The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Thanks for clearing that up. I read about Eddowes last night, as well, and I now realize it was her jugular that that was cut along with a pin-hole in the coratid.

I may not have been clear. I don't accept Marriot's findings on their face. It simply adds to my hesitance to give the "blood evidence" as much weight. I also include the fact that all of the "blood evidence" is based on testimony and observation, not science.

If I were you, and I'd put so much work into this thing, I'd concentrate on Cross' route to work, the timing of the murders, how they intersect. His mother's house and the neighborhood in which he grew up and how they relate to the weekend murders. Even the name issue. Up to now I've been unimpressed with it. Alas, you say that Cross contacted authorities of some stripe approx. 110 times, and gave his name each time as Lechmere save for one rather infamous instance. Fascinating and worth the time you've put into it. Looking at it dispassionately and without bias, I think these points are hard to discredit without serious research.

I think what you've done here is incredibly interesting. Thank you.

I think different research avenues will be differently suited to please different people, so I tend to go with what I myself find is the better points. Therefore, I value the blood evidence very much, since all the little parts are seemingly in place for it to have been Lechmere who was the killer.

But I will bear your preferences in mind nevertheless. Thanks for your kind words!

[caz]

My dear caz people seem to forget that whoever was committing these appalling crimes certainly knew how to kill very quickly and very efficiently.

Indeed so, pinkster.

Where, when and how might Lechmere have acquired the necessary know-how? He seems to have worked the usual long hours over many a long year, when he wasn't at home making babies.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

I think different research avenues will be differently suited to please different people, so I tend to go with what I myself find is the better points. Therefore, I value the blood evidence very much, since all the little parts are seemingly in place for it to have been Lechmere who was the killer.

But I will bear your preferences in mind nevertheless. Thanks for your kind words!

If your research advances the blood evidence further it may stand up to some of the issues with it. As it stands now, though, there's just too much we don't know. I just feel as if too much was lost. Too many variables unknown and/or unrecorded.

I prefer to concentrate on those thing we DO know. And - thanks to your work - we know a lot about Lechmere we didn't know before. We know his address and his probably route to work. We know how that route traverses the murders sites. We know his mother's address. We know the streets with which he was familiar and we know these streets were familar, as well, to the Whitechapel murderer(s). The name. The 110 instances of Lechmere vs. the 1 instance of Cross.

Be patient! I think that you're research is paying dividends. Be preprared to accept whatever conclusions it yields and expect the same from critics.

[Harry D]

Seems to me, Fish, that you're in a win-win scenario here. If Lechmere stays at the scene of the crime, he's a psychopath bluffing his way out of it (although I thought sociopaths were generally the cool customers?), and no doubt if he had fled from the murder site, you'd be telling us this wasn't the actions of an innocent bystander.

[Fisherman]

Great summary by the way

X

Since Patrick is of the meaning that the work on Lechmere is incredibly interesting, I can only surmise that this is involved in your reaction too.

[Fisherman]

Indeed so, pinkster.

Where, when and how might Lechmere have acquired the necessary know-how? He seems to have worked the usual long hours over many a long year, when he wasn't at home making babies.

Love,

Caz
X

To knock a drunk and defenceless woman over the head and strangle her is hardly something you need to call the SAS for ...

[Fisherman]

If your research advances the blood evidence further it may stand up to some of the issues with it. As it stands now, though, there's just too much we don't know. I just feel as if too much was lost. Too many variables unknown and/or unrecorded.

I prefer to concentrate on those thing we DO know. And - thanks to your work - we know a lot about Lechmere we didn't know before. We know his address and his probably route to work. We know how that route traverses the murders sites. We know his mother's address. We know the streets with which he was familiar and we know these streets were familar, as well, to the Whitechapel murderer(s). The name. The 110 instances of Lechmere vs. the 1 instance of Cross.

Be patient! I think that you're research is paying dividends. Be preprared to accept whatever conclusions it yields and expect the same from critics.

Regarding the blood evidence, we actually have a nice collection of information.

Neil says it bled from the neck as he found Nichols.

Mizen notices the same thing two, three minutes afterwards.

So we don´t have to entertain any ideas that the bleeding had stopped and that that illusive alternative killer could have done her in half an hour earlier.

We know from Jason Payne-James that it would be much more expected for Nichols to bleed for three or perhaps five minutes than for seven. And it applies that any further bleeding than that is even more unexpected.

Mizen said that the blood was somewhat congealed in the pool. That tells us that he had insights in the forensic value of such information. Reasonably, he had gained these insights in his training as a PC. He must be regarded as a highly credible witness in matters like these.

Around half an hour later, the blood was washed away from the pavement stones. By then, it was a congealed mass. So we have it on record that there were no obstacles to the coagulation of Nichols´ blood. It therefore stands to reason that there would have been a visible coagulation of the blood five or six minutes after Lechmere left - which is what we should expect since that is the normal outcome.

There are no holes in this schedule, and there is not a single contradiction. The involved witnesses are seasoned PC:s.

Neil said nothing about any commencing congealing, and that is in line with him looking at the blood less than three, four minutes after Lechmere had left.

It would seem that the information is quite reliable. And if it is, then we can be sure that there was very little or no time at all for an alternative killer. And no matter how sceptical we choose to be, what Jason Payne-James said first still applies:

There is no ruling out of Lechmere possible on account of the blood evidence. He totally fits in with it, and he seems to be in the epicenter of things, both as regards bloodflow and coagulation.
Payne-James also added, though, that there is only an implication, but no irreversible evidence that Lechmere must have been the cutter.

I am quite happy with that.

[Fisherman]

Another thing that is interesting in the greater scheme of things is how I am constantly being told that I am wrong to say that the so called Mizen scam has been overlooked by the contemporary police and generations of ripperologists alike.
It is said that of course they noticed - but they had evidence to tell them that Lechmere was not guilty, so they could not care less. Evidence that - dare I say it? - has unfortunately "gone lost".

It now emerges that there is quite compelling blood evidence - and has been for 127 years. And nobody has picked up on it.

One cannot help but to wonder what Ripperology has been up to for all that time...?

[Patrick S]

Regarding the blood evidence, we actually have a nice collection of information.

Neil says it bled from the neck as he found Nichols.

Mizen notices the same thing two, three minutes afterwards.

So we don´t have to entertain any ideas that the bleeding had stopped and that that illusive alternative killer could have done her in half an hour earlier.

We know from Jason Payne-James that it would be much more expected for Nichols to bleed for three or perhaps five minutes than for seven. And it applies that any further bleeding than that is even more unexpected.

Mizen said that the blood was somewhat congealed in the pool. That tells us that he had insights in the forensic value of such information. Reasonably, he had gained these insights in his training as a PC. He must be regarded as a highly credible witness in matters like these.

Around half an hour later, the blood was washed away from the pavement stones. By then, it was a congealed mass. So we have it on record that there were no obstacles to the coagulation of Nichols´ blood. It therefore stands to reason that there would have been a visible coagulation of the blood five or six minutes after Lechmere left - which is what we should expect since that is the normal outcome.

There are no holes in this schedule, and there is not a single contradiction. The involved witnesses are seasoned PC:s.

Neil said nothing about any commencing congealing, and that is in line with him looking at the blood less than three, four minutes after Lechmere had left.

It would seem that the information is quite reliable. And if it is, then we can be sure that there was very little or no time at all for an alternative killer. And no matter how sceptical we choose to be, what Jason Payne-James said first still applies:

There is no ruling out of Lechmere possible on account of the blood evidence. He totally fits in with it, and he seems to be in the epicenter of things, both as regards bloodflow and coagulation.
Payne-James also added, though, that there is only an implication, but no irreversible evidence that Lechmere must have been the cutter.

I am quite happy with that.

We can go 'round and 'round about the blood 'evidence'. Even when some of us are willing to buy some of what you're selling, you insist on pushing what we're not quite willing to purchase. I'll again advise patience, Fish.

I'll stick with a point I made in an earlier thread: There is no blood 'evidence'. There are statements about blood. Observations made about the blood. There was no blood admitted into evidence. You want us to trust these observations because they were made by seasoned PCs. Yet, these are the same incompetents that - in your scenario - let the murderer, nearly caught in the act, give a false account of the situation ("you are wanted in Buck's Row"), give a false name that they then failed to adequately investigate, and failed to notice that the route he traveled to work went right through the Ripper's "hunting grounds".

I've heard you say many times on these pages that you have little respect for the police and put no stock in the fact that Cross was never a contemporary suspect. Now, when needed to fit your theory, we have seasoned PCs capable of on-the-spot blood anyalyis estimating time of death, even if they didn't know it at the time.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: We can go 'round and 'round about the blood 'evidence'. Even when some of us are willing to buy some of what you're selling, you insist on pushing what we're not quite willing to purchase. I'll again advise patience, Fish.

There is a difference between pushing and offering, Patrick. I present the evidence as it is shaped, and then it is up to each and everyone to accept it or not. If somebody wants to nake the point that Mizen could have been a bad judge of congealing - fine. If it is argued that Thain probably was wrong in saying that then blood was reduced to a gongealed clot when washed away - fine. If someone reasons that Mizen sprinted to Bucks Row and that the time between Lechmere´s departure and Mizens arrival was four and a half minute only - fine.

I can only build under my own arguments and show why I point to them. If the patience you recommend involves keeping quiet about it, it just would not be me. Get it all on the table, explain it all, information overload is always better than information shortage.

I'll stick with a point I made in an earlier thread: There is no blood 'evidence'. There are statements about blood. Observations made about the blood. There was no blood admitted into evidence. You want us to trust these observations because they were made by seasoned PCs. Yet, these are the same incompetents that - in your scenario - let the murderer, nearly caught in the act, give a false account of the situation ("you are wanted in Buck's Row"), give a false name that they then failed to adequately investigate, and failed to notice that the route he traveled to work went right through the Ripper's "hunting grounds".

These are to begin with different matters. And it applies that there was no way that Mizen coud have known that the carman lied. How would he? How does it mirror incompetence that he did not see through it, especially considering that there was a PC in place as he arrived.

Mizen was further not under an obligation to take the carmens name. This, at least and as far as I can recall, was what poster Monty said when it was discussed earlier.

So he followed protocol from beginning to end.

When the police had Lechmere in for the inquest, his route did not pass through the Ripper hunting grounds, furthermore. The Ripper hunting grounds were to the south, along Old Montague Street - at that remove in time.

It also applies that there was probably a lot of criminal anthropology involved in the thinking. And it would help Lechmere but it would NOT change the time a coagulation takes. They knew back then - I have checked.

I think you are mixing up apples and pears here.

I've heard you say many times on these pages that you have little respect for the police and put no stock in the fact that Cross was never a contemporary suspect. Now, when needed to fit your theory, we have seasoned PCs capable of on-the-spot blood anyalyis estimating time of death, even if they didn't know it at the time.

Apples and pears again.

Overall, the work of the police in combination with the Nichols murder was not what one would have expected. Incredible mistakes were made. I remain steadfast when it comes to that, and I have not changed my mind in the slightest.

If you look through the threads, you will notice that I have said for years that I think that Mizen has been hard done by. We have discovered that he was a PC with an excellent service record and we have pressed that point for the longest time.

There is nothing strange about thinking that there may be good men within a bad force. The criticism you deliver here therefore lacks a basis in reality. It is no stranger than when a football commentator says that there was a bright shining star in the team whereas the rest was crap.

If you can find a single instance where I have criticized Mizen, then you have a case. If not, you are simply oversimplifying on my account. I wish you wouldn´t.

[Patrick S]

Regarding the blood evidence, we actually have a nice collection of information.

Neil says it bled from the neck as he found Nichols.

Mizen notices the same thing two, three minutes afterwards.

So we don´t have to entertain any ideas that the bleeding had stopped and that that illusive alternative killer could have done her in half an hour earlier.

We know from Jason Payne-James that it would be much more expected for Nichols to bleed for three or perhaps five minutes than for seven. And it applies that any further bleeding than that is even more unexpected.

Mizen said that the blood was somewhat congealed in the pool. That tells us that he had insights in the forensic value of such information. Reasonably, he had gained these insights in his training as a PC. He must be regarded as a highly credible witness in matters like these.

Around half an hour later, the blood was washed away from the pavement stones. By then, it was a congealed mass. So we have it on record that there were no obstacles to the coagulation of Nichols´ blood. It therefore stands to reason that there would have been a visible coagulation of the blood five or six minutes after Lechmere left - which is what we should expect since that is the normal outcome.

There are no holes in this schedule, and there is not a single contradiction. The involved witnesses are seasoned PC:s.

Neil said nothing about any commencing congealing, and that is in line with him looking at the blood less than three, four minutes after Lechmere had left.

It would seem that the information is quite reliable. And if it is, then we can be sure that there was very little or no time at all for an alternative killer. And no matter how sceptical we choose to be, what Jason Payne-James said first still applies:

There is no ruling out of Lechmere possible on account of the blood evidence. He totally fits in with it, and he seems to be in the epicenter of things, both as regards bloodflow and coagulation.
Payne-James also added, though, that there is only an implication, but no irreversible evidence that Lechmere must have been the cutter.

I am quite happy with that.

Fisherman, I'm quite happy to give credit where it's due and I feel that I've done that. Yet, you continue to press this point. All I can say is that I have real problems with your thinking on this. Let's forget the fact that no blood was collected, photographed, or anything other than referenced ("oozing" was one word used...in what stage of coagualtion is "oozing" blood?) by alternately seasoned and incompetent PCs.

There is nothing that precludes a scenario in which Cross passes through Buck's Row literally SECONDS after the murder was committed. You are fixated footsteps, how far the sound of them travels, etc. Why is it NOT posible for Nichols' killer to have heard Cross approaching and simply vanished in the other direction? Count to ten. I imagine a man could hide himself or get far enough away to avoid detection should he be properly motivated in that time.....in the dark. Does ten seconds impact your theory? Thirty? Sixty? With the information we have on the page from the PCs? You feel it's that conclusive? I don't. Not yet. I need more. Unfortuntely, I don't think it's there, after all these years.

What is likely is this. The guilty man ran when he heard footsteps approaching. Those footsteps belonged to Charles Cross. The innocent man approached Robert Paul and asked him to 'come see this woman'. That man was Charles Cross, as well. He approached Paul because he had no consiousness of guilt. He knew he was not covered in blood - even though it was pitch black and he could not check himself - because he did not kill Nichols. He went with Paul to find a PC because he knew he did not kill Nichols. He behaved as man who had found a body would behave. The killer behaved as a killer would behave. He left.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: We can go 'round and 'round about the blood 'evidence'. Even when some of us are willing to buy some of what you're selling, you insist on pushing what we're not quite willing to purchase. I'll again advise patience, Fish.

There is a difference between pushing and offering, Patrick. I present the evidence as it is shaped, and then it is up to each and everyone to accept it or not. If somebody wants to nake the point that Mizen could have been a bad judge of congealing - fine. If it is argued that Thain probably was wrong in saying that then blood was reduced to a gongealed clot when washed away - fine. If someone reasons that Mizen sprinted to Bucks Row and that the time between Lechmere´s departure and Mizens arrival was four and a half minute only - fine.

I can only build under my own arguments and show why I point to them. If the patience you recommend involves keeping quiet about it, it just would not be me. Get it all on the table, explain it all, information overload is always better than information shortage.

I'll stick with a point I made in an earlier thread: There is no blood 'evidence'. There are statements about blood. Observations made about the blood. There was no blood admitted into evidence. You want us to trust these observations because they were made by seasoned PCs. Yet, these are the same incompetents that - in your scenario - let the murderer, nearly caught in the act, give a false account of the situation ("you are wanted in Buck's Row"), give a false name that they then failed to adequately investigate, and failed to notice that the route he traveled to work went right through the Ripper's "hunting grounds".

These are to begin with different matters. And it applies that there was no way that Mizen coud have known that the carman lied. How would he? How does it mirror incompetence that he did not see through it, especially considering that there was a PC in place as he arrived.

Mizen was further not under an obligation to take the carmens name. This, at least and as far as I can recall, was what poster Monty said when it was discussed earlier.

So he followed protocol from beginning to end.

When the police had Lechmere in for the inquest, his route did not pass through the Ripper hunting grounds, furthermore. The Ripper hunting grounds were to the south, along Old Montague Street - at that remove in time.

It also applies that there was probably a lot of criminal anthropology involved in the thinking. And it would help Lechmere but it would NOT change the time a coagulation takes. They knew back then - I have checked.

I think you are mixing up apples and pears here.

I've heard you say many times on these pages that you have little respect for the police and put no stock in the fact that Cross was never a contemporary suspect. Now, when needed to fit your theory, we have seasoned PCs capable of on-the-spot blood anyalyis estimating time of death, even if they didn't know it at the time.

Apples and pears again.

Overall, the work of the police in combination with the Nichols murder was not what one would have expected. Incredible mistakes were made. I remain steadfast when it comes to that, and I have not changed my mind in the slightest.

If you look through the threads, you will notice that I have said for years that I think that Mizen has been hard done by. We have discovered that he was a PC with an excellent service record and we have pressed that point for the longest time.

There is nothing strange about thinking that there may be good men within a bad force. The criticism you deliver here therefore lacks a basis in reality. It is no stranger than when a football commentator says that there was a bright shining star in the team whereas the rest was crap.

If you can find a single instance where I have criticized Mizen, then you have a case. If not, you are simply oversimplifying on my account. I wish you wouldn´t.

You have your view. I have mine. Look. I dismissed the whole Crossmere thing as bunk a year ago. That's not so now. I'm not there on the blood and I'm not there in thinking that Cross acted as anything other than an innocent man when interacting with Paul and Mizen.

I would like to hear some specifics about the name 'Cross'. When did he use it before/after, if ever? He used Lechmere in approximately 110 contacts with authority. Examples. Exceptions? This is interesting.

[Fisherman]

You have your view. I have mine. Look. I dismissed the whole Crossmere thing as bunk a year ago. That's not so now. I'm not there on the blood and I'm not there in thinking that Cross acted as anything other than an innocent man when interacting with Paul and Mizen.

I would like to hear some specifics about the name 'Cross'. When did he use it before/after, if ever? He used Lechmere in approximately 110 contacts with authority. Examples. Exceptions? This is interesting.

Not now, Patrick - European qualifying fotball on TV, Sweden-Austria.

Later. Promise!

[Fisherman]

I would like to hear some specifics about the name 'Cross'. When did he use it before/after, if ever? He used Lechmere in approximately 110 contacts with authority. Examples. Exceptions? This is interesting.

Ok, here goes: Charles Lechmere´s name can be found on around 110 documents, relating to a number of authorities, such as election forms, census listings, school registrations etcetera. No other contact with the police has been found, but for the instance when he was involved in the murder inquest after Polly Nichols.
In these documents, his name is sometimes signed by himself, and on other occasions he has had the name signed by officials from the authorities. Regardless of who has signed, they have always signed "Lechmere". So not only do we know that he signed himself Lechmere, we also know that he answered "Lechmere", when the question "Can you state your name, please?" was asked of him.

When he stated his name in combination with the visit to the police and the ensuing inquest, he had had a couple of days to ponder what he should call himself.

Next: How many examples do we have where we know that he used the name Cross?

Answer: one - in combination with the inquest after Polly Nichols.

He was registered as Charles Cross in the 1861 census, when he was not yet a teenager. In all probability, the census form was filled in by his stepfather Thomas Cross, so Charles himself cannot be proven to have used the Cross name.

He was baptized Lechmere the year AFTER Maria Louisa, his mother, had married Thomas Cross bigamously. So in spite of that marriage, the choice between Cross and Lechmere resulted in Cross being shoved aside.

Time for the second half of the football match now. The good news is that Austria is playing really badly. The bad news is that Sweden is even worse, so we´re (justifiedly) 0-2 behind.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Giving credit where credit us due is the correct thing to do.
Now Christer knows that whilst I am not in any way convinced of the claim that Lechmere was Jack... It must be admitted, even by those of us that have no suspect in mind, that there is one line of suspicion left dangling here that must be seriously considered..before being thrown out onto the rubbish pile.

Lechmere was known to be, and seen to be, in the right place at the right time.

Kosminski was not. Druitt was not. PAV was not. Sickert was not. In fact, nigh on every other suspect are eliminated from this point of fact. Hutchinson was in a close proximity, but nowhere near as close as Lechmere.

It has been argued that this point of fact does not prove any guilt, and I suspect that some eliminate Lechmere from their thoughts because to include him would show tremendous incompetence of the police investigation.
Others will exclude this fact just because they have their own suspect theory as well.

So in the interests of being as scrupulously fair as possible, Lechmere can be counted in as a fair suspect for the Nichols murder. I am not personally convinced of any connection with any other victim however.

If by some miracle someone finds an article putting Lechmere near the scene of another murder, on the same night, then that would certainly force a lot of rethinking to be done. Until such evidence crops up, it us hard to see how, with the current evidence available, the suspicion can be advanced on a factual basis.

Best wishes Christer

Phil