The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[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.

[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

[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]

who is a clearly innocent man

How do you know that? were you there?!


The Baron

[John Wheat]

How do you know that? were you there?!


The Baron

No but it's obvious.

[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

[Geddy2112]

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?

'Most probably' - another Lechmerian fact then. No comments because it has absolutely nothing to do with the events of 31st Aug 1888. I'm beginning to think with posts like this you are actually just being a wind up merchant and not being serious.

[Geddy2112]

Lechmere/Cross theory V2.0 Servicepack 2.0

Updated basic points:


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

So what. See this found next to a freshly killed woman is only used because another witness saw him there. Would Cross have been guilty if Paul did not, because that would put him in the same bracket as all the other people who have ever found a body.

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

And that proves Cross is guilty how?

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

And that proves Cross is guilty how?

4- Lechmere gave just the name Cross at the inquest

And that proves Cross is guilty how?

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

Are you sure? If so how does this prove Cross guilty of murder?

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

And this proves Cross is guilty how?

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

Complete and utter bull. I suspect Neil finding a dead woman was unusual and it did attract his attention.

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

'Might' not conclusive, no proof to suggest he carried a knife or got rid of one.

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

And this proves Cross is guilty how?

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

There is that 'might' again. However how does this prove Cross more guilty than Paul or either of them for that matter?

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

You need to read Dew's disclaimer on this memoir entry.

When are you going to stop with this Lechmere rubbish?

[John Wheat]

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

That must be it!



The Baron

Because there is zero evidence against Lechmere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How do you know that? were you there?!


The Baron

Yet another example of your double standards Baron. From post #63 of the recent Bury thread posted by yourself”

“Bury was not the ripper.

The Police didn't consider him a viable suspect.”


How do you know that? Where you there?

And….can you remind us all of how the police considered Cross a viable suspect please? He was there after all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

We go with the one that’s mentioned in the majority of versions which was that he’d left home at about 3.30, unless you decide on a bit of obvious cherry picking. That not only did the majority of reporters mishear 3.30 when he’d said 3.20 but they all imagined that he’d said ‘about.’ This meant that he very clearly didn’t know exactly what time that he’d left home that morning so no gap can be assumed unless we start with the inventions. Cross could easily have left the house just after 3.30 and arrived at the body close to 3.40. And when Paul arrived he was standing in the middle of the road. And, as per Paul himself, no more than 4 minutes later they found Mizen, which Mizen said was at 3.45. He went to Bucks Row and Neill was already there and what time did Neill say that he’d arrived…3.45.

No gap can be stated. And yet whaddya know…this utter drivel is still being pedalled.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because there is zero evidence against Lechmere.

It’s worse than that John. There’s actual evidence against him being the killer.

[The Baron]

no more than 4 minutes later they found Mizen, which Mizen said was at 3.45. He went to Bucks Row and Neill was already there and what time did Neill say that he’d arrived…3.45.

No gap can be stated. And yet whaddya know…this utter drivel is still being pedalled.

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

[Newbie]

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.

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.

[Newbie]

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.

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

But back to your laundry list of organs.

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.

In addition, there is a time element associated with the appearance of each on Thomas Cross's death certificate which is very important.

* fatty degeneration (years)
* dropsy (5 months)
* uremia ( 3 days )

Uremia was the end stage: Cross's kidneys shut down at the end, acute kidney failure;
his liver would also be close to the point of no longer functioning.

My dog died of chronic kidney disease ... leadng to AKF: the uremia part was a dead tip off for me that the etiology of the disease was also destroying the kidneys near the end ... but the previous symptoms were not those of chronic kidney disease, and Cross was sick from what killed him for years ... he did not out of the blue get AKF.

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)

Risk factors for the non alcoholic versions are obesity, type 2 diabetes, genetics ...(& as I pointed out, Cross was a big guy .... but obese? ... I'd be cautious about that) The non alcoholic versions share the same pathways as the alchoholic version: fatty degeneration ----> cirrhosis ----> dropsy ----> end stage

Now, a few problems exist about it being non alcoholic liver disease:

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.

1845—Addison [3] Fatty Liver Thomas Addison, better known by the eponymic disease of cortisol deficiency, was first in reporting alcohol-induced liver histology changes

2. ALD and NALD are actually not the same type of disease ... just that both may lead to cirrhosis, etc. NALD is labeled as a metabolic disease and researchers are not sure what triggers it.

3. NALD is known as a silent disease where people typically have no symptoms and are not typically expected to die at the age of 34 from the disease.

NASH is the most severe from of NALD. As to life expectancy for those who develop NASH, it's hard to say.

I got this from the Cleveland clinic: "MASH in itself isn’t necessarily life-threatening, but the presence of MASH with other risk factors such as older age and diabetes may increase the risk of progression to end-stage liver disease, which is a terminal condition."

And I got this from Pfizer: "NASH increases the risk of cirrhosis-related liver failure and liver cancer, which could require a liver transplant.¹³ The average life expectancy for someone with cirrhosis of advanced liver disease is about nine to 12 years.^1"


As for ALD, we don't need to go on too much about the 'huge army of drinkers' (not my words) that existed in Victorian London at that time.
Nor do we need to discuss the potential for early death, in one's 30s, by heavy drinkers. It is very unlikely that the diagnosis was made
without a frank discussion on part of the doctor about the patients alcohol usage.


Fatty degeneraton of the heart is heart disease and has been known for some 300 years. The problem again is that the systems do not fit that particular etiology.

This i got from a 1923 medical journal:
Hirschfelder³ also described the symptoms and signs of the heart in fatty degeneration. He says, "The most characteristic symptoms associated with the condition are those of general debility and feebleness, more or less languor and somnolence, .....

As you can see, the syptoms are not Thomas Cross's.

Fatty degeneration of the kidneys can lead to chronic kidney disease .... but, as I told your before the symptoms are wrong for that etiology.


Now, I know you haven't bothered to read any of this, nor Herlock for that matter, which makes it a big waste of my time.

Still expecting a fusillade of irrelevant responses that I'll probably ignore ..... unless I need to clarify something.
Certainly someone else is invited to chime in.