Evidence of innocence

[etenguy]

I do not wish to be held accountable for what others say or think. I am prepared to answer any criticism of my own thoughts and the theory I subscribe to, but that´s as far as it goes.

Hi Fisherman

I hope you don't mind if I ask another two linked questions about the Lechmere/Cross theory.

As I understand it, one of the reasons you believe Lechmere could have been the murderer is that the murders occur along his home to work route. (except Stride who was murdered not far from his mother's house). I believe your conclusion is that he killed on his way to work, at least mostly, and that is why the work route is an important indicator pointing at Cross.

I wondered why, therefore, all the murders took place at the weekend or bank holiday. The usual (non Lechmere) response is that the killer killed on his non work days. That seems to be a reasonable conclusion to draw but would raise a question for the Lechmere theory to answer. Do you have any thoughts around this? If we conclude he did not kill on his way to work, then does this weaken the link to Lechmere as a suspect?

(Just a quick thank you, also - not many researchers/authors engage so fully with those who have questions/criticisms of the theory they espouse)

[JeffHamm]

I suspect that there is a number of serial killers out there who move inbeteen their strikes, who use various methods of killing - and who will never get caught, mainly due to how there will not be any suspicion that there is a seriak killer on the loose.

Hi Fisherman,

That is possible, of course. There is always the possibility that those who have not been caught are unlike those who have (hence they're not getting caught). But yes, someone who is mobile, living a more transient life, and killing over multiple jurisdictions using different methods, would be extremely difficult to catch. First thing is that the different methods make linkage of the crimes very difficult, although DNA (if found) can overcome that. It's hard enough to link crimes with similarities let alone those that differ greatly. David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), initially attacked two people with a knife before switching to using a gun. One of those initial attacks has never been verified, but the other has (the police only found out about them when D.B. confessed to them). He committed those attacks before moving to Yonkers (and they occurred not far from where he was living before he moved; and two of his gun attacks are also in that area).

The unknown can always be different from the known. However, as cold cases get resolved, what's often found is that those cases where a serial killer has evaded capture for a long time and was only caught because technology provided that new lead, is they are much like those who had been caught, only they had got lucky somehow. So, while that doesn't mean all of the unsolved cases will be like solved cases, it does appear that the mobile, method changing, serial killer is the rarest of rare. Perhaps, though, as new technology develops and as a result provides new investigative leads, that assessment will require modification. But at the moment, the data we have isn't suggesting that hypothesis will be supported.

- Jeff

[Columbo]

Ok I'm on a roll. in the Ultimate JTR Source book, a report that appeared in The Times on the 4 of sept states that Constable Mizen was in Hanbury street and a man passing by said "You're wanted in Bakers Row" The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. So no mention of a policeman wanting Mizen at the scene. Also in the same article, under Charles Cross it says basically paul wanted to move nichols and cross didn't. so too many discrepancies for a solid answer to these questions I think. Pretty much a judgement call on who you believe.

[JeffHamm]

Ok I'm on a roll. in the Ultimate JTR Source book, a report that appeared in The Times on the 4 of sept states that Constable Mizen was in Hanbury street and a man passing by said "You're wanted in Bakers Row" The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. So no mention of a policeman wanting Mizen at the scene. Also in the same article, under Charles Cross it says basically paul wanted to move nichols and cross didn't. so too many discrepancies for a solid answer to these questions I think. Pretty much a judgement call on who you believe.

Hi Columbo,

Yah, the press reports tend to provide all sorts of conflict in the fine details like this. We have to remember, though, the reporter is interviewing and the person being interviewed will be telling their story. One entirely plausible explanation, though of course one I cannot prove, would be something like Cross/Lechmere saying the above to Mizen "You're wanted in Bakers Row", meaning you're needed there because there's a woman, drunk or maybe dead, in the street. And Mizen took that to mean he was wanted by a fellow police man (or Mizen remembers it as such). I don't think there need be any intention of either Cross/Lechmere or PC Mizen to be mis-representing what they remember the gist of what was told them, as all it would take would be a slight misunderstanding to have occurred. Add to that, when PC Mizen arrives in Buck's Row, there is a policeman there, and there's a dead woman. He could easily conflate there being a policeman upon his arrival with Cross/Lechmere indicating he was wanted in Buck's Row to think the two were connected (that Cross/Lechmere meant he was wanted by a policeman). Cross/Lechmere's testimony to the contrary would then just be him clarifying what his intended meaning was, and we need not have to accuse PC Mizen of perjury.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

I did pick up a few things as well. here's one that I found intriguing.

I was reviewing the inquest and a few news articles on this site about the Nichols inquest. what's interesting is the inquest and articles I saw indicated Cross wanted to prop Nichols up not Paul. maybe it's the wording or phrasing that's throwing me, but I don't know where it says specifically that Paul wanted to sit Polly up and Cross refused. Of course I didn't search all of them and I'm sure it says specifically who did what but isn't that interesting the difference on such a clear matter?

The Daily Telegraph - the source quoted on the boards from the inquest - has it the wrong way around. All other sources clearly point put that Lechmere was the one who denied propping Nichols up. The perhas clearest source is the Morning Advertiser, always quoting ad verbatim:

Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood.

I am glad that you did not choose the approach the Baron chose, writing:

"Yes, Paul refused to help the woman, not Lechmere.

Lechmere wanted to help Nichols, he stoped Paul for this very reason, but Paul didnt want to, instead they went to fetch a policeman.

What would you expect more from an innocent man?

But of course, Fisherman will tell you not to believe that report.

He will do anything to draw a guilty Lechmere out of the blue."

I would be very ashamed of myself if I had exhibited a lack of knowledge and topped it off by accusing somebody of doing anything to bolster his or her take on things, going even as far as misinforming the readers out here.

We can now see that it is the Baron, not me, who makes it his task to misinform in order to suit his own thinking.

Make of that what you want.

[Fisherman]

Whilst I'm leaning in your direction Fish, I do have a problem with the timings being used in all sorts of scenarios.

The general starting point is Lechmere left home for work at 3.20 normally. But then we have Tabram killed at 2.30 and Kelly maybe 4.00.

So it becomes that he left home much earlier for Tabram, did he ever sleep ?, And Kelly and Chapman were after he started work. That becomes something he did during his working day, and so on.

The point that he could have committed all the killings because they were on his route to work then becomes irrelevant.

It feels here that it's open season on Lechmere, regardless of time of day or night you seem to pin things on him. He may be guilty, but the use of timings feels like it weakens the case.

The first sighting of Tabram on the landing was made by Alfred Crow, and that was at 3.30. We do not know how long she had been at that stage, we only know that Killeen favoured a TOD between 2.30 and 2.45. Three hours had passed as he made his examination, and with every passing hour, it becomes harder to establish the TOD. It also applies that Lechmere may have left home earlier if he was on the prowl for victims. It would take time to seek them out, to chat them up, to go to a secluded place with them, to kill them, to clean up if necessary and then to return to the path to work. So I do not rule out that Lechmere started out earlier to accomplish all of this.

When it comes to Kelly, Prater said she heard the cry "Murder" at 4 AM and Lewis spoke of shortly before that time. However, one paper (I have forgotten which) described how a large number of women in the yard had spoken of other, very varying times for the outcry, and so it cannot be claimed to be any safe parameter.

Kelly may well have been killed in the same time frame as N ichols, and so could Chapman. The witnesses were not relied upon by either the police nor the Home Office, both of whom seem to have accepted Phillips´ bid instead.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

I hope you don't mind if I ask another two linked questions about the Lechmere/Cross theory.

As I understand it, one of the reasons you believe Lechmere could have been the murderer is that the murders occur along his home to work route. (except Stride who was murdered not far from his mother's house). I believe your conclusion is that he killed on his way to work, at least mostly, and that is why the work route is an important indicator pointing at Cross.

I wondered why, therefore, all the murders took place at the weekend or bank holiday. The usual (non Lechmere) response is that the killer killed on his non work days. That seems to be a reasonable conclusion to draw but would raise a question for the Lechmere theory to answer. Do you have any thoughts around this? If we conclude he did not kill on his way to work, then does this weaken the link to Lechmere as a suspect?

(Just a quick thank you, also - not many researchers/authors engage so fully with those who have questions/criticisms of the theory they espouse)

The days the Whitechapel victims were killed were all working days for most people, Tabram included. And thanks for the thumbs up!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

That is possible, of course. There is always the possibility that those who have not been caught are unlike those who have (hence they're not getting caught). But yes, someone who is mobile, living a more transient life, and killing over multiple jurisdictions using different methods, would be extremely difficult to catch. First thing is that the different methods make linkage of the crimes very difficult, although DNA (if found) can overcome that. It's hard enough to link crimes with similarities let alone those that differ greatly. David Berkowitz (Son of Sam), initially attacked two people with a knife before switching to using a gun. One of those initial attacks has never been verified, but the other has (the police only found out about them when D.B. confessed to them). He committed those attacks before moving to Yonkers (and they occurred not far from where he was living before he moved; and two of his gun attacks are also in that area).

The unknown can always be different from the known. However, as cold cases get resolved, what's often found is that those cases where a serial killer has evaded capture for a long time and was only caught because technology provided that new lead, is they are much like those who had been caught, only they had got lucky somehow. So, while that doesn't mean all of the unsolved cases will be like solved cases, it does appear that the mobile, method changing, serial killer is the rarest of rare. Perhaps, though, as new technology develops and as a result provides new investigative leads, that assessment will require modification. But at the moment, the data we have isn't suggesting that hypothesis will be supported.

- Jeff

That´s the thing: We don´t know if the transient, method changing killer are the rarest of the rare. We only know that the fewest killers of this type get caught, and so there is no way of counting those who don´t.

[Fisherman]

Ok I'm on a roll. in the Ultimate JTR Source book, a report that appeared in The Times on the 4 of sept states that Constable Mizen was in Hanbury street and a man passing by said "You're wanted in Bakers Row" The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. So no mention of a policeman wanting Mizen at the scene. Also in the same article, under Charles Cross it says basically paul wanted to move nichols and cross didn't. so too many discrepancies for a solid answer to these questions I think. Pretty much a judgement call on who you believe.

There is a record of how a juryman asked Lechmere whether or not he had really told Mizen that there was another PC present in Bucks Row. That very much clinches things, don´t you think? Mizen DID make the claim.

[Fisherman]

Hi Columbo,

Yah, the press reports tend to provide all sorts of conflict in the fine details like this. We have to remember, though, the reporter is interviewing and the person being interviewed will be telling their story. One entirely plausible explanation, though of course one I cannot prove, would be something like Cross/Lechmere saying the above to Mizen "You're wanted in Bakers Row", meaning you're needed there because there's a woman, drunk or maybe dead, in the street. And Mizen took that to mean he was wanted by a fellow police man (or Mizen remembers it as such). I don't think there need be any intention of either Cross/Lechmere or PC Mizen to be mis-representing what they remember the gist of what was told them, as all it would take would be a slight misunderstanding to have occurred. Add to that, when PC Mizen arrives in Buck's Row, there is a policeman there, and there's a dead woman. He could easily conflate there being a policeman upon his arrival with Cross/Lechmere indicating he was wanted in Buck's Row to think the two were connected (that Cross/Lechmere meant he was wanted by a policeman). Cross/Lechmere's testimony to the contrary would then just be him clarifying what his intended meaning was, and we need not have to accuse PC Mizen of perjury.

- Jeff

If Mizen WAS told that there was another PC in Bucks Row, if he was NOT told that the woman could be dead and if he was NOT informed that Lechmere himself was the finder, how damning would you consider such a thing to be, Jeff?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

If Mizen WAS told that there was another PC in Bucks Row, if he was NOT told that the woman could be dead and if he was NOT informed that Lechmere himself was the finder, how damning would you consider such a thing to be, Jeff?

Since we're dealing with a hypothetical situation I need to provide some context before I could decide, so if Lechmere/cross had met a PC who asked him to find another, and if Polly was alive when he was there, and Paul had found her, I wouldn't find that to be at all damning. But since none of the things either of us have made up actually happened though, I'm not sure we'll make any progress exploring alternative realities.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,


Since we're dealing with a hypothetical situation I need to provide some context before I could decide, so if Lechmere/cross had met a PC who asked him to find another, and if Polly was alive when he was there, and Paul had found her, I wouldn't find that to be at all damning. But since none of the things either of us have made up actually happened though, I'm not sure we'll make any progress exploring alternative realities.

- Jeff

There was no other PC, as per Lechmere himself. But if you don´t want to answer the question, that ´s just fine. I mean it!!

[Fisherman]

Anyways, y´all will have to make do on your own now. I´m off to Iceland for a week.

[MrBarnett]

Anyways, y´all will have to make do on your own now. I´m off to Iceland for a week.

I hope worrying about Lech won’t ‘wreck ya week’ (see what I did there?)

Have a great time. I’m off to Dorset for the best part of a month from next Weds.

[Fisherman]

I hope worrying about Lech won’t ‘wreck ya week’ (see what I did there?)

Have a great time. I’m off to Dorset for the best part of a month from next Weds.

Wreck ya week - that’ s brilliant, Gary! I wont be seeing anything of it, though. I’ ve got a son living in Iceland, and the week will be about hiking, fishing and canoeing in stunning surroundings in the highlands. I’ ve had the good sense to raise a flyfishing guide, and boy, am I going to capitalize on it…! I was 62 last time I saw him and I’ m 64 now, so it’ s been way too long. Some virus got in the way.

Enjoy Dorset! I’ m told there’ s some nice fishing to be had there too!!