Charles Cross?

[Patrick S]

Whether that means anything or not in the Ripper context is anybodys guess. As with so many matters the answer is probably "It may - and it may not".[/B]

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

[Patrick S]

Thatīs a strange thing to say, Patrick. The carman was suggested as a suspect long before his nameswop became known. Did you know that?

I donīt know why you quoted my take on the blood issue, by the way? It seems you are speaking about the theory as a whole...?

The starting point for my timing of the blood issue does not rely on Pauls honesty, by the way - or anybody elses honesty for that matter. It is a fact that the carmen said they examined Nichols, went down Bucks Row and made Mizen trek up to the murder site. It is equally a fact that the trek as such between the murder site and the Hanbury Street/Baker Street crossing takes a round two minutes. So we have a minimum of four minutes in walking only, and as far as we know, none of the men ran.

We must then add time for the examination and for the conversation with Mizen, and we will end up with a logical time of around six minutes. A case can be made for five, but it is not a good case.

If the men were lying about the time (and I donīt see why they all would in tandem), then it must have been a LONGER time that applies, not a shorter one. And the longer time we enploy, the smaller the chance of another killer becomes.

As an aside, it was not the name swop that originally convinced me that Lechmere was somebody who needed to be looked into. It was the geographical correlation between his logical work routes and the murders, plus the timings involved, taken together with the find that Lechmereīs mother lived at an address that tallied well with him visiting on a Saturday night, and passing through Berner Street doing so.
Oddly, that address of his motherīs was at that stage believed to be 147 Cable Street, whereas we now know that Maria Louisa actually lived much closer than so to the Berner Street murder site, namely at 1 Mary Anne Street, situated directly south of Berner Street, a minutes walk or so away.

So it all comes together, if you donīt mind my saying so.

Incidentally, I often hear it said that the case against Lechmere rests on this or that isolated detail, but that is not so. No single detail can in itself be enough to break the donkeys back (although the blood evidence is very powerful and comes close if you ask me). The correlation between his logical routes and the murders does not do the trick itself, itīs just one of many indicators. And it is the combination of all the many "coincidences" that makes me say that I have found what I believe to be the Ripper.

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. If we find out Sickert used an alias around town does that make him suddenly more interesting. Not for me. Perhaps for you. I can't say.

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.

[Fisherman]

Pcdunn: Fisherman,

I understand, after seeing the "Missing Evidence" program, why this means so much to you. If I'd worked on solving a mystery for thirty years, too, and thought I'd finally succeeded, I would be very disappointed by the reaction of others if they disagreed.

I used to be more surprised than sorry - but I have long since realized that it was naive to react like that.

But, in my opinion, Lechmere is only-- at most-- a possible killer of Polly Nichols. We do have him at the location, etc. Your evidence in this case is interesting.

That is very true - he is first and foremost a suspect in the Nichols case.

I don't think you have established his guilt in all of the other C5 cases.

Nor do I think so! Not by a country mile.

You're speculating when you say "he might have taken this route to work" or "he could have visited his mother then", and so on. Theories need speculation, yes, but also evidence.

Absolutely. I agree. If the killer was not the same in the Chapman, the Tabram, the Kelly, the Eddowes and the Stride cases as it was in the Nichols case, then Lechmere is in the clear for those.

But I do think that the killer in these cases (or at the very least in most of them) was one and the same man who killed Nichols. I conclude that these murders were of a character so similar to the Nichols murder - meaning that they belonged to an extremely rare group of murders - and I say that if Lechmere killed Nichols, then he is with a fair amount of certainty the man known as Jack the Ripper, and the killer of most or all of the other victims I mentioned.

That does not mean that I have physical evidence that goes to prove it. In a court of law, I would get thrown out and laughed at.
But this is not a court of law. This is an Internet site discussing the Ripper case. And I CAN point to how the logical working routes of the carman would supply access to four out of six murder sites, plus I can point to his mothers lodgings for the other cases.

If we are to dub Lechmere the prime suspect in the Nichols murder case, it goes without saying that it is an almight coincidence that the carman seems to have geographical ties to all the other sites too!He could just as well have walked any other of the many thousands of East End streets - but he didnīt. His mother could have lived in Hungaria - but she didnīt.

Therefore I feel justified in saying that the circumstantial geographical evidence, taken together with the correlation between his working times and the TOD:s suggested by the medicos, is nothing short of stunning.

Do the descendants of Charles have any family stories about his character as a father?

No. When we did the documentary, there was a relative who said that there were dark stories circulating about the carman in the family. But the self same relative had earlier confessed that he had never heard about the carman at all, so it was concluded that he only "remembered" these sinister implications when he was told that the docu revolved around a relative of his who could well be Jack the Ripper. The stories were accordingly not commented on in the docu.

He looks as if he was a stern man, to judge from the old-age photograph.

He really does - but being stern does not equate being a killer...

But-- so were most fathers in the LVP.

Exactly.

So we need more, such as stories of him beating his children or his wife. Does anyone know?

Not that we know of. There is one small detail that I often ponder, and that is how Charles Lechmere and his wife Elizabeth, née Bostock, are buried as far away from each other as possible in the churchyard where they rest. One would have thought that they should perhaps have wanted to spend the eternity together after having spent a long life together. But when Elizabeth died, twenty years after Charles, she was laid to rest with other relatives of hers and not by his side.

Whether that means anything or not in the Ripper context is anybodys guess. As with so many matters the answer is probably "It may - and it may not".

[Fisherman]

Your theory, as a whole, seems very solid and reliable so long as we make only two assumptions throughout:

ONE: That Paul, Mizen, Neil, Llewellyn are absolutely reliable, honest, aware of the correct time, accurate in accounting for their movements, and able to repeat converstations verbatim.

TWO: Cross is wholly unreliable. He's inacccurate and dishonest in recounting times, conversations, explaining his movements, etc.

Of course, this is what one might expect from a serial killer. Although, we have no reason to believe the man was a serial killer...unless we assume that Paul, Mizen, Neil, and Llewellyn are completely accurate and Cross is lying about pretty much everything.

The point of entry for the entire Crossmere theory is the 'false name' charge. The theory seems to be something like, "He lied about his name so he lied about everything."

I'm not trying to be..um..cough...CROSS...here, Fish. You're selling. I'd like to buy. Alas, it looks like another lemon to me. I'm not saying I'm no longer in the market, though.

Thatīs a strange thing to say, Patrick. The carman was suggested as a suspect long before his nameswop became known. Did you know that?

I donīt know why you quoted my take on the blood issue, by the way? It seems you are speaking about the theory as a whole...?

The starting point for my timing of the blood issue does not rely on Pauls honesty, by the way - or anybody elses honesty for that matter. It is a fact that the carmen said they examined Nichols, went down Bucks Row and made Mizen trek up to the murder site. It is equally a fact that the trek as such between the murder site and the Hanbury Street/Baker Street crossing takes a round two minutes. So we have a minimum of four minutes in walking only, and as far as we know, none of the men ran.

We must then add time for the examination and for the conversation with Mizen, and we will end up with a logical time of around six minutes. A case can be made for five, but it is not a good case.

If the men were lying about the time (and I donīt see why they all would in tandem), then it must have been a LONGER time that applies, not a shorter one. And the longer time we enploy, the smaller the chance of another killer becomes.

As an aside, it was not the name swop that originally convinced me that Lechmere was somebody who needed to be looked into. It was the geographical correlation between his logical work routes and the murders, plus the timings involved, taken together with the find that Lechmereīs mother lived at an address that tallied well with him visiting on a Saturday night, and passing through Berner Street doing so.
Oddly, that address of his motherīs was at that stage believed to be 147 Cable Street, whereas we now know that Maria Louisa actually lived much closer than so to the Berner Street murder site, namely at 1 Mary Anne Street, situated directly south of Berner Street, a minutes walk or so away.

So it all comes together, if you donīt mind my saying so.

Incidentally, I often hear it said that the case against Lechmere rests on this or that isolated detail, but that is not so. No single detail can in itself be enough to break the donkeys back (although the blood evidence is very powerful and comes close if you ask me). The correlation between his logical routes and the murders does not do the trick itself, itīs just one of many indicators. And it is the combination of all the many "coincidences" that makes me say that I have found what I believe to be the Ripper.

[Pcdunn]

Fisherman,

I understand, after seeing the "Missing Evidence" program, why this means so much to you. If I'd worked on solving a mystery for thirty years, too, and thought I'd finally succeeded, I would be very disappointed by the reaction of others if they disagreed.

But, in my opinion, Lechmere is only-- at most-- a possible killer of Polly Nichols. We do have him at the location, etc. Your evidence in this case is interesting.

I don't think you have established his guilt in all of the other C5 cases. You're speculating when you say "he might have taken this route to work" or "he could have visited his mother then", and so on. Theories need speculation, yes, but also evidence.

Do the descendants of Charles have any family stories about his character as a father? He looks as if he was a stern man, to judge from the old-age photograph. But-- so were most fathers in the LVP. So we need more, such as stories of him beating his children or his wife. Does anyone know?

[Patrick S]

Yes indeed, Abby - that is correct. And that is why I think this is extremely damning evidence against Lechmere.

But letīs keep in mind that it predisposes that the coagulation process was a normal one! If it deviated, then there may have been more time.

A rough schedule works like this:

Paul entering Buckīs Row - 3.45.
Paul arriving at Browns - 3.46.
Pauls estimation of the total time from when he came to Browns to the time when he and Lechmere reached Mizen - no more than four minutes.
Mizens trek back - 2 minutes.

If Lechmere cut the neck of Nichols as Paul was walking down Bucks Row, then we should perhaps look at 3.45.30.

If Paul was on the money and it took four minutes from his arrival at Browns to the time the carmen found Mizen, then we get 3.50.

If Mizen took two minutes to walk down to the spot, then we have 3.52.

If this is true, then we have a gap of six and a half minutes between Lechmere cutting the neck of Nichols and Mizens arrival.

Then we should perhaps add half a minute for Lechmereīs informing Mizen what had happened.

That takes us to seven minutes - and the coagulation should be complete. It wasnīt.

We may need to take away the odd half minute here and there, but trying to reach down to a mere five minute gap is very hard. Perhaps we should say six minutes.

If these timings are correct, then where is the time for the alternative killer to cut Nichols, hear Lechmere and then flee?

Please note that even if we accept that there could have been another killer, it then predisposes that this alternative killer cut the neck of nichols as the absolute last thing he did before running off.

That means that he would have inflicted the other wounds first. Otherwise we must add even more minutes, taking us into la-la-land, more or less.

I have no problems with it as such, since I do believe that the killer DID cut the neck last. But we must nevertheless have him cutting the neck, getting up and running away immediately to fit him in.

And the innocent Lechmere would not have heard a sound of his fleeing steps in the dead silent night.

To me, the logical and best solution is therefore that Lechmere did the cutting. All other scenarios involve stretchings of time and/or the coagulation process. Which COULD have happened. But which can never be the prioritized exlanation.

There you are Abby. I really think we have him now.

Your theory, as a whole, seems very solid and reliable so long as we make only two assumptions throughout:

ONE: That Paul, Mizen, Neil, Llewellyn are absolutely reliable, honest, aware of the correct time, accurate in accounting for their movements, and able to repeat converstations verbatim.

TWO: Cross is wholly unreliable. He's inacccurate and dishonest in recounting times, conversations, explaining his movements, etc.

Of course, this is what one might expect from a serial killer. Although, we have no reason to believe the man was a serial killer...unless we assume that Paul, Mizen, Neil, and Llewellyn are completely accurate and Cross is lying about pretty much everything.

The point of entry for the entire Crossmere theory is the 'false name' charge. The theory seems to be something like, "He lied about his name so he lied about everything."

I'm not trying to be..um..cough...CROSS...here, Fish. You're selling. I'd like to buy. Alas, it looks like another lemon to me. I'm not saying I'm no longer in the market, though.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
re the blood-But if Lech scared off the killer, aren't we only talking about a minute at most between the time the unknown killer cut her throat or lech cut her throat?

Yes indeed, Abby - that is correct. And that is why I think this is extremely damning evidence against Lechmere.

But letīs keep in mind that it predisposes that the coagulation process was a normal one! If it deviated, then there may have been more time.

A rough schedule works like this:

Paul entering Buckīs Row - 3.45.
Paul arriving at Browns - 3.46.
Pauls estimation of the total time from when he came to Browns to the time when he and Lechmere reached Mizen - no more than four minutes.
Mizens trek back - 2 minutes.

If Lechmere cut the neck of Nichols as Paul was walking down Bucks Row, then we should perhaps look at 3.45.30.

If Paul was on the money and it took four minutes from his arrival at Browns to the time the carmen found Mizen, then we get 3.50.

If Mizen took two minutes to walk down to the spot, then we have 3.52.

If this is true, then we have a gap of six and a half minutes between Lechmere cutting the neck of Nichols and Mizens arrival.

Then we should perhaps add half a minute for Lechmereīs informing Mizen what had happened.

That takes us to seven minutes - and the coagulation should be complete. It wasnīt.

We may need to take away the odd half minute here and there, but trying to reach down to a mere five minute gap is very hard. Perhaps we should say six minutes.

If these timings are correct, then where is the time for the alternative killer to cut Nichols, hear Lechmere and then flee?

Please note that even if we accept that there could have been another killer, it then predisposes that this alternative killer cut the neck of nichols as the absolute last thing he did before running off.

That means that he would have inflicted the other wounds first. Otherwise we must add even more minutes, taking us into la-la-land, more or less.

I have no problems with it as such, since I do believe that the killer DID cut the neck last. But we must nevertheless have him cutting the neck, getting up and running away immediately to fit him in.

And the innocent Lechmere would not have heard a sound of his fleeing steps in the dead silent night.

To me, the logical and best solution is therefore that Lechmere did the cutting. All other scenarios involve stretchings of time and/or the coagulation process. Which COULD have happened. But which can never be the prioritized exlanation.

There you are Abby. I really think we have him now.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Fish
re the blood-But if Lech scared off the killer, aren't we only talking about a minute at most between the time the unknown killer cut her throat or lech cut her throat?

This is something he cant and wont accept. He has been told numerous times that the time of death cannot be established. So yes, the point you raise is valid. So is the suggestion that she was killed much earlier and this is where his theory goes pear shaped despite all his huffing and puffing about blood flows etc etc.

He is not going to relent, in fact he cant, he has gone in the press and on tv with this theory, and now despite the flaws which have been highlighted many times to him he has to stand and fight his corner which I guess is admirable.

The next chapter in this could be to tie Lechmere into other murders which occurred on his days off, Fish will likley as not tell us he was out early on those mornings as he had a part time early morning paper round !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I am not all that certain that joining trips to the seaside rules out the possibility that you are a serial killer, Robert! But the overall point you make is easy enough to understand, and something I agree wholeheartedly with. I have at times consciously revealed information that has been to my disadvantage in a debate, and been mocked for it. Which I find extremely low. If I have information that speaks to my disadvantage, it is just as important to share it, and I always do.

I am struggling a bit with the last part of your post; I can see what you are getting at, but since I think that I am correct on Lechmere, I believe that I would distort the picture if I was NOT to let it colour my posts.
It is not an altogether easy issue, though, and I can see how somebody coming from your camp is concerned. I donīt necessarily like things that are said about other suspects.
I think the best I can do is to stay true to my convictions - and alert when it comes to not getting it obviously wrong.

Fish is basically like a prosecutor whos convinced of someones guilt by the evidence and circumstances and is trying to persuade others with the same.

Nothing wrong with that.

[Fisherman]

Fish, I don't mind your looking for evidence that Crossmere was guilty. If you can do it while remaining objective, then fine. To give a couple of made-up examples : if you read somewhere that a carman had been harassing women in the general area, then I would expect you to try to find out who he was, or any other info about him (trying to find evidence of guilt). On the other hand, if you read that a group of carmen organized a trip to the seaside on the weekend of Sept 29th - 30th, I'd expect you to try to find out if Crossmere's name was involved (trying to find evidence of innocence).

What I find a problem, is your forming a conclusion and then letting it influence the way you describe things to others who are still trying to make up their minds. Your description of the meeting in Buck's Row is a case in point.

I am not all that certain that joining trips to the seaside rules out the possibility that you are a serial killer, Robert! But the overall point you make is easy enough to understand, and something I agree wholeheartedly with. I have at times consciously revealed information that has been to my disadvantage in a debate, and been mocked for it. Which I find extremely low. If I have information that speaks to my disadvantage, it is just as important to share it, and I always do.

I am struggling a bit with the last part of your post; I can see what you are getting at, but since I think that I am correct on Lechmere, I believe that I would distort the picture if I was NOT to let it colour my posts.
It is not an altogether easy issue, though, and I can see how somebody coming from your camp is concerned. I donīt necessarily like things that are said about other suspects.
I think the best I can do is to stay true to my convictions - and alert when it comes to not getting it obviously wrong.

[Abby Normal]

Robert, what I am doing is to conduct an investigation concerning Charles Lechmere, working from the hypothesis that he could have been Jack the Ripper - or at the very least, the killer of Polly Nichols.

I am not trying to free him, I am trying to have my suspicions confirmed.

It is, more or less, how the police will investigate a murder case.

I have spent my entire life as a journalist and researcher. I know which sources to use, how to weigh an errand etcetera. I have a useful reputation for having a good "feel" for things.

I could of course go about things by being less "aggressive", if you will, in my approach. But that would not promote my chances of getting a result.

Now, knowing you quite well, I suspect that there are a number of terms here that you dislike:
I am trying to have my suspsicions confirmed
I am aggressive
I look for results

It is quite easy to turn this reasoning into a lack of scepticism on my behalf, to think that I am ready to cross ethical lines and/or that I run the risk of misinterpreting matters.

However, I am nowhere near those sorts of things. Contrary to what you may think, I always look at the innocent explanations too, and then I weigh things.

In Lechmereīs case, there are just way too many pointers to guilt to prioritize the innocent explanations over the sinister ones. The much more probable thing is that he was the killer - but it is not a proven thing.

You just donīcollect such a wealth of coincidences without being the guilty party.

Now, as I have been looking for evidence pointing to him, I have come to think that no matter what I find, it will not go to clear him. And that has held true all the way. Itīs not about "wanting" things, it is about logically expecting them.

There are so many small things, like why Mizen would say that "a carman" came by and spoke to him. And all of these small things, sometimes presented in all the papers, other times hidden in one paper only, always offer the sinister perspective.

Take, for example, how we reason that Paul was out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen. There is a report saying about Paul "The other man, who went down Hanbury Street", and suddenly we see that we may be correct. Take how all the papers write that Mizen speaks of coming back with a stretcher and then he adds that the blood was still running. But one paper gives the context, and shows us how it seems that Mizen spoke about the blood in relation to when he told the coroner that Neil was the only person in place as he first arrived.

These pieces are ALWAYS there, and that is not a coincidence.

Some will say that I cherrypick, but I could not care less. I am looking to find evidence that supports my take that Lechmere was the killer, and that evidence is always there!

Last up was the blood evidence. Mizen says that blood was till running from the neck of Nichols as he arrived. That will have been approximately five minutes after Lechmere left Nichols.
I asked a seasoned pathologist how long the blood would have run for - would it be three, five perhaps seven minutes? The answer I got was that the two former suggestions were the much more credible ones.
It also applies that the blood under Nicholsī neck was somewhat congealed - which it would be between minutes three and six after the cut was produced if Nichols followed the ordinary congealing pattern.

This means that Lechmere fits the bill perfectly. And once more, it applies that everything I always goes to further incriminate him and not to exonerate him. And this time we are dealing with hard physical evidence! It is not a lie, a debatable name or something like that. It is blood evidence.

When I find such a thing I WILL go "Aha, further incrimination". But I will ALSO go "But could there have been another killer just the same?". And yes, there could have been.

But so many unlucky coincidences mount up in Lechmeres case, that the call has become an easy one: He was in all probability the slayer of Polly Nichols.

And if he was, it stands to reason that he was also quite probably Jack the Ripper.

Other suspectologists work from their own perceptions about what type of man the killer would have been. Then they find themselves somebody who represents that type, and they try to glue the deeds on him.
Sadly, they cannot produce a single link to the actual murders.

Go hit them over the head, for they are making despicable cases, quite frankly.

But donīt go after me for adding evidence pointing to Lechmere. It is what I look for, and it is what I find. All the time.

Hi Fish
re the blood-But if Lech scared off the killer, aren't we only talking about a minute at most between the time the unknown killer cut her throat or lech cut her throat?

[Robert]

Fish, I don't mind your looking for evidence that Crossmere was guilty. If you can do it while remaining objective, then fine. To give a couple of made-up examples : if you read somewhere that a carman had been harassing women in the general area, then I would expect you to try to find out who he was, or any other info about him (trying to find evidence of guilt). On the other hand, if you read that a group of carmen organized a trip to the seaside on the weekend of Sept 29th - 30th, I'd expect you to try to find out if Crossmere's name was involved (trying to find evidence of innocence).

What I find a problem, is your forming a conclusion and then letting it influence the way you describe things to others who are still trying to make up their minds. Your description of the meeting in Buck's Row is a case in point.

[Fisherman]

Wow. That was almost TL;DR. But, I skimmed it, and got to the last two sentences, and wow. That is pretty much a summary of exactly how "confirmation bias" works.

Up until now, I was trying to stay neutral in this debate-- I don't think Cross did it, but I mean, not trying to side with one party or the other in who was being the most obstinate, but after that big, glow-in-the-dark, red flag, wow.

Well, that was to be expected. Why care that I wrote that I take care to look at it from both sides?

Rivkah, anybody who works from a hypothesis regarding a suspects guilt will look for evidence that he did it. If they say they donīt, they simply lie.

That does not mean that I can not see the other side of the coin.

I donīt know why you should be shocked by me saying that I work from the hypothesis that Lechmere was the killer - I have come to believe that he was, and that is because I have seen evidence enough and "coincidences" enough to reach that stance. Once I started to think "this could well be him" I looked for further confirmation, while all the time trying to weigh both sides. If that appalls you, Iīm perplexed.

Equally, why would you be flabbergasted by my saying that I look for evidence connecting Lechmere to the crimes, and that I find such evidence? I have just pointed out how Lechmere fits with the blood evidence. That is one example.
I also look for alternative solutions to matters like these, which is why I say that there IS some room for another killer, even with a normal coagulation procedure. If the procedure deviated from the normal, there may be more room.

How did you imagine a person with a suspect went about things? By arguing against his own convictions? By giving himself five lashes for everything he finds that points to guilt? By always trying to weigh up the indications of guilt that are there before he looks for more such indications?

Iīm sorry to have punctured you beliefs if that is what you thought! But in all honesty, you punctured my beliefs about how realistic people are. 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...?

[RivkahChaya]

Robert, what I am doing is to conduct an investigation concerning Charles Lechmere, working from the hypothesis that he could have been Jack the Ripper - or at the very least, the killer of Polly Nichols.

-snip-

But donīt go after me for adding evidence pointing to Lechmere. It is what I look for, and it is what I find. All the time.

Wow. That was almost TL;DR. But, I skimmed it, and got to the last two sentences, and wow. That is pretty much a summary of exactly how "confirmation bias" works.

Up until now, I was trying to stay neutral in this debate-- I don't think Cross did it, but I mean, not trying to side with one party or the other in who was being the most obstinate, but after that big, glow-in-the-dark, red flag, wow.

[Fisherman]

Well....whatever works.

Exactly, Patrick.