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:
Mary Jane Kelly: "Murder...!" cry - by Wickerman 8 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.? - by Simon Wood 24 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 27 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Elamarna 27 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Elamarna 28 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - by Henry Flower 28 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere The Psychopath - (32 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly killed in daylight hours.? - (18 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (12 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: "Murder...!" cry - (8 posts)
General Discussion: Is a Ripper tour worthwhile? - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017) - (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
  #1301  
Old 03-17-2017, 03:39 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: north london
Posts: 2,754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I don´t agree because I think one needs to add elements to make your take work. It predisposes that Mizen surmised that the carmen were alerting him to respond to a fellow policemans call, although they dod not say a word about such a policeman.

In my take, there was no surmising, and no misunderstandings. Mizen was told that another PC awaited him and had called for assistance, and he answered to the call.

Neither version must be right or wrong, but it applies that my version is the one that works from what was said by Mizen, whereas yours adds the element of misunderstanding.

To be able to leave his beat, it would require that Mizen KNEW that he had been alerted by a fellow policeman, so to my mind, if there was any ambiguity at all, he would have asked.


Hi

I agree that is where we disagree, and maybe oneday, something will emerge that allows one of us to cross over.

cheers

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1302  
Old 03-17-2017, 05:39 AM
FrankO FrankO is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 755
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Similarly, his responses at the inquest indicate that he was highly uncertain about Nichols physical state, with his observations ranging from "dead" to "not seriously injured".
I don't agree, John. Feeling her hands and face Lechmere thought she was dead, without being certain or knowing how this had happened. That no injuries were visible and that she looked to have been outraged and gone off in a swoon is in no way contradictory to the idea he had that she was dead.

All the best,
Frank
__________________
"You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1303  
Old 03-17-2017, 11:06 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Have you considered the possibility that I DID understand, but thought you were wrong? No?

Then you should really try it.
Like I said Fisherman, you didn't seem to understand. Or didn't want to.

I'm sure that if I really had been wrong you wouldn't have needed to quote me out of context.

This whole discussion with you has definitely been one of the most pointless and unnecessary discussions that I have had on this forum.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1304  
Old 03-17-2017, 11:17 AM
John G John G is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,555
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankO View Post
I don't agree, John. Feeling her hands and face Lechmere thought she was dead, without being certain or knowing how this had happened. That no injuries were visible and that she looked to have been outraged and gone off in a swoon is in no way contradictory to the idea he had that she was dead.

All the best,
Frank
But he didn't say no injuries were visible. His evidence at the inquest is that he had no idea there were any serious injuries. And "gone off in a swoon", suggests she'd merely fainted, which is not the same as being dead.

What I think his inquest responses indicate is that he was a very poor communicator. Therefore, if he communicated in such a confused way to PC Mizen it would hardly be surprising that a misunderstanding occurred.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1305  
Old 03-17-2017, 11:25 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 14,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
Like I said Fisherman, you didn't seem to understand. Or didn't want to.

I'm sure that if I really had been wrong you wouldn't have needed to quote me out of context.

This whole discussion with you has definitely been one of the most pointless and unnecessary discussions that I have had on this forum.

Grow up, David. You were not quoted out of context. You very clerly said that it was a fact that Mizen was told about death or drunkenness, and when I pointed it out,m you started to waffle about facts and established facts -as if they were different matters.

You must learn to accept that you do mistakes every now and then. It would be stranger if you didn´t, so there´s nothing much to be ashamed of.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1306  
Old 03-17-2017, 11:39 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
David,
You will give examples?
I'll give you three examples.

1. At the Old Bailey trial of Talbot Bridgwater and others for deception and forgery in November 1905, a News of the World journalist, Henry Chanter, was called to give the following evidence to prove what had been said by prosecuting counsel in his opening speech:

"HENRY JAMES PROSSER CHANTER . I am a journalist, and among my other duties I occasionally report at the Westminster Police Court—I took a verbatim note in shorthand of the opening in the case against Bridgwater and others for "The News of the World," which would be published the following day—I cannot find my shorthand note—I transcribed it and saw the paper afterwards—I took Mr. Muir's speech down in the first person and transcribed it in the third person—this is correct (Produced).

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I wrote what appeared in the paper within ten minutes of Mr. Muir's speech."


In case it is not clear, the word "Produced" here means that Chanter's newspaper report of the proceedings at Westminster Police Court was produced as evidence in the case.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...?name=19051113

2. From the Western Morning News of 15 June 1899, reporting the trial at the Cornwall Assizes of Richard Henry Berryman for suborning and procuring Annie Bryant to commit perjury for him at the magistrate's court in Cambourne:

"H.B. Geeson, newspaper reporter, Penzance, produced notes of the report of these proceedings before the magistrates."

3. From the Cheshire Observer of 31 August 1878 reporting on a charge of perjury against William Lough, a police constable, at the Cheshire City Police Court:

"William Calder Grant said: I am a professional reporter, and was in the police court, reporting on Saturday, the 17th instant, when a charge was made against Peter Mitchell and others for a breach of the peace in Boughton. I took rough notes of that case sufficient for the purposes of my newspaper report. I heard Constable Lough give his evidence, and I heard him asked in cross-examination whether he had struck anyone. I produce my shorthand notes taken on that occasion, and find from them that Constable Lough said, "I did not use my staff, and did not see a staff used by any other policeman." After a witness named Maddocks had given his evidence Constable Lough was recalled and asked a question by the Mayor, who also called his attention to what Maddocks had said. In reference to that part I only have on my notes, "P.C. Lough denied using the stick."

By Mr. MARSHALL: I am not prepared to swear that the words "P.C. Lough denied using the stick" had reference to anything more than the alleged attack on Mitchell. I am under the impression that it referred to the general use of the stick.

Re-examined by Mr. CHUBTON: I have on my notes of Lough's arrest the words in reference to Mitchell, "I arrested him."

Arthur Smith: I am a reporter for a Chester newspaper, and was in court on Saturday, the 17th instant, when a charge was made against Peter Mitchell and others for a breach of the peace in Boughton. I took notes of that case sufficient for a newspaper report. I produce those notes. From them I find that Constable Lough in his examination in chief said, "I arrested him," meaning Mitchell. In cross-examination by Mr. Churton he said, "I did not use my staff, and I did not see any other policemen use my staffs." After a witness named Maddocks had given his evidence Constable Lough was recalled, and in reply to a question put by the Mayor, he said, "I did not strike anyone. The constable who was with me the whole time is here. I arrested the man. The crowd were trying to crush us into the fire."


Actually, that's four examples, there being two journalists giving evidence in the last case.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1307  
Old 06-24-2017, 05:24 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 1,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kattrup View Post
It has often been claimed by Lechmere proponents that he misled the Nichols inquest by giving false name, presenting himself as Cross when his "real name" was Lechmere.

Here are some examples from the Old Bailey, 1880-1895. Only one, George Peacock, was actually on trial, the others all appeared as witnesses. I have not included the many, many examples of criminals using aliases and false identities.


Link


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to have a "real name" while using the name of one's stepfather. The authorities will not necessarily use the so-called "real name" when referring to a person.


Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to have a "real name" but be known by another name in certain social situations and contexts.


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to assume another name than one's "real name" to avoid confusion and misspellings and appear more "english". The authorities will not necessarily refer to such a person by his or her "real name".


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to inform the authorities of one's real name during a trial, but they may continue to use one's alias.


Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to give a false name and address in order to avoid appearing at trial. This does not mean that one is guilty of the crime on trial (though possibly of perjury).


Conclusion:


Using an alias, or secondary name, was not uncommon.

There were many different legitimate reasons why a person might choose to use a name other than the "real name".

Using an alias, or secondary name, was accepted, and the authorities did not necessarily register people by their "real name".


There's no reason to assume that Charles Cross misinformed the inquest, or intended to mislead anyone.


All of this reasoning has, of course, been mentioned many times over the years. It is unlikely to sway Lechmere-supporters, who will most likely attempt to argue that the "name issue" is not (to them) the only thing tying suspicion to Lechmere.

Be that as it may, hopefully these examples of ordinary witnesses using aliases will help counter the argument that Charles Cross gave a "false name".

Hi Kattrup,

We can also see from this exercise that when appearing in a court of law, many people felt it necessary to reveal their alternative names. Surely that would be the obvious thing to do when standing in the witness box and being asked your name (assuming you had no reason to conceal your real or adopted name).

It would be interesting to see whether any of the people above invariably used their adopted names alone when filling out official documents.

Gary

Last edited by MrBarnett : 06-24-2017 at 05:36 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1308  
Old 06-24-2017, 06:26 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 848
Default

Wow! Gary, you posted on topic!?!

Thanks.


If you read those cases that Kattrup cited, you will note that witnesses only revealed other names if:

1: The other name was specifically relevant to the case at hand.

2: The other name was only revealed when the witness was specifically asked if they had another name.

In Xmere's case, Point One was not relevant and Point Two never happened.

Ergo ....
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1309  
Old 06-25-2017, 01:35 AM
Rainbow Rainbow is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
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.

And add to them:

If the policemen only saw a soul around the time of the affair!

and If Nichols just hadn't done the last of her brearhing movements in front of Paul!!!!


Rainbow°
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1310  
Old 06-25-2017, 02:01 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,778
Default

What an elaborate farce.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
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 12:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.