Jack The Ripper solved?

[Fisherman]

Monty:

He used the name Cross on 3rd September 1888, at inquest.

Since the rest of your post sounds terribly familiar - and terribly wrong - Iīll just pick this one telling example. In your earlier post you wrote:

"Nor is it hardly a sign of guilt, using a name you have used previously" about Lechmereīs use of the name Cross. And now you say that he used the name at the inquest.
But that was not "previously", was it?

We both know extremely well that the name Charles Cross is mentioned twice in combination with our carman.

We both know extremely well that he was 11 years old the first time it happened, and that it was most probably filled in the census listing by his stepfather Thomas Cross. Meaning that we donīt know that Charles used that name himself, especially not since he was baptized Lechmere a year AFTER his mother married Thomas Cross.

We both know extremely well that the only time we see the name being used by Lechmere himself was in combination with his contacts with the authorities over the Nichols murder.

So no, there was no instance we know of when he himself used the name Cross previously.

Therefore, what you produce is a false claim. The implications should be very clear.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yes, standing. Not moving backwards away from the body but standing still in the middle of the road. It speaks volumes.
Cross/Lechmere was a nonstarter 20 years ago when I looked at him and that was before we knew his real name.
And nothing in that time has even come close to changing my mind.

Rob

Thatīs even better - people standing next to freshly killed victims are guilty if they move but innocent if they stand still.

Textbook stuff, that.

Fisherman

[Rob Clack]

It seems sarcasm is wasted on the Swedes.

And apologies to you for dragging you into this sorry mess.

Monty

You should be

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Thatīs even better - people standing next to freshly killed victims are guilty if they move but innocent if they stand still.

Textbook stuff, that.

Fisherman

Ten feet is not next to.

Common sense stuff, that.

Rob

[Monty]

Monty:

He used the name Cross on 3rd September 1888, at inquest.

Since the rest of your post sounds terribly familiar - and terribly wrong - Iīll just pick this one telling example. In your earlier post you wrote:

"Nor is it hardly a sign of guilt, using a name you have used previously" about Lechmereīs use of the name Cross. And now you say that he used the name at the inquest.
But that was not "previously", was it?

We both know extremely well that the name Charles Cross is mentioned twice in combination with our carman.

We both know extremely well that he was 11 years old the first time it happened, and that it was most probably filled in the census listing by his stepfather Thomas Cross. Meaning that we donīt know that Charles used that name himself, especially not since he was baptized Lechmere a year AFTER his mother married Thomas Cross.

We both know extremely well that the only time we see the name being used by Lechmere himself was in combination with his contacts with the authorities over the Nichols murder.

So no, there was no instance we know of when he himself used the name Cross previously.

Therefore, what you produce is a false claim. The implications should be very clear.

Fisherman

Bold mode huh? The Holmgren sign of agitation.

I was talking about the entirety of Cross's life.

As Rob states, Cross gave an address and a work address, as well as a know as connected to him.

It is no sign of guilt.....and the font cannot get any darker.

Try red.

Monty

[Monty]

Thatīs even better - people standing next to freshly killed victims are guilty if they move but innocent if they stand still.

Textbook stuff, that.

Fisherman

Thompson musta done for Coles then, going on that simplistic logic.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Thompson musta done for Coles then, going on that simplistic logic.

Monty

Dimshitz, Davis, PC Watkins. All as guilty as hell.

Rob

[Fisherman]

Bold mode huh? The Holmgren sign of agitation.

I was talking about the entirety of Cross's life.

As Rob states, Cross gave an address and a work address, as well as a know as connected to him.

It is no sign of guilt.....and the font cannot get any darker.

Try red.

Monty

The "Holmgren sign of agitation" is more like the Holmgren inaptitude with technical stuff, actually. When I must break up the text Iīm answering I get lazy, thatīs all.

But disregarding that -no matter whether you speak of the entirety of Lechmereīs life, you still only have him using the name Cross at one occasion only. There never is any "previous" occasion on record where we know he used the name Cross on his own accord, entire life or not.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thompson musta done for Coles then, going on that simplistic logic.

Monty

The refreshing simplicity of the logic is courtesy of Rob, not me. And jestering does not help your case - people found by the sides of freshly killed victims - PC:s to a healthy degree discounted - are always good bids for the killers role, unless other evidence nullifies this. And ten feet and an upright position does not belong to that toolbox, Iīm afraid.
But now we are entering areas where no discussion is needed, as most rational people will realize. So letīs move on, shall we?

Fisherman

[Monty]

Dimshitz, Davis, PC Watkins. All as guilty as hell.

Rob

Les Battersby from Corrie, we could go on.

However, Christer is correct. We must move on, to save his blushes if nothing else.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Les Battersby from Corrie, we could go on.

However, Christer is correct. We must move on, to save his blushes if nothing else.

Monty

Yes, letīs give that reason. Iīll buy ANY reason to rid myself of the ongoing stuff.

Fisherman

Look - Iīm all red in the face!

[caz]

Les Battersby from Corrie...

Bloody hell, Monty. Those exact words went through my mind an instant before reading your post.

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

[Rob Clack]

Les Battersby from Corrie, we could go on.

However, Christer is correct. We must move on, to save his blushes if nothing else.

Monty

True. Must stop using common sense. That would help.

Rob

[Lechmere]

A reluctant as I am to get involved in this particular debate, the critics of the Lechmere case, as is usual, base their critique on false premises.
This is understandable to an extent as no book has (as yet) been written about Charles Lechmere as a suspect, putting the arguments together coherently and in context, and most accounts of the murders in print cover his involvement in a demonstrably inaccurate manner.
By contrast several (including the e-book by Garry Wroe which is on this site) have been written about Hutchinson over quite a few years – giving different slants on his candidature as the Ripper. We even have theories that Hutchinson was really Joseph Fleming.

Charles Lechmere’s mother bigamously married Thomas Cross in February 1858.
Charles Lechmere and his sister Emily were baptised as Lechmeres in January 1859
The 1861 census, when Charles Lechmere was 11, his name was given by his step father as Charles Cross, and his slightly older sister was recorded as Emily Cross. A census is not a public document or event, unlike a baptism for example. We do not know the circumstances behind Thomas Cross’s decision. It is quite likely that Charles Lechmere was unaware what information his step father gave the enumerator.
Emily – the sister – died in July 1869 – as Emily Lechmere.
Thomas Cross died in December 1869.
Charles Lechmere married as Lechmere in July 1870.
Thereafter there are about 100 records of Charles Lechmere’s life and how he recorded his family name in diverse sources – marriages, births, deaths, baptisms, funerals, trade directories, censuses, electoral registers, rate records and school records and the name is always given as Lechmere.

Apart from when he went to the police in connection with a brutal murder – almost certainly in the aftermath of Robert Paul’s newspaper story on the evening of Sunday 2nd September (Lloyds Weekly News).
In this newspaper story, Paul said ‘I saw a man standing where the woman was’. Not ten feet away. A perfect alibi?

Unlike other ‘first finders’ when the second person (Paul) happened upon the scene, this ‘first finder’ (Lechmere) had not raised the alarm. The other ‘first finders’ immediately went and raised the alarm, so lessening any suspicion on their shoulders. This is an anomaly.

This victim also, uniquely in this series, had two ‘first finders’. The other being PC Neil and until the appearance of Paul’s newspaper story Neil was regarded as the true ‘first finder’. Another anomaly.

This victim is also the only one in this series – canonical and non canonical – whether the abdominal wounds were covered and the victim was not left ‘on display’. This is suggestive that the culprit was disturbed. Even if that isn’t the explanation for the wounds being covered we have another anomaly.

Then we have the discrepancy between what PC Mizen claims Lechmere told him and what Lechmere claims he told PC Mizen. Another anomaly.

Given the history of the use of surnames by Charles Lechmere – based on what we know – can it be said that ‘Cross’ was an alternative family name? Can it be said that he was ever ‘known as’ Charles Cross – apart from at the inquest? I would suggest that his use of the name was an anomaly.

But let’s forget all this and get back to discussing madmen, middle class homosexuals, plots, conspiracies and foreigners with barely any connection to the East End – these are much more likely culprits.

[Steve S]

To me, the big problem with all the "Everyday Joe " suspects, Lechmere,Barnett,Hutchinson is that the Police lost interest in them really quickly.....Not even a hint in later memoirs etc