Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[harry]

Colombo,
Did I understand you that you would be eager to debate with anyone.I trust then you will answer my last post to you.It was neither offensive nor difficult.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

Could you cite the source from Xmere, where he specifically states he was late?

Certainly. From the Daily Telegraph, September 4 1888:

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?

Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

Ah, thank you, so we don't know that he was late after all, twas just a guess.

No. Here it is again: I was behind time myself.

Not according to three policemen, one of whom the Xmere theory needs to be a paragon of truthfulness and a man who doesn't easily make mistakes. Now there's a conundrum.

... but according to the only man who gave an exact time. And according to the final police report, where 3.40 had been adjusted to 3.45, signed Donald Swanson. Presumably, he had weighed in all factors at that stage. Which was why the time was altered.

As for Mizen, he need not have been a paragon of truthfulness or anything like that. He need only to have been an average serving PC, doing what he was hired to do. Letīs not get overenthusiastic about the demands it would require for him to speak the simple truth. And letīs not forget that the one who we know did not give his registered name to the police was Lechmere. Plus we know that regardless of he left 3.20 or 3.30, he should have been way past Bucks Row at 3.45. Equally, he should have been past it at 3.40 too.

He seems the by far more likely man to have been economic with the truth.

[GUT]

I was speaking figuratively, meaning he had to stand his ground and see it through as opposed to running away.

Why then, didn't he fight.

But why didn't he whip his knife out and give Paul what he'd just given Polly.

[drstrange169]

Just a quick fact check.

... we know that Lechmere claimed to have been late on the morning in question

Do we?

Could you cite the source from Xmere, where he specifically states he was late?

... my guess is that Lechmere said that he normally started out at 3.20, but on the murder morning he was late, and started out 3.30.

Ah, thank you, so we don't know that he was late after all, twas just a guess.

When he met Paul on the murder morning, it was 3.45 ...

Not according to three policemen, one of whom the Xmere theory needs to be a paragon of truthfulness and a man who doesn't easily make mistakes. Now there's a conundrum.

Aren't you proud? After 20 years I've finally worked out how to use the quote button!

[Fisherman]

Columbo: Thanks Fisherman, I was always baffled by that comment. It's good to know there was an actual reference to associate with it.

There are a few examples where the papers say that Lechmere claimed to have stepped back. So itīs not only in the Daily News.

Another question came to mind as I was reading through the thread. How come Cross and Paul didn't know each other? Did they never meet walking the same route to work?

Lechmere had only moved to Doveton Street in mid June. Before that, he lived in James Street (todays Burslem Street) in St Georges. Plus we know that Lechmere claimed to have been late on the morning in question - he reasonably normally started out at 3.20, in order to reach Pickfords in Broad Street at 4 AM. It was a 40 minute walk. Both 3.20 and 3.30 are mentioned in the inquest material, and my guess is that Lechmere said that he normally started out at 3.20, but on the murder morning he was late, and started out 3.30. In neither case should he have been in Bucks Row at 3.45, since it took six or seven minutes to do the trek from 22 Doveton Street to the Browns Stable yard gate.
Anyway, if he started out at 3.20 normally, that would take him through Bucks Row around 3.27. When he met Paul on the murder morning, it was 3.45, 18 minutes later. I think that Pauls normal schedule took him through Bucks Row earlier than Lechmere walked through it, so there was no reason for them to meet based on the timings.

Was Buck's Row Paul's usual route to work? I would've expected them to at least pass one another once or twice if this was their usual route.

It would have been both Pauls and Lechmeres normal route.

So a hypothetical question comes to mind. If Bucks row was Paul's usual route but not Cross's that would seem even more strange that he was found with the body.

Just food for thought.

Lechmere had no alternative but to use Bucks Row, it was the only thoroughfare that worked practically for him if he did not want to loose time. To the north, the railway cut off his opportunities to pass through, and to the south, he need to drop down to Whitechapel Road, which was a longer trek.
On that score, it can be said that there is every chance that Lechmere actually did precisely this, if he was the killer, looking for prey. In such a case, Whitechapel Road would supply many prostitutes. He could pick one, and then delve into the quiet backstreets north of Whitechapel Road to "do the business". Only his business would differ from what the chosen lady had in mind.
Incidentally, if the procedure took him an extra eight minutes, involving the killing, then he would be in Bucks Row with the freshly killed victim at around 3.45 if he started out from home at 3.30...

[CertainSum1]

Why then, didn't he fight.

I was speaking figuratively, meaning he had to stand his ground and see it through as opposed to running away.

[GUT]

Lechmere couldn't have known that Paul wouldn't see blood. He reacted the way one would with a "fight or flight" response. Assuming he's the killer, if he hadn't stayed with the body, feigning discovery, he would have to assume that Paul would have seen the bloody mess and taken off after him, (as he'd have to run to get away) yelled murder, or otherwise have made his safe escape unlikely. His actions make perfect sense if he was the killer deciding instantaneously that he had to fight rather than take flight.

Why then, didn't he fight.

[CertainSum1]

Lechmere couldn't have known that Paul wouldn't see blood. He reacted the way one would with a "fight or flight" response. Assuming he's the killer, if he hadn't stayed with the body, feigning discovery, he would have to assume that Paul would have seen the bloody mess and taken off after him, (as he'd have to run to get away) yelled murder, or otherwise have made his safe escape unlikely. His actions make perfect sense if he was the killer deciding instantaneously that he had to fight rather than take flight.

[CertainSum1]

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.

I have to agree. It seems the condescension is exactly relative to how strongly he/she believes in the Lechmere theory.

[Columbo]

False. One must not be good, true, and honest in all things to NOT be Jack the Ripper. One must simply...well.....NOT be Jack the Ripper. And, just as I contend that we will never know JtR's identity, we'll also never "rule out" anyone who happened to live and move through the East End in the autumn of 1888. I can't "rule out" Lechmere was Jack the Ripper anymore than I can "rule out" Sickert, or William Gull. I can only say what's likely and unlikely.

Hey Patrick,

So you don't think we can rule out Gull, Eddie, Tumblety, Sickert, and a bunch more that were shown by the investigations done by modern day researchers that they weren't involved at all?

Columbo

[Columbo]

There are two versions of the meeting between Paul and Lechmere, basically.

The first one is the Paul interview from Lloyds Weekly of the 2:nd of September. In it, Paul says that he had seen a man standing "where the woman was".

The other version is the inquest version. At the inquest, Paul apparently said that he had seen Lechmere standing "in the middle of the road". Lechmere says the same: the middle of the road.

These two versions are not mutually excluding each other. Bucks Row was around 25 feet wide, from wall to wall. Two pavements recuced that number of feet further. When we take the pavements away, we are left with perhaps 18 feet of road. If Lechmere stood exactly in the middle of it, he had nine feet or thereabouts to the southern pavement, where Nichols would have occupied most of the width.
Furthermore, when somebody says "in the middle of the road", it generally does not mean "exactly in the middle of the road", but instead "well out in the road". We may need to accept that Lechmere could have been nine feet from the pavement, but equally it could also have been seven or eleven.

Since Paul originally said "where the woman was", the best suggestion we can make is that Lechmere was in line with the victim. He was not fifty feet up or down the street, arguably. The important thing to keep in mind is that any discussion of two, five, nine, eleven or fifteen feet is absolutely moot. The only thing that matters is the question "was he close enough to have been the killer?", and that question answers itself. We should also consider how he, if he was the killer, would arguably have distanced himself from the body intentionally as he heard somebody approaching.

Lechmere was reported to do nothing at all from the outset. He stood still, and Paul was approaching along the northern pavement as he saw Lechmere. Lechmere then cut off Pauls route by walking against the pavement, whereupon Paul instead stepped int the road to be able to pass him. At this stage, when Paul tried to pass Lechmere, the latter stretched out his hand, put it on Pauls shoulder and said "come and look here, there īs a woman". He did not contact Paul earlier, and he was not seen to do anything - at least Paul says nothing about this.

As for Martin Fidos saying that he stepped back into the shadows and waited, this is probably knit to a couple of reports where this inference can be suggested. One such example is the Daily News of the 4:th, where it says:

It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come. He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down.

This could be Fidoīs source, as far as I can tell.

Thanks Fisherman, I was always baffled by that comment. It's good to know there was an actual reference to associate with it.

Another question came to mind as I was reading through the thread. How come Cross and Paul didn't know each other? Did they never meet walking the same route to work?

Was Buck's Row Paul's usual route to work? I would've expected them to at least pass one another once or twice if this was their usual route.

So a hypothetical question comes to mind. If Bucks row was Paul's usual route but not Cross's that would seem even more strange that he was found with the body.

Just food for thought.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Someone sent me a message to that effect, but it looks like it was BS and looking at the time of the message they had him confused with Chris. I must say when I heard I took it as true.

That's good to know.

[GUT]

Is this true? I didn't hear anything about it.

c.d.

Someone sent me a message to that effect, but it looks like it was BS and looking at the time of the message they had him confused with Chris. I must say when I heard I took it as true.

[c.d.]

You do know Stewart passed away?

So I if we get him in a Q&A we might have a name at last.

Is this true? I didn't hear anything about it.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Well, no, because those would be informal usages, and Fisherman has apparently only found formal written usages of the name as "Lechmere", including-- I infer-- in the censuses and on voter rolls.

Having recently started to seriously do genealogical work on my family, using Ancestry.com, I've learned that names seemed to fluctuate in the 19th century, even in written documents. A child listed as "Grover J. [surname]" later turns up as an adult listed as "James Grover [surname]", but there are enough clues to show he's from the same family, and is presumably the same person. Was he trying to deceive, do you think? Or he just hated his first name and changed it when was old enough? Hmmm...

Not the same, I know, but maybe what he said was "I'm called Charles Cross"-- and to his mind, it was true. People did seem to pick their own names quite a lot back then, as well as borrow their friends' names.

As a matter of fact, it cannot be established that Lechmere never used ANY name. He could have called himself anything from Leibnitz to Goethe.
The thing is, we have absolutely no evidence that he ever called himself anything but Lechmere. Apart, that is, form an instance when he used the name Cross instead after having been found alone with a freshly killed murder victim.