Evidence of innocence

[MWatson]

If Lechmere was the killer, he had a simple binary decision to make in a very short time, and this time he’d made the wrong decision.

As the killer he would have had nothing to lose in walking on, and everything to lose in staying and incriminating himself.

The actual killers previous successful stalking and assault experiences would have shown him he was correct in taking the casual speed and stealth approach.

Just walk on.

[SuperShodan]

One of the main traits of a psychopath is boldness (see reference below). A normal person caught in the act of killing somebody would likely run off. A psychopath would stand. We have seen this with other serial killers. Peter Sutcliffe was caught red handed and managed to bluff the policeman that he needed to urinate and then ditched his weapons (the police went back and found them the next day). Even when caught bang to rights he took ownership, was very calm, and tricked 2 policemen into allowing him to dispose of crucial evidence right under their noses.
One of Jeffrey Dahmers victims escaped and ran out into the street naked and injured. Dahmer convinced 2 policemen it was his high on drugs boyfriend. The police believed him and left the poor lad to be murdered. Psychopaths are very convincing liars and very bold.
We see this with Lechmere in Bucks Row. He probably became aware of Paul too late to fully think it through and he acted on his first instinct. His instinct was to stay in situ, quickly tidy up the murder scene and act innocent. He even managed to manipulate both Paul and Mizen.
Lechmere not running off has been discussed a lot, but there is high degree of Psychopathy at the crime scenes. If JTR is a psychopath, and to me it’s clear that he is, if it’s fight or flight, then the flight option of running away from Bucks Row would be less likely than you would think.

Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Kruger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic Conceptualisation of Psychopathy: Developmental Origins of Disinhibition, Boldness and Meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21 (Special Issue 03).

[Fisherman]

There is no case to be made against anyone who found a body, someone had to be that person. Lechmere was one of those persons

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He was. And ther is no guarantee that those who claim to have been the finder of a body is not also the killer of the proprietor of that body.

Statistically speaking, most peiople who find bodies are not the killers of them.

Not even if the body has been so recently killed as to allow for the possibility.

So that iks when we - policemen, not least - must look for further details surrounding the errand if they have a person who claims to have found a freshly murdered person and no other suspect available. In that kind of asituation, as long as there is no exonerating evidence, the finder of the body must be researched as the possible killer.

This is something that you out of all people out here shgould know better than most. But as fate will have it, you rarely live up to that responsibility. But never mind - I´m happy to do it for you.

[Fisherman]

Of course I expect you to "stick to your guns" - we all know that you will do that! Unfortunately, so will I so it is pointless repeating ourselves!

CAL used the name Lechmere on all matters which he believed "officially" required it - no disagreement. What his definition of "official" might have been, we can only guess.

If he regarded a police interview and an ensuing inquest as inofficial, I would be truly surprised. I would have thought that such things are about as official as it gets. But you are of course at liberty to disagree!

The point I made was that the very slightest investigation of the accident in 1876 should surely have resulted in the identification of his birthname, if CAL was Lechmere at work, and then he would have been Lechmere and not Cross at the inquest.

If such an investigation preceded the inquest, then yes, you have a point. Then again, I have a good point when saying that if thrte was no such investigation made, then him giving an alternative name would not be revealed.

CAL presumably regarded the accident as a work related incident, and if he was Cross at work, he would then be Cross at the inquest too. The name he used at work was then the name that he used for a huge chunk of his life.

Twice. That was how that "huge chunk" of his life was reflected in the documents available to us. And the other chunk, minuscule, normal or huge, was reflected a hundred times or more.
And again, when Charles Lechmere took the stand at the inquest, three whole days had passed, and he was not at work. He was therefore asked to state his name at an occasion where he was not at work, where a civil servant asked him about it - and he answered "Cross". On any other occasion where he was not at work and civil servants asked him his name, he said "Lechmere".
He cannot have believed he was at work; it would have been very, very clear to him that he was not.

Charles Lächere must have felt that he was ONE person, not two. When he answered "Lechmere" on all of those other occasions, it may of course be that he felt that he was actually Charles Cross, answering the question about his name with a name that he did not feel was really himself, but knew that he went by in the registers, a name that was his official name.
And regardless if he FELT like Charles Cross, he had developed a habit of ALWAYS admitting that he was actually Charles Lechmere in the official capacity - so why would he suddenly become Charles Cross in an official errand? 1876, the accident happened in his line of work, but 1888, it did not. It happened when he was walking to job. He was nevertheless a carman, yes, but he was also a carman when he gave the name Lechmere a hundred times to various authorities.
It-is-and-remains-an-anomaly-like-it-or-not.

We have no evidence to confirm either way, so we must choose what we, as individuals, consider to be the more likely, and we have both done that.

And you complaint about how you have to answer the same repeated take on things that I represent, yes.

[Fisherman]

Some of us look for evidence before reaching conclusions. I mean genuine evidence and not supposition based on possibilities.

That is a useful way of doing things. However, there will always be a borderline after which it becomes less and less likely that presenting alternative innocent explanations to point after point (and when it comes to circumstantial evidence, there WILL always be alternative innocent explanations available; loads of them) becomes a less and less realistic exercise.

If it wasn´t Charles Lechmere, then we have found what may well be the largest set of misguiding indicators of guilt in criminal history. Or, as I prefer to call them: coincidences. Once a barrister like Scobie says that there is a prima facie case against him, and once that claim is met by speculations (which you very much dislike, remember?) that Scobie was misled, lied to bribed etc., a picture emerges that is not entirely flattering for a large number of the naysayers.

[Fisherman]

Why would the Coroner have allowed it? Why would Pickford?

Who says they did?

[Fisherman]

Hi SuperShodan, all,



we have a theory that is partly unconvincing and a number of other murders before and after Polly where the only "evidence" for Lech's guilt is that his way to work lies within the murder territory.

Are you aware of how many streets there were in Whitechapel? Are you aware of how many streets there were in the East End? Are you aware of how many streets there were in London?
The answer to the first question is that there were more than a thousand streets in Whitechapel were people lived. How many there were where nody lived, I don´t know, streets with factories only and no home addresses.
Charles Lechmere´s trek to work COULD have taken him anywhere. But as it happens, his trek took him right past the killing fields. That is not a trivial matter. Once he is identified as a suspect, it is an absolutely massive point in favour of guilt.
I think people may reason that there were only so many streets he could have used after leaving Doveton Street and passing through Bucks Row. But that is not how he should be looked upon. He must be researched with the starting point BEFORE the murders went down, and so we get the picture that:
-He had the kind of job that meant that he was on the streets in the early morning hours.
-He passed right through the killing fields, although he could have walked ANYWHERE from home, north, east, south; anywhere. But he fits the picture like a glove. Out of the many tens of thousands of streets he COULD have walked, he walked around twenty that are ALL in line with being the Whitechapel culprit. And once the murders left Whitechapel, they instead took place in two other spots that he could be closely linked to. On a Saturday night!!
There is absolutely nothing trivial about it. It is a prosecutors wet dream.

It's not that I'd find the other suspects named so far promising but for the Lech theory to become the be-all and end-all of Ripperology, it needs a lot more meat on its bones in my opinion. Apart from the events in Buck's-row, there really is not much else to say, the mere possibility that Lech could have been near the crime scenes when the other murders were committed and the name change shenanigans doesn't cut it.

Grüße,

Boris

Again, a prosecutor would buy champagne when he found out.

[Fisherman]

If Lechmere was the killer, he had a simple binary decision to make in a very short time, and this time he’d made the wrong decision.

As the killer he would have had nothing to lose in walking on, and everything to lose in staying and incriminating himself.

The actual killers previous successful stalking and assault experiences would have shown him he was correct in taking the casual speed and stealth approach.

Just walk on.

Now, where have I seen that argument before.... Hmmm...?

[Doctored Whatsit]

And you complaint about how you have to answer the same repeated take on things that I represent, yes.

Christer, if you wish to suggest that the police made no investigation whatsoever over the death of a child prior to the inquest, then carry on, but surely few will agree with you. I certainly don't.

You persist in talking about documents available to us, as if the signing of a few documents represents a person's total real life. CAL was born and christened Lechmere, and that was therefore his "official" name. No disagreement. Documents record details like marriage, births etc, but they are just records, and the only type of record which is likely to ever survive. The issue for me, as you are well aware, has always been what name did he use through most of his ordinary everyday life. Was he Cross as a child, a youth, at work, with his work-mates and customers and friends? We don't know, and this is most of his life up to 1888. The act of calling yourself Lechmere for a legal document takes a few seconds only, but it becomes a record that persists to this day. There is not, and cannot be, a record of ordinary everyday life, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, as for instance, friends, workmates and customers routinely call out "Hey, there's Charlie Cross, Hi Charlie!" This is real life and this is what we do not and cannot know, for such records do not exist, but it is crucial to this case. There are no official records of what happens in ordinary everyday life, so let's not pretend that real life doesn't happen.

I continue, and will always continue, to say that the police must have investigated the death of a child, and that the very slightest investigation would have revealed the name he used at work as this was a work related incident. Then, only if he called himself Cross at work could he have give his name as Cross at the inquest. Again, I will say that in the total absence of any official record, we cannot even be sure that CAL didn't say to the police that his birthname was Lechmere, but he had taken his step-father's name since childhood. I don't insist that he did this, of course, but I say it to demonstrate the total absence of much crucial evidence.

There is no point in us continuing to openly disagree on this issue, because our views are known. We will repeat the same arguments. Lechmere is a person of interest, beyond doubt, but I believe that the case developed against him is nowhere near as strong as suggested.

I should have stayed in "retirement". LOL!

[Fisherman]

Christer, if you wish to suggest that the police made no investigation whatsoever over the death of a child prior to the inquest, then carry on, but surely few will agree with you. I certainly don't.

You persist in talking about documents available to us, as if the signing of a few documents represents a person's total real life. CAL was born and christened Lechmere, and that was therefore his "official" name. No disagreement. Documents record details like marriage, births etc, but they are just records, and the only type of record which is likely to ever survive. The issue for me, as you are well aware, has always been what name did he use through most of his ordinary everyday life. Was he Cross as a child, a youth, at work, with his work-mates and customers and friends? We don't know, and this is most of his life up to 1888. The act of calling yourself Lechmere for a legal document takes a few seconds only, but it becomes a record that persists to this day. There is not, and cannot be, a record of ordinary everyday life, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, as for instance, friends, workmates and customers routinely call out "Hey, there's Charlie Cross, Hi Charlie!" This is real life and this is what we do not and cannot know, for such records do not exist, but it is crucial to this case. There are no official records of what happens in ordinary everyday life, so let's not pretend that real life doesn't happen.

I continue, and will always continue, to say that the police must have investigated the death of a child, and that the very slightest investigation would have revealed the name he used at work as this was a work related incident. Then, only if he called himself Cross at work could he have give his name as Cross at the inquest. Again, I will say that in the total absence of any official record, we cannot even be sure that CAL didn't say to the police that his birthname was Lechmere, but he had taken his step-father's name since childhood. I don't insist that he did this, of course, but I say it to demonstrate the total absence of much crucial evidence.

There is no point in us continuing to openly disagree on this issue, because our views are known. We will repeat the same arguments. Lechmere is a person of interest, beyond doubt, but I believe that the case developed against him is nowhere near as strong as suggested.

I should have stayed in "retirement". LOL!

I never suggested that the police made no investigation, though, did I? The question is to what extent it delved into whether or not the carman was actually called Cross is another matter. He was clearly a carman, he would have driven a cart that was in all probability marked ”Pickfords” and so why would the police suspect he used an alternative name? Would they send somebody to Pickfords to check that out?
”We have this carman, working for you and driving your goods on your cart. Can you tell us if he is called something else than what he says?”

Then you speak of signing ”a few documents” when speaking of around a hundred documents, as if it was of no significance. While using another name two (2) times is somehow decisive…?
Great work!
We KNOW that he used the name Lechmere frequently over a very long period of years.
And we know that he used the name Cross twice. Both of them in combination with him being involved in violent deaths, by the bye.

That is what we know.

[rjpalmer]

Then you speak of signing ”a few documents” when speaking of around a hundred documents, as if it was of no significance. While using another name two (2) times is somehow decisive…?
Great work!

It’s a worthy comment, Fish, provided you’re willing to pretend that the small patch of ice floating above the waves is all there is, and there’s nothing else to consider.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I never suggested that the police made no investigation, though, did I? The question is to what extent it delved into whether or not the carman was actually called Cross is another matter. He was clearly a carman, he would have driven a cart that was in all probability marked ”Pickfords” and so why would the police suspect he used an alternative name? Would they send somebody to Pickfords to check that out?
”We have this carman, working for you and driving your goods on your cart. Can you tell us if he is called something else than what he says?”

Then you speak of signing ”a few documents” when speaking of around a hundred documents, as if it was of no significance. While using another name two (2) times is somehow decisive…?
Great work!
We KNOW that he used the name Lechmere frequently over a very long period of years.
And we know that he used the name Cross twice. Both of them in combination with him being involved in violent deaths, by the bye.

That is what we know.

I do hate repeating the same things, it is so pointless. I am sure that you do too!

Christer, you said that if the police made an investigation prior to the inquest, then I had "a point", but you had a "good point" if they didn't make such an investigation! Is it likely that they didn't? Everyone knows that a "good point" is more valid than just "a point", so how likely is it that the police made virtually no investigation prior to the inquest of the death of a child? Who did the coroner rely on for all of the preliminary evidence, the basic facts, the identification of relevant witnesses? It is beyond belief that the police didn't speak to Pickfords because the repercussions of the death could affect them very significantly, and the confirmation that CAL was an employee of theirs was a specific item of evidence. So how did they confirm the employment of Charles Cross if he was working under the name of Lechmere? I would suggest that your "good point" isn't a point at all.

The document issue has been covered clearly - Official records are kept, "unofficial records" simply don't exist, and therefore cannot be provided. We cannot know what CAL's school friends, teenage friends, work colleagues, and regular customers and his adult friends called him, and that represents over twelve hours a day, six days a week for over twenty years at Pickfords alone. If he was Cross at work, and the use of the name Cross at the 1876 inquest indicates that he almost certainly was, then he was probably Cross as far as most of his ordinary everyday life was concerned before 1888. Saying we have only two uses of the name Cross in official records is not a strong argument, because there are no official records of 95% of a persons life, and this issue concerns his routine day-to-day existence.

The two "violent deaths" are, of course, the only two occasions we know of when his ordinary everyday life became suddenly and unexpectedly "official". So logically, he was Cross on both occasions. That is not evidence of anything sinister.

[Fisherman]

It’s a worthy comment, Fish, provided you’re willing to pretend that the small patch of ice floating above the waves is all there is, and there’s nothing else to consider.

I am pretending absolutely nothing, and I actually resent you claiming so. I am establishing that what we have namewise of the carman is a hundred signatures by the name of Lechmere, some by others, some by his own hand, all of them in combination with authority contacts - and two (2) signatures, also in combination with authority contacts, where he calls himself Cross.

Your aim is obviously to paint me out as unreliable and choosing small ice patches over icebergs, but the truth of the matter is that this is EXACTLY what we have, no more, no less. I would be grateful if you acknowledged that instead of trying to dream up some sort of scenario where I dabble with the evidence. I don´t. The icebergs are mirages of YOUR mind, not mine.

I have said on many occasins that I do not rule out that he could have used the name Cross at work or even in everyday life, instead of Lechmere, but I find the suggestion less likely than it being the other way around - that he was known as Lechmere by his neighbours and friends and quite likely also by his employers.

The name issue has been a thorn in the side of the naysaying community for many years now, and it does not seem to change any time soon. What I would propose to those who claim that it was an everyday matter and should not be considered, is to imagine that a court case had been levelled at the carman back in 1888.

Ask yourselves, would the prosecutor in such a add the name issue to the accusation act or would he leave it out? I hope there is nobody who entertains the latter idea, because it is not realistic on any level. Keep in mind that we should NOT work from any assumptions here, but instead merely from what we KNOW: That there are a hundred examples when he calls himself Lechmere with authorities of varying origins - and two occasions when he calls himself Cross, also in contacts with authorities.

Now,who is willing to reason that the prosecutor would NOT say something along these lines:
"Ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a carman who has presented himself to this trial as Charles Cross, a humble Pickfords carman. I say "presented", because it has now been established that this man, accused for having murdered a poor wretch on the open streets of our town and ripper her belly open from sternum to groin, is actually called Charles Lechmere, and NOT Charles Cross! And this he has kept from us all, for some reason, a reason that we do not have but may well imagine, as to the character!
Our knowledge that this man is otherwise Charles Lechmere and NOT Charles Cross lies in how he has always signed himself by the former name and never by the latter, as far as we have been able to establish. Your Honour, the prosecution presents a list of 102 signatures made by the man in the dock, over a period of decades and always using the name Charles Lechmere!
It is for you gentlemen in the jury to consider why this should be. Surely if you have a name and have shown some proficiency in the art of signing it, one would expect that name to be used also when you stand accused for murder? Unless, of course...
I leave you to ponder that question, gentlemen!"

Can you see what kind of effect this would have on a jury? Even if there was nothing nefarious at all hidden in his sudden name-change, it would nevertheless look suspicious and wrong.

And that is where it ends on a long list of things that have the same character; the disagreements with Mizen, the pulled down clothes, the fact that Lechmere was certain that he would hear anybody moving 130 yards away in Bucks Row whereas Paul seemingly did not hear Lechmere from a third or a fourth of that distance, the fact that Nichols bled for many minutes after Lechmere left her and so on - item after item that does not look right, that sounds supicious - and that can always be given innocent alternative explanations. If we feel so inclined.
The problem is that we need to be wary of how we really should not keep providing thought up explanations forever. There is a limit to when it is just and sound, and that limit is reached long before all the parts of the accusation act have been read out.

But out here, anything goes. Out here, when there are two overlapping series of murders in the same town that both involve killing prostitutes, cutting them open from sternum to bow, taking out hearts and uteri, stealing rings and cutting away abdominal walls in large sections, we do not have a murderer with an interest in eviscerating - we have TWO!! And one of them is not an eviscerator at all, he just has the bad luck of doing things that makes him look like one. He is NO eviscerator, he just eviscerates, sort of ...?

So anything goes out here. And I am the one choosing ice patches but ignoring the icebergs, meaning that I would be the one who purposefully avoids admitting to how the bigger picture looks.

Truly, truly amazing. Stellar stuff, right out of the wizards hat.

And all absolute and utter crap.

I will leave you to wallow in that, all in good company. Me, I am taking some time off from you.

[Fisherman]

I do hate repeating the same things, it is so pointless. I am sure that you do too!

Christer, you said that if the police made an investigation prior to the inquest, then I had "a point", but you had a "good point" if they didn't make such an investigation! Is it likely that they didn't? Everyone knows that a "good point" is more valid than just "a point", so how likely is it that the police made virtually no investigation prior to the inquest of the death of a child? Who did the coroner rely on for all of the preliminary evidence, the basic facts, the identification of relevant witnesses? It is beyond belief that the police didn't speak to Pickfords because the repercussions of the death could affect them very significantly, and the confirmation that CAL was an employee of theirs was a specific item of evidence. So how did they confirm the employment of Charles Cross if he was working under the name of Lechmere? I would suggest that your "good point" isn't a point at all.

The document issue has been covered clearly - Official records are kept, "unofficial records" simply don't exist, and therefore cannot be provided. We cannot know what CAL's school friends, teenage friends, work colleagues, and regular customers and his adult friends called him, and that represents over twelve hours a day, six days a week for over twenty years at Pickfords alone. If he was Cross at work, and the use of the name Cross at the 1876 inquest indicates that he almost certainly was, then he was probably Cross as far as his ordinary everyday life was concerned before 1888. Saying we have only two uses of the name Cross in official records is not a strong argument, because there are no official records of 95% of a persons life, and this issue concerns his routine day-to-day existence.

The two "violent deaths" are, of course, the only two occasions we know of when his ordinary everyday life became suddenly and unexpectedly "official". So logically, he was Cross on both occasions. That is not evidence of anything sinister.

See my post in respose to R J. But you are correct - you have no name records at all of the 95 per cent of Lechmeres life that you would need to make a case. And no evidence of that informative material the police would have served Pickfords with, although they had no reason at all to search out Pickfords from the start. And yes, I think it is VERY likely that the police did not visit Pickfords, for reasons already given. In the 1876 case, the carman was deemed innocent, it was an accident - why would the police go to Pickfords and tell them that? And would they do so before the matter was settled? No, I think not. If there had been a verdict of guilty, THEN I can see the police perhaps going to Pickfords - or informing them via mail. But not with the intention of finding out what the carman was called. In the 1888 case, Lechmere was a witness, nothing else, in the eyes of the police. Why would that make then go and ask Pickfords if he was in the habit of lying about his name. The idea is ridiculous.

People under suspicion are the ones the police investigate. Not the rest, unless there is a specific reason to do so. Did the police seek out Many times, witnesses are called to an inquest via their home addresses and so they are checked out at that stage, to a degree. But if a witness turns up on his own initiative, that option goes away. Did the police contact the East London Railway Comapnay and ask them if Thomas Eade worked there, and if he was really using that name? For example? Or did they just accept that Eade DID work there and DID go by the name he used? Since they entertained no suspicion against him?

As for your former claim by the way, that Lechmere could have given the police both names, but only been registered in the police reports by the one that he could not be searched by, I find it fantastic for all the wrong reasons. We have example after example of how the police listed BOTH names if they were given one alias and one "real" name. So no, I do not consider it any real possibility.

And now I´m off.

[rjpalmer]

I am pretending absolutely nothing, and I actually resent you claiming so.

Relax, Fish. My comment was meant to reflect that the surviving paper trail is like the bit of the iceberg above the waves, and we have only a dim idea of what might be concealed below. Are you admitting this or not? And if you are admitting it, why are you so outraged?

Since we know Lechmere's father abandoned him at a very early age, and that he was raised by Thomas Cross since at least the late 1850s, if not somewhat earlier, and that Thomas Cross was still alive when young Charlie began working at Pickford's, and that Pickford and Co would have been aware of the fatal accident in 1876 and would have been watching the case closely, and thus would have been aware that Charles used his stepfather's last name at the inquest, is this not evidence that there IS a large iceberg floating just below the surface??

Do not children take on the names of their stepfathers all the time?

Why not acknowledge the iceberg?

In effect, what you and Ed Stowe are arguing is that the existing trail of documentation shows what name Lechmere used casually. But this ignores the nature of both documentation and the nature of 'alternative' names. A person may record his birth name on all these forms, but that doesn't prove that it is the name he used in his casual life, which by its nature is not recorded.

David Barrett posted two cases where there was virtual NO RECORD of what name a man used in his day-to-day life. None. Zero! Virtually all of the surviving paper trail was a red-herring. Yet, we know that both men used their stepfather's names in their day-to-day life because it just happened to be mentioned at the time of their deaths. In one case it was at an inquest, and in the other it was in an obituary.

If it wasn't for this quirk of fate, ALL THE EXISTING EVIDENCE would have misled us. And it wouldn't have mattered if there were 5 documents or 200. We would have wrongly interpreted the small patch of ice above the waves, oblivious to the iceberg beneath. And icebergs can sink the Titanic.

Like it or not, historians are forced to draw their conclusions based on DOCUMENTATION. But documentation is documentation. There is always the very real possibility that we are giving undue weight to something merely because it has survived the ravages of time, and other information, by its nature, doesn't survive.

Only a tiny fraction of reality--far less than 5%--is ever recorded. We are doomed to the fact that we are analyzing the patches of ice on the ocean...not just you, Fish, but me, too, and everyone else.

As Henry Ford once said, "history is bunk."

Of course, I don't entirely agree with Ford, but the paper trail can be bunk, and we should acknowledge this.