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

[Fisherman]

Robert:

The problem of how the killer cleaned himself up/disguised the bloodstains/whether or not he donned old clothes for the murders etc is a problem for any theory, whoever the suspect is. But it is a particular problem for the Cross theory because the man was actually turning up at work a few minutes after committing the murders.

Just like you say, any killer who had blood on him - and we cannot possibly know to what extent that applied in the Ripper´s case - would have to move from the murder spot to his bolthole. Given that the murders did not all take place at the same spot, we must conclude that the murderer travelled considerable stretches from the killing spots to his lair. It therefore stands to reason that he would not have been bathed in blood when doing so - that would not have gone unnoticed.
Of course, he could have the appearance of a butcher, and if so, he would look less suspicious. But in the context of the fright that broke out and increased, I think it will be a safe bet that even a butcher would have been remembered afterwards by people close by the murder scenes.

So, Robert. logic dictates that our man was not soaked in blood as he took to the streets. If he had some blood on his hands, he could have shoved them in his pockets, quite simply, and nobody would see, especially not in the prevailing darkness.

You are correct in stating that Lechmere´s going to work after the strikes - if this was what happened - adds to the problems. However, if he could walk the streets unnoticed, then by reason he could also sneak into Pickfords equally unnoticed. And the problem is directly related to how many people he encountered at Pickford´s as he arrived. Hundreds? Big problem. Two or three? Much smaller problem. None? No problem.


Furthermore he has to hide the organs at his place of work. If the hidey-hole was in his own special area then the risk of discovery was less but the evidence in the event of discovery more damning. If the hidey-hole was in a communal area then the evidence was less damning but the risk of discovery greater.

If he had the organs with him as he arrived at work - and we don´t know - then yes he would have to hide them. Or destroy them, if such an opportunity was there. And yes, if his hiding place was personal, it would point him out if found. So we need to ask ourselves: was he a risktaker ...?

Tough one, that!

Anyway, the whole thing sounds bizarre, or maybe it's just me.

No, it´s not just you. It IS bizarre. Serial killers are bizarre. Life is bizarre. Taking innard with you on a walk is bizarre. And me having to enlighten you about such things is kind of ... you know ... bizarre.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert: Hi Fish

Well, first of all I don't see Kelly's killer as a punter whom she brought home but I don't want to sidetrack things by getting into all that, so for the sake of argument I'll accept your scenario that she brought Cross home. So why did he let her undress? Was he going to have sex with her?

I don´t have a must-be scenario, Robert. But if Kelly did bring him home with him, then he was faced with other scenarios and opportunities than he would have been on the street. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes - none of these women would strip naked for him, And he would have been aware that time was of the essence in those cases - killing in public carries risks with it.
Not so in the Kelly case - he would suddenly have been enjoying the luxury of being able to take HIS time, and nobody else´s. So how about he actually enjoyed Kelly undressing. Naked people are vulnerable people, sort of. He may have liked to let that scenario unfold, feeling secure as it did.

Just a guess on my behalf, of course. But since you seem unable to come up with such guesses yourself ...

I'll also for the sake of argument adopt an earlier TOD for Chapman to give him time to kill her and get to work. He doesn't seem to wash his hands in the yard, but let's suppose he does that somewhere or other.

Ah - but remember that if he killed her before 4 o clock, the yard would have been submerged in darkness. That could explain why he perhaps never even saw the jar of water in the first place!

The thing is, having Cross kill Nichols opportunistically might work - man on way to work sees drunken prostitute staggering in the road, quickly kills her.

It might at a pinch work for Chapman too.

But with Kelly and Tabram, you have him leaving extra early in order to find and kill a victim. So the question is, how many times do you think he did this?

I think all the murders were premeditated. Not in the meaning that he targetted the canonical five specifically, but I do think he went out every time he killed with the clear intention to find himself a victim and kill her. This is why I don´t think we must trust him when he gave the time of departure from Doveton Street as 3.20 on the Nichols murder morning. He could quite well have left earlier and lied about it, 3.20 perhaps being the time he told his wife was his normal departure time.

Are we to assume that these were the only two occasions when he left early, and that he hit the bullseye both times? Or did he leave early on other nights, but had no luck - maybe he had to abort the attack because he heard a noise?

I think I have already answered that one by now. But yes, he may well have missed out on several occasions, arriving at Pickfords unsatisfied. But there was always a next morning, was there not?

As for the noise, I did not hear that, Robert.

You see, given your premiss that the Ripper went out positively looking for women to murder, then I can well imagine the Ripper trudging round all night until he felt confident enough to kill a woman - no one coming, the spot secluded enough etc - provided the Ripper was unemployed. If however you have the Ripper employed, then one has to ask, realistically how many times could he do this? It seems to require that the Ripper struck lucky more or less every time that he tried. And yes, this is an objection to Druitt too, though not to, say, Kosminski or Cutbush or Tumblety.

If his family was sound asleep, he could take off early as often as he wanted to. If his wife awoke and realized that he had gone off earlier than normally, then he could always say he needed to start earlier that day. What would Mrs Lechmere do? Go to Pickfords and try to have it confirmed...?

BTW, to Lechmere : I think you said that Cross had a large family (apologies if wrong). I would venture to suggest that Cross would have had more privacy in a common lodging house than he would have at home.

He HAD a large family. But he did not kill in Doveton Street - he left his family behind before doing so, and he seemingly used Pickfords both to wash up and to store the innards.

I really don´t see what problem a large family would add to this overall picture. Can you explain?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Sneak into work unnoticed? Bit desperate, isn't it, Fish? Surely he would have had to sign in and collect his schedule for the day. Yes, serial killers can be bizarre, but this man is supposed to have murdered for example Chapman, and trusted to his ability to sneak into work unnoticed with a piece of bladder in one pocket, a womb in a second and a bloody knife in a third, but with spotless clothing and clean hands. Yep, it's bizarre, Fish.

The point about the family was in reply to Lechmere who said that there was no privacy in a common lodging house. I think Cross had even less privacy at home. For instance, presumably once home on Sept 30th he had to hide the knife, the womb and the kidney.

[Lechmere]

Robert

Lechmere worked at Pickfords Broad Street – not at a bank, barrister’s chambers, school or some sort of office job.
It was a carriage business – with stables, and warehouse.
There would have been as many horses as in a cavalry regiment. Each with stables. There would have been separate areas where the carts and wagons were kept.
There would have been tackle rooms.
There would have been a water supply to clean down the yards, horses and wagons.

Did he have to sign in each day? I doubt it. Would the work rota be ready at 4 am? I suspect the first task would be to get the horses and carts ready.

He had worked at Broad Street since the Goods Station opened in 1868.
He would have been experienced – probably trusted, probably with reasonably high status among his peers.
After nearly every street murder (except the double event - possibly) his work place would have been a refuge – a place nearby to get off the streets when it was still dark and quiet, to clean himself up (if necessary – who knows if it was), to merge in once he was ready.
It gave him an excuse to be on the streets if questioned.

Did he have to keep he body parts with him?
Do you know what the culprit did with the body parts? How long he kept them for?
Do you have any idea how bulky they were?
Maybe there was a guard dog at Pickfords that he liked to feed.
Maybe he had a private cubby hole in his stable where he kept various bits and pieces. Maybe his status there meant no one dared venture into his cubby hole.
Maybe he had private areas in the part of the house his family lived in – that his wife and children were forbidden to access – a locked chest or something. He was at least theoretically master in his own house (I don’t know what his relationship was like with his wife admittedly).
There was zero opportunity for any sort of discretion in a Common Lodging House.

You don’t know these things and neither do I – but to think they represent unique reasons to debar Lechmere as a potential culprit is quite frankly risible… bizarre even.

He wouldn’t be the first serial killer to kill on his way to or even while at work – but if he was then why wouldn’t he be the first (eh – Wickerman???).

If you were a lodger – then where could you keep body parts in privacy?
If you stayed in a hotel– then where could you keep body parts in privacy?
If you stayed with your family – then where could you keep body parts in privacy?
If you lived at a school – then where could you keep body parts in privacy?
If you lived in a doss house – then where could you keep body parts in privacy?

If you were a lodger – then how could you return to your dwelling each night of a murder bathed in blood?
If you stayed in a hotel– then how could you return to your dwelling each night of a murder bathed in blood?
If you stayed with your family – then how could you return to your dwelling each night of a murder bathed in blood?
If you lived at a school – then how could you return to your dwelling each night of a murder bathed in blood?

Actually before you answer there were (and still are but they don’t work) numerous water fountains and taps that could be used to clean up – if you know the area that is.

Regarding your note to Fisherman about Lechmere finding victims, I take it as read that the culprit will have been out and about with murderous intent on numerous occasions and not found a suitable victim in a suitable location.
I think that if the culprit was Charles Lechmere then he will have done the same.
he will have left for work maybe 15 or 20 minutes earlier than necessary – maybe more know knows?
He could have done this 100 times without striking gold (gold only in his eyes of course).
I would guess the first couple of times he might have taken longer to select, he may have vacillated. He may have botched it up (Millwood – Wilson?)
There is absolutely no reason why Charles Lechmere could not have done this.

Lechmere had reason to be on the streets if asked.

Did Druitt, Tumblety, Cutbush or Kosminsky? No.
Would Tumblety have been able to wander about looking for a victim and not get noticed? He would probably put an advert in the papers announcing his intention in advance.

Did Druitt or Tumblety have anywhere near by as a place of refuge – to get them off the streets soon after an attack? Somewhere to privately hide bloody organs?
Would Kosminsky have a private place to secure bloody organs?
Would he be noticed by his family if he returned home on the night of every murder bathed in blood (as you seem to picture the culprit).

If it is bizarre that Lechmere could go to work, is it not more bizarre for Druitt to play in a cricket match after murdering someone – and how did he wash that blood off if it was so difficult for Lechmere (that is for you Wickerman as you are a bit of a Druitt fancier). I haven’t seen that being characterised as bizarre.

Would it not be bizarre for Tumblety to commit an act of gross indecency while covered in blood after killing Nichols? Doesn't that sound bizarre?

On the night of the double event – there is a possibility that Lechmere went back to Pickfords and left his stuff there – that would explain the apparent time discrepancy for the depositing of the apron at Goulston Street. However I personally suspect that PC Long missed it when he went passed the doorway first time.
By the time he got back to Doveton Street it would have been about 2 am (if he did not detour via Pickfords).
I would expect his wife and children to be asleep. They would be if he detoured as well.
I would guess they all slept in one room. But he didn’t just have one room.
I presume he had a regular place to keep the knife.
If he still had the body parts then I guess he would only take them back there if he knew he had somewhere to keep them.

Is there any reason why the culprit had to keep hold of these body parts for any length of time?
The kidney sent to Lusk perhaps?
He could have done that – wouldn’t rule it out. It wouldn’t have been impossible for him to keep it.

Being a long term employee at a carriage works by a goods depot, where he had to start very early in the morning before most workers were up, actually is a big bonus in Lechmere’s potential culprit status.
It is utterly bizarre to try and paint it otherwise.

Take a look at the other suspects and try playing the same parlour game – how did they get themselves off the streets covered in blood (or even just specked in blood a bit) and how did they secure the body parts?

[Fisherman]

Sneak into work unnoticed? Bit desperate, isn't it, Fish? Surely he would have had to sign in and collect his schedule for the day. Yes, serial killers can be bizarre, but this man is supposed to have murdered for example Chapman, and trusted to his ability to sneak into work unnoticed with a piece of bladder in one pocket, a womb in a second and a bloody knife in a third, but with spotless clothing and clean hands. Yep, it's bizarre, Fish.

The point about the family was in reply to Lechmere who said that there was no privacy in a common lodging house. I think Cross had even less privacy at home. For instance, presumably once home on Sept 30th he had to hide the knife, the womb and the kidney.

I notice that you´ve had a lengthy answer to your quiries by Edward. He makes a number of very good points, and I don´t think I need to expand on them.

However, there is one thing left unanswered - your proposition that had to return home and hide knife, womb and kidney on the 30:th of September.

Couple this, if you will, with what Edward writes - Lechmere was a man who had spent twenty years plus in Pickford´s service. He may well have been a very trusted employee, enjoying another status that any newbie.

One scenario that is sometimes on my mind involves the possibility that Lechmere was some sort of foreman, and actually arrived first at his department at Pickfords, opening it up. He could have had the keys to the premises where his horse and cart were.
It´s just a suggestion, of course, but one that may well be true. And if so, please note that instead of heading for Doveton Street after killing Stride, he instead seemingly headed straight for - Pickfords! He found Eddowes, slew her, and then what?
What if he went to his stable at Pickfords, used his keys, opened up and stashed the innards and cleaned up there?

Bizarre? Not one bit. He was very nearby. Plus, remember what Long said about that apron piece - it was NOT there as he passed the Goulston Street doorway the first time, but when he did so next time, it suddenly was.

A very neat explanation to that particular riddle, thus. Lechmere dropped the apron after having cleaned up and stashed the innards at Pickfords.

Was that what happened? We will probably never be sure. But we can see that it solves the riddle with the supposedly untimely deposit of the apron, as per Long. And that´s not half bad, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Come, come Fisherman - read by post properly - I allowed for your scenario!

[jmenges]

Possibly, probably, maybe, maybe, maybe. It appears to me from the last two lengthy posts that building a case against Cross calls for a massive amount of imagination. Hopefull make-believe. Just state the unknowns as facts and there may be a few books in the theory a la R Michael Gordon. Sorry guys, you'll have to do better than this for me to find it at all compelling. It is, after all, an accusation of multiple murder.

My opinion.

Thanks

JM

[Jenni Shelden]

Dear thread,
saying that other theories have a problem is not a credible way to explain problems with your theory.

The fact of the matter is that we don't know who Jack the Ripper is so we dont know how they did anything. But if we are saying Cross was the killer then there are certain things we do know about him, eg where he worked, that he had a family and etc so there is nothing wrong with questioning how he could have been the killer.

I think this kind of argument belongs in the playground, lets concentrate on the suspect in hand and what we know about him, dont you think

Jenni

ps and before you accuse me of not being open minded, worrying about how Druitt walked the streets covered in blood is off topic!!

[Jenni Shelden]

Dear thread,
here's my problem with what I consider to be your main case against Cross. The idea that he gave a fake name. All well and good, but its not true, he gave a correct forename and he gave a name he was known to have used in the past (albeit perhaps given by his stepfather/mother as his name), that is the surname of his stepfather and hence mother the name of Cross. He also gave the correct details of his place of work. If one was trying to hide their identity, one would expect a much better job of it. How about Ron Davies, Mark Arthurs, James Bean, Billy Taylor, Gilbert Prince, Roger Taylor, Brian May, ? Everything else in this theory requires him to be remarkably quite witted and cool under pressure and yet he couldnt even come up with a proper flase identity? Am I missing something?

Jenni

[Wickerman]

Possibly, probably, maybe, maybe, maybe. It appears to me from the last two lengthy posts that building a case against Cross calls for a massive amount of imagination. Hopefull make-believe. Just state the unknowns as facts and there may be a few books in the theory a la R Michael Gordon. Sorry guys, you'll have to do better than this for me to find it at all compelling. It is, after all, an accusation of multiple murder.

My opinion.

Thanks

JM

Every so often a glimmer of common sense emerges from the quagmire...

I think the definition of 'suspect' has been hopelessly lost.

[Robert]

Hi Lechmere

Thanks for your suggestion that Cross may have taken the organs to feed to the dog. I hadn't seen that one before. Doubtless the dog welcomed him with a discreet bark.

No, he wouldn't have had an excuse for being on the streets :

PC : 'Ere, what are you doing on the streets at 2.30 AM?

CROSS : I'm on my way to start work at 4 AM.

This place that had as many horses as a cavalry regiment sounds uncomfortably crowded to me. Even Fish seems to worry about it :

"Hundreds? Big problem. Two or three? Much smaller problem. None? No problem."

One thing's for sure, Lechmere had stamina, leaving home miles too early and trudging round looking for someone to kill before starting a hard day's work. Don't get me wrong : if I had a wife and 8 kids I'D want to get out of the house at every opportunity. But I'd be looking for somewhere to have a quiet smoke, not trudging round looking for a suitable victim.

Fish, re your foreman suggestion, I checked his census occupation for 1891 on Find My Past (I Googled "Find My Parts" by mistake!). He doesn't say "Foreman, Pickfords" which is what I'd expect someone as conscious of his position as Cross supposedly was to say. Doesn't prove anything, of course.

[Lechmere]

Robert raised issues that we cannot possibly know the answer to, but his presumption was that these issues were somehow fatal to Charles Lechmere’s potential as a suspect.
I merely pointed out that none of them were fatal although – yes – we don’t know the answer.
These issues are not ‘problems’ with this theory. It was postulated that they were – but they are not.
Charles Lechmere’s suspect status is not based on these maybe’s.

I haven’t had time to properly compose an answer to Stewart Evans’s objections – patience.

I only mentioned the other suspects to illustrate routine gross suspect hypocrisy where great leaps of faith and conjecture in respect of the supposedly established suspects are routinely glossed over (or passed off as fact) with not so much as a whisper – yet insignificant non issues are raised against Lechmere.

Jenni
The main case against Charles Lechmere isn’t based on his using the name Cross. That is merely (perhaps the word merely isn’t quite appropriate) how he latterly came to notice.

‘he gave a name he was known to have used in the past’
This is incorrect. He was twelve when his step father completed a census return that recorded his name in that way.

We have over 100 instances when this man’s name was recorded - in census returns, birth, baptismal marriage and death certificates, electoral registers, trade directories, school records, rate records and other sources. On either side of the autumn of 1888.
He is never ever listed under the name Cross apart from in the 1861 census and when he appeared after finding the murdered body of Polly Nichols.
You may think that signifies nothing and you may think up all sorts of maybes to excuse his use of Cross in 1888.
I could equally come up with all sorts of guilty maybes as to why he might use Cross, and why it would be a clever and sensible nom de plume to choose, together with his real place of work – but we would then be back to those maybe, maybe, maybes - wouldn’t we.
To me it is a red flag that should demand further investigation – and further investigation leads to number of other interesting areas.

I’m not sure why you mentioned those other names. I presume they are all people who usually go under their real name except when they find a dead body?

[Lechmere]

Robert
I am sure – absolutely certain in fact - that one of Charles Lechmere’s worries wasn’t that one of the hundreds of horses would grass him up.

I’m as gratified to know that you would rather look for a somewhere to have a sly smoke as that you would rather eat cereal for breakfast than kill someone. Phew.

[Jenni Shelden]

Dear Lechmere,
it is a name he used in the past, there he is called it on the cenus i.e. using it.

I think your argument against this point is strange, how do you know for how long he was known by the name, perhaps that day, perhaps until he left home and could argue? I have an ancestor who used the name of their step parent and then sometimes the name of their birth. You don't know how he gave the name Cross or if the police knew all his names.

Isnt it a safe bet that the police fully questioned Cross and the other witnesses??

No they were the first names I could think of when thinking of a multitude of fake names Charles Cross could have used rather than his actual first name and the name of his stepfather, which frankly is a crap fake name, that was my only point! As I mentioned earlier what other people do is irrelevant, I was merely pointing out the fact that there are lots of names to choose from.

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

ps what are the facts that you actually think point to his guilt then? Because I am confused and all these threads do not help
Jenni