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

[Monty]

Well, to be correct, its an expansion on someone elses theory.

Monty

[Stephen Thomas]

The rest of 'team Lechmere' have been banned

What on earth for? They seemed a jolly lot.

[Robert]

Technically, suspended rather than banned.

[Cogidubnus]

suspension bridge

Which is why I responded in the very moderate way I did, (I hope), not wishing to take advantage of another's misfortune...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

"Don't tell him Morris!"

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

- but I think you got away with it.

Well I do like to give the benefit of the doubt

All the best

Dave

(PS "I shall now add your name to der list...vot is your name?")

[joelhall]

So basically, no there isn't any evidence just supposition...

[Bridewell]

The Mizen Scam

So basically, no there isn't any evidence just supposition...

Hi Joe,

Like Dave, I'm conscious of the fact that those who most strongly advocate Cross/Lechmere as the killer aren't able to present their own case at the moment. There are several threads which develop the theme. Probably the most detailed is "The Mizen Scam" which follows up a Ripperologist article by Christer (Fisherman). In the article (in case you haven't read it) Christer presents alternative explanations of Cross/Lechmere's actions, firstly as the innocent witness which he purported to be and second as a killer seeking to cover his tracks - and duping a policeman in so doing. Personally I'm not persuaded by the argument for Lechmere (his real name) as the Ripper. If an assumption is made that he is guilty the evidence can be interpreted as supporting that conclusion, but if the evidence is first evaluated and then a conclusion drawn without such a preconception, his actions are entirely consistent with those of an innocent witness. The person whom Lechmere waylaid (Robert Paul) described him (Lechmere) as 'standing in the middle of the road'. The proponents of Lechmere as the Ripper refer to that as his being 'found over the body of a Ripper victim'. In fairness, Bucks Row was not a wide street, but I still find that a difficult interpretation of Paul's testimony. The facts are what they are. Lechmere was seen close to the body of Mary Nichols and gave the name Cross which he doesn't appear to have used himself in any of the surviving records. He and Mizen had differing recall of the detail of their conversation. Those are the bare bones of it. The circumstances can be interpreted to suit either guilt or innocence.
Cross/Lechmere was close to a Ripper victim around the time of death and was known by two names. According to her own testimony, so was Elizabeth Long/Durrell.
The arguments for and against have been discussed at length. You pays your money and you takes your choice. I see no reason to believe that Lechmere was the killer of Nichols - but he could have been.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Blimey....

Colin, I couldn't have put it more accurately myself...spot on...

Every good wish

Dave

[Damaso Marte]

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

If you killed Nichols, you almost certainly killed at least Chapman. Very few people here (if anyone?) dispute the fact that those two were done by the same hand.

This is an absurd standard, however: if Lechmere can be tied to at least one murder, that is more murders than any other major suspect can be tied to. Druitt, Kosminski, Koslowski...none of these men can be tied to any murder scene the way Lechmere can. I suppose among other suspects, that only Hutchinson can be tied to a murder scene, and perhaps Le Grand.

[Damaso Marte]

So basically, no there isn't any evidence just supposition...

"no evidence, just supposition" is true of every single suspect we've ever discussed. Stop applying double standards to the argument for Lechmere.

[Monty]

"Stop applying double standards to the arguements for Lechmere"

Oh the irony.

Monty

[FrankO]

The facts are what they are. Lechmere was seen close to the body of Mary Nichols and gave the name Cross which he doesn't appear to have used himself in any of the surviving records. He and Mizen had differing recall of the detail of their conversation. Those are the bare bones of it. The circumstances can be interpreted to suit either guilt or innocence.

Well put indeed, Colin. 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.

As, among other things, I don’t see how Cross could have known/been so foreseeing that everything would work out exactly the way he wanted/needed, I don’t see reason either to believe Cross was Nichols’ killer – although he could have been.

All the best,
Frank

[Cogidubnus]

Well put indeed, Colin. 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.

Yet Paul by his own admission pulled down Nicholls clothing - presumably to afford her some decency - which, by disturbance to the rump and legs, would probably have affected the way the body was presented

All the best

Dave

PS It was so dark the throat and abdomen wounds couldn't be seen ...so just how did Paul know she was indecently displayed? I'd contend it could only be by recognising what he'd touched...or worse...

[caz]

As, among other things, I don’t see how Cross could have known/been so foreseeing that everything would work out exactly the way he wanted/needed, I don’t see reason either to believe Cross was Nichols’ killer – although he could have been.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Well said.

Additionally, anyone who could trust his own ability to think on his feet and con two strangers, one a police officer, in those circumstances (with the murder weapon still on him, presumably, and no certainty in the darkness that he had avoided any bloodstains) would surely have been streetwise enough to avoid such a precarious situation in the first place.

If Cross was the killer, with a mind to do it all again with knobs on the following weekend, he could so easily have ruined everything for himself by attracting all that early attention, when all he had to do was walk calmly on down Buck's Row, discarding the knife if he thought it wiser, and never look back. Job done.

Love,

Caz
X

[DGB]

Also, I believe Lechmere said at the inquest that Polly's clothes initially made him believe she had been 'outraged'.

I can't imagine he would admit at the inquest that - not only were the clothes in a different arrangement when he found her - but in a much worse and incriminating arrangement.

DavidB