What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

harry:

Bu I AM asking.You declared Cross never approached nearer than the centre of the road.Read your posts.Opportunity has not been shown.

I´m afraid being alone with a victim the way Lechmere was equals opportunity. It is another thing that we cannot tell if he took advantage of the opportunity.
Your reasoning would be equal to how a man in a room, alone with a dead woman, would not necessarily have had the opportunity to kill her.
As such, we cannot know if the man ever approached the woman, so there is no definitely proven opportunity, eh?
However, put that to a judge and jury, and you will quickly become aware that they reason differently. Being within a close enough distance to have done the deed equals opportunity, and Paul not having corroborated Lechmere´s alledged stepping into the middle of the road equals no possible determination of the length of time he was there before Paul arrived.

That is all there is to say. Lechmere was alone with the body, and he had opportunity to be the killer.

Hutchinson had the opportunity to attend the inquest.He avoided doing so.Ditto my English dictionary.

I am interested to see if your English dictionary has actual proof of Hutchinson having had that opportunity! Read Snowwhite.

I çan assert when he arrived at Brown's because you stated it would have been a short while before Paul, who states the precise time he(Paul)entered Bucks Row.

Eh? I stated that he arrived a short while before Paul? Did I give the amount of seconds too? None of us knows when he arrived at Browns. There is one indication only timewise: he left home at 3.30. And the trek down there was six or seven minutes long. Going by that, he arrived at 3.36-3.37. And Paul arrived at 3.45-3.46.

One more coincidence you can add to your list? The coincidence of interruption.The killer was interrupted?

Yes, he was. And he pulled the dress over the wounds to the stomach. Coincidentally, this was the only time he did so. One wonders why?

[Patrick S]

I think that it's fair to say that it is for more likely than not that Charles Allen Lechmere (aka Charles Cross) was NOT Jack the Ripper. Of course, that can be said for each and every name that appears on the "suspect list" these days. If it were not, then that list would be contracting, not expanding.

It's been said many times, but I'll repeat it here: Its not possible to prove a negative. Thus, a case of some kind can be made against ANYONE who was ALIVE between August and November, 1888 who cannot be proved to have been somewhere else at the times the murders were committed. From here you apply things like "too young", "too old", "too infirm", whatever. But, you get the gist.

Charles Cross moves higher up the list, of course, because - as we hear so often - he was found alone with the body of a Ripper victim. But, of course, we cannot just take this information at face value, can we? First, we ask the obvious question: Then what? Well, THEN he flagged down the first person to come along. He approached him. Touched him on the shoulder. Asked him to come see "this woman". He didn't walk away. He didn't let the man avoid him when he tried to do so.

Okay. He was caught unawares, having just cut Nichols' throat and begun disemboweling her. He was confused. Now, he recovers his wits. So....THEN WHAT? Well, then he goes with the man to the body. They inspect it but notice no injuries, but he does tell the man he flagged down that for his part he thinks she's dead. Even as the other man thinks he detects movement he doesn't play along and capitalize on this. He doesn't say, "AH! Another drunk then! I'm off!" No. He disagrees. He think she's dead. AH! So, this fellow's not very bright. He may have done it still!

THEN WHAT! Then he agrees to go with his companion in search of....a policeman. Again, he does not go the opposite way. He doesn't split from this man at the first intersection. He stays the course. Until!...THEY FIND A POLICEMAN!

Now, we can make suppositions and repeat theories about 'scams' and who lied to whom. But, we know is that the man with Lechmere that morning independently and BEFORE we hear from Lechmere at all said that the policeman they met was given a full and accurate accounting of what they found. He was told where. He was told what. He was told 'likely dead'. And the man then does what? He goes to work. And he's gone, into the darkness. No name. No description. Nothing. Gone.

Until......he shows up and at the inquest. He's not found. He's not summoned. He shows up. Voluntarily. The papers say his name is Cross. George. Charles Andrew. A few variations. But, it's reported as Cross. Now this IS a name he has an association with. A name he likely, earlier in life, used. But, lets say he had a sinister reason for using Cross rather than Lechmere. Was it because he was Jack the Ripper? After all, how many opportunities did this man have to simply fade into the blackness? Yet...he calls attention to his 'victim'? Goes in search of the police? Comes to the inquest of his own free will? And THEN gives a "FALSE NAME"....BECAUSE HE IS THE KILLER?

Well....okay. If that's the best you have....then...okay. Let's go with it. But, let's not overstate it. Let's not pretend it's 'more likely than not' he was the killer.

And then we have the fact that he was never arrested. Ever. No evidence of violence. Ever. Hard working guy. 20+ years at Pickfords. Married to the same woman for 50 years. 10 kids. Ran a store in retirement. Left an estate. All while he continued killing. Again. Okay. If that's the best you got........ I guess. But, let's be fair. Let's not pretend we've cracked the case. Let's not even pretend this is anything more than a great story, a fascinating 'what if'?

But the fact of the matter - obviously - is that he's not the BEST we've got. There are much more plausible suspects. Obviously, THE FIELD is a far better suspect. That is to say, every nameless , faceless lunatic or otherwise that may have wondered the East End in 1888. Then there is a high percentage of names on the 'suspects' list. Few are actually compelling. But many are FAR more compelling than Lechmere.

[barnflatwyngarde]

I think that it's fair to say that it is for more likely than not that Charles Allen Lechmere (aka Charles Cross) was NOT Jack the Ripper. Of course, that can be said for each and every name that appears on the "suspect list" these days. If it were not, then that list would be contracting, not expanding.

It's been said many times, but I'll repeat it here: Its not possible to prove a negative. Thus, a case of some kind can be made against ANYONE who was ALIVE between August and November, 1888 who cannot be proved to have been somewhere else at the times the murders were committed. From here you apply things like "too young", "too old", "too infirm", whatever. But, you get the gist.

Charles Cross moves higher up the list, of course, because - as we hear so often - he was found alone with the body of a Ripper victim. But, of course, we cannot just take this information at face value, can we? First, we ask the obvious question: Then what? Well, THEN he flagged down the first person to come along. He approached him. Touched him on the shoulder. Asked him to come see "this woman". He didn't walk away. He didn't let the man avoid him when he tried to do so.

Okay. He was caught unawares, having just cut Nichols' throat and begun disemboweling her. He was confused. Now, he recovers his wits. So....THEN WHAT? Well, then he goes with the man to the body. They inspect it but notice no injuries, but he does tell the man he flagged down that for his part he thinks she's dead. Even as the other man thinks he detects movement he doesn't play along and capitalize on this. He doesn't say, "AH! Another drunk then! I'm off!" No. He disagrees. He think she's dead. AH! So, this fellow's not very bright. He may have done it still!

THEN WHAT! Then he agrees to go with his companion in search of....a policeman. Again, he does not go the opposite way. He doesn't split from this man at the first intersection. He stays the course. Until!...THEY FIND A POLICEMAN!

Now, we can make suppositions and repeat theories about 'scams' and who lied to whom. But, we know is that the man with Lechmere that morning independently and BEFORE we hear from Lechmere at all said that the policeman they met was given a full and accurate accounting of what they found. He was told where. He was told what. He was told 'likely dead'. And the man then does what? He goes to work. And he's gone, into the darkness. No name. No description. Nothing. Gone.

Until......he shows up and at the inquest. He's not found. He's not summoned. He shows up. Voluntarily. The papers say his name is Cross. George. Charles Andrew. A few variations. But, it's reported as Cross. Now this IS a name he has an association with. A name he likely, earlier in life, used. But, lets say he had a sinister reason for using Cross rather than Lechmere. Was it because he was Jack the Ripper? After all, how many opportunities did this man have to simply fade into the blackness? Yet...he calls attention to his 'victim'? Goes in search of the police? Comes to the inquest of his own free will? And THEN gives a "FALSE NAME"....BECAUSE HE IS THE KILLER?

Well....okay. If that's the best you have....then...okay. Let's go with it. But, let's not overstate it. Let's not pretend it's 'more likely than not' he was the killer.

And then we have the fact that he was never arrested. Ever. No evidence of violence. Ever. Hard working guy. 20+ years at Pickfords. Married to the same woman for 50 years. 10 kids. Ran a store in retirement. Left an estate. All while he continued killing. Again. Okay. If that's the best you got........ I guess. But, let's be fair. Let's not pretend we've cracked the case. Let's not even pretend this is anything more than a great story, a fascinating 'what if'?

But the fact of the matter - obviously - is that he's not the BEST we've got. There are much more plausible suspects. Obviously, THE FIELD is a far better suspect. That is to say, every nameless , faceless lunatic or otherwise that may have wondered the East End in 1888. Then there is a high percentage of names on the 'suspects' list. Few are actually compelling. But many are FAR more compelling than Lechmere.

Very good assessment of the case put forward by Fisherman.

I am sorry Christer, but I think that most people simply are not persuaded by your many posts and arguments.

[Fisherman]

Very good assessment of the case put forward by Fisherman.

I am sorry Christer, but I think that most people simply are not persuaded by your many posts and arguments.

Out here? Perhaps not. But then again, that was not to be expected, was it? Out here, there were people who came close to tears when Russel Edwards presented his shawl theory; a scientifically supported theory, what a dreadful day that was!!

The main goal for me was never to persuade people out here. I am here to see if the theory holds up against the kind of barrage that is always directed towards those who dare say that they have the prime suspect.

So far, it does so with ease. And I´m fine with that. And anything but sorry.

If I should feel sorry for having been dissed by so many so very reputable and knowledgeable ripperologists out here, I can always turn to the comments on the net about the docu. Out there, in the real world, people look differently on matters. For some unfathomable reason.

How about you, Barnflatwyngarde; what do YOU think is the negating factor that sinks the Lechmere ship? And who - if any - do YOU think is the best Ripper suspect?

[Patrick S]

It is somewhat interesting to read comments by posters admitting that they've convinced approximately no one that a particularly theory is plausible while, in the same breath, maintaining that said theory has withstood any and all scrutiny "with ease". One might assume that if a theory had, in fact, passed all tests with flying colors and been diminished not at all, more people (or at the very least SOME people) may have been convinced along the way.

The truth of matter is that the Lechmere theory has been debunked thoroughly. It was a good story but long shot from the start and it has been diminished to insignificance by independent research, facts, and mere common sense. All of this is plainly obvious to everyone but the poster himself, who claims victory over all who question his theory by simply dismissing any and all questions and criticism as irrelevant, out-of-bounds, and completely insignificant. It reminds one of playing tag with the neighborhood kid who, no matter how many times you caught him and thumped him on the back cried, "You missed me!".

Now, I was rightly chastised and punished once before for allowing these things to get to me and I've taken a personal vow to be respectful. Even as the poster in question will not respond to me directly, I find much of the invective he directs at others somewhat troubling, if understandable in light of the success he's had selling his theory on these pages. Of course, this theory has gained traction elsewhere. We know of articles and documentaries, and I hope that no one begrudges anyone that well earned success. The dedication required to produce such a result is obvious, if not admirable considering that an innocent and - dare I say - admirable man's name has been disassembled and reconstructed as a pseudonym for Jack the Ripper.

Oh, yes. If some can go so far as to say that the evidence 'strongly' suggest that he was a lifelong serial killer then I must point out this man has been judged INNOCENT here by the indoctrinated, the educated, those well versed in all things Ripper. Thus, based on what I and others have learned about the man, I'm comfortable calling him a man - especially when viewed through the lens of his particular times and place - an ADMIRABLE man.

I've learned many things about Charles Allen Lechmere. Of course, were it not for this theory and it's authors this a man - important to the fabric of the case - that would have remained in the shadows, a mere name glossed over again and again. A simple carman. Credit should go to those who worked to bring him out of those shadows. And if we award that credit then we must also directs some measure of disappointment (and scorn, perhaps) in what has become the final product of this work: a baseless accusation, maintained despite its failure to convince for reasons other than advancing the research moving us closer to the truth.

Submitted humbly and with respect.....

PDS

[Patrick S]

One other point I'd like to make. One mustn't have a 'suspect' in order to debate the merits of 'suspects'. They either stand of their own accord or they do not. It's not an "either or" proposition. In fact, many (myself included) are resigned to the realization that "Jack" will never be "found" and that an understanding of the people and their times are all that we can hope for. For me, that is more than enough.

I'd also like to point out that claiming victory because a group of individuals with very little knowledge or understanding of the Whitechapel murders, Buck's Row, Mizen, Neil, Thain, Cross, Paul, "Lechmere", Nichols, et al, other than what's presented in the very documentary on which they comment upon somehow trumps the opinions and views of a group of individuals who have spent - combined - CENTURIES studying all aspects of this case seems like very backward thinking indeed.

My best wishes, of course......

PDS

[GUT]

And thence compares his Theory with that of Edwards, which was completely debunked.

[Fisherman]

And thence compares his Theory with that of Edwards, which was completely debunked.

I could compare you to Buster Keaton, and it still would not make you the same.

Any more on that "how-can-he-be-the-prime-suspect-and-still-perhaps-be-innocent" thing...?

Nighty-night.

[GUT]

I could compare you to Buster Keaton, and it still would not make you the same.

Any more on that "how-can-he-be-the-prime-suspect-and-still-perhaps-be-innocent" thing...?

Nighty-night.

But of course people didn't like Edwards theory because it was full of holes so perhaps it's apt that you compare your theory about Cross with his works.

You also said that Edwards theory was scientifically based, mmmmmm not sure you ever read anything about it. The "science" was shown to be totally shonky.

[Fisherman]

But of course people didn't like Edwards theory because it was full of holes so perhaps it's apt that you compare your theory about Cross with his works.

You also said that Edwards theory was scientifically based, mmmmmm not sure you ever read anything about it. The "science" was shown to be totally shonky.

I was the one who originally pointed out the mistake on the haplogroup, where female and male DNA were mistaken, Gut. It nevertheless applies that the theory as such was built on science.
The point is how it had people on the brink of crying out here, thinking that the hunt could all be over. When I posted on the mixed up haplogroups I suddenly found how people who had been very scornful about the Lechmere theory now cheered me on. It was as touching as it was detestable. But such is the state of affairs out here!

By the way, having presented that fresh new take on how potentially innocent people could not be prime suspects, you may wish to speak less about holes in other peoples thinking. Just a suggestion.

[Clark]

That is why I am asking you to name one single factor that you think would be a good reason for me to drop my theory or reconsider the premise that it is more k´likely to be correct than wrong

I have not and would not suggest you drop your theory. I hope that you will continue your research until you have proved it or have found something that will refute it to your satisfaction.

As for me, there are a number of reasons I am not convinced of the likelihood that Cross was the killer. Here are three.

1) Cross's testimony supports the substance of Paul's statement to Lloyd's, and Paul's knowledge of what Cross claims to have told Mizen collaborates his story, IMO.

2) The remaining records from the time show nothing to indicate that the police ever suspected Cross. Many of the 35 points you've mentioned would have been evident to the police at the time, yet they did not find them significant. Why? The most likely reason, IMO, would be that they knew something that we don't that satisfied them that Cross wasn't the Ripper.

3) After the extensive press coverage, anyone who knew Lechmere (at least well enough to know that he had once been known as Cross, such as his family, and at least after his identification as a carman and absence from work during the inquest, his employer) would surely have noticed if his movements were unaccounted for during the subsequent murders. Someone, his employer if not his family, would have reported it. Apparently, no one did. From that I conclude that it is most likely that his time could be accounted for during at least some of the subsequent Ripper murders.

Now I don't expect any of this to sway you, since you can no doubt find alternative explanations for all of these things that will allow you to continue to think Cross to be your most likely suspect. But they are significant arguments against that likelihood to me.

[Fisherman]

I have not and would not suggest you drop your theory. I hope that you will continue your research until you have proved it or have found something that will refute it to your satisfaction.

As for me, there are a number of reasons I am not convinced of the likelihood that Cross was the killer. Here are three.

1) Cross's testimony supports the substance of Paul's statement to Lloyd's, and Paul's knowledge of what Cross claims to have told Mizen collaborates his story, IMO.

2) The remaining records from the time show nothing to indicate that the police ever suspected Cross. Many of the 35 points you've mentioned would have been evident to the police at the time, yet they did not find them significant. Why? The most likely reason, IMO, would be that they knew something that we don't that satisfied them that Cross wasn't the Ripper.

3) After the extensive press coverage, anyone who knew Lechmere (at least well enough to know that he had once been known as Cross, such as his family, and at least after his identification as a carman and absence from work during the inquest, his employer) would surely have noticed if his movements were unaccounted for during the subsequent murders. Someone, his employer if not his family, would have reported it. Apparently, no one did. From that I conclude that it is most likely that his time could be accounted for during at least some of the subsequent Ripper murders.

Now I don't expect any of this to sway you, since you can no doubt find alternative explanations for all of these things that will allow you to continue to think Cross to be your most likely suspect. But they are significant arguments against that likelihood to me.

That´s just fine, Clark. Others have spoken of the same things before, not least how Lechmere would have been exposed back in 1888 if he was the killer.
Since they all are, I guess.

Good to know where you are coming from, at any rate.

[Clark]

That is a bit sad - I would like to know what you think about the issue after having been informed about the details I mentioned. Can you see how and why Jason Payne-James said that the carman seems to fit the bill perfectly?

Sometimes, matters like these are simply lost, which I feel is a bit improductive.

I had acknowledged this when I thanked drstrange169 for pointing out how I was mistaken before you posted your explanation. Sorry if you missed it.

I still do not find it as significant as you do because I have no idea what Mizen's statement that the blood was "somewhat congealed" means in a scientific sense, and because Mizen was speaking of the condition of the blood after having gone to fetch the ambulance, so I don't know how long it had been since the body was discovered.

Your mileage may vary.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Out here? Perhaps not. But then again, that was not to be expected, was it? Out here, there were people who came close to tears when Russel Edwards presented his shawl theory; a scientifically supported theory, what a dreadful day that was!!

The main goal for me was never to persuade people out here. I am here to see if the theory holds up against the kind of barrage that is always directed towards those who dare say that they have the prime suspect.

So far, it does so with ease. And I´m fine with that. And anything but sorry.

If I should feel sorry for having been dissed by so many so very reputable and knowledgeable ripperologists out here, I can always turn to the comments on the net about the docu. Out there, in the real world, people look differently on matters. For some unfathomable reason.

How about you, Barnflatwyngarde; what do YOU think is the negating factor that sinks the Lechmere ship? And who - if any - do YOU think is the best Ripper suspect?

Christer, let me begin by saying that I admire the amount of research you have put into the Cross/Lechmere theory.
Let me also say that I am not engaging in "ad hominem".

The major points in the case against Cross are:
1. The timings of the interaction between Cross and Paul.
2. The condition of the body re blood flow.
3. The confusion over the interaction with PC's Mizen, Thain and Neil.
4. The confusion /subterfuge over his name.

All of the above can be interpreted in several ways, it just seems to me that only by stretching each of these points is there anything resembling a case against Cross.

In an earlier post I put forward what I thought was a telling point indicative of Cross's innocence.
I reproduce it below.

At the inquest into Nichols’ death, Cross says that first impression he had upon seeing the body was that he thought it was a tarpaulin.

I remember reading several years ago, that one of the main indicators that police and psychologists look for when assessing the truthfulness of a witness, is what their first reaction was when the saw the scene, in this case a body.

Because the witness is looking at something which is totally unexpected, he or she will attempt to rationalise the sighting on the basis of past experience.
In this case, Cross stated that he initially thought that the body of Nichols was in fact a tarpaulin.

This is because a dead body, or even an unconscious person is the very last thing his brain would be expected to process, hence his initial impression that the body was a tarpaulin, or a pile of clothes etc.

I think that his initial statement misinterpreting what he saw is strongly indicative that he was in fact telling the truth.

Re my own preferred suspect, I lean towards the blotchy faced man seen with Mary Kelly.
Nothing complicated, just an opportunistic local murderer taking advantage of a drunk Mary Kelly with the promise of a carry out (the pail of beer).

I am aware that criticism of your theory has resulted in some angry and bad mannered comments directed toward you, and I genuinely regret that

So in closing Christer, let me acknowledge that you have mastered your brief very well, and it may well be that you are correct in your suspicions re Cross. I will certainly look forward to buying your book if you ever decide to publish your findings.

I will also be very happy to buy you a beer if we ever run into each other at one of the conferences.

[Fisherman]

Christer, let me begin by saying that I admire the amount of research you have put into the Cross/Lechmere theory.
Let me also say that I am not engaging in "ad hominem".

The major points in the case against Cross are:
1. The timings of the interaction between Cross and Paul.
2. The condition of the body re blood flow.
3. The confusion over the interaction with PC's Mizen, Thain and Neil.
4. The confusion /subterfuge over his name.

All of the above can be interpreted in several ways, it just seems to me that only by stretching each of these points is there anything resembling a case against Cross.

In an earlier post I put forward what I thought was a telling point indicative of Cross's innocence.
I reproduce it below.

At the inquest into Nichols’ death, Cross says that first impression he had upon seeing the body was that he thought it was a tarpaulin.

I remember reading several years ago, that one of the main indicators that police and psychologists look for when assessing the truthfulness of a witness, is what their first reaction was when the saw the scene, in this case a body.

Because the witness is looking at something which is totally unexpected, he or she will attempt to rationalise the sighting on the basis of past experience.
In this case, Cross stated that he initially thought that the body of Nichols was in fact a tarpaulin.

This is because a dead body, or even an unconscious person is the very last thing his brain would be expected to process, hence his initial impression that the body was a tarpaulin, or a pile of clothes etc.

I think that his initial statement misinterpreting what he saw is strongly indicative that he was in fact telling the truth.

Re my own preferred suspect, I lean towards the blotchy faced man seen with Mary Kelly.
Nothing complicated, just an opportunistic local murderer taking advantage of a drunk Mary Kelly with the promise of a carry out (the pail of beer).

I am aware that criticism of your theory has resulted in some angry and bad mannered comments directed toward you, and I genuinely regret that

So in closing Christer, let me acknowledge that you have mastered your brief very well, and it may well be that you are correct in your suspicions re Cross. I will certainly look forward to buying your book if you ever decide to publish your findings.

I will also be very happy to buy you a beer if we ever run into each other at one of the conferences.

You are dead wrong again. The beer will be on me.

As for Blotchy, well, he was there and as such he beats Bury, as I usually put it - but why did he wait for more than an hour and a quarter to kill Kelly, listening to her singing? That is not the type of blitz strike the Ripper usually employed.
Going by the normal working ethics of a typical prostitute, I would think that Kelly probably sang to different men 11.45 and 1.00. But that´s just my take, of course. I am at a loss to conclusiverly exonerate our blotchy friend.