Favorite suspect/s?

[MrBarnett]

Was this our guy? He was apparently working for Pickfords at the time. If it wasn't him, he surely must have heard of the incident. Pickfords' drivers were notorious for their reckless driving, but the killing of a child by one of them was not an everyday event.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28333&highlight=Charles+Cross&page=13

Could this have been what he was trying to conceal in 1888, as in 1876, - in relation to the name Lechmere?

[Abby Normal]

Can anyone offer an 'innocent' explanation of why Charles Lechmere (as he seemingly described himself in every other recorded situation where he had dealings with officialdom) might have used his long deceased stepfather's surname alone when reporting his finding of Polly's body to the police and subsequently appearing at her inquest? Even if he was known by the name of Cross at Pickfords, isn't it just a bit odd that he didn't mention that his real name was Lechmere? Or that if he did, no record of the fact exists?

Could it really have been a simple oversight?

Hi gary
I think since he was probably still under the auspices of his stepdad cross when he joined pickfords, that was the name he was going under at the time he joined. Keeping it as his work name after going back to lechmere when old cross died. And since under the circs, a carman on his way to work, and his stepdad cross being a copper, he used that name. Plus he maybe wanted to keep himself and family low profile as not to be bothered by eberyone if he used his more common name.

Now all that being said, yes i do find it odd, that there is no AKA lechmere in the record. And yes i do see it as another potential red flag. Another discrepency that one has to address with lech.

[MrBarnett]

Hi gary
I think since he was probably still under the auspices of his stepdad cross when he joined pickfords, that was the name he was going under at the time he joined. Keeping it as his work name after going back to lechmere when old cross died. And since under the circs, a carman on his way to work, and his stepdad cross being a copper, he used that name. Plus he maybe wanted to keep himself and family low profile as not to be bothered by eberyone if he used his more common name.

Now all that being said, yes i do find it odd, that there is no AKA lechmere in the record. And yes i do see it as another potential red flag. Another discrepency that one has to address with lech.

Hi Abby,

I imagine having a copper as a stepdad would have been useful in securing a job at Pickfords. Of course, we shouldn't forget that his mother's marriage to Thomas Cross appears to have been a bigamous one and Lechmere wasn't a common name in the East End at the time. It's not difficult to think of reasons why he chose not to use his 'real' name in the Nichols case and the 1876 incident that don't imply he was the guilty party in either.

Gary

[GUT]

Was this our guy? He was apparently working for Pickfords at the time. If it wasn't him, he surely must have heard of the incident. Pickfords' drivers were notorious for their reckless driving, but the killing of a child by one of them was not an everyday event.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28333&highlight=Charles+Cross&page=13

Could this have been what he was trying to conceal in 1888, as in 1876, - in relation to the name Lechmere?

Thanks.

[MrBarnett]

Thanks.

You're welcome, GUT.

I think pretty much everyone is of the opinion that by using the name Cross rather than Lechmere but giving his correct two forenames, address and place of work the finder (or killer) of Polly was not concealing his identity in any meaningful way. But what his actions did conceal, deliberately or inadvertently, was the name Lechmere itself.

[harry]

Fis,
Sorry ,I am disqualified from using the full name, fis or should it be fizz,there is ample evidence Nichols was or appeared to be dead before Cross arrived.There is first and foremost the evidence of the witness Cross himself.So witness evidence,which was never disputed at the time,or since, by any other kind of evidence,is all I need.If you would soonr have it another way,then i"ll say the injuries that led to the death of Nichols were made before the arrival of Cross.That better?
If Herlock cannot give a name to the manner in which you replied to an earlier post of mine.I will.It is childish tantrums.You are acting like a juvenile.
Disqualified! What utter chilish rubbish,and you want to be taken seriously.

[Fisherman]

Lets look at those posts.

844: "until such time as you can prove"

Clearly in line with my response that you have not proven the possibility.

Post 972.: different langague but still the same point, the evidence of the carmen is not challenged, therefore you have not proven it is possible

Again in keeping with my view.

I do not say i have proven it is impossible, only that you have not demonstrated that such is possible.

Indeed that seems very clear and nothing else need be said i agree.



Steve

This is what is very clear:

"Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot."

It should have read "In that context and with these predispositions, it would not have been possible for Paul to have been out of earshot".

But never mind.

The one thing that counts is that we agree that Paul may have been out of earshot.

[Fisherman]

No you were being misleading, repeating it in several posts.


Steve

I was pulling your leg. Just as I thought you were pulling mine. How many times must I say that? Ten? Twenty?

How about instead answering my point that the far-reaching differences in the amounts of time that had passed when the bodies of Chapman and Kelly were found would play a very large role in the process of determining TOD?

[Fisherman]

The point that I was making was an obvious one. You were saying that you’ll continue to support CL’s candidature until someone comes up with a categorical exoneration. I was simply pointing out that at a distance of 130 years such exoneration is unlikely in the extreme. Not because he’s definitely guilty but because it’s unlikely that that kind of conclusive evidence will ever appear.

The same is the case for Hutchinson, Bury, Druitt, Kosminski, Mann, Backert, Lewis Carroll and many, many more. If your criteria for someone being a worthy suspect is “well you cannot categorically exonerate him,” then I’d say the less said about that the better.

I actually didnīt say that I would support Lechmere "until someone comes up with a categorical exoneration", but instead that I will do so until something surfaces that calls upon me to change my mind. Or, at least, that is what I mean.
In fact, anything that comes up to either strengthen or weaken his candidature will be weighed in. It is an ongoing process, and not one where I have locked myself to anything. I think that he was the killer and I think that there is ample evidence to support the suggestion as it stands.

I am not sucha dimwit as to suggest that the best thing he had got going for himself is how he cannot be exonerated, and I frankly resent having it suggested. There are millions of people who cannot be exonerated from having been the Ripper.

One of them only was found close to the body while it was still bleeding.
One of them only disagreed with the police over what was said on the murder night.
One of them only is known to have used an alias that he otherwise did not use in authority contacts.

And so on and so on.

I would have hoped that I would not have to make these points again, seeing as I have already made them a thousand times. But such is the climate out here!

[Fisherman]

I sometimes wonder if there are any facts about this case that give you even the slightest pause for doubt on CL’s guilt?

Pick the one detail that you think speaks loudest for his innocence, and we will scrutinize it together. Then we will see how strong an argument you have.

Go ahead, donīt be shy! Which single detail is most out of line with Lechmere possibly being guilty?

[Fisherman]

You're welcome, GUT.

I think pretty much everyone is of the opinion that by using the name Cross rather than Lechmere but giving his correct two forenames, address and place of work the finder (or killer) of Polly was not concealing his identity in any meaningful way. But what his actions did conceal, deliberately or inadvertently, was the name Lechmere itself.

He was absolutely not hiding himself in any meaningful way from the police - from what they got from him, they would be able to extract any information about him that was available.

So why give that information to the police if he was the killer? Because, Iīd suggest, he was well aware that he could get checked out. Indeed, he SHOULD have been checked out - but what we have on him seems to imply that he never was.
Anyway, I believe that this was what caused him to be honest about his identity, so far as the address and the working place goes.

What nags me a lot, though, is how just the one paper got his address at the inquest. The police already had it, yes, and so he was never going to be able to conceal himself from them. But if he did not give his address to the inquest, then he WOULD have taken away the two parameters that allowed for an identification via the papers.

The working place at Pickfords would not have identified him to the readers since there were many people working there.

The address and the name Charles Lechmere would, however, give him away to the readers.

Of course, if he was known as Charles Cross, then that would also give him away. But was he?

I would have much preferred if all the papers had a take on his address instead of just the one paper. It does not sit well with me at all.

[Elamarna]

This is what is very clear:

"Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot."

It should have read "In that context and with these predispositions, it would not have been possible for Paul to have been out of earshot".

But never mind.

The one thing that counts is that we agree that Paul may have been out of earshot.

Sorry but "In that context and with these predispositions, it would not have been possible for Paul to have been out of earshot" as you so eloquently write we agree on no such thing.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I was pulling your leg. Just as I thought you were pulling mine. How many times must I say that? Ten? Twenty?

How about instead answering my point that the far-reaching differences in the amounts of time that had passed when the bodies of Chapman and Kelly were found would play a very large role in the process of determining TOD?

I must have missed the question, which post was it in? I need to read the full context before reying obviously.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Sorry but "In that context and with these predispositions, it would not have been possible for Paul to have been out of earshot" as you so eloquently write we agree on no such thing.


Steve

So we do not agree that Paul could have been out of earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen?

Is that correct?

You are of the meaning that Paul could not possibly have been out of earshot as this happened?

Or what are you saying? Or trying to say?

[Fisherman]

I must have missed the question, which post was it in? I need to read the full context before reying obviously.


Steve

1315. And I didnīt say "question", I said "point".