Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

I think there are two possible explanations. Either the police were extremely stupid and negligent or they simply determined that he was not their man in ways we don't know about. I have to go with the latter.

c.d.

How would those ways look? And why did they have him down as "Cross" if they checked him out?

It really does not add up that way, does it? And keep in mind that Andy Griffiths had no illusions about his predecessors necessarily having been up to scratch. He never once suggested that the police could not have missed out - and he should know.

[Fisherman]

I understand. You value cash over knowledge, enjoy your bliss Christer.

Monty

No, you misunderstand me - I simply donīt waste money on things I donīt need.

[Pcdunn]

But we don't have all of the police reports referring to Lechmere, we only know from the press reports that he testified on the Monday following the discovery of the body on the previous Thursday.

I gather there was a reference to Abberline requesting, apparently on Friday, that the inquest continue on Monday, due to "new information that has recently" come to their attention.

Others have suggested this could mean Lechmere had already spoken to the police about finding the body, and I think it is plausible. It looks as if he went in to the police on Friday, possibly at a time that meant it was too late for him to appear at that day's inquest, so his appearance was held over until Monday.

Can we prove this? No, because so much of the police reports have been lost or stolen.

Can we infer that this meant Lechmere didn't keep quiet over the weekend? Yes, I think so.

[Harry D]

Waiting for a friend to come out of her house is nothing out of the ordinary either.

Let's get it right. He was waiting outside a woman's house for almost an hour after she'd retired for the night and was found dead the next morning.

[Mayerling]

Before I continue on this thread I admit being a novice on the subject of the possibility of the guilt of Charles Letchmere as Jack the Ripper. It has become a hot potato in the last few weeks, but I rarely followed anything about it. My apologies to Fish and Harry and others who seriously consider him.

Actually this is a hypothetical matter addressed to Trevor, who was a police officer.

Policeman are trained after awhile to notice nervousness or hesitation as a reaction to what a party is saying (I believe this is being correct).

If Letchmere/Cross purposely used Cross as a pseudonym, and was lying and showing nervousness I take it, it would have been noticed. Just a guess.

If so, would it have possibly been caught? Again, I am guessing it might have been caught.

Notice how this is already stretching things. Sorry about that.

Now a number of years back I wrote an article that was published in a magazine on British police history regarding the career of Sir Basil Thomson, who was a major figure in Scotland Yard from the teens through the Great War and into the 1920s. His career ended in disgrace because of a sex scandal. He was caught with a prostitute in Hyde Park, although he claimed (at the time of arrest and at his trial) he was not a "john" picking her up, but sitting with her while monitoring a left wing speaker in the park.

When he was arrested with the prostitute, Thomson was nervous, and gave a fake name at the precinct he was taken to - he used his second and third names as his real one. However, as he had been very prominent in the police for a decade, the officers at the precinct recognized him, and had noticed as he gave the fake name he was nervous giving it.

Somehow, it strikes me, if Letchmere was nervous the same thing would have happened. However I will say this. Letchmere was not a public figure in the police department like Sir Basil would be, and if any police constables had recognized him they might just know him by sight not name. Secondly if he properly geared himself up for using "Cross" as a pseudonym (for whatever reason) he might again not end up showing any real nervousness.

Does any of this make possible sense Trevor?

Jeff

[Hercule Poirot]

Hi,

I turn to Fisherman and to anyone interested with this.

I have no time to go through the sources on Charles Lechmere and so I depend on others - like Fisherman.

Not that Iīm particularly interested in Lechmere but Iīm interested in how people do their research, i.e. research methods within the fields of social science and history. These are my main fields of research.

So I briefly read a bit of Fishermanīs so called research. Well, I guess he wants to call it that, since his aim is to find Jack the Ripper and doing that means doing research...



...I find that misinterpretation is a big problem within ripperology.

First of all because the substancial siginificance of the subject is so high – while the substancial significance of the sources usually is very low.

If you try to use common and rather meaningless sources as very significant sources, thereby adding to them a meaning they donīt contain, you are doing bad research.

I have this problem as well, we all do, and I therefore work only critically with the sources. And that is why I say I think I have found him and that finding him is one thing – prooving it is another.

Regards Pierre

I'D like to get back to the topic Pierre introduced instead of simply arguing on specific points regarding Lechmere (which in this thread is actually hijacking the topic).

What I think he was trying to discuss was the problem of frequent misinterpretation of available data and giving an example of one point related to Cross/Lechmere. I also am interested in how people do their research with everything concerning the Ripper.

I think there is a more serious problem than misinterpretation and it's the frequent use of circular reasonning. Let me explain myself.

One comes up with a good reason to beleive someone might be the killer of one of the women. He then concludes his suspect is the Ripper and searches for all the various aspects of his 'suspect's' life which could be interpreted as a point in favour of his theory. It's been done with the Van Gogh tale and, with all due respect, with Fisherman's theory.

Now allow me to make things clear. He has come up with very interesting points and questions which allow him and other to consider Lechmere as a valid suspect and I can't see why we shouldn't add him to the list of serious contenders. What, in the name of God, has to be established before having another 'Official Casebook' suspect? What are the requirements? In the novel I've almost completed, I used one of the top suspects not that I beleive he was the Ripper (quite to the contrary IMHO) but his flamboyant personality fitted the best in my storyline. I'll bet anything you want that using that suspect won't be criticized by anyone. Had I used Lechmere, I could expect being nailed to the closest telephone pole.

Forgive my digression!

Fisherman nevertheless also used a circular reasoning approach and came up with 31 points, many of them being variations of a same point. Now the problem becomes even more delicate. For most of them, like my post graduate social science teacher would have said to me, are not independently conclusive but strickly speculative which affects the overall validity of the thesis. When you submit that the Ripper was a psychopath, again you use circular reasoning and pick every piece of information which will bring to conclude Lechmere, being a psychopath could very well be the Ripper.

Such has been the problem in too many cases and Pierre has been pointing out similar research errors hoping one would propose a valid method.

Now Fisherman, please don't serve me the newbie argument you gave Pierre. I've been lurking Casebook for more than six years, read almost every book on the subject and only began to participate in the forum months ago. My background: law, social science, political marketing and... quantum mechanics. Now in my opinion, your theory would be considered as a plausible and valid historical scenario, not an accepted theory. From the legal point of vue, because of the numerous non conclusive points your theory could easily be chalenged in a court as it would not be considered as offering real circumstantial evidence.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Please forgive my poor English, French being my main language.

[Monty]

No, you misunderstand me - I simply donīt waste money on things I donīt need.

Having read your posts on statement, AKA's, inquest and general police procedure, its clear you do.

Desperately.

Monty

[harry]

The claim of Prima Facia seems to be taken very lightly as applied to Cross.He would appear in court as a person charged with the murder of Nichols,and under the law considered innocent.Evidence of guilt would have to be proven.
So what could be proved?What direct or circumstancial elements are there that would convince a magistrate of guilt? There is none.The police in 1888 understood this.He was found beside a body,that is true,but that in itself is not enough.Paul didn't see a killing.there were no bloodstains noticed on Cross's person.No evidence of a weapon in Cross's possession.No admission of guilt.Nothing.Then,most important of all,in my opinion,no evidence that would rule out another person as the killer.

[Fisherman]

But we don't have all of the police reports referring to Lechmere, we only know from the press reports that he testified on the Monday following the discovery of the body on the previous Thursday.

I gather there was a reference to Abberline requesting, apparently on Friday, that the inquest continue on Monday, due to "new information that has recently" come to their attention.

Others have suggested this could mean Lechmere had already spoken to the police about finding the body, and I think it is plausible. It looks as if he went in to the police on Friday, possibly at a time that meant it was too late for him to appear at that day's inquest, so his appearance was held over until Monday.

Can we prove this? No, because so much of the police reports have been lost or stolen.

Can we infer that this meant Lechmere didn't keep quiet over the weekend? Yes, I think so.

How do you explain that Neil was allowed to state that he found the body first himself, denying any knowledge of the carmen?

[Fisherman]

Let's get it right. He was waiting outside a woman's house for almost an hour after she'd retired for the night and was found dead the next morning.

"Getting things right" is always essential. You originally gave a very sinister touch to what Hutch did, "staking out" the house, whereas you confidently said that Lechmere merely happened to find Nichols.

That is incriminating one and exonerating the other. We should not do such things.

Now you say that Kelly had retired for the night, but we do not know that. Certainly, if Hutch knew Kellyīs occupation, he would not be able to know whether she had retired for the night or not. Nota bene that he said that he waited to see if THEY would come out.

And yes, Kelly was found dead some ten hours after Hutch was there. But it equally applies that Nichols was found dead by a PC two or three minutes after Lechmere left her!

All we can di is to look at the factualitites, and when we do, we find that Lechmere is by far the better candidate. It is only when we compete for the most sinister hunch that Hutch may have a place to fill.

[Fisherman]

Before I continue on this thread I admit being a novice on the subject of the possibility of the guilt of Charles Letchmere as Jack the Ripper. It has become a hot potato in the last few weeks, but I rarely followed anything about it. My apologies to Fish and Harry and others who seriously consider him.

Actually this is a hypothetical matter addressed to Trevor, who was a police officer.

Policeman are trained after awhile to notice nervousness or hesitation as a reaction to what a party is saying (I believe this is being correct).

If Letchmere/Cross purposely used Cross as a pseudonym, and was lying and showing nervousness I take it, it would have been noticed. Just a guess.

If so, would it have possibly been caught? Again, I am guessing it might have been caught.

Notice how this is already stretching things. Sorry about that.

Now a number of years back I wrote an article that was published in a magazine on British police history regarding the career of Sir Basil Thomson, who was a major figure in Scotland Yard from the teens through the Great War and into the 1920s. His career ended in disgrace because of a sex scandal. He was caught with a prostitute in Hyde Park, although he claimed (at the time of arrest and at his trial) he was not a "john" picking her up, but sitting with her while monitoring a left wing speaker in the park.

When he was arrested with the prostitute, Thomson was nervous, and gave a fake name at the precinct he was taken to - he used his second and third names as his real one. However, as he had been very prominent in the police for a decade, the officers at the precinct recognized him, and had noticed as he gave the fake name he was nervous giving it.

Somehow, it strikes me, if Letchmere was nervous the same thing would have happened. However I will say this. Letchmere was not a public figure in the police department like Sir Basil would be, and if any police constables had recognized him they might just know him by sight not name. Secondly if he properly geared himself up for using "Cross" as a pseudonym (for whatever reason) he might again not end up showing any real nervousness.

Does any of this make possible sense Trevor?

Jeff

Can I have a crack at that? I think we need to look at comparable units, if you will. Serial killers, that is.
I have often postulated that Jack the Ripper would most likely have been a psychopath. Thatīs what I see at the murder sites. The FBI, I may add, saw the same thing - psychopathology.
It therefore follows that if Lechmere was the killer, then HE was that psychopath.

If you take a look at what a psychopath is, you will find that he lacks the ability to panick. You will see that he is most likely a very accomplished liar. You will note that far from getting nervous when lying, he finds reward in doing this, genuinely likes it and thrives on it.

Would a man like Carl Panzram shrink and get nervous when confronted by the police? That is what you must ponder.

If Lechmere was the killer, he actively CHOSE to stay put at the murder site as Paul approached. Is that what a nervous man would do?

Then he brought Robert Paul along with him to take a look at and feel the body. Is that what a nervous man would do?

When Paul suggested that they should prop her up, though, Lechmere said that he would not assist. Interestingly, if he was the killer, he would have kbown that such a thig would give away what had happened to Nichols.

If we consider him as the killer, then we therefore KNOW that we are dealing with one very cool man.

[Fisherman]

Having read your posts on statement, AKA's, inquest and general police procedure, its clear you do.

Desperately.

Monty

Try as you might, Monty, the outcome will be the same in more than one way:

Me no buy.

[Fisherman]

I'D like to get back to the topic Pierre introduced instead of simply arguing on specific points regarding Lechmere (which in this thread is actually hijacking the topic).

What I think he was trying to discuss was the problem of frequent misinterpretation of available data and giving an example of one point related to Cross/Lechmere. I also am interested in how people do their research with everything concerning the Ripper.

I think there is a more serious problem than misinterpretation and it's the frequent use of circular reasonning. Let me explain myself.

One comes up with a good reason to beleive someone might be the killer of one of the women. He then concludes his suspect is the Ripper and searches for all the various aspects of his 'suspect's' life which could be interpreted as a point in favour of his theory. It's been done with the Van Gogh tale and, with all due respect, with Fisherman's theory.

Now allow me to make things clear. He has come up with very interesting points and questions which allow him and other to consider Lechmere as a valid suspect and I can't see why we shouldn't add him to the list of serious contenders. What, in the name of God, has to be established before having another 'Official Casebook' suspect? What are the requirements? In the novel I've almost completed, I used one of the top suspects not that I beleive he was the Ripper (quite to the contrary IMHO) but his flamboyant personality fitted the best in my storyline. I'll bet anything you want that using that suspect won't be criticized by anyone. Had I used Lechmere, I could expect being nailed to the closest telephone pole.

Forgive my digression!

Fisherman nevertheless also used a circular reasoning approach and came up with 31 points, many of them being variations of a same point. Now the problem becomes even more delicate. For most of them, like my post graduate social science teacher would have said to me, are not independently conclusive but strickly speculative which affects the overall validity of the thesis. When you submit that the Ripper was a psychopath, again you use circular reasoning and pick every piece of information which will bring to conclude Lechmere, being a psychopath could very well be the Ripper.

Such has been the problem in too many cases and Pierre has been pointing out similar research errors hoping one would propose a valid method.

Now Fisherman, please don't serve me the newbie argument you gave Pierre. I've been lurking Casebook for more than six years, read almost every book on the subject and only began to participate in the forum months ago. My background: law, social science, political marketing and... quantum mechanics. Now in my opinion, your theory would be considered as a plausible and valid historical scenario, not an accepted theory. From the legal point of vue, because of the numerous non conclusive points your theory could easily be chalenged in a court as it would not be considered as offering real circumstantial evidence.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot

P.S. Please forgive my poor English, French being my main language.

To begin with, QC James Scobie said that there is a prima faciae case against Lechmere, suggesting that he was the killer.
In a court, the defence could, should and would challenge that. But the core of the matter is that we have a case on hand that is discussed by a QC as warranting a trial.

Is my reasoning circular? No, it is not. I am convinced that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath. The FBI agrees that the murder sites witnessed about a psychopath.

There is nothing circular about that.

I think that there are many elements that point towards Charles Lechmere being a suspect for the Nichols murder. He gave a departure time that allows for it. He was found all alone with the victim at a stage when blood would run from her neck for many ninutes afterwards. He served the police and inquest a name that was not his real one. He disagreed totally with Mizen about what was said. If Mizen was correct, he was served a lie that was tailorm ade to take Lechmere past him.

There is nothing circular about that.

I therefore suspect that Charles Lechmere was the killer of Nichols, and also probably the Ripper.

There is nothing circular about that.

Once I have decided that Lechmere is a very worthy suspect, what I have on my hands is A/ being convinced that the Ripper was a psychopath, and B/ being convinced that Lechmere was in all probability the killer of Nichols.

It therefore applies that I will be interested in finding out if there was anything that Lechmere did in combination with the murder that points to psychopathology.

There is nothing circular about that. If Nichols had been killed by somebody who put blue palm prints all over the place, i would want to know if my suspect had sticky, blue palms. If there was blue palm prints on his home walls, I would reason that such a thing seemed to confirm that he was the blue palm guy who set off prints in Bucks Row.

There is nothing circular about that.

The risk I run when looking for possible traits of psychopathology is that I may interpret things in that direction when they could also have otrher reasons. But in all honesty, although I try to keep my eyes open for such alternative reasons, this is more than anything a case for the defence. I give my version of things on a public discussion site, and it cannot be demanded of me that I handle both prosecution and defense.

Some say that I am cherrypicking. And of course I am! I am looking for the pieces that fit it with an interpretation of guilt. But I am not using material where there is a much better reason to believe in innocence. As a matter of fact, I have never found any such material. I am checking whether a long chain of detils can be formed that seemingly confirms my suspicions. I am quite confident that the defense will be handled by others.

To reach as far as we can with a suspect, this is what we must do. We must work from a presumption that he was guilty and look for the earlier overlooked bits that can confirm out suspicions.
If there are things that can exonerate Lechmere, then it is up to other people to dig for them. If I find them along the way myself, I will make them public. Anything else would be dishonest. So far, I have found many alternative explanations, but no exonerating factors. And I am personally convinced that the innocent explanations are not as factally believeable as the sinister implications.

I found the Mizen scam a few years back. Or maybe "found" is the wrong word - it has been there for all to see for all these years. But nobody had identified the implications before. The general view was that it was some weird misunderstanding or miswording.

Now, I have fit in the blood evidence. Nobody did that before either. On the adjacent boards, I discussed the matter with one of the more well known Ripperologists, with a number of published books behind him. He told me that he always thought that Stride was the only victim where anybody had seen any blood still flowing!

When a renowned Ripper author professes to that kind of knowledge, you know that there is a lot more to dig for!! And that gives me good hope that more material will point POTENTIALLY to guilt on Lechmeres behalf, once it is analyzed.

These are examples of things that SHOULD have been brought up 127 years ago - by the police. In other cases, there are much smaller matters that can be found, pointing in the carmans direction, things that have been very effectively hidden.

Is that circular, by the way? To say that I think more will surface, and then if I find something that is dubious about then carman, will that be circular too?

I am sure that you have much experience, as you say, from many branches that can have a bearing on the case. Myself, I have fourteen years as a professional newspaper researcher and nigh on thirty years as a journalist behind me. And I donīt see how any of us is the better man for it.

But I DO see that those who say that they have a fancy background like you and me, and go on to say that this would make us the better men to solve the case, these people are engaing in circular reasoning!

PS. Je parle un peu francaise, mais seulement un petit peu!

[Fisherman]

harry: The claim of Prima Facia seems to be taken very lightly as applied to Cross.He would appear in court as a person charged with the murder of Nichols,and under the law considered innocent.Evidence of guilt would have to be proven.

Yes, that is correct.

So what could be proved?

Nothing, Harry. It would be a circumstantial case. The closest we would come to proof would lie in the blod evidence. However, many are convicted on circumstantial evidence only.

What direct or circumstancial elements are there that would convince a magistrate of guilt? There is none.

You cannot know that BEFORE the trial, Harry. Thatīs the whole idea.

The police in 1888 understood this.

Dear me. Are you saying that they asked themselves if they had enough on him to take him to court? They never even investigated the man!

He was found beside a body,that is true,but that in itself is not enough.

No, it is not enough. Nore is it helpful to his case of innocence, though. But more must be added.

Paul didn't see a killing.there were no bloodstains noticed on Cross's person.

Did you personally check his clothes, Harry? Or are you trying to say that nobody noticed aby fresh blood in him in the darkness? You see, this is interesting: It is claimed that the wounds and blood could have been there without the carmen seeing it since it was so damn dark. But now you claim that we can conclude tht there was no blood on Lechmere. Why would the darkness not hide that particular quantity of blood?

No evidence of a weapon in Cross's possession.

Was he checked? Would THAT have a bearing on things? Or?

No admission of guilt.

How extremely odd - normally, serialists are very keen to profess to being guilty.

Nothing.

Ooops! The nameswop, the Mizen scam, the blood, being found alone with the body...

Then,most important of all,in my opinion,no evidence that would rule out another person as the killer.

Not totally. But since six minutes passed before Mizen saw the body, we are absolutely certain that with every minute we add, another killer becomes more and more of a remote chance. Thatīs physical evidence for you.

[Monty]

Try as you might, Monty, the outcome will be the same in more than one way:

Me no buy.

Hey, that's fine with me.

The fear of finding sources in there which throws doubt on your precious theories, combined with the fact the material is a little too taxing for you to comprehend, well I can see why you are fearful of expanding your knowledge.

There's only 6 left at Amazon anyway, so the chances of you getting it is disappearing rapidly.

Monty


PS oop, make that 5 left now.