Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
When you post on these threads,you are addressing your comments to anyone reading those posts,not to just one person.

And still, most people will not use the space to spread malicious gossip about other posters. Instead, they engage the posers they have an issue with, head to head. It is common decency.

A recent Ídiot comment by you to a poster is just one instance.

I loathe this. Instead of discussing the case, you descend into making accusations about me. But okay, let´s waste some more time and space and see what REALLY happened!

A poster with whom I have been discussing Bury versus Lechmere interms of suspect viability wrote:

You are beginning to bore me, frankly any idiot can see Bury is a much better Ripper suspect than Crossmere.

To that, I answered:

If it takes an idiot to think that Bury is a much better suspect than Lechmere, then you may want to reconsider.

Did I call somebody an idiot? No. Was it implied that I was one? Yes.

There ends that discussion. Please do not prolong it.

[GUT]

Hi Gut,

Van Gogh? That I gotta check out!

Columbo

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6358&highlight=Van+Gogh

[Fisherman]

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

I would like to add that we also know that the wounds to the abdomen were hidden by Nichols´ clothing. In the other evisceration cases, there was no effort at all to hide the wounds; instead, the victimes can be argued to have been put on display.
Hiding the wounds to Nichols´ abdomen would serve to help Lechmere if he was the killer. It is hard to see why a killer who had fled the scene would hide the wounds.

[Fisherman]

rd.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable could shed some light on what the contemporary consensus was of what Paul saw Cross do when he came up on him?

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 ´s 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 Fido´s source, as far as I can tell.

[harry]

Colombo,
Cross was uttering a lie with the intention to deceive.
You believe that? To deceive who about what?
Fact is he presented three individual pieces of information that could Identify him.(1) His home address. (2)His place of employment.(3) By coming forward his physical and facial details.Is that the actions of a man attempting to deceive.It is possibly more than is required even in these days.
Ok,here is another.To have been the killer,Cross had to be in the company of Nichols while she was still alive.Any evidence of that?
And another.Can it be established that the name of Cross was never used,socially,at work,or among family and friends.

Regards.

[Patrick S]

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

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.

[Patrick S]

I want to expand on this somewhat and say that I don't think that Mizen was, necessarily, a bad PC or a bad person. He may, in fact, been good, honest and true.....most of the time.

However, in this case, IN MY OPINION, it's seems apparent that he acted to protect his reputation, career, salary, etc. Further, I think it's likely that his testimony was allowed to stand unchallenged - as was PC Thain's testimony - as challenging it, making issue of it, could only negatively affect the image of the Met as a whole. As we know, the Met was not basking in the glow of good publicity around this time. For, while Nichols is considered the first "canonical" victim, the citizens of London saw this as another in string of attacks/murders that had gone unsolved and bungled by the Met.

The bottom line with respect to what both Cross and Paul said (in the media and at the inquest) regarding Mizen's reaction to being told about a "woman lying in Buck's Row" is that he was underwhelming in his response. He continued "knocking up where he was". It was a "great shame", especially since he was told the woman was likely dead. Mizen's testimony is inconsistent with this in that his actions were proven inappropriate, unprofessional, regrettable, in that a woman WAS dead, murdered in Buck's Row.

Mizen though (knew) that it was likely a woman lying drunk on the pavement. After all, the men did not observe and report wounds or blood and intoxication was not uncommon 'round those parts. If this HAD been a woman lying dunk, would Mizen's reaction have been notable? Of course not. But, that was not the case. Thus Mizen did some very obvious (at least to me) damage control in his inquest testimony. Just as Thain did regarding his cape and whether he told Tomkins et al about the murder.

These are not sinister things. Let's not pretend that these "allegations", if you can call them, do much in the way of indicting these men's character. Many of us would have done the same. Probably most would have, if we're honest about it.

Of course, THIS theory has the advantage of being consistent with Lechmere's actions in and after Buck's Row. He acted as any man who had NOT killed Nichols would have. He called Paul's attention to the body. He examined Nichols with Paul. Went with Paul to find a PC. FOUND a PC. Reported to the PC. And showed up AT the inquest of his own accord, even though the PC (Mizen) had not taken his name and address and no description of him had appeared ANYWHERE, beyond that he was a "a man".

So, it's either he was a witness doing what he thought right....or - as has been postulated - he was a psychopath and a man who killed throughout most of his 70+ years on this planet. And since - as is also consistent with my theory - he was never (as far as we know) arrested, violent, insane, alcoholic....whatever else you like. And since we ALSO know that he WAS a man with steady gainful employment of 20+ years, a 50 year marriage, 10 children, a business owner, and left a tidy sum to his wife upon dying a very old man....well.....I'll take simple common sense over invention and scams and supposition, however aggressively, insultingly, and impolitely it may be offered.

One thing we can agree on, though: My "theory" (i.e. a simple reasonable explanation of simple reasonable actions and events) would not result in an "internationally sent documentary".

Thanks.

[Columbo]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...light=Van+Gogh

Thanks, I'm gonna check that one out.

[Pcdunn]

The name issue

And another.Can it be established that the name of Cross was never used,socially,at work,or among family and friends.

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.

[Columbo]

I would like to add that we also know that the wounds to the abdomen were hidden by Nichols´ clothing. In the other evisceration cases, there was no effort at all to hide the wounds; instead, the victimes can be argued to have been put on display.
Hiding the wounds to Nichols´ abdomen would serve to help Lechmere if he was the killer. It is hard to see why a killer who had fled the scene would hide the wounds.

That's true and I would've added that to my list as well if I had thought of it.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 ´s 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 Fido´s 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