The cross/lechmere theory - a newbie's thoughts

[Lewis C]

Re The cross/lechmere theory

I've asked Fisherman this question before but he had nothing satisfying to offer:

I am ready to give his theory a pass IF it has been shown that Lechmere was able to get rid of the knife before meeting the Policeman.

Fisherman said the area was searched and nothing have been found, but that doesn't bother him, Lechmere carrying the murder weapon on himself while taking to Mizen is not a blow to the theory according to him

Obviously I don't agree, but Fisherman had done a great deal of research and investied a huge effort to build his case against the carman, can anyone suggest to me a possible solution to how he might have been able to get rid of the knife if he were the ripper?!

Now Fisherman if you are reading this, please consider again this bug in the theory and come up with a great solution, this whole Maybrick, Druitt, Bury boring saga makes me reconsider Lechmere, but not until this bug been dealt with.



The Baron

Hi Baron,

I agree that it's unlikely that Cross would have wanted to have the knife on him when he talked to Mizen, but if they searched the area and didn't find a knife, I think that it's even more unlikely that he disposed of a knife.

[The Baron]

Re The cross/lechmere theory

I've asked Fisherman this question before but he had nothing satisfying to offer:

I am ready to give his theory a pass IF it has been shown that Lechmere was able to get rid of the knife before meeting the Policeman.

Fisherman said the area was searched and nothing have been found, but that doesn't bother him, Lechmere carrying the murder weapon on himself while taking to Mizen is not a blow to the theory according to him

Obviously I don't agree, but Fisherman had done a great deal of research and investied a huge effort to build his case against the carman, can anyone suggest to me a possible solution to how he might have been able to get rid of the knife if he were the ripper?!

Now Fisherman if you are reading this, please consider again this bug in the theory and come up with a great solution, this whole Maybrick, Druitt, Bury boring saga makes me reconsider Lechmere, but not until this bug been dealt with.



The Baron

[Fiver]

A bold risk taker, well the Ripper was certainly that; but he wasn't stupid.

Keeping a low profile would be pretty consistent with a guy who committed the murder but doesn't want to attract attention,
prefering to slink back into the recesses of anonymity.

If Lechmere was the Ripper, he took a series of grossly stupid risks. People who take lots of grossly stupid risks don't settle into anonymity for over three decades.

Of all the newspaper accounts, how many papers printed his address fiver?

Why are you asking me when you were replying to Paul Sutton?

No one claims anymore that his purpose in using Cross & not state his address was in trying to hide from authorities, but from wife & neighbors reading about him in the paper..

He publicly identified himself as Charles Allen Cross, a carman for Pickfords for the past couple decades, whose shift began at the Broad Street Station at 4am, and who lived at 22 Doveton Street. Who would ever suspect that might be Thomas Cross' stepson Charles Allen Lechmere, a carman for Pickfords for the past couple decades, whose shift began at the Broad Street Station at 4am, and who lived at 22 Doveton Street?

The idea that he was trying to hide his identity from anyone is laughable.

[Newbie]

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.

A bold risk taker, well the Ripper was certainly that; but he wasn't stupid.

Keeping a low profile would be pretty consistent with a guy who committed the murder but doesn't want to attract attention,
prefering to slink back into the recesses of anonymity.

Of all the newspaper accounts, how many papers printed his address fiver?

No one claims anymore that his purpose in using Cross & not state his address was in trying to hide from authorities, but from wife & neighbors reading about him in the paper.

.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes.

But I could easily find something to disagree about.

I am making a monumental effort not to mention a certain Latin word which is five letters long.

I have just got back from the pub so perhaps I can blame the beer but I can’t think what the word is. No doubt I’ll kick myself when you tell me.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

This is twice that we’ve agreed on something PI.

Are you getting worried?

Yes.

But I could easily find something to disagree about.

I am making a monumental effort not to mention a certain Latin word which is five letters long.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think so, Herlock, because our very own Roger Palmer pointed out the omission directly to Stow himself on another of Stow's presentations, which dealt with the alleged missing 7 1/2 minutes.

It seems to be a case of somehow always remembering to forget what must at all costs not be mentioned.

This is twice that we’ve agreed on something PI.

Are you getting worried?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The video presentation is at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4MvBRw7XDA

Roger Palmer's comment was made a year or more ago, using the same name, and although there were replies from three people, Edward Stow was not among them.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Perhaps he forgot about them?

I don't think so, Herlock, because our very own Roger Palmer pointed out the omission directly to Stow himself on another of Stow's presentations, which dealt with the alleged missing 7 1/2 minutes.

It seems to be a case of somehow always remembering to forget what must at all costs not be mentioned.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I knew I had left out something from my review of Stow's latest episode.

He dealt with the question of the reliability of Paul's timing, without making any reference to the testimony of three policemen at the inquest, all of whom contradicted it.

Perhaps he forgot about them?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I knew I had left out something from my review of Stow's latest episode.

He dealt with the question of the reliability of Paul's timing, without making any reference to the testimony of three policemen at the inquest, all of whom contradicted it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The case against Cross is the most egregious case of exaggeration and manipulation ever applied to a suspect in the case. Nothing really comes close. Nothing is suspicious about him in the slightest. This is why they have to resort to doing things like leaving out the 'about' to try and fabricate a gap of time. Cross found a body and nothing more. You can build a stronger case against John Richardson and he wasn't the ripper either. How has this lasted so long? Oh yeah...he has a fanclub with his own TV show. Next we'll be seeing a petition to number 10 Downing Street asking Parliament to name Cross as JtR. I'm waiting for the t-shirts and mugs to appear. How have people been suckered into this?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have just watched the whole episode.

Just before the end, Stow claims that there was nothing about Sutcliffe to suggest that he might have been a killer, even though his background was entirely typical of that of sexual serial murderers.

He argues that Lechmere could have seemed quite normal yet been a serial killer.

That would be unusual.

He interprets Lechmere's every action in the light of his presumption of his guilt.

He repeats Holmgren's claim that Lechmere needed to get past Mizen, but Lechmere did not need to approach Paul, let alone Mizen.

He calls Lechmere a liar, but there is no evidence to support that allegation.

He claims Lechmere needed to be in control, but where is the evidence that his actions were anything other than those of someone who came across a dead body?

[Mark J D]

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 [...]

I see that Ed Stow has released a video responding to these points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLgGm-C-lnk

Such a shame that Mr Sutton is no longer here to provide his reaction.

M.

[caz]

That must be right then - not!

Just don't mention Emilia Fox, or I may be ill.

Love,

Caz
X