Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Polly's Skirts - Lechmere The Killer.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

    But Cross could so easily be traced back to Lechmere. It becomes a non point.
    Hi John,

    why respond if you only read the first sentence? I'm fine with being ignored.

    I asked the simple question of what advantage was there in using Cross over Lechmere?

    The question was not one of Lechmere trying to fool authorities about his identity.

    Since 2012?, the argument by Christer and a few others has been that Lechmere was trying to conceal his identity from his wife and neighbors
    in newspaper accounts. He most certainly didn't present himself to his neighbors on Doveton street as Charles Cross: his wife, children and patrilineal descendents all go by Lechmere. And his wife had the strange habit of signing an 'X' on her marriage certificate and other documents, so her literacy is gravely in question. If you wish to give me an example of males who made a choose between using a different name in our enlightened age from that of his children, please enlighten me. In Victorian England, I suspect that it would be considered weird and in great contradiction to morays.

    So the question is not whether using Cross is a sign of guilt or innocence;
    the question is, between Lechmere or Cross, why did he choose Cross, feeling that it better served him during the proceedings?

    It is not a whimsical thing.

    And yes, he also had the option of telling authorities that his name is Lechmere, but that he was known administratively at Pickfords as Cross.
    I don't know if the latter part was true after more than 20 years of service,
    but there is always the possibility that he never bothered to inform Pickford administrators.


    Last edited by Newbie; 06-11-2024, 05:40 AM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Newbie View Post

      Hi John,

      why respond if you only read the first sentence? I'm fine with being ignored.

      I asked the simple question of what advantage was there in using Cross over Lechmere?

      The question was not one of Lechmere trying to fool authorities about his identity.

      Since 2012?, the argument by Christer and a few others has been that Lechmere was trying to conceal his identity from his wife and neighbors
      in newspaper accounts. He most certainly didn't present himself to his neighbors on Doveton street as Charles Cross: his wife, children and patrilineal descendents all go by Lechmere. And his wife had the strange habit of signing an 'X' on her marriage certificate and other documents. If you wish to give me an example of males who make a choose of using a different name in our enlightened age from that of his children, please enlighten me. In Victorian England, I suspect that it would be considered weird.

      So the question is not whether using Cross is a sign of guilt or innocence;
      the question is, between Lechmere or Cross, why did he choose Cross, feeling that it better served him during the proceedings?

      It is not a whimsical thing.

      And yes, he also had the option of telling authorities that his name is Lechmere, but that he was known administratively at Pickfords as Cross.
      I don't know if the latter part was true after more than 20 years of service,
      but there is always the possibility that he never bothered to inform Pickford administrators.


      I didn't just read the first sentence. I stand by what I said. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest a guilty Lechmere.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        What wealthy relatives back in Herefordshire? His maternal grandfather was a butler who had been dead for 40 years. His paternal grandfather was a farmer who'd been dead for almost 50 years. His father was a bankrupt bootmaker who deserted the family when Charles Allen was a small child and didn't live in Herefordshire anymore. All of his father's brothers and sisters were dead.

        Maybe you mean his mother's sisters, the widow of a weaver and the widow of a butcher? They were alive and in Herefordshire, but hardly what I would call wealthy.

        Not to mention that using the surname Cross would have no effect one way or the other on whether the police suspected him.

        I agree, its bunk.

        But there was a time when those who didn't care for Lechmere, the suspect, felt inclined to give motives to Lech's actions.
        Those days seem to be long gone ..... Lech is innocent, just ask them.

        Lechmere's mother's father, a butler to Herefordshire aristocracy, left his daughter a trust fund, whose payments were doled out over the years by local Herefordshire official(s).

        The argument goes that if word got out that a Lechmere (a very distinct name), merely as a witness, was involved in the sordid affair of a murder in the East end, it could get back to the officials overseeing his mother's trust fund payments and jeopardize her remittance payments.

        BTW, the family comes from old, old English nobility, way back to the days of William the conqueror.
        Lech's family fortunes started going south with his grandfather Charles Fox Lechmere, who someone aptly mentioned as a waster.
        He was left high and dry with his elder brother getting the family estate at Fownhope.​

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Herlock,

          Just a couple of comments. If Lech decided to pickup a woman in Whitechapel Road and they went to a quiet place in Buck's Row, he would have been quoting an approximate time for leaving home that would sound reasonable - no relationship to whatever time he actually left home. Wouldn't his wife have noticed what time he left I hear you ask. If she was anything like my ex-wife - NO!.

          Secondly, I would beg your indulgence to my altering your scenario slightly:
          He strangles Polly, and presuming she is dead proceeds to start the mutilation.
          Start your own stopwatches. He hears the man, he wipes his bloody knife, stands up and starts to move off. As he does, Polly stirs. He ponders whether she could identify him or raise an alarm. He decides not to take the risk, retrieves his knife and cuts her throat. Not knowing how close the man now is, he pulls the clothing down to conceal the abdominal injuries and moves to the middle of the road whilst concealing the knife in his clothing. Stop your stopwatch. This is consistent with the medical opinion of Llewellyn. He moves towards the man thinking that if the man has seen something he will run away. The man responds by accepting the invitation to look at the woman lying in the street, and the bluff begins.

          I don't have a preferred suspect so I am just considering possibilities. However, I am still mystified how Paul could have knelt to see if she was breathing and touched her chest without noticing the gaping wound in her throat.

          Cheers, George
          HI George.


          Some excellent points


          I believe there's a chance that Paul fabricated his stated action of having knelt to check for signs of life.

          I say this because he and Lechmere not only missed seeing any wound, or any blood...they also missed that her eyes were open and staring up at them.

          This is evidenced by a both a police officer and her mortuary photograph.

          I believe that Paul and Lechmere embellished their involvement to make it look like they had tried to do the right thing by her, when to me it seems fairly apparent that neither of them got close enough to physically examine her.

          What is clear is that the killer was disturbed by the sound of Lechmere approaching and he either fled westward or went over the wall and navigated an escape via the train line.

          Of course, there is another option that doesn't seem to have been considered...

          ...that the Ripper mutilated Nichols as the train passed and then didn't hear Lechmere approaching...

          I ask this...

          What if it was Lechmere who was the only witness to see the Ripper?

          Did Lechmere state his name as Cross, in an attempt to protect his family, because he had seen the Ripper and was fearful of reprisal from the killer?

          If Lechmere stumbled upon the Ripper and then the killer saw him approaching; there could also be a possibility that the killer threatened him before fleeing.

          Pure conjecture but more likely to me than Lechmere having been the Ripper himself



          RD

          "Great minds, don't think alike"

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

            But Cross could so easily be traced back to Lechmere. It becomes a non point.
            Hi John,

            why respond if you only read the first sentence? I'm fine with being ignored.

            I asked the simple question of what advantage was there in using Cross over Lechmere?

            The question was not one of Lechmere trying to fool authorities about his identity.

            Since 2012?, the argument by Christer and a few others has been that Lechmere was trying to conceal his identity from his wife and neighbors
            in newspaper accounts. He most certainly didn't present himself to his neighbors on Doveton street as Charles Cross: his wife, children and patrilineal descendents all go by Lechmere. And his wife had the strange habit of signing an 'X' on her marriage certificate and other documents. If you wish to give me an example of males who make a choose of using a different name in our enlightened age from that of his children, please enlighten me. In Victorian England, I suspect that it would be considered weird.

            So the question is not whether using Cross is a sign of guilt or innocence;
            the question is, between Lechmere or Cross, why did he choose Cross, feeling that it better served him during the proceedings?

            It is not a whimsical thing.

            And yes, he also had the option of telling authorities that his name is Lechmere, but that he was known administratively at Pickfords as Cross.
            I don't know if the latter part was true after more than 20 years of service,
            but there is always the possibility that he never bothered to inform Pickford administrators.



            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

              I didn't just read the first sentence. I stand by what I said. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest a guilty Lechmere.
              I offered you a question to answer ..... that was the purpose of the post.

              You refuse to answer it? Why respond then?
              Last edited by Newbie; 06-11-2024, 06:50 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Nothing that Cross did that morning speaks of guilt or even of being suspicious. He would only have remained at the scene if he felt that he’d been pretty much caught in the act and how could that have happened in an empty, echoing street? And if he’d felt that he’d been seen why would he tell Paul that he hadn’t been near the body yet?
                You previously write opine that the 3:30 am starting time makes it statistically highly improbable that he would happen to run into
                Polly Nichols, kill her, and then expect to make it to work on time.

                Probably not true, but I accepted it on face value. I responded by saying that if sane, a serial killer is looking for a good opportunity, and during a phase will go out many nights before the opportunity arises.

                But now you tell me that it is possible he lied? And then you continue with a lot of hand gestures that seem to say that he couldn't kill anyone, ever at 3:38, in that location? How about happening to find Polly Nichols further east on Buck's row and leading the drunk woman to the murder site? Impossible?
                He can always abort if something uncomfortable happens.

                Awhile back, someone said that Buck's row was a very secure place to commit the murders.... evidently no, and I now doubt anyone killed Polly Nichols there.
                The Police's first suspicion must have been true.

                Frankly, I just want it acknowledged that the 3:30 am starting time is not a fact: nothing more than that.

                And as for the entirely innocent bit,
                the idea that he was just in front of Paul walking up Buck's Row is on very shaky grounds,
                just using Charles Cross and Robert Paul's testimony, some expectations of normalcy in behavior, and modern understanding of
                the neurology of perceptions.

                You want to go there?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post

                  Because that is all we have, the vast majority of the newspaper reports say 'about 3:30.' Christer always misses out the 'about' to invent his time gap.




                  The simple issue with him leaving earlier than about 3:30am is that would give him even more time to flee the scene. Remember the inquest stated she had been 'found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m' If you take Christer's view she was still 'bleeding and breathing' so TOD can't have been more than 10 mins prior to that. It all depends on if you believe Christer or not. I personaly do not.



                  Why do we assume he worked for Pickfords. I've asked the question numerous times and it appears the only time it is mentioned that he does if from his Testimony. The odd thing here is Team Lechmere believe this part of his testimony but not the part about the propping up, the talking with Mizen etc etc. Cherry picking the bits that suit.



                  Again team Lechmere do not consider this is what happened, they claim (as explained here) the abdominal wounds came first, then the throat slashing which makes no sense to me if Lechmere was the killer and disturbed. Again according to Christer, the goal in the murder is to plunder the abdomen. So why, if disturbed would he spend vital 'escape/thinking to cover his butt time' to pull the skirts down and cut her throat twice? That 40 yards has dramatically shrunk now and Paul will be in visibility for sure now and be able to see Lechmere over the body, which of course he did not. Plus you then have all the things you suggest to happen to perform as well.



                  Apparently that is not what happened. I believe it was in CSI Whitechapel, the illustration shows that Lechmere noticed the bundle, approached it slightly then noticed it was a woman. At this time he heard Paul approaching and did NOT stand there gawking but actually approached Paul and even though Paul tried to evade him he tapped him on the shoulder to gain his attention.​

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	438918836_10226329939983346_9053036389582985239_n.jpg
Views:	160
Size:	244.9 KB
ID:	835698
                  Hi Geddy,

                  running late.

                  The 3:30 am time (+/- a few minutes) is what we have from Lechmere's testimony.
                  If it is all we have, that still does not make it a fact, other than being an actual statement made at the inquest.

                  You can not prove anything, or buttress an argument by using it.

                  You can use it in a hypothetical scenario, sure ... and see where it leads.

                  I believe Christer up to a point and part ways with him on certain things.

                  I have an enormous problem accepting Lechmere arriving just before Paul at Polly Nichol's body.

                  Quite frankly, the hypothetical event of him arriving earlier then he suggests, and then moves away from the body as Paul arrives,
                  fits far better the inquest testimony and what we know about the acoustical possibilities of Buck's Row and modern understanding of how the brain processes sensory information, as opposed to the event of him traveling up Buck's Row, just in front of Paul.

                  I also have a huge problem with Lechmere showing up at the inquest in his work clothing,
                  as if he's totally ignorant of the social occasion: him with his family being a step removed from poor nobility,
                  and them wanting to join the petty bourgeoisie.

                  That, and a few other things, tells me that he didn't want his family to know he was there.

                  Does that make him JtR? No, not necessarily; but these issues need to be addressed,
                  and covering your ears bleating that he's innocent,
                  while re-directing conversation to nice, safe points is starting to get maddening.

                  One thing is that we need to take St Lech off a pedestal and start thinking from a different perspective.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                    I offered you a question to answer ..... that was the purpose of the post.

                    You refuse to answer it? Why respond then?
                    I responded because Lechmere is not guilty of the Ripper crimes and the quest to frame a clearly innocent man is tiresome and annoying. Also my original point that the name thing is a non point is still relevant.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                      Since 2012?, the argument by Christer and a few others has been that Lechmere was trying to conceal his identity from his wife and neighbors
                      in newspaper accounts. He most certainly didn't present himself to his neighbors on Doveton street as Charles Cross: his wife, children and patrilineal descendents all go by Lechmere. And his wife had the strange habit of signing an 'X' on her marriage certificate and other documents, so her literacy is gravely in question. If you wish to give me an example of males who made a choose between using a different name in our enlightened age from that of his children, please enlighten me. In Victorian England, I suspect that it would be considered weird and in great contradiction to morals.

                      So the question is not whether using Cross is a sign of guilt or innocence;
                      the question is, between Lechmere or Cross, why did he choose Cross, feeling that it better served him during the proceedings?
                      How do you know he didn't present himself to his neighbours as Charles Cross? This is a very Christeresque type statement with regards to Lechmere/Cross. Growing up I knew my next door neighbour as Mr and Mrs Morton but I had absolutely no clue what was written on their birth or marriage certificates or any other official documents relating to them. Using 'I suspect...' unfortunately does not mean anything here. There are plenty of examples of people using various names during Victorian times scattered all over these very forums. I believe David Orsam wrote a rather compelling thread regarding such.

                      It's blatantly obvious why he chose Cross at the inquest and that is because he was known at work with that name. If he had said Lechmere and I work at Pickfords, then the Police could not find a Lechmere at Pickfords then it would have caused suspicion. The only thing I'm amazed at regarding the name thing is how often it still crops up even though it was 'debunked' over a decade ago...


                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                        The 3:30 am time (+/- a few minutes) is what we have from Lechmere's testimony.
                        If it is all we have, that still does not make it a fact, other than being an actual statement made at the inquest.
                        So what do you propose we go on then?

                        Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                        You can not prove anything, or buttress an argument by using it.

                        You can use it in a hypothetical scenario, sure ... and see where it leads.
                        I'm personally not trying to prove anything, Team Lechmere are.

                        Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                        I have an enormous problem accepting Lechmere arriving just before Paul at Polly Nichol's body.
                        Sorry but that is kind of tough luck. Since the evidence we have suggests that is what happened. I hope you agree we should go down the 'speculation' route here.

                        Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                        Quite frankly, the hypothetical event of him arriving earlier then he suggests, and then moves away from the body as Paul arrives,
                        fits far better the inquest testimony and what we know about the acoustical possibilities of Buck's Row and modern understanding of how the brain processes sensory information, as opposed to the event of him traveling up Buck's Row, just in front of Paul.
                        The problem is the earlier he arrives the more time he has to mutilate more and more time he has to escape if he's the killer. Guess which two things did not happen?

                        Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                        I also have a huge problem with Lechmere showing up at the inquest in his work clothing,
                        Hehe, love this one. This is called scraping the bottom of the Lechmere barrel. Just speculating, since I do not know what time the inquest took place or his involvement in it but how about he went to work straight after the inquest to finish his shift or he was at work before the inquest. Just speculating of course, however I see absolutely no problem with him turning up for the inquest in work clothes. Did Fiver not mention the newspaper reports pertaining to old, shabby clothes etc worn at the inquest by other people recently?

                        Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                        Does that make him JtR? No, not necessarily; but these issues need to be addressed,
                        and covering your ears bleating that he's innocent,
                        while re-directing conversation to nice, safe points is starting to get maddening.

                        One thing is that we need to take St Lech off a pedestal and start thinking from a different perspective.
                        They have been addressed over and over again, many many times on these very forums. St Lech was never on a pedestal and I personally think the fitting him up for being JtR and the Torso Killer without one single FACT to prove his guilt is disgusting.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Fiver View Post
                          You both ignore crucial steps and add unnecessary ones. There is no evidence that the Ripper tried to pull down Nichols skirts. The Ripper made no attempt to hide Nichols wounds. Doing it would require:

                          * Trying to lift the body with one arm, which considering the blood flow probably means that arm and sleeve become saturated in blood.
                          Hello!!! Just a point if I may, why do you consider he would have to lift the body with one arm or at all to pull down her skirts? Would this be one to lift, one to pull down? So maybe just down to is the lifting needed at all?

                          I'm not in any way disagreeing with you, but your post certainly has made me think and it seems your point(s) make it neigh on impossible for Lechmere to have been the killer. Thanks.
                          Last edited by Geddy2112; 06-11-2024, 12:24 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                            How passive you make Lech out to be, if he perpetuated the crime!
                            And why do you take that 'around 3:30 am' departure as gospel?

                            It is only a fact in the sense that Charles Lechmere attested to leaving home at this time in his inquest testimony.
                            To be cautious and conservative, we should consider the 3:30 am time as being no better than an alleged time of leaving home on his part, the morning of the murder.
                            We have only Charles Lechmere's word for when he left home. We have only Robert Paul's word for when he left home. We have only PC Neil's word for when he walked through Buck's Row. We have only Sergeant Henry Kirby's word for when he walked through Buck's Row. We have only Walter Purkiss' word that he stayed at his post and heard nothing. We have only Patrick Mulshaw's word that he stayed at his post and heard nothing. We have only James Green's word that he was in bed, asleep, and heard nothing.

                            The only people in the area with a confirmed alibi are the three slaughtermen.

                            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                              ​Why use Cross instead of Lechmere?
                              Let me again mention another witness at one of the Ripper inquests. The surname on his marriage license was Lavender. The surname in the censuses for him, his wife, and his children, was Lavender. In a 1876 proceeding at the Old Bailey, his surname was given as Levender [sic] and it is clear from the court records that his friends knew his surname as Lavender. He appeared in city directories as Lavender. He was buried as Lavender.

                              But at the Eddowes inquest, he used the name Joseph Lawende. He never mentioned the surname Lavender.​​

                              "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                              "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                                You previously write opine that the 3:30 am starting time makes it statistically highly improbable that he would happen to run into
                                Polly Nichols, kill her, and then expect to make it to work on time.

                                If you want to talk statistics then I’d ask you the same question that I (and others) have asked Christer (someone who loves giving examples from crime history to make a point) - how many examples can we find of a serial killer stopping off on his way to work to commit murder? And, how many examples can we find of a serial killer murdering someone in the street and standing around for someone else to arrive to ‘pretend’ that he’d found her? Or, how many people that find bodies outdoors and turn out to be the murderer. As yet, no example has been found of any of these so this would make Cross unique. Therefore this makes him unlikely.

                                Probably not true, but I accepted it on face value. I responded by saying that if sane, a serial killer is looking for a good opportunity, and during a phase will go out many nights before the opportunity arises.

                                Prostitutes were plentiful. They took clients to secluded spots. Opportunities would have been plentiful. The question remains - if he left the house much earlier that morning how could he have left the kill until 20 minutes before he was due at work. How can this fail to be considered unlikely?

                                But now you tell me that it is possible he lied? And then you continue with a lot of hand gestures that seem to say that he couldn't kill anyone, ever at 3:38, in that location? How about happening to find Polly Nichols further east on Buck's row and leading the drunk woman to the murder site? Impossible?
                                He can always abort if something uncomfortable happens.

                                What I’m doing Newbie is that I’m showing you that I’m not shaping the facts to fit a story. I fully accept that a) we can’t apply an exact time to what was an estimate, and b) Cross could have lied.

                                Whatever physical possibility we decide to consider Ive are still left with the same questions all of which point to unlikeliness.


                                Awhile back, someone said that Buck's row was a very secure place to commit the murders.... evidently no, and I now doubt anyone killed Polly Nichols there.
                                The Police's first suspicion must have been true.

                                She was killed in Bucks Row. There’s no evidence to suggest otherwise.

                                Frankly, I just want it acknowledged that the 3:30 am starting time is not a fact: nothing more than that.

                                Then perhaps you should ask Christer Holmgren who stated this time as a fact in his book and documentary. I’m the one (along with others on here) who has been saying all along that we cannot accept 3.30 as a fact and frankly I’m surprised that you feel that I do.

                                And as for the entirely innocent bit,
                                the idea that he was just in front of Paul walking up Buck's Row is on very shaky grounds,

                                Not at all.

                                just using Charles Cross and Robert Paul's testimony, some expectations of normalcy in behavior, and modern understanding of
                                the neurology of perceptions.

                                You want to go there?
                                There is nothing at all suspicious about the behaviour of Cross and Paul. Not one single thing. The case against him doesn’t exist. It’s a concoction of imagination, deliberate misinterpretation of evidence, deliberate misuses of language, egregious bias and self-interest. He was there and he found the body. That’s all.



                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X