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 wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 19 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - by Jon Guy 20 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 29 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - by Jon Guy 39 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - by Jon Guy 42 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 1 hour and 2 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel? - (106 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (16 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (11 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - (7 posts)
Tumblety, Francis: Patterns of behavior and Tumblety - (4 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (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
  #1  
Old 10-01-2015, 01:52 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default Lechmere a witness to the killer

Hi Fisherman,

Have you ever tryed the following questions:

A) Could Lechmere have become an witness to the murder on
his way to work?

B) If Lechmere saw the killer, could that lead to:

1. That the killer tryed to cover the mutilations from Lechmere?

2. That Lechmere did not want to come forward with his testimony?

3. That Lechmere did not want to give his true name?

4. That Lechmere did not want to give his adress?

Sometimes historical sources kick back. You have to let them.

Sorry.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-01-2015, 02:19 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,362
Default

Except poor old Lech gave his address both home and work.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-01-2015, 02:23 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Except poor old Lech gave his address both home and work.
Didnīt Fisherman find that Lechmere gave 22 Doveton Street as his home adress (it was his mothers adress by the time of the murder) and that hundreds of men worked at his work adress?

Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 10-01-2015 at 02:29 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-01-2015, 02:44 AM
curious4 curious4 is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi Fisherman,

Have you ever tryed the following questions:

A) Could Lechmere have become an witness to the murder on
his way to work?

B) If Lechmere saw the killer, could that lead to:

1. That the killer tryed to cover the mutilations from Lechmere?

2. That Lechmere did not want to come forward with his testimony?

3. That Lechmere did not want to give his true name?

4. That Lechmere did not want to give his adress?

Sometimes historical sources kick back. You have to let them.

Sorry.

Pierre
Sorry Pierre

Lechmere and Paul adjusted her clothing, thinking that she had been sexually assaulted.

PS Swedish?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-01-2015, 03:19 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,224
Default

Whoa there!

If you please - can I answer Pierres questions, since he directed them to me...?


A) Could Lechmere have become an witness to the murder on
his way to work?

Technically, yes - but that would mean that the killer was in Bucks Row as Lechmere arrived. If so, it is odd that the PC:s and watchmen claimed not to have seen anybody leave the place to evoke attention. But if the killer managed to sneak out unseen, the yes, Lechmere could have witnessed the murder.

B) If Lechmere saw the killer, could that lead to:

1. That the killer tryed to cover the mutilations from Lechmere?

Why would he do that, if he knew that Lechmere had seen him killing Nichols? Or are we discussing a scenario where Lechmere did not witness the actual murder? Or one where he did, but unknown to the killer?

2. That Lechmere did not want to come forward with his testimony?

For what exact reason? One must asssume that if he witnessed the murder, he would be acutely aware that he needed to come forward and clear himself.

3. That Lechmere did not want to give his true name?

If he was not the killer, then why would he hesitate to do that? Using the wrong name could get him into a lot of trouble. If he was the killer, he may have thought it worth the risk but if he was not...?

4. That Lechmere did not want to give his adress?

Same thing there, Pierre!

Didnīt Fisherman find that Lechmere gave 22 Doveton Street as his home adress (it was his mothers adress by the time of the murder) and that hundreds of men worked at his work adress?

No. 22 Doveton Street was the address to which he moved in mid June 1888, leaving his mother (and one of his daughters who stayed with her) behind. It was the first time he lived away from a very close proximity to his mother.

22 Doveton Street was at no stage his mothers address.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-01-2015, 03:33 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,241
Default

If the exchange is purely meant to be between Pierre and Christer, then take it to PM.

The rhetoric is numbingly dull, yet painfully misleading.

A contradiction, as ever.

Monty
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-01-2015, 03:43 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Whoa there!

If you please - can I answer Pierres questions, since he directed them to me...?


A) Could Lechmere have become an witness to the murder on
his way to work?

Technically, yes - but that would mean that the killer was in Bucks Row as Lechmere arrived. If so, it is odd that the PC:s and watchmen claimed not to have seen anybody leave the place to evoke attention. But if the killer managed to sneak out unseen, the yes, Lechmere could have witnessed the murder.

B) If Lechmere saw the killer, could that lead to:

1. That the killer tryed to cover the mutilations from Lechmere?

Why would he do that, if he knew that Lechmere had seen him killing Nichols? Or are we discussing a scenario where Lechmere did not witness the actual murder? Or one where he did, but unknown to the killer?

2. That Lechmere did not want to come forward with his testimony?

For what exact reason? One must asssume that if he witnessed the murder, he would be acutely aware that he needed to come forward and clear himself.

3. That Lechmere did not want to give his true name?

If he was not the killer, then why would he hesitate to do that? Using the wrong name could get him into a lot of trouble. If he was the killer, he may have thought it worth the risk but if he was not...?

4. That Lechmere did not want to give his adress?

Same thing there, Pierre!

Didnīt Fisherman find that Lechmere gave 22 Doveton Street as his home adress (it was his mothers adress by the time of the murder) and that hundreds of men worked at his work adress?

No. 22 Doveton Street was the address to which he moved in mid June 1888, leaving his mother (and one of his daughters who stayed with her) behind. It was the first time he lived away from a very close proximity to his mother.

22 Doveton Street was at no stage his mothers address.
Thanks Fisherman.

1. Alt 1) If Lechmere showed up when the killer were performing the mutilations the killer would cover them up, trying to make the witness believe he was in a sexual act with the woman. Alt 2) He would try to get the scene to look less serious, thereby avoiding Lechmere shouting for the police. Alt 3) He would just cover it up in panic and run.

2. For the exact reason of beeing very scared after witnessing the mutilations or even threatened by the killer. I guess nobody here believes that the killer couldnīt act threatening if he got a witness.

3. He would hesitate giving his true name if he was afraid of the killer. Giving the name and getting it printed in the papers could mean becoming a target for the killer.

4. Thanks for the info about Doveton Street. But didnīt you find that he gave this adress to the police exclusively and not to the jury when he testified? So the adress wouldnīt be printed in the papers.


So giving a false name (which I think I read he never hade done before, please correct me if Iīm wrong) could cause trouble with the justice system.

But giving the true name could cause death. So he probably chose the least risky strategy.


Regards Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 10-01-2015 at 03:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-01-2015, 04:01 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,224
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Thanks Fisherman.

1. Alt 1) If Lechmere showed up when the killer were performing the mutilations the killer would cover them up, trying to make the witness believe he was in a sexual act with the woman. Alt 2) He would try to get the scene to look less serious, thereby avoiding Lechmere shouting for the police. Alt 3) He would just cover it up in panic and run.

2. For the exact reason of beeing very scared after witnessing the mutilations or even threatened by the killer. I guess nobody here believes that the killer couldnīt act threatening if he got a witness.

3. He would hesitate giving his true name if he was afraid of the killer. Giving the name and getting it printed in the papers could mean becoming a target for the killer.

4. Thanks for the info about Doveton Street. But didnīt you find that he gave this adress to the police exclusively and not to the jury when he testified? So the adress wouldnīt be printed in the papers.


So giving a false name (which I think I read he never hade done before, please correct me if Iīm wrong) could cause trouble with the justice system.

But giving the true name could cause death. So he probably chose the least risky strategy.


Regards Pierre
Itīs colourful, Iīll give you that! But I donīt buy into it. If Lechmere was innocent, then why would he remain standing in the street, awaiting the arrival of Paul?
In your scenario, Lechmere lies about being just 30 or 40 yards ahead of Paul. Why did he not leave the place immediately after the killer did? Why remain there?

As for his address, one paper only got it, the rest missed out. My guess is that this sole paper (The Star) got the address from a source the other papers never accessed.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-01-2015, 04:18 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Itīs colourful, Iīll give you that! But I donīt buy into it. If Lechmere was innocent, then why would he remain standing in the street, awaiting the arrival of Paul?
In your scenario, Lechmere lies about being just 30 or 40 yards ahead of Paul. Why did he not leave the place immediately after the killer did? Why remain there?

As for his address, one paper only got it, the rest missed out. My guess is that this sole paper (The Star) got the address from a source the other papers never accessed.
Thanks Fisherman,

I think Lechmere remained standing in the street because he was stunned and afraid to move or call for somebody, given the risk that the murderer was in the area.

So Lechmere waited for the steps to come closer before he dared to make contact with somebody else.

Itīs rather funny but the probability that someone like Lechmere, who often moved around in this area, would actually witness a murder or another crime cannot be very low. And in the way we have been thinking about the ripper, he never had witnesses. But the probability of that is low. He avoided the police, yes, but the choice of the murder site in this case gives a high probability that someone like Lechmere would come along.

Regards Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 10-01-2015 at 04:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-01-2015, 05:10 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,224
Default

[quote=Pierre;354462]Thanks Fisherman,

I think Lechmere remained standing in the street because he was stunned and afraid to move or call for somebody, given the risk that the murderer was in the area.

But if he was threatened, then he knew which way the killer took. Plus he knew he was at risk, standing by the body.

So Lechmere waited for the steps to come closer before he dared to make contact with somebody else.

It makes no sense. He would not want any contact in a case like this. He needed to get out of there and stay off the map. Nobody but the killer knew abut him, and he was not gonna give him away.

Itīs rather funny but the probability that someone like Lechmere, who often moved around in this area, would actually witness a murder or another crime cannot be very low. And in the way we have been thinking about the ripper, he never had witnesses. But the probability of that is low. He avoided the police, yes, but the choice of the murder site in this case gives a high probability that someone like Lechmere would come along.

In essence, no - the back streets were empty and silent, as witnessed about by Neil. Nobody was about at 3.15 and nobody was about as he returned.
Sorry, Pierre, but it does not pan out. Does this belong to your theory...?
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 07:44 AM.


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