The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Elamarna]

Not posted recently, but sometimes one needs to , in an attempt to offer clarification.

Lechmere/Cross theory V2.0 Servicepack 2.0

Updated basic points:


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

It's what's left out here that's important.
He is apparently 30-40 yards ahead of Paul when he hears him, having stopped, suggesting he might have been 50 or so yards ahead before he slowed and stopped.
He's walking on his own yes, but he's not really alone, Paul being only 30 seconds or so at most behind, nor is he with the body, but in the middle of the road.
If Paul had seen him crouching over the body, as shown on in a certain Documentary, or had seen him move from the body then there would be a case to say he could be the killer, but the evidence simply says he was walking ahead of Paul.

We could once again go over the timings, but I have covered the issues involved many times before and there is a talk I have at the 2022 East End Conference on this site too

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=329

Of course all of this is covered in great detail in Inside Bucks Row, but it seems so few who support Lechmere have bothered to read it.

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

Which is really irrelvant, such does not pinpoint her who killer was.
She almost certainly met her killer close to, if not at the spot she was found. The area behind Whitechapel Station was a known area used by prostitues, this is documented by the police, the number of brothels in the surrounding roads as commented on , by Mrs Green at the inquest, indeed she almost objects too much at the attention to Brown's Yard, and says the police should be looking at the disorderly houses in other nearby streets. Then we have the comments of Tomkins in response to questions by Baxter with regards to girls coming to the slaughter house. Again all this is documented with supporting sources in Inside Bucks Row.

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

Exactly what was Said is unclear, but he did say she was dead or drunk, and that Mizen should attend. I don't see not explicitly saying she had been attacked as being at all suspicious.

4- Lechmere gave just the name Cross at the inquest

Yes, a name he was entitled to use, and which he probably used at work.

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

First point, you seem to accept the driver was Lechmere, if so this means he almost certainly used the name Cross at Pickfords.
Many RTA's occurred, and the inquest concluded he was not to blame. , that does not make someone a killer.

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

Again, this is not significant, many people would not want to so, it's human nature.

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

What is the significance of this statement, the attack took only minutes, Neil was only in Bucks Row for approximately 5 minutes out of every 30. Mizen and Thain passed the ends of the street once every 30 minutes.
Mizen apparently did not count the exchange with Lechmere and Paul as attracting attention.

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

Just when and where would he do this?
The area was searched and no knife was found.

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

Again the significance? Such does not make Lechmere her killer.
Indeed in the following days, the authorities took a very close look at the 3 slaughter men.

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

It was dark, blood in the dark looks black, Neil only saw the blood with the aid of his lamp

11- According to detective inspector Dew, Lechmere went to the woman, shaked her, and noticed there was something strange about the position of the woman's head (it was almost severed from the body) before meeting with Paul, he failed to notice any blood or cut, and failed to mention this to Mizen or to the Jury

Dew was not even present, he was in H division, thus was J. This is the man who also claimed that Paul was never located. His comments on the case should be treated with a great deal of caution.


Mary Ann Nichols was far from being nearly decapitated, the descriptions of her neck wounds make this very clear.
Annie was indeed close, but even then the spinal column was basically intact.
What we have is myth repeated over and over.

I don't mean to push this, but maybe pro Lechmere people could read the sourced to counter arguments given Inside Bucks Row

Steve

[Geddy2112]

Thomas Cross was an alcoholic who drank himself to death at a young age ..... and it doesn't matter how animatedly you flap around to the contrary.

However that does not make Charles Lechmere a serial killer and to think it even suggests he is I'm afraid is ludicrous. There are many folk with poor upbringings, probably worse than his and guess what... yip not a serial killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you think if Guiltmere left home half an hour earlier than he stated in order to find a woman and kill her, he will come to the inquest and tell the coroner and the jury:

- Your honor, I left home at 3:00 a.m that morning, I walked very very slowly because I had too much time and I didn't know what to do, I went looking rights and lefts out of boring, until the shape of a woman lying on the ground in Buck's Row caught my eyes, I still had too much time so I waited and waited, until someone came along, but I am innocent your honor, if I were the killer I would have run und you wouldn't have dreamed of me standing in front of you, right your honor?

- Yes Mr. Cross, you may go now, we completely believe you, but next time please try to leave home later, those streets are not as safe these days, there is a killer hiding somewhere




The Baron

Is this a genuine point or an attempt at humour? I can’t tell.

I don’t know when he left home. You don’t know when he left home. No one knows when he left home. Therefore we cannot assume a gap.

I can’t make it any simpler Baron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not posted recently, but sometimes one needs to , in an attempt to offer clarification.



It's what's left out here that's important.
He is apparently 30-40 yards ahead of Paul when he hears him, having stopped, suggesting he might have been 50 or so yards ahead before he slowed and stopped.
He's walking on his own yes, but he's not really alone, Paul being only 30 seconds or so at most behind, nor is he with the body, but in the middle of the road.
If Paul had seen him crouching over the body, as shown on in a certain Documentary, or had seen him move from the body then there would be a case to say he could be the killer, but the evidence simply says he was walking ahead of Paul.

We could once again go over the timings, but I have covered the issues involved many times before and there is a talk I have at the 2022 East End Conference on this site too

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=329

Of course all of this is covered in great detail in Inside Bucks Row, but it seems so few who support Lechmere have bothered to read it.



Which is really irrelvant, such does not pinpoint her who killer was.
She almost certainly met her killer close to, if not at the spot she was found. The area behind Whitechapel Station was a known area used by prostitues, this is documented by the police, the number of brothels in the surrounding roads as commented on , by Mrs Green at the inquest, indeed she almost objects too much at the attention to Brown's Yard, and says the police should be looking at the disorderly houses in other nearby streets. Then we have the comments of Tomkins in response to questions by Baxter with regards to girls coming to the slaughter house. Again all this is documented with supporting sources in Inside Bucks Row.



Exactly what was Said is unclear, but he did say she was dead or drunk, and that Mizen should attend. I don't see not explicitly saying she had been attacked as being at all suspicious.



Yes, a name he was entitled to use, and which he probably used at work.



First point, you seem to accept the driver was Lechmere, if so this means he almost certainly used the name Cross at Pickfords.
Many RTA's occurred, and the inquest concluded he was not to blame. , that does not make someone a killer.



Again, this is not significant, many people would not want to so, it's human nature.



What is the significance of this statement, the attack took only minutes, Neil was only in Bucks Row for approximately 5 minutes out of every 30. Mizen and Thain passed the ends of the street once every 30 minutes.
Mizen apparently did not count the exchange with Lechmere and Paul as attracting attention.



Just when and where would he do this?
The area was searched and no knife was found.



Again the significance? Such does not make Lechmere her killer.
Indeed in the following days, the authorities took a very close look at the 3 slaughter men.



It was dark, blood in the dark looks black, Neil only saw the blood with the aid of his lamp



Dew was not even present, he was in H division, thus was J. This is the man who also claimed that Paul was never located. His comments on the case should be treated with a great deal of caution.


Mary Ann Nichols was far from being nearly decapitated, the descriptions of her neck wounds make this very clear.
Annie was indeed close, but even then the spinal column was basically intact.
What we have is myth repeated over and over.

I don't mean to push this, but maybe pro Lechmere people could read the sourced to counter arguments given Inside Bucks Row

Steve

Excellent post Steve.

How many years have we been putting up with this kind of stuff? Why the hell do they do it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the typical witless response I expect from you Herlock.

A mentally adept poster would consider the health items on Thomas Cross's death certificate:

* fatty degeneration
* dropsy
* uremia

and if in disagreement with my contention - that Cross died from alcoholic liver disease, precipitating acute kidney failure,
they would counter with an alternative pathological history saying that I ignored these other possibilities.

That's how a sensible poster would respond. Some might even look up the death certificate to make sure i'm just not inventing the symptoms, or they would position themselves to downgrade the reliability of medical diagnosis during this era.

You, however, go into your well honed gooney bird squak about this being outrageous. and you've never ..... flapping around for awhile,

and then your finishing maneuver, the patented "it doesn't prove that Lechmere is the killer .... bizarre" pirouette.

Maybe you need to get David Orsam to do your thinking again.

Thomas Cross was an alcoholic who drank himself to death at a young age ..... and it doesn't matter how animatedly you flap around to the contrary.

The idea that Charles Lechmere had a half way stable upbringing just went down the toilet.

And here we go. As soon as you run out of content (which was a while ago) the personal insults come out.

His background isn’t relevant because we know that he wasn’t the killer. My uncle was an alcoholic, the Foreman at the first job that I had was an alcoholic, a guy that ran a fish and chip shop near to my school was an alcoholic. Between them they had 10 or 11 kids, none of whom turned out to be serial killers.

[Fiver]

You're getting silly and quite frankly overheated fiver. Calling me a violent drunk .... never touch the stuff.

I commented on your analysis, nothing more. Please stop making false statements about what I said.

[Geddy2112]

How many years have we been putting up with this kind of stuff? Why the hell do they do it?

Well this appeared in the Daily Telegraph on the 31st Aug 2012. You can possibly work out where the Missing Evidence got it's angles from...

Was Jack the Ripper a cart driver from Bethnal Green?
Two Jack The Ripper experts believe they have found the identity of the Whitechapel serial killer. A new theory suggests Jack The Ripper was the cart driver who told police he discovered the first victim.
It has been the subject of macabre speculation for more than 100 years but now two Jack The Ripper experts believe they have found the identity of the Whitechapel serial killer.
Authors Christer Holmgren and Edward Stow believe the most likely suspect for Jack The Ripper is Charles Cross, a carman who claimed to have found the first victim prostitute Polly Nichols on August 31 1888.
Cross was discovered crouching over the body by a witness Robert Paul.
He told police he had been walking through Bucks Row on his way to Pickfords’ depot in Broad Street at around 3am when he found the body of Nichols.
But Holmgren and Stow believe he could have been the killer, disturbed as he was mutilating the body of Nichols.
Paul claimed he had seen Cross standing by the body of Nichols when he had arrived but Cross later told police he had been standing away from the body in the road.
And all the subsequent murders took place between his home in Doveton Street in Bethnal Green and his work at Broad Street at times when he would have been walking to work.
Mr Stow said: "We think it Charles Cross, the first person who found that first body. He was seen crouching over Polly Nichols and he was trying to cover up some of the wounds.
"He hasn't been the subject of a lot of investigation and has only crept up very vaguely in census records.
"We have found out that he gave a false name to the police. His real name was Charles Latchmere.
"The police at the time were looking for some sort of special individual. But most crimes turn out to be someone quite ordinary.
"He walked past every single murder scene on his way to work. He is the best suspect so far."
Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols was attacked as she walked home from a night walking the Whitechapel Road.
Her throat was slit twice from left to right and her body mutilated.
The body of second Ripper victim, Annie Chapman, was found on September 8 in the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street, Spitalfields. Her abdomen was slashed entirely open, and it was later discovered that the uterus had been removed.
Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed in the early morning of Sunday 30 September 1888.
Eddowes' body was found in Mitre Square, in the City of London, three-quarters of an hour after Stride's. The throat was severed, and the abdomen was ripped open by a long, deep, jagged wound. The left kidney and the major part of the uterus had been removed.
The final victim, Mary Jane Kelly was discovered lying on the bed in the single room where she lived at 13 Miller's Court off Dorset Street, Spitalfields on November 9 1888. The throat had been severed down to the spine, and the abdomen virtually emptied of its organs. Even her heart was missing.
The removal of the organs led the police to suspect he was an educated upper-class man, possibly a doctor or an aristocrat. Suggestions for the culprit included Prince Albert Victor, the grandson of Queen Victoria, and Sir William Gull, the Queen's doctor.
Holmgren and Stow made the claims on the anniversary of the first murder at a re-enactment in Bethnal Green.
Cross died in 1920 and was survived by his wife who eventually passed away on 12 September 1940 in Stratford.

How many material inaccuracies in that lot... answer quite a few.

[Fiver]

When one make a diagnosis, one does not consider the symptoms separately, one considers them all together and attempts to identify the underlyng pathology. If one has two concurrent pathologies, that's another issue: chronic kidney disease and heart disease for instance, neither initiating the other.

True.

Liver disease was the safest and easiest choice, of which there are 3 basic types:

1. Alcoholic liver disease (ALD)
2. Non alcoholic fatty liver disease (NALD)
3. Non alcoholic steatohepititis (NASH)

Thomas Cross's death certificate does not state what organ or organs were affected. The November 1897 Journal of Medicine and Science lists fatty degeneration of the heart, arteries, kidney, eye, liver, and brain. Assuming that it was the liver and only the liver, is not 'the safest and easiest choice", it is adjusting the data to fit the theory.

1. knowledge about NALD & NASH did not exist in 1888: but there was knowledge about the histology of ALD ... the fatty degeneration, no doubt, was attributed to alcohol excess in the mind of the doctor.

The terms NALD and NASH didn't exist, but period doctors were well aware that alcoholism was a cause, but not the only cause of fatty degeneration in the liver. The November 1897 Journal of Medicine and Science says "The point I wish to enforce is that these diseases resulting from fatty degeneration come largely from eating starches and sugar in excess."

[The Baron]

I don't mean to push this, but maybe pro Lechmere people could read the sourced to counter arguments given Inside Bucks Row

Hi Steve,

Of course there are counter arguments, all are fair arguments even, but that doesn't mean the rised points that make Lechmere a person of interest are meaningless either, as the anti-Lechmerians want to believe.

The problem as I see it, is that most posters when they hear the name Lechmere they automatically retreat into a defensive mode, that tells that Fisherman has managed to shake their confidence of the man's innocence.



The Baron

[The Baron]

Lechmere/Cross theory V2.0 Servicepack 2.1

Updated 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 killed 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

11- According to detective inspector Dew, Lechmere went to the woman, shaked her, and noticed there was something strange about the position of the woman's head (it was almost severed from the body) before meeting with Paul, he failed to notice any blood or cut, and failed to mention this to Mizen or to the Jury

12- Paul didn't see or hear Lechmere walking in front of him before Lechmere appeared near the body of Nichols



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

that tells that Fisherman has managed to shake their confidence of the man's innocence.

If that's your conclusion, your imagination has gotten the better of you.

People like to point out weak arguments and give resistance to reckless accusations. That's all it is. No one's confidence is shaken by Christer's arguments.

One could just as easily claim that your own recent commentary shows that you are deeply shaken by the possibility that William Henry Bury was Jack the Ripper.

Is that the case?

[The Baron]

You have just proved my point.


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

You have just proved my point.


The Baron

I have?

So you are secretly convinced by the Bury theory and are terrified that William Henry Bury was Jack the Ripper? And this is what fuels your resistance?

[The Baron]

I have?

So you are secretly convinced by the Bury theory and are terrified that William Henry Bury was Jack the Ripper? And this is what fuels your resistance?

Stay well good man



The Baron

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Of course there are counter arguments, all are fair arguments even, but that doesn't mean the rised points that make Lechmere a person of interest are meaningless either, as the anti-Lechmerians want to believe.

The problem as I see it, is that most posters when they hear the name Lechmere they automatically retreat into a defensive mode, that tells that Fisherman has managed to shake their confidence of the man's innocence.



The Baron

My view remains as it always does, that is Lechmere is a viable suspect, he's in the area, and the first to see the body of Mary Ann.
However, in my view, on present research, he's not a particularly strong candidate.

I see the issue somewhat differently to you, in that I see too many pro Lechmere people stating there is no other choice, some even state its been proven beyond reasonable doubt, such is clearly incorrect. Such comments, for me, is why some of those who don't support the Lechmere theory, respond as they do.
I dont think the case as presented bt either Mr Holmgren or Mr Stow, should shake the confidence of any who have seriously looked at the theory.

Steve