The Lechmere trail - so far

[Harry D]

Enough to warrant a trial. Enough for a seasoned murder squad leader to conclude that Lechmere needs to be cleared before any other suspect should be looked into.

But of course, these were people with no attachments to Ripperology - just highly qualified professionals with no interests to guard.

Who are these people?

What information were they provided with?

If their point of reference comes from Lechmerians, then, as with most 'experts' recruitment by suspect-based Ripperologists, they've probably been led to that conclusion.

What other suspect do you feel comes close to warrant a trial, Harry...?

I wasn't aware this was a competition?

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fisherman. And I wish you luck with your theory even if I think you havenīt found him. The most important is to forget your own bias. Then you can let the sources start to kick back.

Regards Pierre

Thanks, Pierre.

[Pierre]

Thanks Fisherman. And I wish you luck with your theory even if I think you havenīt found him. The most important is to forget your own bias. Then you can let the sources start to kick back.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Good Lord, what a finicky, pernickety case you've built around this so-called 'suspect', Fish.

Enough to warrant a trial. Enough for a seasoned murder squad leader to conclude that Lechmere needs to be cleared before any other suspect should be looked into.

But of course, these were people with no attachments to Ripperology - just highly qualified professionals with no interests to guard.

What other suspect do you feel comes close to warrant a trial, Harry...?

[Harry D]

Thereīs that evil genius thing again! I never said he was an evil genius, I said he seems to have been a resourceful and cool psychopath. Thatīs a far cry from Moriarty.

I have also said that he would be anxious to be as truthful as possible to the police, since they could check him out.

He would be less truthful to the press, since they could give him away.

The fact that it seems he kept his real name and address from the press is highly indicative of him wanting to stay incognito with people who knew him.

Good Lord, what a finicky, pernickety case you've built around this so-called 'suspect', Fish.

[Fisherman]

Pierre:

When exactly did he move to Doveton Street? Since you consider that a trigger.

Mid June, Pierre. And I consider it a possible trigger...

The coroner said the murderer should have blood on him ("Coming to a consideration of the perpetrator of the murder, the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person." Source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

Why doesnīt anybody say anything about blood being found on Lechmere?

Many people say a lot about it. Jason Payne-James, the forensic expert who commented on the case in the documentary we made, said that the killer would not necessarily have much - or indeed any - detectable blood on his person.

We must also keep in mid that it was dark, and the probability is that Lechmere wore dark clothes (which most people did), so the odd speck or two on the cuffs would perhaps not be very easy to spot.

[Patrick S]

Hi,

When exactly did he move to Doveton Street? Since you consider that a trigger.

The coroner said the murderer should have blood on him ("Coming to a consideration of the perpetrator of the murder, the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person." Source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

Why doesnīt anybody say anything about blood being found on Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

It's all here. Fisherman (Christer Holmgren), has all the details and he'll likely fill you in. However, I will tell you that he contends that the killer did not have blood about his person, even though he hid the murder weapon ON his person seconds after administering the cuts to Nichols' throat that nearly decapitated her.

Please encourage Christer to come to Baltimore to debate this subject in April. A good time will be had by all. Later we'll go to an Orioles game and the loser will buy he winner a hot dog and a beer. And then we'll yell at the umpires, Chris Davis, and Boog Powell (if he screws up our ribs out there in right field).

[Pierre]

Hi,

When exactly did he move to Doveton Street? Since you consider that a trigger.

The coroner said the murderer should have blood on him ("Coming to a consideration of the perpetrator of the murder, the Coroner said: It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person." Source: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

Why doesnīt anybody say anything about blood being found on Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

[Patrick S]

Ah, I'm beginning to see how the Lechmere theory works now. You conjure up a scenario that is not (quite) impossible - for instance the ripper attending an inquest he has no need to, simply because he is a psychopath - and hey presto!

You may as well apply the same principle to almost anyone - human, that is. The polar bear was just silly.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi, caz. I've made this point before and I'm glad you bring it up again here. Several things are very clear and very inconvenient for Christer's theory. If he were the killer, his behavior in Buck's Row was...erratic, to say the least. The obvious explanation is that he was acting as anyone with no consciousness of guilt would act. Yet, Christer invents an elaborate ruse that has the killer avoid capture...by TRYING to be captured.

With respect to the point you make about the inquest.... Now we are asked to believe that his courting capture, yet eluding it, as we are assured by Christer he was desperate to do (thus the Mizen Scam, etc.), was not enough. No, he had to submit himself to the police again. He escaped. He was unnamed. Paul doesn't describe him in 'Lloyd's'. He's simply, 'a man'. We don't know if he's old, young, short, tall, skinny, fat, bearded, clean-shaven...we don't know where he worked, where he lived, what kind of clothes he wore. In fact, Paul minimized him. The reader is led to believe that Paul left him behind while he went in search of the police (this leads Christer the relatively new 'Paul the Liar' component). Recall also that Mizen doesn't mention EITHER man. TO ANYONE. He allows Neil to testify that he and he alone found the body. So, before Lechmere comes forward we have this:

1. He escaped capture in Buck's Row, again in Baker's Row
2. He was not detained, searched, suspected
3. His campanion (Paul) gives a statement that appears in Lloyds on Sunday. He doesn't describe him. Doesn't name him. Downplays his role.

I don't know about you. But if I'm a serial killer and I want to go on serial killing.....I figure this worked out pretty well, right? I mean, no one knows my name, where I live, where I work, what I look like. I was in Buck's Row at 3:45am. So, I'll walk to work a different way for next few weeks. But that's not was he does. Next day, he gets dressed for work (as a man who has to work may - although Christer sees THIS as an idictment, too) and goes to the INQUEST! "Hey! Excuse me? Hi...you don't KNOW me! Yeah. I'm Charles, aka George, aka Allen, aka Andrew, aka Cross, aka....well never mind. Anyway, I was there. In Bucks Row. Me. Can I testify? Please? I have..uh....nothing to hide....yeah....nothing....."

Hey, Christer! If you read this....Come to Baltimore for the North American Convention in April. Sell some DVDs or pamphlets. It will be worth your while. I will spring for a venue and I will debate you on this issue. It will be civilized and fun. Agreed?

[Fisherman]

Not if the point of giving a fake name was to deflect attention away from himself.

Giving up his first-name, his address, and place of work suggests that he made little attempt to conceal his identity, or he's not the evil genius you purport him to be.

Thereīs that evil genius thing again! I never said he was an evil genius, I said he seems to have been a resourceful and cool psychopath. Thatīs a far cry from Moriarty.

I have also said that he would be anxious to be as truthful as possible to the police, since they could check him out.

He would be less truthful to the press, since they could give him away.

The fact that it seems he kept his real name and address from the press is highly indicative of him wanting to stay incognito with people who knew him.

[Patrick S]

Then maybe he did not call himself Joe Bloggs because he actually wanted to avoid to have the alarm bells ringing, Harry...?

If he wanted to avoid alarm bells ringing why did he:

1. Approach Paul rather than simply WALK away? When he heard him approach from "30-40 yards off" even as he didn't know who Paul was (a cop, a watchman, the victims husband or pimp)

2. Ask Paul to view the body? Even though he didn't know what Paul would do. You say he would not help Paul 'give her a prop' because that would reveal the cuts to the throat. Yet, if was worried about concealing these injuries, why did he approach Paul at all? Did he KNOW Paul would not try to 'give her a prop' on his own? Did he KNOW Paul did not have a match with which to light the scene and see the injuries he NOW so wanted to conceal? Again...this works only with Lechmere's crystal ball.

3. Go with Paul to find a policeman? He was there before Paul. Paul didn't know which way he was headed. They BOTH agree they didn't want to be late for work. Why didn't Lechmere GO THE OTHER WAY? He knew what direction Paul was headed. WHY GO WITH HIM? Why not say, I go this way, you go that way. We'll send a PC when we find one. Come on.......

The absurdities mount. And you won't respond because I hurt your feelings, even as you insult everyone who dares question you. I'll say it again.....

DEBATE ME IN BALTIMORE. I'll pay for the venue. I'll pay for your beer! We'll have a fine time. I'm a wonderful guy! You can even charge admission and keep the gate. I don't care. ARE YOU IN?

[Patrick S]

"... calling himself Charles Allen Cross, if his employers only knew him as Charles Allen Lechmere, would surely not have gone unnoticed by them..."

There is not a shred of evidence that he ever used the name Cross. not a iot. Nothing. If I may remind you?

The mere suggestion is completely baseless and amounts to nothing at all but sheer conjecture. A figment of fantasy. Makebelieve.

There are heaps of evidence showing us that he DID use the name Lechmere.

Sandcastles, Caz, are washed out into the sea with the tide.

Let us point out also that your assumption that he used the name 'Cross' to the exclsion of all other names comes from (wildly inaccurate and careless) reporting in the papers. All who consider this 'theory' should be reminded - again - that the case files have never been examined. Therefore, the "mere suggestion" that Lechmere gave ONLY the name "Cross" "is completely baseless and amounts to nothing at all but sheer conjecture. A figment of fantasy. Makebelieve." Your 'THEORY" that he did is based on primarily two reports. One (the Telegraph) called him "Chas. Andrew Cross". The other (Times) calls him "George Cross". Yet, you consider their reporting rock-solid when it comes to the name 'Cross', because it SUITS you. His middle name was Allen. Not Andrew. His first name was Charles, not George. Therefore, could he not have given his name as "Charles Allen Lechmere, also known as Cross"? That would be the proper reply had he been asked, "Are you known by any other names?"

The reporting called Paul, "Baul'. They call Jonas Mizen, "G. Mizen", they call Thain, "Thail". They mis-spell COUNTLESS names, Nichols, Spratling, many others. Yet this is your Lechmere the Ripper bible? Please....

It has become embarassingly clear that your little fantasy has germinated by the seeds planted by this name issue, one that we have no proof, not one IOTA, even existed.

Come to Baltimore for the North American Convention in April. Sell some DVDs or pamphlets. It will be worth your while. I will spring for a venue and I will debate you on this issue. It will be civilized and fun. Agreed?

[Harry D]

Then maybe he did not call himself Joe Bloggs because he actually wanted to avoid to have the alarm bells ringing, Harry...?

Not if the point of giving a fake name was to deflect attention away from himself.

Giving up his first-name, his address, and place of work suggests that he made little attempt to conceal his identity, or he's not the evil genius you purport him to be.

[Fisherman]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Why wouldn't he call himself 'Joe Bloggs' or some other completely made-up name? Now that WOULD set the alarm bells ringing.

Then maybe he did not call himself Joe Bloggs because he actually wanted to avoid to have the alarm bells ringing, Harry...?

[Harry D]

There is not a shred of evidence that he ever used the name Cross. not a iot. Nothing. If I may remind you?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Why wouldn't he call himself 'Joe Bloggs' or some other completely made-up name? Now that WOULD set the alarm bells ringing.