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:
Alice Mackenzie: McKenzie - Ripper or not? - by curious 11 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Joshua Rogan 13 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Sam Flynn 51 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - by Sam Flynn 1 hours ago.
Alice Mackenzie: Was Mackenzie a copycat? - by curious 1 hour and 6 minutes ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Patrick S 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: Weapons used on Mary? - (42 posts)
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - (26 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (13 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (12 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (11 posts)
Alice Mackenzie: McKenzie - Ripper or not? - (3 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
  #11  
Old 01-19-2017, 08:46 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Paddy Goose:

No Fisherman, you've got it all backwards. He found the victim.

This is not very helpful, though, is it? The traditional take on things is that he found the victim, but there is equally a chance that he was the killer and bluffed it out.
Either way, he WAS found in close vicinity to the dead body of Polly Nichols by Robert Paul.


A good reason only if you are biased from working on a false premise to begin with.

It would be utter stupidity to call it a good reason if I was working from a false premise. I agree with that every inch of the way.
But what about if I am working from a correct premise?

Maybe - just maybe - that needs to be weighed in?

Last edited by Fisherman : 01-19-2017 at 08:50 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-19-2017, 09:05 AM
Paddy Goose Paddy Goose is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 165
Default

Thanks for the reply Fisherman,

No I'll stick with the traditional version of how Charles Lechmere found the body of Polly Nichols, then Paul came along. But again thank you for the reply.

Knowing how common it was for folks then to use another name, it was the perfect time for Lechmere to use Cross in this instance. To try to delfect the media circus away from his family.

It worked! Up till the 1990's when the name discovery was made.

To me i'ts kind of a fun theory, just not one I can sink my teeth into. No hard feelings. And I enjoyed your television show.

Paddy
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-19-2017, 10:07 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy Goose View Post
Thanks for the reply Fisherman,

No I'll stick with the traditional version of how Charles Lechmere found the body of Polly Nichols, then Paul came along. But again thank you for the reply.

Knowing how common it was for folks then to use another name, it was the perfect time for Lechmere to use Cross in this instance. To try to delfect the media circus away from his family.

It worked! Up till the 1990's when the name discovery was made.

To me i'ts kind of a fun theory, just not one I can sink my teeth into. No hard feelings. And I enjoyed your television show.

Paddy
Actually, as I first read your post, I wondered if you were having me on. I have seen these kinds of "points" made more times than I care to think of, and I have read you making a lot of sense on many threads.

So why do the "he found the body, he was not found with it" thing again? I mean, if the theory does not appeal to you, fine, but...?

Thanks for your kind words on the docu. Things have moved on since then. Today, I´d still say that I am more or less convinced that the carman killed Nichols.
And I am more or less convinced that the killer of Nichols was also the killer of at least Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, with Stride and Tabram being hot contenders for an inclusion.
And I am more or less convinced that the Ripper and the Torso killer were the same man.

Plus I am anything but surprised that Lechmere fits that bill agewise, whereas just about every other of the more prominent "suspects" fall away.

And none of these convictions are traditionalist thinking, so there´s even more of a reason for you to disagree...

Last edited by Fisherman : 01-19-2017 at 10:16 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-19-2017, 06:31 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 913
Default

>>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.<<

When it comes to proposing Xmere as a candidate, it would seem, research is an optional extra.

In fact the cases Kattrup cited fall into two categories:

1.Those where an alternate name is of specific relevance to the case, hence the need to tell the court.

2.Those where the witness initially gives only one name to the court, as Xmere did.

Smith, Beach, Hoare, Bevan only reveal their names when asked in cross-examination, otherwise we would not know they had another name.

One is left to wonder if not asked for an alternative name, just how many people have appeared like Xmere under an alias?
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman

Last edited by drstrange169 : 01-19-2017 at 06:52 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-19-2017, 06:48 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 913
Default

Abberline and Swanson's reports were précis's of the accumulated investigations.

In Swanson's report, Xmere only appears in one sentence and his middle name is not mentioned.

Abberline also only mentions Xmere in one sentence, he too does not mention his Xmere's middle name. Neither policeman mentions Pickfords, Broad St. Station or when Xmere gave his statement not to mention numerous other details.

Until somebody finds his original statement we have know idea whether he mentioned any other name or not.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman

Last edited by drstrange169 : 01-19-2017 at 06:53 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-19-2017, 10:53 PM
John Wheat John Wheat is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drstrange169 View Post
>>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.<<

When it comes to proposing Xmere as a candidate, it would seem, research is an optional extra.

In fact the cases Kattrup cited fall into two categories:

1.Those where an alternate name is of specific relevance to the case, hence the need to tell the court.

2.Those where the witness initially gives only one name to the court, as Xmere did.

Smith, Beach, Hoare, Bevan only reveal their names when asked in cross-examination, otherwise we would not know they had another name.

One is left to wonder if not asked for an alternative name, just how many people have appeared like Xmere under an alias?
Hi Dusty

I don't think you're going far enough. In the case against Lechmere the truth is an optional extra. Proponents of the Lechmere theory in there bizarre quest to finger a clearly innocent man disregard the truth in favour of some fanciful scenario where a man who found a body somehow becomes Jack the Ripper.

Cheers John
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-20-2017, 12:52 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drstrange169 View Post
>>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.<<

When it comes to proposing Xmere as a candidate, it would seem, research is an optional extra.

In fact the cases Kattrup cited fall into two categories:

1.Those where an alternate name is of specific relevance to the case, hence the need to tell the court.

2.Those where the witness initially gives only one name to the court, as Xmere did.

Smith, Beach, Hoare, Bevan only reveal their names when asked in cross-examination, otherwise we would not know they had another name.

One is left to wonder if not asked for an alternative name, just how many people have appeared like Xmere under an alias?
That´s speculation only, of course. What remains is that the recorded material is entirely consistent with a wish to mislead, and it would take evidence that the carman offered his true name to dissolve that suggestion.

And once again, every time we know of the two names, it is because they were both given by the person looked into.

All very easy, therefore. Basically, you are saying "It could be that you have no case, but I have no evidence whatsoever to strengthen this idea of mine".

You are welcome to that earthshattering insight.

Last edited by Fisherman : 01-20-2017 at 01:21 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-20-2017, 12:55 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drstrange169 View Post
Abberline and Swanson's reports were précis's of the accumulated investigations.

In Swanson's report, Xmere only appears in one sentence and his middle name is not mentioned.

Abberline also only mentions Xmere in one sentence, he too does not mention his Xmere's middle name. Neither policeman mentions Pickfords, Broad St. Station or when Xmere gave his statement not to mention numerous other details.

Until somebody finds his original statement we have know idea whether he mentioned any other name or not.
These are police reports, compiled a long time after the murder. The real name of the carman is not given, but his chosen alias is.

If we choose to speculate that the police made an active choice of using the alias instead of the real, registered name, we need to find an explanation to that very odd behaviour. Which is your suggestion? Did they find Lechmere too hard to spell...?

Whether Pickfords or the carmans middle name was mentioned or not is neither here nor there. Only what is judged relevant information goes into a report, and the police already had the information you are speaking about.

Last edited by Fisherman : 01-20-2017 at 12:58 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-20-2017, 02:20 AM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
These are police reports, compiled a long time after the murder. The real name of the carman is not given, but his chosen alias is.

If we choose to speculate that the police made an active choice of using the alias instead of the real, registered name, we need to find an explanation to that very odd behaviour. Which is your suggestion? Did they find Lechmere too hard to spell...?

Whether Pickfords or the carmans middle name was mentioned or not is neither here nor there. Only what is judged relevant information goes into a report, and the police already had the information you are speaking about.

So by your own logic, the carman's "real name" was not judged relevant, since it was not included


I think that is actually quite correct, since the police knew who he was, where he lived and where he worked. Whether or not he might be registered in a census with a different name was immaterial to them.


The point of my post is not to show that Cross must have said both names or to try and guess at how the exchange went.

The point is to show that it was not uncommon for witnesses to show up and use a different name from their "real name". I thin the very few examples I pulled forward show that the concept of "real name" was different then - you cling to the idea that people had a "real name", and thusly any other name used would be a false one.

It is plain to see that at the time, people did not think so. Most were aware that they had a particular name (their "real" or "proper" name), but they could liberally use another without it being in any way a falsehood.

This being the case, there is presently no indication that Cross' use of Cross instead of Lechmere was intended to deceive.

The fact that the police echoed the use of the name Cross is not significant, since it was not actually required of Cross to use his "real name" at the inquest. The police therefore refererred to him by the name he went by.

Since it is you who wish to make some sort of extraordinary case for Cross deceiving the inquest, the onus is on you to provide evidence that he did so.

Simply stating that he used another name than on the census forms is not evidence of deception. As seen in the examples I posted (and doubtlessly in countless others in other court archives and newspaper reportings from inquests and trials), people might very well use one name in one official context and another name in a different context - e.g. Lechmere on written census forms, Cross in a verbal exchange.

So, point is, YOU make an extraordinary claim - Lechmere lied about his name - therefore YOU need to substantiate the claim.

At present, you have not, since the behaviour you have pointed out - using a different name than the "real name" - was not uncommon.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-20-2017, 03:59 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5,232
Default

Hi All,

Assuming Charlie Cross had to explain his absence from work to attend a murder inquest, I should have thought Pickfords would have been alive with the gossip that he had found the body and agog to "read all about it". If they only knew him there as Charles Allen Lechmere, there is not a whiff of a hint or a suggestion of anyone raising an eyebrow and wondering why he had changed his name to Cross just for the duration of the police interest in him.

Ditto with any tradespeople, friends or family who had occasion to call at his home address and only knew him as Lechmere there too.

It seems a bit strange that nobody who knew Charles Lechmere seems to have connected the dots and ever remarked upon his singular use of Cross for his role as a murder witness. He managed to keep his little - very public - secret from everyone who knew him until decades after his death?

As has been pointed out already, he could have called himself Mickey Mouse for the inquest as long as Robert Paul or PC Mizen was able to confirm that this was indeed the man who had found the body and reported it. The two men didn't know his name when that happened, so they wouldn't have known, or needed to know, that his name wasn't really Aloysius Snodgrass, Bert Winterbottom or Charles Allen Cross, if it was in fact Charles Allen Lechmere. It wasn't relevant for the purposes of positively identifying somebody who was - to them - an anonymous witness. The authorities, however, had more than enough information - volunteered by Cross himself - to identify him as Lechmere, if they had any doubts about those identifying details.

But I still think the most likely explanation is that this wasn't a name change as such, but merely the same one Cross had always used in his daily life, at work and at home - when not completing official forms which required Lechmere. Imagine if he had then used the name Lechmere for the inquest, and his mates had "read all about it" after hearing all about his grisly discovery and why he had to lose time at work:

"Lechmere? Lechmere?? What sort of fancy posh name is that?"

They'd have taken the piss rotten.

Much better to be plain old Charlie Cross, all things considered, and keep the Lechmere name well out of it. No ribbing at work, no whispers behind Mrs Lechmere's back as she did the shopping, no playground taunts for all his little Lechmeres.

I know Christer has heard it all before and will have kittens reading it all again, but I wasn't posting this for his benefit.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 01-20-2017 at 04:12 AM.
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 05:12 PM.


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