Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

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

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    How about this:

    The name Lechmere was somewhat unusual and of considerable significance in Herefordshire where both his parents came from. And on his mother’s side, his grandfather had been the Butler to Edward Bolton Clive, a relative of the great colonialist, Clive of India. She had been brought up in a lodge on the Clive estate. EBC left his butler a sizeable legacy which he in turn left to his daughters, one of whom was Lechmere’s mother. The other sisters lived very respectable lives, one was the wife of a rural vicar. The legacy was in the form of income and was originally administered by EBC’s brother, whose name escapes me.

    Somehow Lechmere’s mother ended up living in Tiger Bay in a bigamous relationship with an H Div. copper. Her son was a lowly carman who on his way to work one morning tripped over* the body of a murdered prostitute.

    Now if you had been in Lechmere’s position and had an alternative name that you could reasonably use, even though you thought it was more appropriate to use your ‘real’ name, might you not have done so? Just to keep the name Lechmere out of the papers?

    *Not literally
    Of course, the suggestion cannot be ruled out - but doing so would entail considerable risk of coming under suspicion. To me, I would find it likelier that a Lechmere of substantial means and societal position could go for this kind of deception. But would Charles Lechmere feel he was obliged to keep the Lechmere name from being published? If he did what he said he did, his role would have been one of a responsible and helpful citizen, after all.He stood to take credit, not blame.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Then why did Cross voluntarrily choose to identify himself as Cross?.My reasoning is that Cross prefered that name for some reason.So I'll call him Cross,but then i'm lazy and illiterate and can't spell the name Lechmereo.
    How about this:

    The name Lechmere was somewhat unusual and of considerable significance in Herefordshire where both his parents came from. And on his mother’s side, his grandfather had been the Butler to Edward Bolton Clive, a relative of the great colonialist, Clive of India. She had been brought up in a lodge on the Clive estate. EBC left his butler a sizeable legacy which he in turn left to his daughters, one of whom was Lechmere’s mother. The other sisters lived very respectable lives, one was the wife of a rural vicar. The legacy was in the form of income and was originally administered by EBC’s brother, whose name escapes me.

    Somehow Lechmere’s mother ended up living in Tiger Bay in a bigamous relationship with an H Div. copper. Her son was a lowly carman who on his way to work one morning tripped over* the body of a murdered prostitute.

    Now if you had been in Lechmere’s position and had an alternative name that you could reasonably use, even though you thought it was more appropriate to use your ‘real’ name, might you not have done so? Just to keep the name Lechmere out of the papers?

    *Not literally

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But you cannot prove that they didnt fully investigate him, and one simple question to him from the police would clearly and in fact I would suggest did clear up the name issue, but you wont let it go at that will you.

    Exactly why would I "let it go" because I cannot conclusively prove that the police didnīt fully investigate him, Trevor? Is that what you as an ex copper recommend when there is not conclusive proof: to let it go? We know full well that the police called the carman Cross as late as October 19, and although that is not conclusive proof, it is highly indicative of no thorough investigation into his person ever having taken place. So tell me, why should I, or anybody else for that matter, "let it go"?

    When you can come back and show the police suspected him of being the killer then people might start beliveing you and taking you serioulsy until then, you are in that world of your own which I can imagine is a lonely place to be,

    This may have passed you by without you understanding it, but the case against Lechmere does not rest on the police having investigated him and suspected him of being the killer. It instead rests on the police NOT having investigated him and NOT having suspected him of being the killer. And it is only if you can show us that the police will never fail to disclose a killer that you have a case.

    Another point to consider is if as you keep saying he was suspected by the police...

    It is a riddle to me how you can reason that I would in any shape of form have said that the police suspected Lechmere. I have for nigh on a decade said, over and over and over again, that the police did NOT suspect him. I have NEVER once suggested that the police investigated him.
    How on earth is it possible to fail to understand that?


    ...can you explain why we seen no record, no mention of the police suspecting him in police commmunications of the day, or in an police officers memoirs etc?

    Because, Trevor, the police did NOT suspect him at all - but they SHOULD have!

    Of all the failures out here I have seen when it comes to a posters inability to understand something, this is by far the most remarkable one. If you have not managed to understand that I am of the meaning, the conviction, the certainty that the police never once suspected or investigated Charles Lechmere, then how on earth are you and I to be able to conduct any form of intelligible discussion? I am reeling from shock here, Trevor! Wherefrom did you get this nonsense?

    After all you with your amazing investigative journalistic powers seems to have created a suspect for the murders and the torsos out of thin air, maybe you should take up being a magician.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    ,
    That may be what I need to do to make you understand the arguments I am speaking for, yes. Simply writing something a thousand times does not seem to help, so yes, maybe I need to try magic.

    Dear, dear me. This must be unsurpassed, surely?
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-18-2021, 11:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    What counts in this context is that Lechmere is considered a suspect in the Ripper case, something you can have confirmed by taking a look at the headline ”Suspects” on this site.

    Once we have that information and couple his suspect status with the fact that he seems to have withheld the name he was registered by from the police and inquest, we can ask us the question whether this fact is a plus or a minus for him, or whether it is neutral in this matter.

    To do so, we can ask ourselves which reaction is the likeliest one to surface within a murder investigator who learns that his suspect has not given the name he is registered by to the police, but instead an alias, effectively prohibiting the police from identifying and researching the suspect.

    Do you understand how this works, Harry? My guess is that just about anybody does.
    But you cannot prove that they didnt fully investigate him, and one simple question to him from the police would clearly and in fact I would suggest did clear up the name issue, but you wont let it go at that will you. When you can come back and show the police suspected him of being the killer then people might start beliveing you and taking you serioulsy until then, you are in that world of your own which I can imagine is a lonely place to be,

    Another point to consider is if as you keep saying he was suspected by the police can you explain why we seen no record, no mention of the police suspecting him in police commmunications of the day, or in an police officers memoirs etc? After all you with your amazing investigative journalistic powers seems to have created a suspect for the murders and the torsos out of thin air, maybe you should take up being a magician.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    ,

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Well yes,and a common reason that someone uses an alias in a situation in which he has not produced evidence of guilt,but has provided evidence of identity,is that he is innocent.
    What counts in this context is that Lechmere is considered a suspect in the Ripper case, something you can have confirmed by taking a look at the headline ”Suspects” on this site.

    Once we have that information and couple his suspect status with the fact that he seems to have withheld the name he was registered by from the police and inquest, we can ask us the question whether this fact is a plus or a minus for him, or whether it is neutral in this matter.

    To do so, we can ask ourselves which reaction is the likeliest one to surface within a murder investigator who learns that his suspect has not given the name he is registered by to the police, but instead an alias, effectively prohibiting the police from identifying and researching the suspect.

    Do you understand how this works, Harry? My guess is that just about anybody does.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Well yes,and a common reason that someone uses an alias in a situation in which he has not produced evidence of guilt,but has provided evidence of identity,is that he is innocent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Then why did Cross voluntarrily choose to identify himself as Cross?.My reasoning is that Cross prefered that name for some reason.So I'll call him Cross,but then i'm lazy and illiterate and can't spell the name Lechmere.
    The common reason why somebody who has perpetrated a criminal act will use an alias is to disenable somebody else to make the connection between the crime and their real identity. If we reason that anybody who uses an alias in combination with a crime does so ”for some reason”, we may thus be perfectly correct.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-18-2021, 05:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Then why did Cross voluntarrily choose to identify himself as Cross?.My reasoning is that Cross prefered that name for some reason.So I'll call him Cross,but then i'm lazy and illiterate and can't spell the name Lechmere.
    Last edited by jmenges; 01-18-2021, 01:43 AM. Reason: Edited to delete unnecessary and offensive language -personal attack. JM

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by AlanG View Post
    Fisherman, what do you make of Pickfords saying there is no evidence of Lechmere working there? What is the proof he actually did work there?
    Pickfords never said he didn’t work there, they said that the documentation of those days had gone lost.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied


    People are entitled to think of and discuss the Buck’s Row witness (or killer) in any name they chose.

    Charles Cross is a cardboard cut-out character perfectly suited for use in the game of Ripper Cluedo.

    Charles allen Lechmere on the other hand was a 3-dimensional flesh and blood individual with a fascinating background. If you spend any amount of time researching him and his background it feels perverse to speak of him as Charles Cross.

    Horses for courses.










    Leave a comment:


  • AlanG
    replied
    Fisherman, what do you make of Pickfords saying there is no evidence of Lechmere working there? What is the proof he actually did work there?

    Leave a comment:


  • AlanG
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    AlanG,
    Well you feel you have to do something.In 1888 there was not the means of communication there is today,and at 3.45 in the morning little other than report to some authority,which was represented by the policeman on the beat.This is what Cross and Paul did. Remember this important fact,they did not set out to report a crime,as evidence shows they did not know a crime had been committed.So when they met Mizen it was to tell him only that a woman was on the ground and might be either dead or dying.
    A lot of nonsense has been written about this meeting with Mizen,about who lied,what they lied about,that Cross evaded identifying himself.I do not believe anyone lied.Cross and Paul were not requested to identify themselves.Mizen,a policeman,had the power to request or demand identification,but as no crime was being reported,might have felt a need for identification not neccessary.Like you imply,drunk people sleeping outdoors,was common,and that might have been Mizen's reasoning.
    However,all three did react further ,and in a proper manner.Mizen did check on the information given to him,and Cross and Paul came forward and gave evidence under oath at an Inquest.
    No I totally agree with you. I was going to write about the communication argument to.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I thought that you were calling him Jack?
    Oh, I am, Herlock. Without asking his permission, even.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    The fight between Ali and Terrell was fought on the 6th of February 1967. By that stage, Muhammad Ali had carried his new name for two years and eleven months, and it was the name he was registered by. The name Cassius Clay was a name with roots in the slave trade, and thus despicable to Ali.

    As far as I know, he did not keep the name Clay, he did not baptize his kids Clay and he was not registered by that name after 1964.

    But by all means, call Lechmere Cross if you want to.
    I thought that you were calling him Jack?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Muhammad Ali once famously beat the hell out of the boxer Ernie Terrell because he insisted on calling him by his birth-name, 'Cassius Clay.'

    If Cross wants to call himself Cross, I'll call him Cross.

    If he's carrying a knife, even more so. Then it becomes, "Mr. Cross, sir."
    The fight between Ali and Terrell was fought on the 6th of February 1967. By that stage, Muhammad Ali had carried his new name for two years and eleven months, and it was the name he was registered by. The name Cassius Clay was a name with roots in the slave trade, and thus despicable to Ali.

    As far as I know, he did not keep the name Clay, he did not baptize his kids Clay and he was not registered by that name after 1964.

    But by all means, call Lechmere Cross if you want to.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-16-2021, 02:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X