Cross The Ripper?

[Lechmere]

Yres and I'm sure that the 12 year old Charles Lechmere knew that his step father had filled in the census form that way in 1861.

If he had called himself Roulston then would that be OK. That was his mother's maiden name. He had a connection to that through his mother didn't he.
The use of the name Cross can have obscured who he was.
He was very much involved in the discovery of a viciously murdered woman.
But hey-ho.

[Monty]

Treading over old ground Ed,

He gave a name connected to him, and connected for over 20 years.

Had it been a completely unconnected name then I'd agree you have a point. However he chose Cross, the name of his stepfather.

He truly was a cunning killer.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty
And what is the ‘legal’ definition of the truth so far as Charles Lechmere’s name is concerned?
His ‘legal’ name was Charles Allen Lechmere.
Lechmere was the name he used for his family and everyone of his blood used for his family name in every single known record. There are about 90 such records as he was clearly a meticulous, one might say anal, kind of bloke.
The range of records that make up that 90 includes a wide range of authorities.
Birth records, Death records, Baptismal records, Marriage records, including being the witness, census records, electoral records, the post office directory, school rolls, his will, funeral records, cemetery records.
Everywhere Lechmere.
He is listed as Cross in a census entry which is in any case riddled with errors. A census entry that his step father will have compiled.
Then this meticulous bloke turns up at a police station after finding a murdered victim and calls himself Cross. And because the police don’t find out that his true name was Lechmere, or perhaps were unconcerned whether he gave his true name or not, then somehow Cross became his true legal name?
An interesting outlook.

[Phil H]

I long ago gave up having specific suspects, Monty. I think the last I "championed" was Druitt back in the 70s.

There is insufficient "evidence" ( I think I prefer the word material on balance) to make a real case against anyone.

If I have a view, it is (I suppose) that the killer - and I have doubts about some of the canonicals being JtR's work) of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, plus possibly McKenzie, was someone of the ilk of "Kosminski" - a poor local man.

I have a sort of mental - actually in part physical - matrix of names and victims/factors against which I review new material as it emerges, or reassessments of old "facts". I'll simply say that with L/C I find he ticks quite a few boxes.

Back in about 1972, when I started to look into the case seriously, I looked for clues in each murder. I never then questioned the first people who's names I read, one of which was Cross (interesting that for so long there was confusion over his first name too) as being a possible suspect!! I just feel it would be strange if it turned out that there was more to L/C than meets the eye.

Curious's interesting post shows how much sopeculation id needed to justify his using a name which was not that by which he went day-to-day.

Phil H

[Monty]

And which suspect do you think i am pushing, Monty?

No idea Phil, wasn't referring to you specifically.

Monty

[curious]

And I have explained why I think it was misleading - deliberately so.

We'll have to differ. You obviously entertain a different interpretation of "truth" to that which I hold.

Phil H

Ah, the name thing.

It has been established that C/L went to work for Pickford's while his stepfather was still alive. I personally know a number of people who are sometimes called by the household name -- even had someone give me her children's names as her maiden name (to which she had reverted during a divorce) during an interview and story although they went by their father's name at school.

Now, we do not know how C/L ended up at the inquest dressed in his work clothes.

To me, the simplest answer was that somehow on that Monday morning he was located and informed he should attend the inquest. We have no idea where he may have been found -- by a PC on his beat, even someone checking with companies like Pickford's to see if one of their employees had been the person who discovered the body.

We don't know, but this would explain the work clothes and I believe would also be a reasonable explanation for the name he gave. I would speculate that he thought far less about it than various people on these boards have.

Now, just to be plain: I find Cross/Lechmere very interesting and I am very glad he is being thoroughly explored.

However, to my way of thinking, there are some very big obstacles.

To me the biggest one is that his life was so incredibly stable -- at work and at home.

I have been looking at known serial killers and have not found any example of one even close to C/L for stability. If one has a stable marriage, then the employment history is unstable, and vice versa.

I haven't been shown any kind of believable stressor for the killings starting and stopping.

At this point, I simply do not believe C/L was a killer. I will of course welcome any new finds and could possibly be persuaded, but at the moment -- I don't think he killed anyone.

curious

[Phil H]

And which suspect do you think i am pushing, Monty?

[Monty]

Obviously,

I hold to the legal definition as opposed to the unsupported one used often on this site by those pushing a suspect.

Monty

[Phil H]

And I have explained why I think it was misleading - deliberately so.

We'll have to differ. You obviously entertain a different interpretation of "truth" to that which I hold.

Phil H

[Monty]

The name is neither false or a sign of guilt. Its only those things to they who try to promote Cross as a suspect and is pure speculation.

Not the question asked - I was asked why I said he had lied and I cited my reason.

Giving a false name to a policeman may nor may not be a sign of guilt.

On the other hand, whether he had a claim to it or not, the name Cross does not appear to be the one under which he normally lived. Giving another name could obviously mislead and as the recipient of the "alias" was a policeman, i find that indicative of something.

Using a screen name as an alternative to one's own, on Casebook, might be acceptable. Giving a misleading name to the authorities after finding a murder victim, I find to be lying.

I am neither seeking to promote L/C as a suspect or not (though I think he is worthy of thorough investigation) but I could equally call your playing with words, "prevarication".

Edited to add that what interpretation would you place on a major suspect in a murder investigation (say Sutcliffe, or Hanratty) who was shown to have given a false name when first questioned?

Phil H

Im fully aware of what question was asked, I asked it.

Im stating that the answer you gave is no indication that he lied. The name is not a false one.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Bridewell
If you take a glance at newspaper reports of the inquests - as I know you do - you will notice all sorts of inconsistencies and inaccuracies as the reporter is rapidly writing in shorthand - which has to be deciphered afterwards. The reporter will be unfamiliar with personal names, street names and often the detail of the case - they have to join up the dots as best they can.
Not that much has changed in the world of journalism. Many newspaper interviews as snatched over mobile phones that pass in and out of signal while the interviewee is perhaps driving (naughty) or walking about and wasnt 'prepared' for a formal interview.
Bearing this in mind and given the lack of knowledge about the Ripper case that understandably nearly all reporters will have, the Telegraph report seems
fairly accurate to me.

There seems to be a lot of sour grapes around here at the moment.

[Phil H]

The name is neither false or a sign of guilt. Its only those things to they who try to promote Cross as a suspect and is pure speculation.

Not the question asked - I was asked why I said he had lied and I cited my reason.

Giving a false name to a policeman may nor may not be a sign of guilt.

On the other hand, whether he had a claim to it or not, the name Cross does not appear to be the one under which he normally lived. Giving another name could obviously mislead and as the recipient of the "alias" was a policeman, i find that indicative of something.

Using a screen name as an alternative to one's own, on Casebook, might be acceptable. Giving a misleading name to the authorities after finding a murder victim, I find to be lying.

I am neither seeking to promote L/C as a suspect or not (though I think he is worthy of thorough investigation) but I could equally call your playing with words, "prevarication".

Edited to add that what interpretation would you place on a major suspect in a murder investigation (say Sutcliffe, or Hanratty) who was shown to have given a false name when first questioned?

Phil H

[Monty]

And so the misleading continues.

Isn't giving the police the name "Cross" - when it is clear that he was known as Lechmere in every other circumstance we know of - lying?

My apologies for the spelling mistake.

Phil H

Not at all.

It was a name used in connection with him perviously. Now if he used Smith, Jones, Mandela you'd have a point.

The name is neither false or a sign of guilt. Its only those things to they who try to promote Cross as a suspect and is pure speculation.

Monty

[Phil H]

Isn't giving the police the name "Cross" - when it is clear that he was known as Lechmere in every other circumstance we know of - lying?

My apologies for the spelling mistake.

Phil H

[Monty]

"And yet some of us remain lukewarm or even cole (sic) about a liar found standing over the still warm body of a Ripper victim when there is no clear evidence that he was either investigated or exhonerated at the time. I find that attitude amazing."

A liar?

Can you cite the evidence he lied Phil? I'd like to see it.

Monty