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

[Fisherman]

Glad to hear you have good teeth fisherman.False of course.

Not biting, Harry.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish, don't worry buddy, you're an expert on this subject. Perhaps, they didn't suspect for him because of the position he held? To quote "An educated man, how preposterous" In all seriousness, its a fascinating example.

A family man, how preposterous.
A working man, how preposterous.
A man en route to work, how preposterous.
A man who voluntarily reported a dead body, how preposterous.
An Englishman, how preposterous.
A man we have no record of violence for, how preposterous.

[AlanG]

Alan G,
A little aside here.A few posts back you remarked you had never found a body,so would not know what to do.
I have found two,and was first at the scene at both. Does that mean I was involved in their deaths?
My instinct in both cases was to alert the authorities,identify myself,and make a statement.just as Cross did.
There are cases of course where the first at the scene have come under suspicion,but there is an overwhelming number who were first on the scene and have been shown to be innocent.The difference of course,was in the evidence provided.

I think I said I wouldn't know how it feels (I am sorry you have experienced that twice). I was just trying to convey, that until you were in that situation, you couldn't possibly say what you would do, especially at that time when drunk people sleeping on the road, were more prominent. That split second realisation that the individual was had been murdered would be horrifying. Both sides of the debate are fascinating.

[harry]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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.

It was Charles Lechmere who gave evidence - in the name of Cross.

it amuses me that some people seem to have a problem using the Lechmere name. Like the Fonz not being able to say ‘wrong’ or ‘sorry’.

[harry]

No problem then,if I continue to use Cross.It was used quite awhile before the name Lechmere appeared.

[rjpalmer]

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."

[Fisherman]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

[Fisherman]

I thought that you were calling him Jack?

Oh, I am, Herlock. Without asking his permission, even.

[AlanG]

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.

[AlanG]

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?

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[harry]

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.