The Lechmere trail - so far

[Sally]

Yes, so do I.

Wait! I´ll just ignore it, and then you can do the same!

I was just passing through Fish - I have no reason to ignore you or anybody else, for that matter – although I note that your ‘ignore’ list appears to be growing ever longer – if that’s your response to disagreement it’s hardly surprising that so many simply look elsewhere for an engaging debate, other factors aside. You seem to be blissfully unaware that any discourse signifies an interest, whether or not the views expressed therein align with your own– an opportunity, in other words, to win support for your proposal. Yet instead, your response to anybody who questions your views is typically belligerent and combative – a sure way to ensure that people lose interest very quickly indeed. Were it the case that the imaginary Lechmere Hate Group was anything other than a convenient device, they’d be laughing with hysterical delight while you repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Sorry I had to sink to your level to prove you innacurate,but that's life.
I'm sure I understand your reluctance to publish other peoples claims,but with the Cross/Lechmere fiasco falling in tatters around you,I'm sure they wouldn't want to sink with you.

Why would you feel sorry to sink to any level, Harry? No matter which the depths are? De profundis!!

Sadly, you are of course wrong to say that you sunk to my level, since I never would produce an argument like the one you proposed.

That is why my theory is not falling in tatters around me, but instead the criticism against it.

Can you see the logic? Good theory - ridiculous criticism.

It is not the theory that takes the fall in such a case, I can assure you that.

It has been an interesting few years, though: Your suggestion that it is proven that he used the name officially by how he did so at the inquest, others proposing that Lechmere´s timings were in accordance with the development, that he was found standing half a mile from the body, that there is no blood evidence etcetera, etcetera, are all things that go eminently to identify the quality level of the criticism.

Thank you, Harry.

But there is a line to draw in all matters, and I think it goes here. I will peak at what is said on the boards fortwith, and when somebody has something interesting or relevant to say, I will probably do my best to give an answer.

But why would I engage in any more debate with arguments like yours?

That´s correct, I wouldn´t.

[Fisherman]

I was just passing through Fish - I have no reason to ignore you or anybody else, for that matter – although I note that your ‘ignore’ list appears to be growing ever longer – if that’s your response to disagreement it’s hardly surprising that so many simply look elsewhere for an engaging debate, other factors aside. You seem to be blissfully unaware that any discourse signifies an interest, whether or not the views expressed therein align with your own– an opportunity, in other words, to win support for your proposal. Yet instead, your response to anybody who questions your views is typically belligerent and combative – a sure way to ensure that people lose interest very quickly indeed. Were it the case that the imaginary Lechmere Hate Group was anything other than a convenient device, they’d be laughing with hysterical delight while you repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot.

You are right. The tings I mentioned in my post to Harry do not align with my views.
Do they align with yours?

[Jon Guy]

Christer

If indeed the killer, why would Cross suggest to Paul that they prop Nichols up?

[Fisherman]

Christer

If indeed the killer, why would Cross suggest to Paul that they prop Nichols up?

He wouldn´t, Jon. Try the rest of the sources, not the Daily Telegraph only! Here´s the Morning Advertisers take, for example, Lechmere speaking:

"When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."

Note how Lechmere clais that there was a consensus among the carmen that Nichols was dead. And yet, this is what Mizen says he was told, same paper, same date:

"On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row)."

In none of the papers does Mizen say that he was told that the woman was dead. He was only told that jtere was A/ a woman flat o her back in the street in Bucks Row and B/ that another PC awaited him there.

Those who don´t like the Lechmere theory say that this was because Mizen was a sly liar.

It´s either him or Lechmere.

Just saw a programme on archeology on TV, with an expert by the name of Jon Guy.

You?

PS. Did you know the answer to your question before you asked, or did you really think that Lechmere was the one who suggested the propping up? I would appreciate a straight answer, if you feel up to it, Jon.

[Jon Guy]

PS. Did you know the answer to your question before you asked, or did you really think that Lechmere was the one who suggested the propping up? I would appreciate a straight answer, if you feel up to it, Jon.

Hi Christer

This from Lloyds Weekly Sept 9th:

"Witness suggested that they should give her a prop but his companion refused"

I`ve seen reports suggest it was Paul who wanted to prop her up, but Lloyds is usually on the money, so I was asking you without knowing the definitive answer.

p.s.
No, not me.

[Abby Normal]

All
after reading the last couple of pages, I think everyone needs to calm down. Lechmere IMHO is well worth discussing/debating/researching more and would hate to see the discussion end because everyone is getting pissed off with each other!

Fish

Why did lech (the poster) stop posting here?

For anyone who didn't know Ed stow, the poster Lechmere, has a major hand in the Lechmere/Cross research and is related.

Sad to see him go if that's the case.

[Fisherman]

All
after reading the last couple of pages, I think everyone needs to calm down. Lechmere IMHO is well worth discussing/debating/researching more and would hate to see the discussion end because everyone is getting pissed off with each other!

Fish

Why did lech (the poster) stop posting here?

For anyone who didn't know Ed stow, the poster Lechmere, has a major hand in the Lechmere/Cross research and is related.

Sad to see him go if that's the case.

He had his reasons, but I will not go into them. It is for him to decide whether he wants to name them or not, Abby.

He posts regularly on JTR Forums, so you can follow him there if yu wish to.

[Abby Normal]

He had his reasons, but I will not go into them. It is for him to decide whether he wants to name them or not, Abby.

He posts regularly on JTR Forums, so you can follow him there if yu wish to.

thnks Fish!

[Pcdunn]

1. There are no working records left (or found) telling us that he worked in Broad Street. It is the only depot that tallies with his evidence, and in the Times of September 4 1888, it is said that "George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock."

2. This has been established by Edward Stow, who no longer posts here. Maria Louisas first husband, Charles´ father, was still alive when she remarried. Bigamy was very common in these times, and the working classes could typically not afford a divorce. A search of the relevant parish information will turn up the divorces, and if there is no such record, then we are looking at bigamy.
But as I said, it is Edward Stow who made the work!

Thank you for the reply, Fisherman. I think you and Edward did the best you could with the limited documentary evidence available. One thing re marriages and divorces, those marriages known as "common-law" were more casual affairs, and could be entered into, and separated from, more easily than church or legal marriages.

One thing I do give you both credit for is deciding not to rely on a descendant's vague "recollections" of Charles being a "nasty sort" as they came after he (the descendant) was aware of why you were investigating Charles. That is a very good decision.

[Patrick S]

Christer,

You're condescending attidude, sarcasm, and insults directed toward anyone not waving pom-poms for Lechmere isn't doing you or your conclusion any favors.

Frankly, in reading many of your posts, I'm embarrassed for you. I think you'd have better a better time of it if you developed a somewhat thicker skin. I know that my saying this is an exercise in futility. Alas, I remain interested in the research and the discussion.

Going forward, I'll no longer reference 'your theory'. I think it's quite obvious that it's now 'your conclusion'. Based on what you've written here there can be no doubt that you believe that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. First off, no one should have any issues with this. It's your conclusion, after all. There are other who truly believe in Sickert, Carrol, Mann, Van Gough, et al. Thus, your conclusion is by comparison and in substance, not - on it's face - ridiculous. I think it's worthy of disussion, further research, and respect.

I think where many of us may differ is the degree to which we suspect Lechere, or anyone of that matter. Based on the fact that these crimes were committed 125+ years ago, much of the police record has been lost, a lack of sophisticated investigative techniques available to the police in 1888, the primitive state of medical research at the time, and the fact that the police seem to have been almost completely flummoxed by the killer (or killers), I - for one - am willing to concede only that I believe that it's possible (IN MY OPINION) to prove to ANY degree that an individual was Jack the Ripper (or the killer of one or more of the victims). Therefore, I have a different metric, as I think many on this board might.

Speaking for myself, just because I do not concede that there's a greater than 50% probability (for me a 5% probabilty is pretty high) that Lechmere killed Nichols in Buck's Row does not mean that I mean to insult you or your conclusion, even though I'll concede that I have been insulting to you. That said, I do think that there are elements of your conclusion that are absurd. As I've said, the "Mizen Scam" is - for me - laughable. I'm simply being honest. If that's offensive to you, my apologies. I'll choose more politic words going forward. Alas, you do not temper your responses. Why should others when responding to you?

I'm intrigued by the list showing the many times he gave the name Lechmere vs. the Cross.

I'm intrigued by proximity of the killing to his path to work, his mother's home, etc.

I can't wait to learn more about those areas of your research.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

This from Lloyds Weekly Sept 9th:

"Witness suggested that they should give her a prop but his companion refused"

I`ve seen reports suggest it was Paul who wanted to prop her up, but Lloyds is usually on the money, so I was asking you without knowing the definitive answer.

p.s.
No, not me.

Aha – well, thanks, Jon. I normally say that this case takes a lot of reading and weighing before you can understand it. I am listing ten different sources here under, so that you can see them and judge for yourself. Let´s begin with the seven that tell us that Paul was the man who suggested the propping up, and Lechmere was the man who denied to do it
The anomaly is total, of course: if you call another man to assist in helping a woman lying in the street, then why would you not even prop her up afterwards...?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."*
Daily News

The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman". They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stooped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her", meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."
East London Observer

When he came, I said to him, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart and remarked, "I think she is breathing, but very little, if she is." He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."
The Echo

*The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is." The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her."
Illustrated Police News

We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."
Morning Advertiser

*They both went to the body and stooped beside it. Witness took the woman's hand, and finding it cold said, "I believe she's dead." The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little." He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."
The Star

*Witness, having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.*
The Times

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now for the two that have it the other way around. Note that they have the exact same wording and therefore also the exact same source.

The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said, "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.**Just then they heard a policeman coming.
Lloyds Weekly

The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. *Just then they heard a policeman coming.
Daily Telegraph

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And here is the final bid, The East London Advertiser. Note how they leave Lechmere out totally. Such was the degree of interest he was awarded – Dew forgot his name in his memoirs, and the police on the whole seemingly never checked him out in spite of him having been found close by the victim all alone.


On its resumption on Monday, Inspector Spratling deposed that at about 4 o'clock on Friday morning he received information as to the finding of the body of the deceased. Before he reached the spot the body had been removed to the mortuary. The witness examined the under garments and discovered severe injuries to the abdomen. He at once sent for Dr. Llewellyn. He did not notice any blood marks between the groin and the knees, and there was no evidence of the skirt having been washed. He had examined Buck's-row and the neighbourhood, but he had not found any bloodstains nor a knife or weapon of any description. He had inquired of a night-gateman at the yard of the Great Eastern Railway; but he had not heard any unusual noises on the night in question. - H. T. Tompkins said he was at work in the slaughter-house in Winthorp-street [sic] about 9 o'clock on he previous night, and left off work at about 4 o'clock on Friday morning. He did not go straight home as was his usual custom, but went to Buck's-row as a police-constable passed the slaughter-house, and stated that there had been a murder there. They went out of the slaughter-house at 20 minutes past 12, and returned to work about 1 o'clock. No one left the yard between 1 and 4 o'clock. He believed that the murder was perpetrated at about 4 o'clock in the morning. They were very quiet in the slaughter-house from about 2 o'clock. The gates of the yard were open all night, and anyone could obtain admittance to the slaughter-house; but he saw no one pass except the policeman about 4:15 a.m. - Inspector Helson, of the J Division, said the deceased had a long ulster, with large buttons, five of which were fastened. The bodice of the dress was buttoned, with the exception of two or three buttons at the neck. The stays were fastened up, and were fairly tight. The only part of the garments saturated with blood was the dress at the back of the neck, the hair at the back of the head was clotted with blood. There was no evidence of a recent washing of the parts of the body where wounds had been inflicted in order to remove the blood. There were no cuts in the clothing; but he believed the murder was committed while the deceased was wearing her clothes. With the exception of one spot in Brady-street, there were no bloodstains in the vicinity. - Police-constable Mizen gave corroborative evidence, and the inquest was adjourned for a fortnight.
East London Advertiser

[Fisherman]

As I've said, the "Mizen Scam" is - for me - laughable. I'm simply being honest.

So let´s discuss the Mizen scam, then, Patrick - and we shall see how laughable it is!

Please begin by stating exactly WHY you think it is laughable.

[Patrick S]

So let´s discuss the Mizen scam, then, Patrick - and we shall see how laughable it is!

Please begin by stating exactly WHY you think it is laughable.

I'd prefer to focus on the positive. As I said, that's a poor word. Let's just say that I find it quite unconvincing and leave it at that. I know you believe in it. I don't think it's productive to rehash it.

[Jon Guy]

Aha – well, thanks, Jon. I normally say that this case takes a lot of reading and weighing before you can understand it. I am listing ten different sources here under, so that you can see them and judge for yourself. Let´s begin with the seven that tell us that Paul was the man who suggested the propping up, and Lechmere was the man who denied to do it
The anomaly is total, of course: if you call another man to assist in helping a woman lying in the street, then why would you not even prop her up afterwards...?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."*
Daily News

The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman". They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stooped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her", meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."
East London Observer

When he came, I said to him, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." We then both went over to the body. He stooped one side of her, and I stooped the other, and took hold of her hand, which was cold. Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart and remarked, "I think she is breathing, but very little, if she is." He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."
The Echo

*The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is." The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her."
Illustrated Police News

We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."
Morning Advertiser

*They both went to the body and stooped beside it. Witness took the woman's hand, and finding it cold said, "I believe she's dead." The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little." He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."
The Star

*Witness, having felt one of the deceased woman's hands and finding it cold, said "I believe she is dead." The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so.*
The Times

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now for the two that have it the other way around. Note that they have the exact same wording and therefore also the exact same source.

The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said, "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.**Just then they heard a policeman coming.
Lloyds Weekly

The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. *Just then they heard a policeman coming.
Daily Telegraph

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And here is the final bid, The East London Advertiser. Note how they leave Lechmere out totally. Such was the degree of interest he was awarded – Dew forgot his name in his memoirs, and the police on the whole seemingly never checked him out in spite of him having been found close by the victim all alone.


On its resumption on Monday, Inspector Spratling deposed that at about 4 o'clock on Friday morning he received information as to the finding of the body of the deceased. Before he reached the spot the body had been removed to the mortuary. The witness examined the under garments and discovered severe injuries to the abdomen. He at once sent for Dr. Llewellyn. He did not notice any blood marks between the groin and the knees, and there was no evidence of the skirt having been washed. He had examined Buck's-row and the neighbourhood, but he had not found any bloodstains nor a knife or weapon of any description. He had inquired of a night-gateman at the yard of the Great Eastern Railway; but he had not heard any unusual noises on the night in question. - H. T. Tompkins said he was at work in the slaughter-house in Winthorp-street [sic] about 9 o'clock on he previous night, and left off work at about 4 o'clock on Friday morning. He did not go straight home as was his usual custom, but went to Buck's-row as a police-constable passed the slaughter-house, and stated that there had been a murder there. They went out of the slaughter-house at 20 minutes past 12, and returned to work about 1 o'clock. No one left the yard between 1 and 4 o'clock. He believed that the murder was perpetrated at about 4 o'clock in the morning. They were very quiet in the slaughter-house from about 2 o'clock. The gates of the yard were open all night, and anyone could obtain admittance to the slaughter-house; but he saw no one pass except the policeman about 4:15 a.m. - Inspector Helson, of the J Division, said the deceased had a long ulster, with large buttons, five of which were fastened. The bodice of the dress was buttoned, with the exception of two or three buttons at the neck. The stays were fastened up, and were fairly tight. The only part of the garments saturated with blood was the dress at the back of the neck, the hair at the back of the head was clotted with blood. There was no evidence of a recent washing of the parts of the body where wounds had been inflicted in order to remove the blood. There were no cuts in the clothing; but he believed the murder was committed while the deceased was wearing her clothes. With the exception of one spot in Brady-street, there were no bloodstains in the vicinity. - Police-constable Mizen gave corroborative evidence, and the inquest was adjourned for a fortnight.
East London Advertiser

Thanks for posting the above examples, Christer
Yes, there are more examples of Cross being the prop refuser, but where do these papers stand in respect of veracity in comparison to Lloyds ?