Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

I see you respond to the bits of my posts that you want to but not the difficult questions that you can't answer.

Yes, letīs pretend that. Iīm game - it will save space out here. (He said and disappeared)

[Fisherman]

What serial killer/murderer has ever worked with the police on solving their murder case? That sounds like a Stephen King book!

Tore Hedin of Sweden.

[David Orsam]

... which you of course would not do otherwise.

I see you respond to the bits of my posts that you want to but not the difficult questions that you can't answer.

[Fisherman]

He found them. He found them twice. First he found Mizen. Then he found the police at the police station.

He seems to have been a finder.

Why, Fisherman?

Again, reading the threads is hugely helpful when it comes to providing all the answers to these questions.

[Robert St Devil]

If I might, I'll save you the time of waiting for "Fisherman" to answer. I've read his justification for this many times.

His answer is that Lechmere needed to use a name that was false but not completely false. He needed a name that he had a connection to, rather than an entirely "false" name, in case his ruse did not work. Thus, he employed "Cross", a name he was likely - according the "Fisherman" - never actually known by, but had some justification for using.

Of course, I should mention that no one ASKED him to give a name at all. Mizen didn't ask him for one on August 31. He didn't give an interview, as Robert Paul did in Lloyd's, and identify himself as "Cross". He appeared at the inquest voluntarily. So, clearly he could have simply gone about his business and not submitted himself to questioning and thus not given ANY name. Ever. To anyone. Alas, he did. He did all this....because he was Jack the Ripper and wished to avoid detection in order to keep on killing. Which he did. While he was a pensioner. While he was a shop keeper/owner. Right up until he died. In his bed. In 1920. Aged 71. With his wife of 50 years at his side. Having fathered 11 kids.

COME ON! It's so SIMPLE! And OBVIOUS!

What serial killer/murderer has ever worked with the police on solving their murder case? That sounds like a Stephen King book!

[Fisherman]

In the absence of any answers to my questions from Fisherman I am forced to draw my own conclusions.

... which you of course would not do otherwise.

[Pierre]

Pierre, donīt you read the threads? The answers to these questions have been given many, many times.

Why not use a name that was in no way connected to him? Because he ran the risk of getting investigated by the police.

The police did not have to find Lechmere. He found them...

He found them. He found them twice. First he found Mizen. Then he found the police at the police station.

He seems to have been a finder.

Why, Fisherman?

[David Orsam]

The Major Gap in Lechmere's Timings

In the absence of any answers to my questions from Fisherman I am forced to draw my own conclusions.

The Claim

According to the famous TV documentary, it was stated that "Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings". On this forum, while not saying whether he agreed or disagreed with this statement, Fisherman nevertheless modified it (suggesting he disagreed with it) but only changed it to "It seems that Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings" which, as far as I'm concerned, is not materially different from the original (suggesting he agrees with the original).

In any event, the claim that there is, or seems to be, a "major gap", or in Fisherman's own words in the documentary "a discrepancy of about 9 minutes or something like that", is said to be based on three factual elements as below.

1. The Time Lechmere Left his House

According to Fisherman, in the documentary, Lechmere "left his home...at 3.30". In summarising the evidence he claimed that Lechmere "said at the inquest that he left at 3.30, some reports say 3.20 but the more common reports say 3.30". To which Andy Griffiths replied, "Okay, we've got our start time of 3.30."

However, a number of different newspaper reports say that Lechmere's testimony was that he left at "about 3.30". As we are dealing with a murder case here, where the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", we cannot say beyond reasonable doubt, or even on the balance or probabilities, that Lechmere left his home at 3.30. Even if he had said he had left his home at 3.30 we would need to know how he could be sure of the exact time in an age when watches were not as common as today, but he does not appear to have said this so we don't need to worry about that.

Thus, we can conclude that Lechmere left his house at about 3.30 which gives us an effective range of anywhere between 3.20 and 3.40.

2. The Time of the Walk to Bucks Row

Having timed a walk from Doveton Street to the part of Bucks Row where the body of Mary Ann Nichols was found as being 7.07 minutes, at what, we are told by Fisherman on this forum, was "normal" walking pace, it was concluded by Fisherman in the documentary that if he left his home at 3.30 "he should have been here at 3.37". Is this correct?

Well, we are not told what route was walked by Fisherman and Andy Griffiths. They could have walked across Cambridge Heath Road down Headlam Street through Collingwood Street through Merceron Street and into Brady Street then into Durward Street or continued down Cambridge Heath Road into Darling Row and then through the Sainsburys development across Brady Street into Durward Street. The former undoubtedly takes longer but there is no evidence as to which route Lechmere walked down. As it happens, he could not possibly have walked the second route because Sainsburys did not exist in 1888 but at that time Darling Row led into Bath Street and he could have walked along Bath Street into Brady Street and then into Bucks Row. From looking at maps of the day, it seems to me that, if anything, a walk down Bath Street might have taken longer than the current cut-through past Sainsburys although probably not involving a huge amount of extra time. While it is not an unreasonable conclusion to say that Lechmere would probably have taken the shortest route, I don't think one can say beyond reasonable doubt that he did so.

More important is that there is really no such thing as normal walking speed. Different people walk at different speeds. From my own timings it is perfectly possible that his walk to where Nichols was found took Lechmere 9 minutes. To say that Lechmere must have walked at the same speed as Fisherman and Andy Griffiths so that he "should" have taken 7 minutes is not sustainable.

3. Paul's Arrival Time

The final element on which the TV documentary's conclusion was based that there is, or seems to be, a "major gap" in Lechmere's timings is that Paul arrived in Buck's Row 3.45. Thus, said Andy Griffiths: "Paul says he came into the street at 3.45".

In his evidence at the inquest, however, Paul did not state what time he came into Bucks Row, simply saying that he left his house about or just before 3.45. Does "just before" mean one minute before or can it mean a few minutes before? I suggest it could easily mean that he left his house at 3.41 or 3.42. It could could mean this even if Paul thought he left his house at 3.44 but his timepiece was fast and he believed he was leaving later than he actually did.

Fisherman relies heavily on a newspaper report a couple of days after the murder which purports to record Paul saying he arrived in Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 but the problem with this is that the time of 3.45 had been widely mentioned in other newspapers as the time that P.C. Neil had discovered the body of Nichols and the clear purpose of the interview with Paul was to contradict the official story that the police had found the body. To that extent it can hardly be relied on as an accurate account of events.

Can we say beyond reasonable doubt that Paul walked into Bucks Row at exactly 3.45? I don't think so.

Conclusion

The TV documentary says that "According to Paul's evidence, Lechmere found the body some sixteen minutes after he left home". Well not according to Paul's evidence actually because he doesn't tell us in his evidence what time Lechmere found the body nor does any of the evidence tell us exactly when Lechmere left his home in order for such a calculation of 16 minutes to be made. But it is the difference between 16 minutes and 7 minutes which produced the conclusion of a "major gap" of 9 minutes which supposedly needs to be explained.

One can argue until one is blue in the face about possibilities and probabilities but in my submission the evidence is nowhere near strong enough to be able to claim that there is a "missing" 9 minutes or any missing minutes at all.

If one simply wants to say that, on one view of the evidence, there was an opportunity for Lechmere to have murdered Nichols on his way to work then I don't think anyone would disagree with that. No-one is challenging the claim that if Lechmere left at 3.30 and if Paul arrived in Bucks Row at 3.45 then there are some missing minutes in a walk that should not, in normal circumstances and without any delays, have taken more than 10 minutes. So he could have murdered Nichols, and further he could have left his home at any time before 3.30 which would have given him more time.

The problem is that the "major gap" was used in the documentary in a dramatic way to bolster the case against Lechmere; as if there was a large period of missing time which needs to be explained. But, in reality, that's not the case and I suggest it is an illegitimate tactic to use the alleged "major gap" as a point against Lechmere and in favour of him being Jack the Ripper.

If we were certain of the exact times of departure and arrival then fine but we are not and we cannot be and any arguments about those exact times can be nothing more than highly speculative without any solid evidential foundation.

One might even call the "major gap" a fictional creation.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;377909]

If I might, I'll save you the time of waiting for "Fisherman" to answer. I've read his justification for this many times.

Thank you Patrick. I am grateful for that and I admire you patience with this whole thing.

His answer is that Lechmere needed to use a name that was false but not completely false.

I thought so.

He needed a name that he had a connection to, rather than an entirely "false" name, in case his ruse did not work. Thus, he employed "Cross", a name he was likely - according the "Fisherman" - never actually known by, but had some justification for using.

So he did not want to lie under oath. That is the explanation, I guess. But still, he omitted the name Lechmere. This must be considered to be the primary tendency in the source: to omit a name, not to put another name on display to tell half a lie. The external source criticism coincides with the tendency in an important way: Lechmere did not just speak at an inquest, telling the police half a lie, but he avoided getting the name Lechmere printed in the newspapers. Thereby, we have a strong hypothesis of Lechmere trying to protect his own family.

So the tendency in the source gives the consequence that Lechmere remained unknown to the world, but took the "risk" (from the "murder-hypothesis-perspective) to be revealed as Lechmere, had the police looked for him at Doveton Street.

So why then, if the "murder-hypothesis" could be confirmed, would Lechmere give his true adress as well as the adress to his workplace?

Of course, I should mention that no one ASKED him to give a name at all. Mizen didn't ask him for one on August 31. He didn't give an interview, as Robert Paul did in Lloyd's, and identify himself as "Cross". He appeared at the inquest voluntarily. So, clearly he could have simply gone about his business and not submitted himself to questioning and thus not given ANY name. Ever. To anyone. Alas, he did. He did all this....because he was Jack the Ripper and wished to avoid detection in order to keep on killing. Which he did. While he was a pensioner. While he was a shop keeper/owner. Right up until he died. In his bed. In 1920. Aged 71. With his wife of 50 years at his side. Having fathered 11 kids.

COME ON! It's so SIMPLE! And OBVIOUS!

Yes.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I have an important historical question for you.

If Lechmere

1) wanted to lie to the police and
2) wanted his ID to be unknown

- Why did he use the name Cross and not a false name which was in no way connected to him?

You managed to find Lechmere. Do you not think that the police would have been able to do the same?

So if he wanted to hide his ID, why did he not hide his ID properly, instead of making it possible to find it?

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre, donīt you read the threads? The answers to these questions have been given many, many times.

Why not use a name that was in no way connected to him? Because he ran the risk of getting investigated by the police.

The police did not have to find Lechmere. He found them...

[Patrick S]

Yes, there is "evidence" provided and I see it. The "evidence" is that Lechmere found a dead woman, gave the name of his stepfather at the inquest and took back the statement that he had seen a policeman at the murder site.

What do you think could be the motive for Lechmere wanting to hide his name in the press and not wanting to state that he saw a policeman at the murder site?

Is there any other interpretation for those bits of rather problematic "evidence", i.e. sparse sources, than the idea that Lechmere himself was the murderer of Nichols?

And since there is not one single item found at any other murder site pointing to Lechmere as a killer, there is nothing to base the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper on.

Regards, Pierre

To be fair to "Fisherman", Pierre, Lechmere had the murder weapon ON HIM when he approached, spoke to, and interacted with Paul. He had the murder weapon ON HIM when he went LOOKING for a PC, found Mizen, told him that he found a woman and the he thought she was dead. So, there would be no evidence at the scene as he had what evidence there was (i.e. a BLOODY KNIFE) in his coat, or trousers. And he behaved like a man who was obviously quite worried about this evidence being discovered, didn't he? He obviously knew he had no blood on his person, as well (despite the near black conditions), in that he was going around touching people (Paul) on the shoulder and chatting up PCs holding lanterns.

[Patrick S]

Hi Fisherman,

I have an important historical question for you.

If Lechmere

1) wanted to lie to the police and
2) wanted his ID to be unknown

- Why did he use the name Cross and not a false name which was in no way connected to him?

You managed to find Lechmere. Do you not think that the police would have been able to do the same?

So if he wanted to hide his ID, why did he not hide his ID properly, instead of making it possible to find it?

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

If I might, I'll save you the time of waiting for "Fisherman" to answer. I've read his justification for this many times.

His answer is that Lechmere needed to use a name that was false but not completely false. He needed a name that he had a connection to, rather than an entirely "false" name, in case his ruse did not work. Thus, he employed "Cross", a name he was likely - according the "Fisherman" - never actually known by, but had some justification for using.

Of course, I should mention that no one ASKED him to give a name at all. Mizen didn't ask him for one on August 31. He didn't give an interview, as Robert Paul did in Lloyd's, and identify himself as "Cross". He appeared at the inquest voluntarily. So, clearly he could have simply gone about his business and not submitted himself to questioning and thus not given ANY name. Ever. To anyone. Alas, he did. He did all this....because he was Jack the Ripper and wished to avoid detection in order to keep on killing. Which he did. While he was a pensioner. While he was a shop keeper/owner. Right up until he died. In his bed. In 1920. Aged 71. With his wife of 50 years at his side. Having fathered 11 kids.

COME ON! It's so SIMPLE! And OBVIOUS!

[Pierre]

I agree. The theories posted have become thin. Evidence provided and they don't want to see it.

Columbo

Yes, there is "evidence" provided and I see it. The "evidence" is that Lechmere found a dead woman, gave the name of his stepfather at the inquest and took back the statement that he had seen a policeman at the murder site.

What do you think could be the motive for Lechmere wanting to hide his name in the press and not wanting to state that he saw a policeman at the murder site?

Is there any other interpretation for those bits of rather problematic "evidence", i.e. sparse sources, than the idea that Lechmere himself was the murderer of Nichols?

And since there is not one single item found at any other murder site pointing to Lechmere as a killer, there is nothing to base the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper on.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

An answer please!

That would be a bit disingenuos to my mind, since one must assume that Thomas Cross was the person who signed the census record when Lechmere was eleven.
He was christianed Lechmere one year after Thomas Cross wed Maria Louisa, so a conscious choice was made about which name Charles would carry, presumably after Thomas and Maria having spoken together about it. And Lechmeres sister was born, baptised and died young - as a Lechmere.

Allowing the census to govern our reasoning on this issue would be unsound, for the reasons given. It is not what others called Lechmere we are after, it is what he called himself.

Hi Fisherman,

I have an important historical question for you.

If Lechmere

1) wanted to lie to the police and
2) wanted his ID to be unknown

- Why did he use the name Cross and not a false name which was in no way connected to him?

You managed to find Lechmere. Do you not think that the police would have been able to do the same?

So if he wanted to hide his ID, why did he not hide his ID properly, instead of making it possible to find it?

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

[Patrick S]

That would be a bit disingenuos to my mind, since one must assume that Thomas Cross was the person who signed the census record when Lechmere was eleven.
He was christianed Lechmere one year after Thomas Cross wed Maria Louisa, so a conscious choice was made about which name Charles would carry, presumably after Thomas and Maria having spoken together about it. And Lechmeres sister was born, baptised and died young - as a Lechmere.

Allowing the census to govern our reasoning on this issue would be unsound, for the reasons given. It is not what others called Lechmere we are after, it is what he called himself.

Again, any source that helps "Fisherman" is unimpeachable. Any source that does not is "unsound". News papers are demonstrably inaccurate, but we must trust them when it comes to this issue: he called himself Cross and only Cross (maybe 'George', maybe "Chas Allen", but always Cross), and never Lechmere. We must assume that Jonas Mizen is accurate and honest in his retelling of his interaction with Cross and Paul in Baker's Row. He was lied to. Misled by a psychopath. After all, Mizen was, as "Fisherman" has told us, a good Christian and a veteran officer. So, he is certainly not an unsound resource. He is not be questioned. This census taker? A pagan! An incompetent or a liar. Likely both! And we cannot take Paul's word for what Mizen did or did not do as he MUST be a self-aggrandizing, police-hating publicity whore in order for this "Mizen Scam" bit to stand on even one wobbly leg. It's the same old song from "Fisherman", only now he has his own Bundini Brown in his corner, tellin him he's "the greatest".

I'll say this again. Let's - for now - disregard this issue of Cross vs. Lechmere. Let's pretend the we know - as an undisputable fact - that Lechmere intentionally deceived everyone by using the name Cross throughout his involvement in the Nichols murder, inquest, etc.