming towards him because it was still dark at that time. The scenario you have invented doesnt stand up to close scrutiny

3. He doesnt come forward immediatley but does subsequently go to the police and make a statement. If he had have been the killer why would he have come forward after all it seems that he had not given his name or work details to either Paul or any police officer at the time, and what was there for the police to suspect him? Paul was also tracked down and gave a statement.

4. However, having come forward and made a statement. You make a great play on the name he gave in the statement as Charles Cross. What cannot conclusivley be proved is why he gave that name, and at the same time gave his correct address, and his place of work, and it seems we do not know under what name he was registered with Pickfords, But you still make a great play of this name difference. But both names were technically his to use, without the suggestion that he was deleiberately trying to hide his identity. If he had have been the killer he would not have provided Pc Mizen or Paul with sufficient detail about himself for him to be traced.

5. You also make great play of the fact that all the murders were in the same location and Cross would have had easy access to those locations on his way to work or to visit a relative who you mention. But of course do you need reminding that Chapman Stride and Eddowes were murdered on weekend dates when Cross would not have been working, and Tabrams body was found at 4.45am and was seen as early as 3.30am long before Cross was up and about for work.

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 it is wrongto use this against Cross 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.

All in order Cross`s suspect status if poorly deserved, you have simply created a suspect out of nothing more than wild speculation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I´ll do it your very own way, Trevor: Read my book and all will be revealed.

[Fisherman]

‘The dark forests of Småland’ sounds like somewhere in Middle Earth. I envy you, I’m stuck in Tier 4 and am not allowed to go anywhere interesting.

I wish you and your family a Happy New Year. I’m looking forward to reading your book in 2021.

A happy and prosperous New Year to you too, Gary. May your confinement to Tier 4 be a bad memory only in the near future!

[Fisherman]

Ah, one last thing about the open eyes, Christer, a thing that just occurred to me... You say Lechmere, if the killer, would have covered both abdominal and throat wounds. But, wouldn't it have been wise and in line with this to also close the eyes, just to be certain and prevent Paul from, for instance, slapping her face or shake her by the shoulders, because he thought she might just be drunk and then discover the cuts to the throat? I think I know what your answer is going to be, but I'm curious about your reasoning.

All the best,
Frank

I really have not given the idea of closing the eyes much thought, Frank. Of course, there would have been limited time to fix the body, and so perhaps that is the reason for it. I think priority one must have been covering up the wounds, stashing the weapon and moving away from the body. Maybe it only struck him as he had done so that he realized that he could have closed the eyes too - and then it was too late? I really don´t know.

Was that the expected answer? I´m curious too!

[Fisherman]

As much as I respect you....


you need some help

Thanks for the concern, but if I was in need of help I´d be looking elsewhere.

[FrankO]

First of all: best wishes for the new year!

Have a little faith, Frank! I have said before and I don´t mind repeating it, that if anything should surface to clear the carman, then I will immediately accept it. I do not wish to be looked upon as somebody who made his mind up and refused to look in any other direction than one of guilt on Lechmere´s behalf.

I have more than a little faith, Christer! I see that “made up your mind” wasn’t the best term I could use, so, sorry for that, but what I meant to say is exactly what you’ve written: that, with the evidence we have today - or as you say, as things stand today - you’ll not change your mind. That, of course, isn’t saying that you can’t or won’t change your mind if some day new evidence will surface. Perhaps I used the term “made up your mind” because I don’t think that any new evidence will surface in the near future, but by that I wasn’t suggesting that you’re holding your hands over your ears, whilst you keep your eyes closed. You've already thought out everything that you see as evidence against Lechmere very well and, as there are so many unknowns, little, if anything, remains to reflect upon and address.

But as things stand today, my take on things is that Charles Lechmere is the Ripper and the Thames Torso killer alike. And I would say that there is evidence enough in it to put both things beyond what is normally referred to as "reasonable doubt". In a court of law, I would declare him guilty.

I’m curious now as to what (kind of) new surfacing evidence would change your mind then, if you now think it’s beyond reasonable doubt?

All the best,
Frank