Charles Cross

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi, Mr Lucky.

Thanks for that. Haven't seen that one.
However, "when i saw a man standing where the woman was" is a much vaguer statement than saying that he saw Cross standing directly by the body or leaning over it. It is certainly not the same thing.

And of course, I would rather rely on what he said under oath during the inquest rather than what he stated to a newspaper and a Lloyd's representative anyway.

All the best

[Mr Lucky]

And of course, I would rather rely on what he said under oath during the inquest rather than what he stated to a newspaper and a Lloyd's representative anyway.

Hi Glenn

Here's two of my favourites from the 'Paul under oath' folder -

'He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not.’ - St James Gazette 18th Sept. 1888

‘He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing.’ - Daily news 18th Sept. 1888

Best wishes

[Monty]

Hi, Mr Lucky.

Thanks for that. Haven't seen that one.
However, "when i saw a man standing where the woman was" is a much vaguer statement than saying that he saw Cross standing directly by the body or leaning over it. It is certainly not the same thing.

And of course, I would rather rely on what he said under oath during the inquest rather than what he stated to a newspaper and a Lloyd's representative anyway.

All the best

Good to see you back Glenn,

Monty

[Fisherman]

Glenn:

"I have been away from the Ripper scene for quite a while, so bear with me - new material may have come up since I last buried myself into the case - but I am a bit puzzled by a couple of Edward Stowes cited claims in The Telegraph:

"He was seen crouching over Polly Nichols and he was trying to cover up some of the wounds."
[...]
"Paul claimed he had seen Cross standing by the body of Nichols when he had arrived but Cross later told police he had been standing away from the body in the road.""

Let΄s take it from the beginning, Glenn: a warm welcome back to the boards!! We need to get together and have a beer as soon as possible!

Then, on to the two quotations; where is the source? Well, I΄d say probably on the office of the Daily Telegraph. Just like you say, nowhere is it on print that Lechmere (I prefer to call him that, and not Cross) was ever crouching over the body. In Paul΄s initial contact with the press, he says that Lechmere was standing "where the body was", and subsequently it is spoken of the middle of the road. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that it matters little if it was one, two or five yards - it still allows for him having done the deed and backed off as he noticed Robert Paul.

The Telegraph also got the name wrong ("Latchmere") just as they missed out on the fact that the Stride killing was NOT something that happened along Lechmere΄s route to work. These things will happen every now and then, and I can say that there was a very large and sudden haste since the reporter could not open the documents we had sent over, meaning that there was a very hasty interview made over the phone, in direct connection with the event in St Johns.

But never mind that - let΄s get together over a beer, and I will fill in the gaps in all of this. Just like you say, Lechmere has been a suspect for a number of years, mainly owing to Michael Connor΄s research - but more has been added, much more, and if I am not very much mistaken, there are further developments ahead.

All the best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Just like you say, nowhere is it on print that Lechmere (I prefer to call him that, and not Cross) was ever crouching over the body. In Paul΄s initial contact with the press, he says that Lechmere was standing "where the body was", and subsequently it is spoken of the middle of the road. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that it matters little if it was one, two or five yards - it still allows for him having done the deed and backed off as he noticed Robert Paul.

Absolutely, I agree, and I think it is a reasonable assumption.
So I am not disputing that. What worries me a bit is your co-writer is cited saying very clear and definitive things like
"He was seen crouching over Polly Nichols and he was trying to cover up some of the wounds."
[...]
"Paul claimed he had seen Cross standing by the body of Nichols when he had arrived but Cross later told police he had been standing away from the body in the road."
And stating them like they were facts, when in fact they are not and - as I understand - only personal interpretations.

Those things stated above in the interview are a very long way from "standing where the body was" which could mean anything, and of course there is no evidence at all that he was leaning over the body although he most certainly could have been before Robert Paul arrived.

Now, I have myself personal experience from journalists twisting your words beyond recognition, but the statements from Edward Stowe are still remarkable.

However, once again I must stress , that I much rather prefer to rely on what a witness says under oath during an inquest than what he says to a newspaper reporter in the initial stage. There can be no question, as far as source criticism is concerned, that the description he gave during the inquest that Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road" is a more credible source and reliable piece of information.

But again, this doesn't in any way dispute Lechmere's candidacy for Jack the Ripper or that things could have happened as described. I just think Stowe went too far in his statements by presenting these things like facts, even though I personally may agree with the interpretation as such.

But never mind that - let΄s get together over a beer, and I will fill in the gaps in all of this. Just like you say, Lechmere has been a suspect for a number of years, mainly owing to Michael Connor΄s research - but more has been added, much more, and if I am not very much mistaken, there are further developments ahead.

Indeed we must, Fisherman.

All the best
/Glenn

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Monty, and thanks.
Not really a real comeback, though. Just that this development got me a bit curios. I am myself quite a supporter of the Cross/Lechmere idea and since I know Fisherman personally it brought it all back to me a bit.

Hope all is well with you and the others.
Sorry I can't make to the conference this time either but again, it's a money issue. Would love to be there and see many of you again.

Cheers
/Glenn

[Lechmere]

Hi Glenn
I don’t think you shouldn’t get hung up over a loose word here or there.
Journalists are not experts in the case – most know nothing at all and try to put a story together quickly and based on partial information and then have to decipher their own short hand.
Also a charity occasion, such as that which sparked the interest in the Lechmere theory, will necessarily involve people in the organisation and promotion of the event who might be very keen, well meaning and helpful, yet unaware that every little detail of a press release would be dissected by ‘Ripper enthusiasts’ (if that is the right term).

The fact that this theory was trending on the internet shows that there is widespread interest in this field of study and people should be gratified about that.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Glenn
I don’t think you shouldn’t get hung up over a loose word here or there.
Journalists are not experts in the case – most know nothing at all and try to put a story together quickly and based on partial information and then have to decipher their own short hand.
Also a charity occasion, such as that which sparked the interest in the Lechmere theory, will necessarily involve people in the organisation and promotion of the event who might be very keen, well meaning and helpful, yet unaware that every little detail of a press release would be dissected by ‘Ripper enthusiasts’ (if that is the right term).

The fact that this theory was trending on the internet shows that there is widespread interest in this field of study and people should be gratified about that.

Hi Lech
I saw the articles on the internet-Congrats for the recognition to you and Fish. They mentioned two authors-Christer who i know is Fish, but also Edward Stow? Is that you and your real name?

[Lechmere]

Real name? You ask about real names in a Charles Cross/Lechmere thread?

[Abby Normal]

Real name? You ask about real names in a Charles Cross/Lechmere thread?

HaHa-yes. But just dont tell me your real name is Cross!

[Lechmere]

I shall have to dig out my birth certificate and check

[martin wilson]

Perhaps not entirely relevant but consider John Williams.
Not the Dr John Williams who appears on Casebooks' suspect board but John Williams of 65 Dorchester road,Canklow,Rotherham.
Which is the name and address given by Peter Sutcliffe when he was arrested in Sheffield.
If nothing else it proves that when it comes to odd coincidences,the ripper case is unbeatable.
(source Wicked Beyond Belief by Micheal Bilton)
All the best.

[Geddy2112]

I've been doing a lot of reading recently to try and formulate exactly how the Cross/Lechmere story started and when it exactly got media traction. Also when Christer and Edward jumped onto it and more importantly why. I know of articles in the Ripperoligist 2000 onwards and I did find the Telegraph article from 2012.

16-2-2008 - Cross exposed as Lechmere. So Christer knew about the name thing and months later still said Cross was NOT JtR on more than one occasion. So is it fair to assume it was not the initial outing of Cross as Lechmere that was the turning point.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/lechmere-cross-charles/485-viability-of-charles-cross-as-the-ripper

Post #2 - Christer is anti Cross - 31-3-2008

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/lechmere-cross-charles/1279-charles-cross#post55352

Post #4 - Christer is anti Cross - 05-8-2008

I did post the Daily Telegraph article recently to the Facebook group to ask if that is where it began but instead it turned into a thread about how Ed was misquoted (four times apparently) and him claiming there was an old thread here where he denounces the Daily Telegraph. After a lot of searching it appears that this is that thread, although I'm not reading much denouncing. Is there another thread?

Funny how all this misquoting always seems to add bias to Lechmere as being guilty and never points to Lechmere being innocent. I mean what are the odds on that. Also what are the odds on the Daily Telegraph making the exact same errors as the Missing Evidence did? Astonishing, damn sloppy journalists.

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Geddy and again, welcome back to Casebook,

I've been doing a lot of reading recently to try and formulate exactly how the Cross/Lechmere story started and when it exactly got media traction. Also when Christer and Edward jumped onto it and more importantly why. I know of articles in the Ripperoligist 2000 onwards and I did find the Telegraph article from 2012.

1. Yes some students of the case wrote an article or two fitting up Charles Cross as the Ripper.

2. At some point his legal name Lechmere became known.

3. Ed Stow began posting here as 'Lechmere" espousing the theory.

4. Christer, who posted here as 'Fisherman' got on board the Lechmere train. During this period the Telegraph article came out.

5. Christer's video came out. THIS IS WHEN IT GAINED MEDIA TRACTION to answer your question. The Missing Evidence Video.

You asked

when Christer and Edward jumped onto it and more importantly why.

When? Ed in 2012, Christer shortly thereafter.

Why?, I'm not sure with Ed, I suppose just to have a suspect. For Christer, to have HIS OWN HUTCH. To win his parlour game with Ben here on Casebook.

When I first joined here in 2008 I noticed Fish (Christer) and Ben (Ben Holme) were locked in a debate on a Stride thread. Arguing over a cutaway jacket of all things. Neither would back down.

In the meantime, Ben was a proponent of the George Hutchinson Suspect theory, first promoted by Bob Hinton in his book. Note there are twenty something THOUSAND George Hutchinson Suspect posts here. A named plucked from the case files and fitted up as the Ripper. Sound familiar?

Well guess what, one day, out of the blue, Fish showed up on, of all places, a George Hutchinson Suspect thread. Posting. Arguing against, guess who? Ben, of all people. And this went on for several years. Tens of thousands of posts.

And then finally, one day Fish found his own Hutch. Lechmere. So he trumped Ben at the game of Casebook Suspect. It's that simple.

Thus began nonstop Lechmere threads. Ed & Fish versus the rest of us. This went on and on for several years. Hutchbook became Lechbook. Then the video came out.

How did the video Missing Evidence come about? I thought I explained this but will gladly explain it one more time. After the video appeared and was being discussed in depth here, Neil Bell, 'Monty' mentioned that previous to the video, he received a telephone call from someone at Blink Films asking "is there a suspect being discussed a lot on Casebook?" to which he said, yes, Lechmere. So Christer got his video by posting about Lechmere here constantly on Casebook. Which he had learned to do by posting constantly on the Hutch threads about a name plucked from the case files and fitted up as the Ripper. He won at the game.

6. All that posting here got Christer his video in the first place.

And with the nonstop posting here about Lechmere still, it's like deja vu all over again.

[Geddy2112]

Good afternoon Geddy and again, welcome back to Casebook,

And with the nonstop posting here about Lechmere still, it's like deja vu all over again.

Thank you and thank you for your post. Since Feb I've read just about every Cross thread. However it seems once you have read one you have read them all. I left here during the tedious Perrie postings which apparently turned out to be a damp squib. It was torture. So when I came back I tried to see what I'd missed since Perrie-Gate. It appears I'd missed Lechmere. I actually posted early on in one of the earlier Lechmere threads but did not realise on my return what a huge 'industry' it had become so I investigated that, some months later I'm still there.

Most of your post I've read about but thank you. I was not aware of the 'Ben' postings. I may go there next haha. I can remember reading about your Blink Films post, shame no one has spoken to them telling them it's a whole bucket of turd but nevermind.

Just got to find out what Christer and Ed were banned now... only joking Christer will be back in a month or so. That is going to be EPIC!

Thanks again, enjoy your weekend.