Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

Robert: Fish

Crossmere's industriousness did save himself and the family he'd fathered from being a burden on everyone else. I think that's good citizenship. But again, call me old-fashioned if you will.

I prefer to call you conveniently overlooking things. Such as albeit industrious people are good for the total economy of a country, it says absolutely nothing about what they are like as people. Scrooge was extremely industrious!

Well, of course, Mizen may have been up to all kinds of shady shenanigans that the superiors who graded him as good never suspected. It's possible, but there isn't the slightest reason to think so.

Nope. But if we were to entertain such suspicions, it would be easier if we didnīt have him graded. Then he could be either way - like Lechmere. Once he IS graded, we must suppose that he was graded correctly, and thus it is very improbable that he was a bad egg.

It wonīt go away, Robert. Sorry! (No, Iīm not ... )

Equally, Crossmere may have come home and beaten his children. Perhaps they trembled at his frown. It's possible, but there isn't the slightest reason to think so.

Nor is there the slightest reason to propose that he couldnīt have.

In fact, there is reason to think NOT, for in 1901 Crossmere has two adult sons living at home, while in 1911 he still has one adult son living at home. Doesn't look like psychological torment to me. But hey, maybe these sons joined in with beating up their siblings! It's a wicked world, Fish.

And a complicated one. If abused people always moved out, you would have a point. If they donīt always move out, you have no point at all.

Some kids stay to watch over their mother if the husband is abusive, for instance. The world IS a complicated place, Robert. Itīs a place, even, where "we did it" can mean that one of us did ...

And in my opinion, the ball clearly bounced off the Lechmerebar and over the line, but have it your own way, Fish.

It never Crossed the line, Robert. Iīve seen some German border controls in my life, and believe me, they donīt let just anything in.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Who can show me a better poster than Robert ?

I can!

... but I canīt show you any funnier poster, admittedly.

The best,
Fisherman

[Djb]

Fisherman.
Do you fancing debating a few points?
My initial reaction to the Lechmere theory was that it was interesting.
The evidence is inevitably thin given the passage of time but to me it doesn't stand up to scrutiny; it doesn't fit together as a theory to cover all the murders.
Most of the debate on here is about Polly Nichols, but obviously Lechmere has to be a good fit for others too.

[Fisherman]

Djb: Fisherman.
Do you fancing debating a few points?
[/QUOTE]

You may not like my answer to that one, DJB - not really.

Ask away, by all means, though!

The best,
Fisherman

[Djb]

Ok i'll list a few issues anyway.
1. I'm not sure about the 7 minutes figure. My route finder software say it takes 12 minutes to walk from doveton st to the murder scene. If lechmere left at 3.30 he would have arrived at 3.42 and the timings all seem to tally as per the statements given. In which case there isn't really time for Lechmere to strike.

2. How did Lechmere chance upon Polly Nichols? Do you think he met her in Bucks Row and launched an immediate attack? Why is Polly Nichols in Bucks Row given that it was her stated intention to return to lodgings in Flower and Dean st. She was last seen walking east up Whitechapel High street. The idea that she wandered away from the busier commercial street into the dark, dangerous and relatively deserted back streets and headed in the opposite direction to home takes some explaining. I would contend she was picked up on Whitechapel road, and was lead by the killer to Bucks row. Do you believe that Lechmere took a detour?

[Djb]

3. The hanbury street murder at @5.30 am doesn't fit with the idea that lechmere was at work at 4am. Also the killer has to be familiar with 29 hanbury street. He has to have been in that house before. He has to be confortable walking through the house to the yard. He has to know something of the location as a suitable place to commit a murder. What is Lechmeres connection with hanbury st.

[Fisherman]

Djb: Ok i'll list a few issues anyway.
1. I'm not sure about the 7 minutes figure. My route finder software say it takes 12 minutes to walk from doveton st to the murder scene. If lechmere left at 3.30 he would have arrived at 3.42 and the timings all seem to tally as per the statements given. In which case there isn't really time for Lechmere to strike.

Your route finder is wrong. It takes six, seven minutes. I did it myself, clock in hand in the documentary, at a leisurely pace. Are you suggesting that I took a cab?

2. How did Lechmere chance upon Polly Nichols? Do you think he met her in Bucks Row and launched an immediate attack? Why is Polly Nichols in Bucks Row given that it was her stated intention to return to lodgings in Flower and Dean st. She was last seen walking east up Whitechapel High street. The idea that she wandered away from the busier commercial street into the dark, dangerous and relatively deserted back streets and headed in the opposite direction to home takes some explaining. I would contend she was picked up on Whitechapel road, and was lead by the killer to Bucks row. Do you believe that Lechmere took a detour?

I will not guess. I know that prostitutes habitually walked into the dark side streets - thatīs where they worked!
Nichols was asked by Emily Holland to come back to the dosshouse, but said no thanks. She needed money, and before she had it, she could not return.

Thereīs no reason, for example, to think that Nichols could not have walked up Brady Street, which was a comparatively large street, and where prostitution could perhaps be had. Likewise, she may have wawed farewell to a customer in Buckīs Row just before Lechmere arrived there.

Nothing is given, sadly.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

3. The hanbury street murder at @5.30 am doesn't fit with the idea that lechmere was at work at 4am. Also the killer has to be familiar with 29 hanbury street. He has to have been in that house before. He has to be confortable walking through the house to the yard. He has to know something of the location as a suitable place to commit a murder. What is Lechmeres connection with hanbury st.

No, I donīt agree that the killer must have been to the backyard before - he could just as easily have relied on Chapmen being aquainted with the premises and vouching for their security.

He was a carman, so he could well have been passing through Hanbury Street at any point of day...

... but I think that Phillips was correct on the TOD. Chapman died at the very latest 4.30 - but probably significantly earlier than that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Djb]

4. Why would Lechmere having carried out one attack in berner street at 1am then head west towards mitre square at 2.00 am on a sunday morning? This is heading in the opposite direction to his home refuge? Is there any connection at all between lechmere and that location?

5. Mary kelly was murdered on a friday probably some time between 2.00am and 4.00 am but the killer spent hours in her room and would have been covered in blood. If she picked up her killer at 2.00am on thrawl street then lechmere doesn't really fit the time and location. He certainly wouldn't have made it to work would he? Do you believe he walked all the way back to doveton street whilst covered in blood in daylight. He'd have a job explaining that to his wife?

5 what about frances coles?

6 why did the murders stop if Lechmere lived healthily for many years?

[Djb]

Thanks for responding by the way.

[Fisherman]

Djb: 4. Why would Lechmere having carried out one attack in berner street at 1am then head west towards mitre square at 2.00 am on a sunday morning? This is heading in the opposite direction to his home refuge? Is there any connection at all between lechmere and that location?

Yes, there is. When heading for Mitre Square, he would arguably have used his old working route from James Street to Broad Street. He had his work in Broad Street, not very far from Mitre Square. I think he may have taken his "trophies" there. Nota bene that Alfred Long, who found the apron piece in Goulston Street, said that it was not there when he passed at 2.20. And Eddowes was killed at 1.45, so the rag should have been in place at 2.20 - if the killer walked eastwards directly after the Eddowes murder.
But what if he walked from Mitre Square to Broad Street, hid the kidney and the uterus, and washed up, before going to Goulston Street...?

Also note that when the kliller strucīk in Mitre Square, he may have taken advantage of the fact that he had moved away from MET territory into City police territory. They would not have been alerted the way the MET was after Berner Street.

5. Mary kelly was murdered on a friday probably some time between 2.00am and 4.00 am but the killer spent hours in her room and would have been covered in blood. If she picked up her killer at 2.00am on thrawl street then lechmere doesn't really fit the time and location. He certainly wouldn't have made it to work would he? Do you believe he walked all the way back to doveton street whilst covered in blood in daylight. He'd have a job explaining that to his wife?

It is impossible to establish the TOD for Kelly - too long time transpired before she was found and the doctors disagreed by a number of hours. He would arguably have gone to work after the deed if it was Lechmere, it was a working day. Pickfords historian Arthur Ingram says that the Pickfords men at Broad Street handled meat on a reoccurring schedule, and so Lechmere could have been a man that was often seen specked with blood.

5 what about frances coles?

She was killed. By Lechmere? Perhaps, but not neccesarily - Sadler seems a reasonable bid for that slaying.

6 why did the murders stop if Lechmere lived healthily for many years?

The only murders we know stopped were the Ripper style evisceration murders. And even there, it can be said that MacKenzie (july -89) was such a murder. He may have carried on killing in other fashions. He may have found a way to kill and dispose of the bodies. All opportunities are open.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks for responding by the way.

Youīre welcome! But for now, Iīm off!

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

"I prefer to call you conveniently overlooking things. Such as albeit industrious people are good for the total economy of a country, it says absolutely nothing about what they are like as people. Scrooge was extremely industrious!"And it's a good job he was, or Tiny Tim would have been in a right old state, wouldn't he.

I say that if a man works hard, and provides for his family, then that is a plus mark in considering his character. You are entitled to point to negative factors - but first you have to find them.

"Nope. But if we were to entertain such suspicions, it would be easier if we didnīt have him graded. Then he could be either way - like Lechmere. Once he IS graded, we must suppose that he was graded correctly, and thus it is very improbable that he was a bad egg."

Oh but hang on : what if they graded him incorrectly? What if he used to go home and beat up his wife? Maybe he stole the church collection from the plate. We don't know, do we?

"Some kids stay to watch over their mother if the husband is abusive, for instance. The world IS a complicated place, Robert. Itīs a place, even, where "we did it" can mean that one of us did ..."

Ah, so Crossmere may have beat up his wife too, and that was why some of his children stayed behind - they were protecting her. Is there no end to this man's evil?....But hang on, this woman who bore him - what was it? - eleven children, and brought them up, while being battered by Crossmere as late as 1911 when they were both into their 60s - this woman actually died at the age of 91. She must have been a tough old bird! Maybe at some point she enrolled for a course of judo lessons. Anything's possible, Fish.

[Lechmere]

Sally
You might be right tat he chose to call himself Cross because his long dead step father was a policeman - but that is hardly a sign of innocence is it.
The thing that most of the nay sayers fail to acknowledge is that even if this man called himself Cross in his everyday life (a suggestion for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence to back it up) then why did he call himself Lechmere when registering his child's birth, her baptism, his children's registration at school and his entry on the electoral register in 1888?
Surely he knew his official name.
Surely he knew that dealing with the police and a court over a very significant and well publicised murder was official business? So why go under a supposed unofficial name?
For a giggle?

We don't know when he was asked his address or workplace.
We don't know what he was trying to avoid (presuming he was trying to avoid something by giving the name Cross).
All we actually know is that his use of the name Cross is a glaring anomaly.
When you find a glaring anomaly connected to a man who was 'found' very close to a very freshly killed body - then it is wise to take notice and not sweep it under the carpet.

[GUT]

A couple of days Team Lechmere were spouting that the name was an insignificant factor, now it's a glaring anomaly.