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

[Fisherman]

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.

[harry]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

,

[Fisherman]

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?

[MrBarnett]

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

[Fisherman]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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

To say that Lechmere preferred the name ‘Cross’ ignores the weight of evidence that shows he almost exclusively used the name Lechmere. We have evidence of possibly two occasions where he used the name Cross, both of which involve unfortunate events that might be expected to be reported in the press.

[MrBarnett]

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.

I wonder whether Ma’s sisters or the Boltons, if they were still administering the legacy, had any real idea of her circumstances. Or the Herefordshire Lechmeres, who would be likely to recognise their name being reported in the press.

I doubt they knew she had gone through a bigamous form of marriage. Did they know she was living in one of the worst red light districts in London? I find it plausible that Ma, and through her her son, might want to keep a lot of stuff from their family etc. Keeping the unpleasant stuff in the name of Cross would have made sense.

I’m not saying this is the answer to why he used the name Cross, but it strikes me as a possible reason. Two dimensional Charles Cross, of course, has no such complexity in his life.

I’m sure you and Ed are fully aware of all this.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

There is no suspicion, there is no deception its all fantasy you have created and what I am about to do I would encourage others to follow and that is no longer engage in any dilaogue with you on here on this topic, that way hopefully it will soon get forgotten and you can soon get treatment for your OCD.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

There is no suspicion, there is no deception its all fantasy you have created and what I am about to do I would encourage others to follow and that is no longer engage in any dilaogue with you on here on this topic, that way hopefully it will soon get forgotten and you can soon get treatment for your OCD.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As a word of friendly advice: If you reconsider and find that you want to debate further with me, I would encourage you to find out what the theory actually stands for before you do so. If you should decide you donīt care, then I would further advice you against using laughing smilies when posting about the theory. It becomes very ridiculous when it happens and reflects very badly on you.

[Fisherman]

I wonder whether Ma’s sisters or the Boltons, if they were still administering the legacy, had any real idea of her circumstances. Or the Herefordshire Lechmeres, who would be likely to recognise their name being reported in the press.

I doubt they knew she had gone through a bigamous form of marriage. Did they know she was living in one of the worst red light districts in London? I find it plausible that Ma, and through her her son, might want to keep a lot of stuff from their family etc. Keeping the unpleasant stuff in the name of Cross would have made sense.

I’m not saying this is the answer to why he used the name Cross, but it strikes me as a possible reason. Two dimensional Charles Cross, of course, has no such complexity in his life.

I’m sure you and Ed are fully aware of all this.

Since I should not answer for Edward, I can only say that I am aware of this, yes. And itīs not that I am saying that it MUST be a case of the carman being the killer and trying to avoid detection; there can be other explanations.
The overall problem is how other explanations must be applied to a whole array of matters that do not look kosher. We must accept that Mizen misunderstood him, we must accept that it is only a coincidence that the four Whitechapel murders all matched his logical pathways, we must accept that it is coincidental that Stride was killed a stoneīs throw from his motherīs lodgings, we must accept that it was a coincidence that he came upon Nichols as she would still bleed for many minutes, we must accept that it was a fluke that Paul arrived at the exaxt time when he could provide a makeshift alibi for Lechmere, we must accept ...
But that is another matter, of course.

[MrBarnett]

Since I should not answer for Edward, I can only say that I am aware of this, yes. And itīs not that I am saying that it MUST be a case of the carman being the killer and trying to avoid detection; there can be other explanations.
The overall problem is how other explanations must be applied to a whole array of matters that do not look kosher. We must accept that Mizen misunderstood him, we must accept that it is only a coincidence that the four Whitechapel murders all matched his logical pathways, we must accept that it is coincidental that Stride was killed a stoneīs throw from his motherīs lodgings, we must accept that it was a coincidence that he came upon Nichols as she would still bleed for many minutes, we must accept that it was a fluke that Paul arrived at the exaxt time when he could provide a makeshift alibi for Lechmere, we must accept ...
But that is another matter, of course.

I can vouch for Ed knowing it. I made that comment because I didn’t want anyone to think that I was teaching anyone to suck eggs btw.

I’m fairly neutral on CAL’s suspect status, but having looked into his background a bit, I can’t think of him as Charles Cross.

It will be interesting to see where there’s an entry for Charles Lechmere in the A-Z.

[Fisherman]

I can vouch for Ed knowing it. I made that comment because I didn’t want anyone to think that I was teaching anyone to suck eggs btw.

I’m fairly neutral on CAL’s suspect status, but having looked into his background a bit, I can’t think of him as Charles Cross.

It will be interesting to see where there’s an entry for Charles Lechmere in the A-Z.

As long as it cannot be disproven that he was the killer (and we are VERY far away from that!), anybody who chooses to call him Cross runs the risk of going along with a killerīs deception and helping out in retrospect. That too is a good reason to call him by his real name, I find.
But just as you said, it is up to anybody to call him what they want to.

[rjpalmer]

Did you ever think of looking at it from a psychological angle?

Maybe Old Man Lechmere had been known as a complete bastard, and 'Cross' had shown young Charles particular kindness, so he adopted that name.

The author of 'In Cold Blood' was born Truman Persons, and used that name until the age of 8. 'Capote' was his step-father.

I knew a kid growing up who had refused to use the name of the father who had abandoned him, and who was also known as a notorious junkie.

I don't think it's as rare as people think, particularly if the mother has a lot of men coming in and out of her life.

Recently, an American football player changed his name to reflect that of his maternal grandmother--the woman who had raised him. It was a sign of respect.