Tweet
Greetings,
I'm a long-time 'lurker' on this excellent board, with years spent reading every JtR book I can. The best (to me) are Scotland Yard Investigates and The Bank Holiday Murders; I've also a soft-spot for Richard Patterson's Jack the Ripper - The Works of Francis Thompson.
I've followed with particular interest the heated discussion about Cross/Lechmere. I applaud the indefatigable Fisherman (Christer) for his brilliantly original work, even though Lechmere seems unlikely. I'd like it to be true - it's clever and neat - but it feels unbelievable. The scant evidence and facts have been wrung dry, but I think most people's objections are also deeply intuitive, based on what seems plausible from their overview of the C5.
I realise that, after I get into discussion, I'll likely feel similarly argumentative! Which is fine: it's great to see the passion. That's why I've loved reading this blog and have joined.
I'll raise my ten objections to Lechmere, with apologies for the well-trampled turf. I realise they're pretty impressionistic and humdrum! Sorry also for the lengthy and detailed post, which may seem 'bad form' from a newbie bystander. But below reflects my thoughts on many stimulating Cross/Lechmere posts - for which thanks to all who've done the actual work:
1. Since Jack took incredible risks with all the killings (especially Chapman and Stride) I don't see him being worried about fleeing, as Paul approached. Paul couldn't immediately have given chase. He didn't know he'd find a body, and would be stunned for several minutes. Even a minute would give Lechmere time to make sure his face wasn't seen and get away. A bold risk taker would have done so. As a very last resort, if cornered, he'd kill Paul.
It was much chancier to brazen it out. How could he know who was approaching, which could even be a PC. They had regular beat times, but he couldn't be sure. And the other argument for him bluffing - that he was a cocky psychopath - also suggests he'd be unafraid of running. Why go through all the hassle/risk of dealing with this unknown person approaching?
To me, this is the biggest problem with Christer's ingenious theory. I don't think it's credible for any killer to stay with the body, unless there's NO chance of escaping unidentified. Yet he approached Paul, who didn't see him at first then kept back. Lechmere had to tap him on the shoulder and lead him over to the body! He could have hastened off, back turned. Yes, Paul would have seen and suspected 'him' - but who would he be suspecting and what could he have reported, other than someone legging it?
Christer's theory accepts that Lechmere heard Paul approaching. The argument that he was trapped relies on Paul immediately grasping what'd happened and catching him - with Lechmere feeling sure of this. I can't see why importance is given to Lechmere worrying that Paul would see him running away. Would he have caught him or been able to identify him? Almost certainly not.
A tenuous and slight argument could be attempted: that Lechmere was sure he'd be questioned regardless, since this was known to be on his route to work. So if he were the killer and legged it, he'd make himself more suspicious, by not having raised the alarm. But that's weak - he could claim not to have seen the body, which is entirely believable. After all, Paul didn't see it initially. And why would Lechmere feel he'd be questioned, that his habits were so known?
Or was Lechmere worried Paul had already recognised him, from a distance, before he drew level with the body? Presumably people had regular 'commutes' at fairly similar times, so they were familiar by sight with others, also trudging along. But there's nothing to suggest this for Lechmere and Paul, in their statements.
2. If 'killer' Lechmere decided to brazen it out, he'd surely himself claim to have seen or heard someone running off. He needn't give a description, other than of a vanishing back or the sound of running. To not do so seems incredible, largely defeating the object of staying.
The only reason I can see for why he didn't (other than his innocence) is that he was worried no one would corroborate this invented fugitive. But why would that be suspicious?
If Lechmere were the killer, then by hanging around yet not claiming to have seen/heard anyone else, he's made it more likely he'll be accused. It's irrelevant that, until Christer, no one thought to (though credit to Christer for doing so).
Because if Lechmere were the killer masquerading as first witness, he'd have done whatever at the time aided this charade. And claiming to have seen/heard a fugitive obviously would. It's odd to suggest he's crafty enough to bluff things out, yet not to think of this. More likely, he was telling the truth and found a dead/dying Polly, no one else about.
3. The timings simply can't be relied on, to the degree needed for any 'discrepancies' to be suspicious. And we've no idea how regular Lechmere's timings were; it's not as if he'd a train to catch. When you 'commute' on foot in London (I did if for years) you vary timings depending on route, how knackered you are, getting bored with going one way, building work, streets dug up, etc.
4. If Lechmere left home earlier, in order to pick up a 'kill', why would he bring his victim onto a road he knew people (not least himself) regularly walked along? On the other hand, is it likely Polly would have been soliciting in lonely Bucks Row and he just bumped into her?
5. Giving a half-fake name to Mizen doesn't suggest subterfuge, since it could be linked to him, albeit after some digging. Why not completely fake his identity, in an age when this was quite easy? In particular, why give your actual address and workplace?
6. But would any killer ever go up to the police, when they could avoid doing so? Christer's theory relies on Lechmere having the nerve to murder Polly, yet being mesmerised by the mere presence of Paul and almost clinging to him. Wouldn't he at least have suggested that they split up, to maximise the chances of finding a beat Bobby? Then he could have sneaked off and made no police contact. Paul likely wouldn't ever have known.
The prosecution will say this all follows from his decision to bluff things out. In which case, he must be the meekest and most inflexible serial killer in history, yet also one who went uncaught, culminating in the Grand Guignol Kelly extravaganza.
The claim can be made, with the benefit of hindsight: 'Yes! And he got away with it'. But his deliberate choices necessitated attending the inquest and giving evidence, supposedly under a false name. It's not credible a killer would do this. As said, it's been underplayed how easily Lechmere could have eluded Paul. The Lechmere theory seems to have Lechmere more interested in laying ingenious clues for Ripperologists than in escaping attention.
7. The supposed 'done on routes Lechmere took' link (to other victims) can be used to argue that he'd avoid killing on those, since it makes a link to him. Especially after his narrow escape with Paul. If Christer's theory is true, then surely Lechmere would have thought: 'I'll now avoid places I'm known to walk through - look what almost happened in Bucks Row; why kill where there's a chance I'm recognised?'
However, the striking thing is how - with the exception of Kelly - all the killings took place in very risky locations. I've always felt there's some knowledge the killer had, which made these sites far less risky than they seem to us - no idea what!
But it's still unbelievable that someone would do this, on their way to work. Not from the increased risk of capture but because Jack did it for his own enjoyment, so why before an exhausting day's physical work? We're not talking some pre-office gym workout!
8. Lechmere fits none of the eye-witness crime scene sightings. Sure, any number of objections can be made to them, but at least some (I'm thinking 'Broad Shoulders', for Stride) seem important.
9. I don't believe the Police didn't look into Lechmere/Cross, then eliminate him. The fact there's no evidence for this isn't enough - he'd obviously be of interest. He identified himself as finding the body. The significance of this isn't something only recently realised by true-crime readers. I believe it's especially dangerous to claim the Police haven't spotted an obvious suspect: maybe they did their job and had solid reasons for taking no action.
In all true-crime that's unsolved, there's a tendency to underestimate what the police understood, how effective their enquiries were. There were vast amounts of paperwork - let alone discussions - now unavailable to us. That's why Druitt is too easily dismissed. It's not trivial for him to have been named by a very senior figure. There was almost certainly correspondence on him, of which we've no knowledge.
10. There's nothing in what we know of Lechmere to suggest a likely sexual serial killer, whereas there are details from other candidates which do. This isn't a strong point - plenty of serial killers have been 'he seemed like such a normal bloke' types - but more have a documented history of disturbing behaviour and psychological crises.
My least unlikely candidates are (in descending order):
1) James Bury: best fit, convicted killer/mutilator, not eliminated by Scotland Yard, who sent up detectives - including two to his execution - as they still thought he might confess on the gallows.
2) Montague Druitt: only credible named suspect of Scotland Yard's, committed suicide not long after the Kelly killing - could be a coincidence, but clearly showed disturbed behaviour.
3) George Chapman: sadistic and ruthless convicted serial killer, favourite suspect of Abberline's.
4) Francis Thompson: childhood arsonist, detailed medical knowledge/surgical experience, known drug-crazed addict, clear links to his writing.
5) Charles Lechmere: found near body of victim, possibility his timings are suspicious, not much else.
Thanks for reading,
I'm a long-time 'lurker' on this excellent board, with years spent reading every JtR book I can. The best (to me) are Scotland Yard Investigates and The Bank Holiday Murders; I've also a soft-spot for Richard Patterson's Jack the Ripper - The Works of Francis Thompson.
I've followed with particular interest the heated discussion about Cross/Lechmere. I applaud the indefatigable Fisherman (Christer) for his brilliantly original work, even though Lechmere seems unlikely. I'd like it to be true - it's clever and neat - but it feels unbelievable. The scant evidence and facts have been wrung dry, but I think most people's objections are also deeply intuitive, based on what seems plausible from their overview of the C5.
I realise that, after I get into discussion, I'll likely feel similarly argumentative! Which is fine: it's great to see the passion. That's why I've loved reading this blog and have joined.
I'll raise my ten objections to Lechmere, with apologies for the well-trampled turf. I realise they're pretty impressionistic and humdrum! Sorry also for the lengthy and detailed post, which may seem 'bad form' from a newbie bystander. But below reflects my thoughts on many stimulating Cross/Lechmere posts - for which thanks to all who've done the actual work:
1. Since Jack took incredible risks with all the killings (especially Chapman and Stride) I don't see him being worried about fleeing, as Paul approached. Paul couldn't immediately have given chase. He didn't know he'd find a body, and would be stunned for several minutes. Even a minute would give Lechmere time to make sure his face wasn't seen and get away. A bold risk taker would have done so. As a very last resort, if cornered, he'd kill Paul.
It was much chancier to brazen it out. How could he know who was approaching, which could even be a PC. They had regular beat times, but he couldn't be sure. And the other argument for him bluffing - that he was a cocky psychopath - also suggests he'd be unafraid of running. Why go through all the hassle/risk of dealing with this unknown person approaching?
To me, this is the biggest problem with Christer's ingenious theory. I don't think it's credible for any killer to stay with the body, unless there's NO chance of escaping unidentified. Yet he approached Paul, who didn't see him at first then kept back. Lechmere had to tap him on the shoulder and lead him over to the body! He could have hastened off, back turned. Yes, Paul would have seen and suspected 'him' - but who would he be suspecting and what could he have reported, other than someone legging it?
Christer's theory accepts that Lechmere heard Paul approaching. The argument that he was trapped relies on Paul immediately grasping what'd happened and catching him - with Lechmere feeling sure of this. I can't see why importance is given to Lechmere worrying that Paul would see him running away. Would he have caught him or been able to identify him? Almost certainly not.
A tenuous and slight argument could be attempted: that Lechmere was sure he'd be questioned regardless, since this was known to be on his route to work. So if he were the killer and legged it, he'd make himself more suspicious, by not having raised the alarm. But that's weak - he could claim not to have seen the body, which is entirely believable. After all, Paul didn't see it initially. And why would Lechmere feel he'd be questioned, that his habits were so known?
Or was Lechmere worried Paul had already recognised him, from a distance, before he drew level with the body? Presumably people had regular 'commutes' at fairly similar times, so they were familiar by sight with others, also trudging along. But there's nothing to suggest this for Lechmere and Paul, in their statements.
2. If 'killer' Lechmere decided to brazen it out, he'd surely himself claim to have seen or heard someone running off. He needn't give a description, other than of a vanishing back or the sound of running. To not do so seems incredible, largely defeating the object of staying.
The only reason I can see for why he didn't (other than his innocence) is that he was worried no one would corroborate this invented fugitive. But why would that be suspicious?
If Lechmere were the killer, then by hanging around yet not claiming to have seen/heard anyone else, he's made it more likely he'll be accused. It's irrelevant that, until Christer, no one thought to (though credit to Christer for doing so).
Because if Lechmere were the killer masquerading as first witness, he'd have done whatever at the time aided this charade. And claiming to have seen/heard a fugitive obviously would. It's odd to suggest he's crafty enough to bluff things out, yet not to think of this. More likely, he was telling the truth and found a dead/dying Polly, no one else about.
3. The timings simply can't be relied on, to the degree needed for any 'discrepancies' to be suspicious. And we've no idea how regular Lechmere's timings were; it's not as if he'd a train to catch. When you 'commute' on foot in London (I did if for years) you vary timings depending on route, how knackered you are, getting bored with going one way, building work, streets dug up, etc.
4. If Lechmere left home earlier, in order to pick up a 'kill', why would he bring his victim onto a road he knew people (not least himself) regularly walked along? On the other hand, is it likely Polly would have been soliciting in lonely Bucks Row and he just bumped into her?
5. Giving a half-fake name to Mizen doesn't suggest subterfuge, since it could be linked to him, albeit after some digging. Why not completely fake his identity, in an age when this was quite easy? In particular, why give your actual address and workplace?
6. But would any killer ever go up to the police, when they could avoid doing so? Christer's theory relies on Lechmere having the nerve to murder Polly, yet being mesmerised by the mere presence of Paul and almost clinging to him. Wouldn't he at least have suggested that they split up, to maximise the chances of finding a beat Bobby? Then he could have sneaked off and made no police contact. Paul likely wouldn't ever have known.
The prosecution will say this all follows from his decision to bluff things out. In which case, he must be the meekest and most inflexible serial killer in history, yet also one who went uncaught, culminating in the Grand Guignol Kelly extravaganza.
The claim can be made, with the benefit of hindsight: 'Yes! And he got away with it'. But his deliberate choices necessitated attending the inquest and giving evidence, supposedly under a false name. It's not credible a killer would do this. As said, it's been underplayed how easily Lechmere could have eluded Paul. The Lechmere theory seems to have Lechmere more interested in laying ingenious clues for Ripperologists than in escaping attention.
7. The supposed 'done on routes Lechmere took' link (to other victims) can be used to argue that he'd avoid killing on those, since it makes a link to him. Especially after his narrow escape with Paul. If Christer's theory is true, then surely Lechmere would have thought: 'I'll now avoid places I'm known to walk through - look what almost happened in Bucks Row; why kill where there's a chance I'm recognised?'
However, the striking thing is how - with the exception of Kelly - all the killings took place in very risky locations. I've always felt there's some knowledge the killer had, which made these sites far less risky than they seem to us - no idea what!
But it's still unbelievable that someone would do this, on their way to work. Not from the increased risk of capture but because Jack did it for his own enjoyment, so why before an exhausting day's physical work? We're not talking some pre-office gym workout!
8. Lechmere fits none of the eye-witness crime scene sightings. Sure, any number of objections can be made to them, but at least some (I'm thinking 'Broad Shoulders', for Stride) seem important.
9. I don't believe the Police didn't look into Lechmere/Cross, then eliminate him. The fact there's no evidence for this isn't enough - he'd obviously be of interest. He identified himself as finding the body. The significance of this isn't something only recently realised by true-crime readers. I believe it's especially dangerous to claim the Police haven't spotted an obvious suspect: maybe they did their job and had solid reasons for taking no action.
In all true-crime that's unsolved, there's a tendency to underestimate what the police understood, how effective their enquiries were. There were vast amounts of paperwork - let alone discussions - now unavailable to us. That's why Druitt is too easily dismissed. It's not trivial for him to have been named by a very senior figure. There was almost certainly correspondence on him, of which we've no knowledge.
10. There's nothing in what we know of Lechmere to suggest a likely sexual serial killer, whereas there are details from other candidates which do. This isn't a strong point - plenty of serial killers have been 'he seemed like such a normal bloke' types - but more have a documented history of disturbing behaviour and psychological crises.
My least unlikely candidates are (in descending order):
1) James Bury: best fit, convicted killer/mutilator, not eliminated by Scotland Yard, who sent up detectives - including two to his execution - as they still thought he might confess on the gallows.
2) Montague Druitt: only credible named suspect of Scotland Yard's, committed suicide not long after the Kelly killing - could be a coincidence, but clearly showed disturbed behaviour.
3) George Chapman: sadistic and ruthless convicted serial killer, favourite suspect of Abberline's.
4) Francis Thompson: childhood arsonist, detailed medical knowledge/surgical experience, known drug-crazed addict, clear links to his writing.
5) Charles Lechmere: found near body of victim, possibility his timings are suspicious, not much else.
Thanks for reading,
Comment