Cross The Ripper?

[Fisherman]

That´s what I find for the moment, Sleekviper - most of the name-changing articles refer to changing names when wed, and are useless in this discussion. At any rate, Lechmere did NOT change his name. He was always Charles Allen Lechmere, from birth to grave, no exceptions as far as I can see - but for a small matter of a murder ...

The best,
Fisherman

[sleekviper]

Fisherman my friend! It is nice to see you have answered! Ok, now you see what I see; major changes take place after 1888. He is not foreign so that doesn't matter, he is not royalty so that is out, it is before 1936, so that is out, which leaves the privacy act and Philimore and Frye index for his time period that reflect directly on his actions, correct? So unless he has registered with those records, the law says that he can use what name he chooses for whatever reason he decides. Basically if he does anything as Cross, and decides that he will not use that name again, he can register the name Lechmere to prove that he is no longer Cross for those that know him as Cross, whether it is a birth name or not. It would be as if he were born "Smith" on his birth records, goes to work as "James", then gets this deed to show that he is now only "Smith" for the employer and anyone else that would know him as "James". Once that is done, he can not use the "James" name, or any name other than "Smith", but until that time, he can continue to be whichever name that he chooses. Basically he needs to have done more than use both names to be considered odd by law. Has anyone checked to see if he filed?

[Fisherman]

Sleekviper:

"Has anyone checked to see if he filed?"

Couldn´t say, Sleekviper. Be my guest! I only know that he was born Lechmere, baptized Lechmere, wed Lechmere, signed the censuses Lechmere, signed the voting papers Lechmere and died Lechmere.

I find that quite, quite enough, to be honest, to get suspicious about him calling himself "Cross" in connection with a murder case.

If I was to find out that he spent every other year named Cross in the registers, I would admittedly look different upon things - with a look of the utmost surprise if nothing else.

The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

This seems an easy question to answer...and Lynn alluded to it on the first page. Since we have no evidence that leads to a singular conclusion, that being a lone Ripper of the 5 "Canonical" women, the answer at this time would have to be No.

If there ever is a valid confirmation of the myth from anyone, then Ill revisit my vote.

That being said, I believe he is a weak candidate for the single murder he is connected to.

[Sally]

Seems like an opportune time to revisit the Crossmere poll.

Hmm - Still 'No' then?

See, if only we had something more tangible with which to implicate Crossmere....

Then it might be different.

[Lechmere]

Sally
I know you find it hard to contain yourself when it comes to Lechmere, but it's probably worth waiting for the Lechmere magnus opus to appear before conducting one of your polls - which after all are merely the 'Ripperological' version of 'what team do you support'.

[bolo]

Hello Sally, all,

even though I'm quite late to the party, I voted 'improbable', which is a step up from my previous stance on Crossmere ('highly unlikely'). I do have some problems with suspect-based Ripperology but I'm trying (and sometimes struggling) to keep an open mind and will wait for more in-depth results of the research into the matter.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I have a friend whose parents got divorced when he was 12 and he mostly used the surname of his mother (Schlicht). He had a difficult relationship with his biological father at first which improved a lot in later years, this was when he started to use his father's surname (Klos) on various occasions, specially when he had to say his name to someone but didn't really want to get involved with that person. It always seemed a bit strange to me but other than that, Udo is a great bloke. I'm just mentioning this to show those who rate the Cross/Lechmere thing as a sign for his guilt that there are more reasons to use different names than criminological (or even pathological) ones.

Best wishes,

Boris

[Sally]

Hello Sally, all,

even though I'm quite late to the party, I voted 'improbable', which is a step up from my previous stance on Crossmere ('highly unlikely'). I do have some problems with suspect-based Ripperology but I'm trying (and sometimes struggling) to keep an open mind and will wait for more in-depth results of the research into the matter.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I have a friend whose parents got divorced when he was 12 and he mostly used the surname of his mother (Schlicht). He had a difficult relationship with his biological father at first which improved a lot in later years, this was when he started to use his father's surname (Klos) on various occasions, specially when he had to say his name to someone but didn't really want to get involved with that person. It always seemed a bit strange to me but other than that, Udo is a great bloke. I'm just mentioning this to show those who rate the Cross/Lechmere thing as a sign for his guilt that there are more reasons to use different names than criminological (or even pathological) ones.

Best wishes,

Boris

Hi Boris,

Yes, I voted 'improbable' too, all those decades ago (at least it feels like it) when it was first set up. On review, I probably should have included an option for 'Nah, Not a Chance' - but it didn't occur to me at the time

Thanks for the info on modern day name usage. I should think situations like that you describe are quite common. I don't think Crossmere's alleged 'name swop' is significant personally.

It'll take more than that to convince.

[Sally]

Sally
I know you find it hard to contain yourself when it comes to Lechmere, but it's probably worth waiting for the Lechmere magnus opus to appear before conducting one of your polls - which after all are merely the 'Ripperological' version of 'what team do you support'.

Dearest Ed,

Naturally I couldn't resist revisiting my splendid poll - I do like numbers, so reassuring

In fact I merely wondered whether the recent glut of Crossmere threads had tipped the balance in your favour; but it would seem not.

I do hope your Magnus opus will bring more to the party than the conjectural hyperbole that we've seen so far.

Please tell me it'll be so.

[Lechmere]

It'll be so

[Barnaby]

In fairness, this poll has been open for some time and many voted before the debate got red hot. Perhaps some may have changed their minds but can't vote again.

[Sally]

Hi Barnaby,

In fairness, this poll has been open for some time and many voted before the debate got red hot. Perhaps some may have changed their minds but can't vote again.

In fact, most voted when the debate was ‘red hot’ a couple of years ago – which is when I set up the poll. The number of respondents is large for a Casebook poll, which tells you that a lot of people had formed a view on the matter at the time and voted accordingly. But fair enough – have people changed their minds since then? Let’s see.

For a start, the arguments put forward for Crossmere’s candidacy are exactly the same as they were then: if most were unconvinced in 2012, you’d expect the same people to feel the same way now, given the same arguments and the same set of facts with which to form an opinion.

On the basis of the arguments currently being put forward by its supporters, the Crossmere theory hasn’t evolved since then. The current glut of threads devoted to the matter amount almost entirely to repetition of conversations held when Crossmere was proposed as the Ripper by the self-styled ‘Team Lechmere’.

The same objections, concerns and reservations raised by a number of posters in 2012 on this forum [and also on JtrForums] are currently being raised by new and different posters.

This is revealing, because the response from the Crossmere supporters to counterarguments has generally been that they are made primarily by either:

‘The Old Guard’ – an undefined group of Ripperologists who purportedly cling with dogged determination to a fixed and outmoded view of the Whitechapel Murders; in which the perpetrator must either be a contemporary police suspect, a well-dressed bloke sporting an opera cape, or both – and who will resist to the point of near death the idea that an ‘ordinary’ bloke could have done such terrible things.

Those who allegedly ’favoured’ another suspect and thus had an ‘agenda’ for arguing against Crossmere – i.e. everybody who couldn’t be placed in the ‘Old Guard’ group because they hadn’t been around for long enough.

What a counterargument simply cannot be [apparently] is a genuine, considered response to weak theorising.

Now, of course, we’re seeing a bit of a Crossmere Renassiance, in which a group of posters who didn’t participate in the earlier threads are coming up with exactly the same set of counterarguments. What motives do they have for doubting Crossmere The Ripper?

Is it in fact the case that the candidacy of Crossmere is fundamentally flawed? Could that be why so many voted as they did in this poll; and why, when first presented with the theory, most people respond with similar doubts?

It matters only to a limited extent - there are plenty of weak suspects around, Crossmere is certainly not the worst. I should think he'll convince the unversed - no doubt - especially with a suspect book on the way. The public are ever eager for a scandalous tale.

Otherwise? I think it might have been Lynn who referred to the Crossmere theory amounting to ‘smoke and mirrors’ - yep, smoke and mirrors spinning really, really quickly.

Sadly, once it stops spinning and you try to take hold of it, it comes apart in your hands - Rather like candyfloss: Looks big at first glance and is superficially sweet and sticky - but ultimately unpleasantly cloying and of little real substance.

[Lechmere]

Blimey Sally, if I didn't know you better I would say it is infatuation.

[GUT]

G'day Sally

- there are plenty of weak suspects around, Crossmere is certainly not the worst.

But that can be said about a multitude of suspects, can it not?

[Natasha]

I don't think Cross was the ripper.

He would have had blood on him, and knowing this he would of agreed to pick up the body, then this would be a good enough reason for having blood on him if he had to explain to anyone suspicious of him