The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Geddy2112]

You missed the point

Hi Baron, I'm not sure I am but okay..

First you are using Lechmere's own testimony to show the route he came from, but assuming he was the Killer we cannot relay on his sayings. And all his testimony just tells us from where he came, the first time.

Of course I'm using his testimony because that is all we have. Otherwise you head down the 'made up speculation bullshit route' which of course is not a safe way to solve a serial killer case.

Second, if you read my posts here, I am drawing a new scenario in which a guilty Lechmere after killing Nichols and walked away he noticed Mizen or noises, panicked, and got back, so I am here talking about a second passing of Buck's Row not the first one.

Okay, I noticed that but again same as above it's pure speculation and goes against what we know. I still prefer my suggestion a few months ago that Paul did something similar (not saying he did as such) because if anyone's testimonies do not add up in all of this it is his.

I am not convinced at all of Lechmere guilt, not with his Knife on himself going to talk to the police, if he got a chance somehow to get rid of the knife then I may consider him.

He could have easily got rid of the knife, he could have lobbed it over the wall onto the train tracks very quickly. The having a knife on him is within a very long list of reasons why Lechmere was not JtR for me.

[The Baron]

'Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row.'

Lechmere's testimony stated he passed through Bucks Row. Now considering he lived East of the crime scene you can safely assume the passing through Bucks Row meant he entered it at the East end and exited via the West end. Otherwise he was going in the completely wrong direction to work.

You missed the point

First you are using Lechmere's own testimony to show the rout he came from, but assuming he was the Killer we cannot relay on his sayings.

And all his testimony just tells us from where he came, the first time.

Second, if you read my posts here, I am drawing a new scenario in which a guilty Lechmere after killing Nichols and walked away he noticed Mizen or noises, panicked, and got back, so I am here talking about a second passing of Buck's Row not the first one.

I am not convinced at all of Lechmere guilt, not whith his Knife on himself going to talk to the police, if he got a chance somehow to get rid of the knife then I may consider him.



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

I don't see anything in your post that is even close to refute the possibility that Lechmere may have not come from the same direction as Paul.

'Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row.'

Lechmere's testimony stated he passed through Bucks Row. Now considering he lived East of the crime scene you can safely assume the passing through Bucks Row meant he entered it at the East end and exited via the West end. Otherwise he was going in the completely wrong direction to work.

[The Baron]

That's a reporter's summation, not Lechmere's actual words.

"I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman. At the same time I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going. He was about thirty or forty yards behind then."- 3 September 1888 Echo.



No stranger than Robert Paul never having seen Lechmere before. Or Mizen not recognizing either Lechmere or Paul.



"He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away." - 18 September 1888 Times

"He saw no one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature." - 22 September 1888 East London Advertiser

That's Paul saying he met someone in Bucks Row, which clearly means Charles Lechmere, That's Paul saying that he didn't see or hear anyone before he encountered Lechmere. That's Paul saying that he didn't see anyone running away from the crime scene. Thats Paul saying he didn't notice anything suspcious, which clearly includes Lechmere.

Paul's statement does not say that he did not see or hear Lechmere walking in front of him.

Hi Fiver,

I don't see anything in your post that is even close to refute the possibility that Lechmere may have not come from the same direction as Paul.

I stand by all the points in my original post.



The Baron

[Fiver]

Lechmere/Cross:

"He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from"


This doesn't ring quite spontaneous and automatic thing to say, does it, it seems as if Lechmere was intentionally and deliberately trying to show the jury that he also was coming from that direction..

Maybe he was not coming from that direction?

That's a reporter's summation, not Lechmere's actual words.

"I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman. At the same time I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going. He was about thirty or forty yards behind then."- 3 September 1888 Echo.

"The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before."

If Lechmere used to come from that same direction as Paul it seems strange that Lechmere had never seen him before.

No stranger than Robert Paul never having seen Lechmere before. Or Mizen not recognizing either Lechmere or Paul.

Paul:

"Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away."


Paul didn't notice nor hear Lechmere walking in front of him at that direction.

"He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away." - 18 September 1888 Times

"He saw no one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature." - 22 September 1888 East London Advertiser

That's Paul saying he met someone in Bucks Row, which clearly means Charles Lechmere, That's Paul saying that he didn't see or hear anyone before he encountered Lechmere. That's Paul saying that he didn't see anyone running away from the crime scene. Thats Paul saying he didn't notice anything suspcious, which clearly includes Lechmere.

Paul's statement does not say that he did not see or hear Lechmere walking in front of him.

[The Baron]

Lechmere/Cross:

"He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from"


This doesn't ring quite spontaneous and automatic thing to say, does it, it seems as if Lechmere was intentionally and deliberately trying to show the jury that he also was coming from that direction..

Maybe he was not coming from that direction?


"The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before."

If Lechmere used to come from that same direction as Paul it seems strange that Lechmere had never seen him before.


Paul:

"Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away."


Paul didn't notice nor hear Lechmere walking in front of him at that direction.



The Baron

[The Baron]

Hi Baron,

I'm not going to say it would be impossible, but I do think it would be quite improbable.

The intersection with Baker's Row would be about 220 yards away, so Lechmere would have to have travelled at least a relatively signifigant distance from the body to have been able to spot Mizen. If Mizen wasn't passing Buck's Row then, then Lechmere wouldn't even have been able to see anything of Mizen until he would have turned into Baker's Row.

And then, why would he ever want to turn back to the body having arrived so far away from it? Why not altogether avoid the possibility of walking into Mizen by leaving the area through Court Street or Thomas Street?

And remember, if a guilty Lechmere wanted to get rid of the knife before Paul arrived, he could have done that anywhere. He could even have hid it under Nichols's clothes, in case he needed it to eliminate Paul. As long as he didn't have the knife on his person, the police would never be able to link it to him in the sense of any proof, unless - perhaps - it bore a name or symbol to which he could be linked. Otherwise, he could have dropped it anywhere or have tossed it over any fence he fancied.

The best,
Frank

A great insight Frank, thanks.

Mizen was calling people out, this gives Lechmere a chance to notice him earlier.

He panicked, hesitated to continue that road, if Mizen or anyone else nearby noticed him whether in Backer's Row or Court Street or Thomas Street, he will become the prime suspect after discovering the murder.

He hesitatingly chose to go back the road he just came from since there were no one or policeman and it was very dark there, the road back gives him a chance that other roads don't, and that is if anyone was there in Bock' Row now it will look as if Lechmere has just arrived.

His first priority in plan B is to get rid of the knife, so he threw it in a drain or somewhere on his way.

In my scenario Lechmere is not the psychopath who dosn't have fear and who chooses to stay by the victims, he killed a woman, mutilated her, and tried to withdraw unnoticed from the spot, but when he saw Mizen or heard sounds he had to adjust, all this was not planned beforehand, it was decided on the spur of the moment it involved hesitating, taking steps back, panicking, geting rid of the Knife before talking to the Police, this version is an attempt to counter the bugs of the original theory. And who knows, maybe that is exactly what happened..



The Baron

[FrankO]

Let's try this,

Lechmere killed Nichols, then walked away, he noticed Mizen from afar, he decided to turn back before he notice him, and to get rid of the Knife on his way, then when he reached back Buck's Row he heard Paul coming and stopped in the middle of the street, it would look better for him now to take someone with him when meeting Mizen, and since he got a chance to get rid of the knife in the middle and make sure he got no blood on himself he refused to help her when Paul suggested that.

I think this scenario works better, since it doesn't force a guilty Lechmere stands still, and give him a chance to get rid of the weapon somewhere.


Would that be possible?! And if so, where could he have hidden the knife?!

Hi Baron,

I'm not going to say it would be impossible, but I do think it would be quite improbable.

The intersection with Baker's Row would be about 220 yards away, so Lechmere would have to have travelled at least a relatively signifigant distance from the body to have been able to spot Mizen. If Mizen wasn't passing Buck's Row then, then Lechmere wouldn't even have been able to see anything of Mizen until he would have turned into Baker's Row.

And then, why would he ever want to turn back to the body having arrived so far away from it? Why not altogether avoid the possibility of walking into Mizen by leaving the area through Court Street or Thomas Street?

And remember, if a guilty Lechmere wanted to get rid of the knife before Paul arrived, he could have done that anywhere. He could even have hid it under Nichols's clothes, in case he needed it to eliminate Paul. As long as he didn't have the knife on his person, the police would never be able to link it to him in the sense of any proof, unless - perhaps - it bore a name or symbol to which he could be linked. Otherwise, he could have dropped it anywhere or have tossed it over any fence he fancied.

The best,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

Why would a carman ever need to cut the reins?

Not got a clue... like I said I'd read it somewhere. They might have needed a knife to cut the packaging or something I do not know. Regardless a guilty Cross stopping a passer by then going for the Police is basically putting his neck in the noose.

[The Baron]

Cross did want to prop her up would be the more likely scenario if he were guilty, because then he would have an excuse if he already had blood on him.

In my scenario a guilty Lechmere have already had a chance to clean himself, Lechmere was afraid, he managed to avoid Mizen and got rid of the knife, he met Paul and went with him to check up on the woman, but when Paul thought she might have been still alive/breathing it must have come as a great relieve for Lechmere and he wouldn't have wanted to scare Paul further by moving her and exposing the terrible mutilations, he would have wanted to take him from there quickly and go to talk to Mizen.



The Baron

[Fiver]

He very possibly had a genuine reason to carry a knife for his line of work. I read carmen carried them to cut the reins of the horses if required.

Why would a carman ever need to cut the reins?

[The Baron]

I have read this: "police didn't seem to have searched the drain at Dutfields Yard, which enabled the two dodgy private dicks to find/plant grape stalks"


If there was any drain from Buck's Row to Mizen then my scenario would work, and it is a game changer for the whole Lechmere theory, here we have Lechmere trying to move away from the murder site, before noticing Mizen, not just standing there, and getting rid of the murder weapon.


The Baron

[Lewis C]

Let's try this,

Lechmere killed Nichols, then walked away, he noticed Mizen from afar, he decided to turn back before he notice him, and to get rid of the Knife on his way, then when he reached back Buck's Row he heard Paul coming and stopped in the middle of the street, it would look better for him now to take someone with him when meeting Mizen, and since he got a chance to get rid of the knife in the middle and make sure he got no blood on himself he refused to help her when Paul suggested that.

I think this scenario works better, since it doesn't force a guilty Lechmere stands still, and give him a chance to get rid of the weapon somewhere.


Would that be possible?! And if so, where could he have hidden the knife?!


The Baron

Since they looked for a knife and didn't find one, I think that it's unlikely that he disposed of one. Also, there are 2 versions of the part about whether or not Cross wanted to prop her up. I think the one where Cross did want to prop her up would be the more likely scenario if he were guilty, because then he would have an excuse if he already had blood on him.

[The Baron]

Let's try this,

Lechmere killed Nichols, then walked away, he noticed Mizen from afar, he decided to turn back before he notice him, and to get rid of the Knife on his way, then when he reached back Buck's Row he heard Paul coming and stopped in the middle of the street, it would look better for him now to take someone with him when meeting Mizen, and since he got a chance to get rid of the knife in the middle and make sure he got no blood on himself he refused to help her when Paul suggested that.

I think this scenario works better, since it doesn't force a guilty Lechmere stands still, and give him a chance to get rid of the weapon somewhere.


Would that be possible?! And if so, where could he have hidden the knife?!


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

He very possibly had a genuine reason to carry a knife for his line of work. I read carmen carried them to cut the reins of the horses if required. So he could have wiped the knife and put it back where it belonged and if questioned by the Police he had a genuine reason for carrying one.

The issue for me is not so much the knife it's would a guilty man stop the first passer-by to alert them to their work AND then go and find a PC? I've never read in the history of serial killing that the killer stopped a passer-by then went to alter the fuzz.... I mean really we are stretching the realms of likelihood here.