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

[Lechmere]

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!

[moonbegger]

Another thing Lech, is the proximity of this tap on the shoulder , the only reports i can find seem to place the meet directly across the street from poor ol Polly (opposite). Not yards down the Row.

The Cross/Paul meeting didn't happen as Paul was passing Nichoils, it happened some yards back down Buck's Row, just as Paul would have been seeming to cross the road

This is Paul in the stand ( witness )

As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him.

Clearly Crossmere walks towards the pavement that Paul is scurrying along

And this is Crossmere (Witness)

He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body,

I think the key words may be ( when he came up ) and (crossed over to the body)

Are both men not describing the same thing ? Paul hurrying along the north pavement , Crossmere waiting for him to come up the same pavement , Paul getting a bit nervous and stepping into the street to pass him , at which point Crossmere reaches out to tap him on the shoulder as he passes him (even though he becomes no longer a threat to his operation)

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Also another report on Crossmere in the stand ( as witness )

Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright.

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar
Sorry I meant interferring as in Paul interfering with lechmere quietly going about his murder business - by walking along the road while he was doing it.

Also it was Paul who suggested the prop and Lechmere declined.

This is from Cross at the inquest .. Cross being the witness , Paul the companion ??

Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
Sorry I meant interferring as in Paul interfering with lechmere quietly going about his murder business - by walking along the road while he was doing it.

Also it was Paul who suggested the prop and Lechmere declined.

[moonbegger]

those that are attempting to somehow disprove the Lechmere theory are taking increasingly silly positions – such as it can in no way be regarded as a callous act to abandon a woman who seemed to be unconscious and the victim of a rape.

I dont think Crossmere did initially abandon Polly , If he was an innocent man he did everything that he could do in the circumstances . He confronted a passer by and asked for assistance . It seems like it was the decision of both men that their best line of action would be to alert the first policeman they come across . Was it not Crossmere who wanted to prop her up ? Paul was the one who did not want anything to do with the idea ? If anything it seems that CrossMere was the compassionate one in the unfortunate duo .

Or that no one would ever turn and face an oncoming interfering bystander while they were committing a crime (any sport of crime).

Who was this interfering bystander ? Paul was hardly interfering , if anyone was interfering, encroaching on someone else's personal space it was Crosmere , and if it was Crossmere who "did her in" his best line of defence was surely to keep his mouth shut and stay out of Pauls way and just hope he would go about his buisness . The very same M.O the killer would use on subsequent murders . The chances are the killer must have walked past other people when leaving the scene of other crimes , but not a word to any of them (that we know) .

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Ah – thank you for that Fisherman– that is one book I don’t have.

Most of these ‘arguable’ points that amount to:
’I don’t think anyone would have done that’
‘No, I think it is quite feasible for someone to have done that’
This isn’t very productive of course but in my view those that are attempting to somehow disprove the Lechmere theory are taking increasingly silly positions – such as it can in no way be regarded as a callous act to abandon a woman who seemed to be unconscious and the victim of a rape.
Or that no one would ever turn and face an oncoming interfering bystander while they were committing a crime (any sport of crime).
And so on and so on.

As has been pointed out by various posters, there are numerous acts played out in this drama by Lechmere which can be given all sorts of innocent explanations. They can all also be given sinister interpretations which add up and point in one direction.
They do not add up in my opinion to definitive proof, yet the weight is very strong – and to expect definitive proof at this remove in time is ludicrous.

The world ‘Ripperology’ is full of people who have fairly well settled opinions and shaking or changing them is relatively rare. So it is no great surprise when a new theory (new in the sense that it is only just getting fully fleshed out) is received negatively by most in the ‘community’. It is to be expected in fact.
I have noticed various theorists back off from mentioning their theories in response to the hostility which presenting new theories generates (I am not including ever increasing celebrity artists and authors in this list as those proponents tend to carry on regardless in their own bubble).
I don’t think it is a ‘good thing’ that these theorists feel inhibited from putting forward ideas.

However the ‘Ripperologist’ community is very unrepresentative. 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.

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.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I don’t think just ‘Crossists’ would think it is callous to leave an unconscious and raped woman when there are night watchmen and night workers within a minute of her body."

If anybody contests this, it may help to take a look at page 37 in Sugdens book, where he brandishes the actions of Messrs "Cross" and Paul as callous and nonchalant (yes, these are the exact terms Sugden uses). Presumably this view will have coloured the thinking of many, many thousands of readers ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Monty
The Charles Lechmere is called George Cross in some reports – due to the journalist getting it wrong. Bowyer’s alternative Christian names probably come into the same category.
But OK let me be more precise.
The police preferred and used ‘real names’ and noted alias’s or AKA’s when relevant.
In the instance of Charles Lechmere, his ‘real’ name is not noted at all.
I don’t think there are any other instances of this in all the Whitechapel murder investigations.

Ben
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.
If they were familiar with beats then by equal measure they would have been familiar with the policeman who guarded the gate to Great Eastern Yard on Bucks Row.

I don’t think just ‘Crossists’ would think it is callous to leave an unconscious and raped woman when there are night watchmen and night workers within a minute of her body.
As it is Lechmere and Paul did not say to Mizen: ‘There’s a woman who urgently needs your help around the corner.’
They gave a vague account - according to Mizen saying that she was being attended to by a policeman anyway so there was no urgency.

If Mizen had acted correctly – and not been disarmed by Lechmere saying that the woman was already being attended to by a policeman – then he would have done all sorts of things – including taking Paul’s and Lechmere’s details. But he didn’t.
So supposing he should have asked for Paul’s corroboration is all very well but runs counter to the evidence. But if you want to imagine that he did ask Paul for corroboration then fine.

On the menacing issue, Paul saw Lechmere close enough to walk around at the last minute so that Lechmere could tap him on the shoulder. 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.

Caz
So now while Paul is looking at the body (and the whole touchy feely sequence only went on for about a minute at most) Lechmere steps back a few paces and leaves the knife, where? Under Mrs Green’s doorstep? And Lechmere would hope Paul wouldn’t notice?
And when the knife is found soon after Paul wouldn’t squeal that Lechmere had slided off in that direction for a few moments? Get real.

I would suggest that confronting Paul was an immediate decision. When that decision was made Lechmere would not have been thinking ‘Right what am I going to do when we bump into Mizen’, for the very good reason that he wouldn’t have known he was going to bump into Mizen. He would have been playing things by ear.
After doing the touchy feely business and walking off towards Bakers Row with Paul, he would have been weighing up Paul and the overall situation, thinking of excuses and what he would say if need be.
Hence when he met Mizen he was able to bluff his way past him.
What you have to factor in is that psychopaths, as I would judge him to be, tend to be cool thinkers and blatant, believable and confident liars when faced by a normal person.
It is not hard to find examples of serial killers who have bluffed their way past the law in such a fashion. It doesn’t mean they are infallible nor that they make what to you or I might think are rational decisions.

Lechmere would not have been hard to track down. He walked that route – or one similar- every early morning on his way to work. Paul himself was later tracked down.
If he didn’t stay with Paul then Paul would have done the talking to any policeman and Paul may have incriminated him (Lechmere).
By staying with Paul, after having exerted his authority over Paul – which I would suggest he established by their initial contact – and then having the opportunity to mould Paul’s perception of the event by talking as they walked – in the eventuality of them bumping into a policeman, Lechmere would have been confident that his version of events would prevail.

When they left Polly’s body Lechmere did indeed have the choice.
He could have walked off down, say, Court Street to Whitechapel Road and gone to work. But then we would not have been aware whether or not Paul did bump into a policeman and if so what was said. He wouldn’t know where Paul worked. He wouldn’t have the extra opportunity to bend his ear.
By staying with Paul there was the risk that they might bump into a policeman together in which case he would be compelled to stop. However, if compelled to stop his priority would be to get past the policeman with as little interference as possible. This is actually what happened.

I would suggest the sensible course of action – if Lechmere did it, was firstly to turn and face the person who he found was approaching. Pretend he was a bystander – then keep a close eye on this man until they were both well clear of the crime scene. This is what happened.

As for why Lechmere might desire to implicate Paul, I would suggest that shifting blame and sending the police chasing a dead end is always a valuable course of action for the perpetrator of any crime.
I don’t think there was any risk in Lechmere implicating himself in the Hanbury Street killing- no more risk than the killer would take in perpetrating any of the crimes.
And although to you it may seem a dreadful risk, committing a crime so soon after, it actually incorporated no more risk than doing it two months later.

We know that Paul was closely interrogated, so we know that he did defend himself from whatever he was being interrogated about – which I would suggest was clearly his potential involvement in the murders. I think Paul didn’t suspect Lechmere for a moment. I think Lechmere came across as very plausible.
I presume that Paul was able to account for himself at the time Chapman was murdered. Had he not been able to then he would have been the suspect, not honest Charles Cross, who could explain the use of that name as it honoured his long dead copper step father, if push came to shove.

But again, is this the only incidence of a serial killer getting away with it as the police did not dig deep enough when the culprit first came under their radar?

I don’t agree with this Caz
“standing over the body and calling out to a naturally wary passer-by would have been more likely to reassure him of his innocence”
Standing where he was and calling out to the passer-by is a more natural act for someone who had just found something, rather than backtracking and going up to them so they have to walk around you, then tapping them on the shoulder and only then opening your mouth. That is unnatural to me.

Moonbeggar
I think most people – if they are being honest – can see a killer feeling compelled to go up to a bystander and pretend to be a bystander themselves. I think it a little unlikely that they would then proceed to knock on all available doors to see if anyone inside had seen them through a window.

For those who wish to try a parlour game – try and make any sort of case against any other witness in this case and see how far you get.

[moonbegger]

Lechmere,

IF he was the killer that quote is less than helpful.

I guess so .

IF he was the killer he wouldn't have known initially that Paul wasn't a policeman or a nosey parker

I think he would have known for sure once he had a quick boo over his shoulder, not to mention he would have been all too aware of the sound of a bobby's booted foot step .

IF he was the killer he couldn't be sure what Paul had or hadn't seen or what he would be able to see

So why then didn't he knock on the door of Essex Wharf to see if anyone was peeking out of the window at the time ? ( one of many unknown factors he was dealing with) .
Once again Lech , if he stopped in the middle of the street (option A) and played off Pauls ( or any body's ) reaction , he would have still been in total control of the situation and ready to either spin his yarn or disappear into obscurity .. my question again is , why would he foolishly and unhesitatingly inject himself into the unknown mire of a bull **** minefield filled with an unforeseeable amount trip wires and hurdles to navigate his way around , each one with the possibility of putting a noose around his neck.(option B) Not to mention the fact that every time he was totally reliant on luck and good fortune that was out of his control it all just happened to go his way .

I am no mathematician but i would be curious to find out the odds of every trip wire that could have exposed him failing !

Just a thought , but weighing it up, i think option (A) would be the choice of a calculating killer desperate to stay ahead of the game .

moonbegger .

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ben/Caz

Having been a tad short on time (silly hours at work time again!) I'd only just begun thinking about putting together a response to Lechmere's earlier postings...but I think you've both put things far more succinctly than I ever could, so won't say more right now! Suffice it to say I can't fundamentally disagree with either of you

All the best

Dave

[caz]

Caz...
"If Cross was cunning enough to think on his feet and pull this little stunt with Paul, he could easily have discarded the knife while Paul's full attention was on Nichols, so he wouldn't still be carrying it when they went on to report their findings to the next policeman they encountered, which happened to be PC Mizen."

Right, so Paul is crouched for a minute over Nichols’s body and Lechmere takes the opportunity to lob the knife down the road, yes?
Can you see any problem with that strategy? Like noise?

Hi Lechy,

I didn't say he'd have taken the opportunity to 'lob' the knife anywhere, did I? If Cross was so good at fooling Paul, use your imagination. I'm sure he could have kept his attention on the body long enough for him to leave the knife somewhere in the darkness, where it would look like it had been there all along if Paul had eaten his carrots and was observant enough to spot it in the gloom before they left.

Even if Cross really couldn't grab himself a second or two to ditch the knife safely, I just don't see him gaily engaging with a police officer and lying his head off to him while it was still on his person and presumably unwiped, especially as he couldn't be 100% certain that he had escaped all the blood, which would have been easier for someone else to see on his clothing than for him. He could have explained the blood away by claiming innocent contact with the body, but not the knife as well.

"Alternatively, if he wanted to keep the knife and avoid any contact with the police he could have parted company with Paul sooner, by claiming to be going in a different direction and suggesting that each of them alert the first copper they meet on their separate onward journeys."

Yes because there were a lot of side streets between Bucks Row and the corner of Hanbury Street and Lechmere would really want Paul to bump into a policeman alone and say whatever he wanted to. (I had better point out that this is sarcasm).

And what would Cross have feared from anything Paul could have said on his own to a copper? He'd have been far away by then and very hard to track down again. Besides, by the time they left the scene together Cross must have been confident he had Paul onside, or he would have had even more reason to head off the other way (being even later to work would beat being hanged). Imagine if Paul suspected Cross of murdering the woman but was playing along for fear of being next. The second they reached PC Mizen he'd have shouted blue murder and Cross would almost certainly have been searched.

By the time he had appeared at the inquest I would expect Lechmere to realise he was in the clear without any suspicion on his shoulders but by contrast he may well have already picked up the police’s irritation at Paul – following his hostile (to the police) newspaper interview and his failure to come forward. Also Lechmere accompanied Paul all the way to his work – no doubt bending his ear and imposing his views on him – and weighing him up as a person.

Well obviously, if we assume Cross did kill Nichols, he'd have had the motivation to try and put himself in the clear, and we could indulge in all manner of speculation concerning how he could have gone about it. I just think he'd have been a fool to include a) giving the police a name which nobody at home or work would have recognised, not expecting to be asked for a home or work address, but giving both when they did ask; and b) actively trying to shift the blame onto the second man on the scene in Buck's Row. Why do either of those things, and invite further investigation, if all indications were that he was being treated as an innocent witness with no suspicion whatever attaching to him?

So, if Lechmere did it and if he was a psychopath, as I would presume he would be – then I would guess he would have had the situation marked out to his satisfaction.

Wholly circular. Yes, if he did it and he was a psychopath, you could make any of the evidence fit, even if it included him failing to knock the skin off a rice pudding.

As it is we know Paul was raided and we have good reason to think Lechmere was never troubled by the police again.
Why would Paul be hopping mad at Lechmere? Why would he blame Lechmere for his getting dragged out of bed?
And as I say, you don’t have to search far to find serial killers who kill soon after being involved with the police in their investigation. They tend to be risk takers. I don’t think judging them by what ‘you’ would do will get you very far.

On the contrary, I'm judging what you are saying Cross would have done. So which is it? Would he have murdered in Hanbury Street so soon after Buck's Row because he was a risk taker, or because he thought it was a way to avoid risk and implicate Paul instead? It can hardly be a bit of both, can it?

If Cross's plan was to drop Paul in it, it didn't work. Merely being 'dragged out of bed' and asked to explain himself did not amount to being implicated in either or both murders. The point is, had such a plan worked, Paul would have been left defending himself, knowing he was innocent and that Cross knew it too, because - according to you - Cross had been standing over the body before Paul even got there. So yes, if Cross had successfully implicated Paul by murdering Chapman, he'd hardly have come running to his rescue, using himself as Paul's alibi, so of course Paul would have been mad as all hell and demanding to know what was going on.

If Lechmere was the killer and if he decided to turn and face the approaching human form, then I would guess that he would be committed mentally to saying something, rather than just passively standing there like a big lummox. As it is the meeting is somewhat awkward and unnatural.

Only if you are looking at Cross in a deeply suspicious light. Otherwise the situation as reported seems perfectly natural to me: he sees Paul approaching and understandably could do with his assistance. Realising the man might be naturally wary of stopping to get involved, Cross takes the initiative by going up to him and tapping him on the shoulder. Simple as that, really. Once Paul is reassured that Cross is not a threat, and merely wants a second opinion, he relaxes and they get on with the task ahead, two heads being better than one.

The point here is that Lechmere behaved pro-actively – going towards Paul and effectively blocking his way and coming across in a sufficiently menacing manner for Paul to think he was about to get mugged. I think Lechmere had psyched himself up then was slightly disarmed and probably relieved by Paul’s meekness.
Perhaps a more natural response, if he was innocent, would have been to stand hesitating by the body and to call out when Paul got nearer.

So standing over the body and calling out to a naturally wary passer-by would have been more likely to reassure him of his innocence? If anything, Paul would have been more likely to run a mile and keep on running! I think the naturally innocent response was to meet Paul half way and persuade him to help investigate the matter - which is what appears to have happened.

If you are determined to find Cross's behaviour at the scene sinister, it will be very difficult for you to reassess it allowing for any non-sinister explanations. So maybe it's time to leave you to the conclusions you are unlikely to reconsider.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

You have a touching confidence in the prevalence of policemen in the East End.

The confidence is well founded in this case, Lechmere. It is quite clear that there was several PCs on beat in the nearby vicinity, and the likelihood of the two carmen encountering one as they headed to work was high, as both would have known.

I have said this before. I would describe leaving a woman who may have just been raped and unconscious alone in the middle of the night is callous.

I know you've said this before, but it appears to be only you and your fellow Cross theorists who adopt that view. As far as most are concerned, their behaviour was not remotely callous. On the contrary, they were taking a pro-active approach as opposed to just hanging around, prodding the body and debating what next to do. They did not "exactly alert Mizen as to the urgency of the situation" because by their own admission, they didn't know how urgent the situation was. They had not ascertained whether or not the women was dead or drunk, and they relayed as much to Mizen.

If they were aware of local police beats then they may have been aware that there was a policeman on duty maybe a hundred yards away in Great Eastern yard. Why not tell him? Or the butchers around the corner in Winthrop Street.

But equally likely, they didn't know about them, and only knew of the police beats they were accustomed to encountering, on a daily basis, on their way to work.

I am unsure what you mean by ‘scamming’.

I only used that expression because it was the one Fisherman used in relation to the theory that Cross supplied false information to PC Mizen without Paul hearing. I find the said "scam" theory very unconvincing for reasons already outlined. It seems very obvious to me that if a policeman is approached by two carmen, with one of them claiming that a potentially dead woman lies a few hundreds yards away, he will make damnably sure to seek corroboration from the other one, even if all he got in response was a basic nod of agreement. Mizen may not have stated explicitly that he did so but some things are so obvious as to go without saying. What, after all, could be more suspicious than a second man hovering around just out of earshot following the first man's disclosures involving a potentially murdered woman?

Similarly the discrepancy between Mizen’s account of the conversation and Lechmere’s is on the record. - Mizen says he was told he was wanted by a policeman. Lechmere denies saying that.

Yes, and it was almost certainly an honest denial. Since Mizen raised no objection to being corrected by Cross at the inquest on this detail, it is clear that the former simply misremembered that detail and accepted as much.

There are reports that Paul said that he was apprehensive of being robbed – mugged as we would say – and so walked around Lechmere when he approached him. I take this to mean that Paul felt menaced. The person responsible for this was Lechmere. Hence he was menacing.

No. It simply means that Paul was fearful of being approached by any lone man in case they had robbery in mind. When, in the event, he was approached by a lone man, that apprehension kicked in. That does not for one moment reflect negatively on Cross, or imply that he had a menacing demeanour when he approached Paul.

You will find that the different links in the chain that make up the Lechmere theory are all supported by contemporary accounts.

Not only have I not found that, I'm afraid I very much dispute that they exist.

All the best, and welcome back,

Ben

[Monty]

Edward,

You stated that in every report of theirs the Police note the alternate name. I said that's not the case. You then asked me to name one person who has an alternate name which has not been noted. I called Bowyer.

Now you are stating that's invalid, as it is a nickname. However I'm refering to the names John and Harry.

As for nicknames, Connellys nickname was used by Reid, so obviously nicknames were noted by the Police as they wished.

The bottom line is alternate names were not used in ALL reports. They are predominantly used when charging.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty
Thomas Bowyer apparently had a nickname of ‘Indian Harry’. Did he try and pass himself off as ‘Indian Harry’ to the police or at the inquest?
A nick name and an alias are not the same.

Ben
You have a touching confidence in the prevalence of policemen in the East End.
I have said this before. I would describe leaving a woman who may have just been raped and unconscious alone in the middle of the night is callous. Even if she was an obvious ‘unfortunate’ - and in the dark was that obvious? And then they did not exactly alert Mizen as to the urgency of the situation.
If they were aware of local police beats then they may have been aware that there was a policeman on duty maybe a hundred yards away in Great Eastern yard. Why not tell him? Or the butchers around the corner in Winthrop Street. They had options to raise the alarm.

I am unsure what you mean by ‘scamming’. Would it be something similar to the theory whereby Hutchinson went to a police station to give a false statement and then gave other slightly different false statements to newspaper reporters?

The theory doesn’t ‘depend’ on Paul being conveniently out of the way.
It is based on what is said in newspaper reports of the accounts as given at the inquest (and to an extent on Paul’s newspaper interview).

One newspaper says that Paul walked off as Lechmere talked to Mizen.
We know Paul was hostile to the police (from his two press interviews) so it is not a ridiculous supposition to suggest that he may have not lingered too close to Mizen’s size 11 boots.
From accounts of the conversation it can be adduced that Paul did not talk to Mizen

Similarly the discrepancy between Mizen’s account of the conversation and Lechmere’s is on the record. - Mizen says he was told he was wanted by a policeman. Lechmere denies saying that.

When Paul appeared he wasn’t asked about this matter, but it is reasonable to suppose he didn’t hear it for the reasons given above.

You may think that Mizen should have spoken to Paul but he makes no mention of doing so.

There are reports that Paul said that he was apprehensive of being robbed – mugged as we would say – and so walked around Lechmere when he approached him. I take this to mean that Paul felt menaced. The person responsible for this was Lechmere. Hence he was menacing.

You will find that the different links in the chain that make up the Lechmere theory are all supported by contemporary accounts.

It is possible of course that while they were walking from Brown’s Stable Yard to the corner of Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street, that Lechmere said to Paul, “Look here, we’re both late for work, if we find a copper let’s just tell him that he’s wanted round the corner by another copper. That way he won’t detain us long”.
And Paul, who Lechmere may have discerned by then was not exactly pro-Police and not exactly over concerned about the welfare of poor Polly, readily agreed.
That could have happened, but to suggest it would be pure conjecture.