What happened to Lechmere......

[Stephen Lee]

I've not really been interested in him as a suspect, but he seems to be popular one way or another just now.

But can someone tell me why, if he was guilty of Polly's murder did he draw Pauls attention to the body? Lechmere/Cross was standing in the middle of the road, Paul stepped onto the pavement opposite to the body to simply walk past. Why would Lechmere tap him on the shoulder and draw his attention to a woman he had just murdered?
Surely it would be better to let Paul just walk past, if Paul had noticed the body Lechmere could say 'she was drunk', or 'I know, I'm looking for a policeman' or anything. Why involve Paul when it was certain to lead to the police getting involved?

Or, as soon as he seen/heard Paul, run.

[drstrange169]

Hello John,

Ripperologist #142 pretty much covers my opinion.

[drstrange169]

Hello Stephen,

Good question.

[Purkis]

You are being pedantic Purkis.

Cheers John

Thought so. Sorry John, can't help it.

[Zena]

For reference because it hasn't been moved to the main "Lechmere/Cross, Charles" forum yet.

"The Mizen scam" thread:
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6768

[Rosella]

If Lechmere had just killed Polly, (which I don't believe he did) it's my belief he would probably have ran off when he heard Paul approaching. He wouldn't have gone through the farce of telling Paul there was a woman there, feeling to see if she was alive, going with Paul to see if they could tell a policeman etc. Why should he? Much easier to scarper!

It was too dark for Paul, if he had investigated on his own to tell if Polly was a murder victim anyway. For all Cross and Paul knew at the time she could have just collapsed in a drunken stupor, slit her own throat, died of want or a heart attack or a dozen other reasons, such as assault.

[Fisherman]

To Abby Normal

Evidence of what? That he went to work near the murder sites. Ridiculous.

Cheers John

Reading through the posts on this thread, I notice that all the old issues that have been done to deth numerous times are popping up once again. I will not go into them again, since they have had their answers as many times.

I will only comment briefly on this post, where John Wheat claims it is "ridiculous" to point out how the carman had two working treks to choose from that both had victims along them.

We know that Lechmere was found alone with the freshly killed Polly Nichols. (We also know that there are a number of anomalies attaching to him, but lets leave them aside for now).

Letīs assume that a police force is faced with the exact same today: They have knowledge about how a person has been found alone with a freshly killed murder victim in an series of murders involving a number of victims, and, accordingly, they need to get him off the list of possible suspects.

Can anybody guess how they will try to do that? There is one answer only to that question:
They will research his movements on the other murder days. Either that will give him an alibi for one or more of these murders - or it will leave him on the list of suspects.

It is a basic, vital and extremely important step that the police always will take unless something else surfaces to solve the issue. It happens every time they have a person in custody who may or may not have been the killer of a number of victims: they research whether he fits the bill or not. And, of course, the higher the number of victims, the more damning it is if the suspect fits ALL the bills geographically and timewise.

Amazingly, to John Wheat, this is "ridiculous". That says it all, really, and leaves me with no doubt as to what value I need to award his judgment: None, whatsoever.

I can only conclude that he is totally ignorant or works from an agenda where he has a suspect of his own that he needs to take precedence.

And I can only pray that the latter applies, since truly ignorant people annoy me.

Thatīs all I have to say about this kind of "criticism": it is outright stupid.

[GUT]

And one of the things the police will do to check for any alibi is ask at his place of work, which when we discuss his name you are adamant they never did.....

[GUT]

It is a basic, vital and extremely important step that the police always will take unless something else surfaces to solve the issue. It happens every time they have a person in custody who may or may not have been the killer of a number of victims: they research whether he fits the bill or not. And, of course, the higher the number of victims, the more damning it is if the suspect fits ALL the bills geographically and timewise.

But in 1888 they were to stupid to think of it seems.

The biggest problem in the cross theory is that it, like so many others relies on the police being to stupid to find their bums with a mirror on a stick. And thus to stupid to carry out the most basic of investigations.

[Fisherman]

And one of the things the police will do to check for any alibi is ask at his place of work, which when we discuss his name you are adamant they never did.....

If they harbour suspicions, the will definitely ask for an alibi, not only at his working place but anywhere that it can be procured.

But they will do more than so, Gut! They will also run a check on the person they suspect, and find out all there is to know. They will check the registers, not least. You may be familiar with that procedure, as a representant of the legal system yourself, I think. And once the police run these tests, they will find out the true name of the person they suspect.

In Lechmereīs case, we are 100 per cent certain that he was not listed under his registered name in the police reports - the name he otherwise ALWAYS used with the authorities. That is a very good indicator about whether they DID run a check on him or not. And if they did not, that is an equally excellent indicator about whether he was under suspicion or not at any time.

Likewise, if he was a red-hot suspect, the papers would have outlined this too, and the police officials would have remembered it when writing about the case.

I do not disagree with you that Lechmere SHOULD have been investigated. But I disagree vehemently with any assertion that it ever happened, since it is at all sorts of odds with the existing evidence.

[Fisherman]

But in 1888 they were to stupid to think of it seems.

The biggest problem in the cross theory is that it, like so many others relies on the police being to stupid to find their bums with a mirror on a stick. And thus to stupid to carry out the most basic of investigations.

I prefer to turn it around - the biggest problem with the theory is that people are not aquainted with how the police was prejudiced in the victorian era. Once we know this, we can also see very clearly what kind of man was sought after, and - not least - what kind of man was NOT sought after.

Before you have thorough knowledge of these factors, you are not fit to have a view, even. Sorry, but there you are.

Now, I donīt know what applies in your case, whether you have read up on for example criminal anthropology, antropometrics, Lombroso, Bertillon, Thompson, Nicholson, Maudsley, Ellis, Clouston, Strahan... Once you are familiar with these men and their influences on the contemporary justice, you will realize the implications, but once you are not, you are woefully unfit to assess it all. Simple as. Not that such a trifle stops many people out here, who think they can decide for themselves without taking the trouble to read up first...

As a send-off, I would like to remark on how you say that they were seemingly too stupid to see the geographical implications of Lechmereīs roads.I think that is an uninformed stance to take, since the Nichols murder came early in the series; some say it was the first, even. So at that stage, they had no knowledge of what was to come. And when it did, the carman was all but forgotten, and even if he had not been, the police probaly was totally unaware of how Stride and Eddowes fit into the picture through the Mary Ann Street address.

You need, perhaps, to read and rethink. Time is all we have, coupled with a responsibility to do our best.

[caz]

I'm also not sure what leads some to conclude that a person who has occasion to walk through a murder district is more suspicious than a person who lives in it. Not historical precedent (which suggests the reverse), that's for sure.

Hi Ben,

A very fair point. I would go further and suggest that serial prostitute killers - in common with prostitute users - do not typically stick to where they have 'occasion' to be when seeking out suitable women for murder or sexual relief. It would depend on where the nearest and easiest prey has 'occasion' to be, and whether or not this coincides with where the killer or punter would normally be anyway for their other unconnected activities.

There is a good reason why killers don't pounce on people who happen to pass their homes or workplaces and leave the bodies right outside. And why men don't have sex with prostitutes on the front lawn. The excuse "Well I live/work here so I have 'occasion' to be here" would only take them so far. I know that's an extreme example, but many killers/punters actually prefer to do the bad thing away from the places they are best known to frequent.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Reading through the posts on this thread, I notice that all the old issues that have been done to deth numerous times are popping up once again. I will not go into them again, since they have had their answers as many times.

I will only comment briefly on this post, where John Wheat claims it is "ridiculous" to point out how the carman had two working treks to choose from that both had victims along them.

We know that Lechmere was found alone with the freshly killed Polly Nichols. (We also know that there are a number of anomalies attaching to him, but lets leave them aside for now).

Letīs assume that a police force is faced with the exact same today: They have knowledge about how a person has been found alone with a freshly killed murder victim in an series of murders involving a number of victims, and, accordingly, they need to get him off the list of possible suspects.

Can anybody guess how they will try to do that? There is one answer only to that question:
They will research his movements on the other murder days. Either that will give him an alibi for one or more of these murders - or it will leave him on the list of suspects.

It is a basic, vital and extremely important step that the police always will take unless something else surfaces to solve the issue. It happens every time they have a person in custody who may or may not have been the killer of a number of victims: they research whether he fits the bill or not. And, of course, the higher the number of victims, the more damning it is if the suspect fits ALL the bills geographically and timewise.

Amazingly, to John Wheat, this is "ridiculous". That says it all, really, and leaves me with no doubt as to what value I need to award his judgment: None, whatsoever.

I can only conclude that he is totally ignorant or works from an agenda where he has a suspect of his own that he needs to take precedence.

And I can only pray that the latter applies, since truly ignorant people annoy me.

Thatīs all I have to say about this kind of "criticism": it is outright stupid.

To Fisherman

I still think it is ludicrous to suppose Lechmere was the Ripper purely because he found a body and supposedly another victim was on his route to work. I assume the police at the time weren't totally incompetent and as they considered Lechmere a witness I see no reason to consider him as anything other than that. As regards me working from an agenda where a suspect of my own takes precedence this is surely a major case of pot calling the kettle black. Your tunnel vision as regards Lechmere's guilt is frankly astounding. Just for your own interest I do have a favoured suspect.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Ben: I'm also not sure what leads some to conclude that a person who has occasion to walk through a murder district is more suspicious than a person who lives in it. Not historical precedent (which suggests the reverse), that's for sure.


Caz: A very fair point. I would go further and suggest that serial prostitute killers - in common with prostitute users - do not typically stick to where they have 'occasion' to be when seeking out suitable women for murder or sexual relief. It would depend on where the nearest and easiest prey has 'occasion' to be, and whether or not this coincides with where the killer or punter would normally be anyway for their other unconnected activities.

There is a good reason why killers don't pounce on people who happen to pass their homes or workplaces and leave the bodies right outside. And why men don't have sex with prostitutes on the front lawn. The excuse "Well I live/work here so I have 'occasion' to be here" would only take them so far. I know that's an extreme example, but many killers/punters actually prefer to do the bad thing away from the places they are best known to frequent.


It is touching to see you two form such a tight alliance, I must say!

... but the intellectual yield is very poor, to be honest.

First out is Ben, who makes the odd point that he is "not sure what leads some to conclude that a person who has occasion to walk through a murder district is more suspicious than a person who lives in it."

It is of course a serious waste of space out here to bring this up, since nobody is making such a claim. Of course a person passing through a murder zone is per se not any more suspicious than somebody living in it.
When we discuss Lechmere, however, an element is added that changes the game: He was found with the body of Polly Nichols. Alone. The corpse being VERY freshly killed.

It is in that context we must look upon the carman. He has the upper hand on ANY other Eastender, no matter how murderous, mad, anatomically versed or resident within the murder zone that person is. Apart from Lechmere, NOBODY can be proven to have been alone with the victim.
I have no knowledge about any sinister deed having been perpetrated by Lechmere in the time leading up to the Nichols murder. I only know he was a carman with a large family and many years of experience working for Pickfords, and if he had not been found alone with a freshly slain Ripper victim, he would never have attracted my interest. On the surface, he looks like a totally normal and uninteresting character.

But since he was found where he was and since he was alone with that body, he is elevated to a very interesting person indeed from an investigative point of view.

Please donīt protest - it goes without saying and we both know that.

Caz!

You agree with Ben (gives me the chills, more or less....! Wow!!) And then YOU make an equally worthless and unconnected point casewise as your newfound friend: you say that "there is a good reason why killers don't pounce on people who happen to pass their homes or workplaces and leave the bodies right outside."

Now, how does that apply to Lechmere who did neither this nor that? He did not kill on his doorstep and he did not leave any body right outside either his home or his workplace, did he?

So what kind of point are you trying to make...?

And then you go on to say that "many killers/punters actually prefer to do the bad thing away from the places they are best known to frequent."

Google "opportunistic serial killer", Caz, and then take some time to explain to me why that strain gives more than 5000 hits. Pedagogically, you have some sort of point, since we can agree that it would be smart not to kill in the vicinity of where you live, or along paths that you can be proven to have used.
But then again, we all know that it is a VERY longstanding fact that justs as serialists could potentially see the sense in what you are saying, they are also VERY prone to killing in so called "comfort zones", where they feel at ease and are familiar with the existing routes of escape. Some flush met aprts of their victims down their own toilets. They have supposedly not pondered your point...

It also applies that there has been a collective learning curve, if you will, for the specific cadre of people in society who become serialists: media has taught us that the smartest thing to do if you want to kill many people, is to travel between countries and districts and to employ varying techniques of killing and to choose victims from varying ethnical groups. I feel pretty certain that there is a number of such killers out there, raising no unwelcome ideas about a serial killer being on the loose, and merrily profiting from what they have learnt from those who have investigated serial killing. Not all people will meekly answer up to the ideas that they are locked into a pattern that they cannot affect themselves. Thatīs poppycock.

But in 1888, this crash course into avoiding the legal system was not offered by the papers and media on a daily basis - it was not offered at all, and so a man like the Ripper had to make his own rules.

And overall, killing in a large district swarming with many tens of thousands of people, an appalling part of them criminal, is not a half bad idea. And if it was Lechmere who was the killer (and letīs face it, it was), he actually spread his victims effectively enough to stay undetected; two along the Hanbury Street trail, one along the Montague Street trail, one in Dorset Street, one down in St Georges and one up at Aldgate. So he gave very little away in that respect - it is not until you bother to research him thoroughly that you can see that he fits the pattern throughout. Personally, I have little doubt that the police tried to make sense of the geography of the murder spot pattern. And equally personally, I can well understand how they could not do that.

And that, Caz, is exactly how "very fair" Bens and your points are.

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

I still think it is ludicrous to suppose Lechmere was the Ripper purely because he found a body and supposedly another victim was on his route to work.

And why lay that at my door? I have listed 31 points, ONE of them being how he was found alone with the body of Nichols. That is a different story, John: being found alone with the body is the REASON why he needs to be researched, not the convicting factor.
In a sense, somebody has to find the body (we have heard that before, have we not?). Then again, that somebody does not have to hide his real name, to get ointo the dispute with the police about what was said etcetera, etcetera (30 etceteras).

I assume the police at the time weren't totally incompetent and as they considered Lechmere a witness I see no reason to consider him as anything other than that.

But you know how competent they were, John - they were competent enough bot to speak with more than a tiny fraction of the Bucks Row dwellers, for example. And we both know - I know that I do - that there have been many cases where the police have failed to pinpoint a killer who they interviewed until very late in the process, and sometimes only on account of slip-ups ny the killers themselves.

Personally, I believe that a large number of serial killers have walked free on account of the inability of the police to understand their real role. And I am equally convinced that sometimes, there has been no real chance to cotton on to things, whereas the police have made more or less grave mistakes on other occasions.

If you do not agree with that, please let me know. I will inevitaby call you naive for it, though.

As regards me working from an agenda where a suspect of my own takes precedence this is surely a major case of pot calling the kettle black. Your tunnel vision as regards Lechmere's guilt is frankly astounding. Just for your own interest I do have a favoured suspect.

But it is no secret that I am working from the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, John - it is all over the boards and threads. That, however, does n ot have to mean that I am a poor judge of evidence. If that was the case, then you need to go call all policemen who follow convictions of their own agenda-ridden morons who should be hindered to raise their voice.

Ridgway and Gacy, for example, were tracked down by dogged policemen who never gave an inch, and who were proven right in the end. They were cinvinced by the overall evidence picture that they were on the right track, and they never backed down.

I take pride, in many a way, in being of the same ilk. But I also take pride in being prepared every second along the way to let go of my grip once anything surfaces to disprove Lechmereīs guilt! That is just as important.



By the way, itīs Bury you are backing, is it not? Take my word for it, John - it was not him...