Favorite suspect/s?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course we don't know, Caz. No one, least of all me, is suggesting we do.

But what we have here is unquestionably (in my mind at least) an anomaly. Someone, I think it may have been Kattrup (apologies if not), once posted a whole raft of examples of people standing up in court and explaining that although they went by the name X their real names were Y and explaining the various reasons why they used the alternate name. And didn't the judge at Chapman's trial refuse to sentence him under that 'assumed name'? The idea that one's 'proper' name should be disclosed in court seems to have been fairly widespread at the time.

There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that CAL thought of the name Lechmere as his real/official/proper name. He was literate, and his mother who must have been the major influence in his early life seems to have had a very respectable upbringing. I find it hard to credit that he would have thought it necessary to use the name Lechmere on all his other dealings with authority (that we know about) but not when he was giving evidence in a coroner's court.

So I'm forced to the conclusion that he (or for some unknown reason the authorities) deliberately chose not to reveal it. The idea that in certain cases the authorities might agree to keep some or all of a witness's details under wraps to protect them from harassment seems reasonable, but was there such a risk to 'Cross' in the Nichols case? And is it credible that such an officialy sanctioned subterfuge would extend to internal police reports? No on both counts, I'd say.

So the most likely reason for the non-appearance of the Lechmere name in the official records of the Nichols case is the CAL himself withheld it even though he probably believed it was wrong to do so and there was a risk of the subterfuge being discovered at some point.

The big question is obviously - why?

Gary

Hi Gary,

Interesting point.

Now, I’m not at home so I don’t have any books available and I have the memory of a goldfish but might it have something to do with the manner of CL’s appearance at the inquest? I’m stabbing in the dark here and so I certainly accept that I’m likely to be way off the mark but, from what I can recall CL just turned up at the Inquest without any contact with the police. Wouldn’t other witnesses at other court appearances that you mentioned have had prior contact with the police and thus given their ‘official’ name along with any that they used on a day to day basis. Is it possible that CL just came into where the Inquest was held and just gave his ‘everyday’ name to the clerk, and that was the one used. If CL was indeed innocent he might have just seen himself as an insignificant footnote in the case.

Before I get ridiculed by Fish for that I’ll just make it clear again that I’m not saying that this was likely or even possible. Like I said, a stab in the dark. (Perhaps not the best choice of words under the circumstances )

[AmericanSherlock]

he should change his name to Shmerican Arlock!

[AmericanSherlock]

So not only do we agree on the Wallace case AS........

Great minds think alike.

I tend to find the Wallace case more interesting as a mental exercise because there aren't that many people it realistically could be.

And even if there were, you could view it as the binary "Was WHW guilty or not?"

With JTR, it could literally be almost anyone

I find the crimes, the setting interesting from a psychological perspective as well as analyzing some of the more likely perps in terms of a character study.

But there just isn't enough here to even make a case against anybody.

[AmericanSherlock]

Hello AS,

I expect a few researchers have glanced his name. They just haven't realised it.

Probably you're right. There have to be tens of thousands of names glanced over, virtually everyone remotely plausible as the perp living in proximity at that time and maybe a 100 or so "general suspects"

Nothing compelling enough in the top 100 to override the numbers game in terms of which pool the killer is most likely to come from.

[AmericanSherlock]

No intrusion, AS.

At least you're on topic!

I try! Beats some politicians.

Cheers

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,

We don't know for certain that he didn't say that. But if he was the same Charles Cross, carman at Pickford's, who was involved in that tragic accidental death of a child in 1876, there is nothing to suggest he mentioned the name Lechmere on that previous occasion either, and he couldn't have worried about using the name Cross again 12 years on, in the capacity of a murder witness this time.

The common factor would be that both incidents were work related: the first happened during the course of his working day; the second during his journey to start his working day. He may have felt it served no purpose to give his name as Lechmere in a work context. He gave both his forenames, his home address and workplace, so he had no issue about identifying himself in case he was needed again following his appearance at the inquest.

For all we know he may simply have preferred to use the name Cross, keeping Lechmere strictly for when he was obliged to use it. Or he wanted to keep the surname of his wife and kiddies out of the papers for obvious reasons. "Your dad nearly caught the murderer! P'raps the murderer will catch you next!"

Love,

Caz
X

Of course we don't know, Caz. No one, least of all me, is suggesting we do.

But what we have here is unquestionably (in my mind at least) an anomaly. Someone, I think it may have been Kattrup (apologies if not), once posted a whole raft of examples of people standing up in court and explaining that although they went by the name X their real names were Y and explaining the various reasons why they used the alternate name. And didn't the judge at Chapman's trial refuse to sentence him under that 'assumed name'? The idea that one's 'proper' name should be disclosed in court seems to have been fairly widespread at the time.

There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that CAL thought of the name Lechmere as his real/official/proper name. He was literate, and his mother who must have been the major influence in his early life seems to have had a very respectable upbringing. I find it hard to credit that he would have thought it necessary to use the name Lechmere on all his other dealings with authority (that we know about) but not when he was giving evidence in a coroner's court.

So I'm forced to the conclusion that he (or for some unknown reason the authorities) deliberately chose not to reveal it. The idea that in certain cases the authorities might agree to keep some or all of a witness's details under wraps to protect them from harassment seems reasonable, but was there such a risk to 'Cross' in the Nichols case? And is it credible that such an officialy sanctioned subterfuge would extend to internal police reports? No on both counts, I'd say.

So the most likely reason for the non-appearance of the Lechmere name in the official records of the Nichols case is the CAL himself withheld it even though he probably believed it was wrong to do so and there was a risk of the subterfuge being discovered at some point.

The big question is obviously - why?

Gary

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the problem as far as I'm concerned, Gary.

I'd have expected the real ripper, if ever proposed as a suspect on more than a gut feeling and a shitload of confirmation bias [so not just because he was one of the men who found a victim; or one of the men who gave evidence as a witness; or one of the men who lived in the area and was a bit 'dodgy'; or worse, someone who doesn't appear remotely dodgy and could therefore have been a cunning psychopath ], to leap off the page and grab us all by the throat, with no need for any spin, wrestling or special pleading.

If 99% of us are 99% underwhelmed by a suspect, how likely is it that the two or three theorists who believe they've got him, will be right, let alone be able to produce the kind of evidence that would satisfy a majority?

If they think they know Jack, they probably don't know Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

Agreed Caz

I personally feel that we have to work far too hard to create a case against CL. A collection of ‘what if’s’ or ‘its not impossibles’ doesn’t anywhere near shout ‘guilty’ at me. Of course we could be wrong and Fish could be right and research should definitely continue but we can only view the situation as it stands now. Like many ‘suspects’ CL cannot be categorically exonerated and that’s the best that we can say. The fact that he was alone with the body is all that really raises CL above Hutchinson and others. The doubts far, far outweigh the point for guilt (and yes I do mean point (singular) Far too much wriggling has gone on. Too much willingness to view everything in the light of a guilty CL without genuine reason. To many attempts to belittle the opinions of others and insult them. Too much ‘mock offence’ when the person complaining is the original cause.

I think that CL would be acquitted easily in a mock trial. I also think that if a Barrister was given both sides (the case for and the case against) he wouldn’t want to go anywhere near a courtroom with an accusation against CL. In the absence of any proper evidence and ignoring all that reeks of wish-thinking, CL will remain a minor suspect (and only in the minds of a few.)

[caz]

he should change his name to Shmerican Arlock!

Good one, Abby.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

How many suspect theories have there been so far - 300+? How many more will there be I wonder?

On my list I have several names I would describe as persons of interest - in the general sense of the term - who haven't yet seen much daylight:

The Tomkins brothers (Smith +),
Thomas Fogarty (Tabram),
Stephen Maywood (Kelly)
Billy Maher (Austin).

There must be thousands more who with a bit of spin could be wrestled into suspect material.

Bring 'em on, I say.

This is the problem as far as I'm concerned, Gary.

I'd have expected the real ripper, if ever proposed as a suspect on more than a gut feeling and a shitload of confirmation bias [so not just because he was one of the men who found a victim; or one of the men who gave evidence as a witness; or one of the men who lived in the area and was a bit 'dodgy'; or worse, someone who doesn't appear remotely dodgy and could therefore have been a cunning psychopath ], to leap off the page and grab us all by the throat, with no need for any spin, wrestling or special pleading.

If 99% of us are 99% underwhelmed by a suspect, how likely is it that the two or three theorists who believe they've got him, will be right, let alone be able to produce the kind of evidence that would satisfy a majority?

If they think they know Jack, they probably don't know Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

But why didn't he even mention that his 'real' name was Lechmere? Is it likely that it didn't even occur to him to mention that he normally identified himself to the authorities by that name?

'I'm known at work as Charlie Cross - Cross was my stepdad's name - but my real name is Charles allen Lechmere', sort of thing?

Gary

Hi Gary,

We don't know for certain that he didn't say that. But if he was the same Charles Cross, carman at Pickford's, who was involved in that tragic accidental death of a child in 1876, there is nothing to suggest he mentioned the name Lechmere on that previous occasion either, and he couldn't have worried about using the name Cross again 12 years on, in the capacity of a murder witness this time.

The common factor would be that both incidents were work related: the first happened during the course of his working day; the second during his journey to start his working day. He may have felt it served no purpose to give his name as Lechmere in a work context. He gave both his forenames, his home address and workplace, so he had no issue about identifying himself in case he was needed again following his appearance at the inquest.

For all we know he may simply have preferred to use the name Cross, keeping Lechmere strictly for when he was obliged to use it. Or he wanted to keep the surname of his wife and kiddies out of the papers for obvious reasons. "Your dad nearly caught the murderer! P'raps the murderer will catch you next!"

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

I confess, I do know a bit about the knacker trade and I have a couple of books on Pickfords. One of them is an in-depth economic history of the company and the other is a picture-book which concentrates on the company's motor fleet.

The makers of the Lechmere documentary consulted the author of one of them

My daughter had some T-shirts embroidered with the HB logo for me last Christmas. I wear them occasionally in the hope that someone will ask me,

'What's Harrison, Barber?'

To which I will reply,

'I presume you are familiar with the 1874 Slaughterhouses &c (Metropolis) Act...?

[MrBarnett]

This must be the only place in Britain we’re you could say “if only we knew someone who has an extensive knowledge of Pickford’s and also the horse slaughtering trade in London “ and get the response “well, now you come to mention it....”

I confess, I do know a bit about the knacker trade and I have a couple of books on Pickfords. One of them is an in-depth economic history of the company and the other is a picture-book which concentrates on the company's motor fleet.

The makers of the Lechmere documentary consulted the author of one of them

My daughter had some T-shirts embroidered with the HB logo for me last Christmas. I wear them occasionally in the hope that someone will ask me,

'What's Harrison, Barber?'

To which I will reply,

'I presume you are familiar with the 1874 Slaughterhouses &c (Metropolis) Act...?

[MrBarnett]

>>... do we know that Broad Street Goods Station was either closed or handled less traffic on a Sunday? I know that LNWR men and others were agitating for a standard 6-day week in the late 19th century. And passenger trains certainly ran to and from the station 7 days a week.<<

I'm at work, so I'm going by memory (uh oh), but a Reverend "somebody or other" wrote in the 1870's to the papers complaining that animals were left in rolling stock unattended all day Sundays. As a result the railways changed the practice.


>>And while we on the subject of Broad Street, am I right in saying that Lechmere isn't actually recorded as saying he worked at that location for 20+ years? <<

Correct!


>>At the time he would have started working for Pickfofds they were also operating out of Haydon Square in H Division and very close to Mitre Square. <<


I believe they also had a place in or around Half Moon Passage, close to where Crossmere lived in James Street.

Hi Dusty,

Thanks for the responses.

Of course, they didn't handle livestock at Broad Street. I would imagine that what you are describing happened up in Kings Cross/Maiden Lane where the railways fed the Metropolitan Cattle Market. Sunday wasn't a market day there.

Half Moon Passage was just the other side of Mansell Street from Haydon Square and, as I'm sure you're aware, just below Goulston Street.


Gary

[drstrange169]

>>... do we know that Broad Street Goods Station was either closed or handled less traffic on a Sunday? I know that LNWR men and others were agitating for a standard 6-day week in the late 19th century. And passenger trains certainly ran to and from the station 7 days a week.<<

I'm at work, so I'm going by memory (uh oh), but a Reverend "somebody or other" wrote in the 1870's to the papers complaining that animals were left in rolling stock unattended all day Sundays. As a result the railways changed the practice.


>>And while we on the subject of Broad Street, am I right in saying that Lechmere isn't actually recorded as saying he worked at that location for 20+ years? <<

Correct!


>>At the time he would have started working for Pickfofds they were also operating out of Haydon Square in H Division and very close to Mitre Square. <<


I believe they also had a place in or around Half Moon Passage, close to where Crossmere lived in James Street.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I would be interested in opinions as to how confident a guilty CL might have been entitled to have felt that he hadn’t gotten any of Polly’s blood on him before he made the decision to wait for the ‘footsteps’ to arrive at the scene?
Even on his hands or his cuffs, maybe from the knife?

It was extremely dark. He had very little time due to the approaching footsteps.

Involving someone else (Paul) would have meant that CL would have been fully aware of the serious likelihood that they would end up looking for a police officer or, even if not, the chance of them walking on together as he knew that they were heading in the same direction.

And so CL, completely unaware of whether he has blood on him or not ( but surely suspecting the possibility) has to avoid this evidence being seen by Paul, a police officer, any passerby who (yes with a touch of bad luck) might have passed him near to a street lamp and his co-workers at Pickford’s.

Fish doesn’t appear to accept doubts. His outlook appears to be “if its not categorically impossible it is therefore possible.” That rather obvious statement/viewpoint can be used to ‘dispel’ any doubts, whether its justified or not.

CL lived out a ‘normal’ life and was never caught or even suspected of being Jack The Ripper. We cant imply from these facts that he was some kind of Moriarty-like figure. But can’t we, at least reasonably, suspect that he had at least some sense of self-preservation, cunning even. Also that he wasn’t a completely out of control, kill on the spur of the moment type. Or do we just dismiss this by regarding him as simply incredibly lucky?

I’m just raising a doubt here. A serious one in my opinion. I just can’t see how a cunning murderer who coped with risky situations and avoided being caught, who showed no other kind of ‘brazen’ behaviour, would have taken such a needless, senseless risk. A risk that must have appeared at the time like one that he was unlikely to walk away from.