Lucky Lechmere List

[Paul Sutton]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n821538]



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.

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. And if he were that ruthless (i.e. just slashed Nichols) then why not do the same to Paul?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, that's my point. Unless this was a brilliant double-bluff, his non-reporting of anyone else points to his innocence. I've done a long - and possibly annoyingly basic - post as a new thread, on my problems with Lechmere. My biggest is why, if the killer, he didn't run. I don't buy that he was cornered - or panicked.

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.

[Paul Sutton]

Welcome Paul,

Apparently "Serial killers do weird stuff..."

It's no less likely, considering how they either ignore the lack of blood on Cross, or hand wave it away, that Robert Paul heard Cross approaching, crept into the darkness and doubled back appearing after Cross went over to have a look.
He just pulled a time out of his arse for when he arrived and boom. Bobby The Ripper gets clean away, and is never suspected of anything.

Didn't happen. Obviously. But if you spin it out to include any bit of circumstancial evidence that applies to thousands of others, it's got just as much evidential merit as Cross as a suspect. (He didn't lie about his name...)

Thanks for the welcome - I've been lurking for years!

[Paul Sutton]

Yes, that's my point. Unless this was a brilliant double-bluff, his non-reporting of anyone else points to his innocence. I've done a long - and possibly annoyingly basic - post as a new thread, on my problems with Lechmere. My biggest is why, if the killer, he didn't run. I don't buy that he was cornered - or panicked.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A point that bothers me - not so much luck, as just very odd. If he were the killer posing as first witness, why didn't he claim to have heard someone else leaving the scene? He's nothing to lose and lots to gain from doing so.

I recall reading in one of the reports of the inquest proceedings that Lechmere was asked whether he heard or saw anyone leaving the scene of the crime and he replied that he had not.

Once again, his conduct is consistent with his having been innocent of the crime.

[A P Tomlinson]

Apologies if this point's already made (I've just joined).

Lechmere was lucky that - until true-crime became a genre - it never occurred to the police that the person who found a body was of special interest. More likely, of course they realised this and looked into him, finding nothing of interest.

He's also lucky that no one else had their mobile phones around, to check times. Or maybe unlucky?

A point that bothers me - not so much luck, as just very odd. If he were the killer posing as first witness, why didn't he claim to have heard someone else leaving the scene? He's nothing to lose and lots to gain from doing so.

Welcome Paul,

Apparently "Serial killers do weird stuff..."

It's no less likely, considering how they either ignore the lack of blood on Cross, or hand wave it away, that Robert Paul heard Cross approaching, crept into the darkness and doubled back appearing after Cross went over to have a look.
He just pulled a time out of his arse for when he arrived and boom. Bobby The Ripper gets clean away, and is never suspected of anything.

Didn't happen. Obviously. But if you spin it out to include any bit of circumstancial evidence that applies to thousands of others, it's got just as much evidential merit as Cross as a suspect. (He didn't lie about his name...)

[Paul Sutton]

Apologies if this point's already made (I've just joined).

Lechmere was lucky that - until true-crime became a genre - it never occurred to the police that the person who found a body was of special interest. More likely, of course they realised this and looked into him, finding nothing of interest.

He's also lucky that no one else had their mobile phones around, to check times. Or maybe unlucky?

A point that bothers me - not so much luck, as just very odd. If he were the killer posing as first witness, why didn't he claim to have heard someone else leaving the scene? He's nothing to lose and lots to gain from doing so.

[FrankO]

Hi all,

Can any one or more of you fit any or all the points raised on the last two pages in a ‘stroke-of-luck mould’? Some interesting and good points have been raised and it might be nice to see if we could add another couple of lucky strokes.

Cheers,
Frank

OK, I'll start...

Lechmere was lucky that he either wasn't seen in his carman working clothes around the times he killed, or his involvement in the Nichols murder made him realize that it wasn't a smart thing to go around murdering being so clearly recognizable as carman.

[FrankO]

Hi all,

Can any one or more of you fit any or all the points raised on the last two pages in a ‘stroke-of-luck mould’? Some interesting and good points have been raised and it might be nice to see if we could add another couple of lucky strokes.

Cheers,
Frank

[A P Tomlinson]

Good morning A P and welcome to Casebook



We don't know the mystery man was a carman. Christer said so. He insists police did not inquire if Pickford's had a Charles Cross in their employ. The "theory" has no starting point.

Cheers Paddy.

They wouldn't have enquired because half the press in London carried the story and word would have got back to Pickfords who WOULD have said something, had he been "lying about his name".

We know there was a Charles Cross working at Pickfords in 1876, because of the other inquest, there is nothing anyone can say that will convince me that Pickfords were not paying close attention to THAT inquest because if Cross/Lechmere had been found liable, it would have been Pickfords whom the father would have come after for compensation. There would have been a Pickfords' suit at every session, paying very close atttention and if Mr Lechmere had taken the stand and announced his name as Mr Cross, Pickfords would have had not only a duty to report him for Perjury, they would have had a way out by which to wash their hands of him and walk away. Charles goes to prison for telling a needless dangerous lie, because ANYONE who knew him could have said "That's Mr Lechmere, not Mr Cross!" By NOT informing the Coroner, THEY were complicit in his perjury.

Unless the VERY simple, and less hyperbolic, situation was that he WAS known as Cross to enough people for none of that to matter, and for him to use Cross as his name perfectly legally until someone 130 odd years later declares that he LIED to the Police and the Court. Simply because there is no PROOF that he didn't.


Lechmere = Ripper is a contrivance of "Ah.. BUT..." "What IF..." "If we assume he was lying about THIS, then he might have done THAT..." "There's no proof that he didn't have.../wasn't at/couldn't have..."with no reason to propose those variables apart from "What do we need to amend to make our suspect work?"
There is no reason to believe that the only person able to track time that morning was Paul, and not the members of the police. But it NEEDS to be the case for the theory to have any traction.

[FrankO]

Christer insists the police never bothered to inquire if Pickford's had a Charles Cross in their employ...

Even though, Paddy, the police would have had reason to, at least, clear up a thing or two regarding Lechmere's statement (see lucky strokes no. 9 & 11).

[Pcdunn]

A recent TV show about the various theories of Jack the Ripper's identity presented Cross merely as a witness. He is depicted as one of "two deliverymen" who found the body of Polly Nichols. They're shown bending down to look at the woman, before hieing off to notify a policeman. I don't think either Cross or Paul were mentioned by name.

I think the mention of the man Cross coming to work in his carman's apron was just a dash of color for a newspaperman's dull report of an inquest. Maybe it reflected classism, too. Victorians set stock in clothes reflecting one's station in life.

[Lewis C]

Paddy, Fiver, Lewis,

I just can’t see why the Crosstians feel that the wearing of his working clothes was suspicious in any way? Did they expect him to have turned up in top hat and tails (perhaps with added monocle and cane with his valet in attendance?) I assume that he would have been told what time to turn up and he certainly wouldn’t have known what time he would end up testifying, so he might have done 4 or 5 hours work before leaving for the inquest, or he might have been prepared to return to work after he was done. Money was tight and Pickford’s wouldn’t have paid him for not being at work so if he was given the opportunity to make up his hours, at least in part, he’d have taken that opportunity.

I agree with this, and I would add, even if Cross didn't have a good reason for why he dressed as he did to the inquest, I don't see any any reason to believe that JtR had poor judgement about how to dress himself.

[Fiver]

We don't know the mystery man was a carman. Christer said so. He insists police did not inquire if Pickford's had a Charles Cross in their employ. The "theory" has no starting point.

And he assumes that nobody who actually worked for Pickfords read the newspapers and said "Wait a minute, we haven't got a Charles Cross working for us". And that none of his neighbors read the newspapers and said "Hold on, why is Charles Lechemre using his stepfather's surname?"

And that from there, neither the police, the press, nor anyone else would think to visit 22 Doveton Street and sort things out. After all, no one cared about what the press were claiming was the second or even third gruesome murder. It was backpage news that virtually no one cared about.

[Fiver]

Paddy, Fiver, Lewis,

I just can’t see why the Crosstians feel that the wearing of his working clothes was suspicious in any way?

To the Cult of Lechmere, everything is suspicious, but only if Charles Lechmere did it.

It's one of the ways you can separate people who think Lechmere makes a good suspect from the Cultists.

A while back some was insisting that Lechmere walking on the right side of the street was highly suspicious and pointed towards his guilt. I pointed out Robert Paul also claimed to have walked on the right right side of the road. And that PC Neil also claimed to have walked on the right side of the road. They continued to insist that it was highly suspicious for Charles Lechmere to say he walked on the right side of the road.