The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[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

[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]

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

[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]

'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]

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]

he could have lobbed it over the wall onto the train tracks very quickly.

This is exactly what I am looking for, possibilities how a guilty Lechmere might have been able to get rid of the knife.


Thank you, so we have now a drain (I am sill looking to see a confirmation of a possible location) and over the wall to the train tracks

This looks promising



The Baron

[Lewis C]

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

If all that you're saying is that we don't know with 100% certainty that Cross never walked to the east that morning, I accept that.

[Lewis C]

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.

If you mean thrown it that far from a position right in front of Nichols body, I question whether the train tracks are close enough for that to be possible.

[Newbie]

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

Hi Baron,

no, it doesn't sound spontaneous at all.

My problem with Lech first hearing Paul's footsteps when he was in the middle of the street by the body is:

A. If he had moved away from the body and was standing near it in the middle of the road, facing Paul once spotted, then he would need to explain why he was situated there in a manner that would not prejudice him. Towards this end, there is only one story possible which happened to be the one he deposed at the inquest.

B. He would have had to ignore the footsteps marching behind him along Buck's row for up to a minute; according to Lechmere's own testimony, those footsteps would have to be moving faster than he .... not marching in unison.

C. At the point of discovery of the sound, he was focused on visually annalyzing the body. Neural scientists will tell you the brain does not multitask between aural and visual stimuli very well, and that it would be highly unlikely as to this being the point where he suddenly heard footsteps.

Now, if you believe that the starting point of any evaluation is Lechmere's innocence, then by working backwards you can accept anything.
I'm not disposed towards that line of reasoning.

[Newbie]

This is exactly what I am looking for, possibilities how a guilty Lechmere might have been able to get rid of the knife.


Thank you, so we have now a drain (I am sill looking to see a confirmation of a possible location) and over the wall to the train tracks

This looks promising



The Baron

I'm fine with Lechmere tucking it back into a coat pocket.

For some reason, we were lead to believe (by Christer) that the police would frisk him / strip search him / empty his pockets, etc. if they had known of his discovering the body. I bought into it that .... why not? Now, I just don't believe that presented any danger to someone 'discovering' the body, before ripper mania emerged.

They'd take his name, address, Ipad telephone number ....

Lechmere only had to convince Paul, nobody else!

Avoiding the police would be advisable, but not crucial.

[The Baron]

Hi Baron,

no, it doesn't sound spontaneous at all.

My problem with Lech first hearing Paul's footsteps when he was in the middle of the street by the body is:

A. If he had moved away from the body and was standing near it in the middle of the road, facing Paul once spotted, then he would need to explain why he was situated there in a manner that would not prejudice him. Towards this end, there is only one story possible which happened to be the one he deposed at the inquest.

B. He would have had to ignore the footsteps marching behind him along Buck's row for up to a minute; according to Lechmere's own testimony, those footsteps would have to be moving faster than he .... not marching in unison.

C. At the point of discovery of the sound, he was focused on visually annalyzing the body. Neural scientists will tell you the brain does not multitask between aural and visual stimuli very well, and that it would be highly unlikely as to this being the point where he suddenly heard footsteps.

Now, if you believe that the starting point of any evaluation is Lechmere's innocence, then by working backwards you can accept anything.
I'm not disposed towards that line of reasoning.

Good post and I agree, I was just saying that we cannot take the words of Lechmere as facts if he might have been guilty.


The scenario I am suggesting, is simple:

A guilty Lechmere killed Nichols, left the spot and walked west, he noticed Mizen, maybe Mizen was just going out Court street and heading towards Baker's Row, he was calling people out, Lechmere panicked and turned around and walked back, during which he got rid of the Knife somewhere.

And then he encountered Paul and we know the rest.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

. "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..

It begins with the word ‘he.’

This isn’t Cross speaking. It’s someone reporting the gist of what he’d said and meant.

[rjpalmer]

he noticed Mizen, maybe Mizen was just going out Court street and heading towards Baker's Row, he was calling people out, Lechmere panicked and turned around and walked back, during which he got rid of the Knife somewhere.

What is Mizen doing in Court Street?

[The Baron]

What is Mizen doing in Court Street?

It was an example, we know where he was when Lechmere and Paul met him, but 5-10 minutes before?!


The Baron