Charles Cross (Lechmere)

[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]

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!

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[drstrange169]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?