Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

There have been lots and lots of people endorsing any old theory, whether it is a royalist **** and bull story or a fake diary for instance.

Anybody who treats a man who was FOUND at a murder site, alone with a freshly killed victim, as a person of interest at best is probably somebody who has taken a spanking on the Ripper forums in a Lechmere related topic, and so they try - as best as they can - to belittle the theory, sobbing as they go along.

Any such person as described above is automatically a suspect if no other viable suspect can be found and if the person in question has no obstacle that nullifies him as a suspect.

So what you are saying Fish that 130 years later anyone with an iota of common sense should see that Lech is at least a very good suspect.

Yes, that is true. There are, however, two levels involved. I read up on the case for more than thirty years without realizing how Lechmere is a very good suspect and inevitably also the killer. And although I will not brag, I would say that I do have a iota of common sense.
So it is perfectly legal not to understand how viable Lechmere is as the killer as long as you have not had the matters pointing to him laid out for you. But once you DO, and once you have soaked them up and digested them, there is really no excuse for not accepting him as a very good suspect.
As I have said before, Andy Griffiths - probably anticipating another sketchy case - took me to the side as we shot the docu and said that he thought that we probably had got the killer. He had no problems to follow the trail - and he had the exact right profession to do so.
Another thing to keep in mind is the Mizen scam, missed out on by generations of Ripperologists before it was focused on some years ago.

But the police, who were there hadn't a clue that Jack was right in front of them. Or at the very least someone who should raise a suspicion or two.

The police probably never turned back to investigate Lechmere after the Nichols murder. And at that stage, many of the matters I point to as suspicious, were not known. They did not know about the name swap, how the geography would go on to fit the ensuing cases and so on. Plus, as I have said numerous times, they were probably relieved to see Lechmere walk out their door. After all, he had embarrased the police rather badly, setting what must have looked ike a shining example of what a good citizen should do.

So every single police officer, patrolman or higher up was a complete dimwit , and not one of them saw through the sinister name issue or the Mizen scam?

As I just pointed out, NOONE saw the potential of the Mizen scam for 125 years or so. And yes, there were probaly dimwits among the police - but equally, there would have been good policemen. But there are also good amateur sleuths out there, and that still did not mean that Lechmeres status as a suspect was erected until a hundred years plus after the murders.
The exact same thing has happened in Sweden, with the Palme assasination in 1986. It was not until last year that a very obvious suspect was pointed out by the state prosecutor as the likely killer. The reason that it took so long - in the biggest case in Swedish criminal history - was that the police (lo and behold) had forgotten to check out one of the men they KNEW had been at the murder site!

There are two ways we can settle this. We can either say "It is not likely that the police could have missed out on Lechmere if he was really the killer", and then we dismiss him on statistical grounds. Or we accept that the many pointers in his direction cannot all, each and every one of them, be mere coincidences. And once we do, we must also accept that the police may well have missed out in 1888.

What did they think ? He was a nice looking chap so it couldn't have been him.

Actually yes, to a degree at least. Ever heard of criminal anthropology? It was the "science" that made the victorians go "Of course!" when it was revealed that the killer and rapist Vincenz Verszeny had a thick neck and deranged relatives.

But us far superior intellectual beings 130 years later know better of course. Even though we were not there and we are looking at almost certainly incomplete evidence.

So are you out here merely to have it confirmed that there is absolutely no chance that we can solve the case? And you back it up with the insight that scientific progress has not solved a single criminal case in retrospect?

Be it court transcripts or otherwise.
Not for me and lots and lots of others, as you say. I am afraid.
Regards Darryl

I am not. I am happy and thankful for the many opportunities that are opened up for us as we go along.

But we canīt all be. Some will inevitably be afraid, just as you say.

[Fisherman]

Christer, it is quite routine to discuss theories, and we both know there is no proof.

The why point out in our discussion that I "as always" have no proof?

My simple suggestion, which everyone can understand, is that at the inquest in 1876, Charles used the surname Cross, and no-one seems to have queried it at the time.

Why would they. You think I am called Holmgren, do you not? But have you checked it?

As this was a serious matter, and the police and Pickfords were closely involved, it seems he was very unlikely to have been allowed to use the surname Cross under oath unless he was known as Cross at Pickfords, and the police accepted this. Not a proven fact, but a likely one. So all I am saying is that there is information which suggests that the use of the name Cross was normal at his work. If that is so, he was likely to be Charles Cross to his workmates too. There is no reason whatever for us to make a big issue over this. We are discussing possibilities and probabilities, not hard known facts. I am fully aware of that.

If the "big issue" you refer to is some sort of idea on your behalf that I would have said that he could not have been called Cross at work, then you are wrong. I am saying that I find it less likely, not impossible.

I also cannot see that his use of the name Cross at the Nichols' murder is particularly sinister, as he gave his correct address and place of work, and seems to have appeared totally voluntarily without being sought by the police. He was fully co-operative and identifiable. Paul had to be pursued, it seems, so some regard that as suspicious.

You ARE aware that the Star was the only paper that had his address? You ARE aware that no other paper had it? You ARE aware that the papers all normally tried to get the adress, even though they could not hear or decipher it, often resulting in five papers giving five different versions of an address - but they at least tried? You ARE aware that the fact that the Star got the address 22 Doveton Street perfectly correct, and how that seems to imply that it was spoken in a loud, clear voice - and yet that other papers, all of them, missed out on it? You ARE aware of how the 1876 carman Cross was the only part in the drama with the run over boy who did NOT give his address?

All in all, I donīt think we can claim that he gave his address. All we can say is that the Star somehow aquired it, but that may have been via a clerk. It is entirely plausibe that he ommitted to give his address on either occasion, in which case he would have been very hard to pin down for the readers, not least if he otherwise always called himself Lechmere - which seems to be a very probable thing.

At any rate, to conceal the name you otherwise use in authority contacts and the one you are registered by is actually not being "fully co-operative" at all, is it?

[Fisherman]

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘legally’. His mother wasn’t legally married to Thomas Cross. Doesn’t the fact that Lechmere almost exclusively used the name Lechmere throughout his life when dealing with the authorities strongly suggest he thought that was the appropriate name to use at such times?

I’ve always thought that the fact that Maria had both her children Christened shortly after she ‘married’ Thomas Cross is a little odd. Religious convictions? Perhaps, but her daughter had already been Christened. Perhaps she just wanted a couple of documents that recorded the kids’ relationship to the Lechmeres.


Not that I have to tell you any of this.

You donīt, Gary - I was joking, of course, reacting to how the exact same questions seem to pop up again and again, no matter how often they are answered.

[Fisherman]

we, a hundred or so years later were the ones that found out his real name was Lechmere. and not the police at the time apparently. so that should tell you alot-mainly they were far from perfect.

Exactly. It is all good and well to say like Richard Jones: "If it was only that easy!". Just like you say it was NOT easy, until we could start digging into Charles LECHMERE instead of Charles Cross. Once we could, it all became a lot easier, and guess what: Just about all serial killer cases ARE easy - once the killer is caught.

[Fisherman]

And now, some garden weeding!

[Doctored Whatsit]

You ARE aware that the Star was the only paper that had his address? You ARE aware that no other paper had it? You ARE aware that the papers all normally tried to get the adress, even though they could not hear or decipher it, often resulting in five papers giving five different versions of an address - but they at least tried? You ARE aware that the fact that the Star got the address 22 Doveton Street perfectly correct, and how that seems to imply that it was spoken in a loud, clear voice - and yet that other papers, all of them, missed out on it? You ARE aware of how the 1876 carman Cross was the only part in the drama with the run over boy who did NOT give his address?

All in all, I donīt think we can claim that he gave his address. All we can say is that the Star somehow aquired it, but that may have been via a clerk. It is entirely plausibe that he ommitted to give his address on either occasion, in which case he would have been very hard to pin down for the readers, not least if he otherwise always called himself Lechmere - which seems to be a very probable thing.

At any rate, to conceal the name you otherwise use in authority contacts and the one you are registered by is actually not being "fully co-operative" at all, is it?

I am not particularly concerned with what the papers know and print. Are you suggesting that he concealed his address from the police? That is surely what would have been suspicious.

It is even possible that he told the police his real name was Lechmere, but he preferred to use his stepfathers surname. We simply don't know, and there are endless possibilities.

[Darryl Kenyon]

we, a hundred or so years later were the ones that found out his real name was Lechmere. and not the police at the time apparently. so that should tell you alot-mainly they were far from perfect.

How do you know this Abby ?
Just because they referred to him in a document a few weeks later as Cross [ the name he gave them ], does not mean they didn't know him as Lechmere as well.
After all this master of deception only gave them his correct home address and workplace.
Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

I am not. I am happy and thankful for the many opportunities that are opened up for us as we go along.

But we canīt all be. Some will inevitably be afraid, just as you say.

Hooray we can all pack up and go home, the case is solved. Err wait a minute were is the evidence ?
Regards Darryl

[Mark J D]

Hooray we can all pack up and go home, the case is solved. Err wait a minute were is the evidence ?
Regards Darryl

'The evidence' is what everyone is meant to be out looking for.

Instead, 19 out of every 20 are simply finding more and more desperate ways to shout "You've got nothing conclusive on Lechmere. So stop investigating him!"

Which is a pretty demented way of going about it, is it not?

M.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Fish
I am no expert but I have followed the case on and off since the centenary. I went the other way . I thought that Lech needed looking into. Then I started having doubts.
Would he have not just scarpered when Paul approached ?
Would he have gone off and found a bobby with, possibly a knife on him and/or blood on his hands ?
If he killed on the way to work, how come the double event happened on a, probably none work day ?
Why did he go further west and away from his home to kill Kate when he, probably had a narrow escape with Liz. Thus increasing the chances of him being caught. Especially since he almost certainly would have had body parts upon him ?
Would he truly kill just over a week later with Annie after a narrow escape in Bucks row, especially since the police knew who he was. Suppose somebody spotted him coming out of the passageway in Hanbury st and gave a good description of him. "Wait a minute that sounds like that guy Cross". Two murders, two crime scenes. I know they didn't, but they could have. Would Lech really take that risk, or would he probably lie low for a little time ?
Again with Annie, how did he know that the police weren't suspicious of him and that they weren't covertly following him ?
Did he really think that no one would suspect him of the crimes, if he kept turning up for work, say twenty mins after another victim is killed ?
And what did he do with the body parts, or the bloody knife at work ?
Did he really kill Annie on his way to work when it is likely that he was already there when she was murdered ?
Did he think that none of his family would suspect him of the murders especially since he had, say just left for work before each killing ?

None of the above is not without a riposte, but to me when you put them altogether, to my mind it doesn't make Lech a very good suspect.

Regards Darryl

[Doctored Whatsit]

'The evidence' is what everyone is meant to be out looking for.

Instead, 19 out of every 20 are simply finding more and more desperate ways to shout "You've got nothing conclusive on Lechmere. So stop investigating him!"

Which is a pretty demented way of going about it, is it not?

M.

I agree totally that evidence is what we are looking for, and if anyone is saying "stop investigating Lechmere", then they are wrong to do so. But for those of us who believe a man is innocent until proven guilty, there is nothing desperate in pointing out that we are dealing in possibilities and occasionally probabilities, but not firm tangible evidence. The case against Lechmere is interesting without doubt, but like all other potential suspects there just isn't enough. Keep on looking by all means, you may succeed.

[Fiver]

Just a warning to those of you who are not aquainted with the facts about Elizabeth Jacksons uterus and how it was removed from her body by the killer. Poster "Fiver", who I have stopped answering on account of how he repeatedly misleads, misunderstands and misinterprets the facts of the case, thereafter going on to claim that the ones he "debates" with are the ones who are wrong, has now posted (post 1320) a claim that the uterus was NOT carved out from Jacksons body. He tries to bolster the claim by quoting Thomad Bond, but fails to give the source. Anyhow, what Bond says in the quotation is that "The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus<2.

For someone who isn't talking to me. you sure do mention my name a lot. :

You have stopped quoting me, however. After all, if you did quote me, people could see what I actually said.

You originally said.

Jackson had her uterus carved out by her killer.

And as I pointed out, Dr, Thomas Bond, who examined the pieces of Jackson's corpse, disagrees with your claim.

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris the left labium majus, and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, the right labium majus and minus, and part of the skin of the right buttock. These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the lower pieces of the trunk. The skin was fair, and the mons veneris was covered with light sandy hair. The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus; both ovaries and broad ligaments were present, and the posterior wall of the bladder. The uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut, six inches long, through the left wall. The organ was much dilated the vessels on the inner surface large and open and the mucus membrane swollen and softened. The uterus measured 10in. long by 7.5 in. wide. The circumference of the os externum was 4in…"

Elizabeth Jackon's body cut apart by her killer, but the uterus was not missing, It was not "carved out" by her killer, either, it was still attached to other organs.

[Mark J D]

... I have followed the case on and off since the centenary. I went the other way . I thought that Lech needed looking into. Then I started having doubts...

... If he killed on the way to work, how come the double event happened on a, probably none work day ?

<*boggle*...>

How is it that people completely fail to get this? Even people who have apparently 'followed the case on and off since the centenary'?

Something is going on that is "more than natural", as Hamlet put it.

My explanation of this madness has to proceed in terms of...

Oh, never mind. What's the point?

M.

[Fiver]

Much has been put forward with the hope to weaken the case against him.

There is no case against Charles Lechmere. A case would require forensic evidence and/or eyewitness testimony against him and there is none.

Lechmere is worth considering as a suspect, but too many people start by assuming guilt, treat speculation as fact, and ignore the many weak points in the accusation.

Such desperation is actually quite entertaining. The level of ignorance is breathtaking. Inspector Closeau looks like an intellectual giant in comparison.

The one coming across as desperate is you. If you had a real case you'd be providing evidence, not insults.

The funny thing about this guy is that regardless of how he is ridiculed (which is mainly his own doing) he regularly comes back for more.

Trevor, I’ m sure the dream you had was a nice one, but dreams have nothing to do here. This is about facts, not about yelling ”It wasn’ t him!” at the top of your voice.

You are more like Trevor than you care to admit. Yelling "It was him" and insulting anyone who disagrees with you will not convince anyone that you are right.

[Fiver]

The guy seemingly kept his real name (which was Lechmere) from the police and the coroner.

He gave his work and home addresses, so Charles Lechmere was not trying to hide his identity from the police, his employers, his co-workers, his neighbors, or his family.