Lucky Lechmere List

[Paul Sutton]

It's not just Pickford's. They're assuming that none of Charles Lechmere's neighbors read the press reports and wondered why they said their new neighbor at 22 Doveton Street, Charles Lechmere, was called Charles Cross. And Lechmere's wife might have been illiterate, but there's no evidence that she was deaf. The odds of her discussing the case with neighbor women are almost certain.

Yes, good point. The more one thinks about it, the less sense it makes; unless he was innocent. The name business is something out of nothing. As is the exchange with Mizen - both Lechmere and Paul wanted to have as little to do with Old Bill as possible- and from my unfortunate experiences, they were so wise.

[Fiver]

Relying on the Holmesian mantra "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" actually involves eliminating at some of the other possible outcomes before claiming that the enormously improbable theory you are pushing is the truth. That bit, (about elminiating the impossible), is generally the bit they miss out. and skip to "...however improbable, must be the truth!"

Their general attitude seems to be if you can't prove it's impossible, then their theory is valid.

But it's their theory. The burden of proof is on them.

[Fiver]

Not to mention, what's the chance no one else who worked for Pickfords (i.e. Lech's co-workers) read the press reports on the inquest and wondered 'who's this Cross bloke?'. And what's the chance a cunning criminal, employing subterfuge via a 'false name', wouldn't think of that?

It's not just Pickford's. They're assuming that none of Charles Lechmere's neighbors read the press reports and wondered why they said their new neighbor at 22 Doveton Street, Charles Lechmere, was called Charles Cross. And Lechmere's wife might have been illiterate, but there's no evidence that she was deaf. The odds of her discussing the case with neighbor women are almost certain.

[A P Tomlinson]

As far as the 1876 inquest is concerned: the article stated that at some point in the proceedings, Pickfords' legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question and he accepted the advice.

As far as the 1888 inquest is concerned: what is the probability that Lechmere's superiors neither read press reports of the proceedings nor heard about them, when Pickfords was mentioned in the testimony?

As to the second, I think there is next to zero chance. Even if they weren't scouring the news for mentions of their names, at some point, someone would have said to one of the Pickfords management; (creatively paraphrasing) "Hey, I read the other day that one of your boys found a body! You know that brutal killing in Bucks Row? Yeah THAT one... it was in the Paper! Charles something or other..."
But some people think that even a 1 in 1000 chance euqates to being equal in viability to the 999.

Relying on the Holmesian mantra "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" actually involves eliminating at some of the other possible outcomes before claiming that the enormously improbable theory you are pushing is the truth. That bit, (about elminiating the impossible), is generally the bit they miss out. and skip to "...however improbable, must be the truth!"
In the case of Cross, it would be nice if they could eliminate ANYTHING ahead of presenting their case. All they have is a whole lot of, "But what if..." It is entirely insubstantial.

I've said it many times before... it's a nice story. And if they made it into a film, at the very least it would be more accurate than "From Hell".

[Paul Sutton]

Not to mention, what's the chance no one else who worked for Pickfords (i.e. Lech's co-workers) read the press reports on the inquest and wondered 'who's this Cross bloke?'. And what's the chance a cunning criminal, employing subterfuge via a 'false name', wouldn't think of that?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It's just more in the "He was bloody lucky" column.

I'd love to see a copy of that report if you ever find it again. I've said for ages that they would at the very least have had a few Suits sitting in on the hearing because it seems an obvious thing. But of course, without proof something can be as straightforward as it can be, but the people who make up a theory accusing aman of multiple murders and nothing linking him to any but one, demand documented evidence if you want to challenge their whimsical flight of fancy.

When I challlenged Christer on the matter of Pickfords taking an interst in the inquest, he said of the 1888 one that he saw no reason to think they would have.
If they knew that he was using "Cross" at a coroners inquest, when it wasn't the name he was known by THEY would been liable for not reporting it.
But Christer never got back to me in regard to whether he thinks Pickfords took any interest in the 1876 inquest, because if they knew he had "lied" about his name that time and didn't report him, they would have been party to the purjury, and if his lie were to be discovered then it may have swayed the inquest toward considering him dishonest, and he would obviously be charged with perjury.
They would have reported him themselves in the hope of mitigating a potential shitstorm of fines, compensation and bad press.

As far as I'm concerned if we can SHOW that Pickfords knew him as Cross, then any and all talk of him "Lying" to the 1888 inquest flies out of the window, and pretty much the entire case against Lechmere/Cross goes with it.
I would love to be able to say that the Lechmere Lot would have no leg to stand on, but these people who claim they are only going by the evidence, try very hard to discredit or squash evidence that suggests their theory to be wrong. I imagine the same would happen with this.

As far as the 1876 inquest is concerned: the article stated that at some point in the proceedings, Pickfords' legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question and he accepted the advice.

As far as the 1888 inquest is concerned: what is the probability that Lechmere's superiors neither read press reports of the proceedings nor heard about them, when Pickfords was mentioned in the testimony?

[A P Tomlinson]

In reply to APT:

Thank you for mentioning the 1876 inquest.

Many months ago, I mentioned the fact that I once saw an article online about that inquest, which reported that Cross was provided by Pickfords with legal representation at that inquest.

Unfortunately, i can no longer find the article.


About the possibility of deliberately getting blood on him in order to cover up his involvement in the murder, I have seen the argument before.

As for his reluctance to move the body being used against him: murderous psychopaths are not bothered by dead people's bodies at all.

Lechmere's reluctance once again points to his innocence.

I did previously make the point that if he had been the murderer, he could not approach a policeman and be completely confident that no blood would show anywhere on his person.

I think someone retorted that as it was so dark, the policeman might not have noticed blood on him.

Well, he did have a Lantern - didn't he?

It's just more in the "He was bloody lucky" column.

I'd love to see a copy of that report if you ever find it again. I've said for ages that they would at the very least have had a few Suits sitting in on the hearing because it seems an obvious thing. But of course, without proof something can be as straightforward as it can be, but the people who make up a theory accusing aman of multiple murders and nothing linking him to any but one, demand documented evidence if you want to challenge their whimsical flight of fancy.

When I challlenged Christer on the matter of Pickfords taking an interst in the inquest, he said of the 1888 one that he saw no reason to think they would have.
If they knew that he was using "Cross" at a coroners inquest, when it wasn't the name he was known by THEY would been liable for not reporting it.
But Christer never got back to me in regard to whether he thinks Pickfords took any interest in the 1876 inquest, because if they knew he had "lied" about his name that time and didn't report him, they would have been party to the purjury, and if his lie were to be discovered then it may have swayed the inquest toward considering him dishonest, and he would obviously be charged with perjury.
They would have reported him themselves in the hope of mitigating a potential shitstorm of fines, compensation and bad press.

As far as I'm concerned if we can SHOW that Pickfords knew him as Cross, then any and all talk of him "Lying" to the 1888 inquest flies out of the window, and pretty much the entire case against Lechmere/Cross goes with it.
I would love to be able to say that the Lechmere Lot would have no leg to stand on, but these people who claim they are only going by the evidence, try very hard to discredit or squash evidence that suggests their theory to be wrong. I imagine the same would happen with this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We may not agree on other issues, but on Lechmere, we are broadly in agreement.

Steve

Yes indeed.

And I was already aware of that.

[Elamarna]

If Lechmere was the Whitechapel murderer, then he must be the Woody Allen of serial murderers.

He is just totally incompetent if he really wants to get away with his crimes.

First, he sees someone coming and makes no attempt to get away.

Then, in spite of the fact that the person coming has not noticed the body and is about to walk straight past, he draws his attention to the body.

To compound his errors, he then goes with that person to find, of all people, a policeman.

Incredibly, he then tells the policeman the name of his employers.

Even more incredibly, he then comes forward to give evidence at the inquest.

On being asked by the coroner whether he saw or heard anyone leaving the scene of the crime on his arrival at it, he replies 'no'!

No wonder the police had no suspicions regarding him.

We may not agree on other issues, but on Lechmere, we are broadly in agreement.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

In reply to APT:

Thank you for mentioning the 1876 inquest.

Many months ago, I mentioned the fact that I once saw an article online about that inquest, which reported that Cross was provided by Pickfords with legal representation at that inquest.

Unfortunately, i can no longer find the article.


About the possibility of deliberately getting blood on him in order to cover up his involvement in the murder, I have seen the argument before.

As for his reluctance to move the body being used against him: murderous psychopaths are not bothered by dead people's bodies at all.

Lechmere's reluctance once again points to his innocence.

I did previously make the point that if he had been the murderer, he could not approach a policeman and be completely confident that no blood would show anywhere on his person.

I think someone retorted that as it was so dark, the policeman might not have noticed blood on him.

Well, he did have a lantern - didn't he?

[Paul Sutton]

If Lechmere was the Whitechapel murderer, then he must be the Woody Allen of serial murderers.

He is just totally incompetent if he really wants to get away with his crimes.

First, he sees someone coming and makes no attempt to get away.

Then, in spite of the fact that the person coming has not noticed the body and is about to walk straight past, he draws his attention to the body.

To compound his errors, he then goes with that person to find, of all people, a policeman.

Incredibly, he then tells the policeman the name of his employers.

Even more incredibly, he then comes forward to give evidence at the inquest.

On being asked by the coroner whether he saw or heard anyone leaving the scene of the crime on his arrival at it, he replies 'no'!

No wonder the police had no suspicions regarding him.

I'd say more like the Frank Spencer of serial killers! Or even the Carlton Palmer, if we're using football analogies.

I didn't realise the claim is he heard Robert Paul from even 40 yards away! Ample time to just walk off.

[A P Tomlinson]

If Lechmere was the Whitechapel murderer, then he must be the Woody Allen of serial murderers.

He is just totally incompetent if he really wants to get away with his crimes.

First, he sees someone coming and makes no attempt to get away.

Then, in spite of the fact that the person coming has not noticed the body and is about to walk straight past, he draws his attention to the body.

To compound his errors, he then goes with that person to find, of all people, a policeman.

Incredibly, he then tells the policeman the name of his employers.

Even more incredibly, he then comes forward to give evidence at the inquest.

On being asked by the coroner whether he saw or heard anyone leaving the scene of the crime on his arrival at it, he replies 'no'!

No wonder the police had no suspicions regarding him.

Don't forget that he gave his real address and employers name to the inquest, while allegedly giving a "False Name" or "Alias". (The people who have decided that he is the man who will be blamed for something, argue that this was a lie, and that his employers wouldn;t have taken enough of an interest to notice the lie. But he supposedly did the same in 1876, when his employers would most definitley have taken interest, since it involved Cross accidentally killing a child while performing his duties for his employers who would have been liable for compensation had the inquest gone badly for Charlie...)

He also offers up to the Nichols inquest, what some regard as "incriminating," the detail of him not wanting to move the body. Evidence, they say, that shows he knew the body was bloody and didn't want to get blood on himself. Which had he killed her, would have provided him the ideal opportunity to create an excuse for having blood on him, as there's no way in Hell that he could be sure that he didn't have some of her blood on him at the point where he meets Robert Paul, that would be visible the first time he stepped into any sort of light...

There's a reason for the title of this thread...
Cross/Lechmere seems to have done everything in his power to deliberately take the sort of immense risks that, should one fall down, he's toast.
He has no idea if there is blood on his face, or clothes, unless he also had the time, (between killing Nichols in a frenzied attack, and waiting for someone to turn up for him share his work with,) to clean himself up to a degree that, in the dark, he was able to be sure that he wouldn't give himself away the second he and his new friend come anywhere near a light.
And THEN... like you say, knowing that there has to be SOME risk of blood being obvious to someone with, say, a lantern or by his new friend while walking near a street lamp... he goes to find a bloody Copper!

But there was a rag dropped in a straight line between two noticeable points. And he may have been stressed over his work/marriage/pick something else. And who knows why serial killers do the things they do?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Excellent point. There was no hanging around to bluff things out at Dutfield's Yard or Mitre Square. Confronting possible eyewitnesses and bluffing their way out was no the Ripper's MO.

If Lechmere was the Whitechapel murderer, then he must be the Woody Allen of serial murderers.

He is just totally incompetent if he really wants to get away with his crimes.

First, he sees someone coming and makes no attempt to get away.

Then, in spite of the fact that the person coming has not noticed the body and is about to walk straight past, he draws his attention to the body.

To compound his errors, he then goes with that person to find, of all people, a policeman.

Incredibly, he then tells the policeman the name of his employers.

Even more incredibly, he then comes forward to give evidence at the inquest.

On being asked by the coroner whether he saw or heard anyone leaving the scene of the crime on his arrival at it, he replies 'no'!

No wonder the police had no suspicions regarding him.

[Fiver]

The murderer appears to have made a hurried escape twice in one night - leaving Dutfield's Yard before he had a chance to carry out any mutilations and before anyone had a chance to see him, and leaving Mitre Square before Watkins arrived.

He did not hang around and wait for someone else to arrive on the scene.

Excellent point. There was no hanging around to bluff things out at Dutfield's Yard or Mitre Square. Confronting possible eyewitnesses and bluffing their way out was no the Ripper's MO.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And he's supposed to have hurriedly killed Polly, on the spur, yet frozen at the sound of footsteps approaching. Never mind the timings, it doesn't feel right. We know Paul wasn't literally breathing down his neck, since Lechmere had to approach him and steer him towards the body. He could as easily have got clean away - seen, for sure, but identifiable? Unlikely.

Are you aware of the following statement made by Christer Holmgren in the documentary?



'What I think is that Lechmere heard Paul from a much longer distance than 40 yards.
He must have been disturbed and then he would have had just a little time to do something about the body.'

(Christer Holmgren)

That is an elementary mistake!

If Lechmere had heard Paul coming from such a great distance - say 100 yards - and been the murderer, then he would have hurried away.

It would actually have been easier to get away undetected than it would have been if Lechmere's estimate of the distance were correct.