A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

Do you see Lechmere/Cross having "picked up" his victims or just stumbling on them?

I think he knew exactly where to find prostitutes, and that he actively sought them out and picked them up.
A pointer in this direction would be the Eddowes slaying. If he killed Stride and was deprived of the opportunity to eviscerate her, opting for trying to find another victim, then we have him leaving the Metropolitan police premises and heading west alongside his old work trek into City police area, towards the St Botolphs surroundings, where prostitution was rife. It was a clever and quick adaption to altered circumstances.

The general idea is that he went into prostitution territories, found himself a woman and then headed away from where people were around, into areas where he could count on a fair chance of staying undisturbed.
Buckīs Row seems to swear against this, but keep in mind that both Lechmere and Paul faced empty streets as they walked to work that morning. Paulīs arriving at the wrong time would have been coincidental, and Lechmere would actually have stood a fair chance to get away unseen if he did not spend very much time with his victim.

He would not have stumbled on any prostitutes on streets where there was no business to be had from a prostitutesīview.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

Brasen is as brasen does.

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Apology accepted.

The simple answer is that I see you championing the notion that Lechmere did not run, preferring, instead, to brasen it out with Paul. That's fine; however, that MIGHT indicate a certain nature and consequently one might look for other acts that were brasen. And that is at loggerheads with claims about fearing X.

So, for example, his fearing to go back with Mizen to the body seems rather unbrasen. He could simply go back and keep up his smug demeanour.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Apology accepted.

The simple answer is that I see you championing the notion that Lechmere did not run, preferring, instead, to brasen it out with Paul. That's fine; however, that MIGHT indicate a certain nature and consequently one might look for other acts that were brasen. And that is at loggerheads with claims about fearing X.

So, for example, his fearing to go back with Mizen to the body seems rather unbrasen. He could simply go back and keep up his smug demeanour.

Cheers.
LC

I suspect he had the knife on him at that stage, Lynn, so that would potentially get him hung.
Being brazen does not mean that you will always take the most dangerous route. It is not the equivalent of not caring at all. If it had been, he could just as well have stopped by the bodies and carved away until he was found, caught and executed.
I mentioned earlier that these types of men - psychopaths and sociopaths - are quite often very practical. That would mean that he could easily do the maths on his chances of staying undetected while killing Nichols, opting to do the deed. He would not be spooked as such, as normal people are. He would not spend the larger part of his time with the body anxiously looking and listening for people arriving, but instead carve away with focus, still having half an ear open for things that happened around him.

I think that lots of heroes who have had medals of honour hung around their necks after a war have been psychopaths. Thay have not run in the face of danger, but instead calmly assessed their chances and acted upon it, cool as you like. They will have been happy and surprised to know that this is what normal people recognize as courage, while all the while itīs been nothing but a practical exercise to themselves.

I spoke of Kürten earlier. And so did you. It was suggested, more or less, that it would be strange if he shielded his wife from who he was and what he did, if he was truly a brazen character.
But Kürtenīs wife had no idea what he was. Towards her, he was caring, considerate always courteous and mild.
Otherwise he was a clear-cut, oversexed psychopath and sadist with no respect at all for people suffering his onslaughts. Which were brazen enough!

Ridgway offers a great comparison too. He was the best man his wife had ever met. He never laid hands on her, he was a terrific lover and a humoristic, kind man.
Otherwise, he was an oversexed psychopath who killed dozens and dozens of women with his bare hands, and a man who hated prostitutes.

It would seem these men had some sort of brazen/mildmannered button they could use when they felt like it. And basically, that is EXACTLY what a psychopath is about: what he feels is not so much the result of reacting to outer world stimuli as a practically chosen internal way to act and react. The switch is there, but nobody can throw it but themselves.

I hope that you can see where I am coming from now, Lynn.

Incidentally, I donīt think he feared, as such, to go back with Mizen. He just realized that it would be impractical if he wanted to keep on killing.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day again Fisherman

But did he have enough time, to pick her up, lure her away and kill her given the time he left home and the time Paul first saw him?

[Patrick S]

I suppose what we are seeing with Lechmere is what's happened with most "suspects" of recent vintage. An idea germinates. You have a few advocates. A little traction is gained because, after all, no one can prove the suspect was NOT Jack the Ripper. A few neophytes think it all sounds quite plausible, so the converts trickle in. And...away we go.

Lechmere is an interesting fellow. The tale told by Fisherman and Lechmere is riveting. As I've said, it'd make a great movie. Alas, it strikes me as a work of complete fiction. One in which a "suspect" exhibits no consciousness of guilt, and it's interpreted as the cunning of a psychopath. One where we find the serial killer as hobbyist, maintaining a career, a marriage, raising a family....yet - as a sidelight - operating as one (or more?) of the most notorious murders in history. One in which no one who knows him suspects him. Oh, I'm quite sure his living descendents will, no doubt, not resist this theory. They'll say it's been a family secret for a century. "Great grandpap was Jack the Ripper, don't you know! Another pig in a blanket? Yes, it's Lechmere with 'e'."

You've no idea how badly I wish I could buy in. It's only logic, reason, experience, and common sense that prevents it.

[Fisherman]

G'day again Fisherman

But did he have enough time, to pick her up, lure her away and kill her given the time he left home and the time Paul first saw him?

He said he left at 3.30. Or 3.20.

The route between 22 Doveton Street and Browns Stable yard could be covered quite easily in seven minutes, especially if you were late and in a hurry.

If he "found" Nichols at 3.45, he would have had eight miutes extra on his hands if he left home at 3.30.

If he left home at 3.20, he would have had eighteen minutes.

The damage inflicted on Nichols could have been done in less than a minute.

Finally, he SAID he left home at 3.20 or 3.30. Whatīs to say that he did not leave home at 3.10? Or 3.00?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

He said he left at 3.30. Or 3.20.

The route between 22 Doveton Street and Browns Stable yard could be covered quite easily in seven minutes, especially if you were late and in a hurry.

If he "found" Nichols at 3.45, he would have had eight miutes extra on his hands if he left home at 3.30.

If he left home at 3.20, he would have had eighteen minutes.

The damage inflicted on Nichols could have been done in less than a minute.

Finally, he SAID he left home at 3.20 or 3.30. Whatīs to say that he did not leave home at 3.10? Or 3.00?

All the best,
Fisherman

What's to say he didn't leave at midnight? What's to say he wasn't out all night, looking kill while his poor wife and children slept, blissfully ignorant of dad was Jack the Ripper. What's to say he wasn't the Torso Killer? What's to say he wasn't from Mars? What's to say he didn't start World War I. I mean, prove to me he didn't!

[Fisherman]

I suppose what we are seeing with Lechmere is what's happened with most "suspects" of recent vintage. An idea germinates. You have a few advocates. A little traction is gained because, after all, no one can prove the suspect was NOT Jack the Ripper. A few neophytes think it all sounds quite plausible, so the converts trickle in. And...away we go.

Lechmere is an interesting fellow. The tale told by Fisherman and Lechmere is riveting. As I've said, it'd make a great movie. Alas, it strikes me as a work of complete fiction. One in which a "suspect" exhibits no consciousness of guilt, and it's interpreted as the cunning of a psychopath. One where we find the serial killer as hobbyist, maintaining a career, a marriage, raising a family....yet - as a sidelight - operating as one (or more?) of the most notorious murders in history. One in which no one who knows him suspects him. Oh, I'm quite sure his living descendents will, no doubt, not resist this theory. They'll say it's been a family secret for a century. "Great grandpap was Jack the Ripper, don't you know! Another pig in a blanket? Yes, it's Lechmere with 'e'."

You've no idea how badly I wish I could buy in. It's only logic, reason, experience, and common sense that prevents it.

Well, Patrick, SOMEBODY killed these women. That, at least, is not fiction.

The material we have on Lechmere is not fiction either - itīs from the records we have, at least most of it. The assumption that he would have been a psychopath is something that is not recorded, but it goes without saying that he was if he acted the way he did and was the killer.

What does your logic, reason, experience and common sense tell you about the correlation between Lechmeres working trek routes, the timings and the killings?
That somebody else must have covered these exact routes too, at the same approximate hours? Somebody who was the real killer?

Why is it more logical, reasonable, experience-based and common sense to think that a PC got the "another policeman awaits you"-thing wrong, than it is that Lechmere did say this exact thing?

And IF Mizen was the one who was wrong on this, then why is he also wrong on how much he was told by the carman?

Could you take my list of facts from my former post, and explain them away, one by one, and then add that it was just a coincidence that the paths he logically would have walked correlates with the murder sites?

You are welcome to try!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

What's to say he didn't leave at midnight? What's to say he wasn't out all night, looking kill while his poor wife and children slept, blissfully ignorant of dad was Jack the Ripper. What's to say he wasn't the Torso Killer? What's to say he wasn't from Mars? What's to say he didn't start World War I. I mean, prove to me he didn't!

That was not the best post Iīve seen out here.

Here are your answers:

-The larger the discrepancy between when he said he left and when he did, the greater the risk that somebody would expose him.

-He quite possibly WAS the Torso killer.

-There is no human life on Mars.

-Gavrilo Princip started World War 1.

Now, can we be a bit more composed and to the point?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One where we find the serial killer as hobbyist, maintaining a career, a marriage, raising a family....yet - as a sidelight - operating as one (or more?) of the most notorious murders in history....One in which no one who knows him suspects him.

This needs further exploration. What you are basically saying is that nobody who was a notorious serial killer would maintain a career and raise a family and go unsuspected by your close ones.

How about Gary Ridgway, the Green River killer? He maintained a carreer. He lived a family life. His own wife had no idea what he was.

Armstrong? Military carreer, family and kids, nobody suspected anything.

Kürten? Mid-bourgeosie striving, quiet sort of person, married ...

Dennis Rader? Yep - a carreer, a wife and kids, and no suspicions at all from his close ones as far as we know.

There are more examples, incidentally, but these will suffice to make my point.

Is this what defies common sense, experience and logic? If so, yes, I too think it is astonishing. But itīs nevertheless what happened. Psychopaths, mind you, are never without ambition. And that ambition may well involve a carreer, a family, a nice house, kids ... achivements, as it were.

You are perfectly welcome not to believe in Lechmere as a killer type. But you must understand that history disagrees with you on that point.

All the best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi All,

I personally find Lechmere a very interesting candidate. His profile, the little we know of it, ties in perfectly with my own hunch as to the killer's background and character. But I would not say the evidence we currently have makes him a very strong suspect. And some of the claims made for his candidacy seem a little imaginative for my liking. For example, he is said to have displayed an "extraordinary"( for which read unhealthy) diligence in form-filling in his Lechmere name. But the evidence put forward to support this seems to be perfectly unremarkable for
someone in his position. Census forms, birth and marriage certificates, school registration, trade directories, electoral registers: all perfectly normal, most of them legal requirements which only those on the farthest outskirts of society would fail to comply with. The icing on the cake is the suggestion that his children did not even have time off when the family moved home. That does seem a little unusual, but is it based on attendance registers or dates of registration? In applying to a new school, a parent would presumably provide the leaving date from the previous school and the child would be enrolled from the day after. That in itself does not mean that the children were not allowed a day's leave to settle in to their new home. Clarification on that point would be very interesting.

MrB

[Abby Normal]

I suppose what we are seeing with Lechmere is what's happened with most "suspects" of recent vintage. An idea germinates. You have a few advocates. A little traction is gained because, after all, no one can prove the suspect was NOT Jack the Ripper. A few neophytes think it all sounds quite plausible, so the converts trickle in. And...away we go.

Lechmere is an interesting fellow. The tale told by Fisherman and Lechmere is riveting. As I've said, it'd make a great movie. Alas, it strikes me as a work of complete fiction. One in which a "suspect" exhibits no consciousness of guilt, and it's interpreted as the cunning of a psychopath. One where we find the serial killer as hobbyist, maintaining a career, a marriage, raising a family....yet - as a sidelight - operating as one (or more?) of the most notorious murders in history. One in which no one who knows him suspects him. Oh, I'm quite sure his living descendents will, no doubt, not resist this theory. They'll say it's been a family secret for a century. "Great grandpap was Jack the Ripper, don't you know! Another pig in a blanket? Yes, it's Lechmere with 'e'."

You've no idea how badly I wish I could buy in. It's only logic, reason, experience, and common sense that prevents it.

Hi Patrick
First of all let me say that I think lech is a weak suspect-weak of a weak lot.
IMHO he is just the bloke who found the victim. And I think the ripper would have taken off if he heard someone coming, which he probably did when he heard lech coming. Also, I doubt the ripper would have killed on his way to work, for many reasons.

That being said, I do somewhat disagree with a few of your points and in defense of lech the ripper theory:
First, lech as suspect is decidedly NOT like most suspects of recent vintage. Those are like maybrick, sickert, even Van Gough for christs sake! Or my pet peeve-the extenuation of the crazy Jew theory suspect, the latest being Jacob Levy, who the only thing going for him is that he was a crazy Jew who lived there at the time.

Second, many notorious and hideous serial killer have appeared on the surface to be normal men, with normal work and family, so I have never bought that fact about lech to rule him out.

Finally, there ARE possible red flags with his story. Yes they all could and probably do have innocent explanations, but they are there nonetheless. He was found near the body, he did have conflicting story with PC Mizen, and did give the police a different name, he does have a work and family (his mom) location near the bodies. Again all probably perfectly innocent, but.....???

I favor the every day joe probability for the serial killer and my handful of best out of a weak lot include every men blotchy, hutch (and rounding out with bury, Kelly, koz and chapman).

In my opinion, eventhough I think lech is a weak suspect, he is EXACTLY the type of person that is worth looking into and possibly discovering more about.

[Fisherman]

Hi All,

I personally find Lechmere a very interesting candidate. His profile, the little we know of it, ties in perfectly with my own hunch as to the killer's background and character. But I would not say the evidence we currently have makes him a very strong suspect. And some of the claims made for his candidacy seem a little imaginative for my liking. For example, he is said to have displayed an "extraordinary"( for which read unhealthy) diligence in form-filling in his Lechmere name. But the evidence put forward to support this seems to be perfectly unremarkable for
someone in his position. Census forms, birth and marriage certificates, school registration, trade directories, electoral registers: all perfectly normal, most of them legal requirements which only those on the farthest outskirts of society would fail to comply with. The icing on the cake is the suggestion that his children did not even have time off when the family moved home. That does seem a little unusual, but is it based on attendance registers or dates of registration? In applying to a new school, a parent would presumably provide the leaving date from the previous school and the child would be enrolled from the day after. That in itself does not mean that the children were not allowed a day's leave to settle in to their new home. Clarification on that point would be very interesting.

MrB

Hello Mr Barnett!

I think that one of the appealing things about Lechmere is, just like you say, that he is the long sought for grey man with a perfect reason to be on the streets at the hours of the murders. The Halse story, when he tells us he hurried into the streets adjoining Mitre Square to stop people and find out what they were doing there is enlightening the way I see things. He DID encounter two men (whether in company or not is not stated), and he let them go after they had provided reasons for being in the streets at that hour. Basically, that seemingly means that if he had stopped our carman, all he would have had to do would be to state that he was a Pickfords carman on his way to job, and that would get him off the hook!
It is so, so obvious that the police worked to an agenda to some extent, and people like Lechmere were not on that agenda.
So on this point we agree: Lechmere is the perfect fit for the grey man type who would stand the best chance of getting overlooked!

I will not comment on the school issue, since Edward will be the better informed man to do so.

However, when it comes to the amount of material we have on him when it comes to official material where he has signed or given his name, I know that he is quite unusual in this context. Very few people were as conscientous about filling out these things as Lechmere was. Whether that should qualify him for being a control freak or not, I canīt say. It does not speak against it at any rate. The best thing about it, though, is that it very clearly establishes what he ansered when authorities asked him about his name: Charles Allen Lechmere.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Patrick
First of all let me say that I think lech is a weak suspect-weak of a weak lot.
IMHO he is just the bloke who found the victim. And I think the ripper would have taken off if he heard someone coming, which he probably did when he heard lech coming. Also, I doubt the ripper would have killed on his way to work, for many reasons.

That being said, I do somewhat disagree with a few of your points and in defense of lech the ripper theory:
First, lech as suspect is decidedly NOT like most suspects of recent vintage. Those are like maybrick, sickert, even Van Gough for christs sake! Or my pet peeve-the extenuation of the crazy Jew theory suspect, the latest being Jacob Levy, who the only thing going for him is that he was a crazy Jew who lived there at the time.

Second, many notorious and hideous serial killer have appeared on the surface to be normal men, with normal work and family, so I have never bought that fact about lech to rule him out.

Finally, there ARE possible red flags with his story. Yes they all could and probably do have innocent explanations, but they are there nonetheless. He was found near the body, he did have conflicting story with PC Mizen, and did give the police a different name, he does have a work and family (his mom) location near the bodies. Again all probably perfectly innocent, but.....???

I favor the every day joe probability for the serial killer and my handful of best out of a weak lot include every men blotchy, hutch (and rounding out with bury, Kelly, koz and chapman).

In my opinion, eventhough I think lech is a weak suspect, he is EXACTLY the type of person that is worth looking into and possibly discovering more about.

Abby!

Could I ask you part of the same thing that I asked Patrick?

What does your logic, reason, experience and common sense tell you about the correlation between Lechmeres working trek routes, the timings and the killings?
That somebody else must have covered these exact routes too, at the same approximate hours? Somebody who was the real killer?

Have you tried to do the maths in this context? I am a poor mathematician myself - no, let me rephrase that: I am no mathematician at all - but just how big was the chance that none of Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly died more than thirty yards away from where his working treks would logically have taken him?
Why does not a single one of them deviate in this respect? Look at a map of the area:
Selby Street
Sherwood Street
Buxton Street
Busby Street
Sclater Street
Abbey Street
Bacon Street
Nelson Street
Nichols Street
South Street
Pollard Row
Orange Street
St George Street
Wells Street
Dock Street
Tenter Street
Lime Street

I could go on and on and on - these streets that Iīve mentioned do not represent more than a tiny fraction of the streets I am talking about. There are many hundreds more of them: East End streets where the killer COULD have struck, but did not.

Streets that would go some little way to clear Lechmere since there would be no way of tying them to him.

Instead, ALL of these murders took place directly on or within thirty yards of streets where Lechmere had reason to pass on his way to work. Numerically, what were the odds? Very, very high, I can say that much!

How do we explain this? Especially since we have all the other anomalies that - just like you say - should make us think?

He fits the type to your mind, he has a number of anomalies that makes you stop and think adhering to him. So what happens when we do it the police way, letting a mapping of his routes be the litmus paper by which we check the potential viability of the suggestion?

What is your explanation to this, Abby? I cannot explain it myself other than by acknowledging that the Ripper hunt has found itīs prime suspect.

the best,
Fisherman

PS. You must do your own thinking on this matter, but I fail to see how for example Blotchy could be a better suspect than Lechmere.
Was Blotchy found by a dead victimīs side?
Did he give a phony name to the police?
Did he have treks that took him past the murder sites?
Did he have a reason to be on the streets between 3 and 4 AM?
Was he involved in a conversation with a PC that implies that he was lying?
etcetera, etcetera..?

What makes him a better suspect than Lechmere, who you admit is the exact type we should look for? What merits this? A hunch? How did you reason when you put him in front of Lechmere? Or do you know more about Blotchy than I do?

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes we are agreed on the appeal of the grey man with an innocent reason for walking through the epicentre of the attacks at the significant times and having a geographical link to at least one of the non-working day attacks. ( Mitre Square doesn't quite fit, but as a response to a disturbance on Berners St. doesn't seem totally unreasonable). I would also place emphasis on the attacks starting shortly after Lech move away from his mother's influence and started taking a new route to work. And I agree the name and Mizen confusions are interesting anomalies. But I remain unconvinced by the attempts to prove that Lech. and his mother had controlling or otherwise sinister personalities . As for the vast amount of records in the name of Charles Lechmere, which I have heard exceeds 100, are there any that were not either legal requirements that would have been filled out by everyone or simple business registrations that any small entrepreneur would have completed?


MrB