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

[Robert]

"If so, remember that he would have been very well aware that he was the one to find the body - and alone at that.

I´m sure you can see the implications of giving a false name to the police in a high-profile murder case such as this. If he was innocent, don´t you think that Lechmere would have realized the exact same thing? The risks involved would have been huge."

Wouldn't the risks have been even greater if he had been guilty, Fish?

[Jon Guy]

So what do you suggest? That he would be cautious about giving his real name in connection with a police inquiry?

No, he just gave the name he was known at work and possibly everyday life that would check out. Plus he`d need time off work to appear at the Inquest.
So his boss would know the name Cross.

If so, remember that he would have been very well aware that he was the one to find the body - and alone at that.

Indeed, he hung around asking for help off anothe passer by and then went looking foer a copper.

I´m sure you can see the implications of giving a false name to the police in a high-profile murder case such as this. If he was innocent, don´t you think that Lechmere would have realized the exact same thing? The risks involved would have been huge..

It wasn`t a false name. It was his dad`s name and it looks like he used it in regular life, like at work, with the neighbours and down the pub.

What are the sort of examples of him using Lechmere that you have ?

[Phil H]

I think what you say is highly plausible John.

[Fisherman]

"If so, remember that he would have been very well aware that he was the one to find the body - and alone at that.

I´m sure you can see the implications of giving a false name to the police in a high-profile murder case such as this. If he was innocent, don´t you think that Lechmere would have realized the exact same thing? The risks involved would have been huge."

Wouldn't the risks have been even greater if he had been guilty, Fish?

I see what you mean, Robert. But no, I don´t think so. The risks would have been equally great; he would run the risk of being exposed as a liar.

If he had disposed of the murder weapon and had nothing tying him to the strike, he would therefore be in the exact same position as if he had been innocent. For even as an innocent man, he would have a hard time proving that he could not have done it. He had left home at 3.20 by his own admission, he had found the body around 3.40-3.45, giving him ample time to be the killer.

So in each case, he would be exposed as a liar, but as the killer he would run a well deserved risk of being looked upon as a murderer, whereas as an innocent man he would run the exact same risk undeservedly. In that context, lying as an innocent man carried the same risk but for no good reason.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Ok Fish, so lying carried an equal risk, whether he was innocent or guilty. But what was the advantage to him in lying at all?

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: No, he just gave the name he was known at work and possibly everyday life that would check out. Plus he`d need time off work to appear at the Inquest.
So his boss would know the name Cross.

Eh - the name would NOT check out. He was named Lechmere, remember? That name would check out if he had been honest with the police. The Cross name would never do so - it would tell the police that the man they dealt with had given them a false name.

Of course, you are saying that he called himself Cross and his boss would confirm it. But what makes you think the police would favour asking his boss over asking his family? And if he was honest, why not just say "My name is Lechmere, but I am known as Cross where I work"?

He´d need time off to appear at the inquest, yes. But how does that tell us that he would use the name Cross? He did not need time off to present himself to the police on the evening before the inquest, did he? And he would not know whether he´d be summoned to the inquest or not. So what you are suggesting does not hold up, I´m afraid.

At the police station, he would have been asked what his name was, and he gave it as Cross. In any other instance we have recorded of similar or closely similar situations he gives his real name.


Indeed, he hung around asking for help off anothe passer by and then went looking foer a copper.

Alternatively, he was surprised by the arrival of a newcomer and decided to find out what the man had seen - he could be a lethal threat. And then he walked along with the newcomer, who was the one to suggest finding the copper, remember - and that made it look as they were travelling together, thus making him look less suspicious, plus it provided him with a chance to chekc what Paul said to the PC, plus he could form a ruse of his own.

Perspectives, Jon - it is all about perspectives. You are seemingly stepping into the very trap he set, and reasoning exactly as the coppers did: What an accomodating fellow - and so keen to help out!

It wasn`t a false name. It was his dad`s name and it looks like he used it in regular life, like at work, with the neighbours and down the pub.

I have stated my case hundreds of times on this. You have one real name and one real name only. All the rest of the names are false. Some are more explicable if used, others not. Some are used with good intent, others not. But all but the real name are false names. Otherwise, anybody could have a hundred correct names.

What are the sort of examples of him using Lechmere that you have ?

That´s Edwards research, so he´d be better fit to answer. But they come from all walks of life and from both before and after the murders.

... and they ALL say Lechmere.


Ask yourself, Jon, if the police had been told a number of interesting things, what would they have done:

- The man that called himself Cross, Sir - he is really called Lechmere. He lied about his name!

- We´ve found out that his working route seemingly may have taken him past the Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly murder sites!

- Ooops - it seems the murders were all committed in the early mornings, when this guy passed on his way to work!

- Ello, ello - what have we got´ere? The Stride killing was commmitted where he used to live! And the Eddowes slaying was committed along his old work trek from James Street to Pickfords! And you know what? These killings were committed earlier - and on a Saturday; his night off!

- Jesus, Sergeant - he may well have butcher skills; his mother runs a cats meat business.

- Oh-oh - and she lives in 147 Cable Street.

- What? 147 Cable? But that´s just round the corner from where that torso was found, is it not?

- Holy smokes! Look at what he told Mizen on the murder night: He said that another PC was waiting for him there!

- Yeah, but there was, was there not? PC Neale was there.

- Idiot! How would Lechmere have known that? He testified that there was never any PC in Buck´s Row!

- Oh, my God .. but that means ...!

Any chance that they would have taken an interest in him if they had had this information, Jon? What do you think? Is this something that would alert them or not?

But they never knew. They did not find out. They did not ask. They did not check out his name. They did not even check out how much the Buck´s Row dwellers knew until weeks after the murder - and only after the coroner had reprimanded them of their slackness.

What I am saying here is not conjecture. I am merely stating what we KNOW. These are bits and pieces belonging to the evidence, and from these bits and pieces, it´s everybodys prerogative to draw whatever conclusions they wish to. And these are not all the bits, even.

Maybe he wasn´t the killer. But no matter what, the police faioled to get the information they needed to have, and they acordingly failed to haul in a man that has tons of things going for him as a potential Ripper. Those who deny that are sticking their heads so deep in the sand that they should be able to describe New Zeeland.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ok Fish, so lying carried an equal risk, whether he was innocent or guilty. But what was the advantage to him in lying at all?

Are you seriously saying that you cannot remember any of the hundreds of instances that question has been answered?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I´m logging off for an hour or two now. Or three.

[Jenni Shelden]

But its fine to have a million threads....

[Phil H]

I´m logging off for an hour or two now. Or three.

[Jenni Shelden]

How do you know he would be near the other murder sites?

Im logging off too..no Im not because I know how to talk nicely and logically!

[Lechmere]

On the name swap it is about anomalies. If you are looking at an individual’s behaviour for signs of suspicious activity then noticing anomalies is a useful way to proceed.
Regarding Charles Lechmere, he was asked his name over a hundred times and always replied ‘Lechmere’.
This was in respect of the electoral resister, the census, his children’s baptisms and their marriages. Their school records, his shop keeping in trade directories. On his funeral car he wasn’t down as ‘Charles Lechmere, known to his friends down the boozer as Crossy Boy’.

It is like this.

“When asked your name, how do you reply?”

“Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Cross, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere,”

“Hold on a second, when did you call yourself Cross?”

“Oh, only when I was found standing alone next to a freshly murdered Jack the Ripper victim.”

“That’s fine, proceed”

“Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere, etc”

I could come up with any number of scenarios as to why a guilty man might chose to re-name himself in this manner. It would be guess work and it really isn’t necessary. The mere fact of the name swap is enough of a red flag.

Jenni
If you plot the murder sites to the places to which Lechmere was closely connected and the routes he would take between them and at the times he would plausibly be passing, then there is a pretty exact match.
I have marked them out before on here on maps.

[Phil H]

Lechmere was, of course, at all times accompanied by Vincent van Gogh, Walter Sickert and MJ Druitt and followed in a carriage by Sir William Gull.

You know Lechmere, I'm beginning to think you actually believe all this over-detailed speculation you spout.

[Lechmere]

And you know what? He climbed through Mary Kelly's window and what did he find? Joe Barnett had beaten him to it.

I'm glad I don't engage in superficial speculation.

[Fisherman]

How do you know he would be near the other murder sites?

I don´t know it per se, Jenni.

But I know where he lived.

And I know where he worked.

And I know that there were two main thoroughfares between where he lived and where he worked.

From that I extrapolate that there is a fair chance that he passed close by the murder sites on the murder mornings.

In my former post, I wrote:

"his working route seemingly may have taken him past the Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly murder sites"

That does not mean that I say that he DID pass the sites. It means that there is a good possibility that he did, and that it would be completely logical IF he did. It would be less logical to think that he did not, since that would require something that broke the monotony of his everyday work trek; illness, vacation (ha!), loosing his way (double ha!) or being away on business (I really don´t know how many ha´s that stands for, but there you are).

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

Thanks Ed,
but, and Im really not having a go, if he killed MAN on route to work at 4am, that is inconsistent with the supposed times of deaths of the others, eg 5.30 for Chapman, 1pm for Stride or etc. Did he work shifts?

Jenni