Evidence of innocence

[Columbo]

And I will keep the bloody knife on myself, I am the smartest guy ever been created, no one, and I mean no one ever will search me, no one will stop me, I can make my way out of hell when I want.

I will go to the inquest, and stand in front of the coroner and the whole jury, I will tell everone that Mizen was a liar and that I didn't tell him there was another Policeman in Buck's row, I will contradict him freely, openly, explicitly, and go to kill again in only 5 days, no one ever will be watching my ass after this, no one will suspect me, they all will know Mizen is the bad guy here, they all are just a bunch of imbecile detectives....


I will tell the jury that the other man thought the woman might be still breathing, freshly killed!, and that I didn't hear any footsteps whatsoever and didn't see anyone there!, but no one from those lunatic detectives will ever suspect me of killing her, I am so smart!


I have a family, a dozen of kids, but who cares, my lust to kill on my route to work is at most important to me.... I like to start my daywork by killing cutting and mutilating someone around!







The Baron

I forgot that one. Yes, no one knows who I am, what I did, where I worked, so I'll just voluntarily go and testify at an inquest for the murder I committed and use a name I'm legally entitled to use. that'll show em. What knife? my carmans knife I use in my daily life that no one knows for sure I even have? Hmmmm...

guess I'll have to convince this total stranger who wanted nothing to do with me at all to conspire against this cop who couldn't care less. But I'm the all powerful Cross so I've got this.
My using my second legal name will truly throw these uneducated, dumb policeman who know the streets and it's criminals better than I do off my track.

I wonder if I can convince my wife and 12 kids that I'm just an average working man who is compassionate enough to help a woman in distress that I just murdered and got caught with the body on my way to a job I've had for years. I got this, I'm Cross!!

[Fisherman]

Why would they do it ? Paul to get to work asap, Lechmere had already delayed him. Lechmere to get the policeman away from him asap.

Self-evident things are not always perceived as self-evident by some. Logic does not always come across as logic to some. Challenge them and they will tell you that their take on it is as good as yours.

Donīt believe them.

[Fisherman]

No one is saying Charles Lechmere left home at precisely 3:20am every day. Absolutely no one. Not even Charles Lechmere.

If he left home with a mindset to kill, it was already too late to adjust his schedule. Finding a victim, killing, and mutilating them would probably take 15 to 20 minutes or more. Which would mean he'd have to leave the house at least 15 to 20 minutes early. Which would mean he'd have to leave wake up at least 15 to 20 minutes early. Which would mean that the night before he would need to reset an alarm clock or track down the knocker upper and tell them to wake up early.

Which guarantees that he would have preplan a lie to tell his wife, possibly his kids, and possibly a knocker upper. And hope they didn't note he got up early on a day someone was killed by the Ripper.

That's going to bed with a premeditated plan to kill, not waking up and impulsively deciding to kill. It's possible, but it would cost half-an-hour of precious sleep every day he tried it and usually give him no opportunity to kill. It would make more sense for a carman to murder on the way home. It would not require premeditation and not waste huge amounts of time.

How do you know that his wife and kids were at home of the mornings he killed, Fiver? To begin with? Maybe they slept at the lightermans house every now and then. Who knows? Not me. And not you.

And why would not murdering on the way home take as much time as murdering en route to work would? Besides, looking at it from the killers angle, I donīt think he regarded it as wasting time at all.

I really should not answer these posts of yours. But sometimes I cannot resist. Of course, I probably misunderstood you, due to my lack of language insight. But you know, as long as Iīm having fun, Iīm a happy camper.

[The Baron]

I forgot that one. Yes, no one knows who I am, what I did, where I worked, so I'll just voluntarily go and testify at an inquest for the murder I committed and use a name I'm legally entitled to use. that'll show em. What knife? my carmans knife I use in my daily life that no one knows for sure I even have? Hmmmm...

guess I'll have to convince this total stranger who wanted nothing to do with me at all to conspire against this cop who couldn't care less. But I'm the all powerful Cross so I've got this.
My using my second legal name will truly throw these uneducated, dumb policeman who know the streets and it's criminals better than I do off my track.

I wonder if I can convince my wife and 12 kids that I'm just an average working man who is compassionate enough to help a woman in distress that I just murdered and got caught with the body on my way to a job I've had for years. I got this, I'm Cross!!

And I will keep a Chop shop in the hide, to bring lonley women there and cut them in pieces and throw one torso near the mother, because she is very dominant and always brings young men to the house, Tother pieces I will spread east and west London, I have too much time I don't know what to do except causing Chock!






The Baron

[Fisherman]

Hi Fiver,

The timing for Cross leaving home is so he can be caught killing Nichols. Solely based on sketchy blood flow info. To believe Cross killed Nichols, you have to believe it was chance that he came upon her and said "yep, time to kill and mutilate!" Brilliant.

Columbo

Yes, and to believe that David Carpenter killed Anne Alderson, you have to believe that it was chance he came upon her and said "yep, time to rape and kill". They really are brilliant, these men, I agree with that.

Not all men, of course.

[Fisherman]

Many thanks to Baron and Columbo for their valuable and insightful contributions. Goodnight, gentlemen!

[Columbo]

Self-evident things are not always perceived as self-evident by some. Logic does not always come across as logic to some. Challenge them and they will tell you that their take on it is as good as yours.

Donīt believe them.

Doesn't work that way. It's only self evident if it fits your idea of self evident. You're not looking at it with an unbiased attitude. You've made this personal against a man who didn't do anything, like Cornwell has done to Sickert. But you have a personal stake in this now and don't want to admit it. You put yourself on TV and wrote a book based on a theory you didn't even come up with, and if you admit any deference right now to another theory you've pretty much wrecked your legacy for solving Jack the Rippers murders. As I said we're ego stroking now with every post. I'm guilty of that as I write this. Even as I support your initial theory that Cross is a person of interest, you've muddled the facts, speculated beyond basic reasoning and are now telling people to ignore others ideas that don't match yours. We in the U.S. just voted a President out of office who did the the same thing.

[Columbo]

And I will keep a Chop shop in the hide, to bring lonley women there and cut them in pieces and throw one torso near the mother, because she is very dominant and always brings young men to the house, Tother pieces I will spread east and west London, I have too much time I don't know what to do except causing Chock!






The Baron

absolutely I make enough money to do that, feed 12 kids, take care of my wife and save for a personal business down the road. Why not rent a personal slaughter house? I have all the time in the world between my gaggle of kids and 14 hour a day job. not to mention keeping the wife happy. And let's not forget the horse and buggy I'll probably need so no one get suspicious of me dragging a torso around town on my back. It's good to be Cross!

[Columbo]

Many thanks to Baron and Columbo for their valuable and insightful contributions. Goodnight, gentlemen!

You're welcome. I think we've had enough "insights" into this mess.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Off subject I know but, in Australia 30° C is just a nice summer day. We don't acknowledge hot until it is 40° C, with the odd day out to 45° C.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I'm glad then that I visited (the east coast of) your beautiful country in September (of 1992) and not in December! From Holland to Italy has been quite a step already, temperature-wise, but I don't know if I'd survive 40° C, let alone 45° C!

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fiver,

The timing for Cross leaving home is so he can be caught killing Nichols. Solely based on sketchy blood flow info. To believe Cross killed Nichols, you have to believe it was chance that he came upon her and said "yep, time to kill and mutilate!" Brilliant.

Columbo

Hi Columbo,

While I don't intend this as evidence of Cross/Lechmere's guilt, what you describe above, a chance meeting and sudden murder, is pretty much run of the mill stuff for serial murderers. The minority plan out their crimes. Dennis Rader (known as BTK in the press) was an extreme exception. While many may go out on patrol, if you will, looking for a victim, that sort of "hunting" takes time and often results in failure. This is because they are relying on that chance encounter, the alignment of the stars, and because the odds are low, they spend a lot of time doing it. But, when the opportunity arises they strike. In short, considering the possibility that Nichols and JtR just met by a chance encounter (which most, but not all, tend to believe), then there's nothing in that to prevent that applying to Cross/Lechmere during his walk to work.

But, as I say, there's also nothing to prevent a chance encounter between Nichols and "other JtR" leading to her murder while Cross/Lechmere happened to be on his way to work either.

My main point is, what you list as the "you must believe ..." is not really an incredible ask, it's kind of how JtR probably did meet his victims - by chance, as he was walking in the area. There are, of course, those who think the victims were selected specifically, so they argue against random encounters.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

To be fair, what I say is that psychopaths are fearless and good liars and often able to think on their feet. ]

That describes fictional psychopaths, like Hannibal Lector.

Back in the real world:

"Psychopathy is characterized by diagnostic features such as superficial charm, high intelligence, poor judgment and failure to learn from experience, pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, juvenile delinquency, and criminal versatility, among others." - Psychiatric Times

Not all psychopaths are fearless or good liars or able to think on their feet.

Not all fearless people are psychopaths. Not all good liars are psychopaths. Not all people able to think on their feet are psychopaths.

And you still have provided no evidence that Charles Lechmere was a psychopath.

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo,

While I don't intend this as evidence of Cross/Lechmere's guilt, what you describe above, a chance meeting and sudden murder, is pretty much run of the mill stuff for serial murderers. The minority plan out their crimes. Dennis Rader (known as BTK in the press) was an extreme exception. While many may go out on patrol, if you will, looking for a victim, that sort of "hunting" takes time and often results in failure. This is because they are relying on that chance encounter, the alignment of the stars, and because the odds are low, they spend a lot of time doing it. But, when the opportunity arises they strike. In short, considering the possibility that Nichols and JtR just met by a chance encounter (which most, but not all, tend to believe), then there's nothing in that to prevent that applying to Cross/Lechmere during his walk to work.

But, as I say, there's also nothing to prevent a chance encounter between Nichols and "other JtR" leading to her murder while Cross/Lechmere happened to be on his way to work either.

My main point is, what you list as the "you must believe ..." is not really an incredible ask, it's kind of how JtR probably did meet his victims - by chance, as he was walking in the area. There are, of course, those who think the victims were selected specifically, so they argue against random encounters.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

What you've written is true and in other circumstances this could possibly have happened between Cross and Nichols. I'm not an expert on serial killers but if Cross just ran into Nichols on his way to work it becomes more of a rage killing, a lot like the Dussledorf Ripper in my mind. But that's not the suggested theory for Cross. He's not or hasn't been portrayed in Christer's theory as an angry sociopath who, like the Dussledorf Ripper, manically went out and committed arson, beat girls over the head at random or stabbed them with scissors. Christer has bent the facts to support the blood flow theory. According to his theory, Cross is a mastermind for the ages, who knows exactly what to do and when to do it. He tricks people into following his every suggestion. He lies to police and to inquest officials at the drop of the hat because he's a super genius and knows he can get away with it simply with a name change.

Cross very well could've killed Nichols. He obviously was onsite and may have had a slight opportunity. But the rest of this theory is just a snipe hunt for fame at this point. Did he do it? probably not. Does one legalese saying he would look at Cross closely under the circumstances presented to him, make him guilty? Absolutely not. Does the totality of Christers evidence prove Cross' guilt? Absolutely not.

maybe there's something in his book I'm missing but so far it's just a good yarn that was expertly written and I'm enjoying it. But there's still no real substance.

Columbo

[Columbo]

That describes fictional psychopaths, like Hannibal Lector.

Back in the real world:

"Psychopathy is characterized by diagnostic features such as superficial charm, high intelligence, poor judgment and failure to learn from experience, pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, juvenile delinquency, and criminal versatility, among others." - Psychiatric Times

Not all psychopaths are fearless or good liars or able to think on their feet.

Not all fearless people are psychopaths. Not all good liars are psychopaths. Not all people able to think on their feet are psychopaths.

And you still have provided no evidence that Charles Lechmere was a psychopath.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

[Fiver]

To me, what Mizen said about how ONE man spoke to him is enough. It has been suggested that he could have misheard the matter of the other PC, but if both Paul and Lechmere spoke to Mizen, then he lied at the inquest.

If both Lechmere and Paul spoke to PC Mizen , then Mizen's failure to mention Paul's words is an oversight. It would only be perjury if Mizen testified that Paul said nothing.

PC Mizen did testify that Lechmere and Paul were "In company". Paul testified that "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. Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body.."

Whatever was told to PC Mizen, Paul heard it and supported it, both at the time and at the Inquest.