The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Fiver]

Lechmere/Cross theory V2.0:

Basic points:


1- Lechmere was seen alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman

2- The victim was last seen alive about half past two, she was alone, there was no sighting of her in company with another man

3- Lechmere didn't notify Mizen that the victim looked as if she had been outraged

4- Lechmere gave just the name Cross at the inquest

5- Lechmere was involved in an accident that kilked a boy

6- In one account Lechmere refused to prop the woman up

7- Three constables didn't notice anything unusual and nothing attracted their attention that night

8- Lechmere might have got a chance to get rid of a knife

9- The true murderer of Nichols hadn't been convicted

10- Neither Lechmere nor Paul noticed a pool of blood under the woman's head or blood oozing from a throat cut, there is a chance that one of them might have been lying



The Baron

1) True.
2) Irrelevant. Tells us nothing about who killed Nichols.
3) Irrelevant. Neither did Paul and it tells us nothing about who killed Nichols.
4) Irrelevant. Lechmere made no attempt to hide his identity from anyone.
5) Irrelevant. Tells us nothing about who killed Nichols.
6) A point in Lechmere's favor. Propping up the body would have provided an innocent excuse.
7) Irrelevant. Tells us nothing about who killed Nichols.
8) Speculation based on the assumption that Lechmere was the Ripper.
9) Irrelevant. Tells us nothing about who killed Nichols.
10) Speculation.

[Newbie]

Why should an innocent man be explored further? He was checked and cleared at the time. He did not act suspiciously. He did what any normal innocent person would do.
How can we suggest 'how a guilty Lechmere..' would do anything when he was not guilty. It's a pointless exercise and involves making stuff up and when trying to convince the world someone is the most notorious serial killer in history that is a very unsafe thing to do.

There is a very good reason why Christer and Ed have not come up with anything new for the last ten years or so to strengthen their case and you know why that is? yes, because there is nothing.

They didn't even know his Christian name Geddy.
Maybe they called his employer, maybe they didn't even do that much - its of course pure speculation.

That would be the extent of their 'check' on Lechmere's activities: very little to zip.

[Newbie]

A little true story for you...

Once upon a time a teenage Geddy was doing his job, paper round. He stuck to his route because it was the fastest. He did the same route at the same time five days a week and often got waves from people on that route or the odd hello. People would easily have recognised him because he was at the same place at the same time most days of the week.
Half way through his route he would drop some papers in the OAPs bungalows and one in particular he would stop for say a minute to chat to the old lady who always without fail met him at the garden gate. Bless her she never got much company so he always said hello.
Geddy often had a friend help him. They would walk together for most of the route alternating the posting of the papers from one side of the street to the other, she did the 'odds' he did the 'evens.' Now where the OAP bungalows were the street widened with a little grassy area in between. So Geddy did the bungalows, his friend the other side of the green.
One day in early November Geddy was doing the bungalows and noticed the lady was not at her gate. He was quite concerned so walked down the path to the side door of the bungalow, the door was ajar so he pushed the door open to discover a 'freshly killed woman' lying on the floor. He stepped back out of the door way in shock and horror. At the same time his friend saw him at the door way where the freshly killed woman was and ran across the green to see what had happened. In effect Geddy's friend had spotted him near a freshly killed woman.
They both ran as fast as they could to alert a neighbour and got them to call for the Police. Geddy was questioned that evening by the Police in his 'work' clothes (School uniform) and again the next day in his school uniform at great length. He had his finger prints taken for elimination purposes and all was well. Not once was Geddy suspected of any wrong doing and neither was his friend. Before anyone states 'ah they were just kids' indeed they were but the actual murderer was only 11 at the time.

I was thinking it to be a hypothetical story, but at the end it seemed like the real deal.

I'm sorry Geddy, how horrible.

[Geddy2112]

They didn't even know his Christian name Geddy.
Maybe they called his employer, maybe they didn't even do that much - its of course pure speculation.

That would be the extent of their 'check' on Lechmere's activities: very little to zip.

Apart from when he gave it in the inquest... I believe it was in Dew's memoirs that he gave a good character statement on Lechmere which will probably have come second had. To wit he was thoroughly checked over by the police.

[Geddy2112]

I was thinking it to be a hypothetical story, but at the end it seemed like the real deal.

I'm sorry Geddy, how horrible.

Yes it's a very true story. However I'm not even sure my son knows I found a dead body. So I presume when I get grand children they won't know either and thus in 130 years time there will be no oral history from my family that Great Grand Daddy was 'found next to a freshly killed woman.'

[Fiver]

Apart from when he gave it in the inquest... I believe it was in Dew's memoirs that he gave a good character statement on Lechmere which will probably have come second had. To wit he was thoroughly checked over by the police.

Dew's account is here on Casebook. It was written in 1938, and Dew himself said "In writing of the "Jack the Ripper crimes", it must be remembered that they took place fifty years ago, and it may be that small errors as to dates and days may have crept in."

Here's a key bit

"On 1st September, 1888, the Ripper struck a third time. His victim was found in the early hours of the morning lying in the gateway of Essex Wharf, in Bucks Row, just off Brady Street, and not far from Hanbury Street, the scene later of a duplicate murder.

Bucks Row was just a few yards outside the boundary of " H " Division to which I was attached. The district was squalid. The spot for such a crime was ideal. Close by were a number of slaughterhouses.

No better illustration of East-End conditions at the time could be afforded than by the behaviour of Charles ______ , a middle-aged carman, who was the first to see the body.

The carman was on his way through Bucks Row to his day's work when he saw a huddled mass in the gateway of Essex Wharf. He crossed from one side of the street to the other to investigate.

The light was just sufficient to show him that the form was that of a woman and that she had been mishandled. Her clothing had been disarranged and her bonnet had fallen from her head. There was something strange too about the position of the woman's head.

In any other district of London such a discovery would have sent the man dashing for a policeman. But this was Whitechapel, where crimes of violence and outrage were of everyday occurrence.

The carman shook the woman. She did not stir. He decided it was a case of a woman who had fainted following assault, and, making a mental note to report the matter to the first police constable he saw, he went on his way.

A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious. The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said:

"Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."

Together the two men went to the gateway where the poor woman was lying. The newcomer felt her heart. His verdict was not reassuring.

"I think she's breathing," he told his companion, "but it's very little if she is."

The couple parted, ________ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.

All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.

Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?

In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed. He might have been a criminal; or he might have been afraid, as so many were, to risk the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime.

The carman reported his early-morning discovery to a policeman, but in the meantime, P.C. Neal, making his regular beat along Bucks Row, had en the huddled form lying in the gateway.

The policeman, with the aid of his bullseye, saw what the others had overlooked. The woman's head had been almost severed from the body."

[The Baron]

The carman shook the woman. She did not stir. He decided it was a case of a woman who had fainted following assault, and, making a mental note to report the matter to the first police constable he saw, he went on his way.

Well well, he went to the woman, touched her, shaked her.. all before Paul arrived in the scene!!!

And he noticed that there was something strange about the position of the woman's head!!!

And again he thought she was outraged and didn't tell Mizen that!!!


Very very interesting



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Well well, he went to the woman, touched her, shaked her.. all before Paul arrived in the scene!!!

And he noticed that there was something strange about the position of the woman's head!!!

And again he thought she was outraged and didn't tell Mizen that!!!

This is what Dew wrote in a padded out story version of events some 50 years after the event. If you believe the above then you also have to believe that Dew almost certainly thought Paul was very suspicious. Good old Lechmere theory, always wanting both sides of the coin.

[Fiver]

They didn't even know his Christian name Geddy.
Maybe they called his employer, maybe they didn't even do that much - its of course pure speculation.

That would be the extent of their 'check' on Lechmere's activities: very little to zip.

He publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords for a couple decades and whose shift started at 4am at the Broad Street Station. Who would ever suspect that might be carman Charles Allen Lechmere, the stepson of Thomas Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords for a couple decades and whose shift started at 4am at the Broad Street Station?

The police knew where to contact him at both work and at home. We know that at the inquest, Lechmere testified his movements from leaving home until he parted company with Robert Paul. We also know that PC Mizen identified Lechmere in court, likely to ensure they had an actual witness, not a publicity seeker.Lechmere's statements would have been recorded by the police and the court. And the police also had PC Mizen, and later Robert Paul's testimony to compare with Lechmere's statement.

We don't know if the police tried to confirm Lechmere's statement. Either way, they clearly they did not find him suspicious.

[Fiver]

Well well, he went to the woman, touched her, shaked her.. all before Paul arrived in the scene!!!

And he noticed that there was something strange about the position of the woman's head!!!

And again he thought she was outraged and didn't tell Mizen that!!!


Very very interesting



The Baron

Very interesting that you ignore Dew's own disclaimer. And assume that part was 100% accurate, while ignoring that Dew got several things wrong - the date, the location of the body, the idea that Paul split up with Cross, and the idea that Paul was never found.

[Newbie]

He publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickfords for a couple decades and whose shift started at 4am at the Broad Street Station. Who would ever suspect that might be carman Charles Allen Lechmere, the stepson of Thomas Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords for a couple decades and whose shift started at 4am at the Broad Street Station?

The police knew where to contact him at both work and at home. We know that at the inquest, Lechmere testified his movements from leaving home until he parted company with Robert Paul. We also know that PC Mizen identified Lechmere in court, likely to ensure they had an actual witness, not a publicity seeker.Lechmere's statements would have been recorded by the police and the court. And the police also had PC Mizen, and later Robert Paul's testimony to compare with Lechmere's statement.

We don't know if the police tried to confirm Lechmere's statement. Either way, they clearly they did not find him suspicious.

You keep on saying this fiver.

Only one journalist included Lechmere's address in his report, all the others failed to do so .... even though they routinely included the addresses of the witnesses, save officials. They all missed this nugget in his inquest testimony, or one journalist was more thorough and went to police officials to obtain it?

Which do you think is more likely?

One paper said that Lechmere left home at 3:20 am ..... which would mean he would have arrived at the murder site around 3:27 am, or would have went up to White chapel road to pick up a prostitute and then arrived later.

Which testimony should we go by here, the one most commonly mentioned or the one that might fit into our bias?

[Newbie]

No comments so far on how Charles Lechmere's step dad, who entered his life around the age of nine,
most probably drank himself to death by the age of 34?

What was it like growing up in a household, where dear old dad abandoned you, and his replacement was an alcoholic who drank himself to death by the age of 34?

Abusive? One can only guess ..... but it could explain the violent part of Lechmere's personality, if we find that bit of oral history credible.

Let's see: kidney failure, cirrhosis, ..... no, doctors back then were highly questionable in their ability to evaluate systemic illnesses.

Thomas Cross could have died by suicide .... er, no ..... flu epidemic. Yeah, that's right!

Okay darnit, it was Non alcoholic liver disease! Anything possible goes by me, just so that it deflates this unfair witch hunt against St. Lechmere.

[Scott Nelson]

No comments so far on ....

No, it's tiring after a while. Give Lechmere at rest.

[Fiver]

Only one journalist included Lechmere's address in his report, all the others failed to do so .... even though they routinely included the addresses of the witnesses, save officials. They all missed this nugget in his inquest testimony, or one journalist was more thorough and went to police officials to obtain it?

Which do you think is more likely?

Period newspapers were very hit and miss on recording witness addresses. There were five civilian witnesses on September 3. The Daily Telegraph gave full addresses for Tompkins and Holland, a partial address for Nichols, and no addresses for Cross or Monk.

The Doveton address being listed in only one paper leaves two possibilities.

1) Charles Allen Cross gave his address in open court. Only one paper bothered to mention it.

2) Charles Allen Cross requested the coroner to not have his name given publicly at the inquest, as was his right. The coroner agreed to this request and 22 Doveton Street was never stated publicly at the inquest. None of the reporters commented on this somewhat unusual event. The reporter for the Star chose to defy the wishes of the coroner for no reason and get the home address of that witness from the court clerk. This same reporter, having risked the coroner's wrath to get the address, didn't bother to record Carman Cross' first and middle names. The court clerk chose to defy the coroner's wishes for no reason and give the Doveton address to the reporter. The coroner did and said nothing about the reporter and the clerk defying him. None of the other newspapers criticized the reporter, the clerk, or the coroner for this.

Which do you think is more likely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No comments so far on how Charles Lechmere's step dad, who entered his life around the age of nine,
most probably drank himself to death by the age of 34?

What was it like growing up in a household, where dear old dad abandoned you, and his replacement was an alcoholic who drank himself to death by the age of 34?

Abusive? One can only guess ..... but it could explain the violent part of Lechmere's personality, if we find that bit of oral history credible.

Let's see: kidney failure, cirrhosis, ..... no, doctors back then were highly questionable in their ability to evaluate systemic illnesses.

Thomas Cross could have died by suicide .... er, no ..... flu epidemic. Yeah, that's right!

Okay darnit, it was Non alcoholic liver disease! Anything possible goes by me, just so that it deflates this unfair witch hunt against St. Lechmere.

Are you actually making serious points here? Really?

In 35+ years I’ve never heard such utter nonsense that I hear from Cross obsessives.

Give it a rest.