Charles Cross (Lechmere)

[clark2710]

I mean, the man was at the Nichols site around the time of the murder, lied about his name, and THEN we're to take his word that someone else was there when he walked up? I mean isn't that a version of: police - which way did the killer go? killer - that way kinda thing? His time doesn't add up as far as when he left, Paul came up on him, etc. Could he be a viable suspect? why or why not?

[Fiver]

I mean, the man was at the Nichols site around the time of the murder, lied about his name, and THEN we're to take his word that someone else was there when he walked up? I mean isn't that a version of: police - which way did the killer go? killer - that way kinda thing? His time doesn't add up as far as when he left, Paul came up on him, etc. Could he be a viable suspect? why or why not?

Lechmere did not say someone else was there when he walked up. He said "There was nobody there". The smart move for a guilty man would have been to say he caught a glimpse of someone ahead of him.

Lechmere stopped Robert Paul and asked him to look at the body. The smart move for a guilty man would have been to let Paul keep walking.

Robert Paul suggested propping up the body, but Lechmere refused. The smart move for a guilty man would have been to agree - it would give an innocent explanation for any blood on his hands or clothes.

Lechmere walked together with Paul long after the found a police officer. The smart move for a guilty man would have been to part company with Paul as soon as possible so he could privately check his clothes for bloodstains and dispose of the murder weapon.

Lechmere also had an alibi for the death of Annie Chapman. Two eyewitnesses and one earwitness had her alive long after Lechmere had gotten to work.

Lechmere's time adds up. It puts him reaching the body of Polly Nichols around 3:40 am. That matches the times given by constable Mizen, constable Neil, and constable Thain.

Lechmere did not lie about his name - he used his stepfather's surname. While he usually used the name Lechmere, he also occasionally used the name Cross as well and had done so more than a decade before the Ripper killings.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Another Letchmere thread? Jeez, the man's popular.

Clarke, there's two ongoing threads covering all this, just join in there.

[drstrange169]

Just highlights the damage Christer's TV show and book have done to serious research.

[John Wheat]

Just highlights the damage Christer's TV show and book have done to serious research.

Agreed. The TV show was full of bias.

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere did not say someone else was there when he walked up. He said "There was nobody there". The smart move for a guilty man would have been to say he caught a glimpse of someone ahead of him.

Lechmere stopped Robert Paul and asked him to look at the body. The smart move for a guilty man would have been to let Paul keep walking.

Robert Paul suggested propping up the body, but Lechmere refused. The smart move for a guilty man would have been to agree - it would give an innocent explanation for any blood on his hands or clothes.

Lechmere walked together with Paul long after the found a police officer. The smart move for a guilty man would have been to part company with Paul as soon as possible so he could privately check his clothes for bloodstains and dispose of the murder weapon.

Lechmere also had an alibi for the death of Annie Chapman. Two eyewitnesses and one earwitness had her alive long after Lechmere had gotten to work.

Lechmere's time adds up. It puts him reaching the body of Polly Nichols around 3:40 am. That matches the times given by constable Mizen, constable Neil, and constable Thain.

Lechmere did not lie about his name - he used his stepfather's surname. While he usually used the name Lechmere, he also occasionally used the name Cross as well and had done so more than a decade before the Ripper killings.

How on earth does Lechmere have an alibi for the Chapman murder?

‘At work’ for him was driving around the streets of London and stopping to make deliveries. Where? We don’t know. When? We don’t know? Did he work alone, or with a van guard? We don’t know. Lechmere has no known alibi for Chapman.

And as for his ‘occasional’ use of the name Cross, that’s something else we don’t know. Yes, a Pickford’s carman using that name gave evidence at an inquest into the death of a child in Islington in 1876, and we’ve been unable to find a better fit for that driver than Charles Lechmere, but it’s stretching the meagre facts to say that he ‘occasionally’ used the name Cross. And even if he did, it does not address the question of why in this formal situation he did not also mention the name he appears to have used almost exclusively in formal situations.

[The Baron]

This theory was very disturbed from inside, based on wrong and illogical hypotheses and applied twisted methods to reach its conclusions, it sets the limits too low so that anyone can accuse anyone of anything.

It has been since widely deprecated and disapproved.



The Baron

[jmenges]

Another Letchmere thread? Jeez, the man's popular.

Clarke, there's two ongoing threads covering all this, just join in there.

I’ll keep this one open due to Gary’s point for discussion above, but going forward please try to use one of the many existing threads on Lechmere/Cross rather than starting a new one.

Thanks

JM

[Columbo]

I mean, the man was at the Nichols site around the time of the murder, lied about his name, and THEN we're to take his word that someone else was there when he walked up? I mean isn't that a version of: police - which way did the killer go? killer - that way kinda thing? His time doesn't add up as far as when he left, Paul came up on him, etc. Could he be a viable suspect? why or why not?

Welcome back Christer!

[Abby Normal]

How on earth does Lechmere have an alibi for the Chapman murder?

‘At work’ for him was driving around the streets of London and stopping to make deliveries. Where? We don’t know. When? We don’t know? Did he work alone, or with a van guard? We don’t know. Lechmere has no known alibi for Chapman.

And as for his ‘occasional’ use of the name Cross, that’s something else we don’t know. Yes, a Pickford’s carman using that name gave evidence at an inquest into the death of a child in Islington in 1876, and we’ve been unable to find a better fit for that driver than Charles Lechmere, but it’s stretching the meagre facts to say that he ‘occasionally’ used the name Cross. And even if he did, it does not address the question of why in this formal situation he did not also mention the name he appears to have used almost exclusively in formal situations.

exactly gary
Lech has no alibi for any of the murders. the claim is ludicrous. and as a matter of fact he has an anti alibi for the nichols murder-he very much is in the frame for her murder.

[Columbo]

exactly gary
Lech has no alibi for any of the murders. the claim is ludicrous. and as a matter of fact he has an anti alibi for the nichols murder-he very much is in the frame for her murder.

He doesn't need an alibi, he's was never in the frame for the murder to begin with..

[Harry D]

exactly gary
Lech has no alibi for any of the murders. the claim is ludicrous. and as a matter of fact he has an anti alibi for the nichols murder-he very much is in the frame for her murder.

Are you out the closet as a Lechmerian now, Abby?

[JeffHamm]

How on earth does Lechmere have an alibi for the Chapman murder?

‘At work’ for him was driving around the streets of London and stopping to make deliveries. Where? We don’t know. When? We don’t know? Did he work alone, or with a van guard? We don’t know. Lechmere has no known alibi for Chapman.

And as for his ‘occasional’ use of the name Cross, that’s something else we don’t know. Yes, a Pickford’s carman using that name gave evidence at an inquest into the death of a child in Islington in 1876, and we’ve been unable to find a better fit for that driver than Charles Lechmere, but it’s stretching the meagre facts to say that he ‘occasionally’ used the name Cross. And even if he did, it does not address the question of why in this formal situation he did not also mention the name he appears to have used almost exclusively in formal situations.

Hi Mr. Barnett,

If he was trying to hide his identity, going to the police himself seems a bit naff, particularly as Paul's newspaper appearance barely even indicates he was there. Also, giving his correct address, place of employment, etc, seems a bit daft for someone who otherwise in the theory context is cunning, quick witted, and so forth. Using a name, for which there is also a direct link to him, isn't exactly disappearing into the shadows. There's nothing about using the name "Cross" rather than "Lechmere" that conceals who he is from the police.

As for his alibi, no where do we have any reports of delivery carts spotted near the vicinity of Hanbury Street. We also have reason to believe there would have been someone with him protecting the contents of the cart (that shows up in some discussions). If he kills Chapman at the time indicated by the eye/ear witnesses, which seems the most probable ToD, then his cart cannot be placed in the vicinity other than through speculation. There's nothing to place him there other than supposition, and that is equally balanced to the negative by simply making other speculative choices (not alone on his deliveries, no cart in the area, etc).

When we get to make up the evidence through speculation, then we have to accept that valid counter-arguments simply need to speculate different evidence.

With the evidence we have, however, none of it forces us towards a guilty conclusion and many, including myself, believe the evidence we have is easier to understand if he's innocent because his actions in Buck's row easily follow if he's innocent, and there is no real evidence of him being anywhere in the vicinity of any other crime, only speculation.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Hi Mr. Barnett,

If he was trying to hide his identity, going to the police himself seems a bit naff, particularly as Paul's newspaper appearance barely even indicates he was there. Also, giving his correct address, place of employment, etc, seems a bit daft for someone who otherwise in the theory context is cunning, quick witted, and so forth. Using a name, for which there is also a direct link to him, isn't exactly disappearing into the shadows. There's nothing about using the name "Cross" rather than "Lechmere" that conceals who he is from the police.

As for his alibi, no where do we have any reports of delivery carts spotted near the vicinity of Hanbury Street. We also have reason to believe there would have been someone with him protecting the contents of the cart (that shows up in some discussions). If he kills Chapman at the time indicated by the eye/ear witnesses, which seems the most probable ToD, then his cart cannot be placed in the vicinity other than through speculation. There's nothing to place him there other than supposition, and that is equally balanced to the negative by simply making other speculative choices (not alone on his deliveries, no cart in the area, etc).

When we get to make up the evidence through speculation, then we have to accept that valid counter-arguments simply need to speculate different evidence.

With the evidence we have, however, none of it forces us towards a guilty conclusion and many, including myself, believe the evidence we have is easier to understand if he's innocent because his actions in Buck's row easily follow if he's innocent, and there is no real evidence of him being anywhere in the vicinity of any other crime, only speculation.

- Jeff

Jeff,

My take on the name thing is that he was concealing the name Lechmere for reasons other than concealing his ID from the police.

As for the lack of reports of carts in the vicinity of Hanbury Street, do you imagine there weren’t any near Spitalfields Market, just across the road from Hanbury Street, at that time in the morning? I think there would have been. You can call that speculation if you wish.

My point, though, was that Lechmere has no known alibi for the time it seems most likely that Chapman was killed. We have no idea where he or his cart were at that time. Nor do we know whether he worked with a van guard.

Gary

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

My take on the name thing is that he was concealing the name Lechmere for reasons other than concealing his ID from the police.

As for the lack of reports of carts in the vicinity of Hanbury Street, do you imagine there weren’t any near Spitalfields Market, just across the road from Hanbury Street, at that time in the morning? I think there would have been. You can call that speculation if you wish.

My point, though, was that Lechmere has no known alibi for the time it seems most likely that Chapman was killed. We have no idea where he or his cart were at that time. Nor do we know whether he worked with a van guard.

Gary

Hi Gary,

Oh, ok, I got you on the name thing. But if he's not trying to conceal his identity from the police, it's hardly incriminating (i.e. Eddowes' giving the police a false name and address was to conceal from them her identity so her identity could not be connected to the fact she was arrested for drunkeness, etc. Minor offense, of course, but she was preventing her being connected to that in the future, while Cross/Lechmere does no such thing). If he's not trying to hide from the police, it's not for reasons that can be presented as evidence of his guilt.

And, true, the at work alibi is not cast in stone, and if we could there would still be lots to do to follow up on that. However, we can't follow it up. What we have, however, is evidence that leans in favour of him having an alibi, and really, with JtR, that's pretty much all we ever have. We also have information that indicates that van guards were often with the carmen, again, leaning towards him being unable to just skip off and commit a murder. And parking his cart over by the market, then walking over to Hanbury Street, etc, leaves his cart unattended, open to the theft of goods, or increasing his delay for his expected return if it was empty. While not impossible to argue around, we do not even have mention of his cart being in the vicinity and we have to make an assumption it was, and simultaneously, make an assumption it was simply not reported. While the latter might not really be all that implausible, given the market nearby as you mention, it still means we're speculating evidence to have existed and then also speculating a reason for why we don't have it. If we can do that to argue for his guilt, then it gets countered by speculation that he was elsewhere, and the police had cleared him, but those records are part of what was lost over time. A speculative argument has no teeth, because speculation is easy and unconstrained by anything but our imaginations (see anagrams, Lewis Carrol). As such, theories that require we go against the direction in which the evidence we do have leans have to be viewed as weaker (less supported) than those that go with the flow. In short, I agree we do not have evidence to call his alibi fully confirmed, but what we have is evidence in a direction against his guilt and it requires speculation to circumvent it. That tells us this is a weakness in the theory as a whole. Whether or not it is a fatal weakness to the theory is a different issue.

That's my take, anyway.

- Jeff