Lucky Lechmere List

[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.

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jack the Clopper

[Sam Flynn]

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

Jack the Clopper

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fiver]

Christer has the wrong man fitted up as Jack the Ripper. He cannot prove his case because of his insistence on police malfeasance.

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?

[Fiver]

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

My guess is that it was to make it easier for PC Mizen to identify him. Mizen doesn't impress me as the shiniest apple on the tree.

(The man, whose name is Cross, was brought in, and the witness [Mizen] identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question.) - 4 September 1888 Morning Post.

Alternatively, Lechmere may have put in a partial day of work before he had to testify at the inquest and/or he hoped to put in a partial day after he finished his testimony. Or both might ideas might be true.

Or there's the Cult of Lechmere view - he wore the carman's uniform to cunningly disguise who he really was. Which make no sense, because he was a carman.

[Paddy Goose]

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

Hi Hurley, I don't know the significance of the apron either. We don't need to know though. The man who showed up wearing an apron claiming to be Charles Cross is not proven to be a carman at all. Because according to Christer, the police didn't bother to check with Pickford's if they had a Charles Cross in their employ. So whoever the man was, he could have been some kind of imposter. In costume.

Simply giving a Doveton Street address does not prove he was Charles Lechmere. The so-called Pickfords driver Charles Cross was a mystery man. Nothing about him was ever verified, ever checked. Christer said so.

Christer has the wrong man fitted up as Jack the Ripper. He cannot prove his case because of his insistence on police malfeasance.

[Fiver]

There is a poster on Youtube, an American Lady I believe, who seems to haunt me whenever I correct this misunderstanding on various comment sections. She posts the same thing every time "STANDING WHERE THE WOMAN WAS!!!!!"
I have come to consider her the Squeaky Fromme of the Cult of Lechmere...

Textbook cult behavior. It reminds me of some of the Christian snake-handling cults of the US Deep South.

* Find an ambiguous text.
* Twist it to mean what you want it to mean.
* Ignore all the clear texts that contradict your interpretation.
* Try to shout down or misrepresent anyone tries to present the whole picture to members of the cult.

[Fiver]

I object every bit as you probably do, to anybody claiming that Charles Lechmere was found crouching over the body.

Oh, really? Then who posted the following in this thread?

1. He could have walked another way to work, and so he would never have been found standing alone by the side of a very freshly killed Ripper victim.

I also object vehemently to anybody claiming that such a proposal is part of the Lechmere theory.

It's central to Von Stow's version of the theory.

And you've endorsed, not condemned the documentary that claimed Lechmere was found crouching over her body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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