Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Pcdunn]

As a person who attempts to look at JTR from a logical standpoint of "what makes the most sense" this, I admit, is one of the more frustrating aspects of the forum.

I don't expect everything to line up and work out logically. There of course will be things that simply don't make sense to us. But some people take this to the extreme and throw all logic out entirely when making their theories.

I agree with this summation. I've followed the discussion over two long threads, watched many twists and turns of debate, noticed that the more objections are raised, the more complicated the theory becomes, and yet it still isn't convincing (or logical) that the witness was also a serial killer.
I will say it has been fascinating!

[Fisherman]

pinkmoon, to save everyone, especially Fisherman, a lot trouble - even I know that the claim is that Cross did not stop and is responsible for a number of unsolved murders after 1888. Almost certainly an unsubstantiated claim but let's not revive that particular line of debate again.

I am leaving this discussion, David, since I am of the opinion that what most posters out here are resorting to is something other than intellectually based, rational criticism. Such criticism can be countered with a hope of a balanced reaction, but this is emphatically not the case here.

The reason I chose to quote you before I leave is since you write "even I know that the claim is that Cross did not stop and is responsible for a number of unsolved murders after 1888". That is typical of the whole approach to the Lechmere theory.

I realize that you wanted to lift a burden of my shoulders, and thanks for that - but the fact of the matter is that what I and Edward have said is that we SUSPECT that he may have gone on killing, and we think that he MAY have been responsible for further murders. We donīt think that people should conclude that he could not have been the killer since he stopped killing - as long as we cannot tell that he actually did.

What we have however not claimed, and would never claim until we had evidence for it, is that "he is responsible for a number of unsolved murders after 1888". This you now say is something you actually know that we do.

In a sense, it is a very good example of how much of what we have said has been received: as if we had presented the case as a a proven thing.
We have not.
We have pointed to the circumstantial evidence and we have said that there is very good reason to believe that Lechmere could have been the killer.
We have said that given the fact that no other suspect has the same amount of circumstantial evidence attaching, Charles Lechmere must be the prime suspect in both the Nichols murder and the Ripper killings on the whole.

The debate you and I have had on the blood evidence specifically is much the same - the evidence seemingly implicates Charles Lechmere as the killer, but there are possibilitites to make alternative interpretations, and the material is in no way consistent throughout.

On these boards, I have had it proposed by a well-known Ripperologist and author that the evidence relating to the blood exonerates Lechmere from any possibility of having been the killer. On the other site, another prolific Ripperologist and author claimed that the only Ripper victim to have been found while still bleeding was Elizabeth Stride.

These are propositions that have no base in real life. It is absolute tosh, and it does not belong to any rational discussion of the case.

Once we couple these efforts with the reoccuring misconceptions about what killers can do and cannot do that prevail out here, and take into account how it is said that Edward and I are claiming things as proven when we in fact present them as our suggestions of what we believe is the most plausible scenario, the time has come for me to leave the discussion, just as I said.

And now I am doing it too.

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

caz:

How do you know Nichols's injuries didn't begin bleeding afresh, like the example given, when her body was touched or moved, and this was what Mizen observed, because he was there?

To begin with: I donīt know for sure that Mr Gibbonbottom of Rotten Row was not there, practicing wrestling grips on Nicholsī body inbetween Lechmere and Neil. We can always play that card, Caz.
Then again, what we have is what we have. And the time period in which an unknown character could have entered and left the scene between Lechmere and Neil is absolutely miniscule, and nobody saw or heard anybody being in place in that window of time - that may not even have existed if Neil was very close in time to Lechmere.

I don't know what you are talking about here, Fish. I was talking about when Mizen was with the body. He could have observed any fresh bleeding caused by lifting her from the ground onto the ambulance.

If we reason that the bloodflow had stopped as the carmen arrived, and that they started it again, we must ask ourselves WHY it had stopped. The answer is simple enough: Because no more blood would float out due as a result of gravity. She would already have been emptied.

What? Of all eight pints? In any case, I wasn't suggesting the carmen 'started' her bleeding again, was I? Mizen was never there when they were.

In order to start a bloodflow afresh from a person that has stopped bleeding, you need to elevate some part of the body to a position where more blood could exit it. This never happened.

So Nichols was never lifted onto the ambulance? Did they leave her in the street forever?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

caz:

It looks garbled because it's based on your own reasoning concerning Lechmere's reasoning! You argued that he had to tell the truth about his departure time in case the police checked with his wife (implying that she must have known the exact time and also knew that he did).

To be much more exact, I argued that this MAY have been a reason for him giving the time he gave. Once again, do try to get it factually correct. I do not wish to be locked onto something because you are not discerning in your manner of reading.

What other reason do you think he could have had for giving an accurate departure time in the circumstances?

But if the police had checked with his wife, asking when Charles Allen Cross had left home, he'd have been found out - according to you - by both the police and his wife for giving a false name in a murder case.

Got it now?

Yes, you managed to be a bit clearer this time, thank you! Not that it makes any much difference - the risk that he would have been exposed as having used the wrong name was always going to be there, and it would have been a calculated risk. I have said this hundreds of times; this is why he gave the CORRECT address and the CORRECT working place - because he KNEW that he could get checked out. And it is also why he chose the name Cross - because he knew that he could get checked out. If that happened, he could point to a viable reason for using the name Cross, and he could claim that he sometimes/always/on Mondays used that particular name. He could NOT get away with a totally false name - but he could perhaps get away with Cross.

That makes absolutely no sense. Remind me once again what his cunning purpose was in calling himself Cross in the first place if he could point to a viable reason for doing so that would presumably have satisfied his wife as well as the police? What exactly was he trying to 'get away with' and why? You normally insist he was only ever known as Lechmere, in which case telling the police his name was Cross would have raised a big red flag had they checked him out at his home or Pickfords and everyone had said "Who?" He could hardly then have claimed he regularly went by Cross - unless of course he did! An innocent witness, on the other hand, with a claim to the name courtesy of his late stepfather, might well have wanted to avoid his growing family's name of Lechmere becoming in any way associated with the foul murder of a Spitalfields prostitute.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Maybe it was pretty damn obvious that it WAS a woman, and it would have been outright silly of Lechmere to propose a tarp.

But wasn't that exactly what he did propose? Didn't he say he thought it was a tarp until on closer inspection he realised it was a woman? I suppose it doesn't really matter though, because psychopaths are allowed to be 'outright silly' in your world, Fish.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Dane_F;327032]His mother sold cat meat and he had an "estranged" relationship with her. He is fallen from wealth and holds a grudge.[/QU
Makes no sense sorry just can't see it .

[David Orsam]

I realize that you wanted to lift a burden of my shoulders, and thanks for that - but the fact of the matter is that what I and Edward have said is that we SUSPECT that he may have gone on killing, and we think that he MAY have been responsible for further murders. We donīt think that people should conclude that he could not have been the killer since he stopped killing - as long as we cannot tell that he actually did.

What we have however not claimed, and would never claim until we had evidence for it, is that "he is responsible for a number of unsolved murders after 1888". This you now say is something you actually know that we do.

I do like to summarise things accurately Fisherman, and I do try to pay attention. It may be that you have written so much on this board that you have forgotten most of what you have said but, when answering pinkmoon, I had in mind the answer you gave to poster "Eighty-eighter" when he asked you in a thread he created on 5 December 2014, entitled "Some questions re Lechmere", in post #1: "Presuming him to be not only the killer of Nichols but also Jack the Ripper as the documentary surmises, for what reason do you believe he ceased killing". In reply, you (Fisherman) said on the same day in post #2:

"I am not presuming that he did stop. I think he went on, although not Ripper style (unless we speak of MacKenzie, who I think may well have been Lechmere). There are many unsolved murders in London between 1888 and 1921!"

In view of that answer, why you seem to think I have failed to summarise your case accurately is beyond my comprehension.

[David Orsam]

Now Fisherman, I'm not sure if you have gone completely or not, but I do have a question for you which I have been meaning to ask. I will ask it anyway even if you don't answer.

I note from your exchanges with Caz that you have challenged her to prove that Charles Lechmere was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords. But can you answer me this: Given that he was said to have worked for Pickfords for over 20 years in 1888, this means he must have started at Pickfords in at least 1868 and probably a few years before that. I mean, if he was born in 1849, he would have been 15 in 1864 and might well have started work then. As his step-father, Thomas Cross, died in 1869, do you accept that Charles started work at Pickfords (a) while his step-father was still alive and (b) while he was still living with his step-father? And, that being the case, is it not a logical conclusion that Charles started his employment at Pickfords in the name of Charles Cross?

I'm just wondering if you happen to agree with that but if you've gone you've gone.

[Abby Normal]

Now Fisherman, I'm not sure if you have gone completely or not, but I do have a question for you which I have been meaning to ask. I will ask it anyway even if you don't answer.

I note from your exchanges with Caz that you have challenged her to prove that Charles Lechmere was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords. But can you answer me this: Given that he was said to have worked for Pickfords for over 20 years in 1888, this means he must have started at Pickfords in at least 1868 and probably a few years before that. I mean, if he was born in 1849, he would have been 15 in 1864 and might well have started work then. As his step-father, Thomas Cross, died in 1869, do you accept that Charles started work at Pickfords (a) while his step-father was still alive and (b) while he was still living with his step-father? And, that being the case, is it not a logical conclusion that Charles started his employment at Pickfords in the name of Charles Cross?

I'm just wondering if you happen to agree with that but if you've gone you've gone.

Hi David
Ive said the same thing many times. He was still under the auspices of his step father Cross when he started there and probably was using that last name. Hence he was always known at Pickfords as Charles Cross and continued to use that last name professionally, even when he went back to Lechmere later on.

That being said, I find it odd if that were the case he was not known in the police records as Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere. Apparently he didn't also tell them the name he was more commonly using, although I suppose there is an innocent explanation for that.

[David Orsam]

Ive said the same thing many times. He was still under the auspices of his step father Cross when he started there and probably was using that last name.

Hi Abby - to save me hunting through the archives, what did Fisherman say to that?

[GUT]

Hi Abby - to save me hunting through the archives, what did Fisherman say to that?

From memory, that "there's no proof he did so".

[FrankO]

From memory, that "there's no proof he did so".

Thereby stressing the fact that there are over a hundred official documents signed by him with 'Lechmere' and none with 'Cross'.

The best,
Frank

[David Orsam]

From memory, that "there's no proof he did so".

Had he said that, it would not have been an adequate answer - or even an answer - to my question. I would in any event have pointed to the evidence of the 1861 census. It might be that no-one has ever quite asked him this exact question, i.e. whether it is reasonable to assume that Charles started work at Pickfords in the name of Cross.

[David Orsam]

Thereby stressing the fact that there are over a hundred official documents signed by him with 'Lechmere' and none with 'Cross'.

Has anyone ever seen this list? I get the impression that it includes every appearance of Lechmere in the electoral register so that if there were 40 years of him in the electoral register that counts for "40 documents". I do wonder how many separate documents there actually are. And, in particular, whether there are any documents signed by him before 1869.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby - to save me hunting through the archives, what did Fisherman say to that?

Hi david
I don't remember exactly, but I dont think he conceded that he could have.
I think it was along the lines of-we have no evidence of what he went by at pickfords.

its too bad that there are no records from Pickfords on this. I asked once if there were attendance records (apparently not). Because if there were and it was found that lech was actually off work the day/ morning after Pollys murder than I would think we have our man.

whats your thoughts on my earlier commenter-its odd he was not known in the police records as Cross AKA Lechmere? apparently, at the very least, he didn't volunteer the name Lechmere, which seems to have been the more common usage??