Cross Theory II

[Jon Guy]

I have seen pictures of Pickfords carts of the period (at the Pickfords head office) with nearly always just one driver.

This Pickfords cart has two men.
Apologies, have posted before.

[Jon Guy]

.. and this one has two men

[Lechmere]

But only one seat?

[Jon Guy]

Looking at one of the photos there appears to be one at the back.
Which makes sense, as the cargo is under supervision.

[Lechmere]

I Will check my pictures when I get a chance - this is an interesting detail.

[Steve S]

The fact that the victims were concentrated in a relatively small area and found in similar circumstances suggests a local culprit or at least someone with strong local connections.

Did the killer have a reason to be on those streets at those times, or did he purposely go out to commit the crimes and then go back to wherever he came from and go about his life?
Serial killers tend to kill when they have the opportunity to kill.
If the culprit was a working man with a family – and plenty of serial killers are – then in late Victorian London, when would he have the opportunity to kill?
When would he be able to go out in the dead of the night and find his victims and the return, without raising suspicion at home?
I would suggest that unless he had a ready excuse to go out at that time – for example to go to work - then his vicious and violent instincts would have remained as unfulfilled fantasies.



So to remain a plausible suspect, where could the killer have gone after each killing?

Could he have taken refuge in a common lodging house?
The police certainty thought this was a likely possibility as they devoted a lot of their time ‘checking out’ these establishments after each crime, although it seems that as the series progressed, this opinion lessened as it would be next to impossible for a blood splattered killer – with body-part trophies – to enter such an establishment unnoticed.

Perhaps the killer stayed out all night each time he killed, hiding away in a stairwell perhaps, until the streets became more crowded and anonymous?
This again raises difficulties if he was blood splattered and carrying trophies. The likelihood that he could have remained on the streets and undetected after each crime seems unlikely once the hue and cry and public hysteria were at their peak.

Could he have gone back to a hotel? Obvious problems.
What about barrister’s chambers? These were not available for slumbering or hiding in after hours.
Could he have gone back home – unlikely if he had a family – but possible of he was single and had his own place, perhaps a one bedroom flat with a separate entrance, near the mean centre of murders.

While I don't go along with your conclusions....I agree these are the basic questions that must be asked about ANY suspect, (or type of suspect)

Steve

[Patrick S]

Whoever the killer was would plausibly not have been covered in blood – as most of the victims seem to have been strangled first which, even if not to the complete extinction of life, would have reduced the heart's strength and ability to vigorously pump blood.
Furthermore there were many fountains and water sources in the area so the killer would be able to wash his hands at least, if necessary.
If the culprit fled through the streets covered in blood then I rather suspect he would have been caught before the end of the sequence.

I disagree with this conclusion. The carotid artery, if completely severed can spurt blood 6-8 inches vertically and almost two feet laterally (ballbark estimates). If the artery is only nicked spray distance can increase exponentially. The artery is under pressure. All complete severances begin with a nick, thus some short burst of arterial spray is unavoidable. If the heart is no longer beating the spray is reduced, but pressure still exists, thus there will be some spray. Also, the mutilations alone would have presented an issue. I know my wife was quite disturbed a few years ago when I had my triceps tendon reattached. Obviously, no arteries were severed and the procedure was done under ideal lighting conditions with me - the victim, if you will - out cold and in the ideal position for surgery of this type. Still, when he came out to tell my wife how things went, he had my blood all over his lower arms and the front of his shirt.

Did the killer have a reason to be on those streets at those times, or did he purposely go out to commit the crimes and then go back to wherever he came from and go about his life?
Serial killers tend to kill when they have the opportunity to kill.
If the culprit was a working man with a family – and plenty of serial killers are – then in late Victorian London, when would he have the opportunity to kill?


When would he be able to go out in the dead of the night and find his victims and the return, without raising suspicion at home?
I would suggest that unless he had a ready excuse to go out at that time – for example to go to work - then his vicious and violent instincts would have remained as unfulfilled fantasies.

This would seem to be conclusion reached to fit your suspect. Cross/Lechmere was a working man, a family man. Thus, your conclusion makes sense. However, I think it's far more likely that the murderer was not a family man, was not married. My opinion would be that the mere fact that JtR was never apprehended lends credence to the conclusion that this was an isolated loner. No one was close enough to him or there to observe odd behavior, strange comings and goings, etc. To me, this is simply a more feasible suspect than a family man on his way to work in the morning. Generally, serial killers are compelled to act and consumed by the compulsion. In my view, it's not something you do, if you can, on your way to work.


Plenty of serial killers have killed while at work. The idea that no one would ever kill while on their way to work is an odd one to propose – why not?

Speaking only for me, I''d say that it's certainly not impossible. However, it doesn't seem the most likely scenario. Serial killers who kill at work, I think we can agree, are the exception, not the rule. Again, it more likely that JtR was a loner with the ability to come and go unmolested and relatively unobserved.

Lechmere had worked at Pickfords for twenty years. He stated that his start time was 4 am.

This is a great point. Again, a serial killer with a very stable, long-term employment history is certainly possible. But, again, these are usually not well adjusted, productive members of society. The same psychosis that drives them to kill usually prevent them from functioning, socially and professionally, as you and I might. As the "unlikelyhoods" mount, the more mental leaps one must make to accept Cross/Lechmere as the killer.


Could he have gone back to a hotel? Obvious problems.

What problems are presented by this scenario that are not presented by his reporting for work minutes after committing murder?


Could he have gone back home – unlikely if he had a family – but possible of he was single and had his own place, perhaps a one bedroom flat with a separate entrance, near the mean centre of murders.

Ah! That's more likely! Single and had his own place. Makes sense!

I would like to see any named suspect who has a more secure post murder destination to Lechmere’s.

Let's face it. The chances are the JtR was none of the names suspects, or anyone who's name anyone knows 100+ years on.

The nature of Lechmere’s job meant that he would often have to wait for a long time for his cart to be unloaded. Because of this people were employed to act as cart minders (eg coincidentally Elizabeth Long the Chapman witness). Lechmere could have slipped away for a while even during his hours of employment and may have taken this extra step for the Chapman murder which may have had an additional layer of motivation to it.

Same problems only compounded. Now he's committing murder while on the job. No man has a crystal ball. And I'd make the assumption that since JtR was not caught then he probably did not wish to be caught. Cross/Lechmere would have been taking several huge risks in committing murder while on the clock for Pickfords. Among them: Becoming covered in blood; Being observed shortly before the crime by people (especially near the market near Hanbury street) who see him regularly. Would it not be probably that if Cross/Lechmere had been observed talking to Chapman before the murder someone would have said, 'Hey. I saw the Pickford's guy chatting up the dead woman up while his cart was being loaded!"?); Being caught in the act and having to abandon his cart and/or being instantly recognized as the Pickford's driver. Again, to me this is like robbing a bank while wearing your work ID badge. It's not particularly difficult find someone when you know who they work or see in the area (on a Pickford's cart) daily.

I love a good debate. I've liked Cross in the past. It's only now, in examining your hypotheses that I've really given the negatives serious thought.

Thanks.

[Ben]

Excellent points, Patrick.

[Lechmere]

Patrick
In the Nichols killing certainly, there was no evidence of spray.
I don’t accept your assertions that the culprit, whoever he was, would have been covered in blood.

The example I gave of a family man was indeed explicitly intended to illustrate that if someone like Charles Lechmere was a potential psychopathic serial killer then his opportunities to fulfil his intentions would be restricted and would determine a kill pattern such as occurred. This does not of course prove that it was him – but what we know of his lifestyle fits the pattern well.
For any potential culprit to get off the ground this first base must be covered, in my opinion.

Looking at it neutrally – if any of us truly can – I don’t think we can say that it was more likely that the killer was married or unmarried. Based on what we know of this case, I don’t think that an opinion can sensibly be formed one way or another.

Serial killers come in all shapes and size. In my opinion this sequence shows signs of someone who controls when he acts. Not of someone who gets totally overcome by atavistic passions. Such killers tend to be more careless and easily caught.

The difference between turning up to work in what was probably a near deserted and dirty workplace as one of the first starters, and walking into a hotel with someone on the desk is, I would have thought obvious.

If Charles Lechmere killed Chapman while at work, then I would presume that he would not park his cart in the immediate vicinity. If it was ten minute walk away, that would be quite sufficient distance for no one in the area to know him as the Pickfords driver.

[Ginger]

I had heard that 300 figure before - but the stables area was small - I would have thought big enough for 50 horses maximum. I shall have to seek out that book.

There's an online copy at http://www.victorianlondon.org/publi...6/horse-00.htm I think archive.org has one with illustrations, too. It's an excellent and fascinating book, if you're at all interested in the subject.

[Jon Guy]

If Charles Lechmere killed Chapman while at work, then I would presume that he would not park his cart in the immediate vicinity. If it was ten minute walk away, that would be quite sufficient distance for no one in the area to know him as the Pickfords driver.

The Old Bailey records are full of cases where goods have been stolen from carts whilst the driver nipped inside a building, sometimes the actual cart was stolen, sometimes the horse was taken.
I doubt very much he could leave his cart unattended.

[Lechmere]

Although you seem to illustrate that people did leave their carts unattended!
I would guess it would depend on what he had in the cart - whether it was easy to nick. He may have been empty and waiting for a pick up of goods. Or he may have had a driver's mate of some sort or their may have been cart minders.

[Jon Guy]

Although you seem to illustrate that people did leave their carts unattended!.

Absolutely, but these were thick ordinary chaps who had to learn this lesson the hard way, and not an evil, criminal genius who had worked for the same firm for twenty years.

[Sally]

The Old Bailey records are full of cases where goods have been stolen from carts whilst the driver nipped inside a building, sometimes the actual cart was stolen, sometimes the horse was taken.
I doubt very much he could leave his cart unattended.

Absolutely true - not to mention stolen carts.

A cart would've been expensive to replace - any man who valued his job would think twice about leaving his cart unattended.

[caz]

Patrick
In the Nichols killing certainly, there was no evidence of spray.
I don’t accept your assertions that the culprit, whoever he was, would have been covered in blood.

Hi Lechy,

I don't want to speak for Patrick here, but surely the point is not that the killer was covered in blood (although it has to remain a possibility, at least with some of these attacks), but that unless he had prior experience (prior to Nichols, that is) of cutting a throat and mutilating an abdomen in such a way as to avoid getting any blood on him at all, he could hardly have been confident, in the darkness of Buck's Row, and on his onward journey to his place of work, that he had not accidentally got splashed with some of the sticky red stuff, particularly in places where it would have been impossible for him to check without stripping off all his outer clothing and inspecting all the otherwise hard-to-reach bits. For example, if there had been blood on the back of his sleeves, trousers or jacket, he wouldn't have been able to see it for himself, but anyone he met with afterwards might have done.

Would it have been a risk worth taking, and would it have paid off? Clearly yes, if Lechmere did kill on the way to work, taking his knife on each occasion and any innards he had collected, and did manage to avoid all the blood, or nobody noticed any on him. But that would then suggest a highly reckless individual who perhaps felt he could get away with anything, in which case why would he have put himself through the whole carefully choreographed charade with Paul, then PC Mizen, then at the inquest, when he could simply have done a runner and denied everything if stopped along the way? Remember, in either scenario he would have been relying on no blood stains to incriminate him, so from his point of view who could then have put him at the scene if he didn't put himself there?

Love,

Caz
X