Chas Lechmere/Cross/Crass/Brass/Glass/etc

[Mr Lucky]

Once we read all the papers, all the details, all the material, we find out that the Lechmere version is uncorroborated by anybody but himself, by and large. We of course have the braggard interview on Paul´s behalf, but Mizen tells us that "Cross" was the man in charge, not Paul - the latter did not even speak to Mizen, it was "Cross" who did so. But at the inquest, Lechmere says that BOTH men spoke to the PC.

Mizen tells us Cross was in charge. - No he doesn't. One single quote from Mizen saying 'Cross was in charge' or anything like it

And no he doesn't claim that Paul did not speak to him either. Mizen not mentioning Paul at all, isn't the same thing as your claim that Mizen has said that Paul didn't speak to him.

[moonbegger]

I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle.

So it was indeed possible to hear someone 135 paces away at Brady street .. plenty of time to make good an exit ( as i think the killer did )

moonbegger .

[Monty]

Post No 96

An excellent post Ben,

Quite on the money.

Monty

[Fisherman]

It´s very often worthwhile to challenge your views, Ben - especially when the evidence tells me that you are quite probably wrong.

So why don´t I do just that, choosing one minor point and leaving the rest to Edward. What do you say, does that work for you? Anyhow, here goes:

"They believed she was dead or drunk, and probably the latter, which is precisely what was relayed to Mizen. No problem here at all."

Is that not a somewhat onesided verdict? Have you taken a close look at what Mizen claims "Cross" told him? When/if you take the trouble to do so, you will find that he says that the carman stated that a woman had been found on her back in Bucks Row. Mizen does not acknowledge that Lechmere told him that the woman was dead or drunk.

Interesting, is it not?

You see, this is exactly in line with the overall scam Lechmere presented. He did NOT wish Mizen to think that the woman was dead, since that would potentially involve risks on his own behalf. He is therefore extremely economical with the truth.

If you read the Star, you will see that Mizen, apparently consternated, says that the carman did not say a iota about any murder or suicide. This, I believe, is because Mizen realized that the carman must have known this, given that there was another PC in place who had directed the carmen to go in search of a fellow PC - or so it must have seemed to Mizen. He was baffled not to have been informed about the severity of the case, thus.

Your brisk assertion that Lechmere and Paul made it clear to Mizen that they believed the woman to be dead or drunk was something that one (1) source and one (1) source only claimed. And guess who that was? Yes, Ben, spot on: Charles Lechmere. You are eating from his open hand. So it´s caution adviced!

Now, you say that the Mizen scam was probably Mizen mishearing or misinterpreting things. But here we have it again! Lechmere says one thing, Mizen says another, and the public - in this case you - choose the words of the carman over those of the police.

Once we read all the papers, all the details, all the material, we find out that the Lechmere version is uncorroborated by anybody but himself, by and large. We of course have the braggard interview on Paul´s behalf, but Mizen tells us that "Cross" was the man in charge, not Paul - the latter did not even speak to Mizen, it was "Cross" who did so. But at the inquest, Lechmere says that BOTH men spoke to the PC.

So who do we believe?

Lechmere or Mizen?

A PC or a carman? A carman that withheld his true name, and who had been found by a freshly killed victim?

I´ve made my choice, and let me tell you it was very easy, given the character of the discrepancies involved in the testimony.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I wasn't telling anyone not to post, Mr. L.

I was requesting, or at least suggesting, that we don't get duplicate rebuttals to one post. We've previously had a situation in which one Crosser would respond in a thorough manner to a post, and then before anyone had chance to respond to that, another Crosser would pipe in at great length and regurgitate, in essence, the entire contents of Crosser #1's rebuttal.

I'm not saying you've ever done this yourself, and to be honest, I didn't even know you supported Cross as a suspect.

But since - as you rightly point out - this is a public forum, anyone is free to ride roughshod over my request and duplicate away.

That's if they really think it's worthwhile...

[Mr Lucky]

(And could I respectfully request that we don't get duplicate rebuttals to the following by more than one Cross theorist, as occurs rather too frequently? Life being too short and all that? Thanks in advance!)

Er, No.

It's a public forum, if I want to post I will.

Thanks in advance

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

(And could I respectfully request that we don't get duplicate rebuttals to the following by more than one Cross theorist, as occurs rather too frequently? Life being too short and all that? Thanks in advance!)

Had Mizen been a few yards further down Baker’s Row then Lechmere and Paul would probably have missed him and not bumped into another policeman. You have no reason to suppose they would have done.

But if they suspected that the nearest policeman was not far off, they could easily have yelled for assistance in the event that they didn't encounter one within the first few minutes. They could easily have called loudly for help at the scene, of course, but they were not then fully aware of the severity of the situation, and probably had every reason to believe that the nearest policeman was relatively close by. If, despite this, you still think Cross was "callous", fair enough, but then it becomes necessary to tar Paul with precisely the same brush. Let's face it, if one of the men was perfectly capable of being "callous" without being murderous, the other one could too, which makes the proposed "callousness" rather useless even as a vague indicator of culpability, unless the two carmen were are now being envisaged as a murderous duo.

As it is Lechmere and Paul did not say to Mizen: ‘There’s a woman who urgently needs your help around the corner.’

They believed she was dead or drunk, and probably the latter, which is precisely what was relayed to Mizen. No problem here at all.

If Mizen had acted correctly – and not been disarmed by Lechmere saying that the woman was already being attended to by a policeman

Woah there, big felluh!

Don't forget that it's only your controversial suggestion that Lechmere said anything to Mizen about the woman "already being attended to by a policeman". Very few people besides the "Crossists" (not even Sugden this time) support this view, with the vast majority - myself included - accepting that Mizen's memory was simply playing tricks on him at the inquest. Mizen offered no protest at the inquest when corrected by Cross, thus providing a good indicator that the former accepted his error.

But if you want to imagine that he did ask Paul for corroboration then fine.

Thanks. I will. It isn't too difficult to imagine either, given that it is by far the most likely explanation, as opposed for instance to Paul hovering shiftily around out of earshot of the Cross-Mizen discourse, with Mizen not bothering at all about him.

If Paul had crossed over when they were some yards apart and Lechmere’s demeanour was indistinct then your argument may hold true. But it is clear that Paul only took evasive action at the last minute

Cross's demeanour had absolutely nothing to do with Paul's already existing fear of robbery, gangs etc, which he made specific reference to. The approach of any man would have put him ill at ease - beaming smile or gritted teeth, it would still have prompted him to take "evasive action" at the last minute simply because of the environment and the circumstance. There is no evidence whatsoever that Cross was menacing, or that deliberately tried to intimidate Paul.

I tend to agree with Caz regarding the circularity of the "if he was a murdering psychopath it all makes sense" line of reasoning. It's all a bit "if my auntie had bollocks she'd be my uncle" again. It uses one highly questionable interpretation to support another. If Cross wasn't a murdering psychopath, his actions and movements are wholly understandable and unsuspicious, and the event itself - an early worker discovering the body - completely inevitable. Such is the value of the "if" scenario.

I don't negate the fact that serial killers have often proved adept at bluffing their way past law enforcement, but in those cases where the act of bluffing resulted in the offender receiving heavy police and media focus as a witness or informant, the offences themselves are usually put on serious hold. Either Cross engaged in completely unprecedented serial killer behaviour by committing a murder a week later, and just a little further along his presumed work route, or he wasn't the killer. The murder of Annie Chapman, committed so soon after the Nichols murder, would point very strongly towards a killer who had not yet received any police or media contact. This is worth bearing in mind if you're interested in creating parallels with other serial cases. Similarly, murdering and disposing of victims on the way to work is not something that would make sense for a serial offender to do, for fairly obvious reasons, which is presumably why none have.

He could have walked off down, say, Court Street to Whitechapel Road and gone to work.

But then that would have been a longer route to work, with an arguably reduced likelihood of encountering a policeman.

Implicating Paul would have been a disastrous move if he was the killer, and one that would have wholly defeated the purpose of deflecting suspicion away from himself. If you encourage the police to investigate the second man on the scene of the crime, there is no way in Zeus' bumhole that they would not then investigate the first man as a matter of course, to say nothing of basic common sense. In addition, as others have pointed out, any failure or reluctance on Cross's part to vouch for Paul's apparently innocent role could easily have resulted in Paul pointing the finger right back at Cross.

I don’t think it is a ‘good thing’ that these theorists feel inhibited from putting forward ideas.

I don't either, Lechmere. I wouldn't wish anyone with a new idea or suspect theory to be cowed from expressing themselves, providing of course that the pudding is not over-egged and the theory is not put forward as an onslaught rather than a humble submission. I hope you don't feel you received any "hostility" towards your theory. You spent a lot of time and posts attempting to debunk one or two theories of my own, but I didn't attribute this to any hostile motives. As such, I hope you don't take any particular objection to precisely the same situation occurring again, albeit in reverse.

While some may be in more possession of the facts than an average member of the public, their entrenched bias tends to overcompensate for that.

No, I disagree with this.

You'll find that the majority of ripperologists do not have a preferred suspect, and the same is true of the majority of posters who have raised objections to your theory. For instance, I've seen no indication that Caz, Monty or Frank have any particular doggie in this race in the form of a "rival" suspect. We're not all hardened "Hutchinsonians"! The trouble with convincing the non-"ripperologist" masses is that they run the risk of accepting certain arguments without necessarily having the full grasp of the real facts which refute them. An average Joe might not have the knowledge or the inclination to investigate the claim that Cross can be "tied to all murder sites", but a more serious student of the case would know that such a claim is wrong.

This is a long winded way of saying that Sugden’s sensibly expressed view (which is clearly not based on a hidden agenda of supporting the Lechmere theory) will hold more sway than the adversarial quibbles expressed on here.

Well, no it won't because whatever the other merits of Sugden's book, and they are plentiful, that particular view hasn't exactly enjoyed mainstream support from those who have taken their casual interest in the Whitechapel murders to the next step and swotted up on the subject.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Sociopaths tend to be risk takers.
Charles lechmere did have bad luck in as much as Paul got too close before he was spotted. Then they bumped into Mizen, then Paul went to the press, then he was called to the inquest.
The killer - whoever he was - was interrupted with Nichols, stride, Mackenzie - I may add mylett.

[Fisherman]

The thing is ... that the chain of events of that morning and the aftermath didn't only consist of circumstances Cross actually had influence on or could use to his advantage.

... it’s a bit too much luck for my taste ...

... the only other possibility that remains would be that he was so foreseeing that everything would work out exactly the way he wanted/needed. Which, as I've stated, isn't a very realistic possibility either if you ask me.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank!

Finally an opportunity to make a long post! Here goes ...

I agree that many things in the development were matters that were beyond Lechmere´s grasp - he really could not influence all the elements in the way it went down. However, nobody has ever said that he could - what we keep saying is that Lechmere was forced to improvise and find answers to the stream of questions that formed as he went along.
As always when a situation like this arises, some of the problems that pop up will be problems that you may provide very good solutions to, whereas others will be a lot harder to deal with, some of them offering only mediocre or outright bad alternatives to choose from. And this is what happens here too. Fate dealt Lechmere a hand, and he played it as well as he could, always being restrained by the element of time; quick solutions were asked for all the time.
So, Frank, nobody is disagreeing with you on this matter.

It´s too much luck for your taste, you say. I take it that you do not mean that nobody is very lucky, since we both know that this occurs. People win a million pounds every now and then, an Australian guy won the Olympics gold medal in short track skating when all his (much better) competitors fell over in a crash, and Vesna Vulovic fell out of an airplane, dropped 10000 meters with no parachute - and survived by having her fall end in a dense canopy of threes that caught her before she hit the ground.

So I take it what you are saying is that it is unusual that anybody gets as lucky as Lechmere did if he was the killer? And I tend to agree with that too. He WAS lucky to get away with it.
On the other hand, he was unlucky too. If Paul had arrived two or three minutes later, Lechmere could perhaps have been done, having left the spot. If he was disturbed in Berner Street, then that was unlucky too and involved large risks.
What we must understand is that this was on the cards from the outset. Any killer that decides to murder and eviscerate a number of women out in the open streets will need to rely on luck. The killer did not do what he did because he knew that it involved no risks and no need to be lucky.
He did it IN SPITE OF KNOWING that the opposite applied.

The outcome tells us that he did not have all the bad luck, since that would have him caught before he had managed to kill at all.

But he did not have all the good luck either, since that would have offered him the opportunity to finish his work on every single occasion - and it seems that he was precluded to do so at more than one occasion.

So, if the killer was Lechmere, then he ended up inbetween the extremes: he stayed undetected, but had a couple of close shaves along the way.

Other than that, we can ask ourselves if it was luck on his behalf or slack procedures on the police´s behalf that allowed him to get away with it. I would suggest that we end up inbetween the extremes on that score too.

...and that pretty much takes care of your third point too - he could not have worked everything out. He must have realized that fate would rule where he ended up on the scales spoken of above, and decided that he wanted to take the risk anyway. Maybe he had no choice, if the urge overwhelmed him. After that, he could only chip in a restricted number of bits and pieces to better his odds to stay uncaught. And that is exactly what he did, if Edward and I am correct. If it was Lechmere, he needed to be lucky, and he WAS lucky - but he helped that luck along by playing his hand skilfully and with very cool nerves.

And in the end, I don´t see why we should rule out a suspect on the grounds of him having had to be a lucky man for us to believe that he could have been the killer. We do not know for certain WHO the killer was - but we DO know that he was a man with considerable luck on his side.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
I initially thought that Charles Lechmere had proposed the prop but when I read all the accounts it was clear (to me anyway) that this was not the case.
As I think I said, with Paul passing him on the southern side and before Brown’s Stable Yard, there would have been every possibility that Paul would have seen the body, not to say a virtual certainty. Not saying anything was not an option for Charles Lechmere, although his hesitancy over what to do was apparent by him allowing Paul to almost pass him.

FrankO
I think that whoever did it had tremendous luck.
If it was not Charles Lechmere then he missed him by a very short passage of time. Mizen, Thain and Neil said they saw no one. He must have slipped through unnoticed very luckily. The same can be said of the murder of Eddowes in Mitre Square and indeed Chapman in Hanbury Street... and Stride in Berner Street

He could not have known he was going to be lucky. Just as the Yorkshire Ripper didn’t know he was going to be ‘lucky’ that the fake tape and letters would be sent. He didn’t know he was going to be lucky that the police would ignore the early survivor who did a photo fit matching him but describing him without a Geordie accent. This sort of luck or rather bad luck for the victims, permeates virtually all serial killing sprees.

[FrankO]

I would suggest that he was lucky and that he opportunistically adapted to each changing circumstance – Paul coming along – Mizen being around the corner – Paul doing a newspaper story – and so forth.

The thing is, Edward, that the chain of events of that morning and the aftermath didn't only consist of circumstances Cross actually had influence on or could use to his advantage.

Yes, he probably had his influence on Mizen and particularly Paul while he interacted with them, but surely he had no influence on Paul’s tardiness for work, on Mizen not being particularly interested or Paul’s reluctance to come forward, which would clearly all be to his advantage. That would have been pure luck.

And, obviously, he couldn’t know that he & Paul wouldn’t walk into Neil on their way to Baker’s Row or that Neil would already have been in place when Mizen would arrive at the crime scene. Neither could he know that Mizen and Neil wouldn’t talk to each other. Or that Mizen wouldn’t act when he knew for a fact that the man who’d found Nichols fed him a blatant lie.

He couldn’t know all these things as he went along, nor could he count on them to happen. Regardless of whatever smart move he could have made if these things would not have turned out favorably for him, he was darn lucky that all of these things turned out right for him to begin with.

As it’s a bit too much luck for my taste, the only other possibility that remains would be that he was so foreseeing that everything would work out exactly the way he wanted/needed. Which, as I've stated, isn't a very realistic possibility either if you ask me.

All the best,
Frank

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar
The various press reports of the inquest can make for confusing reading - particularly over who touched Polly and where.
However if you read them all carefully and bear in mind some misreports are repeated verbatim in other papers, we are left with lechmere walking back to meet Paul and Paul suggesting the prop.
This has been discussed in some detail in previous threads so forgive me if I don't dig out the numerous relevant references.
I think you were involved In some of those discussions!

Ok Lech , i totally agree in so much as the various inquest and press reports lead to a lot of confusion , and leave a lot of facts for my mind undetermined . There is really no way to know for sure who got it right and who misheard and misreported vital facts , in particular , who suggested the prop and who declined ( My point being , i dont think you can use an undetermined fact as a fact to support an argument )

I will concede that Crossmere may well have taken a step or two towards Paul once he stepped back to the pavement , causing Paul to step from the pavement into the road , but the fact that crossmere had to tap paul on his shoulder as he was scurrying past is a huge indication to me that Paul had made that step or two up , and was well on his way to being no longer a trouble to a Ripper Crossmere ..

cheers ,

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

A couple of things, Fish.

Fistly, I specifically used the word ‘seems’ based on the fact that you first started a thread on the pulling down of the dress and only months later one on the ‘Mizen scam’. I also used it because didn’t feel like digging into all of your posts to see if what seemed was actually correct.

So, a bit of laziness on my part perhaps, but I just wanted to let people know that, besides the points that were already mentioned by others, the pulling down of the dress was also important to you. Or at least, that was the impression you’d conveyed to me.

Furthermore, as I did use ‘seems’ - of course, meaning that I may have it wrong - I wouldn’t have thought you’d find it too troublesome or unfortunate. I mean, I could have represented you worse, couldn't I, or even not at all?

Having said that, of course it hasn’t escaped my attention that it’s not just one point, but many points which, all taken together, point you to Cross being the culprit. But thanks anyway, for giving your view again in an un-Fisherman-like nutshell!

All the best,
Frank

Yes indeed, Frank - you could have represented me worse! I am just very wary not to have it said that it is a specific detail that has me convinced about Lechmere, since it really isn´t. It´s the collected weight of many, many bits and pieces. And to keep things inside that nutshell, I will say no more!

All the best, Frank!
Fisherman

[FrankO]

Hm, Frank. The trouble of making guesses on somebody elses behalf is that you may get it wrong. And when that somebody else is not around to amend it, such a thing is even more unfortunate, right?

A couple of things, Fish.

Fistly, I specifically used the word ‘seems’ based on the fact that you first started a thread on the pulling down of the dress and only months later one on the ‘Mizen scam’. I also used it because didn’t feel like digging into all of your posts to see if what seemed was actually correct.

So, a bit of laziness on my part perhaps, but I just wanted to let people know that, besides the points that were already mentioned by others, the pulling down of the dress was also important to you. Or at least, that was the impression you’d conveyed to me.

Furthermore, as I did use ‘seems’ - of course, meaning that I may have it wrong - I wouldn’t have thought you’d find it too troublesome or unfortunate. I mean, I could have represented you worse, couldn't I, or even not at all?

Having said that, of course it hasn’t escaped my attention that it’s not just one point, but many points which, all taken together, point you to Cross being the culprit. But thanks anyway, for giving your view again in an un-Fisherman-like nutshell!

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

I would add that, at least for Fisherman, his suspicion seems to have started with the fact that the victim’s dress was left to cover at least most of her abdominal wounds, something that occurred in none of the following cases.

All the best,
Frank

Hm, Frank. The trouble of making guesses on somebody elses behalf is that you may get it wrong. And when that somebody else is not around to amend it, such a thing is even more unfortunate, right?

In this case, I must make the point that the pulled down clothes were not what started my suspicions. They belong to the picture and I used the detail to start a thread here, yes - but the overall purpose was to discuss the case on the whole.

In all honesty - and I have said this before many, many times - it is not one single detail that makes this such a useful case. It is the wealth of details, working together. If I was to mention just one detai that has been revealing to my mind, then that would have to be the so called Mizen scam.

But I would not have gone in search of the Mizen scam if it had not been for the nameswop. And the nameswop alone may not be too detrimental, until we couple it with the pulled down clothing. And the pulled down clothing is something that may not be suspicious at all, until we realize that Lechmere DID touch Nichols -whereupon he refused to help prop her up, saying he would NOT touch her ...?

All of these things are - taken one by one - merely small flames, and no bonfire. It is not until we couple them to the correlation inbetween the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street district and Lechmere´s home visavi his job that they start to burn more intensely.

And that correlation does not take Stride and Eddowes into account - so it is not until we understand that these women are killed smack, bang along his old quarters and route to work that we should be more wary.

Of course, he had moved - so it is not until we are familiarized with the fact that his mother and daughter lived down Cable Street that we must get concerned.

So this is how it works for me, Frank. It is not the pulled down clothing that represents the fire - that is just one of many alarm bells that in the end has me yelling for the fire brigade.

Now you know!

All the best,
Fisherman