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:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by David Orsam 37 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by MrBarnett 1 hour and 13 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - by Joshua Rogan 15 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Joshua Rogan 15 hours ago.
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - by Joshua Rogan 15 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - (7 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (6 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (2 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
  #11  
Old 02-23-2008, 08:28 PM
Pinkerton Pinkerton is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 158
Default One reason against Cross

I hate to jump into the middle of a disagreement but I thought I would attempt to steer this thread into friendlier territory.

The recent discoveries on Cross are very interesting. However if I were Charles Cross (or "Lechmere"), and I was sighted at one of the first Ripper murders (and mentioned in the newspapers), I don't think I would be stupid enough to go on and murder at least three of four more women. If Cross were seen ANYWHERE in the vicinity of one of the subsequent murders he would have been been either instantly arrested, or lynched by the mob. You would think that if someone like Cross killed Polly Nichols, the fact that he was the first person to find the body would already put too large a cloud of suspicion around him for him to go on killing more women in the area.

Just saying...Not that this completely rules him out, but I think his viability as a suspect would have been much more likely had he discovered say Eddowes or Strides body.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-29-2008, 07:32 AM
johnnyerwin johnnyerwin is offline
Cadet
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Posts: 30
Default

[quote=Pinkerton;1726Just saying...Not that this completely rules him out, but I think his viability as a suspect would have been much more likely had he discovered say Eddowes or Strides body.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, however it doesn't look like he was ever a "person of interest"; a guilty person in such a position might have actually been thrilled with "getting away with it" and been motivated to continue. Such has been the case in other serial murder cases.

I'm not convinced he's the killer, however there are aspects of his involvement that trouble me somewhat. The name revelations have not done anything to change that for me, although they certainly add more to the picture.
__________________
John Erwin
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-06-2008, 06:31 PM
Septic Blue
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
My understanding (without, I confess, taking the time to go read the article you mention and confirm) is the Lechmere is still the man we know as Cross, correct? This is hardly therefore a glaring error on Mr Norder's part, merely perhaps the habitual use of what was until comparitively recently a known name. Furthermore, if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents - as Mr Evans, of whom you are a strong supporter, would urge us - then Cross is the correct name to use.
"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."

I am in total disagreement !!!

Thanks to the efforts of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, we know:

- That this person appeared as "Lechmere" on his 1849 birth certificate, 1871 marriage certificate and 1920 death certificate; as well as census returns of 1851, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901(?)

- That his wife and eight living children (of 1891) all appeared as "Lechmere" in various census returns

- That a ninth child (1888-1890) appeared as "Lechmere" on her birth and death certificates


- That this person's only known appearances as "Cross", the name of his stepfather from age eight, occurred in the census returns of 1861 (age 11), and during the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder (age 38)

Charles Lechmere (aka "Charles Cross") !!!

"Cross" was an alias !!! An explicable alias; but still an alias !!!

We do not know the reasoning, behind which Charles Lechmere chose to identify himself as "Charles Cross", throughout the course of the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder. But the fact that he chose to do so, is not just cause for him to be known to history by that alias.

His name was Charles Lechmere !!! Period !!!

We don't refer to Catherine Eddowes by her chosen alias: "Mary Ann Kelly". Neither should we refer to Charles Lechmere by his chosen alias: "Charles Cross".


Again; his name was Charles Lechmere !!! We now know that to be the case, and we should act accordingly.

For the time being, however; the reference 'Charles Lechmere, aka "Charles Cross"' should alleviate any possible confusion.

Derek Osborne (Ripperana No. 37, July 2001) discovered a Charles Lechmere in residence at 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town; as recorded in the 1891 census. But he merely hypothesized that Lechmere and "Cross" might have been one and the same. His findings and hypotheses regarding Lechmere then faded into obscurity.

Michael Connor (Ripperologist No. 87, January 2008), in the absence of any knowledge of Osborne's work, delved much more deeply into the background and post-1891 life of Charles Lechmere; and concluded (quite rightly) that Lechmere and "Cross" most probably were one and the same.

Chris Scott put the icing on the cake.

If we do not take the progressive route, and refer to people, places and events in accordance with recent discoveries; then we will remain stagnant and go nowhere in our quest.

Also; if we show blatant disregard for the work of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, and allow it - like Derek Osborne's - to fade into obscurity, then this whole saga will be repeated in seven-or-eight years, when someone else 'discovers' Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town.


Colin Name:  Septic Blue.gif
Views: 546
Size:  12.4 KB
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-06-2008, 06:51 PM
Jeff Leahy Jeff Leahy is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East end-kent
Posts: 3,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Septic Blue View Post
"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."

I am in total disagreement !!!

Thanks to the efforts of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, we know:

- That this person appeared as "Lechmere" on his 1849 birth certificate, 1871 marriage certificate and 1920 death certificate; as well as census returns of 1851, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901(?)

- That his wife and eight living children (of 1891) all appeared as "Lechmere" in various census returns

- That a ninth child (1888-1890) appeared as "Lechmere" on her birth and death certificates


- That this person's only known appearances as "Cross", the name of his stepfather from age eight, occurred in the census returns of 1861 (age 11), and during the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder (age 38)

Charles Lechmere (aka "Charles Cross") !!!

"Cross" was an alias !!! An explicable alias; but still an alias !!!

We do not know the reasoning, behind which Charles Lechmere chose to identify himself as "Charles Cross", throughout the course of the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder. But the fact that he chose to do so, is not just cause for him to be known to history by that alias.

His name was Charles Lechmere !!! Period !!!

We don't refer to Catherine Eddowes by her chosen alias: "Mary Ann Kelly". Neither should we refer to Charles Lechmere by his chosen alias: "Charles Cross".


Again; his name was Charles Lechmere !!! We now know that to be the case, and we should act accordingly.

For the time being, however; the reference 'Charles Lechmere, aka "Charles Cross"' should alleviate any possible confusion.

Derek Osborne (Ripperana No. 37, July 2001) discovered a Charles Lechmere in residence at 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town; as recorded in the 1891 census. But he merely hypothesized that Lechmere and "Cross" might have been one and the same. His findings and hypotheses regarding Lechmere then faded into obscurity.

Michael Connor (Ripperologist No. 87, January 2008), in the absence of any knowledge of Osborne's work, delved much more deeply into the background and post-1891 life of Charles Lechmere; and concluded (quite rightly) that Lechmere and "Cross" most probably were one and the same.

Chris Scott put the icing on the cake.

If we do not take the progressive route, and refer to people, places and events in accordance with recent discoveries; then we will remain stagnant and go nowhere in our quest.

Also; if we show blatant disregard for the work of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, and allow it - like Derek Osborne's - to fade into obscurity, then this whole saga will be repeated in seven-or-eight years, when someone else 'discovers' Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town.


Colin Attachment 2849
A case of the primary sources being incorrect? Well said colin..

and its Severin Klosowski aka George Chapman...people always getting that the wrong way around too..

pirate
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-06-2008, 06:56 PM
DVV DVV is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: To the right of President Sunday
Posts: 6,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Septic Blue View Post
[color=DarkRed][i]"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."


[
We don't refer to Catherine Eddowes by her chosen alias: "Mary Ann Kelly". Neither should we refer to Charles Lechmere by his chosen alias: "Charles Cross".[/font]

Again; his name was Charles Lechmere !!! We now know that to be the case, and we should act accordingly.


Colin Attachment 2849
Hi Colin,
thanks for these precisions. Though, the documents we are dealing with only name him "Cross", so that makes a difference with Eddowes alias Kelly.
I think we are doomed to talk of a witness "who gave the inquest his name as Cross but was actually one Charles Lechmere".

Amitiés,
David
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-06-2008, 11:11 PM
Bailey Bailey is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Septic Blue View Post
[color=DarkRed]"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."

[color=Black]I am in total disagreement !!!
Well, I've replied to this post and agreed with Colin in the original thread, so I'll leave that there, other than to agree that as David says above, we seem to now be stuck with a rather lengthy new appellation when referring to this particlar person.

Cheers,
B.
__________________
Bailey
Wellington, New Zealand
hoodoo@xtra.co.nz
www.flickr.com/photos/eclipsephotographic/
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-06-2008, 11:33 PM
Septic Blue
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
Well, I've replied to this post and agreed with Colin in the original thread, so I'll leave that there, ...
And you have expounded rather deftly !!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
... using "Cross" would prevent people having to scurry away and look up Lechmere to figure out who we were talking about. From the argument you make, I guess this would in fact be a good thing - perhaps we would all do well to continue to update our references to keep up with discoveries.
Many Thanks !!!


Colin Name:  Septic Blue.gif
Views: 537
Size:  12.4 KB
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-07-2008, 01:07 AM
Jeff Leahy Jeff Leahy is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: East end-kent
Posts: 3,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Septic Blue View Post
And you have expounded rather deftly !!!
Many Thanks !!! Colin Attachment 2852
Its excellent for the first time since I can remember I actually agree with Colin on something..not on football I might add..

2nd part A to Z states: At 3:45 am saw the body lying opposite Essex wharf Bucks Row, and went to examine it, thinking at first it was an abandoned tarpaulin. Joined by Robert Paul, cross concluded the woman was dead, and the two went on to Hanbur STREET, Where they found Police constabe Mizen and told him there was a women lying lifeless in the gutter in Bucks Row.

Seems like they need an update!

Pirate
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-01-2008, 10:28 AM
Uncle Jack Uncle Jack is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nottingham, England
Posts: 576
Default

Depite all this name buisness, does it actually prove that he wasn't the Ripper??

Kind Regards,

Adam
__________________
Best regards,
Adam


"They assumed Kelly was the last... they assumed wrong" - Me
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-01-2008, 04:58 PM
Ally Ally is offline
WWotW
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,177
Default

I disagree with the Cross vs. Lechmere argument above. He is known in the books and the reference materials as Cross. Yes his real name is Lechmere. But saying Cross who was really known as Lechmere every time you want to refer to him is ridiculously unwieldy, and if you refer to him as Lechmere, hardly anyone will know what you are talking about. He is known as Cross in the documents that relate to the case. That is the name he should be referred to for clarity's sake. If Polly Nichols or Mary or Eddowes was referred to in the inquest testimony as Susan B. Smith, that would be the name she would be known by.
__________________

Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
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 06:24 AM.


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