Lucky Lechmere List

[Paddy Goose]

Hi Fiver!

Welcome to Casebook. Fisherman has been on here for years insisting police did not inquire if Pickford's had a Charles Cross in their employ. You see what that does to his "theory." According to him, "Cross" is a mystery. He has guaranteed he cannot prove a carman by any name was involved by insisting on police malfeasance.

So how could Charles Lechmere have anything to do with it? He cannot prove that. His case has no starting point.

[Lewis C]

I’ve never understood the significance of him wearing an apron at the inquest.

For me, that's the single weakest argument that I've seen for his guilt. Although trying to argue a time gap dependent on considering Robert Paul's time estimate stronger evidence than the estimates of 3 policemen isn't far behind.

[A P Tomlinson]

Sort of like Christer's insistence that carmen wore hobnailed boots that could be heard at least a block away, which explains how the Ropper was able to murder all those people without being heard arriving or leaving?

Anyone who thinks he wore Hobnail boots should try wearing a pair and walking around on dewy November cobblestones at dawn... when they are out of traction for the back injury they sustained from repeatedly landing on their arse, they'll reconsider.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Anyone who thinks he wore Hobnail boots should try wearing a pair and walking around on dewy November cobblestones at dawn... when they are out of traction for the back injury they sustained from repeatedly landing on their arse, they'll reconsider.

If he was wearing hobnailed boots clumping along like a shire horse then there’s even less chance of him remaining at the scene. He’d have been long gone before Paul arrived.

[Sam Flynn]

If he was wearing hobnailed boots clumping along like a shire horse...

Jack the Clopper

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jack the Clopper

[A P Tomlinson]

If he was wearing hobnailed boots clumping along like a shire horse then there's even less chance of him remaining at the scene. He’d have been long gone before Paul arrived.

Oh they'd have heard him alright.
We have witnesses hearing the footsteps of the police. They would have definitley heard hobnails tap-tap-tapping by.

They would have also been more of a hindrance than a help when loading and unloading the cart/wagon. And been an outright pain in the backside if it was wet, or he happened to step in the blood. Even the Victorian coppers, who are often maligned for their lack of wits, were able to recognise, copy, and compare boot prints. Hobnail patterns would have been as good as any finger print.

Just another needless, dangerous, hazardous, gamble... (that always paid off...)

It also begs the question; was Cross supposed to have been standing still while murdering Nichols? Then carefully quietly walked to the middle of the road and waited for someone to arrive?
If he was wearing hobnail boots if he'd heard Paul and moved into his "innocent bystander" position he would have either had to do it real slowly and carefully (vastly increasing his chances of been seen moving away from the body) or would have made SOME noise in moving.

I think that it's another of those issues that is a non issue because a) it's just silly and b) it's irrelevant. Nobody heard hobnail boots. And we can list the "Ah, but that doesn't prove that he WASN'T" argument in the same place as "Ah, but you can't prove that he WOULD have had blood on him after tearing open a womans throat and then butchering her abdomen".

The entire theory reverses the burden of proof and expects anyone who disagrees with it to prove the opposite of what they can't.

[Paddy Goose]

Good morning A P and welcome to Casebook

... loading and unloading the cart/wagon. ...

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.