Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[eighty-eighter]

Any idea how far down the drop was from the wall to the tracks? Also was that the mainline below or a siding relevant to the nearby Essex Wharf building? Just thinking if there might had been parked rolling stock or not. Was there a grass slope that led down to the tracks that the killer could have returned from easily?
I can't remember from my visits in the late 60's in which most of our attention was on the rest of the street, wish my Grandad and I had taken a camera!
Not sure it was dark enough to preclude fresh blood oozing from a massive open wound on the throat being visible to some extent, considering how close they got to listen for a heartbeat etc. Don't forget blood will reflect any available light. The weather was mostly fine by that time with a quarter moon and it was still summer.

[eighty-eighter]

CGI of a similar view from CSI Whitechapel: Hope the publishers of this excellent book don't mind it being shown here. there is some debate on the streetlamp opposite the murder site. What would be the source of the light emanating from the railway in the cutting? This could have made a big difference. Also both Cross/Lechmere and Paul's eyes would have been accustomed to the dark after their traversing dark streets thus far.

[Richard Patterson]

Really good questions and pertinent observations there eighty-eighter. The drop was about 20 feet (6 meters), I wish you and your grandad had taken a camera too. I have looked for aerial shots of Bucks Row, my experience mucking around such places as a kid tells me that there would have been a sloped brick wall, perhaps even ladder rungs. That Essex Wharf was conveniently located besides the track makes me think that there might have been a siding. This would be probably easier to find out if anything. It might be useful also to see if there are other photos of similar underpasses in London that may indicate the usual layout. Great CGI shot bye the way, but I should stress that from what I know the lamps were off. I would think that the same goes for the cutting I doubt that there was any light emanating from it. I can't see why there would be any lamps down there on the tracks. I suspect that if the CGI people had rendered the image under true lightning conditions the image would have been a brown/grey blur, and not particularly conducive to an illustrated book. Sure it was still summer, with one day to go to autumn and although there was a quarter moon, by the early hours of the morning, it would have been well near the horizon and hardly visible through the narrow gap of sky between the hulking buildings lining Bucks Row.

[eighty-eighter]

Thanks Richard. Lots of interesting possibilities arise. My initial thoughts are it seems much more open than the following murder sites - and closely overlooked by windows to boot, one wonders why Nichols chose it? Were the gates to Browns Yard ever open at that time I wonder? That would make more sense if she could have taken a punter into a yard. I know they weren't on the night in question.

[eighty-eighter]

I guess had there been a siding below the bridge relating to the Essex Wharf then its conceivable that there might have been a loading ramp too. One wonders whether this might have been lit for obvious reasons, possibly the authors of this generally well researched book might have known something about this?

[David Orsam]

"...Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street ..."

Odd that someone who had been there, didn't know that was incorrect.

You know, I don't really think it is odd. He was there to report a murder not conduct a survey of the area. I suspect most people could easily make a mistake in describing from memory the street layout of any street they have visited. Thomas street does intersect Buck's Row so he must have had some familiarity with the area. And frankly, if he hadn't been there he could just have checked a map, got it 100% accurate but it wouldn't mean a thing.

[David Orsam]

that Cross was deliberately misleading PC Mizen is mere speculation.

Hi Richard, I don't think that's quite right. That Cross said something untruthful to PC Mizen is part of the evidence in the case, by which I mean the police evidence. While I don't say it comes anywhere near to proving he was guilty of the murder, it is evidence that could have been presented against Cross in a court of law. And I'm not sure there are many (if any) other suspects against whom there exists an iota of such evidence, especially one who can be placed at the scene of the crime, as in the Nichols murder.

Incidentally, while I appreciate that your novel is a work of fiction, if P.C. Mizen had taken the two men's names before sending them on their way (as you suggest) then, as long as he didn't take their addresses too, it would be an extremely helpful point for Fisherman and would actually support the claim that Cross was the killer!

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard, I don't think that's quite right. That Cross said something untruthful to PC Mizen is part of the evidence in the case, by which I mean the police evidence. While I don't say it comes anywhere near to proving he was guilty of the murder, it is evidence that could have been presented against Cross in a court of law. And I'm not sure there are many (if any) other suspects against whom there exists an iota of such evidence, especially one who can be placed at the scene of the crime, as in the Nichols murder.

Incidentally, while I appreciate that your novel is a work of fiction, if P.C. Mizen had taken the two men's names before sending them on their way (as you suggest) then, as long as he didn't take their addresses too, it would be an extremely helpful point for Fisherman and would actually support the claim that Cross was the killer!

Thanks David for letting me know that evidence shows that Charles Cross said something untruthful to PC Mizen. Just to make it clearer for me, this is Cross giving a wrong name isn’t it? It seems that the whole Lechmere Ripper theory rests upon this apparent deception and is used as the first link in a chain pointing to him as the murderer. Now, although people who have viewed the census records have argued about this, lets say that Cross and Lechmere are the same person.

Casebook’s “Jack the Ripper Wikki” on Cross, tells that he was aged 39 when he discovered Nichols. It tells that he was born Lechmere and when he was 11-years-old his mother married a policeman with the family name of Cross. It would have both practical and routine for Charles, like people do, to have adopted this typically English surname of his new father for himself. This would have been particularly true in a mostly illiterate part of London where foreigners were often viewed with distrust.

When, 28 years later, Charles spoke with PC Mizen, his friends, co-workers and family would have all known him as Cross, because this was the name he had carried most of his life. A name, which coming from a Policeman he would have been proud to use. When Cross spoke with PC Mizen he would have already naturally introduced himself as Cross to Robert Paul. At the time we cannot be sure that either Paul or Cross knew that Nichols was dead but undoubtedly, finding a body lying on the ground on another day heading to work would have shaken the nerves of both Carmen. It is reasonable to see that when Charles told PC Mizen that his family was Cross, the name he was generally known as, he was not meaning to be deceptive. In fact if Charles had suddenly reverted to calling himself by a family name not used since puberty it would have been odd at the very least if not appearing more deceptive. All I see in Cross was an honest decent East Ender. He found a poor woman lying on the pavement. He tried to cover her to make her up for the sake of decency. He told the first person he met about her as well as the first police officer he encountered. It's a sad reflection on the state of affairs, in regard to naming Ripper suspects, that people are saying ‘I accuse’ to such a witness. To me, the only thing that makes poor Charles Cross a suspect is only that he existed.

[David Orsam]

Thanks David for letting me know that evidence shows that Charles Cross said something untruthful to PC Mizen. Just to make it clearer for me, this is Cross giving a wrong name isn’t it?

No, that's not it. PC Mizen's evidence was that Cross told him on the night of the murder that he was wanted by "a policeman" in Buck's Row. We know this was untrue because Cross neither saw nor spoke to a policeman in Buck's Row (Cross himself denied at the inquest that he had mentioned a policeman to Mizen).

If Cross was the killer then he would have had a bloody knife in his possession and one can (I think) see that in telling the constable that he was passing on a message from another officer who was on the scene, Cross could have been attempting to ensure that Mizen did not ask him to accompany him back to the spot where the body lay, allowing Cross to escape (from both PC Mizen and Robert Paul). It's by no means a watertight theory - but it is not speculation to say that Cross told a lie to Mizen because that is precisely what the police evidence in this case says.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Richard, I don't think that's quite right. That Cross said something untruthful to PC Mizen is part of the evidence in the case, by which I mean the police evidence. While I don't say it comes anywhere near to proving he was guilty of the murder, it is evidence that could have been presented against Cross in a court of law. And I'm not sure there are many (if any) other suspects against whom there exists an iota of such evidence, especially one who can be placed at the scene of the crime, as in the Nichols murder.

Incidentally, while I appreciate that your novel is a work of fiction, if P.C. Mizen had taken the two men's names before sending them on their way (as you suggest) then, as long as he didn't take their addresses too, it would be an extremely helpful point for Fisherman and would actually support the claim that Cross was the killer!

How so?

[Rosella]

PC Neil probably missed Cross and Paul by Brown's stable gates by seconds. He turned into Bucks Row from Thomas St (now Fulbourne St) at, he stated, about 3:45 am. Thomas St emerged into Bucks Row at about 50 yards from the Board School on that street. Neil walked down Bucks Row from the opposite direction to Lechmere/Cross and Paul.

Apparently a search was made shortly after the discovery of Polly's body of all wharves, enclosures and East London and District railway reserves. How thoroughly, who knows!

I remember seeing that before it was damaged by fire on a visit to Bucks Row in the 1960's, also Essex Wharf, but can't remember details of the railway sidings, frustratingly!

[drstrange169]

This gap has always interested me. It is always shown as open in old maps. Does anyone know if it was gated in 1888?

[Fisherman]

A number of points:

No, Francis Thompson does not compare to Lechmere in terms of viability as the killer!

Richard Patterson makes the point that the Lechmere theory is conjecture, and to an extent, that is true.
But any suspect theory will involve conjecture, and the reason that Lechmere has a very full story involving conjecture is that we know enough and have enough facts to build a very detailed theory. No other suspect offer that option.

I would suggest that if a comparison between Lechmere and Thompson was to be made, then Thompson, not Lechmere, is the one who is in dire need of conjecture, since he cannot be placed at any of the murder spots, and since we have nothing at all connecting him to anything at all in the murder series.

To say that he had no obligations, so he could have been at the murder sites at the correct times is a very lofty suggestion. He could equally have been in Trafalgar Square, Rotten Row or in Coventry. We don´t know at all where he was, and that is not something that strengthens his candidature!
We do know, however, that Lechmere´s routes to work would have taken him through the heartland of the Ripper murders at the approximate times four of the victims were killed. In that respect, it is not a weakness that he was not free to go as he pleased - it is a huge pointer FOR him as being the killer! He should be expected to be near or very near the murder sites at the approximate murder times.
The exact same goes for his connections to the Berner Street area: it speaks for him, not against him!

When it comes to suspects and conjecture, I will say that no other suspect will need less conjecture than Lechmere. He is already proven to have been found standing alone, close to a freshly killed victim - all other suspects can only be placed directly at a murder site by way of conjecture.
He is proven to have had two options of routes to take him to his work, that passed directly by four of the Ripper murder sites - all other suspects can only be placed here by means of conjecture.
He is proven to have provided the police with another name than his own - no other Ripper suspect have been proven to have lied to the police. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera - if we want to speak of conjecture, keep in mind that Lechmere is ahead of the other suspects in terms of factual, practical evidence by a country mile.

The name! Again!
Charles Allen Lechmere MAY have called himself Cross at times, and not only as he spoke to the police. But there is absolutley zero evidence that he ever did so.
And REGARDLESS of whether he ever did so, he STILL did NOT use the name Cross in circumstances when he approached or was approached by authorities. There are 110 documents with his name on them, all of them signed in response to the question: What is your name? And the carman ALWAYS was of the mindset that his name was Charles Allen Lechmere, apart from one single occasion: when he spoke to the police in combination with the inquest into a murder where he had been found alone with the freshly killed victim.
If that does not make people go "Hmmm, that´s very odd!", then people are outrageously ignorant. It could and should have them thinking "Can there be a rational reason for this anomaly?", but making the leap that he must have called himself Cross colloquialy is totally uncorroborated by the facts. They instead tell us that he should have answered "Lechmere" when the police asked him "What is your name?" - he ALWAYS did otherwise.

The notion that he was proud of the name Cross: He was baptised Lechmere the year AFTER his mother married Thomas Cross, so the parents apparently agreed that Lechmere was a name that was even prouder than Cross. And why would it NOT be? The Lechmeres owned huge amount of land, and had produced an archbishop and an admiral that was Horation Nelsons closest man! It was a name with an almighty inheritance and ring to it. Had it not been for Charles Fox Lechmere, Charles´grandfather, squandering his money and leaving Charles´ father, John Allen Lechmere, pennyless, then Charles would not have been a carman at all. He would have been wealthy.

The light: Neil said that the street was totally dark, but for one light shining "at the end of the row". No light was shining close to the murder spot.

The timings: Neil would have been very close in time to Lechmere and Paul at the murder site. He and Mizen gave the same approximate time for discovering the body/being approached by Lechmere, and these occurences could have been totally simultaneous, although my own thoughts are that Lechmere probably reached Mizen some little time earlier than Neil reached the body.

The light and the blood: Yes, there was light at the murder site. Light enough to make out the bare legs of Nichols, to see that the dress was up over them, to enable the carmen to examine Nichols. Lechmere saw her from across the street. So there WAS light, though not much of it.

Stating that Lechmere and Paul would be accustomed to the darkness, having walked in it for some time, is not entirely true - they both had passed beneath the bright lamps of the brewery in Bath Street, and it takes up to half an hour before full human night vision is restored again after having been exposed to light.

But we know that Nichols bled for many minutes after Lechmere left her, and bleeding out does normally not take long time with the extensive damage that Nichols suffered. If there was a dark stream of blood running from Nichols down towards the gutter when Paul kneeled by her side, then I believe that he should have seen it - or even placed his knees in it!
However, if she was very freshly cut, and if the blood had not yet formed a large enough pool under her neck for the blood to reach "over the brim" and start flowing away towards the gutter, then that would explain why Paul saw no blood.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One more thing: Arew Cross and Lechmere two different men?

No, they are not.

The man that witnessed as Charles Allen Cross at the inquest gave the address 22 Doveton Street.

In 22 Doveton Street, Charles Allen Lechmere lived.

The carman at the inquest had worked for Pickfords for 20 years. That meamns that he was - at least - in his late thirties.

Lechmere was 39. And a carman.

Charles Allen Lechmere had a stepfather called Cross in his early years. And in the 1861 census, he is listed as Charles Cross, thereby gaining the exact name the inquest carman gave.

They are one and the same, that is all way beoynd coincidence and any useful questioning - as so often is the case when it comes to the carman. Not that this stops people questioning things anyway ...

The best,
Fisherman

[eighty-eighter]

For me with every day that passes it's looking more like Lechmere could certainly be in the frame. Based on the known facts of proximity to a body and timings, which is at least something concrete - more than can be said of most suspects. All I need now is motive/reason or at the very least a bit more on Lechmere's state of mind/temperament/character. Something that suggests that there was more to him than we currently know, something that could make his character more dubious than it currently appears. Of course there is a possibility that Lechmere was that rare breed of killer; the type that was able to conduct two lives side by side without ever giving any insight into his darker side to anyone. That would make him one of the ultimate schizophrenics in the history of murders though. If he was a poisoner yes, but could he have did what the Ripper did and still carry on a normal existence as if nothing had happened, and in addition just stop "ripping" as if he was changing his hobby from stamp collecting to butterfly collecting? That's the million dollar question.
We must be a little careful though of fitting the murders to a person we know - however tempting and convenient that may be, for there is still every chance that the culprit went by the name of A. Unknown. However that would be dull and essentially un-debatable wouldn't it?