Evidence of innocence

[Abby Normal]

"Lech deniers"

At least we know you're finally out of the closet, Abby.

Hi Harry
well yes im out of the closet in terms of I think comparitively speaking, lech is as valid a suspect as the handful of other more accepted suspects(but maybe a tad down my list). so maybe more of a lech apologist. lol.

And When I say lech deniers-I mean the ridiculous knee jerk reactionaries against anything, and I mean anything, that could point in his direction. no matter how small a point. ex-when someone said lech was in the delivery business, they were quickly (and erroneously) corrected that he was in the shipping business. lol. I mean who gives a fock? seriously, thats how ridiculous it can get. Theres a million other examples.

This sort of reactionary nonsense should be reserved for the stupid suspects like maybrick, Van Gough, feiganbaum, royal conspiracy etc.

The dude was seen near a freshly killed victim alone, geographically is in the frame for the other murders like no other suspect, has a discrepency with what happened with the police, and didnt give his real (or at least more common) name when dealing with the police.
hes not that bad of a suspect.

[Mark J D]

There is no evidence that anyone from Pickfords was present at the inquest.

-- And, to me, it is ludicrous even to imagine that a Victorian employer would give a moment's thought to the fate of any random employee...

"Okay, Lechmere, I've been on to Head Office, and we're going to back you on this. Come upstairs and meet the lawyer we've hired: he'll be with you all through today's proceedings. He's agreed to pretend that you're called 'Cross'. And remember: if you end up going to jail, we'll keep paying your wages, so your family will all be okay..."

M.

[Fisherman]

Do you have a source for that statistic, Fisherman?

No, I just made it up.

There are numerous sources on the net that establish that serial killinng and psychopathy go hand in hand. If you want a light read, then try https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...-what-10791174
where a criminologist say that all serial killers are psychopaths, and to boot, you can do a psychopathy test yourself via a link!

If you want a good general paper on psychopathy and criminal behaviour, try this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4059069/

If you want a number, there is this Swedish paper (although in English - phew!), citing a percentage of 87 (I have seen other papers saying 90 per cent or 90 per cent plus, but I havent got them at hand):

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...tics_in_Sweden

Not that I contend the killer was a psychopath. That was never my criticism.

Eh - I DO contend that the killer was a psychopath.

My point is that like a lot of suspect-based theories they are defined by circular reasoning. You NEED Lechmere to be a psychopath to justify his charade as an innocent bystander.

Yes, that is absolutely true. If you can prove that Lechmere was not a psychopath, then he was not guilty either. However, I don´t think it is a weakness in my theory, given how large a percentage of the sexual serial killers who ARE psychopaths.
Conversely, if I could prove that Lechmere WAS a psychopath, then I think nobody would reason about his innocence.

If 90% of sexual-serial killers are psychopaths, how come none of them have ever imitated Lechmere's actions in Buck's Row?

That must be because psychopaths can do different things. Or are you suggesting that all psychopaths would only kill ŕ la Bucks Row? Psychppathy is basically a lack of empathy, a disregard for other peoples rights. It is not about wanting to kill in a specific way.
And, of course, there are killers who have killed in the open streets, and who have eviscerated.
I find your question a bit odd.

Why would a killer who had multiple escape routes to take under the blanket of darkness, stop to accost a witness and direct him to the victim, let alone find a policeman together, when I assume Lechmere still carried the murder weapon and could've had blood stains on him? Ahhh but that's why he decided to pull off the Great Mizen Scam! Despite the fact Paul AND Lechmere both contradicted the copper. The killer would have tried to remain unseen, and not been heard, as he was during the other murders. Ahhh but now you will claim "Yes but Lechmere could only play this trick once! He was back to his ninja skills for the rest of them!"

Have a look at the 32 997 times I have answered that before. But don´t ask me to do it again if you are never going to understand it anyway.

Conveniences upon contrivances are the name of the game.

Or excuses upon lame excuses from blindfolded people. It all depends on the perspective.

[Fisherman]

"Lech deniers"

At least we know you're finally out of the closet, Abby.

If I speak of you as a Druitt denier, does that make me a Druittist?

I fail to see how you put your closets together.

[Fisherman]

And that´s about as much as I am ready to take for now. There´s a limit to most things.

[caz]

I think the killer was much into looking for recognition, not least by way of publicity. Therefore, I believe that he chose to dump his body parts in the western parts of London so that they would float ashore along the power centre of the late 19th century world.

I think the same mechanism is mirrored in the Pinchin Street business: I believe that Lechmere was irritated by how it was thought that there were two serial killers afoot, and I think that the Pinchin Street torso was designed to show his contemporaries that there was just the one killer. So he killed that woman and took of her legs and head, telling everybody that it was a Torso killing, but he ALSO provided a blueprint cut down from ribs to pubes and placed the torso in Ripper territory to announce that it was ALSO a Ripper murder.

Catching up with this monster thread, Fish, I have a further question regarding how you see your suspect's character.

If Charlie "Two series" Lechmere was really looking for recognition for being such a clever bastard, and was so irritated that nobody was linking his ripper and torso crimes that he went to the trouble of designing the Pinchin Street example to get the message across loud and clear, would he not have been more than 'Cross' when the silly bastards still didn't make the connection?

Could he not have spelled it out for the blockheads, to save you doing it in the 21st century?

With apologies to the late great Ian Dury:

I'm Cross, I can't be classed as witless,
I've reduced my victims to the littlest.
When I did my slitting-em-up-ness
I frightened everybody shitless.
I ain't half been a clever bastard,
Probably got it from my mum...

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, well - a summary of your alleged conversation with James Scobie! So let´s check the various points and see how Scobie was manipulated, shall we?

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

And Christer says he never met James Scobie, so it seems that is very true. Question: Would Scobie need to meet me in order to asses the case? Answer: No.

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from Christer, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

The "bullet points" seemingly filled perhaps fifty A4 pages, as can be seen in the docu. And as has been said before, all Scobie was asaked to do was to assess the evidence against Charles Lechmere, not all the possible alternative innocent suggestions. As has also been pointed out - by Paul Begg - this is a perfectly legal way to go about it.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

Which is to be expected; there is normally always a process of editing involved in making an interview. Is there anything that tells us that what was edited out was Scobies upset denials that Lechmere could have been the killer? Answer: No. Would it be likely that Scobie said BOTH that the evidence would warrant a modern day trial and that he would deny such a thing in next breath? Answer: No.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts- edited out

Now, Trevor, THIS is intensely interesting! Here we have Scobie saying that the issue with the false name (thank you for calling it by it´s true definition, by the way) was insoignificant to the other facts. And what does "insignificant" mean? It means that it did not matter to his verdict, based on the other facts.
And then we have a little addition: "edited out"...?
Where does that addition come from, Trevor? And what does it mean? Becasue in my eyes, it seems to point to the possibility that this was an answer you did not like - and so you decided to edit it out.
Maybe you can expand a little on this?

5. He never saw the coroners su
And was there anything in the coroners adding up that either contributed to the case against Lechmere or exonerated him? Answer: No. So why would ne need to see it in order to be able to say if there is a case against the carman?

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

Of course. If the full facts involved a train ticket on the Orient Express between September 7 and November 11, then Lechmere could not be the Ripper. What Scobie did not know, he could not comment on. Therefore, he could not say whether or not something that would make him change his mind was present in the material.

I wish you had instead asked him whether or not he believed that Blink Films were likely to withhold crucial evidence speaking for Lechmere´s innocence. Then again, we all know that there IS no such evidence, meaning per se that the whole suggestion that there was such a tyoe of material absent in Scobies information.

The whole discussion is as intelligent as most of your suggestions, Trevor. It´s dumb, in other words.

Its no more dumber than your suggestion that Lechmere killed Nicholls and was Jack the Ripper, and the Torso killer all rolled into one, the next thing you will be trying to convice us with is that Jesus really could walk on water

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Its no more dumber than your suggestion that Lechmere killed Nicholls and was Jack the Ripper, and the Torso killer all rolled into one, the next thing you will be trying to convice us with is that Jesus really could walk on water

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

jealous again Trevor?

[MrBarnett]

-- And, to me, it is ludicrous even to imagine that a Victorian employer would give a moment's thought to the fate of any random employee...

"Okay, Lechmere, I've been on to Head Office, and we're going to back you on this. Come upstairs and meet the lawyer we've hired: he'll be with you all through today's proceedings. He's agreed to pretend that you're called 'Cross'. And remember: if you end up going to jail, we'll keep paying your wages, so your family will all be okay..."

M.

Actually, M., I think Pickfords would have been very keen to see that no blame attached to their employee and through him to the company. Their drivers were notorious for driving recklessly and causing accidents and as a result the company had to pay out thousands in compensation.

I think it was me who first suggested that they may have had a representative of some kind at the inquest, but that was just a guess on my part.

When we consider why Lechmere gave the name Cross at the 1876 inquest (assuming he was the driver in question) I think we should bear in mind that his address wasn’t reported on and that the child’s father believed he was to blame for the death.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I was - of course - referring to the Nichols case. If you were discussing the run over boy only, you should have said so.

Sorry Christer, but I was quoting what you wrote in # 1596, not anything of mine. You wrote about CAL being involved in "two occasions of violent death" and the "ensuing inquests". So, do you have the information that I don't have, in order to back up your claim? And for what it is worth, do you have all of the detailed reports of the Nichols case to back up the rest of your statement?

[Doctored Whatsit]

There is no evidence that anyone from Pickfords was present at the inquest.

Ok, let's assume that despite the inquest being about one of their drivers killing a child and all of the potential repercussions of this, Pickfords ignored the inquest. The three scenarios still stand for consideration. Alternatives can be suggested.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I don´t remember saying it, actually. What I have said is that he may have gone to Pickfords after Mitre Square to wash up and possibly to use the rag from Eddowes´ apron as a makeshift bandage if he cut himself while cutting up Eddowes.

If you can dig up the alibi suggestion, I´d be interested to see it.

No, you are right Fish. I remembered incorrectly why you said that he may have gone to Pickfords after Mitre Square. [ Hence the apron in that general direction ] My mistake.
Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

Ok, let's assume that despite the inquest being about one of their drivers killing a child and all of the potential repercussions of this, Pickfords ignored the inquest. The three scenarios still stand for consideration. Alternatives can be suggested.

I personally would assume the opposite.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks for this. I'm currently giving myself a crash course in the history of income tax; I'm also seeking a 'historian of taxation' where I work...

M.

Let us know what you discover! :-)

[caz]

Two things, Christer.

One: while it may seem odd if Wildbore first placed the torso in the vault, only to 'discover' it himself sometime later, it seems just as odd for Lechmere to kill a woman on precisely the ONLY street he just HAD to take every day on his way to work. I, for one, think it's quite similar at least.

Two: as you say, there's a case to be made for the killer being much into looking for recognition, not least by way of publicity, so, when nobody else found the torso in the vault, it could be very well argued that he, therefore, did it himself for that very reason. After all, without the torso there would be no recognition.

Good observations as usual, Frank, and I had planned to make the first one myself, in a more general context.

It is readily acknowledged that once Lechmere had bluffed his way out of one tricky situation, as he did in Buck's Row, he couldn't have tried it a second time. He had played his one joker.

But it's more complex than that, because he would ONLY have been able to play his joker IF the time and place gave him a tailor-made excuse for being 'found' with one of his victims. Assuming that Nichols ended up in Buck's Row by her own volition, and wasn't forced there at knife point, it would have been a very happy coincidence for Lechmere that on this occasion ONLY, when faced with a spur-of-the-moment decision to make, on hearing someone - Robert Paul - approaching, he was able to opt for staying with his freshly killed victim because he could claim to have discovered her while going about his daily business. Unless he predicted this beforehand, and had already factored it into his thinking, he was jolly lucky that all the circumstances were so totally in his favour when he suddenly needed them to be.

If he had chosen to leave Buck's Row unseen, the joker up his sleeve would have been no use to him in any other situation.

"So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at that hour, when you were found standing over the deceased?"

"So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in Dutfield's Yard at one o'clock on Sunday morning when you were seen with the murdered woman?"

"So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in Mitre Square, at the scene of the latest atrocity?"

"So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in Miller's Court etc etc.....?"

Love,

Caz
X