Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

As Lechmere was asked if he’d seen a policeman in Buck’s Row and had replied in the negative the point had at least been noted that someone was either lying or they were mistaken. It appears that the police didn’t see this as pointing a finger of suspicion against Lechmere. Had they concluded that Lechmere was being truthful and that Mizen had either lied or been mistaken?

A guilty Lechmere would indeed have had a knife on his person when he encountered Mizen but he would have also had a knife on his person when he was faced with the choice at the crime scene. So when we talk about taking calculated risks we have to assume/accept that he would have been willing to enter into a course of action which would end, at least initially, with a meeting with a Constable. He would therefore have had to have been confident that he could have come up with a plan (in a short time and whilst in likely conversation with Paul) to enable him to avoid detention. And that external circumstances (like Paul’s behaviour and Mizen’s reaction) would have had to have fallen in his favour to have allowed his plan to succeed. Under the circumstances this would have been a massive risk.

And then, added to that, he certainly couldn’t be certain that the police wouldn’t have made him suspect number one due to his alleged lies. In short he couldn’t have thought “ those police will never notice that I lied to get past them.”

And I know that this point irritates but he could have easily avoided all this by walking away as soon as he heard footsteps approaching in the dark.

~
I’ll add a little ‘what if.’

Fish made the reasonable point, in response to my suggestion that for all Lechmere knew the footsteps could have belonged to a Constable, that Paul was late for work and so would have been walking quicker than regulation tread. Might not a guilty Lechmere have wondered if someone, a drunk in the shadows maybe, might have seen him attack Polly and have found a Constable and that the Constable was rushing to the scene? All I’m saying is he still might have thought that it could have been a Constable.

A lot of "might have" and "All I am saying" there, Herlock. And each to his own. What matters in the end is that we cannot exonerate Lechmere. All we can do is ask ourselves "Was it him?". And much as you answer that question with a "No", I answer it with a "Yes!".

He is the only case we know of in the Ripper matter where a witness does not use the name he is always otherwise using in contact with the authorities.

That could be a small, unsignificant matter.

But then, he is also the only suspect we have who disagreed with the police about what was said. And to boot, what Mizen claims that he said is entirely consistent with somebody with a need to bypass the police would have said.

This is not a good thing for a suspect. And it becomes a lot worse when it is coupled with the name matter.

Moving on, there is one case only where a Ripper victim with a cut up belly has her damages hidden - allowing for a bluff to be performed. And it just so happens that this case is the Nichols case. Lechmere could not walk up to Eddowes and say "maybe she´s just drunk...?"

So when we have the combined matter of the name and the Mizen scam, we can see that it all pans out here too - and it is the combined burden of the evidence that ensnares the carman.

And it goes on, point by point. It just so happens that the man who had the misfortune to have these things pointing against him fits the murder map geographically, case after case, all of them. It just so happens that Paul did not verify that he arrived just a few seconds after Lechmere - he could have said that he heard Lechmere walking and stopping short in front of him, but he never did. It just so happens that Mizen said that the body was still bleeding, the blood looking fresh, when he arrived at the site.

There are so many instances where Lechmere could have been absolved, but in none of them does this happen. We are left with a large heap of coincidences that really should and could not be there.

So I say yes, of course Lechmere is the likely killer of Polly Nichols.

You say that there is no evidence at all of a damning nature.

After that, it is not up to you and me to make the call about who is the better judge of the affair. Others must do it for us; those who take interest in the case and want to form an opinion of their own. Not the ripperologists out here, entrenched to a very large degree in their thinking, and unwilling to allow for any other ideas than the ones they endorse themselves.

[Fisherman]

As we can’t be certain I have to say that, equally, they might have just looked at Lechmere and felt no hint of suspicion about his behaviour.

All we CAN be certain of is that there is not a hint of evidence pointing to the police having investigated Lechmere. That is not proof that they did not, but it IS proof that he cannot be exonerated in this way. Either.

[Harry D]

A lot of "might have" and "All I am saying" there, Herlock. And each to his own. What matters in the end is that we cannot exonerate Lechmere.

Guilty until proven innocent?

[Sam Flynn]

"He is the only case we know of in the Ripper matter where a witness does not use the name he is always otherwise using in contact with the authorities."

Always? Who's to say that he didn't go by the name of "Cross" - which was, after all, his stepfather's name - for everyday purposes? A name which would be published several times in every newspaper and open to challenge by all who knew him.

[Fisherman]

Guilty until proven innocent?

A very good suspect until cleared.

Each and everybody of you know that I personally believe he was guilty. Each and everyone of you know that I have never said that it is a proven thing. Those who read what I wrote a year or two back will be aware that I said that in a trial, I would set him free on account of lacking evidence - but I would feel I let a gulity man go.

Please do not say that it is a case of guilty until proven innocent. I deserve better, you know!

[Fisherman]

"He is the only case we know of in the Ripper matter where a witness does not use the name he is always otherwise using in contact with the authorities."

Always? Who's to say that he didn't go by the name of "Cross" - which was, after all, his stepfather's name - for everyday purposes? A name which would be published several times in every newspaper and open to challenge by all who knew him.

All the around 110 signatures qwe have from him are always Lechmere, never Cross - but for in combination with the Nichols inquest.

That doesn´t solve the question whether he called himself Cross on festive and sombre occasions, but it DOES lay down that we have a 100 per cent record of "Lechmere! but for the inquest matter.

And this you know VERY well already.

[Sam Flynn]

That's immaterial to my point. No doubt "Reginald Dwight" appears on many a census form, but everyone calls him Elton John.

[Trevor Marriott]

All we CAN be certain of is that there is not a hint of evidence pointing to the police having investigated Lechmere. That is not proof that they did not, but it IS proof that he cannot be exonerated in this way. Either.

But if the police did investigate him, and exonerate him, we are still left with the same facts surrounding the murder of Nichols and him finding the body. Facts which you now still use to suggest his guilt.

You make a big issue with regards to the Mizen issue, was it a lie or simply a mistake? This again is nothing more than another witness conflict, one of many we see throughout the whole series of murders.

Do you not think that this conflict which you seek to rely on would not have been noticed at the time, was it ever clarified? and having been noticed was it of great concern to the investigating officers? The answer to that has to be no, as there is nothing writing from 1888, or anything from the investigating officers in later years to say he was ever suspected.

I also notice that you failed to answer my earlier question as to how many others who found the bodies of victims were suspected of being their killer, let me answer it for you "NONE" is the answer you are looking for.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

That's immaterial to my point. No doubt "Reginald Dwight" appears on many a census form, but everyone calls him Elton John.

Gareth, it is long since established that Lechmere could have called himself Cross on occasion, or as an "everyday name".

It is equally long since established that he did use that name at the inquest and in his contacts with the police.

It is equally long established that Lechmere in all his remaining contacts with any sort of authority called himself Lechmere.

Apparently, Lechmere was his "official" name, if you will - whilst Cross may have been used in non-official circumstances.

But contacts with the police and an inquest are contacts with authorities, official contacts. And it is therefore an anomaly that he used Cross in this context.

He may have had a reason to do so that was not sinister in the least - but the anomaly remains there until such a thing can be proven.

This is the exact knowledge we have about the name. And we have had it for quite a while. It is becoming a tad repetitious, is it not?

[Fisherman]

But if the police did investigate him, and exonerate him, we are still left with the same facts surrounding the murder of Nichols and him finding the body. Facts which you now still use to suggest his guilt.

You make a big issue with regards to the Mizen issue, was it a lie or simply a mistake? This again is nothing more than another witness conflict, one of many we see throughout the whole series of murders.

Do you not think that this conflict which you seek to rely on would not have been noticed at the time, was it ever clarified? and having been noticed was it of great concern to the investigating officers? The answer to that has to be no, as there is nothing writing from 1888, or anything from the investigating officers in later years to say he was ever suspected.

I also notice that you failed to answer my earlier question as to how many others who found the bodies of victims were suspected of being their killer, let me answer it for you "NONE" is the answer you are looking for.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don´t think the so called scam was of great interest to the investigating officers. But I do think it should have been. Just as I think the issue should have been noted for it´s potential explosive character by the many scores of ripperologists who have looked at the case for more than a century.

The fact that the police do not entertain suspicion against a person is in no shape or form equvivalent with that person automatically being innocent. The policemen who visited Christies house left it with no suspicions raised against him - although the fence in his back yard was partly supported by a human femur bone - which the boys in blue missed.

Suggesting that we may rest assured that the police would have nailed Lechmere if he was guilty is not admissible evidence, on account of it being too dumb a suggestion to make.

As for finding bodies and becoming suspects or not, this may come as a flash out of a clear blue skye for you, but it is actually the circumstances involved that governs each case.

You may want to ponder the ramifications of that before you make your next post.

[MrBarnett]

Of course, the circumstances of Lechmere's discovery of the body - on his way to work - add a dimension that is absent from the other examples of his interaction with the authorities. He may well have identified himself as Lechmere to census-takers, registrars etc, but decided to use the name Cross when presenting himself as a Pickfords' carman on his way to his workplace - if he was known there by that name.

The likelihood is that his stepfather, Thomas Cross, was instrumental in his getting the position at Pickfords in the first place, in which case using the name Cross would have been the simplest way of presenting himself to his new employers. The use of the name Cross on the 1861 census is an example of such a 'simplification'.

And although we can't be certain that it is one and the same man, we have the 1876 incident where a Pickfords carman named Charles Cross killed a child in Islington.

The Cross/Lechmere anomaly cannot be definitively explained away, but we don't need to be overly creative to imagine a scenario, supported by the facts and reasonable assumption, where it is perfectly innocent.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
I thought it was Hutchinson. lol
Richard,

[Sam Flynn]

Excellent post, Gary.

[Fisherman]

Of course, the circumstances of Lechmere's discovery of the body - on his way to work - add a dimension that is absent from the other examples of his interaction with the authorities. He may well have identified himself as Lechmere to census-takers, registrars etc, but decided to use the name Cross when presenting himself as a Pickfords' carman on his way to his workplace - if he was known there by that name.

The likelihood is that his stepfather, Thomas Cross, was instrumental in his getting the position at Pickfords in the first place, in which case using the name Cross would have been the simplest way of presenting himself to his new employers. The use of the name Cross on the 1861 census is an example of such a 'simplification'.

And although we can't be certain that it is one and the same man, we have the 1876 incident where a Pickfords carman named Charles Cross killed a child in Islington.

The Cross/Lechmere anomaly cannot be definitively explained away, but we don't need to be overly creative to imagine a scenario, supported by the facts and reasonable assumption, where it is perfectly innocent.

Fully agreed, Gary - that´s more or less how I see it too. It may have been very innocent, but when we add all the things together, the name thing does not exactly help his case. To my mind, it remains one of those gnawing matters that one should not have too many of if you want to look squeaky clean.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don´t think the so called scam was of great interest to the investigating officers. But I do think it should have been. Just as I think the issue should have been noted for it´s potential explosive character by the many scores of ripperologists who have looked at the case for more than a century.

The fact that the police do not entertain suspicion against a person is in no shape or form equvivalent with that person automatically being innocent. The policemen who visited Christies house left it with no suspicions raised against him - although the fence in his back yard was partly supported by a human femur bone - which the boys in blue missed.

Suggesting that we may rest assured that the police would have nailed Lechmere if he was guilty is not admissible evidence, on account of it being too dumb a suggestion to make.

As for finding bodies and becoming suspects or not, this may come as a flash out of a clear blue skye for you, but it is actually the circumstances involved that governs each case.

You may want to ponder the ramifications of that before you make your next post.

If anyone needs to ponder it is you, and your pondering should relate to this misguided belief of yours that Lechmere was a killer. There is absolutely no evidence to even suspect him of this.

Even if he had have been the killer, he would have made good his escape when he heard footsteps approaching, that is what criminals do when they are in the process of committing a crime and fear imminent capture, that is what anyone would do, especially when they have that opportunity as did Lechmere.

You should accept this and move on. But you wont because your suspicion about this has now become and obsession, as has your belief that all of the torsos were murdered, and that the same killer was responsible for the WM.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk