Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[GUT]

You're certainly within your rights to say that the "Lechmere was the Ripper" theory is as bad as any other theory with a named suspect. But what we are talking about is tone as well as content: right now, Lechmere supporters on Casebook are treated rudely in ways that proponents of other, equally flawed suspects are not.

You must be joking.

Go read some of what Jonithan H has copped over Druitt, or Mike Over Tumblety, or Ben over Hutch, or even Dale over Van Gogh.

[GUT]

Thanks, Columbo. However, Fido's a modern writer and theorist on the JTR murders, isn't he. Where is his contemporary 1888 source that states that Cross was lurking in the shadows, or anywhere else, for that matter? Sugden has Cross/Lechmere standing in the middle of the road when he heard Paul, by contrast.

So does every report I've ever read.

[Rosella]

Thanks, Columbo. However, Fido's a modern writer and theorist on the JTR murders, isn't he. Where is his contemporary 1888 source that states that Cross was lurking in the shadows, or anywhere else, for that matter? Sugden has Cross/Lechmere standing in the middle of the road when he heard Paul, by contrast.

[Damaso Marte]

So because one theory is no good, we aren't allowed say another one isn't?

Strange way of thinking.

You're certainly within your rights to say that the "Lechmere was the Ripper" theory is as bad as any other theory with a named suspect. But what we are talking about is tone as well as content: right now, Lechmere supporters on Casebook are treated rudely in ways that proponents of other, equally flawed suspects are not.

[Columbo]

Who has stated, apart from modern theorists who believe that Lechmere/Cross is a killer, that he was waiting in the shadows or crouched over Nichols' body when Paul approached?

Hi Rosella,

It took me a bit to find it but in the first part of Martin Fido's "On the Trail of Jack the Ripper" he says before Cross could examine Nichols "he heard footsteps and drew back into the shadows. This alarmed Paul who was re-assured when Cross called him to his aid".

This was available on iTunes. It's pretty good.

Columbo

[Rosella]

Who has stated, apart from modern theorists who believe that Lechmere/Cross is a killer, that he was waiting in the shadows or crouched over Nichols' body when Paul approached?

[Columbo]

Comments like the ones you've been making are so reconforting. It tends to bring back a balance between adverse opinions which existed here on Casebook years ago. Keep it up and thank you for these mpments of fresh air.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Sorry for my awfdul English, French being my usual 'idioma'.

Thanks Hercule, I appreciate it.

[Columbo]

Fisherman,
When you post on these threads,you are addressing your comments to anyone reading those posts,not to just one personA recent Ídiot comment by you to a poster is just one instance.Yes you will claim it was directed at the content and not the poster,but should it have been used at all.Does it not reflect on the poster himself?

Colombo,
I do not believe I have a faulty memory,but I apologise to you if I did state wrongly.Still again,I w ill point you to post 392.Wasn't that an unfair remark about a respected person?
Ok,is he a strong suspect? let's look at the facts.Was he observed killing Nichols?Was a weapon used in the killing traced to him.Is there any bloodstain testimony that directly connects him to the killing. Was he observed by Paul to be acting in a suspicious manner.Was there an intent to kill on his part,expressed perhaps in threats to women in some manner.
Can his account of his presence in Bucks Row be proven false.
Those are elements of the crime that have to have proof when considering Cross,and remember,an accuser should start with a presumption of innocencence.

Hi Harry,

If you're speaking of the remark I made of Mr. Fido, it wasn't meant to be disrespectful. I'm a big fan of his. I've heard his Jack the ripper mp3s from iTunes. I've also purchased other mp3s he's done. He just sometimes changes or misses the facts occasionally. Not often, but enough to where an idiot like me notices once in a while. I apologize if it was taken as anything other than an example.

To answer your second paragraph, you're absolutely right. Cross and all suspects in any crime need to be given the presumption of innocence. In my opinion, Cross and Paul have been presumed innocent from day one. They were never accused of a crime (I say they not because I think Paul did anything, he just happened to be there as well) in their time.

It's confusing to find out exactly how Cross acted in Bucks Row. There are so many different versions. The only thing we know is he was found with the body of Nichols. Some say he was standing over it, some say crouching next to it. Mr. Fido says Cross jumped into the shadows when Paul showed up.

But he was found with the body and apparently people think for longer than he said. So we know when he says he was in Bucks Row it's not a lie, we just don't know for how long.

The other items you bring up I'm not learned enough on the subject to answer with any intelligence so please forgive me for not addressing them.

I will say this. Hypothetically if he killed Nichols I believe it would've been spur of the moment. Who knows why.

We do know that he wasn't seen killing anyone but he had enough of a heads up to know Paul was not far away, so he had time to pocket the knife.

We do know it was dark, he wouldn't move the body, and Paul didn't inspect Cross for blood, and apparently Mizen had no reason to give them the once over with his lamp.

It's been reported he told Mizen a policeman was already at the scene, which if true would prove he was lying.

He used the name Cross instead of Lechmere at the inquest(as reported in the paper). Am I correct on this?

Based on that I believe he's a very viable suspect. He's not the only suspect of course, but he's got alot more going for him than other suspects.

Columbo

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi Harry,

I will have to go back through my posts but I believe I said Cross was good for the Nichols murder but I don't know if he's JTR. If you could provide an example that would be helpful.

I have found a lot of posts here (including yours) that make some very good points against Fisherman's theory. Do any of these posts sway me in any direction? Not really, because they haven't been strong enough to disprove the theory posted on this thread, which for the most part deals with Lechmere using the name Cross to cover his butt, and lying to the cops.

I don't think your opinion about Cross being innocent is rubbish at all. That's your opinion and I respect that. I don't think I said Cross was innocent but it's certainly possible that he is. If I disagree with anything from your posts it may be your reasoning for your belief not the belief itself.

As a celebrated crime enthusiast (which may not be a good hobby, it's a good thing I have other interests) I try not to pick suspects in cases such as this because we all know we will never definitely know who JTR was. What I do know is who wasn't JTR and based on Fisherman's research and my own Cross does not fall under that category. He very well could have been JTR. He certainly is a strong suspect/person of interest for the Nichols murder and he needs to be fully explored.

Right now as it stands, this is a good theory and I feel it's plausible.

As for people getting nasty, or if there is retribution to be had over a disagreement, I'm not worried about it. I'm trying to find and converse with people who have a common interest with me. I'm not interested in petty bickering. Although I do enjoy a good ribbing once in a while

Comments like the ones you've been making are so reconforting. It tends to bring back a balance between adverse opinions which existed here on Casebook years ago. Keep it up and thank you for these mpments of fresh air.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Sorry for my awfdul English, French being my usual 'idioma'.

[harry]

Fisherman,
When you post on these threads,you are addressing your comments to anyone reading those posts,not to just one personA recent Ídiot comment by you to a poster is just one instance.Yes you will claim it was directed at the content and not the poster,but should it have been used at all.Does it not reflect on the poster himself?

Colombo,
I do not believe I have a faulty memory,but I apologise to you if I did state wrongly.Still again,I w ill point you to post 392.Wasn't that an unfair remark about a respected person?
Ok,is he a strong suspect? let's look at the facts.Was he observed killing Nichols?Was a weapon used in the killing traced to him.Is there any bloodstain testimony that directly connects him to the killing. Was he observed by Paul to be acting in a suspicious manner.Was there an intent to kill on his part,expressed perhaps in threats to women in some manner.
Can his account of his presence in Bucks Row be proven false.
Those are elements of the crime that have to have proof when considering Cross,and remember,an accuser should start with a presumption of innocencence.

[GUT]

Hi Patrick,

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you but I will say this is a very well thought out post. I appreciate the fact that you have stated your opinion in detail without resorting to childish digs at people. Others should follow suit.

Most of Patrick's posts are well argued.

[Columbo]

Columbo:

The discovery of Cross/Lechmere name inconsistency was and is a major contribution to our knowledge of the Nichols' murder and those associated with the case. It's an interesting bit of information that has helped us all to understand more about who this man was, what his life was like (as previous attempts to research "Cross" proved less than fruitful).

But, what did the research turn up? Evidence of mental illness? No. Evidence of criminal activity? No. Arrest record? Violent behavior? No. Nothing. Okay. So he was an exceptionally talented psychopath. He was never caught. Doing....ANYHTING. But was did we FIND OUT? What do we KNOW?

Well, we found out that he had exceptionally stable employment (no mean feat considering his time and place earth), 25 years as an employee at Pickfords. We learned he was married to one woman for 50+ years and had more than 10 children. After his retirement he opened a business, a small shop. Upon his death (of natural causes as at an advanced age) he left his wife a respectable sum. All but one of his children survived infancy. Most became professionals of some sort or another, clerks and the like. I can draw many conclusions from this information. Lifelong serial killer is not - sadly - among them.

Ah. But what of this name issue. It's what drew all of our interest after all. It's suspicious, isn't it? Here is how I addressed that in an early post:

The fact that Lechmere’s name is reported in both “The Times” and “The Telegraph” as “Cross” has recently been scrutinize, causing some to view Lechmere with suspicion. It should be noted that Cross was not a name Charles Lechmere invented. Lechmere’s father died when he was boy and his mother subsequently married a policeman called Thomas Cross. It has been reported that research into Lechmere has shown no other instances of him using the name “Cross” in official or legal circumstances.

Again, the official records of the Nichols’ inquest have been lost. Consequently, there is no evidence that Lechmere provided the name “Cross” to the exclusion of “Lechmere”. We are left to rely upon the published reports of the inquest, primarily in “The Times” and “The Telegraph”. Reporting of the inquest’s testimony was – AS A RULE – less than accurate. There are several examples of names incorrectly reported. Lechmere’s middle name is given as “Andrew” in “The Telegraph”. His first name was reported as “George” in “The Times”. Robert Paul is called ‘Baul’ (Telegraph). PC John Thain is called “Thail” (Telegraph). Mizen’s first initial is given as ‘G” (Times).

It’s quite possible that that Lechmere was asked if he was known by any other names. He may have simply cited “Cross” and the reporters present chose to report this name rather than attempt an accurate spelling of “Lechmere”. The Telegraph also reports that Lechmere stated that he was a carman, “employed by Messrs. Pickford and Co”. This was Lechmere’s actual employer. Other reports have him providing his genuine address. It is apparent that Lechmere was not making an effort to conceal his identity.

It should be noted, also, that Lechmere came forward of his own accord, appearing at the inquest voluntarily. He was not summoned in that PC Mizen did not ask he and Paul to provide him with their names when they met in Baker’s Row on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. It’s also clear that the police were not looking for Lechmere when he appeared to offer testimony. It seems likely that Lechmere had either read or been made aware of Robert Paul’s statement published the previous day in Lloyd’s Weekly. As has been discussed, Paul overstated his own role and marginalized Lechmere’s to a great extent. If he had killed Nichols, why not let Paul do just that? Why not remain hidden, unnamed?

To put it simply this is my OPINION: "Fisherman" and his companion Eddie found something quite interesting: this Cross/Lechmere name business. Suspicious, no doubt. So, one must look further. And look "Fisherman" and Eddie did. And they found....what? Nothing. Nothing at all to put WITH this one suspicious element in ALL of our exposure to Lechmere as an actor in Buck's Row/Baker's Row and as a witness at the inquest. Again, they found no arrest records. They found no spouses claiming violence. No sisters saying he whacked them about and killed animals while visiting the neighborhood brothel. No evidence that he was a lifelong bachelor, unable to form relationships. No evidence he was sexually inadequate or mentally ill or impaired. As we see from the information posted above. What we found was quite the opposite.

So where did that leave the theory? Well, it leaves it to rely upon INVENTION and EXCEPTIONS. That is to say that since there is NOTHING in the information we have to suggest that this man was a killer. In fact, what we KNOW tell us that he was very likely a simply law abiding citizen. Thus, We must invent 'Mizen Scams' by interpreting news reports in ways that require - to be kind - more than modest leaps in logic. We take news reports from 1888 and call them "blood evidence". We imbue PC Mizen with the best character a man can have. He's always honest. Always true, steadfast, heroic....accurate in all he says. You see, he must be ALL that, if we are to move forward with this theory.

And then we have the EXCEPTIONS. Ah, yes. We hear about the seeming "normal" serial killers who had wives and lives and careers. All those serial killers who were model citizens, productive, stable, long marriages, careers, ambitious, upwardly mobile, successful (and prolific) parents. And we are told - essentially - that these exceptions are actually the rule. And that what we actually KNOW about Lechmere is actually damning! Alas, we are not bright enough - as "Fisherman" tells it - to understand what is obvious to him: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper (and the Torso Killer and, like, a bunch of other serial killers over his long life).

And so it goes.

Hi Patrick,

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you but I will say this is a very well thought out post. I appreciate the fact that you have stated your opinion in detail without resorting to childish digs at people. Others should follow suit.

[Columbo]

Fisherman,
I was simply asking Colombo for an explanation.He made a comment,he should be able to explain it.
I cannot stop him from deciding, whatever the decisions be.If he dislikes me so be it,i doubt he will be the only one,and no I haven't tarnished you,you did that yourself ages ago.
Well Colombo are you going to speak up for yourself,or are you willing for Fisherman to do it for you.

Hi Harry,

I will have to go back through my posts but I believe I said Cross was good for the Nichols murder but I don't know if he's JTR. If you could provide an example that would be helpful.

I have found a lot of posts here (including yours) that make some very good points against Fisherman's theory. Do any of these posts sway me in any direction? Not really, because they haven't been strong enough to disprove the theory posted on this thread, which for the most part deals with Lechmere using the name Cross to cover his butt, and lying to the cops.

I don't think your opinion about Cross being innocent is rubbish at all. That's your opinion and I respect that. I don't think I said Cross was innocent but it's certainly possible that he is. If I disagree with anything from your posts it may be your reasoning for your belief not the belief itself.

As a celebrated crime enthusiast (which may not be a good hobby, it's a good thing I have other interests) I try not to pick suspects in cases such as this because we all know we will never definitely know who JTR was. What I do know is who wasn't JTR and based on Fisherman's research and my own Cross does not fall under that category. He very well could have been JTR. He certainly is a strong suspect/person of interest for the Nichols murder and he needs to be fully explored.

Right now as it stands, this is a good theory and I feel it's plausible.

As for people getting nasty, or if there is retribution to be had over a disagreement, I'm not worried about it. I'm trying to find and converse with people who have a common interest with me. I'm not interested in petty bickering. Although I do enjoy a good ribbing once in a while

[Fisherman]

One must believe these traits are true of Lechmere in order to rule him out.

Bingo.

Plus one must predispose that Mizen either lied or misheard.

If we dare to think that the PC was truthful - that will suffice - then we must accept that Lechmere lied. And if Lechmere lied, he did so for a reason. Either he thought up a very elaborate lie to be able to pass Mizen in order to get to work in time (which he would not do anyway) - or he was the Ripper.

Does giving the wrong name to the police support such a suggestion? Yes, it does.

Does the fact that Jason Payne-James pointed out that Lechmere fit the blood evidence if everything went down along a normal schedule support such a suggestion? Yes, it does.

Does the fact that all the Ripper murders took place within a triangle formed by 22 Doveton Street, the Pickfords depot and his mother´s Cable Street and Mary Ann Street addresses support such a suggestion? Yes, it does.

Does having been found alone with the victim support such a suggestion? There´s no need to answer that one.

And so on and so forth; it is a mighty chain that can be forged. No such chain can be forged against any other suspect. Not nearly. They are all, more or less, suspects on account of having been proven violent. Nothing else. They are not tied to the murders in any shape of form.

[CertainSum1]

We imbue PC Mizen with the best character a man can have. He's always honest. Always true, steadfast, heroic....accurate in all he says. You see, he must be ALL that, if we are to move forward with this theory.

One must believe these traits are true of Lechmere in order to rule him out.