What happened to Lechmere......

[Clark]

el_pombo:

I'm a complete ignorant about Lechmere and I've been reading this thread. From the point of view of a layman like me I would say that someone being found right next to the body right after the murder (the body was most likely found right away) makes that person automatically a subject of interest, but not necessarily a suspect.

... which is where you differ very much from Clark. But I think you are absolutely spot on.

Here now, don't go putting words into my mouth. I've said a number of times that your theory is interesting. But I glad to see you agree with el_pombo that it doesn't necessarily make Cross a suspect.

Again, from a layman's perspective, one would have to take into account that, at the time, there wasn't yet a "ripper investigation" going on and the police would probably take little interest in the murder of a single prostitute, thus the low quality of the initial investigation - Is this realistic?

I think that we should not expect any police force in the 1880:s to prioritize prostitutes alongside the "better" and "upper" classes. That said, there were not very many murders, so it was a case that would attract much attention from both police and society anyway. And the press ensured that the police could not forget about it.

Now Fisherman, let's not lead the newbies astray. At the time the Nichols murder occurred, everyone thought that it was the third in a string of prostitute killings. That's one of the reasons everyone got all excited about it.

[Fisherman]

Here now, don't go putting words into my mouth. I've said a number of times that your theory is interesting. But I glad to see you agree with el_pombo that it doesn't necessarily make Cross a suspect.



Now Fisherman, let's not lead the newbies astray. At the time the Nichols murder occurred, everyone thought that it was the third in a string of prostitute killings. That's one of the reasons everyone got all excited about it.

In all fairness, it was El Pombo who spoke about there not being a Ripper investigation when Nichols died, not me.
But he does have some sort of point anyhow, since the real hullaballoo only broke after Chapman.

[el_pombo]

My bad!

Just one more question before I go research this by myself instead of wasting your time with the basics...

Was the police (and the newspapers) already working under the assumption that the killing of prostitutes in the east end was the work of a serial killer (or some sort of organized crime) before the Nichols murder or was the hype in the media caused by the increase in the murder rate but not assuming a direct relation between events?

[John G]

My bad!

Just one more question before I go research this by myself instead of wasting your time with the basics...

Was the police (and the newspapers) already working under the assumption that the killing of prostitutes in the east end was the work of a serial killer (or some sort of organized crime) before the Nichols murder or was the hype in the media caused by the increase in the murder rate but not assuming a direct relation between events?

Hello, el pombo,

Absolutely not. Prior to Nichols murder there was Martha Tabram, who was subsequently linked to the series by a number of senior officers. And...well, that's about it really! Emma Smith, who initially survived her injuries, claimed to have been attacked by a gang, and Annie Millwood was first suggested as a possible victim by Philip Sugden in 1994-there was also some suggestion in the press at the time that her injuries may have been self inflicted. Therefore, prior to Nichols, it would have made absolutely no sense to consider the possibility that a serial killer might be active in Whitechapel.

Of course, after the Nichols murder there was speculation about whether Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were linked. For instance, Dr Haslip, who treated Smith, told the press he believed she was attacked by the same person who murdered Nichols, a view subsequently shared by Edmund Reid. And, as I noted earlier, a number of senior officers eventually came to the view that Tabram was a JtR victim.

[Clark]

In all fairness, it was El Pombo who spoke about there not being a Ripper investigation when Nichols died, not me.
But he does have some sort of point anyhow, since the real hullaballoo only broke after Chapman.

So noted.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I thought you claimed not to read my posts completely.How come then you answer to what I write.
Nonsense,is not quite the answer I was hoping you'd give.but It is your saviour when you can't answer constructively.
The question was simple,What evidence puts Cross in Bucks Row sooner than he claimed,and in the company of Nichols when she was alive?
Unless you can answer that question,or any one else can,the theory that Cross lied,and that he murdered Nichols falls apart.
Is it important.Well if you understand the law under which he would have been tried,it is.Yes ,I understand that law,do you.

[Clark]

My bad!

Just one more question before I go research this by myself instead of wasting your time with the basics...

Was the police (and the newspapers) already working under the assumption that the killing of prostitutes in the east end was the work of a serial killer (or some sort of organized crime) before the Nichols murder or was the hype in the media caused by the increase in the murder rate but not assuming a direct relation between events?

Headline for The Times on 9/1/1888 regarding Nichols' killing:

Another Murder in Whitechapel!

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18880901.html

Headline for The Star on 9/1/1888:

SPECIAL EDITION.

THE WHITECHAPEL HORROR.
THE THIRD CRIME OF A MAN WHO MUST BE A MANIAC.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880901.html

Headline for the East London Advertiser, 9/1/1888:

ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY.
HORRIBLE MURDER IN BUCK'S ROW, WHITECHAPEL.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_advertiser/ela880901.html

Check out the Press Reports section linked to the upper left on your screen. A font of information.

Best wishes.

[el_pombo]

Hello, el pombo,

Absolutely not. Prior to Nichols murder there was Martha Tabram, who was subsequently linked to the series by a number of senior officers. And...well, that's about it really! Emma Smith, who initially survived her injuries, claimed to have been attacked by a gang, and Annie Millwood was first suggested as a possible victim by Philip Sugden in 1994-there was also some suggestion in the press at the time that her injuries may have been self inflicted. Therefore, prior to Nichols, it would have made absolutely no sense to consider the possibility that a serial killer might be active in Whitechapel.

Of course, after the Nichols murder there was speculation about whether Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were linked. For instance, Dr Haslip, who treated Smith, told the press he believed she was attacked by the same person who murdered Nichols, a view subsequently shared by Edmund Reid. And, as I noted earlier, a number of senior officers eventually came to the view that Tabram was a JtR victim.

Hello, John G.

Thank you very much for the information. My idea was that if the police wasn't on the hunt for a serial killer maybe they would have been less thorough with the investigation, considering it "just another murder of a prostitute"! But, of course, public opinion would be very important, and the attention it received from the newspapers.

All the best!

[el_pombo]

Headline for The Times on 9/1/1888 regarding Nichols' killing:

Another Murder in Whitechapel!

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18880901.html

Headline for The Star on 9/1/1888:

SPECIAL EDITION.

THE WHITECHAPEL HORROR.
THE THIRD CRIME OF A MAN WHO MUST BE A MANIAC.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880901.html

Headline for the East London Advertiser, 9/1/1888:

ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY.
HORRIBLE MURDER IN BUCK'S ROW, WHITECHAPEL.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_advertiser/ela880901.html

Check out the Press Reports section linked to the upper left on your screen. A font of information.

Best wishes.

Thank you, Clark!

I'll start reading it right now!

All the best!

[el_pombo]

el_pombo:

I'm a complete ignorant about Lechmere and I've been reading this thread. From the point of view of a layman like me I would say that someone being found right next to the body right after the murder (the body was most likely found right away) makes that person automatically a subject of interest, but not necessarily a suspect.

... which is where you differ very much from Clark. But I think you are absolutely spot on.

To me, the most important questions are:

- Why did the police rule out Lechmere as a suspect?

My guess is that a couple of matters were involved. Lechmere sought out the police on his own account not once but twice. That would have impressed them.
I also think that the police worked to a prejudiced agenda. 1888 was smack, bang in the middle of the era when the Brits invested in criminal anthropology, and that was probably the deciding factor. Lechmere was probably considered too British, too simple, too much of a family man and a faithful worker etcetera.

- Why did Lechmere stop? (he died many years after the last of the C5).

I do not think that he DID stop - on the contrary, I think there is ample reason to believe that he carried on. And I think he began killing long before 1888.

Fisherman has already explained that, in his opinion, the police did a very bad job and that's the reason he was ruled out.

Ooops; did it again...

Again, from a layman's perspective, one would have to take into account that, at the time, there wasn't yet a "ripper investigation" going on and the police would probably take little interest in the murder of a single prostitute, thus the low quality of the initial investigation - Is this realistic?

I think that we should not expect any police force in the 1880:s to prioritize prostitutes alongside the "better" and "upper" classes. That said, there were not very many murders, so it was a case that would attract much attention from both police and society anyway. And the press ensured that the police could not forget about it.

But after the ripper claimed more victims I think they surely had to re-investigate Lechmere's role in the Nichols murder - Are there any known records of this?

None whatsoever. On the contrary, the fact that he is called Cross in the reports - reaching all the way up to October 19:th, I believe - implicates how he was never looked into.
It is understandable in many a way - we know how the police had to apply for extra resources as the case spiralled away; so much happened and so many people needed to be investigated that the police would have had veryn little resources to backtrack.
Walter Dews memoirs also tell us that the carman was looked upon as a coarse, simple man who behaved like the ordinary coarse, simple Eastender, so that seems to point to how he was let go, no questions asked. Plus he is not mentioned at all in other memoirs.

The remaining question is, for me, the hardest! Why did he stop killing and led an apparent normal life until is death?

Once again, I am anything but certain that he did stop. On the contrary.

Thanks Fisherman!

I'll be doing a lot of reading on this, sometimes having someone starting from zero can help bring a new perspective.

All the best!

[Robert St Devil]

el pombo

Are you asking for a reason why the cases were compartmentalized from ech other? I find that nagging as well. Why weren't the witness crossed between these cases - Schwartz taken to see Hutchinson, the witnesses from the Chapman murder crossed with the Kelly witnesses - to see if anybody recognized anybody else. The one time it is done, when the two ingenius detectives take the man to see Eddowes instead of Kelly to authenticate his credibility, is frowned upon.

Who knows why the press ran with her story the way it did? The Martha Tabram story is more interesting- two military men strolling about two prostitutes, a police encounter with a lookout, the inconceivable murder, the subsequent investigation by Polly. Nicholls murder only further reenforces the Tabram murder - madness is on the loose. Its Chapmans murder that introduces mania to the madness.

[drstrange169]

>>… until I make false claims about you. When/if I do, I will happily apologize…<<

Post 276, you wrote,

“If you, think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one I will just leave that particular discussion.”

Since I never mentioned tight skirts and tight skirts were never part of the discussion until you introduced the subject, the above claim that I,

“think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one”

was a “false claim” on your part.

Despite my pointing out your manufactured "claim", you’ve so far, fudged around the subject, apparently to avoid acknowledging your “false claim”.

But, heigh ho, par for the course.


Meanwhile let’s not dwell on your personal attacks and get back on topic …


Re: Newspaper quote,
>>Why? What does it add, to your mind, that is vital to the issue?<<

Since I and others have discussed the next line of that newspaper article ad nausem, aren’t you being a bit disingenuous again?


Re: people closest to the murder at the time it happened.

>> These people were NOT at the murder site … <<

Not at the murder site? Did you seriously write that?

Fact: nobody can establish whether Xmere was close to the murder site at the time the murder was committed. (What you call circumstantial evidence)

Fact: the Greens, Purkis’s and several watchmen WERE very close to the murder site at the time the murder was happening. (What the rest of us call provable evidence)

Ergo, sound, unbiased, police sense would put those people at the top of the MUST be checked out list, ahead of Xmere.


>> they were inside their houses and the vouched for each other.<<

So you’re claiming a mother or a wife or a brother, or a son never gave a false alibi for their kin in the history of crime?


>> Any killer would need around a minute - not five seconds - headway on Lechmere, at least. For five seconds to be an interesting figure, the killer would need to wait until Lechmere was five seconds away from the body.<<

I'd like to comment but, that doesn’t even make sense.

[Fisherman]

Here´s an idea - I will save up on space and efforts by answering tonights posts with one sentence per post only!

[Fisherman]

My bad!

Just one more question before I go research this by myself instead of wasting your time with the basics...

Was the police (and the newspapers) already working under the assumption that the killing of prostitutes in the east end was the work of a serial killer (or some sort of organized crime) before the Nichols murder or was the hype in the media caused by the increase in the murder rate but not assuming a direct relation between events?

The moment Tabram was killed, some little speculation started to brew in the press that there could be a connection to Smith, but it was not until Nichols died that the idea of a murder series started to take real shape.

[Fisherman]

>>… until I make false claims about you. When/if I do, I will happily apologize…<<

Post 276, you wrote,

“If you, think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one I will just leave that particular discussion.”

Since I never mentioned tight skirts and tight skirts were never part of the discussion until you introduced the subject, the above claim that I,

“think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one”

was a “false claim” on your part.

Despite my pointing out your manufactured "claim", you’ve so far, fudged around the subject, apparently to avoid acknowledging your “false claim”.

But, heigh ho, par for the course.


Meanwhile let’s not dwell on your personal attacks and get back on topic …


Re: Newspaper quote,
>>Why? What does it add, to your mind, that is vital to the issue?<<

Since I and others have discussed the next line of that newspaper article ad nausem, aren’t you being a bit disingenuous again?


Re: people closest to the murder at the time it happened.

>> These people were NOT at the murder site … <<

Not at the murder site? Did you seriously write that?

Fact: nobody can establish whether Xmere was close to the murder site at the time the murder was committed. (What you call circumstantial evidence)

Fact: the Greens, Purkis’s and several watchmen WERE very close to the murder site at the time the murder was happening. (What the rest of us call provable evidence)

Ergo, sound, unbiased, police sense would put those people at the top of the MUST be checked out list, ahead of Xmere.


>> they were inside their houses and the vouched for each other.<<

So you’re claiming a mother or a wife or a brother, or a son never gave a false alibi for their kin in the history of crime?


>> Any killer would need around a minute - not five seconds - headway on Lechmere, at least. For five seconds to be an interesting figure, the killer would need to wait until Lechmere was five seconds away from the body.<<

I'd like to comment but, that doesn’t even make sense.

In my post 230, I wrote that there were tight skirts, but "they were worn by the upper classes", and the murder site was not indoors, ergo the dwellers of Bucks Row were not at it.