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

[moonbegger]

He checked Paul out, realized that he had not seen anything incriminating, and played him like a fiddle

A very dangerous fiddle indeed , and one he really could have done without playing at all , you summed it all up in one line .

He checked Paul out, realized that he had not seen anything incriminating

With just a little composure ( a quality which we know the killer had in abundance ) he would have let Paul just pass on by and said nothing ..

And why , oh why would the Killer ( blood on hands and possibly clothes , as well as murderous knife in pocket , go searching for a policeman ? Having no idea what Paul might say or what the Policeman's response would be ..

Surely , it would not have been out of reach of Crossmere's fiddle playing skills to simply divert Pauls attention and ditch the murder weapon .. there would have been ample opportunities, especially knowing that they would soon be running into a Bobby on the beat and all the unknown factors that could come into play . It really makes no sense .

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

A very dangerous fiddle indeed , and one he really could have done without playing at all , you summed it all up in one line .
With just a little composure ( a quality which we know the killer had in abundance ) he would have let Paul just pass on by and said nothing ..

And why , oh why would the Killer ( blood on hands and possibly clothes , as well as murderous knife in pocket , go searching for a policeman ? Having no idea what Paul might say or what the Policeman's response would be ..

Surely , it would not have been out of reach of Crossmere's fiddle playing skills to simply divert Pauls attention and ditch the murder weapon .. there would have been ample opportunities, especially knowing that they would soon be running into a Bobby on the beat and all the unknown factors that could come into play . It really makes no sense .

moonbegger

You must realize, Moon, that I regard Lechmere as a very resourceful psychopath. These are people that are often extremely skilful when it comes to reading other persons.
They are sometimes also people who enjoy playing games.

If Lechmere was the killer, then he answers perfectly to this sort of picture. What he did at the murder spot was extremely cool and calculating - and very fearless. His response to the oncoming danger in the shape of Paul was very calm and controlled.

The scam follows and confirms this picture perfectly. As does the fact that he did not fear to meet a PC. Nor did he fear to approach the police after the Paul interview. Fearless, cunning, cool, calculating - and possibly even enjoying it.

You would not have done the same. Nor would I. Then again, we are not psychopaths, are we? Bundy, however, bluffed away and got away with it, feeling invincible and enjoying the game. Others have done the same.

If he was the killer, then you should not try and assess him as a person like yourself. Rodney Alcala had an IQ of 160, Kemper scored very high too. They could toy with you and me - men like them have all the skills it takes and the nerv to accompany them.

The only way to picture the Nichols deed if it was done by Lechmere is as a masterpiece of coolness and ingenuity on the killerīs behalf. And that holds true all the way, from Buckīs Row to the inquest room. The indicators are there that Lechmere lied, his trail to work arguably covers the exact ground in which the subsequent killing took place, he had the type of job and was the type of man that would pass unsuspected - it is all in place.

But you tell me that he would not do it the way I think he did it, the reason being that you cannot relate to it yourself.

Fine. I can live with that. Goodnight!

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Mr Lucky ,

Hot smoke and steam, pluthering out of the 3.7 from Newcross, that’s what caused the problem for Cross, by the time it clears, he can see Robert Paul and he’s only 40 yards away!

Hello ML , i also suspect that Harriet Lilley may well have heard Polly's murder taking place as the luggage passed by , but my question would be , did the killer deliberately choose that moment (as the train rattled by) to muffle out any sounds or moans that his victim may have made ? especially when baring in mind the close proximity from the murder spot to people's bedroom windows ..

Do you not think that any smoke from the train as well as the noise would serve as more of a help than a hindrance to the killer, giving him both a visual smokescreen as well as an audio one ?

Would the killer have still been able to make out a figure or silhouette of a figure as they turned into the Row (illuminated by the street light at the bottom of Bucks Row & Brady st) even if , he himself was wrapped in a blanket of smoke & steam ?

One final thought ! on the subject of manipulating the rattling and grinding industrial sound that a passing train makes in order to disguise the Erie sound of a death throttle .. The yard in Hanbury street where Annie Chapman met her unfortunate end is not too far south of the tracks that run into liverpool street station .. my guess is , on a quiet morning you would be able to hear them noisy old trains rattling by quite clearly !
Is there a chance that the killer once again used the sounds at his disposal to cover up a vital part of his operation , Or was he even familiar with the railway timetable ?

I personally dont think any of the witnesses in the Chapman case bare any relevance to the actual murder ..

So it may well be worth a quick boo (Look) at the train timetables for that particular morning .. just maybe we can get a more accurate and realistic time of death .

Just thinking out loud ..

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Mr Lucky]

Hello ML , i also suspect that Harriet Lilley may well have heard Polly's murder taking place as the luggage passed by , but my question would be , did the killer deliberately choose that moment (as the train rattled by) to muffle out any sounds or moans that his victim may have made ? especially when baring in mind the close proximity from the murder spot to people's bedroom windows ..

Hi Moon

I think that there would be too large a margin for the time of the trains arrival for the killer to plan to synchronise this. The reporter at the time could only tie the train to approximately 3.30, but it may not be impossible that the killer stalled and waited for the trains approach.

Do you not think that any smoke from the train as well as the noise would serve as more of a help than a hindrance to the killer, giving him both a visual smokescreen as well as an audio one ?

No, I think the spot is in gloom, but the approaches are relatively better lit, this is why many are knocked down and robbed at that spot (Robert Paul), the smoke would only prevent the killer from seeing anyone approaching, preventing his early escape from the scene. The killer would be in danger of being seen 'standing where the woman was'

Would the killer have still been able to make out a figure or silhouette of a figure as they turned into the Row (illuminated by the street light at the bottom of Bucks Row & Brady st) even if , he himself was wrapped in a blanket of smoke & steam ?

Well it is possible, we can't actually recreate the conditions, all a bit of speculation really

One final thought ! on the subject of manipulating the rattling and grinding industrial sound that a passing train makes in order to disguise the Erie sound of a death throttle .. The yard in Hanbury street where Annie Chapman met her unfortunate end is not too far south of the tracks that run into liverpool street station .. my guess is , on a quiet morning you would be able to hear them noisy old trains rattling by quite clearly !
Is there a chance that the killer once again used the sounds at his disposal to cover up a vital part of his operation , Or was he even familiar with the railway timetable ?

It's possible, but would he need this cover. None of the resident of whitechapel appear to be ready to spring out of bed to go to any ones assistance!

The resident of Bucks row/ Brady street talk about usually hearing 'ordinary brawls', and one mentions someone intervening and having been ill-treated as a result

I personally dont think any of the witnesses in the Chapman case bare any relevance to the actual murder ..

Yes, I read your points on the other thread, I have a tendency to agree with you.

It might be worth you looking at the difficulties involved visually identifing Tabram and Nichols bodies, Mary Ann Monk (who had known Nichols for some time, had to view the body twice and a Mr Scorer claimed he knew a Polly Nichols but couldn't recognize her, it may possibly have been a different Polly Nichols, of cause) and compare this to Long identifying Chapman.

So it may well be worth a quick boo (Look) at the train timetables for that particular morning .. just maybe we can get a more accurate and realistic time of death

The time of the daytime passenger trains is perhaps easier to find than the night time goods trains, but best of luck with it

It only could give you a more accurate time if you had some reason to believe that the murder happened at the time the train went passed, I think you really need another Mrs Lilley type witness.

[Cogidubnus]

With my rail enthusiasts hat on as well as my JTR deerstalker, that's a good sound post Mr Lucky

Dave

[caz]

Good points Caz

My problem with the whole Mizen Scam is this:

Even if Lech as the ripper had been so surprised by Paul that he thought he had no time to get away from the body (which I doubt) and had to stay and bluff it out, why in the hell would he walk with him together until they found a cop??? Well he wanted to see what Paul had seen and to make sure that Paul woudn't accuse him (or something along those lines) say the Lechmerians.
If Paul had seen Lech doing anything he sure as heck would not let on to Lech anything while they were ALONE together- being that he knew he was with a murderer who was carrying a knife who could very well use it to get rid of the only witness. The second they came upon a PC or anyone else for that matter, Paul would then scream bloody murder and point the finger at lech. And Lech would surely know this.

No, as soon as they decided to carry on to work and alert the first cop they saw, this crafty Ripper Lech would have seperated from Paul ASAP. Not accompany a possible witness to his crime straight into the hangmans noose.

Spot on, Abby, my thoughts exactly.

Cross must have been acutely aware of the possibility that Paul had seen him in the act if he had just been mutilating Nichols and was still by the body when he first became aware of this potential witness approaching and decided the safest option was to invite him to inspect his work. No way would he then have accompanied Paul to alert the cops, still not knowing what the hell this man may have seen him doing. The ripper was not tired of living at that point - he was only just beginning.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Spot on, Abby, my thoughts exactly.

Itīs either or, Caz!

Cross must have been acutely aware of the possibility that Paul had seen him in the act if he had just been mutilating Nichols and was still by the body when he first became aware of this potential witness approaching and decided the safest option was to invite him to inspect his work. No way would he then have accompanied Paul to alert the cops, not knowing what the hell this man may have seen him doing. The ripper was not tired of living at that point - he was only just beginning.

X

Iīm not sure that Iīd go as far as to proclaim that I know whether the Ripper was tired of life or not. But no matter what, Caz, I have already given my view on this. Itīs on the thread, and itīs spot on.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

What would the point be of playing down the seriousness on Lechmereīs behalf? What a question, Caz!
Surely you can realize that the more serious the picture, the greater the risk that Mizen took an active interest in the carman and the errand on the whole?

"thereīs some woman lying in the street back there, and another PC told me to keep an eye out for a colleague of his, since he could do with some assistance"

or

"Constable, quick - thereīs a woman lying in the street back there, and I think something may have happened to her! I could not feel any pulse, and I fear she may be dead!"

Now do you see what difference it would make? What the point of playing it down would be?

Nope, Fisherman. I disagree. The woman was dead - very dead - and had been murdered. If guilty, Cross knew it, and he also knew what he was sending PC Mizen to discover for himself. If innocent, he was in the same boat as Paul, and wasn't sure if she was dead or just unconscious, so that was all he could have reported anyway. But the last person PC Mizen would have suspected was someone alerting him to the fact that a woman had been killed nearby. Conversely, if Cross had played the whole thing down and lied about a cop already at the scene, he would have looked a damn sight more suspicious to Mizen if he had found Nichols alone with her throat cut and stomach ripped open.

Why would he not speak of the French revolution instead of the woman and where she was? Because Paul had seen him and could identify him. Because Mizen had seen him and could identify him. But I have answered that question a zillion times, Caz.

But in that instance Mizen would not have gone to Buck's Row and would have found out about the murder by other means and never associated Cross with it. There would be no witness for him to identify unless Paul had later realised that Cross had not told the copper about the woman and wanted to make something of it (despite his supposed failure to say anything to Mizen himself!). Even then, Paul would have had to find the copper again, try to get him to recall Cross and what he had really said to him ("got the time officer?") then they would have had the job of tracking Cross down and identifying him and asking why he had failed - just like Paul - to report the matter to Mizen. If they managed to do all that, Cross could have talked and lied his way out of it at that point, just as you think he did anyway.

If he was the killer, then he chose a functioning method and thatīs that.

And if that bird I saw in the sky was actually a pig, then he chose a functioning method of flying and that's that.

If only all arguments could be won that easily.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Nope, Fisherman. I disagree."

Well, thatīs life.

"The woman was dead - very dead"

Death does not come in doses, Caz. Itīs either or again.

"- and had been murdered. If guilty, Cross knew it, and he also knew what he was sending PC Mizen to discover for himself."

Three out of three, Caz - agreed.

"If innocent, he was in the same boat as Paul, and wasn't sure if she was dead or just unconscious, so that was all he could have reported anyway."

...and it gets better!

"But the last person PC Mizen would have suspected was someone alerting him to the fact that a woman had been killed nearby."

Exactly. Meaning that the scam was kind of watertight.

"Conversely, if Cross had played the whole thing down and lied about a cop already at the scene, he would have looked a damn sight more suspicious to Mizen if he had found Nichols alone with her throat cut and stomach ripped open."

Ah, Caz - but letīs devote a minute or two to how Nichols looked as she lay on the ground. Mizen would not have found any ripped-open stomach unless he lifted the clothes. Llewellyn missed it, remember. And the darkness would have obscured the blood. So the bodily damages could be explained as being hard to detect for the good constable - and indeed, we know that the inquest did take care of this to Lechmereīs advantage. They accepted that it could not be seen readily that she was killed.

That leaves us with one suspicious thing only: the lack of the PC Lechmere had foreshadowed.

And really, Caz - what was his aim when he lied? To try and create a scene where it could not be proven that he HAD lied? Not really - this would be revealed IRRESPECTIVE OF whether there was a PC or not. It was just a question of time. The inquest, once again, testifies to this very thing. A PC WAS there, but he had NOT been there when Lechmere was there. Ergo, it was all revealed anyway.

So no, the aim Lechmere had was NOT to create a lie that would hold up eternally - it would be impossible to do so. Then why did he present the lie? Of course - to procure a safe passage past Mizen. THAT would have been his overall goal. And once he had achieved that, then he would be put to the test at the inquest no matter what.

If the PC was there, he would be asked whether he had spoken of that PC - and deny it.

If the PC was NOT there, the exact same thing applies.

It is no harder than that, really. You need to see the whole picture, Caz.

"But in that instance Mizen would not have gone to Buck's Row and would have found out about the murder by other means and never associated Cross with it."

Really? And how would he bank on Paul not spilling the beans, for example? Of course, that was always a risk - but a risk that was easier to deal with if the lie presented did not deviate too much from the truth, given that he risked to end up at an inquest.

"There would be no witness for him to identify unless Paul had later realised that Cross had not told the copper about the woman and wanted to make something of it (despite his supposed failure to say anything to Mizen himself!). Even then, Paul would have had to find the copper again, try to get him to recall Cross and what he had really said to him ("got the time officer?") then they would have had the job of tracking Cross down and identifying him and asking why he had failed - just like Paul - to report the matter to Mizen. If they managed to do all that, Cross could have talked and lied his way out of it at that point, just as you think he did anyway."

In all honesty, this is a mess, Caz. I canīt make heads or tails of it - and I donīt think either is present.

"If only all arguments could be won that easily."

Mmm, Caz - but the thing is, one has to stay informed about all the little details and be able to see the whole picture. So there IS no easy win to be had. Therefore, there is no gloating to be recommended either.

All the best, Caz!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

By the way - why is it that I feel I am answering the exact same questions over and over again ...?

Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

By the way - why is it that I feel I am answering the exact same questions over and over again ...?

Fisherman

Hi Fish
well heres one you have not answered yet. If Lech killed on his way to work where did he clean up and stash his weapon and goodies?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
well heres one you have not answered yet. If Lech killed on his way to work where did he clean up and stash his weapon and goodies?

Oh, but I HAVE answered that one, Abby. Too. More than one time.

It went along the lines that we of course donīt even know that he DID stash the innards. Maybe he just wanted to deprive the women of them, and threw them away afterwards.Or ate them.
If he DID save them, then we know that he had spent many years at Pickfords, and he would know his way around the place, so he may have hid it there. He may also have cleaned up at Pickfordīs - or at any public sink along the way. There was a fair number of them. And we donīt know how much blood he had on his person.

There are other factors that we donīt know either, and so speculation is all we can offer on the point. And when we speculate, we can offer lots of solutions to seemingly hard questions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;253899]Oh, but I HAVE answered that one, Abby. Too. More than one time.

"It went along the lines that we of course donīt even know that he DID stash the innards. Maybe he just wanted to deprive the women of them, and threw them away afterwards.Or ate them.
If he DID save them, then we know that he had spent many years at Pickfords, and he would know his way around the place, so he may have hid it there. He may also have cleaned up at Pickfordīs - or at any public sink along the way. There was a fair number of them. And we donīt know how much blood he had on his person.

There are other factors that we donīt know either, and so speculation is all we can offer on the point. And when we speculate, we can offer lots of solutions to seemingly hard questions."


Ok thanks Fish

How close was his mothers place to pickfords? And did she still live there at the times of the murders?

As you know, one of my major issues with lech as the killer is killing on the way to work. But if he had somewhere to go before he got there.....


Any chance he could have used his mothers place as his temp bolt hole to clean up and stash stuff before he went to work?

[Fisherman]

Ok thanks Fish

How close was his mothers place to pickfords? And did she still live there at the times of the murders?

As you know, one of my major issues with lech as the killer is killing on the way to work. But if he had somewhere to go before he got there.....


Any chance he could have used his mothers place as his temp bolt hole to clean up and stash stuff before he went to work?

How close was his motherīs to Pickfords? Well, Abby, she lived in Cable Street which was very close to Pinchin Street where the Pinchin Street torso was found. That is to say south of Berner Street. It would have given Lechmere rather an awkward journey to his work, plus the premises held not only his mother but also his daughter. I donīt feel that itīs a very viable place for Lechmere to have gone to clean up ... if he actually did need any place but a public water basin to do so. Or a rag - it would seem that Eddowesīapron was all it took on the double event night, right? Wipe the hands off, stich them in your pockets and off you go.

No matter who killed the Ripper victims, that man MUST have walked the streets of Whitechapel to a major extent in the condition the murders rendered him in! He would not have had five or six boltholes, all conveniently placed beside the murder spots, would he? No, he did what he did, and took to the streets, most probably passing other people on his way, without being detected.
That means that the killer may have walked any streets staying undetected - including routes leading between Doveton Street and Broad Street.

Once that is understood, all you need to do is to accept that he either threw the innards away, or brought them with himself to Pickfords where he could easily have had somewhere to stash them, intermittently perhaps. If he put them in glass jars, no smell would arise.

It is not an impossible thing to do, not by any means, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

At risk of being accused of repetition, if I may...

If guilty why did Charles Lechmere tell Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman and that there was a woman down, rather than a woman dead?

What was his priority when faced with Mizen?
To get past him unsearched and ideally unidentified.
This was achieved.
If he had not said there was another policeman who had presumably already taken their details, the Mizen would have done so. If he had alerted Mizen to the fact that the body was dead, then again the seriousness of the situation would have probably prompted Mizen to search them and take their details.
Charles Lechmere was opportunistically confronting each situation as it faced him.
His next problem arose when Paul went to the press, but that had yet to come.

The issue of how Charles Lechmere cleaned up for himself after each crime is one that would have faced whoever did the deeds.
He may not have had to do much cleaning up – he may have been very careful in that department.
There were numerous public water pumps and troughs and quite a few remain as testimony to this.
His mother’s house was not readily accessible, but his workplace was probably a safe refuge rather than a source of danger. It would have been a stables and harness room. He would have had tackle boxes, brushes and a variety of gear that he would have been responsible for. He had been working there for over twenty years. He would have known of nooks and crannies, lockers and cupboards.