Evidence of innocence

[A P Tomlinson]

...

Ed Stow was told by one of Lechmere's descendants, a Lechmere, that Charles Lechmere had a reputation for violence... so some things were passed down. I got this second hand from Fisherman; unlike the historian Ed Stowe, I'm not predisposed to hold onto something like that.

...

Would that be the same descendant who the historian Ed Stowe would bring along to pub meets, wearing a "Lechemere did it!" T shirt?
Was it THAT unbiased and clearly not in it for money and attention descendant?

And I thought using a false name was supposed to be a key indicator of guilt? Is "historian Ed Stowe" really the "Barking Strangler???" (You can't prove he isn't!)

[Fiver]

All you need is one person in the family to have these stories handed down.

And there are evidently oral stories handed down about Lech, in the family memory bank:

Ed Stow was told by one of Lechmere's descendants, a Lechmere, that Charles Lechmere had a reputation for violence... so some things were passed down. I got this second hand from Fisherman; unlike the historian Ed Stowe, I'm not predisposed to hold onto something like that.

Another descendant said that CAL was an odd duck, but very intelligent.

Butler is far from an unbiased source.

[Fiver]

As for my own family history:
My paternal great grand dad, James McCoy, was spirited away to Ohio during the feud with the child killing Hatfields in the 1880s.
He had a business in Coffeeville Kansas.
He had a backhand that he would use to hit his children with when he was displeased
He died at home.

All you need is one person in the family to have these stories handed down.

You appear to have completely missed my point.

How many events of your great grand-father's life do you know about? If I was able to find one that you did not know, would that prove your great-grandfather deliberately kept that knowledge from his descendants?

Is your ancestor James Lyons McCoy (1862 - 1948)? His father William appears to have owned McCoy's hardware, which is where the Dalton gang wanted to hitch their horses when they tried unsuccessfully to rob two banks at the same time in 1892 in Coffeyville, Kansas. That McCoy family had been in Ohio since at least 1809 and had no connection with the Hatfield-McCoy feud in Kentucky. James Lyons McCoy was 18 years old by the time the feud started, not a child. His home in Coffeyville caught fire in 1917. James Lyons McCoy did not die at home, he died at a hospital in Texarkana, Texas.

[Fiver]

Home was a 7 minute walk from the Working Ladds institute,
a normal person would fetch their apron afterwards and he'd than go to work ..... which would be to do what?
Intercept and kick out of the cart the guy you had to pay for the day?

Apparently you did not understand what I actually said.

* He hoped to work a part day either before or after testifying.

If Cross worked a partial shift before attending the inquest, going home to drop his apron off would have been a pointless waste of 15 minutes.

If Cross hoped to worked a partial shift after attending the inquest, going home to drop his apron off would have been a pointless waste of 15 minutes.

No one suggested that would mean intercepting and kicking out of the cart the guy Cross had to pay for the day. That just an illogical strawman created by you. Pickfords carmen worked 14 to 18 hour days. That would involve multiple trips from Broad Street Station and then returning with goods that had been picked up, If he was able to finish testifying early enough, Cross might have been able to get to Broad Street soon enough to wait for his cart to return and then take it out for later deliveries. Getting paid for half-a-day is better than getting no pay for the day.

And the second reason, that the police demanded Cross to wear his apron .... you're joking, right?

Apparently you did not understand what I actually said.

* The police wanted him to wear the carman's outfit to make it easier for PC Mizen to identify Cross.

The police had PC Mizen identify Cross at the inquest. Something that would help that identification would be for Cross to dress like he did when Mizen previously saw him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Paddy Goose,

where did I say it was an encumbrance?
Frankly, I never really thought about it.

Did Carmen pull up the apron when paying a street prostitute for sex? I didn't want to think about it ... a bit of a prude, quite frankly.

Just read about a guy who stabbed to death a woman in her house, and then fled stealing a jacket to cover the blood on his clothing.

All the conversation about the blood soaked Lech walking into Pickfords .... that pretty much can be put to rest.

Why didn't Lechmere immediately head west to flee the sound of Paul's footsteps? I'm starting to see some real sound reasons as to why this would not be at all unusual.

My problem with Lechmere always started with his testimony .... too me, its weird.

If you believe in Lechmere's innocence, then there are about 4 - 5 things that you'll have to swallow ... I'll list them tomorrow.
I started out about 50 % convinced that Lech is Jack the Ripper, and now I'm at 80 %.

Some here have to raise their game ..... the nothing to see here, move on tone won't work.
I tried to hand fiver a bone on this account and got it thrown back in my face.

We have to raise OUR game just to convince the gullible. You sound like a fully paid up cult member. You are 80% convinced of the guilt of a man for whom there is zero evidence. Not a scintilla. No one is just saying ‘nothing to see here.’ There’s a tone of weariness because all of the work has been done. It’s all on here. The white flag should have been waved years ago but it’s like debating with flat-earthers.

A killer would not, under any circumstances, have allowed a complete stranger to come clumping along the street in the we-small-hours so that he could have a chat knowing full well that it was an absolute certainty that he would be confronted with a Constable in a short time.

The gap has been shown, with 100% certainty, to have been a very deliberate fabrication of the evidence (and yet you’re fine with it)

The so called name issue has been kicked into the long grass by proper research and in great detail.

A killer strolling to work murders and mutilates a woman around 20 minutes before being due to clock on with 15 minutes or so of walking still to do….yeah right.

Whats left….oh yeah… he was there….next to a recently killed woman….pieces of eight, pieces of eight.


Im 90% convinced that 90% of those that support Cross don’t actually believe it themselves. I think it’s all a game to them. I think it’s part of an anti-Ripperologist agenda to perpetuate the tired old theory that ripperologists are all stuck in the mud. There’s no way that the level of complete clownishness that we see at various locations online can be real. I’m not saying that no one is genuine but…are they? How can anyone read about Cross and come away thinking ‘doh, that’s the killer?’ It’s baffling and sad.

[A P Tomlinson]

Why did he take that damn thing to court? It still astonishes me that no one is the least bit interested in rendering some at least half way decent explanation.

There was a time when the anti Lechmerites tried ... and here is what they came up with:

Elizabeth Lechmere was a delicate flower, either pregnant or with an infant who ended up dying in his 2nd year.
To spare her added concern, Lechmere feigned going to work, so that she would not know of the incident and his involvement.

And that is also why he gave the name of Cross and most likely did not mention his address to the inquest,
although he did give it to the police.

It seems that he kept this secret to his grave, or if he did ever share it with his wife, they chose to not pass it along to their children.
Very un east ender like ..... but okay.

Two fairly straight forward reasons leap to mind.
1 - that's what he was wearing at work that day, since he would have had to go in as normal and get time off to attend the inquest, and would be expected back on his route when it finished.
2 - that's what he was wearing when he met Mizen on the Friday morning and part of the reason he was at the inquest at the same time as Mizen was so that Mizen could identify him for the record.

If there were any sort of impropriety over not giving his address to the inquest, someone at the inquest, (such as... maybe the coroner,) would have said, "And can we have your address for the record." Not left it for over 100 years for the insight of Eddie Butler and his mates to realise it was the work of a criminal genius manipulating proceedings with his guile and cunning.

Tying yourself and others up in knots trying to create confusion and misdirection from the slightest aspect that you can't make immediate sense of won't make him a better suspect.

And I've never heard or read anything about Cross using that name to save his wife stress. "Delicate flower"? Where's that been pulled from?
If there are people who do say that, then they are as daft as the people who say Lechmere did it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A carman who was a serial killer and had the urge.

There is obviously one big advantage to having an apron and committing a murder with a knife,
when you have to continue on your way to work.

It also makes it easier for any witness that might see you leaving the seen or moving around in nearby streets.

[Geddy2112]

If you believe in Lechmere's innocence, then there are about 4 - 5 things that you'll have to swallow ... I'll list them tomorrow.

Oooo goody. I hope they are new things from what Ed and Christer have been saying for years as all of that has been debunked many times.

[Geddy2112]

Home was a 7 minute walk from the Working Ladds institute, a normal person would fetch their apron afterwards and he'd than go to work .... which would be to do what?

In the opposite direction of course. I'm really struggling to see how wearing work clothes at the inquest was in any way suspicious. It's clutching at straws of the highest order. Why does the Lechmere theory rely so heavily on clutching at ever lengthening straws? Never have I seen natural behaviour been made to look so suspicious. Like I said it's a complete sham.

[Geddy2112]

Perhaps not .... sleeveless does make it much easier for an arduous carman to put it on in a dark recess after having shagged a lady of the evening. Still, I can see some problems with potentially putting your arm over the strap and then having to correct that.
The idea of hearing footsteps and instantly heading on off isn't quite so seemless.

However, taking it off beforehand and then putting it back on would have a tendency to hide those nasty blood stains.

According to the doctors there was no sign of sexual intercourse. I doubt Jack even attempted to go with the ladies, he probably said he would got them to a dark place then strangled them. He will have got his sexual thrills from the cutting no doubt. Even if going with your idea it would have been easy enough to lift the apron out the way surely....

[Paddy Goose]

Hi Newb, this is where you said it was an encumbrance.

An image I have of Lechmere, upon hearing Paul's footsteps after having stabbed Polly Nichols' multiple times,

has trouble getting that damn apron back on in the dark. Which is the sleeve and which is the opening for the head?

Don't you hate it when that happens?

If you believe in Lechmere's innocence...

I believe him.

[Newbie]

Newbie, you have all bases covered per his apron. First you say it was an encumbrance to him murdering, next you wonder why he took the thing to the inquest, finally you state it's a 'big advantage.'

The problem is I don't agree with any of your three opinions. I believe Charles Cross because he was there and you weren't.

Hi Paddy Goose,

where did I say it was an encumbrance?
Frankly, I never really thought about it.

Did Carmen pull up the apron when paying a street prostitute for sex? I didn't want to think about it ... a bit of a prude, quite frankly.

Just read about a guy who stabbed to death a woman in her house, and then fled stealing a jacket to cover the blood on his clothing.

All the conversation about the blood soaked Lech walking into Pickfords .... that pretty much can be put to rest.

Why didn't Lechmere immediately head west to flee the sound of Paul's footsteps? I'm starting to see some real sound reasons as to why this would not be at all unusual.

My problem with Lechmere always started with his testimony .... too me, its weird.

If you believe in Lechmere's innocence, then there are about 4 - 5 things that you'll have to swallow ... I'll list them tomorrow.
I started out about 50 % convinced that Lech is Jack the Ripper, and now I'm at 80 %.

Some here have to raise their game ..... the nothing to see here, move on tone won't work.
I tried to hand fiver a bone on this account and got it thrown back in my face.

[Paddy Goose]

No I believe the carman. He was there. He didn't slash anyone.

[Newbie]

A carman who was a serial killer and had the urge.

There is obviously one big advantage to having an apron and committing a murder with a knife,
when you have to continue on your way to work.

And btw, carman Lech was spotted, in his apron, after slashing someone .... no problem!

Good thing he put that apron back on in time.

And I would recommend the apron with the straps when knifing someone, instead of the apron with sleeves like this Pickford's carman seems to have.

A bit easier to put back on in the dark

[Paddy Goose]

Newbie, you have all bases covered per his apron. First you say it was an encumbrance to him murdering, next you wonder why he took the thing to the inquest, finally you state it's a 'big advantage.'

The problem is I don't agree with any of your three opinions. I believe Charles Cross because he was there and you weren't.