All roads lead to Lechmere.

[harry]

It was not neccessary for the police to clear Cross,he was never,at the time ,accused or believed to have been the murderer.Aberline was present at the inquest,he heard the evidence of Cross.If he Aberline,was satisfied with that evidence,and it appears he was,then no further action needed to be taken.

[Dickere]

but as far as we know they didnt.

We don't know whether or not they cleared Cross really.

[Abby Normal]

We don't know that the Police didn't clear Lechmere at the time.

but as far as we know they didnt.

[John Wheat]

agree. nice concise post Harry. and i agree that the Lechmerians over egg the pudding but i also dont understand the knee jerk, sometimes hysterical opposition to him, many times from people who also have a favored suspect. ive never got that. and some of the these anti lechers really do have ridiculous suspects and theories. but they attack a perfectly valid suspect. Lech was seen alone with a freshly murdered victim. hes in the frame for being pollys killer and victims were found near his work route. He would be a de facto person of interest until cleared in todays world.

We don't know that the Police didn't clear Lechmere at the time.

[Abby Normal]

I don't think there's any harm in revisiting and reinterpreting elements of the case as long as it's done in good faith. Lechmere was discovered at the scene of the crime. That's never enough to hang the man but it shouldn't stymy further investigation. Including the discrepancies with PC Mizen and his given name, these are potential markers of duplicity, but they also need to measured with the fact he attended the inquest and provided his home address and place of business. I guess my problem with Lechmere as a suspect is a general one concerning suspectology, the intellectual enforcement of confirmation bias.

agree. nice concise post Harry. and i agree that the Lechmerians over egg the pudding but i also dont understand the knee jerk, sometimes hysterical opposition to him, many times from people who also have a favored suspect. ive never got that. and some of the these anti lechers really do have ridiculous suspects and theories. but they attack a perfectly valid suspect. Lech was seen alone with a freshly murdered victim. hes in the frame for being pollys killer and victims were found near his work route. He would be a de facto person of interest until cleared in todays world.

[Harry D]

I don't think there's any harm in revisiting and reinterpreting elements of the case as long as it's done in good faith. Lechmere was discovered at the scene of the crime. That's never enough to hang the man but it shouldn't stymy further investigation. Including the discrepancies with PC Mizen and his given name, these are potential markers of duplicity, but they also need to measured with the fact he attended the inquest and provided his home address and place of business. I guess my problem with Lechmere as a suspect is a general one concerning suspectology, the intellectual enforcement of confirmation bias.

[Fiver]

Our pal Fiver is always reminding us that on the single occasion we know of Lechmere started work at 4.00pm and he concludes from that that he had what he calls ‘an alibi’ for the Chapman murder.

I'm not the only one assuming Lechmere had a fixed work schedule.

There's also a chap calling himself Mr Barnett. You may have heard of him.

Hi Abby,

If he was a Pickford’s carman, he probably worked fixed hours six days a week - perhaps 12+ hours a day.

[Ally]

There's just so much rubbish from the Lechmere Church that I am amazed that anyone finds the patience to deal with it. Let's consider some things in this thread -

I'm legitmately amazed that the patience has lasted for years. I'm a few days in and already bored and realizing it's impossible to get anyone to actually argue the merits instead of pillorying themselves to a cross (cough, sorry) and bemoaning how they're being persecuted.

a) The FBI profile. It doesn't fit Cross. And, even if you bend it to try what the proponents fail to realise is that FBI profiles are based on interviews with convicted criminals. Around 80% of the profiles thus constructed are completely wrong. Why? Because most of those convicted killers lie. It's a facet of their personality to maintain control. Dismiss it.

I can't believe anyone still takes profiles seriously. Every recent attempt I've seen has ended in utter nonsense. We were living in the outer edges of the DC sniper case, and the profilers said it would be a single white man. Whoops. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a recent example where the killer fit the profile. They all tend to turn out to be married, not loners, like predicted, etc.

b) Timings. If you alter them to fit your case then just maybe you'd have a point. But quite clearly there are discrepancies in the evidence given so none of the timngs are reliable.

Not to mention they flip flop on what is to be considered "you have to take them at their word, because... " to "well no one had a watch so we have to grant leeway" at the drop of a hat to fit whatever point they're arguing in any given moment. I'm amazed everyone doesn't have whiplash.

c) Ed Butler's amazing knowledge of which way Cross was looking! Wow. Not only is Ed an amazingly unsuccessful politician (polling 0.3 of a vote and declaring his party was 'on the way back') but now he's a time-traveller.

Snicker..

Unfortunately, there is inly ONE verifiable fact and that is that Paul saw Cross in the middle of the road and Cross got him to look at the body. That's it. Show over. Move on. The stringing together of half-baked ideas and outright lies told by the Lechmerite clan aren't just annoying, they are actually repugnant as they attempt to frame a man for murder.

Here's something I legitimately don't get if Cross was the killer, WHY would he have bothered approaching Paul in the first place. Paul would have only seen his back, if anything. It's absolutely nonsensical to think he'd deliberately place himself in the picture when he could have just walked on and down a side street and disappeared in the darkness. And I am quite sure I am not the only person who has repeated this ad nauseum, it just makes so little sense I don't comprehend how people can think that it's likely that a killer, caught in the act, wouldn't have just hied off. It's dark, my likelihood of being recognized is slim to none, but I'm going to just ... stick around and have a chat and deliberately flag down a police officer too. Okay. That makes total sense. And of course, I know I am treading well trod ground, but like I said, I haven't beaten my head against this particular wall for ten years, so I'm relatively unbloodied.

[Fiver]

Was Doveton Street in Bethnal Green? That’s interesting.

I never said that Doveton Street was in Bethnal Green. Congratulations on successfully attacking something I never said.

[Fiver]

Our pal Fiver is always reminding us that on the single occasion we know of Lechmere started work at 4.00pm and he concludes from that that he had what he calls ‘an alibi’ for the Chapman murder.

Alibi: the plea of having been at the time of the commission of an act elsewhere than at the place of commission.

I am assuming a fixed work schedule. So is Christer when he assumes that Charles Lechmere had Sundays off.

Your double standard is noted.

[Fiver]

That last press report was completely irrelevant. This one, however, isn’t.

What do you reckon, Fiver?

The other article was potentially relevant.

This article shows several things, none of them new.

* Meat was shipped from knackers to cats meat vendors.
* Cats meat was shipped to London by rail.
* Shipping was recorded at multiple points, with receipts, invoices, and delivery rotes.
* The meat was inspected multiple times.
* The meat was obviously well sealed in the barrels, otherwise the 6 hundredweight of putrid meat would have been detected long before it reached the cats meat dealer, John Stockton.
* Cats meat was one of the many things delivered by Pickfords.

Unfortunately, the article is badly clipped, giving no indication of when this took place.

Not covered in the article are:

Pickford's vans carried up 1 1/2 tons per horse, with a typical 3 horse van carrying 4 to 5 tons. The shipment of cats meat mentioned in the article would have taken up less than 10% of that weight.

John Stockton appears to have been successful in the cats meats business. When he was killed in a charabanc accident returning from Epsom Downs on June 5, 1901, he left an estate of just over 3293 pounds. Also, when he was younger he lived on Somerfold Street, not far from Bucks Row.

[John Trent]

It is truly amazing that this thread goes backwards and forwards between those who cite facts and those who rely on opinion only. Christer repeats his mantra that he has learnt nothing (no change there) and continues to repost words to the effect of "I'm leaving now because you are all so horrible to me and it's my bat and I'm taking it away so you all aren't allowed to play anymore." Cut through the garbage and look solely at the sworn testimony at the inquest and it's blatantly obvious that Cross was just a passing citizen who, unfortunately for him, found a body.

There's just so much rubbish from the Lechmere Church that I am amazed that anyone finds the patience to deal with it. Let's consider some things in this thread -
a) The FBI profile. It doesn't fit Cross. And, even if you bend it to try what the proponents fail to realise is that FBI profiles are based on interviews with convicted criminals. Around 80% of the profiles thus constructed are completely wrong. Why? Because most of those convicted killers lie. It's a facet of their personality to maintain control. Dismiss it.
b) Timings. If you alter them to fit your case then just maybe you'd have a point. But quite clearly there are discrepancies in the evidence given so none of the timngs are reliable.
c) Ed Butler's amazing knowledge of which way Cross was looking! Wow. Not only is Ed an amazingly unsuccessful politician (polling 0.3 of a vote and declaring his party was 'on the way back') but now he's a time-traveller.

Unfortunately, there is inly ONE verifiable fact and that is that Paul saw Cross in the middle of the road and Cross got him to look at the body. That's it. Show over. Move on. The stringing together of half-baked ideas and outright lies told by the Lechmerite clan aren't just annoying, they are actually repugnant as they attempt to frame a man for murder.

[rjpalmer]

Nothing factually interesting has been brought to the table

Well, Christer, you can only speak for yourself. I think quite a bit of it is interesting and enlightening.

For one thing, Dusty noticed that in the latest House of Lechmere video, Ed pointed to what would have been the middle of the wool warehouse and identified it as the gate to Great Eastern Railway.

At first, I considered it a minor slip by a confused researcher but thinking it over it seems like it was significantly misleading because the viewers of the video would have been left with the highly questionable impression that Lechmere and Paul walked within a few feet or inches of this spot, when it appears that the PC's box was at the rear of a darkened archway further on.

And as I previously noted, the PC was questioned by Spratling and gave no indication that he had seen anything unusual that morning which casts even more doubt on Ed's insinuations. There are other points of interest, but I have no further desire to discuss them, since nearly every time a non-believer in the Lechmere theory attempts to raise a point, the ad hominem attacks resurface, the deflections fly, and the wagon trains are circled. Not by you, I hasten to add.

On a personal note, this discussion also made me realize something. Many months ago, I copied a photograph of a street scene in Goulston Street from the early 1980s. I thought it was interesting as it had some minor connection to the London music scene at the time.

I now realize that one of the likely lads in the photo was almost certainly a young Edward Butler. I am quite convinced of it.

Edit: let me rephrase. You do tend to circle the wagon trains, Christer, but at least you stay on topic and discuss the matter at hand.

[Ally]

Your logical progression is based on the premise that the Charles Cross that is the subject of both incidents is the same man. Cross in not an uncommon name, and Pickfords employed a great many people from 1876 to 1888. Had the Islington Gazette given an address for Charles Cross, as they did for nearly everyone else involved, then we could be sure it was the same man but, unfortunately for our cause, they didn't, so we can't just assume that it was our Charles Cross/Lechmere.

You are welcome to your take. I again go with the balance of probabilities, that one Charles Cross working as a carman for Pickford's and another Charles Cross working as a carman for Pickfords would be the same Charles Cross.

[GBinOz]

There is no direct reference. There's just weighing of probabilities through the filter of common sense, though I should have said, "most likely known" instead of known as I did in a previous post. However, considering we know that several years before the Whitechapel incident, while at work, Cross ran over a young boy who ran out in front of him and there was an inquest where he gave his name as Cross, logic would dictate Cross was his work name. Why does logic dictate this?

This incident happened, *while he was at work* and there is every likelihood that his work would have been *involved* in the inquest to some degree or another, even just to find out if he's going to be held liable and what that would mean for them, his work would have known about the incident. It was in the press. It was being investigated. If he runs over a boy, while at work, and he knows his work is going to be involved, which name is he most likely, beyond the balance of probabilities, to give the police? The one he's known by at work.

There was an investigation. The incident involved his work. If he'd given the name Cross to the police, and he didn't use it at work, someone at Pickfords could have easily claimed, truthfully, "Wait we don't have a Charles Cross working here," when the investigation and press came calling and what kind of mess would that have put him in? He would have been far more likely than not, to use the name he was known by at work, when testifying about a work incident.

Is it a definite fact that he was known by Cross at work? No. However...It is more reasonable than not to assume he went by Cross at work.

Your logical progression is based on the premise that the Charles Cross that is the subject of both incidents is the same man. Cross in not an uncommon name, and Pickfords employed a great many people from 1876 to 1888. Had the Islington Gazette given an address for Charles Cross, as they did for nearly everyone else involved, then we could be sure it was the same man but, unfortunately for our cause, they didn't, so we can't just assume that it was our Charles Cross/Lechmere.