Charles Cross?

[caz]

But there is no definitive proof...

No definitive proof, Fisherman? Are you kidding? There's not even a shred of evidence that Lechmere was not merely walking to work when he saw what he described as a tarpaulin and found it was a recently murdered woman.

If he had been just seconds later, Robert Paul would have been the finder and you'd have a lot more time on your hands to have fun. You have allowed yourself to be driven by these two carmen.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...and you come across as somebody who has the only goal to try and exonerate a man who cannot be exonerated.
Maybe you should take a few deep breaths and clear your head before you push on.

Or simply let it go.

Yep, Dane's goal would be the same as that of the police: to try and exonerate a suspect first, and if they can't, because of actual evidence of his involvement, to charge him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Two wrongs don't make a right, Fisherman.

Which was your former post...?

That is exactly how one should proceed, by testing every aspect of their case against a suspect and trying to disprove it.

If you read what I wrote, I actually always look at the other side too. Interestingly, Abby Normal meant that I have the prosecutors role. If so, I am a strange prosecutor, since I as a rule look at the counterarguments every time.
And it is not as if the carman lacks a defence out here, is it? And none of THOSE lawyers seem to look at things from the other side.

Take a look at the blood evidence. I point out how it implicates Lechmere, but I add that there is uncertainty with the timings and as regards deviations in blood coagulation.
I donīt think you have to worry, Toots.

I still believe the Maybrick diary is an old hoax, for instance. But I have not stopped testing this belief and trying to find sound evidence that it was faked in the late 20th century.

Good on you!

Aren't the police supposed to try and eliminate potential suspects until they are presented with one who resists all their efforts to do so, and is then duly charged on sufficient evidence to expect a conviction?

Read the memoirs of those who hunted Gary Ridgway, John Wayne Gacy, David Carpenter ...
These men were certain that they had their guy, and they gave the hunts all they had, trying to amass as much evidence as they could to get their men.

There are also many examples of how policemen have tampered with evidence in order to be able to nail suspect thet feel are guilty, but where they cannot get to them.

In all of this, one hopes that they look at the other side too, and I am sure that the discerning ones do. In that respect, they differ little from me - I pursue my case, but I look at alternative explanations too.

In the Lechmere case, I have often said that all the parts where I accuse him may also have innocent explanations but they are too many to be just coincidental to my mind.

I donīt think I need much more moral advice from you, Toots. But thanks anyway, for your valiant effort.

[caz]

No one has debunked Lechmere because no concrete evidence has been presented to be debunked. The entire case for Lechmere is circumstantial on top of circumstantial on top of circumstantial evidence.

He used the less common of his two known last names. He was seen somewhere near the body sometime around the death.

That's it. Everything else is either completely subjective, circumstantial, or requires so many logical leaps that they barely stand above "interesting tidbit" and borders on completely irrelevant. There's no "blood evidence" as Fish keeps trying to say (there are opinions based on news reports and hypothetical situations), there's no motive, there's nothing that links Lechmere to any of the other murders, the whole case requires you to believe Lechmere acts as an evil genius in how he handles police officers and yet is to too stupid to think of lying and saying, "Yeah I saw someone walk past me but didn't pay any mind until the body was discovered."

The case we are presented with for Lechmere requires a real life Jekyll and Hyde to be even remotely possible. Unfortunately this Lechmere appears just as fictitious as the novel of Jekyll and Hyde. I actually am saddened that the family of a man who by all accounts lived his life, became successful, and left his family better off than when we had them has to endure someone daring to have the gall to claim not only that he was a suspect but "THE PRIME SUSPECT" in one of the most gruesome murder series in history. All because he had the misfortune of having to go to work early in the morning and happening upon a victim of a horrible murder.

Very well said, Dane.

It beats me why anyone would want to try and make a serial killer out of someone on next to no evidence at all. If it's a desire to be the one who solved this most infamous series of murders - and I'm not saying that is the explanation - I'm afraid it is a futile one.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Do you really think that those who researched Mann, Barnett, Kelly, Hutchinson et al as the possible killer, did so by frenetically trying to disprove their own cases...?

Two wrongs don't make a right, Fisherman.

That is exactly how one should proceed, by testing every aspect of their case against a suspect and trying to disprove it.

I still believe the Maybrick diary is an old hoax, for instance. But I have not stopped testing this belief and trying to find sound evidence that it was faked in the late 20th century.

Aren't the police supposed to try and eliminate potential suspects until they are presented with one who resists all their efforts to do so, and is then duly charged on sufficient evidence to expect a conviction?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

The problem is a theory has developed very quickly into the dreaded "case closed"

It has? I never noticed that.

And why would we dread to close the case?

As a matter of fact, I don`t think that we will ever be able to technically close the case in itīs entirety. I do believe that Charles Lechmere is a very, very good suspect for the Nichols murder, and my personal belief is that he was the killer of Polly.

But there is no definitive proof, at least no at this remove in time. What there is, though, is quite enough to conclude that Lechmere with great probability slew Nichols.

How that relates to the term "case closed" I cannot say. In a sense, if we accept that Lechmere killed Nichols, then most people (apart from Lynn, of course, and the odd brother in arms for the multiple killer niche) would probably accept that the Ripper has been found. And if so, I guess we could speak about "case closed" in an investigative capacity.

But it is not for me to decide what others think about Charles Lechmere. There are those who still say that he is a non-starter and that the case is a laughable one with no substance at all. My own take is that these people seriously undermine their own credibility. But I guess the fear of what would happen if they were to admit that Lechmere is a logical and reasonable contender for the Ripper title governs their judgment.

We would bring down the very fundament on which ripperology rests, thatīs true enough. But maybe itīs either that or living in denial?

[pinkmoon]

The problem is a theory has developed very quickly into the dreaded "case closed"

[Fisherman]

Well said !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

VERY well said!!

Completely misinformed, though.

But you would not spot that. Or care.

[Trevor Marriott]

No one has debunked Lechmere because no concrete evidence has been presented to be debunked. The entire case for Lechmere is circumstantial on top of circumstantial on top of circumstantial evidence.

He used the less common of his two known last names. He was seen somewhere near the body sometime around the death.

That's it. Everything else is either completely subjective, circumstantial, or requires so many logical leaps that they barely stand above "interesting tidbit" and borders on completely irrelevant. There's no "blood evidence" as Fish keeps trying to say (there are opinions based on news reports and hypothetical situations), there's no motive, there's nothing that links Lechmere to any of the other murders, the whole case requires you to believe Lechmere acts as an evil genius in how he handles police officers and yet is to too stupid to think of lying and saying, "Yeah I saw someone walk past me but didn't pay any mind until the body was discovered."

The case we are presented with for Lechmere requires a real life Jekyll and Hyde to be even remotely possible. Unfortunately this Lechmere appears just as fictitious as the novel of Jekyll and Hyde. I actually am saddened that the family of a man who by all accounts lived his life, became successful, and left his family better off than when we had them has to endure someone daring to have the gall to claim not only that he was a suspect but "THE PRIME SUSPECT" in one of the most gruesome murder series in history. All because he had the misfortune of having to go to work early in the morning and happening upon a victim of a horrible murder.

Well said !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Dane_F: No one has debunked Lechmere because no concrete evidence has been presented to be debunked.

Do you consider blood evidence non-concrete?

The entire case for Lechmere is circumstantial on top of circumstantial on top of circumstantial evidence.

Like James Scobe, QC, said: People seem to think that circumstantial evidence is not viable in a court of law, but very many cases are settled on circumstantial evidence.

He used the less common of his two known last names.

The less common? You make it sound as if we had a 60-40 ratio on record. The fact is that we have only one instance where we know that Charles Lechmere used the name Cross, and that was in relation to the murder inquest after Polly Nichols. And you try to pass the name Cross off as "the less common" name? That is a bit rich.
Why did you not say that he used the more common of his two last surnames? it IS a more common name than Lechmere, after all.
And you could have argued that he must have used Cross on an everyday basis but Lechmere only when signing documents.
Why so shy?

He was seen somewhere near the body sometime around the death.

In Battersea Park? At 2 AM?

He was found a very short distance from the body, feet or yards only, at a remove in time when the corpse would still go on bleeding for five minutes.

But that is something you donīt like to hear, so you invent a very undistinct wording instead.

Charles Lechmere was found standing close to the freshly slain body of Polly Nichols.

That's it.

As I have shown you, no, that is not it. "It" was something comletely different, carrying far more sinister implications.

Everything else is either completely subjective, circumstantial, or requires so many logical leaps that they barely stand above "interesting tidbit" and borders on completely irrelevant.

Yes, that was about the exact same thing Andy Griffiths, former head of a murder squad with a 97 per cent clearing rate said. Or wait, didnīt he say that Lechmere is of tremendeous interest and that before he could be cleared, there was no need to look at any other suspect?
Ah yes, so he did.
Sorry about the confusion.

There's no "blood evidence" as Fish keeps trying to say ...

I donīt keep saying that there is no blood evidence, Iīm afraid. You got that backwards.

...(there are opinions based on news reports and hypothetical situations),

Much of what you know about the Nichols case rests on paper reports. Everything you heard from the inquest came from newspaper reports. The papers form the bulk of the material we have at our hands, and they are an important and completely relevant source.

...there's no motive...

Well, well - you are asking for a motive? Have you read up on serial killings? Has it emerged, perhaps, that serial killers have no other motive than a wish to kill?
What are you looking for? Robbery?

... there's nothing that links Lechmere to any of the other murders

There does not have to be - he is firmly linked to one of them, and that means that he is very much in the running for the rest to. Unless you consider the murders unrelated to each other. Do you?

the whole case requires you to believe Lechmere acts as an evil genius in how he handles police officers and yet is to too stupid to think of lying and saying, "Yeah I saw someone walk past me but didn't pay any mind until the body was discovered."

That somebody did never walk past him, so why would he say that? Read up before you comment, that is the best advice I can give you. Once a comment like this gives away how badly read up you are, the rest of your arguments end up in the same elevator. And itīs going down, not up.

If you care to find out a bit more, you will see that there is nothing in what Lechmere did that required an "evil genius" - it only requires being cool. And psychopaths are always cool in these respects.

Besides, why would we accept that a man that did one clever thing could not do a less clever thing next? What kind of an argument is that?

The case we are presented with for Lechmere requires a real life Jekyll and Hyde to be even remotely possible.

But that predisposes that you can vouch for Lechmere being Dr Jekyl in his everyday life. Can you? No.

I actually am saddened that the family of a man who by all accounts lived his life, became successful, and left his family better off than when we had them ...

"By all accounts"? Which accounts?
Psychopaths are very often succesfull bisinessmen, by the way. But being succesful does nit equal being good, Iīm afraid.

...has to endure someone daring to have the gall to claim not only that he was a suspect but "THE PRIME SUSPECT" in one of the most gruesome murder series in history.

He is. There is nobody else, and there are lots of pointers. Andy Griffiths - who I trust more than most people on things like these - agreed, and James Scobie said that there is a prima faciae case that implies that he was the killer.
Are they Jekyll and Hyde types too?

All because he had the misfortune of having to go to work early in the morning and happening upon a victim of a horrible murder.

No. That is completely innocent, so that is not what he is under suspicion for.

Your post is extremely upset and emotional, and you are letting that stand in the way of common sense. You rewrite facts, you bring in matters that are of no interest and you come across as somebody who has the only goal to try and exonerate a man who cannot be exonerated.
Maybe you should take a few deep breaths and clear your head before you push on.

Or simply let it go.

[Dane_F]

No one has debunked Lechmere because no concrete evidence has been presented to be debunked. The entire case for Lechmere is circumstantial on top of circumstantial on top of circumstantial evidence.

He used the less common of his two known last names. He was seen somewhere near the body sometime around the death.

That's it. Everything else is either completely subjective, circumstantial, or requires so many logical leaps that they barely stand above "interesting tidbit" and borders on completely irrelevant. There's no "blood evidence" as Fish keeps trying to say (there are opinions based on news reports and hypothetical situations), there's no motive, there's nothing that links Lechmere to any of the other murders, the whole case requires you to believe Lechmere acts as an evil genius in how he handles police officers and yet is to too stupid to think of lying and saying, "Yeah I saw someone walk past me but didn't pay any mind until the body was discovered."

The case we are presented with for Lechmere requires a real life Jekyll and Hyde to be even remotely possible. Unfortunately this Lechmere appears just as fictitious as the novel of Jekyll and Hyde. I actually am saddened that the family of a man who by all accounts lived his life, became successful, and left his family better off than when we had them has to endure someone daring to have the gall to claim not only that he was a suspect but "THE PRIME SUSPECT" in one of the most gruesome murder series in history. All because he had the misfortune of having to go to work early in the morning and happening upon a victim of a horrible murder.

[Fisherman]

Hi,

The fact is that he was not "The Prime Suspect" for the Nichols murder.

He wasnt at the time, and he certainly isnt now. He is a speculative suspect the same as any other, including Van Gough and Lewis Carroll.

Best wishes.

He wasnīt at the time, that is correct.

But he IS now.

To begin with, who else would be the prime suspect in the Nichols case if not him?

He can be placed at the site.

He was found there alone with the freshly slain corpse of Polly Nichols.

He himself confesses to have had time enough on his hands to do the deed.

The blood evidence is in correlation with him having done the deed.

If the blood coagulated according to the normal coagulation schedule, it is hard to fit anybody else in.

Nichols still bled around five or six minutes after Lechmere had left her, and a pathologist says that three or five minutes is a lot more realistic than seven.

There are implications that he lied his way past the police.

He gave the authoritites a name that he never otherwise used with any authorities, as far as we know.

He claimed to have walked thirty to forty yards in front of Robert Paul, but neither man professes to have heard the other.

The abdominal wounds on the body were covered, as if the killer risked detection if they were seen. This happened in no other Ripper case (Stride excluded for obvious reasons), where instead the victims could be argued to have been posed to reach a shock effect. Nichols, though, was lying serenely on her back.

What other suspect is there who can match that list, Hatchett? And even if the listed items are only possible implications in your eyes - what other suspect has a similar or better list of possible implications...?

Besides, there is no need to panic because it is suggested that the one and only man who has a number of implications pointing to him having killed Nichols must accordingly be regarded as the prime suspect. It does not equal him having been the killer.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

The fact is that he was not "The Prime Suspect" for the Nichols murder.

He wasnt at the time, and he certainly isnt now. He is a speculative suspect the same as any other, including Van Gough and Lewis Carroll.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: I don't think anyone now alive can speculate on why this man's wife is not buried near him.

Of course we can speculate - whether the speculations are correct is another matter. But speculate we can nevertheless.

Perhaps they were never in love. Perhaps she fell in love with another man after his death. Perhaps she adored those members of her family that she chose to buried near. Perhaps they had a terrible marriage (NOT uncommon then and there). Perhaps she was a hateful woman who did it to spite the memory of the kind and thoughtful man she never loved. WHO KNOWS!? Yet, you include this tid bit as another 'possible' peice of the puzzle. You do so in a way, of course, that allow you to shrug you shoulders and say, "It could mean nothing."

When you START from place that assumes Cross killed Nichols - as you freely admit - then EVERYTHING looks suspcious.

You must have misread me, Patrick. I clearly stated that this matter may or may not mean something. I was asked if there was anything knit to the family that could shed light over the issue, and I said that I often pondered this matter. It is a deviation from what could have been expected since many husbands and wifes rest together on the cemetaries. But it is nothing more than that, an I donīt think you should get too nervous and upset about it.

Goodnight!

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: I did know he was suggested as a suspect. So was Sickert, Van Gough, et al. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I was making the point that much as you say that the theory seems to take itīs starting point in the name swop, this is not so.

I'm not saying anyone was lying. In fact, I don't think anyone was lying. I do think that pinning any hopes or theories on time estimates in 1888 may be problematic. Just as it's been proven that witness ID is usually unreliable, asking someone to estimate time - when seconds matter - is not something I'm willing to put a great deal of stock in.

Thatīs your prerogative. A minute today is exactly as long as a minute was back then, though, an the suggested schedule will not be far off the mark.

Of course there must always be room for mistaken timings and such things - but the gist of the matter is that of the timins are correct and if the coagulation was normal, then we are looking at the probable Ripper in Lechmereīs shape.