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:
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - by Pcdunn 4 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Diary Handwriting - by Abby Normal 35 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995 - by DirectorDave 1 hour and 4 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995 - by DirectorDave 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995 - by David Orsam 1 hour and 25 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Doctors and Coroners: Eddowes' gut cut - (15 posts)
Maybrick, James: Diary Handwriting - (15 posts)
Maybrick, James: Too Sensible & Competent - (10 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (8 posts)
Maybrick, James: Diary Quirks - (5 posts)
Maybrick, James: Mike Barrett Interview - September 1995 - (4 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 > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-16-2016, 09:22 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi Steve,

OK. So how about this, do you think Lechmere was misleading?

Regards, Pierre
Pierre

That is entirely possible, however we cannot know that for sure.

The reason he gave the name Cross is the key to that and we simply do not know that?

Different people may see it in entirely different ways.
Some will come up with reasons which are entirely criminal, some with a degree of misleading and some innocent reasons,

It could have been related to his step father having been a police officer himself, and his wanting to get on the police side, after all, the finder of a body is on occasions considered a suspect.


If he had used a false name, then you and others who consider he lied, would have a far stronger case.
The truth is he did not use a false name, he used one he was entitled to use Cross given it was his step fathers surname.

While the available sources indicated that on the whole he used Lechmere; we have know way of knowing if he used Cross on occasions? If he did, how often? the sources sadly do not exist..?

I strongly feel that we cannot say hand on heart that he was a proven liar! The question certainly has to be asked, however the answer is certainly not clear and requires a great deal of guess work.

I would therefore, after considerable consideration, say that, he gave a name, which possibly was given with the intent of deception, however it is no more than a possibility.


I finish by restating what I said before, this is an issue, which I honestly believe we will never have a consensus view on.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-16-2016, 11:44 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Elamarna;384832]
Quote:
Pierre

That is entirely possible, however we cannot know that for sure.

The reason he gave the name Cross is the key to that and we simply do not know that?

Different people may see it in entirely different ways.
Some will come up with reasons which are entirely criminal, some with a degree of misleading and some innocent reasons,

It could have been related to his step father having been a police officer himself, and his wanting to get on the police side, after all, the finder of a body is on occasions considered a suspect.
Yes, you are speaking in very general terms here. And that could be right, but thinking i general terms has not led to finding Jack the Ripper.
Quote:
If he had used a false name, then you and others who consider he lied, would have a far stronger case.
Well, I am not really interested in Lechmere, he just happened to have a testimony which might be explained by other sources, and I am not interested in "explaining Lechmere". That is the job of Fisherman!

Quote:
The truth is he did not use a false name, he used one he was entitled to use Cross given it was his step fathers surname.
I know, and as I have said before people were probably often worried about being witnesses in murder cases. So using the name Cross could have been convenient for him for that reason only. But then there is the statement about the policeman. And there is no explanation for that. That is the problem. So I think the tendency in his testimony is that he tries to protect himself. If he had just said that his name was Lechmere, that hypothesis would perhaps be weaker. I donīt know. On the other hand, it could have been stronger, since you could have claimed that he was a man who told the truth.

Quote:
While the available sources indicated that on the whole he used Lechmere; we have know way of knowing if he used Cross on occasions? If he did, how often? the sources sadly do not exist..?
And we can not make a wish list for them.

Quote:
I strongly feel that we cannot say hand on heart that he was a proven liar! The question certainly has to be asked, however the answer is certainly not clear and requires a great deal of guess work.
I think it is only a matter of definition. If he had something to gain or made a rational choice (good theories for this) it would have been that no one would find a "Lechmere" at his adress. Why would he have wanted that?

Quote:
I would therefore, after considerable consideration, say that, he gave a name, which possibly was given with the intent of deception, however it is no more than a possibility.

But the consequences are the most important since it is an historical fact that he called himself Cross:

1) What was the consequences of his giving his name as Cross?

And I do not mean what "could have been" the consequences.

What do you think about this, Steve?

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-17-2016, 11:46 PM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post

Yes, you are speaking in very general terms here. And that could be right, but thinking i general terms has not led to finding Jack the Ripper.
Yes, and repeatedly carping on this ridiculous point will (despite your attempts to appear wise) not lead to finding Jack the Ripper either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Well, I am not really interested in Lechmere, he just happened to have a testimony which might be explained by other sources, and I am not interested in "explaining Lechmere". That is the job of Fisherman!
No, what is apparent to everyone reading your windy, self-righteous questions is you are trying to appear to be smarter than any of us (or anyone at all) without really caring about what everyone else might wish to say. So we fully realize you care less about "explaining Lechmere" than you would be about what you will have for dinner on next Christmas morning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
I know, and as I have said before people were probably often worried about being witnesses in murder cases. So using the name Cross could have been convenient for him for that reason only. But then there is the statement about the policeman. And there is no explanation for that. That is the problem. So I think the tendency in his testimony is that he tries to protect himself. If he had just said that his name was Lechmere, that hypothesis would perhaps be weaker. I donīt know. On the other hand, it could have been stronger, since you could have claimed that he was a man who told the truth.
Actually you approach rationality here Pierre, but I wonder, what if a suddenly driven witness - feeling he must make a clear break to everyone in the inquest - had said, "My name is Letchmere, but I am also known as Cross to many people due to a family connection." Cudos for his honesty, but how many people listening to someone admitting to using a secondary name as a pseudonym will be trusted by their hearers as telling the truth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
And we can not make a wish list for them.
No we cannot make a wish list for the key of this dual name business? Nor can we make any realistic wish list for almost any mystery on any subject connected to this case. To believe that running to some hitherto unexpected outside source will give us a final piece of the puzzle, and prove our particular theory regarding the case is to pursue a will-of-the-wisp. Especially if one goes around claiming that only one piece of evidence remains to be placed before naming the real Ripper. Actually if one did years of slowly writing up researches one has conducted, and presenting them for peer review, one would be better approaching some constructive answers. Yes, we can't make selective wish lists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
I think it is only a matter of definition. If he had something to gain or made a rational choice (good theories for this) it would have been that no one would find a "Lechmere" at his address. Why would he have wanted that?
Plenty of reasons for that desire:

1) he owed money to various bookies and did not want them to find him;
2) he owed tax money to the government;
3) he had gotten several young women into trouble and feared being traced by their relatives;
4) he was planning to have his name legally changed;
5) he found another "Letchmere" lived nearby and he was getting pestered with mail and visits meant for this other party - so he'd use the name "Cross" instead.

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons. And we can go on like this until the cows come home. Unless somebody does a really nice job studying "Letchmere/Cross" in detail there is no way we can begin to comprehend his use of two names. To explode the question again and again without such research is useless, even if it satisfies an ego.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

But the consequences are the most important since it is an historical fact that he called himself Cross:

1) What was the consequences of his giving his name as Cross?
Who really knows? Have you a real idea about this??? I feel you don't, but it must make you feel great that you are doing this and blowing smoke in our eyes? I'll make up an answer, though it is one I really don't believe. Letchmere was laying the groundwork for eventually claiming the copywrite profits for novels like "Middlemarch", "Silas Marner", "The Mill on the Floss", "Romola", "Daniel Deronda", "Felix Holt, Radical", "Adam Bede", and "Scenes from Clerical Life". These had been written by Mary Ann CROSS, who also liked to use a second name - "George Eliot". You may take that or leave it!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
And I do not mean what "could have been" the consequences.
I have the strongest feeling that had Letchmere/Cross had any idea of how this matter of his use of an assumed name would be blown out of proportion on such a small basis in 2016, over 125 years after it occurred, he might have decided to call himself "Mr. X" or "Mr. Anonymous" or just surrender and call himself "Lechmere". He was testifying, and the police most likely knew how to contact him again - what was the real harm by doing it?

Oh - it enabled someone to appear wise trying to poke us all into interpreting it in detail without any real information. There is harm in that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
What do you think about this, Steve?
My deepest apologies to you Steve, and everyone else on this thread, except one ridiculous party.

Regards, Pierre
Have a nice night Pierre.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-18-2016, 02:09 AM
CommercialRoadWanderer CommercialRoadWanderer is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 50
Default

I know i'm repeating myself and others, but, at least as far as i know, the police itself decided not to analyze any lead originating by the supposed "Mizen Scam". This should not suggest that the police itself was convinced that it was just a big red herring?

I mean, back in the few days after the murder, the police had every element to decide whatever the should investigate further about Lechmere, Paul, Mizen, Neil or whoever else. Are we really entitled to think that the police was so incompetent that they decided, say, to let Lechmere walk away without having at least considered, and ruled out, the possibility that he was the culprit?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-18-2016, 02:43 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,622
Default

Wow - I donīt even have to do the hijacking myself these days...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-18-2016, 02:48 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommercialRoadWanderer View Post
I know i'm repeating myself and others, but, at least as far as i know, the police itself decided not to analyze any lead originating by the supposed "Mizen Scam". This should not suggest that the police itself was convinced that it was just a big red herring?

I mean, back in the few days after the murder, the police had every element to decide whatever the should investigate further about Lechmere, Paul, Mizen, Neil or whoever else. Are we really entitled to think that the police was so incompetent that they decided, say, to let Lechmere walk away without having at least considered, and ruled out, the possibility that he was the culprit?
Are we entitled to think that the police was so incompetent as to search a loft three times without finding the body of Tia Sharpe?

We are "entitled" to award the police any grade of competence we wish to.

Are we really entitled to think that the police was so incompetent as to forget to speak to all the dwellers of Bucks Row?

Yes, we are - and we would be correct.

What you may be missing is the element of criminal anthropology that would have stamped "Not him!" on the forehead of Charles Lechmere. Prejudice was science and the order of the day in 1888. We are 128 years removed from that year. Back down in time 128 years from 1888, and you will end up in a Europe where witch trials were still being held.

Context is everything.

And in this case, the context should be Lawende, not Lechmere.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-18-2016, 05:19 AM
Robert Robert is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,697
Default

Hi Fish

And of course, your bleak picture of police incompetence has one ray of sunshine to lighten the gloom : Mizen. Mizen could not possibly have made a mistake. Mizen had been graded as 'good.' All the blundering police you mention - well, they must have been graded as 'bad.' But Mizen was graded as 'good.' We can depend on Mizen.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-18-2016, 12:39 PM
CommercialRoadWanderer CommercialRoadWanderer is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 50
Default

So we got a police which prejudices involved letting people walk away without even bother if what they said was plausible, but with NO possibile prejudices that would have let her to, say, take a poor bystander in just because he was the first one on the scene of a murder.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-18-2016, 12:47 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert View Post
Hi Fish

And of course, your bleak picture of police incompetence has one ray of sunshine to lighten the gloom : Mizen. Mizen could not possibly have made a mistake. Mizen had been graded as 'good.' All the blundering police you mention - well, they must have been graded as 'bad.' But Mizen was graded as 'good.' We can depend on Mizen.
You are quite welcome to believe tat the police were competent and that Mizen was not to be relied upon, Robert.

It will be a reversed mirror image of what you accuse me of, but what the hell...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-18-2016, 12:50 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CommercialRoadWanderer View Post
So we got a police which prejudices involved letting people walk away without even bother if what they said was plausible, but with NO possibile prejudices that would have let her to, say, take a poor bystander in just because he was the first one on the scene of a murder.
Yes, we have a prejudiced police force, no doubt about that.

If you think that is the same as letting people walk away without bothering if what they said was plausible, then that is your call.

What Lechmere said WAS however plausible, and that would be an excellent reason to let him walk instead of delving deeper into him IF the police were prejudiced.

If we can elevate the level of discussion, it would be nice.
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 04:07 PM.


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