Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Patrick S]

Hi, Patrick,

I have gradually grown to find the Lechmere theory very far-fetched, that's true. We have no inquest documents, other than some newspaper articles, no records from Pickford's to attest to Lechmere's name, work schedules, duties, or routes, and only Dew's rather confused recollections of "the carman" who supposedly "never came forward". It is difficult enough to make sense of Cross/Lechmere without speculating that he was a criminal clairvoyant.

I thoroughly agree. I think what is frustrating to Christer is this: His theory has been fully vetted by people with extensive interest and knowledge of these crimes and it's been - almost without exception - completely rejected.

As I've stated many times before, it IS a great story. Imagine...... The man who found the body of the first ("canonical") Jack the Ripper victim WAS Jack the Ripper! I'd read the book. I'd see the movie. Alas, both would be works of fiction.

In the end, as Christer, et al, are loathe to admit, the only real anomaly, curiosity, oddity, bit of intrigue, whatever you want to call it, is the name issue. And....that's enough to draw you in a bit, pique your interest. The problem is what comes after. After 'plot points' like the 'Mizen Scam' are explained you begin to realize certain leaps in logic are required.

Convoluted thinking and irrational behavior must be ascribed to nearly all the prime actors (especially Lechmere and Mize). One must alternately view Lechmere's actions as that of psychopath taunting the police by inserting himself into the investigation and a serial killer desperate to evade detection and capture (even as he's continued to insert himself into the proceedings after innumerable chances to simply walk away).

Lechmere must be a liar, perpetrating a scam. Mizen must be good, honest and true. Paul must be dishonest, a grandstander, a publicity seeker, with an axe to grind against the police. This is a lot to 'know' from the paltry sources we have.

And, at every turn, we must ignore what seems plainly obvious. Mizen's actions are easily explained if one understands the pressure and scrutiny the police were under leading up to Buck's Row. With that in mind, Mizen's attempt at a lie of omission, followed by - what amounted to - lies that shielded both himself and the Met from added criticism is completely understandable, if not plainly obvious.

And them we move to the answers provided to questions such as, "Why did he stop?" Well, of course...he didn't. He became the torso killer and his compulsions drove him to kill until he was physically incapable of doing so. And then we look at the man. The psychopath. And we see that he had no criminal record, no record of violence, stable employment, a 50 year marriage, 10 children, a life spend accruing wealth, improving his families station.

So, what's Christer left with. He gave a 'false' name to police (but it wasn't false, was it? We simply don't know if he gave only that name, do we? And this makes him...Jack the Ripper?). We don't even know if that's true. We only know that his name appeared as CROSS in the press. Ask this...how accurate WAS the reporting of these crimes, even with respect to names?

Oh, and let's not forget. His wife is not buried next to him.

So, these two things are facts. The ONLY facts, as best I can tell (aside from the facts that serve to paint Lechmere as man who strived to overcome the challenges of his time and place). The rest if pure invention. Poor invention, at that.

[caz]

Hi Patrick,

Good summing up.

All Christer is left with is the argument that Lechmere was the kind of devil-may-care psychopath who got his biggest thrill, not from the murders and mutilations, but from doing his level best to draw attention to himself after he killed Nichols; to practically beg Robert Paul, PC Mizen or the authorities in general to see what he had done; to realise he had told lies about it; and to discover Cross was not his real name either (which they would have done had they checked with Pickfords and found nobody by that name working there).

And of course, the conclusion will be that because it worked out all right in the end and Lechmere didn't hang, he must have been the ripper, and he must have played everyone like a fiddle and played exceedingly well.

Love,

Caz
X

[CertainSum1]

Why not Lechmere?

Like I said, I'm new. But, am I getting this right?

All you well-informed, superior intellect group are standing in a circle, openly teasing and laughing at the fat kid on the playground who happens to stand by his belief that Lechmere is likely the killer and you're getting super duper mad and therefore more sarcastic and snitty because he won't admit he's just the dumb old fat kid who believes in a theory the lot of you think has now become too stupid to even talk about?

You gang of people seem to use the argument that you have finally resorted to ridicule and laughing at him because he's just so stubborn and you've been driven to this level because HE'S just shouldn't believe in his conclusions so much and he's just so ridiculous and won't admit it. Wow.

I still don't know who super-intellectual Pierre offers up as the killer, but I know who he knows isn't the killer. The final blow for Lechmere NOT being the killer seems to be "nobody agrees with you anyway! So nah!"

Lechmere has so many factors pointing to him that ANY investigation into the JtR case is stopped in its tracks until it can rule him out. The idea that you are so willing to dismiss each and every point of the theory (one after another) simply because it could be some other vague explanation is downright weird.

Using the name Cross could very well have been a quick decision that he wanted to get the benefits of being close to a cop in a world where cops trust their own and he's not known at all. About 100 times in my life I've made a split-second decision which, upon later pondering, I've realized was a stupid decision and could've been much worse for me than it ultimately was.

Lechmere always acted as though he had little to hide. That does not point to his innocence. True, that Lechmere's family and professional life cannot necessarily support him as the killer. But, other than this board's clear mob mentality that the Lechmere theory is laughably stoopid, I'm still not seeing any significant points to show he can confidently be ruled out.

As I've said before, I have no interest in one suspect being proven over another. I still don't know who I believe is the killer, only that ruling Lechmere out is not that obvious.

[Pcdunn]

Hello, CertainSum1.

Good for you for standing up for your beliefs!

Have you seen the documentary film about Lechmere? Here is a link to the producer's website:

http://www.blinkfilmsuk.com/productions/the-missing-evidence/

Here is some additional information on Lechmere, if you're interested:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2842352/Whitechapel-meat-cart-driver-Jack-Ripper-legitimately-blood-spattered-appearance-helped-evade-justice-claims-criminologist.html

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/home/jack_the_ripper_s_family_snaps_revealed_in_suspect_charles_letchmere_theory_1_3848354

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/535861/How-police-overlooked-the-Ripper

[Harry D]

Like I said, I'm new. But, am I getting this right?

All you well-informed, superior intellect group are standing in a circle, openly teasing and laughing at the fat kid on the playground who happens to stand by his belief that Lechmere is likely the killer and you're getting super duper mad and therefore more sarcastic and snitty because he won't admit he's just the dumb old fat kid who believes in a theory the lot of you think has now become too stupid to even talk about?

You gang of people seem to use the argument that you have finally resorted to ridicule and laughing at him because he's just so stubborn and you've been driven to this level because HE'S just shouldn't believe in his conclusions so much and he's just so ridiculous and won't admit it. Wow.

I still don't know who super-intellectual Pierre offers up as the killer, but I know who he knows isn't the killer. The final blow for Lechmere NOT being the killer seems to be "nobody agrees with you anyway! So nah!"

Lechmere has so many factors pointing to him that ANY investigation into the JtR case is stopped in its tracks until it can rule him out. The idea that you are so willing to dismiss each and every point of the theory (one after another) simply because it could be some other vague explanation is downright weird.

Using the name Cross could very well have been a quick decision that he wanted to get the benefits of being close to a cop in a world where cops trust their own and he's not known at all. About 100 times in my life I've made a split-second decision which, upon later pondering, I've realized was a stupid decision and could've been much worse for me than it ultimately was.

Lechmere always acted as though he had little to hide. That does not point to his innocence. True, that Lechmere's family and professional life cannot necessarily support him as the killer. But, other than this board's clear mob mentality that the Lechmere theory is laughably stoopid, I'm still not seeing any significant points to show he can confidently be ruled out.

As I've said before, I have no interest in one suspect being proven over another. I still don't know who I believe is the killer, only that ruling Lechmere out is not that obvious.

Cry me a river.

[drstrange169]

Hello CertainSum1,

Welcome to the boards.

It was certainly an evocative analogy you used, the masses against the minority.
I would keep the theme of masses v minority but, offer very different analogies.

The mass of the Egyptian people against the minority of Mubarak's regime.
The mass of the Philippino people versus the minority of the Marcos regime.
Perestroika etc.

These analogies have the advantage of the same core issue, human rights.
Charles Allen Lechmere's right to the presumption of innocence.
The right not to be branded on worldwide television as the worlds most notorious serial killer,
with not a word in his defence being raised in the show (think, the show trials of the regimes mentioned above).

Re ruling Xmere out.

Perhaps because you are new here, you may not be aware that most of us do not rule Xmere out.
He is and will probably remain a person of interest. He is well worth investigating but as yet, not one shred of actual evidence has been found.
And what of the quality of evidence that has been put forward to condemn his man to supposed prime suspect ?
He wore an apron to the inquest, the bastards got to be guilty hasn't he!

No bullying here, just people leaping to defend those that cannot defend themselves. Just people giving Charles Allen Lechmere his right of reply.

[Columbo]

Like I said, I'm new. But, am I getting this right?

All you well-informed, superior intellect group are standing in a circle, openly teasing and laughing at the fat kid on the playground who happens to stand by his belief that Lechmere is likely the killer and you're getting super duper mad and therefore more sarcastic and snitty because he won't admit he's just the dumb old fat kid who believes in a theory the lot of you think has now become too stupid to even talk about?

You gang of people seem to use the argument that you have finally resorted to ridicule and laughing at him because he's just so stubborn and you've been driven to this level because HE'S just shouldn't believe in his conclusions so much and he's just so ridiculous and won't admit it. Wow.

I still don't know who super-intellectual Pierre offers up as the killer, but I know who he knows isn't the killer. The final blow for Lechmere NOT being the killer seems to be "nobody agrees with you anyway! So nah!"

Lechmere has so many factors pointing to him that ANY investigation into the JtR case is stopped in its tracks until it can rule him out. The idea that you are so willing to dismiss each and every point of the theory (one after another) simply because it could be some other vague explanation is downright weird.

Using the name Cross could very well have been a quick decision that he wanted to get the benefits of being close to a cop in a world where cops trust their own and he's not known at all. About 100 times in my life I've made a split-second decision which, upon later pondering, I've realized was a stupid decision and could've been much worse for me than it ultimately was.

Lechmere always acted as though he had little to hide. That does not point to his innocence. True, that Lechmere's family and professional life cannot necessarily support him as the killer. But, other than this board's clear mob mentality that the Lechmere theory is laughably stoopid, I'm still not seeing any significant points to show he can confidently be ruled out.

As I've said before, I have no interest in one suspect being proven over another. I still don't know who I believe is the killer, only that ruling Lechmere out is not that obvious.

I have to agree with this. If you look at the entire Cross/Lechmere theory, most of what Mr. Holmgrem says would put Charles Cross at the very top of the suspect list only because he was caught over the body. I believe we can all agree that Cross being with the body is a pretty absolute fact.

I do agree that there is probably a lot of information missing and a lot of UN-substantiated information as well. I remember Martin Fido, in a documentary saying Charles Cross jumped into the shadows when Robert Paul came by and this made Paul suspicious. I believe this was in a Timewatch episode. Is that true? what was Fido's source? I don't know but that made me first suspicious about Cross.

Cross is also a more substantial suspect then Lewis Carrol, William Gull, Walter Sickert, Tumblety, Eddie, Cream or Chapman. Why? because he was alone with the body of the first victim. Was he JTR? Unknown, but he's still a great suspect.

[CertainSum1]

While defending Lechmere against a perceived character smear campaign seems a noble enough stated endeavor, I don't see wild accusations flying around that aren't backed up, however circumstantially. If direct physical evidence is what thread posters have as a standard of proof, then it seems pointless to engage in discussions at all. If the posters on this thread don't rule Lechmere out (even though the thread is called Lechmere-Cross bye bye) they clearly deny the theory that focuses on him, and flat out ridicule the theorist who is willing to stick to that belief.

Back to Lechmere...
Being alone with the body when it was recently killed is pretty monumental. And, he stated he did not see anybody near the body even though she was reportedly still bleeding. Did later JtR victims have more extensive cutting? That would point to the killer being interrupted, and since Lechmere claimed he saw no one, it would again point directly at Lechmere. I know there's nothing new in that point.

Had the police known there would be more victims, Lechmere's presence with the body may have been under greater scrutiny when he first presented. Had law enforcement and society in general known then what we know now about serial killers and their seeming innocuousness, Lechmere may very well have been hanged on the mere circumstantial evidence pointing to him.

Granted, I'm an average woman who doesn't live in a poor, crowded community. But, even so, I've never known anyone who has ever been murdered, known anyone who's been within 5 miles of a murder (much less several), or had murders repeatedly and contemporaneously committed on what could be their routine routes of travel. And I've certainly never known anyone (or even known anyone who's known anyone) who's discovered any dead body, much less a still-warm and bleeding dead body.

[GUT]

While defending Lechmere against a perceived character smear campaign seems a noble enough stated endeavor, I don't see wild accusations flying around that aren't backed up, however circumstantially. If direct physical evidence is what thread posters have as a standard of proof, then it seems pointless to engage in discussions at all. If the posters on this thread don't rule Lechmere out (even though the thread is called Lechmere-Cross bye bye) they clearly deny the theory that focuses on him, and flat out ridicule the theorist who is willing to stick to that belief.

Back to Lechmere...
Being alone with the body when it was recently killed is pretty monumental. And, he stated he did not see anybody near the body even though she was reportedly still bleeding. Did later JtR victims have more extensive cutting? That would point to the killer being interrupted, and since Lechmere claimed he saw no one, it would again point directly at Lechmere. I know there's nothing new in that point.

Had the police known there would be more victims, Lechmere's presence with the body may have been under greater scrutiny when he first presented. Had law enforcement and society in general known then what we know now about serial killers and their seeming innocuousness, Lechmere may very well have been hanged on the mere circumstantial evidence pointing to him.

Granted, I'm an average woman who doesn't live in a poor, crowded community. But, even so, I've never known anyone who has ever been murdered, known anyone who's been within 5 miles of a murder (much less several), or had murders repeatedly and contemporaneously committed on what could be their routine routes of travel. And I've certainly never known anyone (or even known anyone who's known anyone) who's discovered any dead body, much less a still-warm and bleeding dead body.

I'd love to see the ridicule of which you talk.

Clearly you don't live un a city if you have never been within five miles of a murder.

[Hercule Poirot]

I have to agree with this. If you look at the entire Cross/Lechmere theory, most of what Mr. Holmgrem says would put Charles Cross at the very top of the suspect list only because he was caught over the body. I believe we can all agree that Cross being with the body is a pretty absolute fact.

I do agree that there is probably a lot of information missing and a lot of UN-substantiated information as well. I remember Martin Fido, in a documentary saying Charles Cross jumped into the shadows when Robert Paul came by and this made Paul suspicious. I believe this was in a Timewatch episode. Is that true? what was Fido's source? I don't know but that made me first suspicious about Cross.

Cross is also a more substantial suspect then Lewis Carrol, William Gull, Walter Sickert, Tumblety, Eddie, Cream or Chapman. Why? because he was alone with the body of the first victim. Was he JTR? Unknown, but he's still a great suspect.

I really like your comment.

JTR forums such as this one are facing a serious problem when it comes to defining who is a suspect, a person of interest, against whom charges could have been brought up and found guilty.

There's no commun understanding of these terms. Many observations are based on a vague comprehension of the penal system at the time of the JTR crimes, a basic knowledge of the penal system in the country of the commentator which is often different from the one found in another country even if many of them refer to the rules of common law. In other cases, it's just that an argument or two against someone are rejected and the whole case is considered as having failed the test. What test?

If one comes up with the name of a person who lived at the time of the JTR murders, what are the 'requirements' for this person to be accepted by forum communities as a valid suspect? There's over 30 suspects appearing on the suspect page here on Casebook. How or why did they made it into the 'Hall of Shame'? Did they had a stronger case than Coss? I don't think so. Am I wrong in saying that 'Vox Populi' seems to be the rule!!

Respectfully yours,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Sorry for my poor English.

[GUT]

I have to agree with this. If you look at the entire Cross/Lechmere theory, most of what Mr. Holmgrem says would put Charles Cross at the very top of the suspect list only because he was caught over the body. I believe we can all agree that Cross being with the body is a pretty absolute fact.

I do agree that there is probably a lot of information missing and a lot of UN-substantiated information as well. I remember Martin Fido, in a documentary saying Charles Cross jumped into the shadows when Robert Paul came by and this made Paul suspicious. I believe this was in a Timewatch episode. Is that true? what was Fido's source? I don't know but that made me first suspicious about Cross.

Cross is also a more substantial suspect then Lewis Carrol, William Gull, Walter Sickert, Tumblety, Eddie, Cream or Chapman. Why? because he was alone with the body of the first victim. Was he JTR? Unknown, but he's still a great suspect.

What most can agree on is that he found the body.

[drstrange169]

>>While defending Lechmere against a perceived character smear campaign seems a noble enough stated endeavor<<

Are the italics an indication that you are "ridiculing" my post;-)

If you re-read my post, you will find I was not referring to any "percieved character smear" but, rather a very real and verifiable one.

I don't see wild accusations flying around that aren't backed up, however circumstantially.

Keep looking.


If the posters on this thread don't rule Lechmere out ... they clearly deny the theory that focuses on him

Correct.


>>... and flat out ridicule the theorist who is willing to stick to that belief.<<

Could you cite the ridicule you are referring to? It's difficult to debater specifically otherwise.

[drstrange169]

>>If direct physical evidence is what thread posters have as a standard of proof, then it seems pointless to engage in discussions at all. <<

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

To some of us the appeal is not in, being the one who reveals the ripper.
It is rather in learning about the people and there lives, free from spin.
To that end there are some fantastic researchers here.

[Pcdunn]

Found the body, not caught over the body

What most can agree on is that he found the body.

Yes, and Lechmere wasn't, as someone else has stated in this thread, "caught over the body"-- he was standing in the street looking at it, according to Paul, who came along on his way to work.

Paul, aware of the area's bad name for muggings, tried to step around Lechmere, who stopped him and asked him to look at the woman, which is when they BOTH were "over the body."

I don't know about anyone else, but when I see something unexpected when I'm out walking, I stop still and stare at it.

[caz]

Like I said, I'm new. But, am I getting this right?

All you well-informed, superior intellect group are standing in a circle, openly teasing and laughing at the fat kid on the playground who happens to stand by his belief that Lechmere is likely the killer and you're getting super duper mad and therefore more sarcastic and snitty because he won't admit he's just the dumb old fat kid who believes in a theory the lot of you think has now become too stupid to even talk about?

I don't think that's quite right, CS. Christer is not dumb, old or fat. That's me, that is. And I for one would not be admitted to any group professing to have a superior intellect.

I also think you'll find Christer is extremely competent at dishing out as much as he gets, and more on many occasions.

Love,

Caz
X