Favorite suspect/s?

[Elamarna]

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.

Yes the Tomkins boys are certainly interesting, particularly in Bucks Row. I suspect Henry is covering up something other than murder, but who knows.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

He may well have informed the authorities of his real name, but preferred to use Cross as the name by which he was more usually known, e.g. "professionally" and perhaps socially. Under those circumstances, I don't see why the police or newspapers should have advertised the fact, but respected his wish that he preferred to be known simply as Charles Cross.

After all, if he'd enrolled with Pickfords 20+ years ago, it appears likely that he'd have done so whilst Thomas Cross was still his pater familias. It's not much of a stretch to suppose that he'd become widely known as Charlie Cross during his adolescence and in his early career, and it just stuck.

[MrBarnett]

Except nobody has considered the "real" Ripper, the gas-fitter Henry DeFries who lived on Middlesex Street.

There you go, another possibility. Thanks, Scott.

[Scott Nelson]

Except nobody has considered the "real" Ripper, the gas-fitter Henry DeFries who lived on Middlesex Street.

[MrBarnett]

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.

[MrBarnett]

I suspect that CAL had a much stronger idea of his 'real' name and its significance that the majority of his Tiger Bay contemporaries:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=27926&highlight=Roulson

[MrBarnett]

Aren’t we just looking for mystery where none exists? We are used to living in a world of bureaucracy. People in the 19th century weren’t. Especially the working classes who had far less dealings with ‘officialdom’ than we do. So we have a man who gives his name, when asked, as Charles Alan Cross of 22 Doveton Street. When he filled in any kind of official form he’d obviously been told that he had to use his birth name (Lechmere)and not his preferred one. Of course we have no proof that he used Cross from day to day but it’s a fairly reasonable and likely suggestion when faced with the suggested ‘alternative.’ I.e. that he gave a false name to somehow avoid police attention.

If he wanted to give the police a false name to throw them off the scent as it were then that’s surely what he would have done and not given them his correct Christian names, the surname of his stepfather (that he’d previously used on a census) and his correct address. Surely the worst attempt in the history of crime at pulling the wool over the eyes of the police? I really can’t avoid the thinking that this ‘name thing,’ whilst being initially an interesting discovery, is just a complete red herring.

Hi Mike,

I doubt he was trying to hide his identity in the sense of preventing anyone from being able to find him at his home or his workplace. 'Charles allen ???/Pickfords carman for 20+ years/22, Doveton Street' would have been enough of a giveaway, surely? Adding or omitting 'Lechmere' to/from the mix wouldn't have made a lot of difference in that respect.

So why didn't he feel the need to mention his birth name?

Of course, the use of the name Cross on the 1861 census almost certainly wouldn't have been his decision. He was, what, 11/12 at the time, and the responsibility for providing the info for the return would have been Thomas Cross's as the head of the household. I can imagine possible reasons why TC, even if he was unaware that he was bigamously married, would want to present his stepchildren as Crosses in the official record in 1861, but not why his stepson, 27 years later and long after TC's death, would do so.

If we stand back from the idea that it might have been because it was to protect himself from being identified as JTR, it's still a bit odd, isn't it?

Gary

[GUT]

Aren’t we just looking for mystery where none exists? We are used to living in a world of bureaucracy. People in the 19th century weren’t. Especially the working classes who had far less dealings with ‘officialdom’ than we do. So we have a man who gives his name, when asked, as Charles Alan Cross of 22 Doveton Street. When he filled in any kind of official form he’d obviously been told that he had to use his birth name (Lechmere)and not his preferred one. Of course we have no proof that he used Cross from day to day but it’s a fairly reasonable and likely suggestion when faced with the suggested ‘alternative.’ I.e. that he gave a false name to somehow avoid police attention.

If he wanted to give the police a false name to throw them off the scent as it were then that’s surely what he would have done and not given them his correct Christian names, the surname of his stepfather (that he’d previously used on a census) and his correct address. Surely the worst attempt in the history of crime at pulling the wool over the eyes of the police? I really can’t avoid the thinking that this ‘name thing,’ whilst being initially an interesting discovery, is just a complete red herring.

And his place of work.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aren’t we just looking for mystery where none exists? We are used to living in a world of bureaucracy. People in the 19th century weren’t. Especially the working classes who had far less dealings with ‘officialdom’ than we do. So we have a man who gives his name, when asked, as Charles Alan Cross of 22 Doveton Street. When he filled in any kind of official form he’d obviously been told that he had to use his birth name (Lechmere)and not his preferred one. Of course we have no proof that he used Cross from day to day but it’s a fairly reasonable and likely suggestion when faced with the suggested ‘alternative.’ I.e. that he gave a false name to somehow avoid police attention.

If he wanted to give the police a false name to throw them off the scent as it were then that’s surely what he would have done and not given them his correct Christian names, the surname of his stepfather (that he’d previously used on a census) and his correct address. Surely the worst attempt in the history of crime at pulling the wool over the eyes of the police? I really can’t avoid the thinking that this ‘name thing,’ whilst being initially an interesting discovery, is just a complete red herring.

[Abby Normal]

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

I too find it a little odd that there is no AKAs in the record for lech

[Elamarna]

Do we really need to pin people down to the precise wording of their theories? Charles Lechmere had a long-standing connection to the area where Liz Stride was killed. His mother and daughter were living a short walk away in 1888. He probably still had schoolmates, drinking buddies etc in the area. However, his strongest ties would presumably have been the family ones.

Is that a 'strong' argument for his guilt.? Of course not. No proof, or even strong evidence in my opinion, but as a narrative the theory works for me.

Hi Gary

Yes of course it works as a narrative, however has i have said several times, in connection to Stride, what applies to Lechmere, also applies to Kosminski. Possible but thats as far as we can go I think.

Do we need to tie people down to pricise wordings of theories, well i think that depends entirely on how the theory is presented, if its "this could have happened", then no.


If however we are suggesting something is not just possible, but almost certain then yes the wording is important in my opinion and needs to be much more pricise with supporting evidence.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Of course not Gary, and why i said "certainly possible.". Not Ruling out at all.

However, i sense a change in the argument from Fish, if not going to his mothers, meeting his Mates for a drink. Not convinced such is a strong argument.


Steve

Do we really need to pin people down to the precise wording of their theories? Charles Lechmere had a long-standing connection to the area where Liz Stride was killed. His mother and daughter were living a short walk away in 1888. He probably still had schoolmates, drinking buddies etc in the area. However, his strongest ties would presumably have been the family ones.

Is that a 'strong' argument for his guilt.? Of course not. No proof, or even strong evidence in my opinion, but as a narrative the theory works for me.

[MrBarnett]

Tell that to Fish, Abby. His argument appears to be that nobody at Pickfords would have connected the Buck's Row witness, calling himself Charles Allen Cross, with their employee and carman, Charles Allen Lechmere.

The alternative would be to concede that if his suspect had always been known as Cross at work, he'd naturally have gone by that name when needing time off work to attend the inquest.

That would make far too much sense and be far too simple. And it wouldn't even make Lechmere innocent! On the contrary, it would have been safer for the killer to use a name that would check out if the police wanted to confirm what business he had being in Buck's Row at that hour.

Love,

Caz
X

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

[Elamarna]

A question for you, Steve. Have you ever used an OS map and a map measurer when walking around an area you have been familiar with for decades to make sure your route wasn't a few yards longer than necessary?

I know I haven't.

Of course not Gary, and why i said "certainly possible.". Not Ruling out at all.

However, i sense a change in the argument from Fish, if not going to his mothers, meeting his Mates for a drink. Not convinced such is a strong argument.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Quite right Gary, but so would Backchurch Lane, Batty and Christian Street, Berner beung the middle option.
Not the most obvious route to either Doveton Street or Broad Street, but certainly possible.

Steve

A question for you, Steve. Have you ever used an OS map and a map measurer when walking around an area you have been familiar with for decades to make sure your route wasn't a few yards longer than necessary?

I know I haven't.