Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Once again back on the name issue I see.

    Kattrup's list, while extensive, of course missed the classic example of Kosminski,who claimed a different name in court, and said he, or it was said for him, went by "Abrahams", that would suggest that "Abrahams" was the name he used on a day to day basis; but he was hospitalized and indeed buried under the name Kosminski.
    Indeed but for that revelation in court, and that only because he was accused of giving a force name, and so had to explain the use of both names, there would be no official record of him using anything other than Kosminski.

    The point made many times that the authorities knew his employer and address means that any attempt at deliberately misleading obviously failed almost immediately, therefore what was the point of trying to mislead?


    His own life story gives a very plausible reason for the use of Cross.
    His step father was a policeman and one assumes therefore probably remembered by some in the local force, indeed it is quite probably that Lechmere was known to some of the local police has being the son of a former officer and it would seem likely that if that were the case they would think of him as Cross.
    It is therefore entirely plausible that he would adopt and use this name at least when dealing with the police and by extension any police related business such as an inquest.


    Pure subjective I am well aware, but look what little we do know


    1. It was common at the time to use more than one name.

    2. While his given recorded name was Lechmere, he was also perfectly entitled to use the name of his stepfather at anytime.

    3. While all found official records show the use of the name Lechmere, that does not preclude that he could either regularly or on certain occasions used Cross unofficially.

    4. He certainly did use it at the inquest.


    And that is all we know.


    Of course that is the problem with much of the case against Lechmere, Just like all the arguments against all the other serious contenders, it is a house built of straw it is all subjective down to personal interpretation.



    Steve
    Hi El, all

    His own life story gives a very plausible reason for the use of Cross
    yes it does. and not only this but lech was still under the auspices of his stepfather policeman Cross when he started work at pickfords. so he was probably just kept using that as his work name, while after he changed back to his original, biological name of Lechmere everywhere else. and since the whole context of his being a witness was a carman on his way to work, the name of Cross would be reasonable to use-since that is the name he still went by at work.

    and/or he used the name Cross because he was dealing with police and his step dad had been police

    and/or he wantd to use the less common name to keep his family out of it.


    Now, that all being said, innocent explanations all, it is however, just another anomolie in a string of them that do require being "innocently" explained away, and it does start to add up. I guess the point is how many anomlies and coincidences do there need to be to make someone a valid suspect?

    IMHO there are enough of them added up in lechs case to make him a valid suspect.
    "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

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      Hi El, all



      yes it does. and not only this but lech was still under the auspices of his stepfather policeman Cross when he started work at pickfords. so he was probably just kept using that as his work name, while after he changed back to his original, biological name of Lechmere everywhere else. and since the whole context of his being a witness was a carman on his way to work, the name of Cross would be reasonable to use-since that is the name he still went by at work.

      and/or he used the name Cross because he was dealing with police and his step dad had been police

      and/or he wantd to use the less common name to keep his family out of it.


      Now, that all being said, innocent explanations all, it is however, just another anomolie in a string of them that do require being "innocently" explained away, and it does start to add up. I guess the point is how many anomlies and coincidences do there need to be to make someone a valid suspect?

      IMHO there are enough of them added up in lechs case to make him a valid suspect.
      THAT is valid reasoning in my world! Yes, he COULD have called himself Cross on Sundays, yes he COULD want to facilitate for the police clerk and yes he COULD have wanted to keep the family out of things.

      But just like Abby recognizes, it is one of many bits that fit the overall puzzle. And the more bits there are, the likelier a culprit he becomes.

      What needs to be recognized is how this whole thread - and a lot of other threads - seem to be devoted to think up possible alternative explanations to the many anomalies surrounding the carman. And that´s fine by me. But when it is suggested that there is no case against Lechmere, things have gone pretty heftily astray. Anybody can come up with alternative innocent explanations in any case. It is the easiest thing in the world.

      But to have so many anomalies clinging to himself as Lechmere has, without any evidence clearing him on any point at all, is not equally trivial.

      If he had only signed the rest of the official material "Cross".
      If Paul had seen him stop in his stride and step out into the street.
      If Nichols had not been bleeding as Neil arrived. And Mizen.
      If Mizen and Lechmere had only agreed about the simple things that were said in an empty, silent street.
      If the clothing had not been pulled down over the abdomen of Nichols when Paul saw her.
      If Lechmere had simply agreed to try and prop Nichols up.
      If he had claimed to have left home at 3.38.
      If his working trek had not seemed to take him past the murder sites.
      If Stride and Eddowes had been killed on a weekday.
      If any of the others had been killed on weekends.
      If the apron piece had been found at 2.20.
      If Lechmere´s mother had not lived in Mary Ann Street when Stride died.
      If the Eddowes murder had taken place somewhere else but along his old working route.
      If Paul had clearly stated that he was never out of earshot from Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen.
      If he had not been old enough to be able to be both the Ripper and the torso killer.

      There were so many, many instances where fate could have reached out a helping hand to Lechmere. Alas, no. It NEVER happed. Not once.

      And now, all he has is a hoard of people who think themselves righteous and clever on account of being able to conjure up alternative explanations.

      To be fair, that ain´t much.
      Last edited by Fisherman; 01-20-2017, 09:02 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Steve, I am not doing this all over with you again. Read my answer to Kattrup. One point only:

        You: While all found official records show the use of the name Lechmere, that does not preclude that he could either regularly or on certain occasions used Cross unofficially.

        The police business was not unofficial business. Therefore, it remains that this one instance - no others, as far as we know - is a total exception to the rule.

        Total exceptions are also known as anomalies.

        Anomalies are what the police go looking for when hunting a killer.

        Just helping out and showing the way here.

        Mind you, I am not (God forbid!) saying that the name swop WAS an intentional misleading. I am saying that given the circumstances, it lends itself EMINENTLY to such an interpretation.
        Hi Fish.

        My post was not really aimed at you. I know I want change your view on this particular part of the Lechmere case.


        And to be fair you never say conclusively, just probably.


        Cheers

        Steve

        Comment


        • #34
          Hi Kattrup

          My post was not intended as criticism of any kind. Just that the example I gave was a nice addition and illustrated the point.


          Steve

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
            Hi Kattrup

            My post was not intended as criticism of any kind. Just that the example I gave was a nice addition and illustrated the point.


            Steve
            You may have missed that I brought up the Kosminski/Abrahams case - as an example of many where we have a person giving up both names freely. Post 9.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              Now, that all being said, innocent explanations all, it is however, just another anomolie in a string of them that do require being "innocently" explained away, and it does start to add up.
              I disagree.

              There is nothing that requires being explained away, since nothing has been produced to show an anomaly.

              Using another name than the "real name" happened all the time. It was not uncommon, and it was accepted. Since Cross did not do anything out of the ordinary, there is nothing to explain away.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                You may have missed that I brought up the Kosminski/Abrahams case - as an example of many where we have a person giving up both names freely. Post 9.
                Hi Fish.

                I did miss that, been somewhat distracted with personal issues last few weeks.
                However while you mentioned you did nor elaborated on the issues I mentioned which I think have a direct bearing on the use of name issue.

                I hope to have my first part of promised research done soon and I may have some responses to the points you mentioned a few posts back , only about Bucks Row.


                Steve

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                  I disagree.

                  There is nothing that requires being explained away, since nothing has been produced to show an anomaly.

                  Using another name than the "real name" happened all the time. It was not uncommon, and it was accepted. Since Cross did not do anything out of the ordinary, there is nothing to explain away.
                  In how many of the cases you refer to can you show how the person looked into signed his dealings with authorities?

                  Are there any examples at all of somebody who always called himself X in authority contacts, suddenly used Y in combination with dealings with the police or in any other official capacity?

                  You see, that IS out of the ordinary.

                  You are comparing apples and pears, I´m afraid. And you´re not coming up peaches.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    In how many of the cases you refer to can you show how the person looked into signed his dealings with authorities?
                    None.
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    Are there any examples at all of somebody who always called himself X in authority contacts, suddenly used Y in combination with dealings with the police or in any other official capacity?
                    Yes, there's at least one.
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    You see, that IS out of the ordinary.
                    No, that has not been substantiated.
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    You are comparing apples and pears, I´m afraid. And you´re not coming up peaches.
                    Really?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Kattrup:
                      None.

                      Says it all.

                      Yes, there's at least one.

                      In what capacity is he/she represented? Witness? Culprit? I´d like to see the material.

                      No, that has not been substantiated.

                      Nor does it have to - it goes without saying.

                      Really?

                      Really.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 01-20-2017, 11:50 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                        Hi Fish.

                        I did miss that, been somewhat distracted with personal issues last few weeks.
                        However while you mentioned you did nor elaborated on the issues I mentioned which I think have a direct bearing on the use of name issue.

                        I hope to have my first part of promised research done soon and I may have some responses to the points you mentioned a few posts back , only about Bucks Row.


                        Steve
                        Okidoki, Steve.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          >>If he had only signed the rest of the official material "Cross".<<

                          Does any of this “official material” relate to the police or Pickfords? If not, how is it relevant? As Katterup has demonstrated, people used different names for different circumstances. In this case we need to know what name he was known by at Pickfords, all else is just distraction.


                          >>If Paul had seen him stop in his stride and step out into the street.<<

                          And if someone had seen Diemshitz actually arrive at 1:00 o’clock.
                          And if someone had actually seen Shwartz in Berner St at 12:45.
                          And if someone had seen Richardson sitting on the steps.
                          Etc. etc. Such is the stuff off mysteries.

                          >>If Nichols had not been bleeding as Neil arrived. And Mizen.<<

                          If we actually knew that Mrs Nichols WAS bleeding and not just leaking from being disturbed by Paul or Neil.
                          Mizen seeing blood is just one of your inventions to frame Xmere for the crime.


                          >>If Mizen and Lechmere had only agreed about the simple things that were said in an empty, silent street.<<

                          If only Mizen and PAUL “had only agreed about the simple things that were said in an empty, silent street”. Seems Mizen was the problem here.

                          >>If the clothing had not been pulled down over the abdomen of Nichols when Paul saw her.<<

                          If only we had evidence that the clothing had been PULLED down “over the abdomen of Nichols when Paul saw her”.


                          >>If Lechmere had simply agreed to try and prop Nichols up.<<

                          If only Paul had confirmed this story to be true. After all, the only person to claim this was Charles Cross and you think he lied about everything else. If only we knew why a guilty man would offer up such an innocent story.


                          >>If he had claimed to have left home at 3.38.<<

                          If only Victorians had mobile phones and synchronized time, this point might be relevant to something.


                          >>If his working trek had not seemed to take him past the murder sites.<<

                          Other than Mrs Nichols and Mrs Chapman, if only we had ANY evidence that his working route took him past the other sites. What we do know is two men walked past the Nichols /Chapman sites. And one of those two men worked next to the Chapman murder site and one didn’t.


                          >>If Stride and Eddowes had been killed on a weekday.<<

                          If only we had evidence that Xmere had that weekend off.


                          >>If any of the others had been killed on weekends.<<

                          ??? How has that relevant in anyway?


                          >>If the apron piece had been found at 2.20.<<

                          See above


                          >>If Lechmere´s mother had not lived in Mary Ann Street when Stride died.<<

                          If only we had ANY evidence that Xmere visited her.


                          >>If the Eddowes murder had taken place somewhere else but along his old working route.<<

                          If only we had ANY evidence that it WAS his old working route.

                          And if he ONLY killed “en route” why did he kill in the opposite direction to his home?


                          >>If Paul had clearly stated that he was never out of earshot from Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen.<<

                          Since Mizen has stated that Paul was there when Xmere and Mizen spoke, why would we need Paul to confirm it?


                          >>If he had not been old enough to be able to be both the Ripper and the torso killer.<<

                          Don’t know enough about the Torso murders to comment.

                          >>There were so many, many instances where fate could have reached out a helping hand to Lechmere. Alas, no. It NEVER happed. Not once.<<

                          What we actually have is unsubstantiated stories designed to make Xmere look guilty, that is a very different thing. Just like when you told Kattrup,

                          “The thing is, every example you point to is an example where we hear people say "my name is X, but I go by the name of Y", or something such.”

                          These stories simply don’t add up when you actually do the research.
                          Last edited by drstrange169; 01-20-2017, 04:59 PM.
                          dustymiller
                          aka drstrange

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I find the Crossmere connection fascinating (though at times it is hard to separate fact from claim).

                            However, do we know whether Cross (also) gave a false address (22 Doveton Street) - Lechmere lived at number 24 Doveton Street in 1891 (but 20 James Street in 1887).

                            Unless I've missed it, Fish also doesn't mention here the Pinchin Street connection (his mother again - with Joseph Forsdike until around 1883/84). That's too early for the finding of the torso, of coure, but still a curiosity, and the fact that Mr Forsdike died in October 1889. Wonder who occupied 23 Pinchin Street at that time!

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              drstrange169:

                              Does any of this “official material” relate to the police or Pickfords? If not, how is it relevant? As Katterup has demonstrated, people used different names for different circumstances. In this case we need to know what name he was known by at Pickfords, all else is just distraction.

                              It is relevant because it would have definitely solved the name issue.

                              >>If Paul had seen him stop in his stride and step out into the street.<<

                              And if someone had seen Diemshitz actually arrive at 1:00 o’clock.
                              And if someone had actually seen Shwartz in Berner St at 12:45.
                              And if someone had seen Richardson sitting on the steps.
                              Etc. etc. Such is the stuff off mysteries.

                              How does that change what I am saying? Paul COULD have saved Lechmere and he did not. He remains viable throughout.

                              >>If Nichols had not been bleeding as Neil arrived. And Mizen.<<

                              If we actually knew that Mrs Nichols WAS bleeding and not just leaking from being disturbed by Paul or Neil.
                              Mizen seeing blood is just one of your inventions to frame Xmere for the crime.

                              Read the inquest and you will see who invented what. Mizen says she was bleeding.


                              >>If Mizen and Lechmere had only agreed about the simple things that were said in an empty, silent street.<<

                              If only Mizen and PAUL “had only agreed about the simple things that were said in an empty, silent street”. Seems Mizen was the problem here.

                              Doesn´t matter - the issue remains.

                              >>If the clothing had not been pulled down over the abdomen of Nichols when Paul saw her.<<

                              If only we had evidence that the clothing had been PULLED down “over the abdomen of Nichols when Paul saw her”.

                              We do - read the inquest
                              .


                              >>If Lechmere had simply agreed to try and prop Nichols up.<<

                              If only Paul had confirmed this story to be true. After all, the only person to claim this was Charles Cross and you think he lied about everything else. If only we knew why a guilty man would offer up such an innocent story.

                              Doesnt matter - the point stands.


                              >>If he had claimed to have left home at 3.38.<<

                              If only Victorians had mobile phones and synchronized time, this point might be relevant to something.

                              Doesn´t matter - he said what he said and that stands.


                              >>If his working trek had not seemed to take him past the murder sites.<<

                              Other than Mrs Nichols and Mrs Chapman, if only we had ANY evidence that his working route took him past the other sites. What we do know is two men walked past the Nichols /Chapman sites. And one of those two men worked next to the Chapman murder site and one didn’t.

                              The geographical implications remain. His work took him through the killing zone.


                              >>If Stride and Eddowes had been killed on a weekday.<<

                              If only we had evidence that Xmere had that weekend off.

                              It was by far the more common thing. The point stands.


                              >>If any of the others had been killed on weekends.<<

                              ??? How has that relevant in anyway?

                              Should have said weekdays - they WERE killed on weekends, therefore strengthening the Lechmere suggestion.


                              >>If the apron piece had been found at 2.20.<<

                              See above

                              It would have stopped any speculation that Lechmere went to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up.


                              >>If Lechmere´s mother had not lived in Mary Ann Street when Stride died.<<

                              If only we had ANY evidence that Xmere visited her.

                              Doesn´t matter - it is quite likely that he did. Evidence is something we must do without in any case. Know the feeling?


                              >>If the Eddowes murder had taken place somewhere else but along his old working route.<<

                              If only we had ANY evidence that it WAS his old working route.

                              It was the logical one. Then again, you and logic...

                              And if he ONLY killed “en route” why did he kill in the opposite direction to his home?

                              There can be many different, very logical reasons for that.


                              >>If Paul had clearly stated that he was never out of earshot from Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen.<<

                              Since Mizen has stated that Paul was there when Xmere and Mizen spoke, why would we need Paul to confirm it?

                              He never stated that Paul was within earshot. Surprise!


                              >>If he had not been old enough to be able to be both the Ripper and the torso killer.<<

                              Don’t know enough about the Torso murders to comment.

                              That does normally not stop you.

                              >>There were so many, many instances where fate could have reached out a helping hand to Lechmere. Alas, no. It NEVER happed. Not once.<<

                              What we actually have is unsubstantiated stories designed to make Xmere look guilty, that is a very different thing. Just like when you told Kattrup,

                              “The thing is, every example you point to is an example where we hear people say "my name is X, but I go by the name of Y", or something such.”

                              These stories simply don’t add up when you actually do the research.

                              How would you know - you obviously never did.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                MysterySinger: I find the Crossmere connection fascinating (though at times it is hard to separate fact from claim).

                                Just ask and we will sort it together. One of the more infuriating things is when people claim that I have said that X and/or Y are facts when I have actually never said such a thing (see some of the above posts). Discussing it and checking it together would help in such cases.

                                However, do we know whether Cross (also) gave a false address (22 Doveton Street) - Lechmere lived at number 24 Doveton Street in 1891 (but 20 James Street in 1887).

                                These are the addresses for Lechmere, taken from the electoral registers by Chris Scott:
                                1890 22 Doveton Street
                                1894 22 Doveton Street
                                1896 46 Sceptre Street, Mile End
                                1898 46 Sceptre Street
                                1900 24 Doveton Street
                                1901 24 Doveton Street
                                1903 24 Carlton Road, Mile End
                                1904 24 Carlton Road
                                1905 24 Carlton Road
                                1906 24 Carlton Road
                                1907 24 Carlton Road
                                1908 24 Carlton Road
                                1912 24 Carlton Road
                                1914 24 Carlton Road
                                1915 24 Carlton Road
                                1918 2 Rounton Road, Poplar
                                1919 2 Rounton Road
                                1920 2 Rounton Road
                                1921 2 Rounton Road

                                Where you information that he lived in 24 Doveton Street in 1891 comes from, I don´t know. Maybe you are mistaking the 1901 information for 1891 information? The 1891 census has him on 22 Doveton Street.

                                Unless I've missed it, Fish also doesn't mention here the Pinchin Street connection (his mother again - with Joseph Forsdike until around 1883/84). That's too early for the finding of the torso, of coure, but still a curiosity, and the fact that Mr Forsdike died in October 1889. Wonder who occupied 23 Pinchin Street at that time!

                                The Pinchin Street connection is firmly established Charles himself lived as a child in Thomas Street (todays Pinchin Street), and his mother lived in the street on numerous occasions. When the torso was found, Maria Louisa and Joseph lived in Cable Street, a very short distance away from the dumping site.
                                Last edited by Fisherman; 01-21-2017, 04:19 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X