Evidence of innocence

[Newbie]

Again you start by assuming guilt and interpret everything through that lens.

If Lechmere wanted to circumvent the police, he should have left as soon as he heard Robert Paul. PC Neil testified it would have been easy for the killer to do that. Lechmere's staying with the body was either the action of an innocent man or a rather stupid killer.

If Lechmere wanted to circumvent the police, he should not have gotten Paul's attention. Doing that was either the action of an innocent man or a rather stupid killer.

If Lechmere wanted to circumvent the police, he should have split up with Paul before they found a policeman. Deliberately traveling with Paul to talk to PC Mizen was the actions of either an innocent man or a mindbogglingly stupid killer.

Lying to PC Mizen would have been incredibly stupid. Robert Paul would have immediately known Lechmere was lying. PC Mizen would have known Lechemre was lying as soon as he reached Nichol's body. It would have been an immediate problem to lie to PC Mizen. Again, Lechmere's actions are either that of an innocent man or a mindbogglingly stupid killer.

Having escaped immediate detection of a lie due to dumb luck (PC Neil was already at the crime scene), the gross incompentance of PC Neil not getting anyone's identity, and Robert Paul's support of the lie for no explicable reason, only one of the stupidest murderers in all of history would have voluntarily come forward as a witness.

Charles Lechmere's actions are either those of an innocent man or of a killer of incredible stupidity.

That's what - 100 meters to safety? It was dark and you would depend on auditory information. Which way do you start walking? You assume that the killer would know which way the footsteps were coming - he would be facing due east while slicing up the abdomen, based on the position of Polly Nichols body. The footstep sounds would come into his left & right ears simultaneously: he wouldn't know the direction. It was too dark to make visual contact until much closer - that's why he chose to kill along such a long street. And you also assume the killer would be dead sure how close the footsteps were to him; its more than likely he would have doubt. And if you flee, do you run or walk? If a PC heard someone running in hobnailed boots at 3:40 am, they'd be very curious about that person. There were 3 - 4 PCs in the nearby vicinity; they'd hear it. If the pedestrian walks by the body and sees it left in typical ripper fashion, and he hears footsteps up ahead, what do you think he'd do?

Or do you think that only the killer hears footsteps and others are consistently indifferent to it?

To be precise, Lechmere was too cautious with his language to be pinned down, avoiding the danger of being precise: either drunk or dead /you are wanted (according to Mizen). That is what is so irritating about this suspect. Perhaps he was concerned for the woman's state and wanted to get her prompt attention, but in actuality wasn't that interested nor wanted to get much involved.

One thing we do know, JtR never again chose a long, lightly trafficked street.

[Newbie]

The answer is simple: Whose testimony does Robert Paul support?

And Paul's testimony supports Lechmere.

"Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.
By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul



You continue to repeat this mix of incorrect statements and speculation.

* Paul mostly agreed with Lechmere, especially on what was said.

* Lechmere had used his father's surname in "contacts with authorities" as far back as 1876. He gave his first and middle name, home and work addresses, and work shift, so Lechmere was not trying to hide his identity from the police, his family, his employers, his coworkers, or his neighbors.

* Lechmere's departure time dovetailed with the times given by PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain.

* Your "blood evidence" is bunk. Your own experts don't support your claims.

* Hundreds of men lived and worked in the area of the murders. People who understand geographic profiling have repeatedly shown your errors about this.

* The Berner Street area is not Berner Street. Hundreds of men had a reason to visit the area. To be the murderer of Stride and Eddowes, Lechemre would have had to get up three hours early on his day off or stay up 23 hours straight. The times argue strongly against Lechmere being their killer.

Which means he is innocent, and told the truth; or that he is the killer and invented a departure time to conform with the testimony of Mizen.
It is not exactly rocket science.

Who do you have? I'm all ears.

Some people can go on 3-4 hours of sleep. I met a Japanese girl who claimed that if she got more than 3 hours of sleep, she felt off the next day.

[Newbie]

>>Lechmere's address was not furnished to jurors at the inquest: unlike most non officials there.<<

Just out of interest, which specific court documents are you relying in to support that claim?

There are no official court documents remaining on the Mary Nichols murder, no?

I used the various newspaper accounts of the inquest proceedings furnished here: https://www.casebook.org/victims/polly.crossneil.html

[drstrange169]

None of which report what the jurors were specifically furnished with in terms of addresses. So your claim by definition is without support, no?

[drstrange169]

>The neighbors would not have known who was Charlie Cross.<<

The Star boasted to have, "Largest Circulation of Any Evening Paper in the Kingdom". It was intentionally targeted at the middle and working classes.

Do you really think it was unlikely that anyone in Doveton Street saw or heard about the witness who lived at 22?

How about the their friends, relatives and work colleges?
Was the matter of a man at number 22 appearing at the inquest never a subject of local gossip in the street or the shops?
The Lechmere's oldest daughter Elizabeth Emily, was what,14? Was she working as a purse maker then? Would any of her acquaintances have read the Star perchance?
Did Elizabeth senior have any contact with her mother in law, Mrs Cross and Mary Jane? Would they, Joseph Fosdike, or any of their friends, relatives and acquaintances have read the Star?
Would the rent collector have seen the Star story?
Would the school parents have read the evening newspapers?

We know Elizabeth Bostock came from an illiterate family, but do we know if she remained so, once she married into a family that all could read and write?

Factually, we don't know whether the neighbours knew who Charles Cross was, but logically to seems highly likely they did once the Star printed his address.

[Newbie]

So who are the few who have said he was protecting the name to prevent his mother’s income from being jeopardised?

It was maybe a year ago, in a different Lechmere thread. The subject of why Lechmere chose the name Cross at the inquest was at the forefront, and there were those coming up with alternate theories than that of simple evasion of legal authorities. I don't remember who proposed it: it was neither fiver, nor Hamm. I can go back and check if you really want it.

Someone put some work into it and i admired him/her for that. I don't exactly remember the details. It focused on whom I believe was the principal clergyman in the small parish where Ma Lechmere grew up, who had control over the dispensation of her father's trust. No monetary figures were given. He was asserted (speculatory) to have discretion in the amount he would hand out to Ma Lechmere, and that the family depended on the monthly-yearly installments from the trust. The intimation was that a scandal would tighten the purse strings of the trust, and so Lech was responding to the financial interests of the family by using Cross. Yes, it would be hard to match up the newspaper story Lechmere with Ma Lechmere; but only the threat would be sufficient. I would agree with that assertion.

Another idea was more vague: it involved Lech's long lost dad reading about Charles Lechmere in the newspaper, and then traveling to White Chapel in order to claim the trust money, or the inheritance, or assets of some kind.

My problem with each is that it doesn't explain why Lechmere showed up in a work sack at the inquest: the very opposite of Victorian propriety; nor why there is no hint of Lech's involvement in the Ripper case in family lore. Some claim he was caught up in a dragnet that morning by cops, and had to wait with the police until the inquest began. I highly doubt it. Officials would want to talk to Paul first, who originated the story of this other man, and who was known by the police. They'd want to check the story out first with him, instead of run off half cocked searching for this nameless, faceless character brought up in a newspaper story. If Paul and then Lech were caught in the dragnet, why no mention of Carman Paul's sack by reporters at the inquest?

For someone to come up with a good theory that explains the innocence of Lechmere at the inquest regarding the whole Cross affair, they need to cover the following:

1. Why did he chose the name Cross?
2. Why did he not mention his address to the inquest, when it is highly suggestive that the coroner asked for it, based on other responses?
3. Why did he come dressed up in his carman work outfit - given the absence of comments about others, there must have been something uniquely different about his attire to generate comment.
4. Why is there an absence of knowledge, among Lechmere's descendants, as to Lech being the first to discover the body of Polly Nichols: the first widely accepted Ripper . victim?

Now, i am pretty certain that there will be no takers; just people complaining about the conditions i have set up and arguing about adjectives & punctuation.

[Newbie]

I, of course, have a theory that conforms to all 4 conditions, and it involves Lech leaving home at 3:00 am to go hunting.
If you want to quibble with 3:10 or 3:15 am, i won't mind.

[Newbie]

An alternate theory of mine is Lech heading off earlier in the am to shag a prostitute.

[drstrange169]

>>The Star got his complete address: 22 Doveton street.<<

Did any newspaper commented on the fact that Cross never gave an address? Did the the Star trumpet it got had an exclusive by publishing an address? If an address wasn't an important point for the Star, why would a reporter go to the effort of getting it?

[drstrange169]

>>My problem with each is that it doesn't explain why Lechmere showed up in a work sack at the inquest ...<<

Why on earth is it a problem? He started work at 4:00 a.am. The inquest started at 10 a.m. Cross would have been able to put in 5 or 6 hours of work before the inquest.

[drstrange169]

>>... why no mention of Carman Paul's sack by reporters at the inquest ...<<

Simple, because the Star did not cover Paul's testimony in it's edition therefore no description of Paul's attire was given.

Also, according to Paul, he didn't work that day and had to pay someone else to do his job.

You seem to be trying to create a mystery that does not exist.

[drstrange169]

>>1. Why did he chose the name Cross?<<

First you have to prove he "chose" to use the name Cross.


>>2. Why did he not mention his address to the inquest, ...<<

First you have to prove he did not give his address at the inquest.


>> ... when it is highly suggestive that the coroner asked for it, based on other responses?<<

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean, Could you explain that in more detail?


>>3. Why did he come dressed up in his carman work outfit ...<<

Why wouldn't he?


>> ... given the absence of comments about others... <<

You mean like ...

(Inspector John Spratling) "... a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard."

(Tompkins) "a roughly dressed young fellow of low stature".


>> ...there must have been something uniquely different about his attire to generate comment.<<

Or, more accurately, if we actually follow the known facts, there was nothing different about the reporter choosing to describe Cross's appearance.


4. Why is there an absence of knowledge, among Lechmere's descendants, as to Lech being the first to discover the body of Polly Nichols: the first widely accepted Ripper . victim?

Again, sorry, I'm not following the point you are trying to make

[rjpalmer]

My problem with each is that it doesn't explain why Lechmere showed up in a work sack at the inquest: the very opposite of Victorian propriety

Victorian propriety? Among working men in the East End?

I can't find it at the moment, but somewhere I have a discussion by Wynne Baxter--the coroner at the Nichols' inquest--describing a common practice among East Enders.

On Monday morning, the wife would pawn the husband's Sunday suit for some spare cash. By Saturday night she would hope to scrape together enough money to get it out of the pawnshop. During the week, he literally had no clothes, other than his 'work sack' as you call it.

With half a dozen kids on a carman's salary, how do you know that Lechmere would even have a suit to change into, setting aside the inconvenience of racing home to put it on?

The practice of pawning one's Sunday suit was common enough that it is not difficult to find many references to it:

[GUT]

Wonder if anyone from Pickfords read the paper (maybe a manager) and thought “Gee who is this Cross bloke who says he works here?”

[JeffHamm]

Now, you are just repeating yourself.

I presented a complete explanation as to how using Cross in this case might be to Lechmere's advantage.
Quite frankly, i don't know how i can possibly make it clearer.

On the last point, you are mixing up everything.
Let's start with something simple: would you agree that Lechmere was aware that he attended the Polly Nichol's inquest to give testimony on having been the first to discover the body of Jack the Ripper's first widely accepted victim? Are you on board with that? Having then told his wife about it, it was forgotten between the two because so many fascinating things were happening in their lives and that fact turned out to be a trivial detail - correct?

Some here have said that he was protecting his wife due to her delicate health and the delicate health of their infant; that's possible, but only for a short time - after a while you'd think he'd say something to her about it.

Although i'm just spit-balling here, some might say that they were a deeply conservative religious couple who found it shameful to be associated in such a disgraceful affair; that still doesn't explain why he shows up to court in his coarse work clothing, as mentioned in several accounts. I think he is the only person whose clothing is mentioned, aside from the deceased.

A few have said that he protected the family name due to the income his mom derived from a trust: said income being jeopardized by the Lechmere name being embroiled in this tawdry affair and their betters in the countryside being scandalized. It's an interesting theory; but if so, it doesn't justify the 2nd & 3rd points: showing up like a common lower class workman, and it being absent from family lore. And besides, the trust fund was established on his mother's side....different family.


Some have said that the affaire was personally demeaning to him and his family, who aspired for the approval of the gentile class; then why show up as a bum to the inquest? Personally, i think Lechmere didn't give a fig about what the Countryside Lechmere's thought about him; he might have even resented them.

Believe what you want.

Hi Newbie,

I may be repeating myself, but that's because I'm responding to you repeating the same unsubstantiated things, as you do here.

So, yes of course Cross/Lechmere knew why he was attending the inquest, and what he would be testifying about, although at the time he would be unaware of the name "Jack the Ripper" of course. Also, given the press at the time was reporting Nichols as the third victim, if he thought anything about the numbers I don't think he would be considering her the first victim. That phrasing, "first victim" also implies that he would somehow know there would be subsequent victims by the same person, and there's nothing to support the assumption he would think that (starting from the presumption of guilt isn't support, it's a preconceived conclusion trying to reinvent the evidence).

I have no idea why you think, after having talked to his wife, they would have forgotten about it, so no, I do not agree with your suggestion there. That to me would be so implausible that it would be incorrect.

The rest of your post is just listing a large number of speculations, none of which have evidential support. And that is the thing. They demonstrate all sorts of explanations that could exist, and the idea that he used the name "Cross" as a form of deception is just one of those infinite number of unsubstantiated explanations. so the "deception hypothesis" has no support beyond any of the other unsubstatiated specific ideas, which means it is no better than them, putting them all on equal footing. It's just there are a lot more of the "not trying to deceive" explanations than the one "trying to deceive", making it far more likely the real explanation is one of the "not trying to deceive options".

And again, our personal beliefs about what figs Cross/Lechmere gave with respect to the "countryside Lechmere's" are irrelevant. Our beliefs are not evidence as to what or whom Cross/Lechmere thought worthy of his figs. Our beliefs are not evidence in and of themselves. Our beliefs, if we wish to remain rational, however, should be derived from evidence as it is evidence that should form the basis of our beliefs.

All I've asked you to do is present the evidence that forms the foundation of your beliefs, but as you have indicated, what you are presenting is just "spit-balling", or for those not familiar with the term, making it up.

That's fine if you wish to present hypotheses, but hypotheses are just things we make up to help focus our energy on working out what evidence should exist, and what evidence should not exist, if we got lucky and guessed right. For example, if we guess that Cross/Lechmere used the name Cross to deceive the police, then we should see other signs of his deception and attempts to avoid the police knowing who he is. We should not see, for example, him going to the police to reveal himself, but oops, he did. We should not see him revealing his first and middle name, but oops, he did. We should not see, for example, his revealing his place of work, but oops, he did. We should not see him revealing his address, but oops, he did. Basically, everything he did is something he should not have done if he was trying to deceive the police. Therefore, the hypothesis that he used the name Cross instead of Lechmere as a way to hide his identity from the police is not substantiated, and is in fact, refuted because a lot of evidence does exist that should not exist if our hypothesis were true. That doesn't mean we know exactly why he did use the name Cross, but we know it was not for the purpose of withholding his identity from the police - he was not trying to deceive them. Some have suggested he may have been hiding his identity from someone else, but there is no evidence to support the existence of said hypothetical person or persons. Moreover, they have also offered explanations where Cross was used by him commonly at work, tripping the light fandango as the requirement for Cross to be "not used by Lechmere" or "commonly used by Lechmere" changes from one situation to the next, and so one simply gets to choose which ever one is necessary in order to get to the guilty presumption. This is flawed reasoning because it relies upon accepting a paradox to exist; his use of the name Cross was simultaneously common and never done.

This sort of thing is not helpful in understanding the events of 1888. Nor is it helpful in evaluating Cross/Lechmere as a suspect. As I've said before, he's worth looking at. What some cannot accept is that when we do look at him, he comes out with no evidence against him. But that doesn't prevent the presentation of creative stories to try and make him look guilty, which if this were 1888 would constitute framing him. None of the guilty stories have any evidence to back them up. Even Fisherman prefaces his statements with "If he was guilty then ...", which basically is a way of saying "We're not going to show he is guilty, we'll just start from that perspective and then colour everything to suit ...." That's not a case against Cross/Lechmere, that's plucking someone from the case files and then creating stories around them wherein they take on the role of the villain and then presenting those stories as if they are proof of something other than our own creativity. That's perfectly fine for fiction, but it is not an approach for interpreting evidence to try and get at what really happened.

But, if you're satisfied with arguing for your "spit-balled" ideas, that's fine. Just recognize they have no evidential support, and so as arguments in a discussion, they can be countered simply by someone making up something equally unsupported by evidence. The only provision is that they can tell a story that comes to a different conclusion. That's all it takes to counter the evidence lacking "Cross/Lechmere is JtR" story, simply another story where he's not.

- Jeff