The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Straw man argument, Fisherman. Tut tut tuttety tut. If you have to put a sodding great 30 minutes between any alternative killer and Lechmere to make your magical blood evidence work in your favour it doesn't bode at all well. If the argument goes that Lechmere cut her throat last, when he became aware of someone (Robert Paul) approaching, your obsession with the blood evidence is for nought, because the alternative killer could have done exactly the same less than a minute earlier, when hearing Lechmere's approach, then wisely made himself scarce instead of hanging around to bluff it out with a completely unknown quantity. What if this unknown quantity were to turn out to be a policeman? Could Lechmere really have known one way or another, and had time to take evasive action, had Paul been a copper, in or out of uniform?

The ripper is the very definition of an 'elusive' killer, so it doesn't help you to mock those who believe he would have tried to be elusive after killing Nichols.

Love,

Caz
X

It helps not, Caz. Nothing changes. Bring another killer on stage, and he will intrude on the extreme timings at the end of the probability time scale.

He is therefore less likely than Lechmere. And with every added second, he becomes even less likely.

Tut-tutteli... ehh ... how was that again...?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon

15 yards or so

Thanks Abby. You were pretty close when you stumbled upon him.

Cross said that Paul was 40 yards away when he noticed him.
All Cross had to do was walk off around the Board school into the safety of the gloom.

[Fisherman]

Thanks Abby. You were pretty close when you stumbled upon him.

Cross said that Paul was 40 yards away when he noticed him.
All Cross had to do was walk off around the Board school into the safety of the gloom.

And we believe that Lechmere told the truth here, yes? Even if he was the killer?

I personally have no problems with it, since the oncoming Paul would have heard Lechmere take off. So he did the clever thing to stay.

But overall, I think that Lechmere said 30-40 yards because A/ It was far enough off for the darkness to disenable the two to see each other and B/ because it was close enough to clear Lechmere himself.

I believe Lechmere heard Paul the moment he entered the street or very shortly afterwards. And I am very sure that had Lechmere walked a short stretch in front of Paul, the latter would have heard him.

Try walking thirty, forty yards behind a woman in hard stiletto heels, at nighttime when there is not a sound, in a street that is shaped like an accoustic tunnel. Will you hear her or will you not?

[caz]

Ok, here goes: Charles Lechmereīs 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.

If all these documents relate to Charles Lechmere as head of the Lechmere household, member of the Lechmere household, husband of Mrs Lechmere or father of the Lechmere brood, it would stand to reason that he gave that name for himself in each and every case. But that tells us nothing about his use of his late stepfather's surname in a very different context, not as family man Lechmere on this occasion but as the Pickfords carman who volunteered himself as a witness after finding a murdered prostitute on his way to work. Do any of the Lechmere documents relate directly to his employment, for example, or to any other non-family dealings with an authority, society or association? Has any personal correspondence turned up, signed 'Lechmere' in a non-family context?

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.

He had the same amount of time to ponder what other personal details, such as his home address or place of work, he would be asked to supply, so he didn't use that time wisely if he came up with the spiffing idea of calling himself by a name he never used at either address.

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...

But Charles was still officially a Lechmere, so Thomas, in the capacity of the boy's stepfather and guardian, preferred to use his own surname for him. Similarly, it would have been natural for the adult Charles to use the name Lechmere, when filling in any form in the capacity of head of his own family, whether or not he still used the name Cross informally or at work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

And we believe that Lechmere told the truth here, yes? Even if he was the killer?

I personally have no problems with it, since the oncoming Paul would have heard Lechmere take off. So he did the clever thing to stay.

But overall, I think that Lechmere said 30-40 yards because A/ It was far enough off for the darkness to disenable the two to see each other and B/ because it was close enough to clear Lechmere himself.

I believe Lechmere heard Paul the moment he entered the street or very shortly afterwards. And I am very sure that had Lechmere walked a short stretch in front of Paul, the latter would have heard him.

Try walking thirty, forty yards behind a woman in hard stiletto heels, at nighttime when there is not a sound, in a street that is shaped like an accoustic tunnel. Will you hear her or will you not?

You`re missing the point that anyone wanting to remain unseen and unheard would have done so.

[Fisherman]

caz: If all these documents relate to Charles Lechmere as head of the Lechmere household, member of the Lechmere household, husband of Mrs Lechmere or father of the Lechmere brood, it would stand to reason that he gave that name for himself in each and every case. But that tells us nothing about his use of his late stepfather's surname in a very different context, not as family man Lechmere on this occasion but as the Pickfords carman who volunteered himself as a witness after finding a murdered prostitute on his way to work.

Only they did not always refer to these roles you suggest. He voted too, remember. For ecample. And really, Caz, you are fantazising now. An anomaly is an anomaly, end of story.

He had the same amount of time to ponder what other personal details, such as his home address or place of work, he would be asked to supply, so he didn't use that time wisely if he came up with the spiffing idea of calling himself by a name he never used at either address.

If he wanted to tell the police as much as possible - so as not to get in trouble if checked - and to tell those who knew him privately as little as possible - so as not to give away that he was involved - then I would suggest that all that thinking should have manifested itself in A/ a willingness to state his workplace, where he was one of many hundred workers, B/ a willingness to give his address to the police but NOT to the papers, and C/ an unwillingness to give either the police or the press his real name, at best spiced up with using a name that would provide him with some sort of explanation if the police checked him out.

But Charles was still officially a Lechmere, so Thomas, in the capacity of the boy's stepfather and guardian, preferred to use his own surname for him.

Which could well be down to an unwarranted but simple case of pride.

Similarly, it would have been natural for the adult Charles to use the name Lechmere, when filling in any form in the capacity of head of his own family, whether or not he still used the name Cross informally or at work.

But he did not just fill in his name in the capacity of a family man, did he? It is very interesting, however, this new conjecture of yours, where a man uses a "family man name" every now and then.
De-spe-ra-tion. There you are.

Has it dawned on you that this would have been a highy irregular thing to do? Do you recognize that most people - then and now - called themselves by the same name at work, at home and filling out forms? Are you aware that you are on the other side of the Styx statistically with this?

Yes you are.

Do you care?

Not for a second. Damn the idea that it could have been Lechmere, thatīs all that counts.

It shows, Toots. And how. Bitterness is such a sad trait.

[Fisherman]

You`re missing the point that anyone wanting to remain unseen and unheard would have done so.

Are you suggesting that Lechmere was tip-toeing in front of Paul, while all the time being innocent..?

I really canīt make sense of our post, Jon.

[caz]

Do you think it took a lot to kill either of Chapman and Eddowes?

Ask Prosector. I tend to think it took what Prosector - a professional - says it took. And there is nothing at present to suggest Lechmere had what it took.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

Simply put, the blood evidence is inconclusive and leaves the door open for a killer shortly before Lechmere arrived on the scene.

[Fisherman]

Ask Prosector. I tend to think it took what Prosector - a professional - says it took. And there is nothing at present to suggest Lechmere had what it took.

Love,

Caz
X

Iīm asking you, Caz.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Abby. You were pretty close when you stumbled upon him.

Cross said that Paul was 40 yards away when he noticed him.
All Cross had to do was walk off around the Board school into the safety of the gloom.

No. I agree. in that circumstance I think more likely than not the killer would have taken off the second he noticed paul approaching, and if not would have separated with him as soon as he could. Not walk with him to a policeman! Caz pointed it out also. Its one of the main factors against lechs guilt IMHO.

That being said-in my circumstances the guy could have initially done any number of things. walked away, attacked me, run away, ignored me. My point mainly showing that if someone felt they were caught red handed they might stay and bluff it out-to whatever extent.

If lech was the killer who knows what was going through his mind. Maybe he thought doing what he did would not only get him to work on time but assess how much paul had seen and also get him past the police. Risky and unlikely IMHO but possible.

[Fisherman]

Simply put, the blood evidence is inconclusive and leaves the door open for a killer shortly before Lechmere arrived on the scene.

Yes, the blood evidence is inconclusive.

Yes, that opens the door for a killer shortly before Lechmere arrived.

I have said that for the longest time now.

But it also applies that we KNOW that Lechmere fits the bill, we KNOW that if the bloodflow and coagulation happened according to the normal schedule, then there is only very little or no time at all for an alternative killer, and we KNOW that the PC:s and watchmen surrounding Bucks Row reported that nobody was seen entering or leaving the murder area as far as they could tell.

I am consequentially, Harry, not saying that Lechmere is the proven killer. I am saying that he has to be the prime suspect given what we know, and that he is the probable killer of Polly Nichols.

This should go without saying - but there is a fear of going even near the thought amongst many Ripperologists.

Do you have another prime suspect to suggest? Can you see that there is any obstacle at all hindering Lechmere to have been the killer, other than the very subjective "I think he would have run", "I donīt think a man of his occupation would be a killer" or "I donīt think he would kill en route to work"?

If we sweep these things to the side, saying "Okay, lets assume that he would stay put, letīs assume that he would kill in spite of being a carman and en route to work" - then what are we left with, if not prime suspect?

[caz]

Only they did not always refer to these roles you suggest. He voted too, remember.

Do you mean what he called himself for the electoral register? That would have been in a householder context, wouldn't it? Not in a police witness context, in any case. We know he was officially a Lechmere, Fisherman. Have you seen any Lechmere documents, or personal correspondence, relating more to his work or life outside the home, which could help rule out the possibility of his friends or associates ever knowing him as Charlie Cross? A letter to the London Hospital, perhaps, asking to attend a local dissection and signed Chas Lechmere?

If he wanted to tell the police as much as possible - so as not to get in trouble if checked - and to tell those who knew him privately as little as possible - so as not to give away that he was involved - then I would suggest that all that thinking should have manifested itself in A/ a willingness to state his workplace, where he was one of many hundred workers, B/ a willingness to give his address to the police but NOT to the papers, and C/ an unwillingness to give either the police or the press his real name, at best spiced up with using a name that would provide him with some sort of explanation if the police checked him out.

Yes, I can imagine it now. The police decide to confirm with Pickfords that their witness Charles Cross works there and they draw a complete blank. Going through the record of many hundreds of names, getting increasingly pissed off with their elusive carman (see what I did there?), the police eventually find one Charles Allen Lechmere and join the dots. When they knock on his door to ask why he royally messed them about by giving them a false name, he says he thought it would make a nice change to call himself Cross after his dear old departed step dad. What a wheeze. That would have gone down like a cup of cold sick, so it was a bit of luck no checks were ever made.

It shows, Toots. And how. Bitterness is such a sad trait.

I wouldn't know, Fisherman. I have never been happier, which is possibly because I don't relate to emotions like bitterness, regret, jealousy or neediness. I only feel sad for those who do.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Ask Prosector. I tend to think it took what Prosector - a professional - says it took. And there is nothing at present to suggest Lechmere had what it took.

Love,

Caz
X

I agree, have always felt the ripper had to have surgical experience and prosector confirmed it.

However, Hunter and others have made valid points that a hunter or butcher might have been able to pull it off, especially if they read books about it.

And Lech had the cats meat business in his family-so theres that and I do find it highly intriguing.

[caz]

Iīm asking you, Caz.

Okay. I tend to think it took what Prosector - a professional - says it took. And there is nothing at present to suggest Lechmere had what it took.

I only suggested you consult Prosector so you wouldn't just be taking my word for what he says on the subject.

Love,

Caz
X