Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

I’ve never been keen on the abdominal wounds first idea Geddy. Surely he’d have gone for the throat first. With abdominal attack we have risk of her screaming out of course which no one heard. His first thought would surely have been to silence then kill or both simultaneously.

No not a fan either, have not decided neck cut from the rear or the front because for me it bears little significance. Onto your other points a little picture, I love making these little pictures.



A) - Cross where he says he was when he noticed the bundle.
B) - Cross in a diagonal line in the middle of the road. Now notices it's a woman and hears someone approaching 40 yards away. (I presume he crossed the road diagonally - I think most would.)
C) - Paul's position when Cross heard him.
D) - Position a guilty Cross could have been at the very least if he legged it. More than likely a good bit further around the School and away down Woods Buildings.

So replace the players in this picture for Cross being at point C when the 'Phantom Killer' heard him approach and it's rather easy to see how probable it was someone else could escape unnoticed.

[Fiver]

Great post! a Jewel in its own!

Yep, Lechmere must have been familiar with the place if he delivered cat meats there often, something way in favour of Lechmere compared to other suspects.

The Baron

I've heard of polishing a turd, but thus is the first time I've seen one presented as a jewel.

* The victim was more likely to know the location of 29 Hanbury than her killer.
* Pickfords was a general good service, not a slaughterhouse.
* The "Scotch fish and meat." arrived at 4:15am, likely about the time Lechmere would already be leaving Broad Street Station with his first load of the day.
* Lechmere has exactly the same connection to 29 Hanbury as Robert Paul and dozens, possibly hundreds of other people - he walked past it on his way to work. That's not even counting the people that walked past going to Spitalfields Market.

[The Baron]

So we have Lechmere, a man who was spotted alone, in the dark, near a still bleeding possibly still grasping for breath murdered woman.

And against Lechmere we have a sworn evidence from a police officer that Lechmere lied to him as he was walking away from the murder scene.

Those are undisputed facts, and we can safely say in the Nichols case we have our prime suspect.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure who came up with the idea that Cross and Paul were separated, or that Paul never spoke to Mizen.

In his inquest deposition, Charles Cross clearly indicates that Robert Paul also spoke to Mizen. It's in every or nearly every version: the Daily Telegraph, the Daily News, the East London Observer, The Times, etc.

For instance, in the ELO:

"He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they saw the last witness, [Mizen] whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's-row. The witness added, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right."

I suppose one could argue that Cross was lying to the Coroner's Court about Paul speaking to Mizen, but that would have been remarkably reckless, wouldn't it?

The two men were clearly together and within earshot.

There can be no doubt in my opinion Roger. And after we read his Lloyd’s interview it’s difficult to see Paul as the passive type imo. And although there is some confusion about what exactly was said we shouldn’t assume who was right and who was wrong. When asked to recall something that occurred 48 hours earlier, especially a short conversation in the early hours, it’s easy to misremember. Or to hear one thing but think that you heard something else. Police officers like Carmen are human and fallible. These things occur all of the time even under less difficult circumstances. Neither men were medically trained of course. This is why it’s a doctors job to pronounce death and not a member of the public’s.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No not a fan either, have not decided neck cut from the rear or the front because for me it bears little significance. Onto your other points a little picture, I love making these little pictures.



A) - Cross where he says he was when he noticed the bundle.
B) - Cross in a diagonal line in the middle of the road. Now notices it's a woman and hears someone approaching 40 yards away. (I presume he crossed the road diagonally - I think most would.)
C) - Paul's position when Cross heard him.
D) - Position a guilty Cross could have been at the very least if he legged it. More than likely a good bit further around the School and away down Woods Buildings.

So replace the players in this picture for Cross being at point C when the 'Phantom Killer' heard him approach and it's rather easy to see how probable it was someone else could escape unnoticed.

And as there’s nothing in the medical evidence that can narrow down the time of death significantly the killer could either have been gone 5 minutes or so before Cross arrived or that he heard Cross approaching and did what guilty men do - he made his getaway. They don’t stand around waiting for strangers to arrive which shows that he was innocent.

Remember..

Charles Cross is apparently the only serial killer in history to kill and mutilate (in the street) 15 or 20 minutes away from being due at work.

Charles Cross is the only serial killer in history to have avoided escape to stand around waiting for a witness arrive.

Charles Cross is the only serial killer in history to kill at a spot where he was known to have been for 6 days a week at that time.

He couldn’t have been rarer or less likely if he’d had three legs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And on the day of the Hanbury Street murder he supposedly goes to work, collects his loaded cart and goes out on his deliveries with his list of customers awaiting their goods. But he decides on the spur to murder and mutilate a woman. Did he a) see Chapman in Hanbury Street, leave his loaded cart in the street (with Pickford’s name on the side for ease of identification) go into the yard of number 29, kill her, then return to his cart to find nothing stolen (in that poverty and crime stricken area) Luckily Pickford’s must have fitted their carts with Klingon cloaking devices as no one mentions see it parked there. Or b) he meets her in another street, again leaves his cart totally unattended, strolls]ed around to Hanbury Street with time being no issue of course as these customers no doubt took an ‘as and when’ attitude to receiving their goods. And he then leaves with again, no one seeing a Pickford’s cart. How forgiving do we think that Pickford’s would have been if goods from his cart had gone missing while he’d left it unattended. Cross clearly didn’t kill Annie Chapman and the man that killed Annie Chapman undoubtedly killed Mary Nichols.

[Lewis C]

And on the day of the Hanbury Street murder he supposedly goes to work, collects his loaded cart and goes out on his deliveries with his list of customers awaiting their goods. But he decides on the spur to murder and mutilate a woman. Did he a) see Chapman in Hanbury Street, leave his loaded cart in the street (with Pickford’s name on the side for ease of identification) go into the yard of number 29, kill her, then return to his cart to find nothing stolen (in that poverty and crime stricken area) Luckily Pickford’s must have fitted their carts with Klingon cloaking devices as no one mentions see it parked there. Or b) he meets her in another street, again leaves his cart totally unattended, strolls]ed around to Hanbury Street with time being no issue of course as these customers no doubt took an ‘as and when’ attitude to receiving their goods. And he then leaves with again, no one seeing a Pickford’s cart. How forgiving do we think that Pickford’s would have been if goods from his cart had gone missing while he’d left it unattended. Cross clearly didn’t kill Annie Chapman and the man that killed Annie Chapman undoubtedly killed Mary Nichols.

Hi Herlock,

I believe that Ed's position is that either Chapman was killed well before 4:00, in which case Cross killed her on his way to work, or when he made deliveries that day (maybe every day, I don't know), he had someone with him to guard his cart while he went off to kill Chapman. Apparently not concerned that when he returned to the cart after killing her, there would be someone waiting for him who of course could identify him.

Sometimes I call him Cross and sometimes I call him Lechmere. However, I'm not going to call Lechmerians "Crossians". "Lechmerians" sounds so much better.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I believe that Ed's position is that either Chapman was killed well before 4:00, in which case Cross killed her on his way to work, or when he made deliveries that day (maybe every day, I don't know), he had someone with him to guard his cart while he went off to kill Chapman. Apparently not concerned that when he returned to the cart after killing her, there would be someone waiting for him who of course could identify him.

Sometimes I call him Cross and sometimes I call him Lechmere. However, I'm not going to call Lechmerians "Crossians". "Lechmerians" sounds so much better.

Hi Lewis,

Yes they argue hard that Dr. Phillips some kind of super doctor whose ability to determine a time of death was greater than doctors today despite the mountains of evidence posted on here by me and others to the contrary. Even the medical man that was used in the documentary backs up that the methods used were unreliable. That’s a bit of an irony I guess. The other part of their plan is to try and discredit the three witnesses. Strange really because they also say that they see no issue with Cross killing whilst at work. If that’s the case why the desperate attempt to discredit witnesses and to claim that a Victorian Doctor could do things that Doctors today can’t do? Why are they so desperate to frame this blatantly innocent man? A man with absolutely nothing in his favour as a suspect except that he has what every person that finds a body has - he was there (yawn). Being there is a million miles from being guilty though of course. Apologies Lewis…I’m just telling you what you already know of course.

[Doctored Whatsit]

So we have Lechmere, a man who was spotted alone, in the dark, near a still bleeding possibly still grasping for breath murdered woman.

And against Lechmere we have a sworn evidence from a police officer that Lechmere lied to him as he was walking away from the murder scene.

Those are undisputed facts, and we can safely say in the Nichols case we have our prime suspect.


The Baron

You want an even better undisputed fact? Nobody believed Mizen, not even the rest of the police force. See Swanson and Abberline's accounts.

[rjpalmer]

Strange really because they also say that they see no issue with Cross killing whilst at work.

Hi Mike,

to be fair, is it possible that you and Lewis C. are mixing up Gary Barnett's commentary with the theories of Ed and Christer?

Personally, I've only ever seen Gary suggest the horse-and-cart theory and the later time of death in Hanbury Street--and he did that in order to combat the idea that Lechmere had an 'alibi.'

The last I heard, and admittedly I haven't seen all the videos, Ed's theory is that Lechmere killed Chapman in No. 29 Hanbury Street to implicate Robert Paul (the turn into Corbett's Court being a short distance away), so C.A.L. presumably timed this to coincide with Paul's commute--ie., around 4.00 a.m. Killing Annie at 5.30 a.m. while Robert Paul was at work would have defeated the whole purpose of his evil design.

Christer Holmgren has also vehemently argued for the earlier time of death.

Ed specifically argued (in a post about W. H. Bury) that Bury wouldn't have found it easy to park his cart in Hanbury Street because the yards were privately owned, so I doubt he thinks too favorably of the horse and cart theory.

There are now a number of competing Lechmere theorists, and their ideas don't always agree, and since most of them are banned from this site, we are largely or entirely arguing with ghosts who cannot respond or clarify their positions, and thus things get muddled.

Cheers.

[John Wheat]

So we have Lechmere, a man who was spotted alone, in the dark, near a still bleeding possibly still grasping for breath murdered woman.

And against Lechmere we have a sworn evidence from a police officer that Lechmere lied to him as he was walking away from the murder scene.

Those are undisputed facts, and we can safely say in the Nichols case we have our prime suspect.


The Baron

Cross found a dying or dead woman. There is no evidence whatsoever that Cross murdered anyone.

[Barnaby]

Cross found a dying or dead woman. There is no evidence whatsoever that Cross murdered anyone.

Evidence, of course not. But as a person of suspicion can he be eliminated? I don't think he can be eliminated as the killer of Nichols. As to being Jack the Ripper, I think the time of death of Chapman based on three witnesses makes it impossible Lechmere is Jack.

[Geddy2112]

There are now a number of competing Lechmere theorists, and their ideas don't always agree, and since most of them are banned from this site, we are largely or entirely arguing with ghosts who cannot respond or clarify their positions, and thus things get muddled.

Fisherman is not banned here that I'm aware of now. Must have lost his password

Annie's murder one way or the other should have stopped any speculation as to Cross being guilty. All scenarios have huge holes in them and are highly unlikely. I'm fairly certain as soon as the Police found out there was a murder in Hanbury Street they will have remembered the two men from the previous murder stating they walked along Hanbury Street and made the connection to question them. Since neither of them met the noose I think we can assume the Police cleared them both.

Ed's research might be good but the conclusions he sometimes arrives at are woeful. This is one such occasion.

[John Wheat]

Evidence, of course not. But as a person of suspicion can he be eliminated? I don't think he can be eliminated as the killer of Nichols. As to being Jack the Ripper, I think the time of death of Chapman based on three witnesses makes it impossible Lechmere is Jack.

Everything we know about Cross points to him being innocent of murdering anyone. I don't understand why there is all this talk of Cross. When there is a suspects who could quite easily have been the Ripper eg Bury. Who generally gets dismissed more easily than Cross.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike,

to be fair, is it possible that you and Lewis C. are mixing up Gary Barnett's commentary with the theories of Ed and Christer?

Personally, I've only ever seen Gary suggest the horse-and-cart theory and the later time of death in Hanbury Street--and he did that in order to combat the idea that Lechmere had an 'alibi.'

The last I heard, and admittedly I haven't seen all the videos, Ed's theory is that Lechmere killed Chapman in No. 29 Hanbury Street to implicate Robert Paul (the turn into Corbett's Court being a short distance away), so C.A.L. presumably timed this to coincide with Paul's commute--ie., around 4.00 a.m. Killing Annie at 5.30 a.m. while Robert Paul was at work would have defeated the whole purpose of his evil design.

Christer Holmgren has also vehemently argued for the earlier time of death.

Ed specifically argued (in a post about W. H. Bury) that Bury wouldn't have found it easy to park his cart in Hanbury Street because the yards were privately owned, so I doubt he thinks too favorably of the horse and cart theory.

There are now a number of competing Lechmere theorists, and their ideas don't always agree, and since most of them are banned from this site, we are largely or entirely arguing with ghosts who cannot respond or clarify their positions, and thus things get muddled.

Cheers.

Hi Roger,

A fair point as ever. I know that Christer argues vehemently for an earlier ToD because for most of that time he was arguing against me but I do know that from my own experience I can’t recall him discussing the possibility of Cross killing Chapman after 4.00 but I seem to recall him saying that even if Chapman had been killed after 5.30 then this wouldn’t exonerate Cross. I remember agreeing but adding that it would have made it at best extremely unlikely.

I’ve discussed the cart theory briefly with Gary but I’ve never discussed Cross at all with Ed Stow (only other topics) so I do take your point about getting it right about ‘who thinks what’ and not falling into the trap of assuming that everyone who favours Cross agree on every aspect and issue. There are differing variations of being wrong of course.