Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cross was the name given under oath.It was the name used at the time to identify a person who found a body.Why not use it?

    The name Lechmere was introduced to try and justify that Cross was a lier.That came unstuck by the fact that Cross properly and legally identified himself by giving his address,occupation and place of work,so there was no intent to deceive.

    The geographical aspect is another non starter.If the police of that time considered such a fact to be of importance,then a qualifier would be any person with a nominal knowledge of the murder sites.I'm sure that would be a great number of persons. Whether they(the police)would then sift to find the person with the greatest potential, and name that person the number one suspect,is a laughable supposition,but something along those lines is being tried here.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Monty View Post
      99% of suspect theories are built on speculation and subjective opinion.
      True, but those opinions must be sensible and practical. It's when one ignores practicalities, taking one speculation and heaping more upon it, that we run into problems.
      It’s how the case shall be solved.
      Not if the starting-point, and subsequent arguments, are flawed to begin with. So, for example, a firm belief that the Ripper was also responsible for the 1873 Battersea Torso isn't goint to solve anything. On the contrary, such supposition constrains one's thinking right from the get-go.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • A lot has been said about the Police not knowing about Geo profiling [apologies if this point should be on the other thread], while that is true up to a point, they did have knowledge of the streets and the area [more, certainly than we do today]. This is what Anderson said - One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to know he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders. Is it so hard to disagree with him?
        Also in a reply to a previous post I made about Cross turning up for work after the Double murder Fish replied that it was a Sunday and he doubted he would be working that morning. So what was he doing in Mitre Square? And what was he doing hanging around for half an hour if Pc long is to be believed? After Berner St if he wanted to kill again why not head back northwards maybe towards Doveton St or Cambridge Heath Rd areas he would know well [since he once lived there], closer to home yet still far enough away from were he now resided.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          Cross was the name given under oath.It was the name used at the time to identify a person who found a body.Why not use it?

          The name Lechmere was introduced to try and justify that Cross was a lier.That came unstuck by the fact that Cross properly and legally identified himself by giving his address,occupation and place of work,so there was no intent to deceive.

          The geographical aspect is another non starter.If the police of that time considered such a fact to be of importance,then a qualifier would be any person with a nominal knowledge of the murder sites.I'm sure that would be a great number of persons. Whether they(the police)would then sift to find the person with the greatest potential, and name that person the number one suspect,is a laughable supposition,but something along those lines is being tried here.
          The man's name was Charles Allen Lechmere. How can it be claimed that his real name was 'introduced' to justify him as a liar? That's who he was.

          My take on why he may have deliberately withheld the name is probably different from Christer's. I think it may have been the name itself he was defending.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
            A lot has been said about the Police not knowing about Geo profiling [apologies if this point should be on the other thread], while that is true up to a point, they did have knowledge of the streets and the area [more, certainly than we do today]. This is what Anderson said - One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to know he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders. Is it so hard to disagree with him?
            Also in a reply to a previous post I made about Cross turning up for work after the Double murder Fish replied that it was a Sunday and he doubted he would be working that morning. So what was he doing in Mitre Square? And what was he doing hanging around for half an hour if Pc long is to be believed? After Berner St if he wanted to kill again why not head back northwards maybe towards Doveton St or Cambridge Heath Rd areas he would know well [since he once lived there], closer to home yet still far enough away from were he now resided.
            I'm confused, Darryl. Are you implying he wasn't living in Doveton Street at the time of the Eddowes murder?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
              We're all unique, Neil.
              Some more than others Gary.

              The research you cite is interesting. I assume similar was done for inquest hearings, yes?

              There would be valid reasoning as to why Cross did not announce his aka. To infer guilt from such an act is a leap to say the least.

              Monty




              Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

              http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

              Comment


              • One of my objections to Lechmere is the idea of him killing on his route to work. It far more difficult to accept Crow killing pretty much on his own doorstep.
                Regards

                Herlock






                "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  You know i was thinking it would be very odd, and rare, if crow as the killer, would murder on his front door step. But many serial killers start with a trigger kill so perhaps if he was the killer it was unplanned and therefore explains the anomalie of killing too close to home.
                  What it seems like is that JtR is murdering away from the hot zone to draw attention away from this area and to distract attention from the hot zone.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    I'm confused, Darryl. Are you implying he wasn't living in Doveton Street at the time of the Eddowes murder?
                    Sorry, my mistake I should have put killed on his way back home nearer Doveton St from Berner St IE Heading northwards instead of westward to Aldgate.
                    I was wondering did Cross have any connection to Mitre Square area at all? Were he would feel comfortable killing in that area rather than the Betnal Green district.

                    Comment


                    • I would like to add that it is a Half hour walk from Mitre Square to Doveton St. Seems a bit of a distance to traverse with a knife and organs on your person. Whereas it is only just ten mins to Flower and Dean St.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                        Some more than others Gary.

                        The research you cite is interesting. I assume similar was done for inquest hearings, yes?

                        There would be valid reasoning as to why Cross did not announce his aka. To infer guilt from such an act is a leap to say the least.

                        Monty
                        I can't recall who posted the research. It's on here somewhere, I'll see if I can find it.

                        It's possible that CAL thought giving evidence at an inquest was a less formal affair than registering his kids at school etc etc etc, but I doubt it. You're a man who might know these things through personal experience, are people who would feel obliged to give their real names in a court of law more relaxed about things at an inquest, happy to give any old street name to a coroner?

                        I have no problem with the idea that he may have obtained his job at Pickfords as Charles Cross, but would he still have been using the name almost two decades after his stepfather had died? Were the kids known as Cross at home and Lechmere at school?

                        I wouldn't necessarily infer guilt from his unwillingness to associate his name with the sordid murder of a prostitute in a Whitechapel back street. Rather an unwillingness to associate his honourable name with such an event.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                          Sorry, my mistake I should have put killed on his way back home nearer Doveton St from Berner St IE Heading northwards instead of westward to Aldgate.
                          I was wondering did Cross have any connection to Mitre Square area at all? Were he would feel comfortable killing in that area rather than the Betnal Green district.
                          Well, his route to work from STGITE would probably have taken him in that direction. I believe that's Fish's thinking.

                          Also, although CAL said he had worked for Pickfords for over 20 years, he didn't say he had worked exclusively out of the Broad Street depot, and in his earlier years with the firm they also operated out of the Haydon Square depot, which was close by Mitre Square. I once found a list of the Pickfords Haydon Square cricket team (1860s). Sadly there was no Cross or Lechmere on it. Possibly as an H Div. cop living just north of Cable Street, Thomas Cross may have been better known at Haydon Square than at Broad Street in the City?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                            Well, his route to work from STGITE would probably have taken him in that direction. I believe that's Fish's thinking.
                            I take your point but Fish when replying to me about a post I put saying I doubted Cross would turn up at work straight after a double murder [and the reasons why], he said that it was a Sunday thus likely that he wouldn't be at work.

                            Comment


                            • Bottom line is Fish cannot have it both ways saying heading westward after Berner St would take him towards his employment [and also the times involved], but when you disagree with him with the thought that people would notice him clocking in after Nichols, Chapman, and then the double event. "Would you credit it Charlie, two more women have been murdered not long after you clock in, just like the previous murders", by saying its a Sunday so he would not be on his way to work. Which is it?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                                Rest assured. I shall answer as I please. No permission from you is required.

                                And as I’m about to go on duty, my response shall indeed be brief.

                                Your need to drag an incident up from many years ago is, again, quite telling. It has nothing to do with biased opinion in relation to Cross as a suspect but more to do with my opinion on yourself, and the way you mispresent your so called evidence.

                                It is true I was highly critical of your trip, as I was unaware that the event was a charity fundraiser. It wasn’t I tell Ed pointed that fact out, that I was indeed aware. I note you have omitted the fact I apologised at the time, and that I have promoted subsequent events upon my Facebook page and elsewhere, with the latest being Lucky Dogs play about that awful disaster some months back.

                                It is this skewered presentation that does Cross as a suspect no good.

                                Sadly, you seemed to have not learnt a thing in how to present your theory in the year I have been away.

                                Fake history repeating.

                                Monty
                                Fake history? Hardly. Thats how history is done monty. You interpret and analyze events. Fish is interpreting the events a certain way, a way in which points to lechmere as being a likely candidate for the ripper. He hasnt fabricated any facts.
                                He hasnt declared the case is proven. He just siad he thinks lech is the ripper and stated why. Whats wrong with that.

                                Ill tell you what Fake history is —-its when you falsely accuse someone of something. Apologizing is good, but the damage is already done.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X