The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[The Baron]

No but it's obvious.

How is it obvious? Because Bury was the ripper that means Lechmere couldn't have been, right?

That must be it!



The Baron

[John Wheat]

How do you know that? were you there?!


The Baron

No but it's obvious.

[The Baron]

who is a clearly innocent man

How do you know that? were you there?!


The Baron

[John Wheat]

Lechmere/Cross theory V2.0 Servicepack 2.0

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



The Baron

Ridiculous post. There is no evidence whatsoever against Lechmere who is a clearly innocent man.

[The Baron]

Lechmere/Cross theory V2.0 Servicepack 2.0

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



The Baron

[Fiver]

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.

The only family member to claim Charles Lechmere was violent did so after he and all the other relatives said that they knew nothing about Charles Lechmere.

Thomas Cross' cause of death was Fatty degeneration (V, Dropsy and Uroemia. It does not mention what organ or organs were suffering from fatty degeneration, but steosis is not confined to the liver. In the liver it is caused by alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and hepatitis. In other organs it can be caused by obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and apnea.

Dropsy (edema) is caused by problems with the heart, liver, kidneys, or veins. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

Uroemia is kidney falure. Causes are diabetes, high blood pressure, injuries to the kidney, and genetic defects. There is no direct tie to alcoholism.

Yet you ignore all other possibilities and assume Thomas Cross was not just an alcoholic, but a violent one.

Which says a lot more about you than it does about Thomas Cross.

[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.

[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?

[Scott Nelson]

No comments so far on ....

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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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