Evidence of innocence

[Ally]

i wouldn't put much store by that. I've done enough family history to know those are minor differences. As RJ said, things like dates and place of birth being out by a bit are pretty common.

But this points to another discrepancy in the Lechmerian arguments. Apparently, here a name is enough to decide this is the father, despite facts being in conflict, but they won't grant that the Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords who hit a child was probably the same Charles cross who worked for Pickfords and found Nichols, because to do so pokes a very large hole in their theory that he didn't go by Cross in at least a professional sense.

It's a case of once again cherry-picking when we're going to allow common sense and probabilities to guide our answer, and only choosing common sense when it aligns with our already pre-determined beliefs.

And of course, one could be wrong, but at the very least you should be consistent in how you weigh and decide what you're going to believe, and not swing back and forth depending upon which fits your theory best.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, he is listed as being born in Fownshope in the 1871 census, but the same man in the 1861 census is listed as being born in Kenchester. I hope I didn't cause you confusion on this point. Sometimes birth locations shift from source to source for various reasons.




And there can be no doubt he is the same man as in the 1871 census; his wife and children have the same names; they both live on North Street, Daventry; his occupation is the same, his wife's birthplace is the same, etc.

Thanks for all your replies!

I'm not sure you noticed that I edited my #5952 in order to reflect your supplementary information about his date of birth, which I didn't notice until after I had sent the original draft.

I too had thought that the dropping of the middle name could have been intended to avoid being traced - and have previously read about the things he is alleged to have been up to that may have led to his disappearance.

Wouldn't you agree with me that there is plenty of reason to suppose that Maria Lechmere and Thomas Cross had sufficient cause under the seven-year absentee rule to go ahead and get married?

[rjpalmer]

. Wouldn't you agree with me that there is plenty of reason to suppose that Maria Lechmere and Thomas Cross had sufficient cause under the seven-year absentee rule to go ahead and get married?

Yes, I have made this same observation many times. Johnny Boy was long gone, and she remarried over 7 years later, so there is not a lot to see here.

Referring to her as "the twice bigamously married Maria Lechmere" is a cheap way of oversimplifying her story---a way muddying her name and implying an untoward sexual history in order to get at her son.

My opinion.

[rjpalmer]

But this points to another discrepancy in the Lechmerian arguments. Apparently, here a name is enough to decide this is the father, despite facts being in conflict, but they won't grant that the Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords who hit a child was probably the same Charles cross who worked for Pickfords and found Eddowes, because to do so pokes a very large hole in their theory that he didn't go by Cross in at least a professional sense.

I think as you revisit the old threads, you'll find that the Church of Lechmere is quite inconsistent on this point.

Most of them are happy to state that the driver from the 1876 traffic accident is the same Charles Cross as 1888 (as Edward 'Stow' does so in his videos) because it allows them to state that Cross was involved in a case of instantaneous "violent death" and used the names 'Cross' to hide or obscure his identity. They will point out that this is one of only two times that he is known to have used this name (conveniently forgetting to mention that he is listed under the name Charles Cross in the 1861 Census).

At other times, some of the more benign members of the Church, those who go to services half-heartedly or only occasionally, will suggests that it might be a different Charles Cross, thus arguing that it is not proven that he had ever used that name at Pickford's.

You can't really win, because the argument shifts accordingly.

In 1888, Lechmere himself stated that he had worked for Pickford's for over twenty years, which dates his employment back to the 1860s--ie., during his stepfather's lifetime--and, as mentioned, he is listed by the name Charles Cross in 1861.

Unless he inexplicably decided to use the name of the father who had abandoned him in childhood instead of the name he is listed under in the census when he started employment, I am of the opinion that he began work at Pickford's under the name 'Cross.' It beggars' belief that he would have been involved in a fatal accident and his employers would have allowed him to use a false name in the coroner's court in an attempt to deceive.

On a minor note, I have heard traffic accidents described as "The Melancholy Mishap in Islington," or "Dangerous Intersection Claims Another," but never "A Case of Violent Death" as it this accident is often referred to by a certain Lechmere theorist. But I digress.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The 1888 police had very limited means to secure physical evidence. If it had been today, there would likely have been fingerprints, dna and so on. Even today, murderers do not always leave physical evidence. The time Chapman was killed is not established, and may well have been in line with the Nichols murder. And Lechmere could of course have been the killer regardless of what time of the day she was killed. Stride was not killed on a. Working day, but instead on a Saturday night when Lechmere had likely the day off. The same goes for Eddowes. So none of your points are genuine evidene of innocence.

' The time Chapman was killed is not established, and may well have been in line with the Nichols murder. '

Aren't you forgetting the partially digested potato?
It's the one detail in the Hanbury St murder that seems always to be, or almost always to be, overlooked.

She must have finished eating it by 1:40 and it would have been fully digested by 2:40 and yet it was partially digested.

That means she must have been killed by 2:40, which which would explain why there were no sightings of her after 1.50, when she set off from Dorset St roughly in the direction of Hanbury St.

She told the manager of the lodging house in Dorset St to keep her bed for her because she would be back soon with money.

That means she must have gone looking for a customer immediately and obviously wasn't paid.

Everything points to her murder having occured at about 2:30 and quite possibly earlier.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have pointed out before that there are many people who are inclined to say "The only thing you´ve got on him" - and then they add different things! Some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is that he first discovered Nichols", some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is the name change", some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is how he traversed the killing zone", some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is how he disagreed with Mizen".
So no, Erobitha, I do not have one thing only on him - I have scores of things. And then I have a bunch of naysayers who disagree in different ways.

Returning to the object of this thread, it is of course not to look into the points of accusation, but instead to see what evidence there is that he was innocent. You make a contribution in that field by speaking about "his alibis for the other times of death". It cleared Pizer, so why would it not clear Lechmere? Well, mainly because we have no alibi in any case for Lechmere. If it was there, it is unrecorded. And the fact remains that there is a correlation between his morning work trek and Tabram/Nichols/Chapman/Kelly, just as he has geographical links to the Stride and Eddowes murders too. Plus, of course, the two murders that were not perpetrated on workdays (normally Monday-Saturday), were instead committed on the one night when workers normally had their day off. And NOT at the time Lechmere walked to work. For Lechmere to fit the bill, none of the Whitechapel murders can be exchanged for any of the St Georges/Aldgate murders. But they all fall neatly in place into a wrking man´s normal schedule.
That in itself makes for a pretty convincing argument. Or another cry of "coincidence!"

If you have read my book, you would have seen a long list of circumstantial evidence, reaching miles beyond the name change and the finding of the body of Polly Nichols. Furthermore, you would see that finding that body as such is not what makes Lechmere look a very good suspect. It is instead the circumstances surrounding that find. It must be surmised that when Robert Paul saw the body, the cutting had already been done, and so the bleeding process would have commenced some time BEFORE Robert Paul arrived at the body. After that, it took around four minutes for Lechmere and Paul to examine the body, leave it lying and seek out Jonas Mizen. Realistically, since Mizen was then informed by Lechmere about the body and since he finished a knocking up errand before setting off for Bucks Row, it would have been around a four minute return trip too. So we have an eight minute period elapsing between when Robert Paul saw the body and when Mizen arrived at it - at which time it was "still bleeding" as the PC put it. If we assume that Lechmere cut her, we need to add at least another minute before Paul arrived. If it was somebody else, we must add numerous minutes, not just the one.

With Lechmere as the perp, we have therefore around a nine minute ongoing bleeding. And two forensic pathologists tell me that although this may perhaps happen, a bleeding time of some three to five minutes is the more realistic guess. So Nichols bled a lot longer than the pathologists would have expected, making evey added minute of bleeding after five minutes more and more unexpected.

It is not just about finding a body, Erobitha. Very, very far from it. Lechmere becomes a red hot bid when we look at the bleeding, and once he has been heated up to that stage, we must add:
-The disagreement with Mizen, where Mizen says that Lechmere claimed that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row, something that allowed the carmen to passa the PC without even having their names taken.
-The fact that Mizen said that there was no talk of murder or suicide; he does not acknowledge that Lechmere spoke of a possible death.
-The fact that Paul never said that he saw or heard Lechmere a mere 30-40 yards in front of himself.
-The fact that Lechmeres walk to work took him right through the killing fields of Whitechapel at times that seem roughly consistent with the murders.
-The fact that the wounds of Nichols were covered up by her clothes.
-The fact that Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up.
-The fact that Lechmere said he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, which would have had him in Bucks Row at 3.27-3.37, not at 3.45.
-The fact that Lechmere called himself Cross when involved in a case of murder, whereas he always otherwise called himself Lechmere in authority contacts.
One of these things only would be bad for the carmans claims of innocence. Two would be catastrophic. Taken all together, they make for a very good accusation act. If he is not guilty, these were all coincidences and flukes. Accepting that is being incredibly naive in my book. And that´s the only book I can answer for.

So anyways, it´s not just about finding a body, is it?

Finally, in your post, there is of course not any genuine evidence of innocence. What there is, is "he may have had an alibi". Meaning that it is another example of the so called alternative innocent explanations. And those can be taken to any exotic lengths. Maybe he was moonlighting as a magician on the Embankment they night Stride and Eddowes was killed? Maybe he had been enrolled chasing vampyres in Transylvania in November of 1888? And yes, I know that your suggestion of a "simple" alibi is much more realistic. But the same demands apply in each of these cases: to be genuine evidence of innocence, it must be proven.

' And the fact remains that there is a correlation between his morning work trek and Tabram/Nichols/Chapman/Kelly '

I don't agree with you that Martha Tabram's murder belongs to this series of murders, but in any case her murder is believed to have taken place between 2:30 and 3:30 in the morning during the hour before Lechmere set out for work.

So there is no correlation!

I don't know what you're going to reply, but if you're going to reply that Lechmere left home at 2:30, and he was lying when he said he left home at 3:30, then how in the world do you have him meeting Nichols at the right time in Buck's Row?

The last meal of Chapman at 1:30, the last sighting of Chapman at 1:50, the undigested potato which should have been fully digested by 2.40, and the facts that she never came back to the lodging house and was never sighted alive again, all point to her murder having occured no later than 2:30, an hour before Lechmere set out for work.


But even if one accepts the Hanbury Street eyewitness evidence, as the coroner did, her time of death would occur when Lechmere was already long at work.

So there is no correlation there, either!

And finally, Kelly.

Even if Lechmere was working that day, he could not possibly have done everything - met her, negotiated with her, gone back to her room with her, waited for the moment to attack her, murdered her, done such extensive mutilation as was estimated at the time to have taken 2 hours, and then walked nearly 1 1/2 miles to work, without being extremely late for work, without facing police questioning and arrest, because he had an exceptionally long knife, as well as Kelly's heart, somewhere in his jacket.

So there's no correlation there, either!

But it's even worse than that, because the day of Kelly's murder was a public holiday and Lechmere certainly wouldn't have gone to work on that day.
He must have been with his wife and nine children instead.

Somewhat like Chapman's undigested potato, his wife and nine children just seem never to get noticed.


'The fact that Lechmeres walk to work took him right through the killing fields of Whitechapel at times that seem roughly consistent with the murders.'

That plainly is not true!

Tabram was killed during the hour before he set out for work.
Chapman was killed an hour before he set out for work.
Stride was killed on his day off.
Eddowes was killed on his day off.
Kelly was killed on his day off.


Lechmere's walk to work took him right past the scene of Nichols' murder, but none of the others.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I think as you revisit the old threads, you'll find that the Church of Lechmere is quite inconsistent on this point.

Most of them are happy to state that the driver from the 1876 traffic accident is the same Charles Cross as 1888 (as Edward 'Stow' does so in his videos) because it allows them to state that Cross was involved in a case of instantaneous "violent death" and used the names 'Cross' to hide or obscure his identity. They will point out that this is one of only two times that he is known to have used this name (conveniently forgetting to mention that he is listed under the name Charles Cross in the 1861 Census).

At other times, some of the more benign members of the Church, those who go to services half-heartedly or only occasionally, will suggests that it might be a different Charles Cross, thus arguing that it is not proven that he had ever used that name at Pickford's.

You can't really win, because the argument shifts accordingly.

In 1888, Lechmere himself stated that he had worked for Pickford's for over twenty years, which dates his employment back to the 1860s--ie., during his stepfather's lifetime--and, as mentioned, he is listed by the name Charles Cross in 1861.

Unless he inexplicably decided to use the name of the father who had abandoned him in childhood instead of the name he is listed under in the census when he started employment, I am of the opinion that he began work at Pickford's under the name 'Cross.' It beggars' belief that he would have been involved in a fatal accident and his employers would have allowed him to use a false name in the coroner's court in an attempt to deceive.

On a minor note, I have heard traffic accidents described as "The Melancholy Mishap in Islington," or "Dangerous Intersection Claims Another," but never "A Case of Violent Death" as it this accident is often referred to by a certain Lechmere theorist. But I digress.

Yes.

Very well put!

I would just add that at the 1876 inquest, Pickfords provided him with legal representation of their own.
That means that Pickfords must have known him as Cross in 1876.
Moreover, the day on which he testified at the 1888 inquest was a Monday, a work day, which means that he must have taken time off work and given Pickfords a reason, knowing that Pickfords were sure to read his testimony in the newspapers, mentioning a Charles Cross who works for Pickfords - just as in the earlier inquest in 1876.

It is quite obvious that during his entire career at Pickfords, he was known as Cross.

And that fact completely destroys the case against him, in which it is alleged that his use of the name constituted a deception.

[Fiver]

Yes, I have made this same observation many times. Johnny Boy was long gone, and she remarried over 7 years later, so there is not a lot to see here.

"Neither this Act, nor anything therein contained, shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall be continually remaining beyond the seas by the space of seven years together, or whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of seven years together, in any parts within his Majesties Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time." - Bigamy Act of 1603.

Maria Lechmere waited the seven years, so her second maraige was not bigamous.

John Allen Lechmere, OTOH, had a son by another woman in 1855.

Referring to her as "the twice bigamously married Maria Lechmere" is a cheap way of oversimplifying her story---a way muddying her name and implying an untoward sexual history in order to get at her son.

My opinion.

They have to imply these things about Maria to try to make her son fit the FBI Ripper profile. They also like to skip inconvenient parts of the profile or reword them in ways that might make CAL fit, even though he clearly doesn't fit what was said in that part of the profile.

Of course, no case has ever been solver by profiling.

[Ally]

Yes, I have made this same observation many times. Johnny Boy was long gone, and she remarried over 7 years later, so there is not a lot to see here.

Referring to her as "the twice bigamously married Maria Lechmere" is a cheap way of oversimplifying her story---a way muddying her name and implying an untoward sexual history in order to get at her son.

My opinion.

Is this legtimately the only only criticism that they have on this woman? That she refused to remain properly "chaste" (vomit at the misogyny) after being dumped by her husband in a time where she had no rights? I was pointed to give my opinion on the "Ma Lechmere' thing on another thread and in researching kept assuming I'd missed something because all I found was the *scandal* (yawn) of her not being a good little woman who kept her knees together after her husband dumped her in a time where for women financial security rather relied on having a husband and of course ....they moved around a lot. Which is something not uncommon to poor people. Is this really ...it? So glad I wasted all that time reading.

I think as you revisit the old threads, you'll find that the Church of Lechmere is quite inconsistent on this point.

I think they are inconsistent on all the points and continuing to revisit is going to do nothing but give me a headache. This might be one of those suspects that's best just left to the Loon and Goon Squad.

[caz]

I think they are inconsistent on all the points and continuing to revisit is going to do nothing but give me a headache. This might be one of those suspects that's best just left to the Loon and Goon Squad.

I stopped reading the posts to this thread in September 2021 because it felt like banging my head against a brick wall. I only came back here just now to see what Ally had to say!

I do find it hard to explain why people keep visiting ripper suspect threads day after day, year after year, to argue the toss with a few individuals who are convinced they have identified Jack. I know, I've done it myself in the past, but I did things differently there. I'm getting too old and crotchety for it now.

How did Einstein define insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

That makes us all a bit touched - on either side of the fence!

Love,

Caz
X

[Ally]

I stopped reading the posts to this thread in September 2021 because it felt like banging my head against a brick wall. I only came back here just now to see what Ally had to say!

LOL, well no pressure there, hope it didn't disappoint. But it is good to see old "faces". Feeling nostalgic, reading back through ...decades of posts at this point.

I do find it hard to explain why people keep visiting ripper suspect threads day after day, year after year, to argue the toss with a few individuals who are convinced they have identified Jack. I know, I've done it myself in the past, but I did things differently there. I'm getting too old and crotchety for it now.

Sheer frustration, I imagine. Like there's a part of rational people who believe, sincerely, that there is some "logical" argument out there that can convince the irrational to see sense. This is of course the folly of the rational -- believing *reason* is sufficient to convince everyone about the right choice. When of course the majority of people don't come by their opinions through reason, but through emotion. And you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason. You can't argue facts with the faithful. Faith always overrides.

That makes us all a bit touched - on either side of the fence!

Love,

Caz
X

Absolutely. The only proper course is to bedazzle ones straight-jacket and saunter through the burning asylum with a jaunty soundtrack playing in the background.
Good chatting with you again!


My JTR philosophy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nheJkQiTQU

[Abby Normal]

I stopped reading the posts to this thread in September 2021 because it felt like banging my head against a brick wall. I only came back here just now to see what Ally had to say!

I do find it hard to explain why people keep visiting ripper suspect threads day after day, year after year, to argue the toss with a few individuals who are convinced they have identified Jack. I know, I've done it myself in the past, but I did things differently there. I'm getting too old and crotchety for it now.

How did Einstein define insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

That makes us all a bit touched - on either side of the fence!

Love,

Caz
X

lol. thats rich coming from you cough diary cough. oh the irony. and people come back to these threads to learn new things and debate VALID mysteries. and despite your cynicism many do get different results..at least on these suspect threads. I know ive changed my mind over things on here many times because of other posters excellent research, anaysis and debating skills.

and have we really come to the point where people question why on an unsolved serial murder case Ripper forum why people are discussing the whodunnit aspect? good grief.

[Fiver]

Is this legtimately the only only criticism that they have on this woman? That she refused to remain properly "chaste" (vomit at the misogyny) after being dumped by her husband in a time where she had no rights? I was pointed to give my opinion on the "Ma Lechmere' thing on another thread and in researching kept assuming I'd missed something because all I found was the *scandal* (yawn) of her not being a good little woman who kept her knees together after her husband dumped her in a time where for women financial security rather relied on having a husband and of course ....they moved around a lot. Which is something not uncommon to poor people. Is this really ...it? So glad I wasted all that time reading.

I'm also seen them imply she was sexually involved with a man who was boarding with her and her husband.

Lets not forget that Thomas Cross, her second husband, is falsely referred to as "underage" and disparagingly called the "boy constable" or even a "boy toy".After all, only a weak man would be a police constable in Tiger Bay. Only a weak man would help to raise two young children who weren't his. Yet even this is done to try to make Maria Lechmere look bad.

Meanwhile John Allen Lechmere is given a pass. He went bankrupt and abandoned his wife and toddler children. He may have stolen her inheritance. He likely was an alcoholic. He was at least negligent in contributing to a police officers death. He was shacking up with a woman younger than years before Maria Lechmere remarried. If John Allen Lechmere did marry Ann Masters, he was definitely committing bigamy.

Yet none of the vitriol and the insults go to the deadbeat dad. They're reserved for the abandoned woman.

And then they act offended when anyone sees their blatant double standard as misogynistic.

[Fiver]

Sheer frustration, I imagine. Like there's a part of rational people who believe, sincerely, that there is some "logical" argument out there that can convince the irrational to see sense. This is of course the folly of the rational -- believing *reason* is sufficient to convince everyone about the right choice. When of course the majority of people don't come by their opinions through reason, but through emotion. And you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason. You can't argue facts with the faithful. Faith always overrides.

That may be some of it. It also has a lot in common with conspiracy theories - seeing the "truth" that others are too "blind" to see. The theory lets you feel superior and clever. In a few cases, there's the profit motive. Whether or not they believe their "solution", it gains them money from selling their book, or at least fame from people watching their Youtube channel. There's also the sunk cost fallacy. People who bought into the solution not realizing that it's mostly speculation with a heavy dose of falsehood. Possibly not even consciously, they're afraid that they'll look stupid for changing their minds and admitting they were running hard in the wrong direction.

But I'm not writing for them. I'm writing for the people who haven't made up their minds, to show them the facts.

[Abby Normal]

I'm also seen them imply she was sexually involved with a man who was boarding with her and her husband.

Lets not forget that Thomas Cross, her second husband, is falsely referred to as "underage" and disparagingly called the "boy constable" or even a "boy toy".After all, only a weak man would be a police constable in Tiger Bay. Only a weak man would help to raise two young children who weren't his. Yet even this is done to try to make Maria Lechmere look bad.

Meanwhile John Allen Lechmere is given a pass. He went bankrupt and abandoned his wife and toddler children. He may have stolen her inheritance. He likely was an alcoholic. He was at least negligent in contributing to a police officers death. He was shacking up with a woman younger than years before Maria Lechmere remarried. If John Allen Lechmere did marry Ann Masters, he was definitely committing bigamy.

Yet none of the vitriol and the insults go to the deadbeat dad. They're reserved for the abandoned woman.

And then they act offended when anyone sees their blatant double standard as misogynistic.

while im no lechmerian, more of a lech apologist, I pretty much agree with this. good point. Ive often said that the lechmerians over egg the pudding. they dont need to.
and it also goes to the name thing. if JAL was so bad, and it seems he was, why did Lech want to keep the name??