The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

I don't know Caz. It doesn't seem too far fetched to me that lech as the killer would use his less well known name to try and keep his more common name out of the public eye and away from family and friends.

Anyone of them could put two and two together and could spell trouble to the killer trying to stay incognito.

Wow, Abby. I mean ... wow.

Caz, did you read that? Abby also thinks that a killer may want to hide his identity from people.

How very peculiar we reason!

[Harry D]

As I said, there were similarities. And after having scrutinized these matters, the police wrote off the case as being unrelated to the Ripper case - they decided that Bury was not their man.

You are welcome.

Whether Scotland Yard believed Bury was the Ripper or not is immaterial, they never caught the killer, and by your admission they weren't savvy enough to investigate the nefarious Lechmere. The authorities at Dundee identified a potential connection to the case, as would any constabulary who had this kind of murder on their hands.

[Fisherman]

Whether Scotland Yard believed Bury was the Ripper or not is immaterial, they never caught the killer, and by your admission they weren't savvy enough to investigate the nefarious Lechmere. The authorities at Dundee identified a potential connection to the case, as would any constabulary who had this kind of murder on their hands.

Yes, of course they identified a potential connection, Harry. But a potential connection is - as I take it you will be aware - not a MADE connection.

Once a potential connection becomes a made connection, we have a caserelated matter on our hands. Before that, we have not.

What the police decided was that much as there were some similarities inbetween Ellen Bury´s demise and that of the Ripper victims, the cases were unrelated to each other and Bury was - as far as they could tell - not Jack the Ripper.

Personally, I think that was a very wise decision, so it is not as if I cannot appreciate the efforts of the victorian police from time to time.

As for Lechmere, we do not have to wonder if HE is tied to the case. We don´t have to ask ourselves whether HE represented a made connection. He was found all alone in Bucks Row with Polly Nichols´ badly cut body, and that means that he is caserelated. But per se, being caserelated is not necessarily a nefarious matter - Robert Paul, Liz Stride, Amelia Cox, James Harvey and John Gardner are also caserelated. They all played roles, smaller or larger, in the Ripper saga.
So far, there is nothing to tell us that William Bury did. He is one of the many people who MAY have played such a role, but where the evidence to prove such a thing is nowhere to be found.

Sorry for asking, but are we done now?

[CertainSum1]

Why would a grown man taking care of his children (ALL named LECHMERE) within his own household as the LECHMERE family decide he's gonna call himself after his stepdad? To "protect" them from police investigative activity? Like what kind of awful police drama is he trying to avoid?

It's not like they'd call in his family members and make them answer questions about his whereabout and activities...oh wait...maybe they would. Well played, Lechmere.

[Harry D]

Yes, of course they identified a potential connection, Harry. But a potential connection is - as I take it you will be aware - not a MADE connection.

Once a potential connection becomes a made connection, we have a caserelated matter on our hands. Before that, we have not.

What the police decided was that much as there were some similarities inbetween Ellen Bury´s demise and that of the Ripper victims, the cases were unrelated to each other and Bury was - as far as they could tell - not Jack the Ripper.

Personally, I think that was a very wise decision, so it is not as if I cannot appreciate the efforts of the victorian police from time to time.

As for Lechmere, we do not have to wonder if HE is tied to the case. We don´t have to ask ourselves whether HE represented a made connection. He was found all alone in Bucks Row with Polly Nichols´ badly cut body, and that means that he is caserelated. But per se, being caserelated is not necessarily a nefarious matter - Robert Paul, Liz Stride, Amelia Cox, James Harvey and John Gardner are also caserelated. They all played roles, smaller or larger, in the Ripper saga.
So far, there is nothing to tell us that William Bury did. He is one of the many people who MAY have played such a role, but where the evidence to prove such a thing is nowhere to be found.

Sorry for asking, but are we done now?

Again, we're back to your arbitrary definition of what is or isn't "caserelated". That's not even a technical term in criminology.

[Fisherman]

Again, we're back to your arbitrary definition of what is or isn't "caserelated". That's not even a technical term in criminology.

So do you have problems understanding it? I explained it to you earlier: directly and factually tied to the case.

VERY arbitraty indeed...

[Harry D]

So do you have problems understanding it? I explained it to you earlier: directly and factually tied to the case.

VERY arbitraty indeed...

Drawing me into an argument that's literally on your own terms? Yes, I have a lot of problems with that.

Bury is factually tied to the case because it's a fact that a) he committed a Ripper-esque crime, and b) was reported to Scotland Yard as a possible suspect. Lechmere found (or was found near) one of the victims. What else you got? Nevermind I've heard it all before.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Whether she was dead or dying,(does it matter),there is no evidence Cross arrived before the injuries to Nichols were made.The name he gave will not alter this.

[drstrange169]

>>Why would I debate with somebody who changes goalposts<<

Example?


>>offers falsehoods as truths<<

Example?


>>cuts away the relevant material to produce a "fact"<<

Example?


>>has a poor understanding of the case as such and habitually answers a question about A with an answer about B? <<

Example?


>>You have placed yourself in trouble before on the other site in this respect too, <<

Trouble? Now this something I REALLY would love to hear about, as I must have missed it!



>>I find it disgusting, and I much prefer to stay away from it.<<

And yet, here you are not “staying away from it”.



>>If you think that adds up to some sort of victory on your behalf, you may need to think again.<<

With this you betray your true purpose, to score points and win victories. That’s why you constantly get caught out, you’re more interested in scoring goals in some game only you play in, rather being more interested in looking for facts.

Speaking of facts:

You wrote,

“I never said he took his old working route TO GONTO PICKFORDS, did I? “

That sentence wasn't true was it? because, in fact you actually wrote,

“It would have stopped any speculation that Lechmere went to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up."

You claimed,

“I also said that he may well have had St Botolphs in mind, where there was prostitution to be had.”

But you didn’t, did you? That was a lie.

You also wrote,

“What I said was that if there had been any evidence that Lechmere was ever called Cross other than at the inquest, it would clear him on the name issue”

But we DO have evidence that "Lechmere was ever called Cross other than at the inquest", it's a census report from 1861 and it in your eyes still does not "clear him on the name issue".

You claimed,

“… the papers remarked that the carman was clothed in working gear, sacking apron and all, whereas the rest of the inquest witnesses were apparently clad in their Sunday best.”

Specifically, where is there ANY evidence that “rest of the inquest witnesses were apparently clad in their Sunday best”?

These are just some of the issues you’ve tried to dodge in this thread alone.

You now seemed to have embarked on a bizarre campaign to somehow besmirch me with nebulous allegations, that you never quite provide detail for. And for good reason, because you can’t actually back them up.

Worse still, they contain even more of your invented nonsense.

In post #219 you wrote,

“I wrote a long list of things that COULD have exonerated the carman, wholly or partly. One point on the list was to point out that if there had been any evidence at all that he ever called himself Cross, officially or unofficially (apart from the inquest business), then there would be no further need to discuss the name issue …”

Let’s look at the post you are referring to (#32) and see what you actually wrote,

“If he had only signed the rest of the official material "Cross".

So no caveats about unofficially, no caveats about the inquest. Realising that there was nothing wrong with my answer to your real question, you had to alter it and deliberately attempt to misled the people reading this thread.

That’s sad.

Lastly, for now, you wrote,

“Instead, you chose to call me a liar and yourself an accomplished researcher.”

I’ll give $100 to a charity of your choice, if you can quote where in this thread where I wrote I was an “accomplished researcher”. If you can’t, why am I not entitled to call you a liar?

Now can we get back to Kattrup intention for this thread, namely that using another name is not an indication of guilt in itself?

[John Wheat]

Fisherman,
Whether she was dead or dying,(does it matter),there is no evidence Cross arrived before the injuries to Nichols were made.The name he gave will not alter this.

Hi Harry. I wouldn't have thought that would be of interest to someone so blinkered.

Cheers John

[John G]

Wow, Abby. I mean ... wow.

Caz, did you read that? Abby also thinks that a killer may want to hide his identity from people.

How very peculiar we reason!

But this assumes that he was the killer in the first place, rather than a witness. Moreover, as discussed previously, he didn't seek to hide his identity as he revealed both his address and place of work, which were then published in the newspaper.


And what about Emma Smith? She was attacked on Wentworth Street, which I believe was also on one of his possible routes to work? Are you now going to suggest that she was also one of his victims? Or does this fact simply illustrate that these sort of coincidences are inevitable when you consider that all of the victims were assaulted in a tiny, densely populated, area?

[drstrange169]

I think a reasonable argument could be made that he might want to hide is identity from the killer or simply didn't want go to court.

Much the same as the example Kattrup noted in his first post with Arthur Dyer's testimony. The Dyer story has close parallels to Robert Paul's complaints to Lloyds Weekly.

But the notion that is actions would hide his identity from his family simply doesn't add up since Xmere gave his home address to the police, he would have no way of knowing if the police would go to his home to check out his story. Plus, of course there is little room for doubt that his wife was very familiar with the "Cross" family connection. After all, she supposedly left one of her daughters with Mrs Cross!

[caz]

I don't know Caz. It doesn't seem too far fetched to me that lech as the killer would use his less well known name to try and keep his more common name out of the public eye and away from family and friends.

Anyone of them could put two and two together and could spell trouble to the killer trying to stay incognito.

Hi Abby,

Do you honestly see, in Lechmere's use of the name Charles Allen Cross, in conjunction with two genuine contact addresses, a ruthless killer's attempt to stay 'incognito'?

It is certainly not evidence that he was the killer, and it is certainly not evidence that Cross was his 'less well known' name, while Lechmere was his 'more common' name.

It's worth repeating that we don't know that Cross wasn't his more common name, with Lechmere reserved strictly for records related to his official status as husband to Mrs Lechmere, father to all the little Lechmeres and as head of this Lechmere household. His role as murder witness could not have been less related to family matters, could it? The only link was that he was on his way to work, where they may well have known him as Charlie Cross and his bosses at the very least knew all about his absence to attend the inquest.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

But this assumes that he was the killer in the first place, rather than a witness. Moreover, as discussed previously, he didn't seek to hide his identity as he revealed both his address and place of work, which were then published in the newspaper.


And what about Emma Smith? She was attacked on Wentworth Street, which I believe was also on one of his possible routes to work? Are you now going to suggest that she was also one of his victims? Or does this fact simply illustrate that these sort of coincidences are inevitable when you consider that all of the victims were assaulted in a tiny, densely populated, area?

Hello JohnG

But this assumes that he was the killer in the first place, rather than a witness.

I was responding to Caz-who was also assuming behavior if he was the killer.

Moreover, as discussed previously, he didn't seek to hide his identity as he revealed both his address and place of work, which were then published in the newspaper.

yes, of course. but perhaps he was trying to hide his identity(and involvement) from family and friends. if the killer-hes simply trying to conceal his involvement from them as they know him and his habits best, and if there was any kind of suspicious behavior, like I don't know-his wife is wondering why hes leaving for work earlier sometimes or getting home later, or comes home with blood on his sleeve after one of the murders-who knows? hes just trying to keep people in the dark as to any involvement/connection at all. Its really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

And what about Emma Smith?

what about her? she was attacked by a gang-so probably not the ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Do you honestly see, in Lechmere's use of the name Charles Allen Cross, in conjunction with two genuine contact addresses, a ruthless killer's attempt to stay 'incognito'?

It is certainly not evidence that he was the killer, and it is certainly not evidence that Cross was his 'less well known' name, while Lechmere was his 'more common' name.

It's worth repeating that we don't know that Cross wasn't his more common name, with Lechmere reserved strictly for records related to his official status as husband to Mrs Lechmere, father to all the little Lechmeres and as head of this Lechmere household. His role as murder witness could not have been less related to family matters, could it? The only link was that he was on his way to work, where they may well have known him as Charlie Cross and his bosses at the very least knew all about his absence to attend the inquest.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Do you honestly see, in Lechmere's use of the name Charles Allen Cross, in conjunction with two genuine contact addresses, a ruthless killer's attempt to stay 'incognito'?

Yes. its a possible explanation. he gives the police just enough truth so hes not seen to be flat out lying, but perhaps not enough for family and friends to find out. Now it may seem like it wouldn't work, but perhaps he thought it would.

It is certainly not evidence that he was the killer, and it is certainly not evidence that Cross was his 'less well known' name, while Lechmere was his 'more common' name.

as far as we know he only used Lechmere name. except this time he used Cross. that's a fact. and why? could be nefarious, could be innocent.
But on record we know he used Lechmere-so lets put that argument to bed.

It's worth repeating that we don't know that Cross wasn't his more common name, with Lechmere reserved strictly for records related to his official status as husband to Mrs Lechmere, father to all the little Lechmeres and as head of this Lechmere household. His role as murder witness could not have been less related to family matters, could it? The only link was that he was on his way to work, where they may well have known him as Charlie Cross and his bosses at the very least knew all about his absence to attend the inquest.

Pretty much agree. IMHO he gave the name Cross because that's what he was known at at work, since he started there when his name was still commonly Cross(probably-but even this we don't know for sure). and his witness involvement was mainly in the context of a carman on his way to work.
But again, without knowing for sure what the true circumstances are regarding his name use-if we want to be totally objective and accurate-the records indicate he used the name Lechmere, except in this instance.
its an anomaly --out of the ordinary--for what we do KNOW for sure.