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

[joelhall]

Hey folks, it's been a while, so I've been trundling through the forums for a while today and noticed the above chap popping up on numerous threads.

Question: anyone able to summerise some of the evidence against him as I don't seem to be able to find any on the boards.

Cheers,

Joel

[caz]

Hi Joel,

The case against this chap appears to stem from his admission that he was the man who had drawn Robert Paul's attention to the body of Polly Nichols lying in Buck's Row.

Love,

Caz
X

[Steve S]

And that He changed his name..........

[Damaso Marte]

I'm not a proponent of the Lechmere/Cross theory, but as I understand it the proponents make three claims:

(1) Lechmere was literally found standing over a dead body
(2) Lechmere gave a "false" name to the police
(3) The canonical 5 + Tabram were murdered along direct routes between Lechmere's home, work, and parent's house

IMO, this is an indication that Ripperology has entered a decadent era: with no new facts likely to come out anytime soon, the science is collapsing on itself, and we are turning on the facts we have: witnesses now become suspects.

You see it elsewhere too: posters here now routinely accuse the man who stopped to take a piece of leather off his shoe of killing Chapman.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Damaso

I for one don't accuse Richardson outright...but I do find the development of his testimony dodgy...and if he was indeed the epileptic identified by Debra as having been invalided out of the army then there may, just may, be alternative reasons to doubt his testimony...In my opinion it would be slightly dishonest to harbour such doubts, and yet not declare them...and as far as I'm aware I've never put it stronger than that...he may well be the real thing...at this distance who are we really to over-readily discount any of the contemporaneously accepted witnesses?

From that point of view I find comparison with the recent Cross/Lechmere debate somewhat invidious...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Joel

As Damaso says, there is a great deal of controversy over the Cross/Lechmere involvement in the Bucks Row killing.

Attempting to be as neutral as I can (and you have to bear in mind I'm not a Cross-did-it proponent) the evidence against Cross /Lechmere seems to be:-

1) Lechmere (as he then seems to have been known in all the official documents) gave his surname as Cross, the surname of his stepfather. (despitr not officially using this name in any other official documents so far found).

2) He may or may not have initially presented to Paul as "standing over the body". There are arguments either way. Paul indicates that what he found initially intimidating was Lechmere/Cross approaching him (ie invading his space) and touching him on the shoulder...after Lechmere/Cross expressed his reasons, Paul seems to have forgotten these misgivings.

3) Lechmere/Cross somehow conned Paul into accepting he'd just discovered a dead body...Paul allegedly accepted this... despite subsequently stating to both PC Mizen and the coroner that he thought the woman might still be just alive...

4) When they subsequently met PC Mizen, Lechmere/Cross somehow scammed Paul into not hearing what was said to Mizen, and conned the latter into believing there was an unimportant case up the road of a drunken woman already discovered by a local copper.

5) When it came to the Inquest the previously supposed totally attentive and intelligent Mizen suddenly became thick, docile and leadable and was somehow conned into supporting the Lechmere/Cross testomony...

I'm sorry

That's about as neutral as I can be

All the best

Dave

[Damaso Marte]

My favorite part of the Cross/Lechmere debate is that it has resulted in multiple posters walking around London with stopwatches, trying to figure out the fastest way to get from Lechmere's home to his place of work.

The possible routes usually differ by only a minute or two...IMO, if they are that close together, a rational person could easily decide that that's close enough and pick a route on the basis of which route smelled the best, had the best lighting, etc.

That said, I don't want to be too hostile to the Cross supporters. I think he is a far more viable suspect than, say, Druitt or most other big names except Kosminski.

[Cogidubnus]

That said, I don't want to be too hostile to the Cross supporters. I think he is a far more viable suspect than, say, Druitt or most other big names except Kosminski.

That may, arguably, be true for the Nicholls murder...but what is there to link him to the rest? Nothing except his possible (as you say) route to work...which I daresay, in part at least, he probably shared with hundreds of men...Proximity proves nothing in itself.

As I once observed, my own great great grandfather lived two minutes away in Queen Anne Street...perhaps he did it? (That's not a serious suggestion by the way!)

All the best

Dave

[caz]

Hi Dave,

Sorry to be pedantic, but your points 3), 4) and 5) contain no 'evidence', just pure speculation on the part of those who fancy Cross for the role of ripper.

The case against him appears entirely circular, because it very much depends on this speculation about his motivation (basically to lie and con his way out of murder) being correct. Obviously if he was merely unfortunate enough to have discovered the murder and become unwillingly involved, his motivation would have been very different and totally innocent. But there is simply nothing in the available evidence that can tell us that his behaviour, as reported, was more likely than not to have been that of a killer - the ripper to be exact.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Caz

You're quite right...but did somebody mention evidence? really? I was just attempting to make an accurate statement of what the Lechmere/Cross proponents had to say...as the Python copper said "evidence doesn't enter into it lad!"

All the best

Dave

[caz]

Attempting to be as neutral as I can (and you have to bear in mind I'm not a Cross-did-it proponent) the evidence against Cross /Lechmere seems to be:-

1)...
2)...

3) Lechmere/Cross somehow conned Paul into accepting he'd just discovered a dead body...

4) When they subsequently met PC Mizen, Lechmere/Cross somehow scammed Paul into not hearing what was said to Mizen, and conned the latter into believing there was an unimportant case up the road of a drunken woman already discovered by a local copper.

5) When it came to the Inquest the previously supposed totally attentive and intelligent Mizen suddenly became thick, docile and leadable and was somehow conned into supporting the Lechmere/Cross testomony...

Hi Caz

You're quite right...but did somebody mention evidence? really? I was just attempting to make an accurate statement of what the Lechmere/Cross proponents had to say...as the Python copper said "evidence doesn't enter into it lad!"

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

Er, yes, someone really did mention the e word -

- but I think you got away with it.

[That nice John Cleese gets everywhere, doesn't he? Ed]

Love,

Pedantic Polly
X

[PaulB]

Can one of you please remind me how giving a false named benefited Cross/Lechmere if he was the murderer? He appears to have been quickly traced and identified and his address was published, from which it wouldn't appear that he made any effort to hide himself.

[caz]

Hi Paul,

I can't see any possible benefit, although others have tried to explain it to me.

The reasoning usually goes that giving a false name to the police is just something that villains typically do to pull the wool over their eyes.

In this case though, as you point out, no wool was pulled over anyone's eyes. If the police wanted the individual calling himself Cross after his late stepfather, he volunteered more than enough information for them to knock on his door at home or work and find him going by the name of Lechmere (if that is how he was always known in either place).

Love,

Caz
X

[PaulB]

Thanks Caz.

[Mr Lucky]

Cog! Caz!

The rest of 'team Lechmere' have been banned, and I'm not biting.

I just want it to be known, you're discussing their theory, their explanation, not mine.

Happy New Year to you both.