Cross The Ripper?

[Fisherman]

By and large, Monty, I think that depends on WHOSE rules we are speaking of. Rules that allow for other names than your real one to be passed off as equally viable as a correct name, and that tells me that nameswops are unsuspicious ... nah.

Goodnight Monty.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Family Fortunes

In Ripperologist 126 Christer invited us to consider the evidence for Cross/Lechmere as a witness and for Cross/Lechmere as the Ripper.

"Our Survey Said":

10.2% of those who have responded to the question posed by this thread are of the view that he is a 'very likely' candidate (to be the Ripper). The remaining 89.8% are spread between 'possible', 'improbable' and 'highly unlikely'. It would seem that, despite the author's best efforts to persuade us otherwise, the overwhelming majority find the case for Cross/Lechmere as the Ripper to be unconvincing.

I'll stick with my original vote ('possible') which I think fairly reflects the known facts.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Christer, Lechmere,

P olice
I nvent
C razy
K osminski
F orming
O riginal
R einvented
D ead
S uspect

Police
Incoherence
Cross
Kills
False
Orthonym
Reveals
Detecting
Slip-ups

Ho hum.

Best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

murderers often return to bodies and if caught there claim to have just found the body.

Hi Raven,

Can you give any specific examples of this phenomenon?

If a husband or wife is killed, the surviving spouse tops the suspect list.

Generally speaking, this is true.

A murdered child's parents will certainly be suspected.

Sometimes they are suspected, but frequently not.

The reasons for Cross' suspicion are very grounded in reality.

As the Rip article acknowledges it very much depends how you view the evidence. If you start with a presumption of guilt, he looks guilty. If you start with a presumption of innocence (as a court of law is required to do) he looks innocent.

That said, proof must still be found before going from suspect to perpetrator.

Absolutely.

Bottom line: Strong suspect.

"Middle of the Road" suspect for me.

Guilt still unestablished by known facts.

Undoubtedly true. Guilt has not been established.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'll stick with my original vote ('possible') which I think fairly reflects the known facts.

Yes, possible in the way that it's equally as possible that Robert Paul and PC Lamb were the Ripper. Not more, not less.

I've noticed two things about the boards lately - lots of 'Cross as Ripper' threads, and not lots of actually viable discussion threads. It made me think of how hair gets caught in your tub drain and everything just slows down for a while. Charles Cross - the poor bastard - is that hair at the moment. But props to Fish and Lechmere for taking a non-starter suspect and getting more international press - without so much as a book to promote! - than Rob House was able to get publishing a great book on a real suspect. They have proven, as Trevor did before them, and Tumblety long before that, that generating publicity is truly a skill in which not everyone is equally endowed. Of course, I'm not the first to suggest that a Swede wasn't equally endowed, but I digress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sleekviper]

Well has anyone seen a deed of name change for Cross?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Sleek, there are a few...

Charles Lechmere

to Charles Cross

Charles Cross

to Red Herring

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[sleekviper]

I mean one of those deed poll documents. If he never had it done, not really much ado about the name. It seems in Naming Laws that there really is not many laws. Was looking on a law site, someone asks what to do when wanting to change a name: "Q: What do I have to do?
A: In general, you can just change your name. Just decide on, and start using the new name. In strict law that is all that is necessary. No formality is necessary. That said … people often choose to obtain a deed which will provide evidence of that change of name.
If you are changing your name now, we can prepare a deed for this purpose. If you are marking the change after it has been in effect for some time, the better way is to use a statutory declaration. Again, we can prepare one."
I thought it was a joke, so went to FindLaw UK and they said:"Once you have decided on a name, you can start using it and telling people about it straight away."
Now, if he did have a deed poll name change, it may matter. Then it comes with rules;"A Deed Poll for a change of name contains three declarations and by executing the Deed Poll (signing, dating and having your signing witnessed) you are committing yourself to:
Abandoning the use of your former name;
Using your new name only at all times;
Requiring all persons to address you by your new name only. " So doesn't he need a deed to appear sinister by law?

[mariab]

Hi Sleek, there are a few...

Charles Lechmere
to Charles Cross

Charles Cross
to Red Herring

LOL.

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"10.2% of those who have responded to the question posed by this thread are of the view that he is a 'very likely' candidate (to be the Ripper). The remaining 89.8% are spread between 'possible', 'improbable' and 'highly unlikely'. "

Oh, well, if a survey says that I am wrong, then that will probably be the case, of course. Itīs much the same as Galilei and the flat world, I guess - and Galilei DID adjust to the demands of the vast majority.

Did you notice, Colin - just as an aside - that 100 per cent think it is possible that Lechmere was the Ripper ...? There is hope!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom W:

"Charles Lechmere

to Charles Cross

Charles Cross

to Red Herring"

See, even Tom has got the hang of it - one true and two false names.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sleekviper:

"It seems in Naming Laws that there really is not many laws. Was looking on a law site, someone asks what to do when wanting to change a name: "Q: What do I have to do?
A: In general, you can just change your name. Just decide on, and start using the new name. In strict law that is all that is necessary. No formality is necessary. That said … people often choose to obtain a deed which will provide evidence of that change of name.
If you are changing your name now, we can prepare a deed for this purpose. If you are marking the change after it has been in effect for some time, the better way is to use a statutory declaration. Again, we can prepare one."

Yes, Sleek, this is exactly how it works today. In the olden days, it was not quite that easy, though.

But anyhow, letīs assume that Lechmere lived in our day. Then he could ask to have another name ascribed to his identity, and legally, it would pose no troubles. Of course, if he wished to call himself Bruce Springsteen, then that would be troublesome, since the authorities will be restrictive by allowing for such things. The same applies to offending names and names of a sexually implicit character etc.

But Charles Cross is a name that no authoritites would deny our man - he could easily change to that. Trouble is, after that change, Charles Lechmere would no longer be his true name. It would be a false name. You can only have the one. That is why the coppers from my example had one name and one name only registered for each villain in the fingerprints register.

And we actually know that Lechmere did not change his name (and I am not sure he would have been allowed to back in 1888 - my guess is that he would have been denied this, but I digress ...), and so we therefore also know that Charles Cross was not his true name. And names that are not true names are ... guess what ... wait for it ... YES: false names!

So interesting as your post may be, it has no relevance in this case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"As the Rip article acknowledges it very much depends how you view the evidence. If you start with a presumption of guilt, he looks guilty. If you start with a presumption of innocence (as a court of law is required to do) he looks innocent."

I took care to present BOTH perspectives, yes. But letīs keep in mind when we speak of a court of law, that Lechmereīs case was never tried in such a court. He attended an inquest only, and that inquest was not as well informed as we are about a number of things. Therefore I would suggest that IF a case was brought against Lechmere - and it would not have happened unless the prosecution saw a chance to get him convicted, of course, so this is strictly theoretical - then it would be interesting to see what happened when it was found out that he gave the wrong name.
Likewise, if time was allowed to pass, and if the court knew where the murders had occurred AND his route to work AND the times he used it, that too would have been interesting to see how it was handled.
If they had dug into the conversation between Lechmere and Mizen - which had little bearing on how she died, which was what the inquest sought to answer - then what had perspired?
If somebody had noticed that the clothing was pulled down over the wounds BEFORE Paul did his bit - what reactions would that evoke?
If they had known that he had only just moved into the area when the murders began?

A court works from the presumtion that a person is not guilty as long as this person cannot be proven guilty. But that does not mean that a court of law is a congregation of nitwits. They may well think one thing, and deliver another verdict. In this case, knowing only what we know, the verdict could only have been one - not guilty. But if the case had been properly researched by the police, we could have had a lot more evidence on the table before the prosecution superiorly smiled at him and said "Come here mr Cross - or is it Lechmere?"

The best
Fisherman

[Sally]

Blither Blather...

Oh, well, if a survey says that I am wrong, then that will probably be the case, of course. Itīs much the same as Galilei and the flat world, I guess - and Galilei DID adjust to the demands of the vast majority.

You're comparing yourself to Gallileo now?

I do hope you're not that delusional.

Did you notice, Colin - just as an aside - that 100 per cent think it is possible that Lechmere was the Ripper ...? There is hope!

Well, Fisherman, that would be because I set up the poll to reflect degrees of opinion with the understanding that we could not be absolutely certain at this remove. There are thus no absolutes in this poll, as I explained to you at the very beginning of this thread. We could have had a Lewis-style poll, couldn't we - i.e. 'Did Sarah Lewis Lie?' (one of your previous contentions) Yes? or No?. Remember? The poll you claimed was invalid

But I thought I'd give the voting readership the opportunity to express their conviction - which they have. Numbers speak for themselves - and everybody knows it, I'm afraid.

[Sally]

Yes, possible in the way that it's equally as possible that Robert Paul and PC Lamb were the Ripper. Not more, not less.

I've noticed two things about the boards lately - lots of 'Cross as Ripper' threads, and not lots of actually viable discussion threads. It made me think of how hair gets caught in your tub drain and everything just slows down for a while. Charles Cross - the poor bastard - is that hair at the moment. But props to Fish and Lechmere for taking a non-starter suspect and getting more international press - without so much as a book to promote! - than Rob House was able to get publishing a great book on a real suspect. They have proven, as Trevor did before them, and Tumblety long before that, that generating publicity is truly a skill in which not everyone is equally endowed. Of course, I'm not the first to suggest that a Swede wasn't equally endowed, but I digress.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Entirely agree Tom. There have been other 'suspects' who dominated the boards at one time or another, of course - and where are they now? 5 minute wonder, I shouldn't wonder.

I mean, We were all talking about Vincent Van Gogh a little while ago...