Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[Fisherman]

If Lechmere had given the name 'Joe Bloggs' or whatever, I still wouldn't consider him a suspect for the other marks against him, but admittedly that would be hella suspicious. But he didn't. He kept his Christian name and gave the surname of his stepfather. He may have been known in certain circles as 'Charles Cross', but regardless of that possibility, it wouldn't benefit the killer to only lie about his surname, but divulge his place of business and attend the inquest.

There were basically three possibilitites open to Lechmere in the killerīs role:

1. To stay away from the inquest, and go into hiding. The implication would be that he was the probable killer - a man who had been found alone with the victim, and who had since disappeared.

2. To go to the inquest and lie about his name, his working place and his address. Guess what the police think of people they find out in this respect? Any takers?

As everybody can see, both of these options carried great risk with them. So letīs look at option number ...

3. To go to the inquest and try and dissolve the picture of him as the killer before it took hold. And to serve the police and the press different amounts of information. The police asked about his name, his address and his working place. He gave them correct information on the address and the working place, and a name that he ordinarily not use when in contact with the authorities, but for which he could provide an explanation IF he was checked. The inquest - and therefore also the press - was provided with the correct working place, the name Cross and no address. That effectively hid him from being recognized by family and friends in the papers.

The fourth option is of course that he was innocent. In which case I would like to know why he withheld his address from the inquest and why he did not use the name by which he was registered and by which he otherwise always presented himself to the authorities.

He may have forgotten about the address. The Star reporter may have had the hearing of a bat. He may have wanted to honour his nineteen year dead stepdad. He may have wished to keep the name Lechmere out of the proceedings.

But until we know that any of these things apply, the name remains an anomaly and something the police would regard with the greatest of interest and rising suspicion, had they known. It is a large, looming red flag.

[GUT]

If Lechmere had given the name 'Joe Bloggs' or whatever, I still wouldn't consider him a suspect for the other marks against him, but admittedly that would be hella suspicious. But he didn't. He kept his Christian name and gave the surname of his stepfather. He may have been known in certain circles as 'Charles Cross', but regardless of that possibility, it wouldn't benefit the killer to only lie about his surname, but divulge his place of business and attend the inquest.

And his residential address.

Not real Goid at hiding his identity.

[Harry D]

If Lechmere had given the name 'Joe Bloggs' or whatever, I still wouldn't consider him a suspect for the other marks against him, but admittedly that would be hella suspicious. But he didn't. He kept his Christian name and gave the surname of his stepfather. He may have been known in certain circles as 'Charles Cross', but regardless of that possibility, it wouldn't benefit the killer to only lie about his surname, but divulge his place of business and attend the inquest.

[CertainSum1]

Hi John,

So you don't think you're putting a little too much conjecture in this comparison? Not trying to be a smart a** but please don't fall into the trap where every little similarity means something. Domestic violence was commonplace and, although I can't verify it, I'm sure there were numerous slit throats by husbands, pimps, customers, robberies etc. I would even make a guess that some were inadvertently disemboweled(although probably with no parts taken)

I believe one of the victims used Mary Jane as an alias? And Chapman married someone named Annie Chapman didn't he?

So many ways to connect the pieces of this puzzle.
Columbo

I'd imagine most murders were either bludgeoning or stabbing in 1888 London's East End. Similarities were seen in so many murders that nobody seems to agree on exactly how many victims of JtR there were.

Before the days of city trash pick-up, I'd imagine most people burned whatever they could in their fireplace. Probably the first place people thought to get rid of anything.

With so many similarities in how people in the city lived, it seems one could connect many pieces together to make any picture puzzle!

[Templarkommando]

Did he?

Isn't it Mizen's Word against Cross' on that point.

Maybe.

Mizen said at the Inquest that the carman (which I think is redundant because both Paul and Cross were carmen... if I recall correctly) said that there was a policeman waiting for him in Buck's Row. Cross later denied this at the inquest.

It's a little odd though because Cross apparently claimed that they heard a policeman coming - though he did not see him. It's a little confusing. I'm not sure what that means.

For quick reference: http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html

[GUT]

What do you make of Lechmere telling Mizen that a policeman was waiting for him in Buck's Row then?

Did he?

Isn't it Mizen's Word against Cross' on that point.

[Templarkommando]

Fisherman,
There was never any evidence linking Cross with the killing of Nichols.
There w as never any evidence that Cross lied about anything.
There was never any evidence that he tried to mislead, or conceal his identity.
He was an innocent witness to the finding of a body.That's all.
The person who is trying to be funny is you.You made a proposistion and when it backfired you try to disclaim it. That's par for the course,as is your snide remarks.
It's a poor theory that has yet to find any following.Wake up, the theory is dead.

What do you make of Lechmere telling Mizen that a policeman was waiting for him in Buck's Row then?

[harry]

Fisherman,
There was never any evidence linking Cross with the killing of Nichols.
There w as never any evidence that Cross lied about anything.
There was never any evidence that he tried to mislead, or conceal his identity.
He was an innocent witness to the finding of a body.That's all.
The person who is trying to be funny is you.You made a proposistion and when it backfired you try to disclaim it. That's par for the course,as is your snide remarks.
It's a poor theory that has yet to find any following.Wake up, the theory is dead.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

So you don't think you're putting a little too much conjecture in this comparison? Not trying to be a smart a** but please don't fall into the trap where every little similarity means something. Domestic violence was commonplace and, although I can't verify it, I'm sure there were numerous slit throats by husbands, pimps, customers, robberies etc. I would even make a guess that some were inadvertently disemboweled(although probably with no parts taken)

I believe one of the victims used Mary Jane as an alias? And Chapman married someone named Annie Chapman didn't he?

So many ways to connect the pieces of this puzzle.
Columbo

To Columbo

I'm sure domestic violence was quite commonplace. However actual murders weren't that common. I think you'll find they were very few murders in the Whitechapel area in the years before 1888 for example. I know Bill Beadle did some research into how common murder was in Whitechapel in the years before 1888 in his book Jack the Ripper Unmasked. Also there seem to be alot of coincidences with Bury or he was Jack or a copycat killer.

Cheers John

[wigngown]

John,

I thought of the fire at Millers Court too. Interesting connection regarding the names & jewellery. Bury was a nasty piece of work, and Berry said he was sure he'd hanged JtR, quite what he based that on perhaps we'll never know.

Thanks for the information,

Best regards.

[Columbo]

To wigngown

Yes they found women's clothing burned in the fire place. Also women's clothing was found in the box Bury had stuffed Ellen in and clothing and. jewellery were found in another box. This was likely Ellen's clothing and I bet some of the jewellery was Ellen's but it wouldn't surprise me if some of the jewellery were mementos from the C5. Pure conjecture I know but doesn't the clothing burning in the fireplace remind you of Mary Jane Kelly's murder and also isn't it a bit of a coincidence Bury's mother and eldest sister were also called Mary Jane?

Cheers John

Hi John,

So you don't think you're putting a little too much conjecture in this comparison? Not trying to be a smart a** but please don't fall into the trap where every little similarity means something. Domestic violence was commonplace and, although I can't verify it, I'm sure there were numerous slit throats by husbands, pimps, customers, robberies etc. I would even make a guess that some were inadvertently disemboweled(although probably with no parts taken)

I believe one of the victims used Mary Jane as an alias? And Chapman married someone named Annie Chapman didn't he?

So many ways to connect the pieces of this puzzle.
Columbo

[John Wheat]

John,

I Agree with what you say. Bury is an excellent candidate. Personally, I think it was probably Ellen who chalked the messages. Didn't the Police search his home & find burned clothing in the fire place?

Best regards.

To wigngown

Yes they found women's clothing burned in the fire place. Also women's clothing was found in the box Bury had stuffed Ellen in and clothing and. jewellery were found in another box. This was likely Ellen's clothing and I bet some of the jewellery was Ellen's but it wouldn't surprise me if some of the jewellery were mementos from the C5. Pure conjecture I know but doesn't the clothing burning in the fireplace remind you of Mary Jane Kelly's murder and also isn't it a bit of a coincidence Bury's mother and eldest sister were also called Mary Jane?

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;376659]

There weren't thousands of men like Bury. Bury murdered his wife in a similar way to the Ripper. His wife who was a prostitute at one point. No one else chalked on doors purporting to be the ripper. No one else went to the police exclaiming they were afraid they would be seen as a ripper. We are now going round in circles. You are beginning to bore me, frankly any idiot can see Bury is a much better Ripper suspect than Crossmere.

If it takes an idiot to think that Bury is a much better suspect than Lechmere, then you may want to reconsider.

[wigngown]

John,

I Agree with what you say. Bury is an excellent candidate. Personally, I think it was probably Ellen who chalked the messages. Didn't the Police search his home & find burned clothing in the fire place?

Best regards.

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;376627]

If somebody else had written on his door and murdered his wife in a fashion that bore half a resemblance to a Ripper killing, would he ALSO be the Ripper in such a case? Mr Brown, who cut his wifes neck on the night of the double event - was HE the Ripper or a copycat? He used the hallmark element of neck-cutting that Bury missed out on.

The Ripper case is riddled with people who went to the police and said they were the Ripper, of people who bragged about being the Ripper in crowds (and who put themeselves at risk to get lynched), of people who wrote letters to the police, taking on the Ripper role. Dozens, probably hundreds, of people did this.
How is Bury any different from them? The point about the chalking is moot.

As for the murder of his wife, I have already gone into the differences. The Riper killed strangers, like serialists normally do, he ALWAYS cut the neck of his victims and bled them that way, he NEVER went to the police and turned himself in, he always took innards when there was time, he escalated the violence, resulting in facial mutilation from victim four.
Bury did a domestic murder, totally, totally different from the killing of strangers, he did NOT cut the neck and bleed his wife, he went to the police, he took no innards from the body, the crime was not an escalation from the violence inflicted on Kelly, though one must assume that there would have been time for it, and there was no facial mutilation.

Bury was not the Ripper, simple as.

There weren't thousands of men like Bury. Bury murdered his wife in a similar way to the Ripper. His wife who was a prostitute at one point. No one else chalked on doors purporting to be the ripper. No one else went to the police exclaiming they were afraid they would be seen as a ripper. We are now going round in circles. You are beginning to bore me, frankly any idiot can see Bury is a much better Ripper suspect than Crossmere.