The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

I think so, Patrick. Lechmere is a super serial killer, remember, who never makes a single misstep.

Where did you get that from? If Lechmere was the killer, it would seem that he simply was cool enough to handle upcoming situations plus he had a good deal of luck. Like more or less all serialists who have had a significant number of victims. It also applies that his case was handled by a police force that made a number of mistakes and who worked form a prejudiced agenda.

I look forward to hear your explanation about why he would have been a super serial killer who made no missteps. Surely you would not say something like that with no substantiation.

Or would you?

[GUT]

The probability is that on the day he appeared at the inquest,Cross attended at work,sought advice from an overseer as to what should be done,and the police were advised.He w as summond to attend the inquest,given permission by an overseer to leave work,and arrived at the inquest in his work clothes. What is impossible in that happening?

And probably had to go back and finish his shift when he was done at the inquest. I'm not sure what people expect him to wear.

[harry]

The probability is that on the day he appeared at the inquest,Cross attended at work,sought advice from an overseer as to what should be done,and the police were advised.He w as summond to attend the inquest,given permission by an overseer to leave work,and arrived at the inquest in his work clothes. What is impossible in that happening?

[GUT]

Read the signs? Is he serious?

Leo???
Virgo???
Cancer??

[Pcdunn]

Read the signs? Is he serious?

I think so, Patrick. Lechmere is a super serial killer, remember, who never makes a single misstep.

[Patrick S]

caz: Hi Fish,

So your only 'con' is still preferable to staying in the event that the newcomer had seen what had happened. If Paul had seen nothing suspicious, Lechmere was home dry merely by walking swiftly away; if Paul had seen foul play, the game would have been up - not could - if Lechmere stayed. He'd certainly have been forced to take Paul out of the equation with his knife to stop him yelling, and PC Neil wasn't far away by then.

Then do the math, Caz- If Neil (or any other PC) was not far away, then not having been seen by Paul could be to little avail, if he shouted blue murder when he reached the body. From that second on, any person leaving the site would be at risk.
But you must also look at the evidence! The abdominal wounds were COVERED, Caz. The killer mwould not have done that as the oncoming Paul watched, would he?
And if he would not, where does that lead us? Exactly, it leads us to a killer who had decided to bluff it out BEFORE he knew who the newcomer was. The desicion was quite apparently already taken, Caz. He never prioritized running, he always banked on his own ability to pull the scam off. He may well have had a plan B, but that was all it was, going by the covering of the wounds: a plan B. Plan A was to bluff.

Yep, you've convinced me: the cons of staying to face the music and trying to dance far outweigh the pros. Well done.

Thank you, Caz. And you have long since convinced me that you no know absolutely nothing about how a psychopath works and what choices he makes.

I didn't say that. I said that his 'control' over the situation goes out of the window since Paul is an unknown quantity at the point when he has to decide whether to stay or go.

And still he opted for the covering of the wounds and the bluff, before he knew. Read the signs, Caz!

If the argument then boils down to him being the kind of crazy reckless killer who actually enjoys such a challenge, rather than playing it safe, I might have considered it a possibility once he had several successful murders under his belt, but not when we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend, which I submit would have taken priority over getting himself known so early on as the man who had discovered a victim. Lechmere would have needed, more than anyone else on the planet, not to be seen near the scene of any subsequent murders.

I´m sure he would have preferred not to be seen in Bucks Row. But **** happens, as you will be aware of.
It was not as if he could pick and choose when to get cornered, was it? You seem to propose this - that the coolness and audacity of a bluffing killer is something the killer will always be given the choice when to produce. But this is not so - things can go awry at any station along the line, and you do not get to choose.
One more thing. You say that he would have needed more killings under his belt before he could produce something like the Mizen scam. I think there is every possibility that he already had that "advantage".
Another thing: You say that "we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend."
Sorry, but this is something we guess, and not something we know.
I think the Tabram murder was the Rippers. If so, he had ample time to cut the abdomen open, but only produced one tentative cut to the lower abdomen. So no clear intent on organ removal there!
Then we have Chapman, where there WAS organ removal.
Nichols falls inbetween. She could or could not have been meant for organ removal. The character of the wounds, however, is odd: Some six or so smaller cuts to the abdomen, and then one large gash through which organs COULD have been taken - if the wish was there.
Note, if you will, that Nichols falls neatly in place inbetween a clearly non-organ removal murder and a clearly organ-removal murder. It is not a given, therefore.

There are other implications knit to the characters of these three murders that are intensely interesting, but for now, I will leave them untouched on.

Read the signs? Is he serious?

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fish,

So your only 'con' is still preferable to staying in the event that the newcomer had seen what had happened. If Paul had seen nothing suspicious, Lechmere was home dry merely by walking swiftly away; if Paul had seen foul play, the game would have been up - not could - if Lechmere stayed. He'd certainly have been forced to take Paul out of the equation with his knife to stop him yelling, and PC Neil wasn't far away by then.

Then do the math, Caz- If Neil (or any other PC) was not far away, then not having been seen by Paul could be to little avail, if he shouted blue murder when he reached the body. From that second on, any person leaving the site would be at risk.
But you must also look at the evidence! The abdominal wounds were COVERED, Caz. The killer mwould not have done that as the oncoming Paul watched, would he?
And if he would not, where does that lead us? Exactly, it leads us to a killer who had decided to bluff it out BEFORE he knew who the newcomer was. The desicion was quite apparently already taken, Caz. He never prioritized running, he always banked on his own ability to pull the scam off. He may well have had a plan B, but that was all it was, going by the covering of the wounds: a plan B. Plan A was to bluff.

Yep, you've convinced me: the cons of staying to face the music and trying to dance far outweigh the pros. Well done.

Thank you, Caz. And you have long since convinced me that you no know absolutely nothing about how a psychopath works and what choices he makes.

I didn't say that. I said that his 'control' over the situation goes out of the window since Paul is an unknown quantity at the point when he has to decide whether to stay or go.

And still he opted for the covering of the wounds and the bluff, before he knew. Read the signs, Caz!

If the argument then boils down to him being the kind of crazy reckless killer who actually enjoys such a challenge, rather than playing it safe, I might have considered it a possibility once he had several successful murders under his belt, but not when we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend, which I submit would have taken priority over getting himself known so early on as the man who had discovered a victim. Lechmere would have needed, more than anyone else on the planet, not to be seen near the scene of any subsequent murders.

I´m sure he would have preferred not to be seen in Bucks Row. But **** happens, as you will be aware of.
It was not as if he could pick and choose when to get cornered, was it? You seem to propose this - that the coolness and audacity of a bluffing killer is something the killer will always be given the choice when to produce. But this is not so - things can go awry at any station along the line, and you do not get to choose.
One more thing. You say that he would have needed more killings under his belt before he could produce something like the Mizen scam. I think there is every possibility that he already had that "advantage".
Another thing: You say that "we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend."
Sorry, but this is something we guess, and not something we know.
I think the Tabram murder was the Rippers. If so, he had ample time to cut the abdomen open, but only produced one tentative cut to the lower abdomen. So no clear intent on organ removal there!
Then we have Chapman, where there WAS organ removal.
Nichols falls inbetween. She could or could not have been meant for organ removal. The character of the wounds, however, is odd: Some six or so smaller cuts to the abdomen, and then one large gash through which organs COULD have been taken - if the wish was there.
Note, if you will, that Nichols falls neatly in place inbetween a clearly non-organ removal murder and a clearly organ-removal murder. It is not a given, therefore.

There are other implications knit to the characters of these three murders that are intensely interesting, but for now, I will leave them untouched on.

[caz]

1. Running.
Pros: He stood a chance of getting away from the murder site uncaught and unidentified.
Cons: He could have the newcomer seeing what had happened and yelling for the police, and if there were PC:s nearby, the game could be up.

Hi Fish,

So your only 'con' is still preferable to staying in the event that the newcomer had seen what had happened. If Paul had seen nothing suspicious, Lechmere was home dry merely by walking swiftly away; if Paul had seen foul play, the game would have been up - not could - if Lechmere stayed. He'd certainly have been forced to take Paul out of the equation with his knife to stop him yelling, and PC Neil wasn't far away by then.

2. Bluffing his way out.
Pros: He woud not stir any attention if he could do it. He would perhaps be able to walk along with the newcomer, effectively hiding from the police that he had been on his own on the streets.
Cons: Maybe he could not fool the newcomer. In such a case, he could always kill the newcomer too and make his escape. It could also be that it was a PC who came down the street. In such a case, he could also kill the PC and make his escape. Alternatively, if he thought that a hard task, he could always run for it from his position in the middle of the street, before the PC got close enough to make him out. The PC would of course notice him fleeing, but he would not necessarily give chase, since there was somebody lying in the street who needed attention.

Did you think of that? No?

Yep, you've convinced me: the cons of staying to face the music and trying to dance far outweigh the pros. Well done.

Now, Caz, please don´t tell me "But that would be DANGEROUS!" The whole business of killing out in the open street is actually dangerous, and if the killer had been squeamish, he would not have done it in the first place. This was a man who was willing to take his chances, and prepared to do the best of things, come what may.
He would have counted on standing a fair chance of being able to do what he came for undisturbed, but the risk of somebody coming upon him must have been obvious to him.

Saying that the proposition that he could have decided to bluff "goes out of the window" equals saying that nobody would bluff in a situation like this.

You may find that somewhat hard to substantiate.

I didn't say that. I said that his 'control' over the situation goes out of the window since Paul is an unknown quantity at the point when he has to decide whether to stay or go.

If the argument then boils down to him being the kind of crazy reckless killer who actually enjoys such a challenge, rather than playing it safe, I might have considered it a possibility once he had several successful murders under his belt, but not when we know the ripper was clearly intent on upping his game to include organ removal, and did so the very next weekend, which I submit would have taken priority over getting himself known so early on as the man who had discovered a victim. Lechmere would have needed, more than anyone else on the planet, not to be seen near the scene of any subsequent murders.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

I he WAS summoned, then why was he not summoned to day 1? During that session, PC Neil was allowed to get in the stand and tell the inquest that he was the first finder of the body in Bucks Row. So presumably, he was not on the police radar at the time leading up to this first day, Saturday the 1:st of September.

DING! DING! You get a prize, Christer! You're finally catching on! And if Neil was ALLOWED to testify that HE and HE along discovred the body.....then it stands to reason that PC Mizen had - before Paul's interview made it into print the following day - kept his mouth shut about the men he'd met in Baker's Row........

So if he WAS summoned, then he would have been summoned AFTER the first inquest day proceedings.

How COULD he have been summoned? The police had no name, no physical description, no identifying characteristics at all. In fact...at the time Neil took the stand, it's clear that the police didn't know he existed at all. Rembember, Mizen had yet to tell anyone about meeting Lechmere and Paul and their - I would think rather significant information about finding a body on the street. He clearly came in, after reading Paul's account in Lloyd's. This was no bomb going off, driving Lechmere from hiding. Paul was content to take the starring role, referring to Lechmere only as 'a man' who stayed behine as he (Paul) went off to find a cop. Lechmere likely wanted his 15 mintues. THAT is most reasonable assumption as to WHY he came forward. Paul marginalized his role. OR.....Lechmere was simply a good citizen. He knew the inquest was happening, read Paul's account and decided to offer HIS account.....

Luckily, we also know that the police at the evening of the 2:nd of September had opted for discarding Pauls story, reported on the very same day in Lloyds Weekly. That evening, Neil told the police that he had not been guided to the murder spot by two men - he had found the body alone, it was said.

How is that LUCKY for you? Again, it's irrelevant. Clearly they weren't in a hurry to speak with Paul. He testified TWO WEEKS after Cross. You still have not offered a plausible reason for Lechmere to come forward - which he clearly did. The police not believing Paul...that's information that Lechmere could not have known. Thus, who cares? He came to the inquest after Paul's account was published. There was nothing in that account that DROVE HIM OUT of hiding or cast him in a negative light at all. He was 'a man'. That's it.

If Lechmere had spoken to the police, they would have had corroboration of Pauls interview, and Neil would not have told the press that he was the finder.


Then we have the second inquest day, the 3:rd of September. And in steps Lechmere. On the evening before, the police were unaware of his existence - or at the very least, they did not accept Pauls story about him.

So how could the police have summoned him, Harry? Is it not infinitely much more in accordance with the known details to accept that he came forward without having been summoned?

Are you trying to argue against your theory? I'm REALLY confused now.

Are you suggesting that the police stood on his doorstep on the evening of the 2:nd of September - although they had very clearly indicated that they did not believe the story Paul had told the press? And they did not haul Paul in, did they? The hunt for him only commenced with Lechmere´s appearance and the ensuing Chapman case.

So when did the police approach Lechmere? And why?

I have what I need! Thanks, again, Christer. Since we both seem to think that Lechmere came forward voluntarily....and, after all, why would he DO that if he'd killed Nichols and wanted to keep on killing which he did....for the rest of his life if we believe The Mizen Scam and all that......then I assume you're walking things back? Can we be friends now?

[Patrick S]

I don´t see that as a realistic possiblity. All witnesses will reasonbly be required to state their names, addresses and occupation on their own. That is how they legally establish who they are, and something that cannot be done for them by anybody else. If they don´t do it on their own, how can they be held legally responsible afterwards?
I can readily accept that Lechmere´s name (the wrong one) and occupation could have been mentioned as he was brought in by a court official ("Your honour, this is carman Cross who is the man officer Mizen spoke to on the morning of Friday last"), but before Lechmere was allowed to offer his testimony, he would have been required to state his particulars himself on the stand.

I am no specialist on Victorian legal proceedings, but I dont think I can be far off the mark on this. I would appreciate of somebody with knowledge on the matter could confirm or deny what I am saying.

Wow. Again...this get's worse. This a man that Christer Holmgren has represented as JACK THE RIPPER (I'll not mention that he's allow alledged by Super Sleuth's to have been myriad other serial killers, as well)! We have established that you became suspicious of Lechmere and built this facade 'proving' his guilt based upon his giving a false name. And now we see you admit, although we have to wade through the B.S., that you really have no clue that he actually gave the name Cross. You simply assume he did becuase, well because that seems reasonable....? I think that reasonable assumptions may be somewhat more acceptable if you're say, trying to prove that Kevin the stockboy is lying about why he was late for work....but when selling a story about a man being the most infamous criminal in history?

I think I have my answer...thanks, Christer!

[Patrick S]

I'm not oversold on it, but there is a third possiblity.
Namely, Xmere never gave any name in court.

Remember, Xmere was first brought into the court during Mizen's testimony.
After having been i.d.ed, a court offical may have said something like,
"For the record, the man identified, is Charles Allen Cross, a Pickfords carman, residing at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road".

Just a thought.

A key distinction, I think. Lechmere wasn't 'brought into court'. He came to court. On his own. The police did't have his name, address, occupation, employer, or any physical description:

Paul referenced "a man".

Mizen refrenced "a carman (Paul - in that he identified himself, as such in Lloyd's the day before his inquest testimony)" and "another man", Lechmere.

Of course, by the time Mizen took the stand, Lechmere had already come to the police to volunteer testimony. He wasn't compelled. He wasn't dragged in. It wasn't that he 'had no choice', as we've heard from..um...some others......

[Fisherman]

I am of opinion that Cross was summond to attend the inquest,and that Cross was the name he was addressed by when called to give testimony,having given that name to police previously.
If someone wishes to understand the legal system at the time,I recommend
reading and trying to understand the Common Law that applied to murder cases.

I he WAS summoned, then why was he not summoned to day 1? During that session, PC Neil was allowed to get in the stand and tell the inquest that he was the first finder of the body in Bucks Row. So presumably, he was not on the police radar at the time leading up to this first day, Saturday the 1:st of September.

So if he WAS summoned, then he would have been summoned AFTER the first inquest day proceedings.

Luckily, we also know that the police at the evening of the 2:nd of September had opted for discarding Pauls story, reported on the very same day in Lloyds Weekly. That evening, Neil told the police that he had not been guided to the murder spot by two men - he had found the body alone, it was said.

If Lechmere had spoken to the police, they would have had corroboration of Pauls interview, and Neil would not have told the press that he was the finder.

Then we have the second inquest day, the 3:rd of September. And in steps Lechmere. On the evening before, the police were unaware of his existence - or at the very least, they did not accept Pauls story about him.

So how could the police have summoned him, Harry? Is it not infinitely much more in accordance with the known details to accept that he came forward without having been summoned?

Are you suggesting that the police stood on his doorstep on the evening of the 2:nd of September - although they had very clearly indicated that they did not believe the story Paul had told the press? And they did not haul Paul in, did they? The hunt for him only commenced with Lechmere´s appearance and the ensuing Chapman case.

So when did the police approach Lechmere? And why?

[harry]

I am of opinion that Cross was summond to attend the inquest,and that Cross was the name he was addressed by when called to give testimony,having given that name to police previously.
If someone wishes to understand the legal system at the time,I recommend
reading and trying to understand the Common Law that applied to murder cases.

[Fisherman]

I'm not oversold on it, but there is a third possiblity.
Namely, Xmere never gave any name in court.

Remember, Xmere was first brought into the court during Mizen's testimony.
After having been i.d.ed, a court offical may have said something like,
"For the record, the man identified, is Charles Allen Cross, a Pickfords carman, residing at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road".

Just a thought.

I don´t see that as a realistic possiblity. All witnesses will reasonbly be required to state their names, addresses and occupation on their own. That is how they legally establish who they are, and something that cannot be done for them by anybody else. If they don´t do it on their own, how can they be held legally responsible afterwards?
I can readily accept that Lechmere´s name (the wrong one) and occupation could have been mentioned as he was brought in by a court official ("Your honour, this is carman Cross who is the man officer Mizen spoke to on the morning of Friday last"), but before Lechmere was allowed to offer his testimony, he would have been required to state his particulars himself on the stand.

I am no specialist on Victorian legal proceedings, but I dont think I can be far off the mark on this. I would appreciate of somebody with knowledge on the matter could confirm or deny what I am saying.

[drstrange169]

I'm not oversold on it, but there is a third possiblity.
Namely, Xmere never gave any name in court.

Remember, Xmere was first brought into the court during Mizen's testimony.
After having been i.d.ed, a court offical may have said something like,
"For the record, the man identified, is Charles Allen Cross, a Pickfords carman, residing at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road".

Just a thought.