Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wont kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 5 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Sam Flynn 8 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by rjpalmer 40 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wont kill in Whitechapel? - by rjpalmer 46 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Wickerman 59 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 13 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (29 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Most Ridiculous Theory - (10 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wont kill in Whitechapel? - (5 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (2 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (1 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #771  
Old 11-20-2018, 08:21 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Well Fish, you're the one suggesting it. Nobody else.



Don't be so hard on yourself.

And what have wolves done to deserve such an indigestible supper?

I maintain that the only way Lechmere was likely to have been involved in the murder is if Paul was his partner in crime. A lot of the logistical problems would vanish in a just for jolly, folie deux scenario.

Love,

Caz
X
actually caz others on this thread were saying it. fish is disputing it (and so did I) . Frankly the notion that Paul was her killer and circled back around is patently ridiculous and so is the idea they where in on it together.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 11-20-2018, 08:34 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
. There is no way on God's green earth that using the name Cross at the inquest would have left everyone at his place of work totally in the dark about who this Pickfords carman was.
Hi Caz

Do you know if Cross would have been given a bit of paper summoning him to the inquest ? Something he could show his place of employment, and also to show the coroner`s officer when he arrives at the inquest ?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 11-20-2018, 08:37 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi Caz
are you being sarcastic with this post? Paul came upon lech who was already by the dead victim. Your not seriously suggesting paul murdered Nichols, left and then circled around to re enter bucks row are you?
No, Abby. But I'm sure it was a Lechmerian who suggested that Lechmere may have killed the following weekend in Hanbury Street in the hope of deflecting suspicion onto Robert Paul. What would that have achieved? If the police had suspected Paul, as the second man on the scene in Buck's Row, they'd have had to suspect Cross, as the first - and to suspect the pair of them of being in cahoots if it was deemed physically impossible for Cross to be innocent and Paul guilty. And that being so, the Hanbury Street location would have done Cross no more favours than Paul.

But I think we can use a bit of common sense here and accept that the two carmen had never met before their encounter with the dead or dying Nichols, and therefore Lechmere would have had no idea who he might shortly be dealing with when he chose to wait for the figure in the distance to materialise.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 11-20-2018, 08:41 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
But they weren't cut right through, were they? No. That's because the Ripper only intended to cut their throats to effect as swift a death as possible before he commenced his eviscerations. The torso victims were decapitated and disarticulated to render them unidentifiable and/or to facilitate the disposal of the bodies. These are wholly different things.

To describe throat-cutting and beheading as a "cut neck" is inaccurate and misleading - in both cases. With particular reference to the torso murders, you wouldn't describe the removal of an entire limb as a "cut leg" or "cut arm", would you?
Hi Sam
Quote:
The torso victims were decapitated and disarticulated to render them unidentifiable and/or to facilitate the disposal of the bodies.

yes and they may have been kept as trophies. IMHO they probably were-as this is what most post moertem types do with them. The ripper was also a trophy taker.

Quote:
To describe throat-cutting and beheading as a "cut neck" is inaccurate and misleading - in both cases. With particular reference to the torso murders, you wouldn't describe the removal of an entire limb as a "cut leg" or "cut arm", would you?
[/quote]


totally get what your saying here, but the point to me anyway, is that both the ripper and torso man violently gashed the neck with a knife.The ripper cut so deeply I beleive one of the doctors thought the killer was trying to decapitate chapman. I mean he almost decaptitated her and some of the others the neck wound was so deep. (I know almost isnt the same -but close)
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 11-20-2018, 08:44 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,086
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
No, Abby. But I'm sure it was a Lechmerian who suggested that Lechmere may have killed the following weekend in Hanbury Street in the hope of deflecting suspicion onto Robert Paul. What would that have achieved? If the police had suspected Paul, as the second man on the scene in Buck's Row, they'd have had to suspect Cross, as the first - and to suspect the pair of them of being in cahoots if it was deemed physically impossible for Cross to be innocent and Paul guilty. And that being so, the Hanbury Street location would have done Cross no more favours than Paul.

But I think we can use a bit of common sense here and accept that the two carmen had never met before their encounter with the dead or dying Nichols, and therefore Lechmere would have had no idea who he might shortly be dealing with when he chose to wait for the figure in the distance to materialise.

Love,

Caz
X
HI Caz
I agree with you on this one. I do NOT think lech killed in Hanbury to implicate Paul. IMHO that's going too far.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 11-20-2018, 08:51 AM
Batman Batman is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Last post of mine for now.

People have been tried and convicted for murder on much less evidence than that of the Lechmere case. Hearsay only has sometimes had people hanged, actually.

Not all murder convictions are based on absolute proof. Circumstantial evidence is all that is required in many cases to allow for a conviction.

So wrong again,Batman. When will you get something right? If ever?

Bye.
Even by 1888 you needed more than just circumstantial evidence for homicide convictions. You couldn't even hold people for very long without evidence, if at all. Witnesses who directly identified someone were the strongest evidence they had outside of being caught red-handed and it is often these types of convictions that are not always sound.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 11-20-2018, 08:53 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
Hi Caz

Do you know if Cross would have been given a bit of paper summoning him to the inquest ? Something he could show his place of employment, and also to show the coroner`s officer when he arrives at the inquest ?
No, Jon, but I expect someone here must have some idea.

For me, the point is that Lechmere would surely have had to explain to his boss why he needed the time off. Now I don't know if the boss would simply have taken his word for it, or would have required something official in writing, but I can't believe he could have attended that inquest with the knowledge and agreement of Pickfords, then returned to work, without being asked about it, and without anyone querying the fact that the carman claiming to have found the murder victim gave his name as Charles Cross - if he had absented himself from work as Charles Lechmere.

Did he say nothing to the boss or his workmates about his involvement and just pull a sicky? I suppose that might just have worked if nobody at the inquest knew him by name or sight.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 11-20-2018, 09:51 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
Even by 1888 you needed more than just circumstantial evidence for homicide convictions. You couldn't even hold people for very long without evidence, if at all. Witnesses who directly identified someone were the strongest evidence they had outside of being caught red-handed and it is often these types of convictions that are not always sound.
And that's why I doubt the police would have confronted Lechmere immediately, had they checked up on him and discovered his name wasn't really Cross, and that he used Lechmere on every occasion except when finding murdered women in the street. That would be evidence of deliberate deception, but not enough to hold him on suspicion of anything worse. He was bound to have an 'innocent' explanation for the name change, whether he was genuinely innocent, or a criminal with something to hide, so there would have been little to gain from asking the question and alerting him to the fact that he was in their sights as more than just an honest witness. And Lechmere would have had no opportunity to explain himself - yet.

If and when he put another foot wrong, however, the police could have been ready and waiting, for all he knew. How much harder would it then have been to find a second or a third 'innocent' explanation, when combined with his one-off use of a different name? For starters, there was the apparent lie he told PC Mizen on the night of the murder, and the apparent lie he told under oath at the inquest, using the wrong name, when he contradicted Mizen's version of their conversation. He had no way of knowing if the police were making careful notes and adding them to concerns they already had about him. He really would have been operating in the dark to pick up Annie Chapman so soon afterwards. Lucky old Lech!

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 11-20-2018, 10:17 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
To be a better suspect, Jack Random needs to be found by a freshly killed victims side, use the name Stupid instead of Random (a wise choice), disagree with the police, just happen to have a daily trek that took him past the murder sites or close to them, have links to St Georges and the Mitre Square area and so on.
The points FOR Lechmere do not go away on account of how you personally believe that he would have run in Bucks Row. Andy Griffiths, indefinitely better suited to understand this than you will ever be, was adamant that he would never have run.

Ooops, Caz.
Not quite sure I follow your drift here, Fish, but if you are saying that Jack Random would make a better suspect than Lechmere if he used the name Stupid and did all those stupid things, how stupid would that make Lechmere in your view, for doing those same stupid things?

Andy Griffiths may have been 'adamant' that the ripper would never have run in the same circumstances that Lechmere found himself in, but that doesn't make Lechmere the ripper, nor does it mean the ripper ever allowed himself to be 'found' [as you like to put it] in those circumstances. You have as much as admitted it yourself - if he did, he might as well have said: "Just call me Stupid".

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 11-20-2018, 05:57 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,918
Default

No Fisherman and Abby,Griffiths and his credentials do not worry me.The worry seems to be on your side, you being so relient on his continued inclusion to bolster a theory that lacks evidence and credibility.Yes I know an Andy Griffith is an Australian commedian.I did at one time wonder he was the Andy Griffith in the documentary,being as comedy and the theory are so closely related.

We have the statement of Griffith,who is adamant,according to Fisherman,that the killer of Nichols would never have run.What is not included in the statement is WHY,and I suppose,though it is not mentioned,would not hide either.Now do not ask me if hiding was a possibility,the rules seem to be that a claim does not have to have a supporting explanation.If Nichols could reach Bucks Row without being seen or heard,then I see no reason why the killer could not have departed without being seen or heard,hence I see no reason for staying.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.