Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

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

Please tell me where I said that it was insignificant! As far as I remember, I always thought it a significant part of the case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Djb:

So you are not arguing that Lechmere took a detour.

He may and he may not have. We don´t know.

There isn't really time is there?

Yes, there is.

However i suspect that the killer spends a bit of time with the victim.
If he just attacks women randomly and instantly then there should surely be more attacks, and attacks on ordinary women, and some attacks loser to doveton street.

But what did he do when spending time with Nichols, for example? Chat with her? It was dead silent. The time he spent with her could well have been "Looking for some fun, Sir?", "Yes", "Alright then, I know just the place". That would have taken all of five seconds.

I'm intrigued by the anonymous letter to mrs hardiman regarding polly nichols which alleges she was made tipsy prior to the murder.
And why write to mrs hardiman?

Beats me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Okay, so let´s go with Mark Twain.

How did he sign his dealings with the authorities?

And how would he sign himself when dealing with the police?

Would he use the same signature in all cases, or would he make the odd exception when dealing with the police?

Any guess?

How did Pelé sign his contract on the house he lieves in?

How did he sign his passport?

How would he sign a police report he had responded to?

Any guess?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I´m off for some time now.

If we can disregard the Twains and the Pelés when I return, it would be beneficial to the discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Kaz]

Mohammad murdered people (chopped their heads off I believe) and married a child and yet a billion+ people call him their 'example'.

Don't know where the leads us but its a point nonetheless...

[Harry D]

The fact that even after the documentary has aired, the main topic is STILL about his false name, really speaks volumes for his legitimacy as a suspect. And that's the whole problem with Crossmere the Ripper, the case against him is built on all kinds of minutiae which have been manipulated and exaggerated in order to reflect guilt. 'He gave a different surname to the police, therefore he's shifty!'... but he also gave the right address. And it wasn't a completely bogus surname, either, it was his stepfather's. So if Crossmere was the Ripper... he was an idiot.

[Lechmere]

Hold on a minute - I thought your favourite suspect was mad.

[Robert]

Fish, correct me if I'm wrong - because I know you have been into this far more deeply that I have - but as far as I am aware Crossmere did not run a Pakistani carpet factory. Nor did he run a tea plantation in Sri Lanka. Nor was he a notorious usurer, or a master cat burglar. He was a bloke who worked at Pickfords and had regular employment there. He provided for his wife and family. At some point he set himself up in a small business. Some of his children stayed at home into adulthood. His wife died at the ripe old age of 91. When he died he left a tidy sum for his family. His family was a large one. It takes a lot of self-discipline to do what Crossmere did, Fish. It can't be done just on love or some kind of egoistic gene survival motive, though these obviously played their part. Crossmere had to go into work day after day, and come home night after night to the mess, the screaming and the bawling. Not every man could handle it in those days. Not every man can handle it now, despite modern labour-saving devices and the welfare system.
Oh , but I forgot : Gacy was a paragon of self-discipline, so it all counts for nothing. I see.

Your reasoning is circular, Fish. The idea of the character element is to try to decide, from factors which can have either an innocent or a sinister explanation, which explanation is the more likely from the point of view of character. Hence your reference to Mizen's record - you are arguing that it makes it more likely that Mizen was telling the truth than that Crossmere was. But you can't jump the gun and bring in the name that Crossmere gave as a pointer to his character, for that is one of the things that the character argument is supposed to have a bearing on. Was giving the name 'Cross' a suspicious thing to do, or did it have an innocent explanation? The character argument comes first.

I have only been in a court of law once, and that was on jury service. I am not allowed to talk about that, and it has no bearing on this case anyway. But I'm pretty sure that when the defence calls a character witness, and, say, the defendant's employer says that he is a trusted employee who has worked for him for several years, raises money for charity, blah blah blah, the prosecution counsel doesn't leap up and shout "Ah! But how do we know that he doesn't go home and beat his wife?" If the prosecution counsel actually has any evidence that he does beat his wife, however, then presumably he's allowed to bring it out in court.

By the way, nice of you to bring in Ridgway and Kurten. There's nothing like covering all bases. Perhaps I should try to prove that Crossmere was neither good to his wife nor bad to her. He was just indifferent to her. Might be best.

MRS CROSSMERE : Hallo Charlie, you're home.
CROSSMERE : Who are you?

Re the graves, do you know why they should have been buried separately? (not together, Fish, and not as a complex unity). I have no idea myself, but it does seem to me that the idea of an abused woman living with a violent man for 50 years, only to refuse to share a grave with him, belongs in the realm of Monty Python.

[The Good Michael]

Okay, so let´s go with Mark Twain.

How did he sign his dealings with the authorities?

And how would he sign himself when dealing with the police?

Would he use the same signature in all cases, or would he make the odd exception when dealing with the police?

Any guess?

How did Pelé sign his contract on the house he lieves in?

How did he sign his passport?

How would he sign a police report he had responded to?

Any guess?

Wow! You mean you have a copy of the signed police report by Cross? You've been holding out.

Mike

[Harry D]

Hold on a minute - I thought your favourite suspect was mad.

Aren't most serial killers 'mad', Lech? Even the coolest sociopaths aren't right in the noggin', but I see where you're going.

Jacob Levy was clearly a distressed individual feeling the effects of his condition but he certainly wasn't certifiable in 1888. His mind was probably slipping in and out of mania at this point. It wasn't until two years later that he was sent to the asylum. Unlike Crossmere, we know Levy had the crude skill to perform the mutilations, and a reason for why they stopped. You don't have any of that with Crossmere, apart from the tenuous link that he might've delivered meat. Delivered. And the lack of explanation for why Crossmere hung up his apron after MJK, or the lack of evidence to link him to other murders. Not to mention no serial killers known for murdering on their way to work.

I think the nature of the murders certainly doesn't rule out a mentally ill/schizo suspect. There's quite a few schizophrenic serial killers who fit this kind of 'lust murderer' profile of the Ripper. The Ripper didn't have modern forensic techniques working against him back then. Even a wackjob like Richard Chase, who was away with the faeries, knew to scarper when a witness arrived, and had a month's worth of murders under his belt until he was caught by leaving prints at the crime-scene. The Ripper was a disorganized killer, blitzing women on the streets with local plod around the corner, and making no attempt to conceal the bodies. That's insanely risky and it's incredible that he was never caught, which I believe has more to do with luck than anything else.

[Djb]

The idea that the man who was found with the body of polly nicholls was the killer is an interesting theory which is certainly worthy of further consideration. The discovery that he gave a false name adds some further interest to the case but isn't of itself anything of evidential value. Had all the clues fallen into place then this would be a spectacular result. However the bits of the jigsaw don't seem to quite fit together.

One possible motive for the name change was that Lechmere didn't want his name in the papers. He might have been concerned that he would become the centre of unwanted attention. This can be because he had something to hide. But it could also be because he was respectable law abiding citizen who wanted to protect his name. It was a clever move on his part either way.

My assessment is as follows:
1. Profile
Lechmere doesn't fit the profile of the killer. He is in a long term marriage; he has 11 children; he doesn't have the freedom to come and go at strange hours; or to return home bloodied clutching human body parts. His age is towards the upper end of the possible range.

2. Polly nichols murder.
The idea that he committed murders en route to work seems implausible. There is a time and a place even for serial killers. Whilst Polly nicholls could have been in bucks row or brady street on a collision course with lechmere, she had no reason to head in the opposite direction to her lodgings, away from potential customers, into the dark, dangerous, and near deserted back streets. It seems to me that it is more likely that the killer met her on whitechapel road, possibly in the vicinity of the hospital or railway station, and that she went with him into the shadows.
Lechmere had little time in which to go on a detour looking for a potential victim.

3. Annie chapman.
If the witnesses are to be believed then the murder was long after Lechmere would have arrived at work. If Dr Phillips is correct then it may be the case that the murder took place nearer @4am - but the time is still limited for Lechmere to have committed the disembowelling before continuing on his way to work bloodied and with his pocket stuffed with a uterus.
It is my own personal conviction that the killer was very familiar with 29 hanbury street. At present there is no link between Lechmere and that property other than he will have journeyed past on numerous occasions.

3 elizabeth stride
There is nothing to connect Lechmere with this murder. It is possible that he was in Berner St at 1am but there is no established link. The fact that he had lived in the area or that his mother lived locally is not really adequate to connect him to the crime.

4. Catherine eddowes
If it is accepted that elizabeth stride was a ripper victim then this is the morning of the double event with a second murder one hour later in mitre square. The killer is spending the early hours roaming the streets looking for a victim. This might be improbable for a married family man with numerous children but not impossible. However there is nothing to connect lechmere with either this second location or the victim. He would be moving in the opposite direction to home, giving himself a difficult task to get back to doveton street once the alarm is raised for the second time.
Again the killer will be bloodied and has escaped with a kidney and a uterus. Its a long way from doveton street. Lechmere surely can't take these organs home? So why has he taken them? It is suggested that he might have gone to his place of employment to clean up at 1-2am. Was this an option? Was Pickfords open at that time?
It seems an improbable scenario either way.

5 mary kelly.
The pick up and murder likely happened in the early hours. The mutilations probably took hours. The killer would have been filthy. The timing doesn't seem to fit with the journey to work. It seems unlikely that after a lengthy distraction to pick up, kill and disembowel the victim, the killer would then simply continue his journey to work as if nothing had happened. It seems equally improbable that Lechmere could have walked all the way back to doveton street without raising suspicion by virtue of his filthy appearance.

6. Anatomical knowledge
There is no reason to believe that Lechmere has the necessary anatomical knowledge to commit these crimes.

7. Knife skills / slaughter technique
The killer should have the skills necessary to despatch victims silently and efficiently. He seems very proficient in this regard. It seems likely that the killer is physically strong, and is experienced in slaughter and butchery, whether that be killing animals or some active experience of close combat. Lechmere is a delivery man. Unless a link can be established for some experience in a slaughter house or as a soldier then there is no link to Lechmere.

9 criminal activity
The risk taking and the violence of these attacks suggests that the killer has escalated his behaviour from some sort of previous criminal and violent behaviour. He is likely to have a criminal past. There is nothing to suggest that Lechmere has a criminal or violent past.

10 triggers and closure.
What life event triggered this series of killings and why did the murders apparently stop after say1891?. Lechmere seems to have lead a steady life. There is no apparent trigger for the murders. There is no apparent reason for the murders to cease.

The only thing to link lechmere to the murders is the fact that he was witnessed to be in close proximity to polly nicholls near to the time of the attack on her.

[David Orsam]

What is Lechmeres connection with hanbury st.

Just a small point but we do have evidence that Lechmere was familiar with Hanbury St. At the inquest, he said that Paul left him at the corner of Hanbury St and "turned into Corbett's Court". As I understand it, Corbett's Court was just a small lane off Hanbury Street so for Lechmere to have known the correct name of that lane shows that he must have been reasonably familiar with that street.

[FrankO]

Its in the record folks! it has to be considered and not dismissed with the wave of a hand. Mizen could have been correct and if it he was -then what?

Hi Abby,

If we accept he was right and had no doubts whatsoever about it, we also accept he was negligent.

This negligence is supported by the fact that he asked no questions to get a better picture of the situation and seriousness of it even though Cross told him very little & called him away from his beat, and by the fact that he continued to knock up at one house at least. However unserious the situation seems to have been, it would still have been serious enough for his fellow PC to call for Mizen’s assistance.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

The fact that this didn't happen is a more or less certain indication that Mizen accepted his confusion,...

Exactly Ben, and if Mizen wasn’t sure about what he was told, then why should we?

All the best,
Frank

[Djb]

Just a small point but we do have evidence that Lechmere was familiar with Hanbury St. At the inquest, he said that Paul left him at the corner of Hanbury St and "turned into Corbett's Court". As I understand it, Corbett's Court was just a small lane off Hanbury Street so for Lechmere to have known the correct name of that lane shows that he must have been reasonably familiar with that street.

Sorry i meant specifically no29 hanbury street.