Evidence of innocence

[Newbie]

Hi Roger,

Exactly. I have little doubt that the Ripper would not have been successful on every occasion, that everything didn’t always went the way he wanted before he was ready to ‘pounce’. Yet, we know of no accounts of men looking like carmen who acted oddly with the ladies, no accounts of failed attempts by such men. Nor any witness in the cases of the Ripper victims who ever saw a man wearing an apron or looking like a carman.


Indeed, and I imagine the yae-sayers will exactly say that to explain why no suspicious characters were ever seen to wear an apron: Lechmere learned from the Nichols case that it wasn’t a smart thing to wear an apron, so he left it at work or carried it around in a bag. A shiny black bag, perhaps.


Christer indeed always stuck to the notion that Chapman was killed before 4 o’ clock, en route to work.


I already have a hard time swallowing the idea of Jack the Ripper murdering & mutilating on his way to work, but, frankly, the whole idea that he would have murdered between deliveries is plainly unbelievable to me.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Franko,

The double event was Saturday night .... so rule out looking for a carman in that one.
There were no people identified as possible suspects in the Polly Nichols murder, except poor leather apron ..... so rule that out.
Was there any credible witness to Mary Kelly's murderer? ..... that seems extremely shaky. Its not far fetched to rule that out,
and its not clear if it was a holiday.

That leaves only the Annie Chapman murder and the person identified by Liz Strong, who obviously was not a carman.

There is also information on suspects that didn't come out during the inquests, and that the police didn't reveal to the public that are now lost to us. There must have been a deluge of people coming forth with suspicious figures to the police and were summarily dismissed.

Would Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols have turned away a carman with his apron? Probably not.
Carmen were probably frequent customers, like many professions .... why assume otherwise?
I preferred not to imagine how carmen would perform the act, and if it required taking off the apron and putting it back on.

But now, it points to another small delay in the flight option of a carman on Buck's row ... which I hadn't really thought of before.


And btw.

Yes, the issue involving blood is a problem for Lechmerites.

Take the apron off before feigning the act, put it on after the murder to cover up.
Go to some private cubby at Pickford's for a shirt/pants change - that's the perks of being a devoted employee for 20 years.

Tell the wifey it got ripped to shreds and you need a new one.

An enterprising serial killer has options.

[Newbie]

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?

[Geddy2112]

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?

Would they have had 'sleeves?'

[Newbie]

Would they have had 'sleeves?'

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.

[Newbie]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

* Left earlier in the morning, August 31, to shag a prostitute and then after wards cut up towards Buck's row encountering the body a minute before Paul?
Didn't want the wife to know, so he pretended to go to work? His wife tending to the child born that year, in some capacity, was not putting out.
* Killed Polly Nichols and didn't want the wife to know, so he pretended to go to work?
* He wanted to emphasize before the court that he was just a working class bloke ...

Who has one?

He probably intended to go back to work after he’d testified. Perhaps he’d been told to be there by say 10am so he got 5 hours of work in before the inquest then, if he finished early enough, back to work.

[Fiver]

Cross was a delivery-man, not a slaughterer or butcher. As someone who once had a job delivering meat myself, I found it far more likely to be contaminated by the post-mortem bowel movements of any poultry I was carrying, than to be splashed in blood. Not that there's much blood to speak of; there's the watery, pinkish myoglobin you can see with any joint, steak or chop, but that's about as gory as it gets. The animals will have been slaughtered, bled and butchered long before, perhaps hours before, the delivery-man arrives to pick up the cargo, so the meat is pretty "clean" at that stage.

Of course, we're assuming that the carman handles much meat anyway, as opposed to the butchers and/or their assistants loading the bulk of it onto the carman's cart.

It's also assuming that the meat was improperly packaged.

Here's an example of 6 hundredweight of catsmeat that was only noticed to be putrid when the barrels were opened. Obviously If there was any leakage anyone with a functional noise would have detected it long before the barrels were opened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In one of the newspapers I believe it had Mizen saying that Cross had the appearance of a carman. If that was the case then it could only have been that he wore the apron on the way to work (what else could have made him recognisable as a carman?) Who would dress like that to commit a murder, making himself conspicuous?

[Fiver]

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.

That is a laughably inaccurate straw man.

Back in the real world, the following have been repeatedly given as reasons that Charles Cross might have worn his work uniform to the inquest.

* He hoped to work a part day either before or after testifying.
* The police wanted him to wear the carman's outfit to make it easier for PC Mizen to identify Cross.

The only people claiming that Charles Allen Cross was trying to hide anything from his wife are people who claim that Cross was the Ripper.

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.

You repeating a false statement does not make it true. He publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked at Pickfords for the last couple decades and whose shift began at 4am at the Broad Street Station.

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.

Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, not deaf. Your conspiracy of silence requires that all of her neighbors be in on the conspiracy. And her father and mother-in-law. And her own mother. And her own children. And her brothers. And her sisters-in-law. And her nieces and nephews.

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?

[Newbie]

In one of the newspapers I believe it had Mizen saying that Cross had the appearance of a carman. If that was the case then it could only have been that he wore the apron on the way to work (what else could have made him recognisable as a carman?) Who would dress like that to commit a murder, making himself conspicuous?

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.

[Newbie]

That is a laughably inaccurate straw man.

Back in the real world, the following have been repeatedly given as reasons that Charles Cross might have worn his work uniform to the inquest.

* He hoped to work a part day either before or after testifying.
* The police wanted him to wear the carman's outfit to make it easier for PC Mizen to identify Cross.

The only people claiming that Charles Allen Cross was trying to hide anything from his wife are people who claim that Cross was the Ripper.



You repeating a false statement does not make it true. He publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked at Pickfords for the last couple decades and whose shift began at 4am at the Broad Street Station.





Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, not deaf. Your conspiracy of silence requires that all of her neighbors be in on the conspiracy. And her father and mother-in-law. And her own mother. And her own children. And her brothers. And her sisters-in-law. And her nieces and nephews.

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?

If I was stoned or drunk, I could come up with better reasons than these:

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?

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

But I agree, the anti-Lechmerite excuse of Elizabeth Lechmere being too frail to take the bad news is nonsense ........ good point, 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.

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.

So some things were passed down about our favorite carman .... just not being the one to discover Polly Nichols body.

post note: why do you keep telling me that she was illiterate, not deaf? Illiterate in the sense that she could not read any newspaper articles about her husband, but might have a neighbor talk to her about one ..... particularly if Charles Lechmere was mentioned in the story? That kind of illiterate fiver?

Why do you keep on furiously typing that I called her deaf?

[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.

[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]

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

[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.