Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

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??

The police recorded aliases of criminals (and dead people) but I don't think I've seen this done with witnesses. The information isn't relevant.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Immensely sensible.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Robert]

I haven't seen the list but I imagine it would mostly be electoral registers, census returns, marriage records parish and civil - his own, his children's - birth and baptism records for his children, maybe some school registers concerning his children, his will, perhaps some business records to do with the sweet shop?

I'm linking to a post by Ed Stow #235 :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=301560

[caz]

Hi All,

I think we also need to keep in mind the special context here. On the face of it we have a family man who felt duty bound to come forward and give evidence at the inquest of a murdered prostitute he discovered on his way to work one morning.

If, as is perfectly feasible and logical, he had always been known as Charles Cross at Pickfords, but officially he and his wife were Mr and Mrs Lechmere, and the kiddies were all little Lechmeres at school, I imagine his wife would have been well aware of the dual name situation. While I have no doubt not a word would have been said about the murder in front of the children - not ever (it just wasn't done in most households) - it's only the Lechmere theorists who insist he also kept his wife completely in the dark. The couple could well have discussed what had happened and what Charles would shortly be telling the authorities, upon which his missus could very reasonably have expressed fears about them, the Lechmeres, being associated in this way with a murdered prostitute. At that time the belief was that a gang might be responsible and any witness and their family members could have felt extremely vulnerable. How fortunate if Charles could keep Mrs L and the little L's out of it by giving the name he went by at work, knowing it would check out if the police did the basics and asked after him there.

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

That's a good point, Caz. The Buck's Row murder had a sort of Emma Smith aura to it. Later on the public came to think only one man was responsible for the murders.

'Lechmere' wasn't exactly a common name, and his wife may have felt anxious for the kids. In fact, perhaps Crossmere was late coming forward because she wanted him to stay out of it.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, good points. The case against Lechmere originated, of course, with the fact that Robert Paul found him standing near the body. It seemed to explode with the 'revelation' that his real name was Lechmere. Since that time, both of these facts have been easily explained a number of ways, and the least likely explanation (on their own) is that Cross was a serial killer.

Therefore, the entire argument against Cross rests solely on two things: The timing and the blood evidence. Unfortunately, there's little in the way of firm facts on either count.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[David Orsam]

I haven't seen the list but I imagine it would mostly be electoral registers, census returns, marriage records parish and civil - his own, his children's - birth and baptism records for his children, maybe some school registers concerning his children, his will, perhaps some business records to do with the sweet shop?

I'm linking to a post by Ed Stow #235 :

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=301560

It's kind of amusing that Ed says of the 1861 census "that the most obvious explanation" is that Thomas Cross "called everyone Cross for the sake of ease". Having said that, in fairness, Charles is described as Thomas' "son" in the census when he was really his stepson so I will limit my amusement a bit.

As for the list, I note that the documentary said that there are 119 official documents in which the name "Charles Lechmere" appears. I'm not sure if that is still the position as I seem to recall a post from Ed Stow modifying the figure. But I would be embarrassed to include multiple numbers of documents in the same category, such as electoral registers, if I was compiling such a list.

[curious4]

Lechmere

Hello Fisherman,

Saw your programme recently (a little belatedly) and really enjoyed it! I was left feeling a little annoyed for some reason until I worked out that I was so (almost) convinced by your arguments that I almost believed he could be the murderer, something I had never really considered before. Nonetheless, thinking about it afterwards I remembered some details which don't quite fit. The fact that he lived on happily to a ripe old age, the "Hello watchman old man" man and also the name change. I was adopted by my stepfather so that my surname would match the rest of the family, and never took kindly to using his name. Lechmere was older when he got a stepfather and possibly also resented the name change as disloyal to his father. I have heard that he used the name Cross because he had a relative in the police with that name. I think anyone would want to try to ensure their respectability after becoming involved in one of the murders.

Top marks for the arguments though!

Best wishes
Gwyneth/C4

[Dane_F]

Hello Fisherman,

Saw your programme recently (a little belatedly) and really enjoyed it! I was left feeling a little annoyed for some reason until I worked out that I was so (almost) convinced by your arguments that I almost believed he could be the murderer, something I had never really considered before. Nonetheless, thinking about it afterwards I remembered some details which don't quite fit. The fact that he lived on happily to a ripe old age, the "Hello watchman old man" man and also the name change. I was adopted by my stepfather so that my surname would match the rest of the family, and never took kindly to using his name. Lechmere was older when he got a stepfather and possibly also resented the name change as disloyal to his father. I have heard that he used the name Cross because he had a relative in the police with that name. I think anyone would want to try to ensure their respectability after becoming involved in one of the murders.

Top marks for the arguments though!

Best wishes
Gwyneth/C4

I made this exact same argument months ago. I had a friend who was adopted and when he would visit different family he would go by their last name. For me it makes perfect sense that when talking to a PC he would use the last name of his stepfather who was also a PC at one time.

If I remember correctly the argument was basically, "Why didn't he use the last name more then?" And then the mentioning all the documents with Lechmere on them.

[David Orsam]

I also enjoyed the documentary and thought it was very well presented. There were two facts in it that I hadn't previously appreciated. The first being that Cross had been found kneeling over the body, the second that he had lied to a police officer as he left the scene. Upon checking the inquest reports, I discovered - as most on here were already well aware - that he wasn't kneeling over the body at all but standing in the middle of the road. The second fact checked out, however - or at least there is genuine evidence to support it - which is why I have always said that it is reasonable to consider Cross as a suspect, even if there could be an innocent explanation. At the same time, I thought that the way the documentary illustrated police officers apparently circling the crime scene so that Cross appeared to be trapped in Buck's Row - surrounded by fast moving beads of light - was a little misleading of the actual circumstances.

A third point which seemed superficially appealing, namely the fact that Robert Paul saw no blood when he looked at the body of Nichols - yet Constable Neil saw "a pool of blood" (not strictly true!) when he stumbled across the body a few moments later - suggesting that the throat was so freshly cut when Paul looked it that it had not yet even started to bleed - was I thought quite possibly explained by it being very dark and, indeed, on checking the inquest reports, this is precisely the explanation he gave. The additional point that Paul should have got blood on his hands also does not seem to me to be convincing on the basis of the areas of the body he said he touched.

The other points against Cross I did not find at all convincing while watching. I already knew of the Lechmere/Cross issue - for me he could have been hung just as easily in the name of Cross as Lechmere - and wasn't terribly impressed by the stated claim (of Christer Holmgren) that "There is the strange fact that this carman Cross who gave his name and his address to the police was subsequently found out not to be living at the address he had given". A rather odd way of presenting the fact that he was living there but in the name of Lechmere.

Even without any specific memory of the evidence relating to timing, I could see obvious problems with the attempt to conjure up a "major" 9 minute gap in the timings. And so it has proved. I don't know if anyone noticed the following exchange between Andy Griffiths (the former police officer) and Christer Holmgren:

AG - "We know that he was late for work, as he said at the inquest, and I think it’s reasonable to assume then he was keeping an eye on the time."

CH - "Then we’ve got a discrepancy of about 9 minutes or something like that."

AG - "Which was a big difference in that time."

I still wonder why Andy Griffiths seems to think that 9 minutes was a big difference of time in 1888 but, presumably, not such a big difference today!

The only other point in the case against Cross worthy of mention is that some of the subsequent (and earlier) murders were committed along two of the possible routes he could have taken to work, which was not a terrible point but not great either, especially as the murders not committed along his route to work then had to be explained away with speculation.

But I still enjoyed the documentary which was probably better than most on the subject.

[caz]

The other points against Cross I did not find at all convincing while watching. I already knew of the Lechmere/Cross issue - for me he could have been hung just as easily in the name of Cross as Lechmere...

I have yet to work out what Lechmere was trying to 'get away with' (Fisherman's words) by using his late stepfather's name, in the context of having committed the murder. The only explanation I can recall seems to be tied up with keeping everything from his illiterate wife. Yet clearly he'd have 'got away with' bugger all had the police checked at his home or work for a Charles Allen Cross and learned that his family and everyone at Pickfords only knew him as Lechmere, his real surname.

This is what the argument has always been - that this use of Cross was unique - a false name given as some kind of ploy, because that's what criminals tend to do. No matter if there's no logic behind it. Psychopaths are not always logical. Give me strength.

In short, what was there to gain from a one-off use of Cross, from the killer's point of view?

It only seems to make sense to me if the man was innocent and trying to keep his family out of it by using his alternative name - perhaps the one he was known by at work.

Love,

Caz
X

[RockySullivan]

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

How you can argue that Lechmere is THE prime suspect when Richardson was the last person in 29 hanbury WITH a knife before chapman was discovered. He also lied more times than Lechmere, and your whole argument is that Lechmere lied. So if Richardson lied & he's holding the knife....how does that make Lechmere suspect number one?

[Observer]

In all likelihood yes. However, definitely not the last person in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street with a knife capable of inflicting the wounds that were found on the body of Annie Chapman.

[RockySullivan]

I should've said last KNOWN person in the yard with a knife

[RockySullivan]

Maybe paul & Lechmere knew each other, didn't they walk a similar route?