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

[Patrick S]

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.

I don't disagree with much that you've said. And I am interested in any bit of investigation into anyone associated with the murders. I have just seen nothing from the Lechmere-o-philes that goes beyond wild speculation. To me, it's akin to 'fan fiction'. The same is true for Sickert, and others. I argue just as strenously with Corwell's groupies.

I have seen real life examples of arriving at conclusions first and "evidence" to support your conclusion in every action, comment, event. Things that may seem otherwise innocuous, become suspicious, damning, PROOF of guilt.

Some see his route to work as proof that he frequently passed through the "killing ground". Well, does it not stand to reason that the person who found the body would have reason to be passing through the area? Should we expect a person who lives and works on the other side of town to have found the body? In that case, I think we'd be asking, "What reason did that person have to be in Buck's Row at that time? He worked on the other side of town!" If Lechmere doesn't find the body, Paul might. If not Paul, then one of the PCs. What do they have in common? They all had reason to be in that part of town at that time. Lechmere doesn't run. In fact, he approaches Paul and asks him to COME SEE THIS WOMAN. If you reach your conclusion first, you see this as the cold cunning of psychopath. If you do NOT, you might see this as the actions of someone with no consciousness of guilt. Paul says explicity that he was fearful because in that area there were 'gangs about'. If we arrive at conclusions first, we read this as he was fearful of Lechmere, afraid of his demeanor, having just killed Nichols moments, if not seconds before. Again, he doesn't run. He doesn't hide in the shadows to see if Paul simply walks by. He doesn't attack and kill Paul. He approaches him. Come and see. Again. Viewed in a vaccum, this seems like the actions of a guy who just found a body, not someone who just cut a woman's throat and disembowled her. When you have it in your mind that Lechere is Jack the Ripper, well, again, it's a psychopathic murdering geninus at work.

Then we come to the name issue. The only thing that may be somewhat suspicous. He gives a name that was he known by in his youth, may have been known by at work, elsewhere. We don't know. He gives his real address and place of employment. Again, marks in his favor, one would think. But not if we've already made up our minds. Its all simply part of a masterful plan, plotted and practiced well in advance. Sorry. I just can't join the club.

I'll say again, I'll be the fist in line to buy the book and see the movie. Yet, debate is key to this topic and moves us forward. Do I think Lechmere should have a 'suspect page' on this site? Sure. Do I think he's a more plausible suspect than, say, Walter Sickert? Yeah. Okay. But not by much.

[Fisherman]

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 also would 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?j


MrB

That collection is in the hands of Edward (poster Lechmere), so he will be the one to clear that matter up. I think there may well be business registrations, at the very least, but how far down the impact scale they will go, I canīt say. Mostly they are different authority-related matters.

As for Lechmereīs mother, we know too little about her to decisively conclude that she was domineering. All we can tell is that she seems not to have been any low-key personality.
She married three times, two of them bigamously.
She married a policeman that was ten years her junior, and Joseph Forsdike who was ten years her senior.
She managed to have her children baptised Lechmere, in spite of her being married to Thomas Cross, who signed his sons name "Cross" in the 1861 census, by the looks of things.
She changed her line of work more than once.
She somehow had Charles Lechmere leaving one of his own children to live with her.

It is precious little, but what there is speaks to me much more of a strong personality than a weak one.

When it comes to the reasonability of Mitre Square, as I have pointed out, the route from Berner Street thence would follow his old working trek from James Street (todays Burslem Street) to Pickfords. Mitre Square would also be quite close to Pickfords. If he took trophies, then that was reasonably where he deposited them. The riddle about Long stating that the apron rag was not in Goulston Street at 2.20 could have itīs tidy solution here - he could have gone to Pickfords to deposit the womb and the kidney (or the womb, at least), cleaned up, brought the apron rag with him and passed through Goulston Street - which would be neatly situated on the route to Doveton Street - after 2.20.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:
I have seen real life examples of arriving at conclusions first and "evidence" to support your conclusion in every action, comment, event. Things that may seem otherwise innocuous, become suspicious, damning, PROOF of guilt.

Then you should be refreshed that nobody is speaking about proof in Lechmereīs case. Just as we donīt speculate that he started World War I. In fact, I would very much like not to have the theory compared to any such things.

Some see his route to work as proof that he frequently passed through the "killing ground". Well, does it not stand to reason that the person who found the body would have reason to be passing through the area? Should we expect a person who lives and works on the other side of town to have found the body? In that case, I think we'd be asking, "What reason did that person have to be in Buck's Row at that time? He worked on the other side of town!" If Lechmere doesn't find the body, Paul might. If not Paul, then one of the PCs. What do they have in common? They all had reason to be in that part of town at that time.

That was ONE of the seven murders I spoke of in my post to you. What about the other six? Was there nothing strange about him having his treks potentially taking him past ALL of them? At the correct hours?

Lechmere doesn't run. In fact, he approaches Paul and asks him to COME SEE THIS WOMAN. If you reach your conclusion first, you see this as the cold cunning of psychopath. If you do NOT, you might see this as the actions of someone with no consciousness of guilt.

Yes, thatīs another example of where we can make an excuse for him. But we need to pile a lot of excuses before heīs cleared of suspicion.

Paul says explicity that he was fearful because in that area there were 'gangs about'. If we arrive at conclusions first, we read this as he was fearful of Lechmere, afraid of his demeanor, having just killed Nichols moments, if not seconds before.

Itīs actually not just Paul that speaks of that fear. Lechmere himself says that Paul seemed afraid that he would knock him down. It would be a normal reaction - Lechmere would have stood in the middle of the road, turned against Paul after having noticed him.
It could have been strenghened by Lechmereīs demeanor, and it may not have been. Nobody is saying that this WAS so - itīs a suggestion that it may have been. What we CAN conclude is that Lecherme did not make a favourable impression on Paul at that stage.

Again, he doesn't run. He doesn't hide in the shadows to see if Paul simply walks by. He doesn't attack and kill Paul. He approaches him. Come and see. Again. Viewed in a vaccum, this seems like the actions of a guy who just found a body, not someone who just cut a woman's throat and disembowled her. When you have it in your mind that Lechere is Jack the Ripper, well, again, it's a psychopathic murdering geninus at work.

Once again, all the points we make can have natural explanations. For example, he could have had his treks take him past all of the sites at the correct time and past Berner Street and Mitre Square at the correct hours. But what are the odds, Patrick?

Then we come to the name issue. The only thing that may be somewhat suspicous.

Unless being found by a freshly killed body is suspicious, that is. Oh wait, I forgot: somebody had to find her, ergo it is not in the slightest suspicious to be found by a ripped up woman.

He gives a name that was he known by in his youth...

Oooops! He was baptised Lechmere and we have no record of him having been known by any other name at any other instance. The 1861 census would have been signed by Thomas Cross. So here you are presenting a baseless suggestion as prime fact.

...may have been known by at work, elsewhere. We don't know. He gives his real address and place of employment. Again, marks in his favor, one would think. But not if we've already made up our minds. Its all simply part of a masterful plan, plotted and practiced well in advance. Sorry. I just can't join the club.

Iīm not sure Iīd let you!

I'll say again, I'll be the fist in line to buy the book and see the movie. Yet, debate is key to this topic and moves us forward. Do I think Lechmere should have a 'suspect page' on this site? Sure. Do I think he's a more plausible suspect than, say, Walter Sickert? Yeah. Okay. But not by much.

Remind me again: which body was Sickert found by? Did his route from his home to his atelier take him past the murder sites? Was he even involved in a conversation where it seems he lied to a PC? Did he give the police a false name?

Itīs a real tight race, seemingly! REAL tight. Neck and neck at the back of the race, with Blotchy running ahead of them

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:
I have seen real life examples of arriving at conclusions first and "evidence" to support your conclusion in every action, comment, event. Things that may seem otherwise innocuous, become suspicious, damning, PROOF of guilt.

Then you should be refreshed that nobody is speaking about proof in Lechmereīs case. Just as we donīt speculate that he started World War I. In fact, I would very much like not to have the theory compared to any such things.

Some see his route to work as proof that he frequently passed through the "killing ground". Well, does it not stand to reason that the person who found the body would have reason to be passing through the area? Should we expect a person who lives and works on the other side of town to have found the body? In that case, I think we'd be asking, "What reason did that person have to be in Buck's Row at that time? He worked on the other side of town!" If Lechmere doesn't find the body, Paul might. If not Paul, then one of the PCs. What do they have in common? They all had reason to be in that part of town at that time.

That was ONE of the seven murders I spoke of in my post to you. What about the other six? Was there nothing strange about him having his treks potentially taking him past ALL of them? At the correct hours?

Lechmere doesn't run. In fact, he approaches Paul and asks him to COME SEE THIS WOMAN. If you reach your conclusion first, you see this as the cold cunning of psychopath. If you do NOT, you might see this as the actions of someone with no consciousness of guilt.

Yes, thatīs another example of where we can make an excuse for him. But we need to pile a lot of excuses before heīs cleared of suspicion.

Paul says explicity that he was fearful because in that area there were 'gangs about'. If we arrive at conclusions first, we read this as he was fearful of Lechmere, afraid of his demeanor, having just killed Nichols moments, if not seconds before.

Itīs actually not just Paul that speaks of that fear. Lechmere himself says that Paul seemed afraid that he would knock him down. It would be a normal reaction - Lechmere would have stood in the middle of the road, turned against Paul after having noticed him.
It could have been strenghened by Lechmereīs demeanor, and it may not have been. Nobody is saying that this WAS so - itīs a suggestion that it may have been. What we CAN conclude is that Lecherme did not make a favourable impression on Paul at that stage.

Again, he doesn't run. He doesn't hide in the shadows to see if Paul simply walks by. He doesn't attack and kill Paul. He approaches him. Come and see. Again. Viewed in a vaccum, this seems like the actions of a guy who just found a body, not someone who just cut a woman's throat and disembowled her. When you have it in your mind that Lechere is Jack the Ripper, well, again, it's a psychopathic murdering geninus at work.

Once again, all the points we make can have natural explanations. For example, he could have had his treks take him past all of the sites at the correct time and past Berner Street and Mitre Square at the correct hours. But what are the odds, Patrick?

Then we come to the name issue. The only thing that may be somewhat suspicous.

Unless being found by a freshly killed body is suspicious, that is. Oh wait, I forgot: somebody had to find her, ergo it is not in the slightest suspicious to be found by a ripped up woman.

He gives a name that was he known by in his youth...

Oooops! He was baptised Lechmere and we have no record of him having been known by any other name at any other instance. The 1861 census would have been signed by Thomas Cross. So here you are presenting a baseless suggestion as prime fact.

...may have been known by at work, elsewhere. We don't know. He gives his real address and place of employment. Again, marks in his favor, one would think. But not if we've already made up our minds. Its all simply part of a masterful plan, plotted and practiced well in advance. Sorry. I just can't join the club.

Iīm not sure Iīd let you!

I'll say again, I'll be the fist in line to buy the book and see the movie. Yet, debate is key to this topic and moves us forward. Do I think Lechmere should have a 'suspect page' on this site? Sure. Do I think he's a more plausible suspect than, say, Walter Sickert? Yeah. Okay. But not by much.

Remind me again: which body was Sickert found by? Did his route from his home to his atelier take him past the murder sites? Was he even involved in a conversation where it seems he lied to a PC? Did he give the police a false name?

Itīs a real tight race, seemingly! REAL tight. Neck and neck at the back of the race, with Blotchy running ahead of them

All the best,
Fisherman

Seriously...can I be in the club? Please?

[Fisherman]

Seriously...can I be in the club? Please?

Let me think about it, and weīll see. Perhaps. Probably.

But you donīt get to say that men with carreers, families and kids cannot be serial killers, okay?

And you never - NEVER! - rank anybody alongside Lechmere in terms of viability as a suspect.

Did I mention that there is a fee, by the way? Mail me privately and weīll work out a payment plan.

Fisherman
cashier of the Lechmere fan club

[Patrick S]

Let me think about it, and weīll see. Perhaps. Probably.

But you donīt get to say that men with carreers, families and kids cannot be serial killers, okay?

And you never - NEVER! - rank anybody alongside Lechmere in terms of viability as a suspect.

Did I mention that there is a fee, by the way? Mail me privately and weīll work out a payment plan.

Fisherman
cashier of the Lechmere fan club

point me in the direction of a discussion of the murders in proximity to his route to work?

[FrankO]

Me oh my! All kinds of arguments surface against Lechmereīs candidacy, donīt they?

Is there a point in there, Fish?

No, they cling on to their weapon of choice.

Also if that’s the only thing that could link them to a murder and they had almost been caught?

To hide it under the body? Hmmm.

Simple & efficient, isn’t it?

Is there a precedent of a killer hiding his weapon under a dead body to avoid detection...?

Why should there be one, Christer?

Incidentally, I donīt think that we must expect Lechmere to always have taken the best decisions from the wiew of a killer who wanted to get away with murder.

Ah, an acknowledgement of sorts after all.

All the best Christer,
Frank

[FrankO]

Was the ‘Mizen Scam’ complex or risky?
It involved accompanying Paul and making sure he did the talking if – if – they bumped into a policeman on the way. He may have assured Paul that he would do the talking to spare Paul the task. Paul was evidently anti Police.
According to Mizen, he was given some pretty unremarkable information by Lechmere, so it is not surprising that Mizen didn’t take any details. I would imagine that Lechmere would then be hoping that this would be the end of his involvement in the matter… until Paul blabbed to the press.

I wrote "relatively complex and risky", Edward, and by that I meant relative in comparison to the solution of losing the knife.

Cheers,
Frank

[lynn cates]

Ring the Kurten down.

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I brought up Kurten as a man whose wife was out of it respecting her husband's crimes. He did not need a "false" name.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

stumbling blocks

Hello Patrick.

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

My bloody stumbling blocks as well.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

point me in the direction of a discussion of the murders in proximity to his route to work?

Any of the Lechmere threads under General Suspect discussion, Patrick.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

FrankO: Is there a point in there, Fish?

Not really. There is some little recognition of the fact that I think that a number of the points made against Lechmere have a measure of desperation in them. Not that your point explicitly would be worse than many other ones. I just did not think it a very good one, if I may be so bold. Sorry.

Also if that’s the only thing that could link them to a murder and they had almost been caught?

That would depend on the perpetrator and the circumstances. A self-secure psychopath would be less inclined to be overly cautious. But itīs an academic discussion, methinks.

Simple & efficient, isn’t it?

Simple, yes. But efficient? Once the knife was found, it would be pretty obvious who had left it there, would it not? The phantom killer that is suggested as preceding Lechmere, for example - if he was there two minutes earlier, undisturbed, why would he yank his knife in under Nichols?
Iīd say that if Lechmere had done so, heīd be hard pushed to bring it back out unnoticed or to kill Paul with it. It suddenly becomes a whole different ballgame in such a case, and I am not certain at all that it woud be a wise move. Are you?

Why should there be one, Christer?

There neednīt be, as I said. But I would be much interested to hear if there WAS.

Ah, an acknowledgement of sorts after all.

Of what, precisely...? It is something that goes without saying, more or less. Psychopaths will not be nervous and so they will have more time to think over what the wisest step is. But there is no guarantee that they will secure that the best step is taken, since that is to some extent a question of intelligence. And you can be a dumb psychopath just as well as you can be a clever one. There have been psychopath serialists that have scored extremely high IQ:s like Rodney Alcala, for example. But there have also been those who have scored embarrasingly low on that scale, like for example Ottis Toole.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

FrankO: Is there a point in there, Fish?

Not really. There is some little recognition of the fact that I think that a number of the points made against Lechmere have a measure of desperation in them. Not that your point explicitly would be worse than many other ones. I just did not think it a very good one, if I may be so bold. Sorry.

Also if that’s the only thing that could link them to a murder and they had almost been caught?

That would depend on the perpetrator and the circumstances. A self-secure psychopath would be less inclined to be overly cautious. But itīs an academic discussion, methinks.

Simple & efficient, isn’t it?

Simple, yes. But efficient? Once the knife was found, it would be pretty obvious who had left it there, would it not? The phantom killer that is suggested as preceding Lechmere, for example - if he was there two minutes earlier, undisturbed, why would he yank his knife in under Nichols?
Iīd say that if Lechmere had done so, heīd be hard pushed to bring it back out unnoticed or to kill Paul with it. It suddenly becomes a whole different ballgame in such a case, and I am not certain at all that it woud be a wise move. Are you?

Why should there be one, Christer?

There neednīt be, as I said. But I would be much interested to hear if there WAS.

Ah, an acknowledgement of sorts after all.

Of what, precisely...? It is something that goes without saying, more or less. Psychopaths will not be nervous and so they will have more time to think over what the wisest step is. But there is no guarantee that they will secure that the best step is taken, since that is to some extent a question of intelligence. And you can be a dumb psychopath just as well as you can be a clever one. There have been psychopath serialists that have scored extremely high IQ:s like Rodney Alcala, for example. But there have also been those who have scored embarrasingly low on that scale, like for example Ottis Toole.

All the best,
Fisherman

Alcala claimed to have been a genius. Not sure he was ever given an IQ test (?).

Ottis Toole was, if I'm not mistaken, mentally retarded, with an IQ of around 70 (?). Was he ever diagnosed as a psychopath?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

Alcala claimed to have been a genius. Not sure he was ever given an IQ test (?).

He scored 160, Patrick.

Ottis Toole was, if I'm not mistaken, mentally retarded, with an IQ of around 70 (?). Was he ever diagnosed as a psychopath?

I think so, yes. Together with a host of other diagnoses. He scored 75 IQ-wise.

The best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

Patrick S:

Alcala claimed to have been a genius. Not sure he was ever given an IQ test (?).

He scored 160, Patrick.

Ottis Toole was, if I'm not mistaken, mentally retarded, with an IQ of around 70 (?). Was he ever diagnosed as a psychopath?

I think so, yes. Together with a host of other diagnoses. He scored 75 IQ-wise.

The best,
Fisherman

I wonder how Ottis Toole would have done on the Dating Game?