The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[John Wheat]

The only one of those who is remotely possible is Lechmere.

The rest are not suspects, nor is Lechmere by the way. They have been put together by people theorising 150 years later but there is nothing whatsoever to link them to the crimes.

At least Lechmere was there and is in the witness statements, which isn't much but it's better than the rest.

I reckon there's half a chance that he is mentioned somewhere in the information we have, just an innocuous person to us because we don't know enough about those people giving witness statements.

That's garbage. William Henry Bury was suspected at the time and is a proven Post Mortem Mutilator. Bury also left London after the Kelly murder. Bury is clearly the best suspect we have by a country mile. Lechmere is a terrible suspect.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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,

The only one of those who is remotely possible is Lechmere.

The rest are not suspects, nor is Lechmere by the way. They have been put together by people theorising 150 years later but there is nothing whatsoever to link them to the crimes.

At least Lechmere was there and is in the witness statements, which isn't much but it's better than the rest.

I reckon there's half a chance that he is mentioned somewhere in the information we have, just an innocuous person to us because we don't know enough about those people giving witness statements.

[Fiver]

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.

I like the phrasing 'least unlikely. I am surprised you put Charles Lechmere that high. I'd put him barely above the impossible (Ostrog, Gull) and the ludicrous (anything involving conspiracies, anagrams, or ley lines).

I favor it being Mr U N Owen.

My least unlikely would be
1) David Cohen
2) George Capel Scudamore Lechmere
3) James Hardiman

[Paul Sutton]

Welcome to Casebook!

Thanks - already enjoying it a lot!

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul, and welcome to Casebook!

I agree with almost all of what you said about the shortcomings of the case against Cross. I did find it surprising that in light of all that, you still put Cross as the 5th least unlikely suspect, when there are others such as Levy, Hutchinson, LeGrand, Cohen, Kelly, Kosminski, and Deeming for whom there's more reason for suspicion, IMO. However, you did have my top 2 suspects - Bury and Chapman - in your top 3. Again, welcome!

Many thanks! I got Bury's first name mixed up with James Kelly (who, oddly, was brought up two streets from Thompson in Preston). He onces seemed good for me.

Kosminski should have been in my list. I don't know Deeming - who is he? Cross still in there for me, low down, notwithstanding the problems. All of my list I feel aren't the man! I favour some local from the landlord gangs, who used access to multiple properties as cover/bolt-holes. Someone involved in the Emma Smith attack.

[Lewis C]

Hi Paul, and welcome to Casebook!

I agree with almost all of what you said about the shortcomings of the case against Cross. I did find it surprising that in light of all that, you still put Cross as the 5th least unlikely suspect, when there are others such as Levy, Hutchinson, LeGrand, Cohen, Kelly, Kosminski, and Deeming for whom there's more reason for suspicion, IMO. However, you did have my top 2 suspects - Bury and Chapman - in your top 3. Again, welcome!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Greetings,

Welcome to Casebook!

[Sam Flynn]

That's the main problem. People are treating the case as a whodunnit.

Exactly - a problem I thought that serious ripperology had grown out of a couple of decades back. Seems I was being over-optimistic

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, I suspect you have not seen recent work that suggests that Bucks Row and Winthrop were the centre of a distinct red light area.

Steve

I've not, Steve, although if that were the case I'd have to ask why there weren't far more witnesses to Polly's last moments on Earth.

[Paul Sutton]

Police also testified it would have been very easy to walk off, reach the main roads, and disappear into the crowds. Police also testified that the nearby slaughterhouse would mean blood on the hands or clothes would not be immediately suspicious. Noticeable, but not suspicious.

5) Lechmere didn't give any name to PC Mizen. Neither did Robert Paul. At the inquest, he said he was Charles Allen Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station, with his shift beginning at 4am. No digging would have been required to find him.

6) Another consideration is that plenty of innocent people wouldn't go to the police. Robert Paul sure didn't, the police had to track him down, haul him out off bed, and drag him off to be questioned. In a high crime neighborhood, deliberately going to the police would risk getting the reputation of being a snitch.

9) Though not up to modern procedures, the police did a lot. The surrounding area was searched for blood stains or other clues. House to house inquiries were made. Witnesses were identified before giving testimony. (PC Mizen IDed Lechmere, Alfred Mulshaw IDed PC Thain), People were interviewed separately to see if their stories matched. (The three slaughterman.) Unknown people who walked by after the murder were sought for questioning. By the Stride murder everyone nearby was being carefully examined for signs of blood on them.

There's also the press. The 30 September Lloyd's Weekly showed they had done followup interviews with Robert Paul, John Richardson, Albert Cadosch, Elizabeth Long, and John Davis. You'd think they would want to interview Lechmere as well. And Lechmere's address was on record. Even if they'd missed it in open court, Lloyds could have gotten 22 Doveton from the court or from the paper that did print his address.

So the press could have easily found Lechmere if they wanted to. And who wouldn't want to interview the first man to find the body? But it appears Charles Lechmere chose not to talk to the press.

Now lets look at the Lechmerian portrayal - a bold risktaker who deliberately sought out Robert Paul, PC Mizen, and the Inquest. A man who ran rings around all of them and outwitted them all. Yet they expect us to believe a man like that wouldn't jump at the chance to talk to the press when they showed up at his door. They expect us to believe that a man like that would wait for the press to find him instead of seeking them out.

It's another part of the theory that makes no sense.

Thanks for your detailed reply to my points. My approach to this is very much along the lines of 'what makes sense', and I've no intention of doing research on it - relying on others (much credit to Christer).

But your point on the police is very strong, especially contrasting Paul with Lechmere in their co-operation. I'd add that making oneself known to them was far more significant then than now, since they had not much other way of finding people - no central records let alone databases, of everyone.

So, as you say, there's the East End taboo AND the fact that any criminal would know that the most idiotic thing to do would be to get in their sights.

[Elamarna]

Exactly. Whether she was soliciting, begging, or looking for somewhere who'd take her in for the night, a poky little side-street like Buck's Row was hardly the place to do either.

Gareth, I suspect you have not seen recent work that suggests that Bucks Row and Winthrop were the centre of a distinct red light area.

Steve

[Fiver]

The Lechmere theory seems to have Lechmere more interested in laying ingenious clues for Ripperologists than in escaping attention.

That's the main problem. People are treating the case as a whodunnit.

In a whodunnit all times are accurate unless someone is deliberately being deceptive. In the real world, times are rough approximations and humans usually aren't very good at estimating.

But the Gap fails even if we are acting like it was a whodunnit. Lechmere's timing fits with the timings of PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain. Robert Paul is the witness whose timing contradicts everyone else.

[Fiver]

1) Police also testified it would have been very easy to walk off, reach the main roads, and disappear into the crowds. Police also testified that the nearby slaughterhouse would mean blood on the hands or clothes would not be immediately suspicious. Noticeable, but not suspicious.

5) Lechmere didn't give any name to PC Mizen. Neither did Robert Paul. At the inquest, he said he was Charles Allen Cross, who lived at 22 Doveton Street and had worked for Pickfords at the Broad Street Station, with his shift beginning at 4am. No digging would have been required to find him.

6) Another consideration is that plenty of innocent people wouldn't go to the police. Robert Paul sure didn't, the police had to track him down, haul him out off bed, and drag him off to be questioned. In a high crime neighborhood, deliberately going to the police would risk getting the reputation of being a snitch.

9) Though not up to modern procedures, the police did a lot. The surrounding area was searched for blood stains or other clues. House to house inquiries were made. Witnesses were identified before giving testimony. (PC Mizen IDed Lechmere, Alfred Mulshaw IDed PC Thain), People were interviewed separately to see if their stories matched. (The three slaughterman.) Unknown people who walked by after the murder were sought for questioning. By the Stride murder everyone nearby was being carefully examined for signs of blood on them.

There's also the press. The 30 September Lloyd's Weekly showed they had done followup interviews with Robert Paul, John Richardson, Albert Cadosch, Elizabeth Long, and John Davis. You'd think they would want to interview Lechmere as well. And Lechmere's address was on record. Even if they'd missed it in open court, Lloyds could have gotten 22 Doveton from the court or from the paper that did print his address.

So the press could have easily found Lechmere if they wanted to. And who wouldn't want to interview the first man to find the body? But it appears Charles Lechmere chose not to talk to the press.

Now lets look at the Lechmerian portrayal - a bold risktaker who deliberately sought out Robert Paul, PC Mizen, and the Inquest. A man who ran rings around all of them and outwitted them all. Yet they expect us to believe a man like that wouldn't jump at the chance to talk to the press when they showed up at his door. They expect us to believe that a man like that would wait for the press to find him instead of seeking them out.

It's another part of the theory that makes no sense.

[Paul Sutton]

hi ps
welcome to the nut house!

Good first post. While i dont neccessarily agree with everything you say, you make some good points. Id like to respond when i can, but cant now, no time, but i will just say i like how you categorize your suspects as least unlikely. ive been saying for years all the suspects are weak, some just less weak than others and i think lech is one of the least weak. full disclosure im not a lechmerian nor an anti lecher, somewhat of a tweener. i would call myself a lech apologist.lol
anyway again welcome and i will try to give some responses when i get the chance.[/QUOTE]

Thanks! Look forward to discussing. I'm an unashamed lover of the story as now - almost - literature. I realise that's tasteless, but it's passed into myth and legend. In fact, I've written a fair amount on serial killers, as modern versions of medieval (and earlier) wolf legends.

I've had a few of poetry collections published (by a good experimental press called Knives, Forks and Spoons) and my last but one was called 'Jack the Stripper', after the Chiswick/Hammersmith reincarnation! I also did a piece in the one before called 'My Boy Jack' - a sort of affectionate take on the whole field - this is an extract:

https://internationaltimes.it/my-boy-jack/

[Paul Sutton]

I'm in interested in understanding why you think that if Bury was the 'best fit' and 'not eliminated by Scotland Yard,' he nevertheless appears to have been entirely snubbed by latter-day police commentators, including Reid, Swanson, Abberline, Macnaghten, Anderson, Cox, etc. ?

We can always argue over subjective opinions about who is 'likely' and 'unlikely,' but this seems to be a real sticking point in the case against Bury.

Here we have a controversial set of murders that saw the police roundly criticized in 1888, and Bury came along like an answer to their dreams--an East End low-life that could have been perfect fodder to pin the crimes on and clear the books--yet the police didn't do any such thing.

In later years, as the police blame others--Kosminksi, Druitt, Klosowski, etc.--there isn't even the slightest sense that Bury is 'the elephant in the room.'

And, of course, there are case in criminal history where a murderer was cleared of suspicion after he dropped through the gallows' trapdoor. In Druitt, the Yard wasn't investigating a live man, but a dead one.

I must confess that I approach this all through gut feelings and likelihood, which will horrify the more serious researchers. I'm unashamedly amateurish and just enjoy (wrong word I guess) the narratives and - above all - the characters. But I've read around a bit and will obviously think about the 'evidence'.

He seems the best fit to me from his known crimes. I don't get the argument about the wife's murder being a 'domestic', since he horribly mutilated the body - as I read, with some quite similar and unusual cuts to the private parts as found on (I think) Eddowes?

I think there's so much police correspondence and discussions we'll never see that I'm not sure what weight to put on them not listing him. The Yard's actions, as I understand, were to be interested in him right up to his death, with the two officers there for his execution.

None of the five I listed for me seem that likely!