Jack The Ripper solved?

[Fisherman]

Ok Fish - but in that case, you have an issue of motive, don't you?

You might well say (I'd guess) that Crossmere's intention was to 'hide' his identity from his family and friends so as to conceal the fact that he was involved in the Nichols investigation as though this would be an indication of nefarious doings.

On the other hand, an observer less convinced of his guilt than you are might wonder whether he simply wanted to keep himself out of the limelight and protect his family in the process - no nefariousness (whatever) required.

How can we tell that Crossmere was up to no good when he used the name Cross in 1888? Simply, we can't.

Correct - we can´t. I have no issue with that. And the same goes for, par example, the Mizen scam; he may have said what he did in order to get to job earlier, or Mizen could be the one that got it wrong. The same goes for the corresponding murder spots and his work route - it could have been by chance that came about. Same thing with Berner Street and his mother´s place - could be by chance that too. And the killer could have pulled the clothes down over Nichols´abdomen for some reason before Lechmere arrived. And he may not have had any other clothes to attend the inquest in than the ones he wore for work. And many people worked in the cat´s meat business, so being the son of one does not make you a killer and eviscerator. And Paul may have had an hearing impairment, explaining why he did not hear Lechmere walking in front of him down Buck´s Row. And somebody had to find Nichols. And ...

Yes, there are always alternative explanations. Nobody in the whole wide world is more aware of that than me. This is why I can´t condemn Lechmere. I can only point out that a cohesive case can be built against him, with elements of nameswops and misleading the police involved, together with a completely incredible correspondence inbetween the man´s paths and times and the killing sites. Out of the seven victims from 1888, not a single one is placed at a spot where we cannot surmise that Lechmere moved.
And he was a carman, so even if one victim had died along the Thames, it would be easy enough to suggest that she had been killed on a delivery tour. But no need for such things - they ALL magically fit his area like a glove.

Anybody who thinks that is not a remarkable thing needs to get another hobby.

Fisherman

[Steve S]

Lost interest Steve,

Or drew conclusion?

Monty

Latter, I reckon........

[Sally]

As if by magic the Hutchinson thread disappeared (I can but hope).

Ah, but as you can see, that hasn't happened - worse, it's tangled up with that tedious Isaacs bloke (I used the term looely in this case).

Perhaps that poll will direct us in the direction (Ha!) of proper, direct suspect comparison - a far better prospect.

You buying any book I write may make up for Rob Clack not buying it - hurrah! I'm even.

You write it, I'll read it Ed. Promise.

As for whatever Charles Lechmere called himself - we can only go on what we have. In every instance when he dealt with officialdom that has so far been discovered, he called himself Lechmere - apart from when he was involved in the murder of Polly Nichols.
The extensive records we have both pre-date and post date his involvement with a very severe form of officialdom in the Nichols case.
I think this is noteworthy and I suspect that any potential book publishers would also... and publicists to gain any hypothetical book worldwide attention. But I am running away with myself.

If guilty, why did he 'name swap' but give his true address and workplace? There are many potential reasons for this - all conjectural of course. But just because he gave his true address and workplace to the police does not lessen the anomaly of him giving a different surname to the police.

Mmm, but the thing that bothers me here, Ed, (apart from the fact that he could've been called Cross at Pickfords for all we know) is that Crossmere did actually have a police connection himself in the form of his deceased stepfather.

I do wonder if there's some significance in that.

In any event the 'name swap' is far from being the only tool in the Charles Lechmere suspect box as you know.

Well, you certainly appear to believe so. I don't think there's anything other than purely circumstantial speculation that could equally apply to a myriad of men in that place and time, personally.

Don't let that put you off writing the book though! Hell, if Dale can manage to fill up a book with Van Gogh, I'm sure you can manage with Crossmere.

[Rob Clack]

You buying any book I write may make up for Rob Clack not buying it - hurrah! I'm even.

I expect a freebie for all the help I have given you

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Yes. Which is why both Edward and I have elaborated on this precise point threehundredandeightynine times.

Some Sherlock wannabies tell me that if he wanted to hide his identity from the police, he would have given a false name, a false job place and a false address. The fact that this, if checked out and discovered, would have the police searching all over London for him with the general idea that he would be the killer, is something that seems not to bother them.

It is adamantly and abundantly clear that Lechmeres aim was not to hide his identity from the police - giving his real address and real working place ensured this.

So, just as you say, there would have been more to his not divulging his real name. What leaps to mind is that he could have been hiding his identity from his family and friends, so that they were not to understand that he had been found with Nichols. And such a theory is of course trengthened by the fact that he attended the inquest in working clothes, singling himself out for the press to remark upon. If he did not want his family and friends to know that he was involved in the Nichols investigation, then it would be a strange thing to do to leave home in his Sunday best, leaving his working clothes at home.

Fisherman

So the alternative name was to protect friends and family then? And nothing to do with you thinking he was Nichols murderer?
Less and less to suspect him now then.

Rob

[caz]

Hi Caz,

I really wouldn't bother with the Isaacs stuff if I were you. He was in prison at the time, and for this reason and others mentioned, he couldn't possibly have been Astrakhan man.

I don't give a monkey's, Ben. Isaacs's example only serves to demonstrate the fallacy of insisting that nobody could have found A Man's description remotely credible.

Hutchinson's discredited suspect had other physical attributes besides an Astrakhan coat. He was described as being an early 30s Jew (or someone with a Jewish appearance) with a surly countenance and a moustache. Isaacs could have matched any or all of these criteria without actually owning, or even being seen in, an Astrakhan coat.

Indeed so. But the press were not comparing A Man's description with Isaacs merely to point out two men who appeared physically similar; they were suggesting it could be the same man - ie a man who possessed a coat with an astrakhan collar. So it doesn't matter if Isaacs had never been near to owning such a coat. The point is, if there was no way on God's earth that a man in his circumstances could have done so, the press would have known it, and would not have entertained the possibility in the first place that he could be Astrakhan Man. Do you see the difference?

I'd be fascinated to know who went around detaching Astrakhan collars and cuffs from coats to sell on the cheap at Petticoat Market.

So would I, Ben. But that's not what I had in mind. I'm pretty sure you could obtain or make detachable fur collars and trimmings for example, real and fake, but I bow to your superior knowledge of what was totally beyond your average semi-vicious criminal Eastender's pocket. I also seem to recall at least one of the victims had a jacket trimmed with fur.

Collars and cuffs of the Astrakhan variety tended to adhere pretty obstinately to their original coats, and they were extremely expensive, even if procured second-hand, which was difficult. A homeless thief dressing himself up convincingly a man of means was therefore not quite the doddle that some people seem to imagine it to be, and if we're to credit Hutchinson with at least some degree of local street-savviness, it'd doubtful he'd have fallen for such an obvious pretense at wealth.

Well I'll take your word for it that astrakhan collars always came attached to the garment, were extremely expensive and fake ones were unavailable. But again, if the press considered it impossible for a homeless thief to have anything but rags to wear, one wonders how they imagined he could have rigged himself out for Hutchinson's benefit, if only temporarily. Remember, they suggested A Man and Isaacs could be one and the same.

They're not Jon's words to twist.

They originated from the press, but no matter.

I know, Ben. That's why I said you were twisting 'Jon's quote' and not 'Jon's words'. He quoted the press faithfully, while you chose to paraphrase. Never a good idea. And in this case it made no difference. It's what the press considered feasible that matters, not what Isaacs actually wore.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Sally
As if by magic the Hutchinson thread disappeared (I can but hope).

You buying any book I write may make up for Rob Clack not buying it - hurrah! I'm even.

As for whatever Charles Lechmere called himself - we can only go on what we have. In every instance when he dealt with officialdom that has so far been discovered, he called himself Lechmere - apart from when he was involved in the murder of Polly Nichols.
The extensive records we have both pre-date and post date his involvement with a very severe form of officialdom in the Nichols case.
I think this is noteworthy and I suspect that any potential book publishers would also... and publicists to gain any hypothetical book worldwide attention. But I am running away with myself.

If guilty, why did he 'name swap' but give his true address and workplace? There are many potential reasons for this - all conjectural of course. But just because he gave his true address and workplace to the police does not lessen the anomaly of him giving a different surname to the police.

In any event the 'name swap' is far from being the only tool in the Charles Lechmere suspect box as you know.

Jon
The police are a severe form of officialdom, particularly when you are a witness turning up several days late in a brutal and well publicised murder case.
Giving a name other than that by which you call yourself in all dealings with officialdom and your children at school would be a risky undertaking unless the person who did it had a very good reason to do so. That's what I think anyway.

When Charles Lechmere noticed that Paul was close behind him he walked up to him. Paul thought he was about to be mugged and tried to avoid Lechmere by walking around him off the pavement. As he passed Lechmere tapped him on the shoulder and then drew Paul's attention to the body. This is a strange way of raising the alarm. It is very different to what happened in all the other cases.
You have no idea whether his hand was unbloodied.
They then left Nichols to go to work, saying afterwards they intended to tell any policeman they saw. The policeman they bumped into gave a very different account of the subsequent conversation than that offered by Charles Lechmere.

[Sally]

It is adamantly and abundantly clear that Lechmeres aim was not to hide his identity from the police - giving his real address and real working place ensured this.

So, just as you say, there would have been more to his not divulging his real name. What leaps to mind is that he could have been hiding his identity from his family and friends, so that they were not to understand that he had been found with Nichols. And such a theory is of course trengthened by the fact that he attended the inquest in working clothes, singling himself out for the press to remark upon. If he did not want his family and friends to know that he was involved in the Nichols investigation, then it would be a strange thing to do to leave home in his Sunday best, leaving his working clothes at home.

Ok Fish - but in that case, you have an issue of motive, don't you?

You might well say (I'd guess) that Crossmere's intention was to 'hide' his identity from his family and friends so as to conceal the fact that he was involved in the Nichols investigation as though this would be an indication of nefarious doings.

On the other hand, an observer less convinced of his guilt than you are might wonder whether he simply wanted to keep himself out of the limelight and protect his family in the process - no nefariousness (whatever) required.

How can we tell that Crossmere was up to no good when he used the name Cross in 1888? Simply, we can't.

[Robert]

Are we still going with the scenario where Lechmere feeds the organs to the guard dog, or was that a bit much to swallow?

[Fisherman]

God help anyone who is first to find a body and looks to the second person on the scene for a bit of support.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, the poor creatures! They should of course be awarded a license of guaranteed innocense after having suffered such an ordeal. Good thinking!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

since he was able to pronounce himself as Cross in 1888; whilst giving the correct place of work and home address; logic suggests that there is more to this story than a simple affair of a 'false' name.
.

Yes. Which is why both Edward and I have elaborated on this precise point threehundredandeightynine times.

Some Sherlock wannabies tell me that if he wanted to hide his identity from the police, he would have given a false name, a false job place and a false address. The fact that this, if checked out and discovered, would have the police searching all over London for him with the general idea that he would be the killer, is something that seems not to bother them.

It is adamantly and abundantly clear that Lechmeres aim was not to hide his identity from the police - giving his real address and real working place ensured this.

So, just as you say, there would have been more to his not divulging his real name. What leaps to mind is that he could have been hiding his identity from his family and friends, so that they were not to understand that he had been found with Nichols. And such a theory is of course trengthened by the fact that he attended the inquest in working clothes, singling himself out for the press to remark upon. If he did not want his family and friends to know that he was involved in the Nichols investigation, then it would be a strange thing to do to leave home in his Sunday best, leaving his working clothes at home.

Next indicator of a reluctance to reveal to the papers and public who he was is of course his leaving out his home address when witnessing, although the Star managed to get hold of it as the only paper.

This all fits together (yes, Monty, it does) as a suggestion of why he said "Cross" when he should have said "Lechmere".

There is - as I have pointed out ninetyfour times - another option at hand: the name Lechmere could have rung a bell with the police if he had been accused of something in the days, weeks or months leading up to the inquest. If the fictive Mrs Dread had approached the police and accused Lechmere of indecent assault, without any legal action being taken due to a lack of evidence, then he would perhaps be very reluctant to take the chance that any of the policemen that had handled the errand was in place at the inquest or read the papers afterwards, thinking "Hey, wasn´t that the guy who ...?"

These are two different explanations, both of them speaking of "more than just a false name", Sally. Either could be true - or untrue. Either way, the bricks are readily at hand for building a case against our carman.

Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

Rob
Yes we can be sure that Lechmere was aware of the Cross name because we know he chose to use it with respect to the Polly Nichols case.
It is a moot point as to whether or not Lechmere knew that Nichols was dead.
Paul gave contradictory accounts. Lechmere was a bit vague in his statements – which caused confusion for generations of Ripper writers. But we don’t pay those books any heed! Do we?
If Paul and Lechmere knew she wasn’t dead then they callously left an unconscious woman on the street when they could have just knocked up a neighbour.

PS We have 4 books on Hutchinson - and no one really knows who he was for sure.

I'd rather get it straight from the horses mouth if I can. Most books tend to biased towards a writers chosen suspect and I have no doubt any book proposing Lechmere as a suspect would twist the facts to suit the writers needs. We already have it been said in a couple of posts that Lechmere was found standing over the body, which as we both know is completely untrue, imagine if that got in a book.
Lechmere and Paul being callous is not a criminal offence. And since we know Lechmere used the name Cross on at least one occasion then it is possible he used it on other occasions. All we know about Lechmere is what is in the official papers, hardly enough to suspect him of anything.

Rob

[Jon Guy]

Ed

Appearing at a police station to give a statement and appearing at an inquest are also ‘Sunday best’ events. I should have thought.

He would have given the name Cross to the police, as a witness.
The police would have given this name to to the Coroner`s office, and hence it`s use at the inquest.

John Richardson denied seeing the body so he can’ count as a ‘first finder’
.

Okay, Richardson doesn`t count then.

But Cross did raise the alarm?
He immediatley approached Paul to ask for help (by putting his unbloodied hand on his shoulder). Theythen both went to Nichols to see if they could help, and realising there was not a lot they could do, both went off looking out for a policeman.

[Sally]

And as if by magic, a Cross thread appears!

Ed

It's a pity you haven't written a book. I for one would like to read it.

In the meantime, I'm afraid Jon is quite correct: the 'official' evidence doesn't tell you what he called himself, at that time, and in that place, outside of officialdom. Come now, I'm sure you realise that.

Since, regrettably, we have no way of telling whether he was called Cross at Pickfords, or not; we are left with conjecture which cannot be weighted by later legal records.

That said, since he was able to pronounce himself as Cross in 1888; whilst giving the correct place of work and home address; logic suggests that there is more to this story than a simple affair of a 'false' name.

It is evident that this is the majority view - and, rightly or otherwise - until TL can produce something more solid with which to implicate Crossmere, it's going to remain as such, I think.

[Lechmere]

Jon
Appearing at a police station to give a statement and appearing at an inquest are also ‘Sunday best’ events. I should have thought.
There are no staff records at Pickfords – I have checked.
John Richardson denied seeing the body so he can’ count as a ‘first finder’

Rob
Yes we can be sure that Lechmere was aware of the Cross name because we know he chose to use it with respect to the Polly Nichols case.
It is a moot point as to whether or not Lechmere knew that Nichols was dead.
Paul gave contradictory accounts. Lechmere was a bit vague in his statements – which caused confusion for generations of Ripper writers. But we don’t pay those books any heed! Do we?
If Paul and Lechmere knew she wasn’t dead then they callously left an unconscious woman on the street when they could have just knocked up a neighbour.

PS We have 4 books on Hutchinson - and no one really knows who he was for sure.