A new critique of the Cross/Lechmere theory from Stewart Evans

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"That's what I was saying. Fish seemed to be saying that there was no evidence of motive as regards Kosminski ..."

Pay less attention to what I "seem" to be saying, Robert, and more to what I actually say. Phil asked for evidence, and I pointed out that when it comes to factual evidence, Kosminski comes up with very little. And itīs hearsay to boot.

In that context, the pulled-down dress, the Mizen scam, the long time it took to walk from Doveton Street to Buckīs Row etc, etc, etc, represent real evidence. And a lot more too.

So you see, Robert, what you thought I "seemed" to say and what I DID say were two different things. Plus it implicated that I either suppressed or had no knowledge of the alleged "great hatred of women" on Kosminskis behalf. I do not wish for me to be represented in such a manner.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil H:


Fisherman:

And if I will accept genuine feedback and comment, Phil - then where should I look for it?

Not from me unless I see evidence of an openness expressed by actually reading and responding to points made other than by boringly re-iterating the same tired litany.

I don't think I have ever seen you admit the weakness of the case - so how can one discuss anything? Your current approach simply responds by repetition, not by a desire to actually deconstruct the evidence and look at it from more than one perspective.

The thing is, Phil - why would I admit that the case was weak when I think the exact opposite?

As for the details of the case against Lechmere, I have said over and over again that each and every little thing that I think points to guilt on his behalf can also be read as being innocent.

What more can I do? Get on my knees and confess that the innocent scenario is the better one? I really donīt think it is, see. I truly believe that Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, and I do so because I find that there are too many details pointing to him for it all to be a more likely case of innocence.

But to state that I only repeat? What would you have me do when, for example, for the umpteenth time it is said that Lechmere could have called himself Cross colloquially? Think up a fresh new explanation every time to why I donīt agree? There is one reason and one reason only that I donīt agree - he NEVER represented himself as Cross other than on the murder night.
What other answer could I give?

Could he have called himself Cross colloquially? Yes, the offhand chance is there. And I have said so thousands of times already. What more can I do? Which answer should I give to avoid repetition? You tell me!

As for deconstructing the evidence, I donīt think anybody has gone further in that direction than Edward and me. We have been over each little syllable and asked ourselves "what does this mean?" and "how can it be interpreted" more times than I can count. When I presented the Mizen scam, I added that an alternative explanation could be that Lechmere simply was in a rush and wanted to get past Mizen. I donīt favour that explanation, but since I had looked at it all from different angles, I mentioned the possibility.

What more can I do? I donīt know. But I know what YOU could do: list the three most telling objections to the Lechmere theory, to your mind. And then YOU try to look at them from all angles. And then YOU try and estimate to what extent they do any real damage to the theory.

Who knows, you may surprise yourself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Robert - we clearly are of a mind.



Phil

[Robert]

Hi Phil

That's what I was saying. Fish seemed to be saying that there was no evidence of motive as regards Kosminski, so I mentioned Macnaghten's remarks on his hatred of women, and said that there was no corresponding evidence that Cross hated women.

The same thing applies, of course, regarding contemporary suspicion. Kosminki seems to have been suspected, but Cross wasn't.

Of course, we can't say that Kosminski was the killer. He seems a good candidate for research, though.

[Phil H]

Robert

The tying of Kosminski to the murders is not a modern "conceit" - it dates back to the officials close to the case at the time.

Sensible people do not, I think, try to "pin the murders" on Kosminski (whether Aaron or another). That, in our present state of knowledge would surely be futile.

Rather energies, such as Rob House's, are best used trying to improve our knowledge of Kosminski and his family. We know now much more than we used to.

As I see it, Kosminski is a plausible suspect because:

a) there was suspicion of him at the time (that apparently extended to an exceptional attempt at identification);
b) he was deranged enough to end up in an institution;
c) we have snippets of information from Swanson that suggest he was a concern to those who knew him;
d) nothing has emerged that makes him implausible and a good deal that makes him a reasonable suspect.

But there is nothing to tie him into any of the murders specifically. maybe there never was - only suspicion.

NONE of this applies to Cross/Lechmere. He evidently did not create enough suspicion at the time to warrant anyone considering him as the killer. Yet he was known to the authorities. I can see very little more reason to make him than the killer than (say) Richardson - who's testimony has been questioned; Indian Harry Bowyer; or Albert Cadoche - who's integrity has been besmirched. All "could have had" opportunity - and were in a similar relation to the body as Cross (unless one places significance only on selected aspects of the case.

Fisherman's case relies so heavily on special pleading and the interpretation of events connected to the first killing being extended to all the others, that it defies logical critique. There is nothing of logic to it - save a desire to argue in a certain line.

While that might be momentarily amusing, I suggest making it a self-contained theory is a waste of time and breath.

Fisherman:

And if I will accept genuine feedback and comment, Phil - then where should I look for it?

Not from me unless I see evidence of an openness expressed by actually reading and responding to points made other than by boringly re-iterating the same tired litany.

I don't think I have ever seen you admit the weakness of the case - so how can one discuss anything? Your current approach simply responds by repetition, not by a desire to actually deconstruct the evidence and look at it from more than one perspective.

I am always suspicious, I'll admit, of those who pursue only a single suspect though. Even those with contemporary underpinnings.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As I remarked earlier, Cross comes into the Hutchinson bracket.
They are both witnesses, albeit Cross did see a body, but both have no motive that is known, to fulfill a roll as a homicidal maniac.
We simply should not seriously suggest that one of the two is a strong suspect warranted enough to fill page after page of posts, when it is highly unlikely to say the least.
People like Druitt, Kosminsky, Tumblety,Fleming,Maybrick, and a host of other much discussed suspects surely take preference over Cross, although I fully accept that the culprit most likely is someone else, possibly connected to one of the victims.
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

Fish, one mustn't over-egg the pudding :

"But ANY evidence of motive, of involvement with any other murder, of contemporary suspicion... anything that ties him to another murder in the series (and not just passing the spot) might help you. None of that would convince me - but it might help to strengthen your case."

"U-huh. And how does this apply to, say, Kos?"

Macnaghten said Kosminski had a great hatred of women. Not much evidence as to motive - but it scores in this respect over Cross, who is not known to have harboured any misogynistic thoughts.

[Fisherman]

There is no point in discussing this further, Fisherman. Your mind is closed, you simply babble the same nonsense ad infinitum without actually reading what other's write or pondering what they mean. Your posts are, as i have said, without discernment or discrimination.

We are ships that pass in the night, I regret.

If you won't accept genuine feedback and comment, I have no more to say.

Phil

And if I will accept genuine feedback and comment, Phil - then where should I look for it?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

There is no point in discussing this further, Fisherman. Your mind is closed, you simply babble the same nonsense ad infinitum without actually reading what other's write or pondering what they mean. Your posts are, as i have said, without discernment or discrimination.

We are ships that pass in the night, I regret.

If you won't accept genuine feedback and comment, I have no more to say.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

It is in the evidence that he used the name Cross instead of Lechmere.
It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.
It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.
It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there.

And therein is the weakness that underlies almost every post you make, Fisherman. Not one of these things contributes one iota to a case against Lechmere/Cross unless you can produce something much more solid that makes the man a murderer.

Of course they do. Itīs just that you donīt acknowledge it.

There are many reasons why a man might give a false name. Maybe - how can we know - he was always known as "Cross" at work by his mates and colleagues? Maybe he had something else to hide that day. Of itself it does not make him a murderer.

Of course it doesnīt. All it does is to raise one red flag - of many - urging us to look closer at the man. You may propose that it was something that should not have us taking any interest at all in him, but you would be woefully wrong to do so; giving a false name to the police is by definition suspicious.

It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.

Nope! We have no solid pattern of how the killer worked.

But that was not what I said, was it? I said that the clothing was covering the wounds in Nichols case, which sets it apart from the other murders.

It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.

Misheard, misreported, misunderstood - equally good explanations.

And it STILL is in the evidence that Mizen claimed that Lechmere said this - which was what I said.

It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there

I have often taken longer to reach a destination than I intended, but not because I paused to kill someone en route!!! there are many innocent reasons for delay.

Yes, absolutely. But how does that delete the information from the evidence?

The arguments you set out are a pack of cards made into a house - the slightest wind will knock it all down. The case has no foundation. And I write as someone not unsympathetic to the idea.

The arguments set out make for a good case - the best we can make, in fact, when it comes to mapping a suspect. It will take something substantial to knock it down, and nothing at all has been presented that has produced the mildest gust. The case stands on a good foundation. And I also write as somebody not unsympathetic to the idea.

See, Phil? Talking wonīt do it. Testing, evidencing, proving - thatīs the stuff you will need to shoot the theory down.

What amazes me is that someone as obviously intelligent and knowledgable about the case as you are, should put all your eggs in such a flimsy basket - it is visibly straining already.

You CLAIM it is straining - but you have absolutely nothing to bolster it with. "He could have called himself Cross colloquially". Thatīs blaha-blaha, not least since not one of the recorded instances of his giving his name has anything else to say than "Lechmere". His kids were called Lechmere, his wife was called Lechmere, his post was delivered to the Lechmere household, so clinging on to the idea that he called himself Cross colloquially has nothing going for it but the pleasure of being able to say that we canīt be a 100 per cent sure that he was always Charles Allen Lechmere. Itīs precious little, but you can have it. What you canīt do, however, is to claim that it in any fashion "strains" the case.

These things are in the evidence.

You are not being discriminating as to the kind of evidence, however - whether inquest testimony or newspaper reports - you lump chalk and cheese together.

All the material belonging to the case should be regarded as evidence material, Phil. We sometimes only have the papers to turn to, and no matter the lacking quality of much of this material, it does belong to the bits and pieces we have to go on when building a case.
We must draw a firm line between evidence and proof, and it would seem not all people are able to do so.

What is NOT evidenced is that Lechmere killed Nichols.

Precisely!!!

Mmm - precisely. There is evidence material involved that can be interpreted as pointing to guilt on his behalf, and the way I read it, it is enough to make for a compelling case. It is not enough to conclude that he must have been the killer, though.

But when did such a thing stop speculations about men who cannot even be shown to have been anywhere near any of the murder spots at the relevant hours; Kosminski, Tumblety, Druitt ...?

The three men you mention are contemporary suspects (Cross is not) mentioned by senior officials by name. THAT is why they are still studied.

I know that. Does not put them one millimeter closer to the murder spots, though.

Cross is akin to Van Gogh, Barnardo or Dodgson with one exception - he discovered a body.

Donīt be bitter, Phil. It leads you ridiculously astray.

So what evidence is it you need?

None - because there is none.

Wrong again.

But ANY evidence of motive, of involvement with any other murder, of contemporary suspicion... anything that ties him to another murder in the series (and not just passing the spot) might help you. None of that would convince me - but it might help to strengthen your case.

U-huh. And how does this apply to, say, Kos?

If so, then even the sand is lacking in the Kosminski, Tumblety and Druitt cases.

NO. You habitually ignore the vital point that, as I mentioned above, these three men were mentioned by those in a position to have inside information in 1888(ish).

I guess they all did it, then.

Cross is different.

You can say that again.

Thus, while we are unable to explain excatly why these three were thought of interest - the fact remains they were. Study of them is thus NOT based on the sand but on evidence (albeit indirect) from the time.

Lost evidence, Phil. It could have been everything from a neighbours hunch to possession of a knife. No matter what it was, that sand has run out of the time glass. Itīs gone. No sand.

"Never" is a long, long time, Phil. Much interest has already been returned on the Lechmere "investment". And my feeling is that there is more to come.

I'm an optimist by nature but I never was a wishful thinker. It's your time and effort you expend on this nonsense. If you want to appear a daft eccentric, far be it from me to stop you.

Letīs just say that I prefer that to being a bitter looser with no point to make.

All the very best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Is Lechmere no better as a suspect than the other witnesses who appear in the case (e.g. Richardson or McCarthy) or indeed better than any of a random sample of 10,000 faceless East Enders?

Hi Edward

You have to agree that Richardson is in a different league to McCarthy (not sure what was dodgy about McCarthy) and Lechmere when it comes to possible dodgy witnesses.

[Phil H]

That would depend, Phil.

It is in the evidence that he used the name Cross instead of Lechmere.
It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.
It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.
It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there.

And therein is the weakness that underlies almost every post you make, Fisherman.

Not one of these things contributes one iota to a case against Lechmere/Cross unless you can produce something much more solid that makes the man a murderer.

There are many reasons why a man might give a false name. Maybe - how can we know - he was always known as "Cross" at work by his mates and colleagues? Maybe he had something else to hide that day. Of itself it does not make him a murderer.

It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.

Nope! We have no solid pattern of how the killer worked.

It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.

Misheard, misreported, misunderstood - equally good explanations.

It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there.

I have often taken longer to reach a destination than I intended, but not because I paused to kill someone en route!!! there are many innocent reasons for delay.

The arguments you set out are a pack of cards made into a house - the slightest wind will knock it all down. The case has no foundation. And I write as someone not unsympathetic to the idea.

What amazes me is that someone as obviously intelligent and knowledgable about the case as you are, should put all your eggs in such a flimsy basket - it is visibly straining already.

These things are in the evidence.

You are not being discriminating as to the kind of evidence, however - whether inquest testimony or newspaper reports - you lump chalk and cheese together.

What is NOT evidenced is that Lechmere killed Nichols.

Precisely!!!

But when did such a thing stop speculations about men who cannot even be shown to have been anywhere near any of the murder spots at the relevant hours; Kosminski, Tumblety, Druitt ...?

The three men you mention are contemporary suspects (Cross is not) mentioned by senior officials by name. THAT is why they are still studied.

Cross is akin to Van Gogh, Barnardo or Dodgson with one exception - he discovered a body.

So what evidence is it you need?

None - because there is none. But ANY evidence of motive, of involvement with any other murder, of contemporary suspicion... anything that ties him to another murder in the series (and not just passing the spot) might help you. None of that would convince me - but it might help to strengthen your case.

If so, then even the sand is lacking in the Kosminski, Tumblety and Druitt cases.

NO. You habitually ignore the vital point that, as I mentioned above, these three men were mentioned by those in a position to have inside information in 1888(ish). Cross is different. Thus, while we are unable to explain excatly why these three were thought of interest - the fact remains they were. Study of them is thus NOT based on the sand but on evidence (albeit indirect) from the time.

"Never" is a long, long time, Phil. Much interest has already been returned on the Lechmere "investment". And my feeling is that there is more to come.

I'm an optimist by nature but I never was a wishful thinker. It's your time and effort you expend on this nonsense. If you want to appear a daft eccentric, far be it from me to stop you.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

The simple truth (now there's a title for a book!) in regard to Crossmere (or should that be Lecheross?) is that however alluring the theory maybe (and it is, to me at least) there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it.

That would depend, Phil.

It is in the evidence that he used the name Cross instead of Lechmere.
It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.
It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.
It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there.

... and so on and so forth. These things are in the evidence. What is NOT evidenced is that Lechmere killed Nichols. But when did such a thing stop speculations about men who cannot even be shown to have been anywhere near any of the murder spots at the relevant hours; Kosminski, Tumblety, Druitt ...?

So what evidence is it you need?

The elaborate edifices which Fisherman and Lechmere construct to take their ideas forward are based on sand - there is no substance there.

If so, then even the sand is lacking in the Kosminski, Tumblety and Druitt cases.

The circumstantial support for the proposal is intriguing and not implausible, but the theorising is being taken too far.

Much of the "theorizing" is coming forth in the shape of responses to claims like "he could not have hidden the innards at Pickfords", "He must have run instead of waiting for Paul to arrive" and "He would never have given the wrong name but the right address". When these claims are made, it is of the essence that it is shown that they are presumptions that may be very wrong. And this you can only show by exemplifying with alternative, equally valid scenarios.

When we start to discuss what the man might have said to his wife, or his motivation in using a certain name (in the absence of any personal diaries, letters, memoirs or other papers etc that might give us an insight) we should detect at once that we are on impossible ground and pull back.

See the above.

Too much hot air being expended on something frankly that is not worth it and which will never return interest on the investment.

"Never" is a long, long time, Phil. Much interest has already been returned on the Lechmere "investment". And my feeling is that there is more to come.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

The simple truth (now there's a title for a book!) in regard to Crossmere (or should that be Lecheross?) is that however alluring the theory maybe (and it is, to me at least) there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it.

The elaborate edifices which Fisherman and Lechmere construct to take their ideas forward are based on sand - there is no substance there.

The circumstantial support for the proposal is intriguing and not implausible, but the theorising is being taken too far.

When we start to discuss what the man might have said to his wife, or his motivation in using a certain name (in the absence of any personal diaries, letters, memoirs or other papers etc that might give us an insight) we should detect at once that we are on impossible ground and pull back.

Too much hot air being expended on something frankly that is not worth it and which will never return interest on the investment.

Phil

[Fisherman]

As for the discussion of the names Cross and Lechmere, it deserves mentioning that Lechmeresīmother wed Thomas Cross in 1858. And since the latter presented Charles in the 1861 census as "Charles Cross", one may perhaps speculate that Thomas Cross automatically provided his name to his stepson as he married his mother.

However, Charles was baptized in the year after the wedding of his mother to Thomas Cross. And he was not baptized Cross, but instead Lechmere! And as far as we can tell, whenever he was asked to sign his name, Lechmere was the name he used throughout his life with the one exception. And you know which.

Given that, and given that it is said that the Lechmere theory is one of maybes and possibles, I find it a bit strange that his using the name Cross when communicating with the police over a murder matter in which he was found alone by the body is glossed over with little interest for the implications.

We all do things differently, I guess.

The best,
Fisherman