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

[MrBarnett]

It certainly could make sense, whether it makes sense today is another matter entirely.

Charles Allen Cross used a name he was perfectly entitled to use in one context, and in another, used another. Not uncommon, not illegal, not suspicious, not anything at all.

But this has been pointed out before, so rather than discuss it again, I suggest a rereading of this post.

I’ll indulge you to a degree, Kattrup.

Have a read of the ‘case study’ below and tell me if you think it differs significantly from the Lechmere scenario.



(Personally, I don’t see why it was included. It’s just Jones, Jones, Jones on every occasion but three. On two of those it was clearly thought appropriate to provide both names. That leaves just one occasion where he called himself Taylor but didn’t mention name Jones. And that was when he appeared as a witness in a case involving the business of his still living stepfather and employer James TAYLOR. The stepfather he had seemingly lived with for 27 years - since he was 3 years old, a prominent local businessman.

Does that really bear comparison to a man using just his stepfather’s surname a couple of decades after the stepfather had died?)

There is one juicy little tidbit that was left out, btw, the fact that in 1875 Charles Jones (in that name) was summoned to show good cause why he shouldn’t pay maintenance to support an illegitimate child.




FANFARE: THE GREAT ORS HAS SPOKEN!


Case Study 5 – Charles Jones a.k.a. Taylor




Report of Jones v Jones divorce case in the Portsmouth Evening News, 7 June 1889 (petitioner: Mrs Harriet Vale Jones)




"The respondent, Charles Jones, was then called by his counsel. He said he had taken the name of his step-father, which was Taylor, and drove a coach for him. He denied that his wife about bought a landau [carriage] for him. She had advanced a small sum of money to enable him to complete the purchase."




Further research:




Charles Jones was born on 8 November 1847 on the Isle of Wight, the son of Charles and Fanny Jones nee Attrill. Charles Jones Senior is said to be a plasterer on his birth certificate.




Charles Jones Senior appears to have died in 1848 and his widow married an innkeeper called James Taylor in Newport in 1851.




In the 1861 census, Charles Jones is living with James Taylor, a licensed victualler, said to be his father, and his mother, Fanny Taylor, at the Royal Albert public house in Taylor’s Row, Ryde, along with his sister Agness Jones. Four other children of James and Fanny with the surname of Taylor are also living in the same property.




From the Isle of Wight Observer, 13 May 1865




"An application was received from Mr James Taylor, of Monkton Street, for a license for his step-son, Charles Jones, for a driver’s license; the license had been previously refused by the committee. The present application, however, was backed by a number of responsible signatures.

MR JAMES HARBOUR said he had asked Jones to go on a job and he refused; he afterwards went, but said he would not have gone unless he liked [to]. Not that he intended to vote against the application, but he should be cautioned not to repeat such conduct."




In the 1871 census, Charles Jones, now an assistant in business aged 23 is said to be living with his father James Taylor, an innkeeper and postmaster, and his mother Fanny, at the Victoria Tavern, Monkton Street, Ryde.




Isle of Wight Observer, 16 August 1873




Ryde Petty Sessions:




"Charles Jones, driver, of Monkton-street, was summoned for having unlawfully refused to drive a gentleman named John Richardson, to East Cowes, after having been engaged to do so.

The case was called on twice, defendant made his appearance in the dock, but as Mr. Richardson was not present to prosecute, the summons was dismissed, his Worship remarking that another summons could be taken out if thought necessary."




Charles Jones, now a postmaster, said on his marriage certificate to be the son of a plasterer, Charles Jones (deceased), married Harriet Vale Hunt in the Isle of Wight on 7 May 1878. He signs his name “Charles Jones”.




From the Isle of Wight Observer, 11 May 1878, reporting on a case at the Ryde Petty Sessions on Monday 6 May:




Case of William Holbrook, mariner, of Clay Lane, who had been summoned by Inspector Peet, RSPCA, for cruelly ill-treating a horse by over driving it.




"Charles Taylor of Monkton Street, said that he was foreman to his father, a postmaster." [His evidence about what he saw followed. Holbrook was convicted and fined £1].










The 1881 census records Charles Jones, a postmaster aged 34, living with his wife, Harriet Vale Jones, aged 40, in Ryde, Isle of Wight.




Isle of Wight Observer, 24 May 1884




Ryde Petty Sessions:




Reports that a coach owner allowed a coach to remain in one place longer than was necessary for taking up and setting down passengers and says “Arthur Whittingstall of John Street, and Charles Jones, of Monkton Street, were also summoned on similar charges, and were each fined 5s with costs.”




Divorce petition filed by Harriet Vale Jones on 12 December 1888. Parties are “Harriet Vale Jones otherwise Taylor v Charles Jones otherwise Taylor”.




Isle of Wight Observer, 25 March 1893




"SAD DEATH - We are sorry to record the death of Charles Taylor (whose real name is, however, Jones), a son-in-law of Mr. Taylor, the well-known postmaster, of Monkton street. The deceased (whose long connection with the coaches had made him very well known amongst those whose avocations take them to the Esplanade) was first missed on Friday last. It was, however, supposed he had gone away on a visit. As no tidings could be obtained of him, his brother, Mr. William Taylor, decided on Wednesday afternoon to break into the residence of the deceased, at Dunstans, and there deceased was found lying dead in his bed. The medical opinion seems to be that he had been dead at least since Friday, and that an apoplectic fit was the cause of death. The Coroner had not considered it necessary to hold an inquest. Deceased was about 48 years of age. " 

[MrBarnett]

[MrBarnett]

And for good measure, Charles’s wife is even referred to by the name Taylor when she divorced the rotter:

“Divorce petition filed by Harriet Vale Jones on 12 December 1888. Parties are “Harriet Vale Jones otherwise Taylor v Charles Jones otherwise Taylor”.

[MrBarnett]

This one is classic Orsam:



“Consider William Adams. He was born under the name of William Adams, every known census entry for him is in the name of William Adams, he married in the name of William Adams and his name is recorded as William Adams on the birth certificates of his two children.

If that was all we knew about him we would surely be extremely confident that his name was William Adams. Yet the report from the Sheffield Evening Telegraph of 16 November 1907 confirms that he "commonly went by the name of Slack". Indeed, when he died at work, in the colliery accident, his name was initially published as William Slack.

Now, what if William Slack had been on his way to work in, say, September 1907 and found a murdered body in the street? When he appeared at the inquest would there be anything odd if he had stated his name as William Slack? I suggest not.”


Mrs Adams/Slack clearly felt it was necessary to point out her husband’s ‘proper’ name:

“The evidence was all formal except in the case of Adams. Mrs Adams explained in view of the fact that the name of her husband had been published as Slack that deceased commonly went by the name of Slack because that was the name of his step-father who married his (deceased's) mother when he was quite young. His proper name, the wife stated, was Adams."


That sums it up in a nutshell. The concept of a ‘proper’ name that one should use when contacting authority.

I have a personal example here. My wife informally adopted her stepfather’s name. It was the name I knew her by. It was only when we married that she pointed out to the registrar that she had never changed her name legally and as a consequence both names were entered on the certificate.

[MrBarnett]

David’s summation of his magnum hopeless:

“In any event, what I think we have clearly seen is the flaw in Fisherman's argument that because Charles Lechmere "signed his name" on numerous official documents as Charles Lechmere (ignoring his appearance on the 1861 census as Charles Cross) this somehow means that he was not commonly known as Charles Cross and/or that there was something suspicious about him calling himself Charles Cross at the inquest. He could well have been commonly known as Charles Cross, regardless of how many times he was recorded as Charles Lechmere in the documents and, that being so, he was perfectly entitled to state his name under oath as Charles Cross, without the need for explanation, during the inquest.”

He completely misses the point - as always.

It’s not being said that Lechmere couldn’t have been known informally - at work, say - as Cross, although there is no evidence to suggest that was the case. Or that he would have been breaking the law by using a name other than that on his birth certificate. It’s being said (at least by me) that he would have thought it the correct thing to do to use his ‘proper’ name when giving evidence in a coroner’s court. As so many others clearly did.

Mrs Adams (and dozens of others) made that perfectly clear. They had no in-depth knowledge of the law in respect of evidence given under oath, but they grasped the concept of a ‘proper’ name.

I must also take issue with the ‘he may well have been commonly known as Cross’ suggestion. Not by his kids’ teachers, not by his kid’s school friends, the ones who might knock on the door day after day and ask, ‘Can xyz come out to play, Mr/Mrs Lechmere?’ I’d say. Nor his customers when he advertised his business in the name of Lechmere. As far as I know you don’t need a birth certificate to place an entry in a trade directory.

[MrBarnett]

Now, by what ‘everyday’ name do we imagine this grocer and coffee rooms proprietor was known?

He never forgets the ‘Allen’. Bit of a stickler for his ‘full and proper’ name, I’d say.

[harry]

The fact is Cross,for whatever reason,gave that name under oath.He was entitled to do so.There can be little claim that he was trying to hide another identity,as he also gave an address and place of employment that would identify him.
As to the status of suspect,there never was evidence to describe him so,and despite what fisherman claims,he cannot now be classed as such.As to whether he should have been back in 1888 the question will always be,on what evidence?He was seen standing by a body,something he never denied,but he gave a reason for his presence there,and there is no evidence,real,circumstantial or of eye witness,that places him there in circumstances that would allow him to have killed Nichols.
Now it appears,we are to accept it was police ineptness that allowed Cross to escape detection.
That is my last take on the subject.I have had a warning about a certain term I used in an earlier post.I do not accept it was harmful or intentional in the way management have interpreted,but it is their site and I offer no apology.

[MrBarnett]

It wasn’t the norm for east end fathers’ middle names to appear on their kids’ school registers. I’m not saying that CAL was unique in that respect, but he or whoever provided the school with the info clearly wanted everything to be right and ‘proper’.

[MrBarnett]

The fact is Cross,for whatever reason,gave that name under oath.He was entitled to do so.There can be little claim that he was trying to hide another identity,as he also gave an address and place of employment that would identify him.
As to the status of suspect,there never was evidence to describe him so,and despite what fisherman claims,he cannot now be classed as such.As to whether he should have been back in 1888 the question will always be,on what evidence?He was seen standing by a body,something he never denied,but he gave a reason for his presence there,and there is no evidence,real,circumstantial or of eye witness,that places him there in circumstances that would allow him to have killed Nichols.
Now it appears,we are to accept it was police ineptness that allowed Cross to escape detection.
That is my last take on the subject.I have had a warning about a certain term I used in an earlier post.I do not accept it was harmful or intentional in the way management have interpreted,but it is their site and I offer no apology.

But there can be a claim that he might have been hiding the name. And he did a bloody good job because some people can’t bring themselves to use it 130 years later.

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact is Cross,for whatever reason,gave that name under oath.He was entitled to do so.There can be little claim that he was trying to hide another identity,as he also gave an address and place of employment that would identify him.
As to the status of suspect,there never was evidence to describe him so,and despite what fisherman claims,he cannot now be classed as such.As to whether he should have been back in 1888 the question will always be,on what evidence?He was seen standing by a body,something he never denied,but he gave a reason for his presence there,and there is no evidence,real,circumstantial or of eye witness,that places him there in circumstances that would allow him to have killed Nichols.
Now it appears,we are to accept it was police ineptness that allowed Cross to escape detection.
That is my last take on the subject.I have had a warning about a certain term I used in an earlier post.I do not accept it was harmful or intentional in the way management have interpreted,but it is their site and I offer no apology.

Harry
You are 100% correct in your post and what some seem to not be able to comprehend when making a big issue on the use of different names as a sign of guilt, is that if he had have been the killer he had the opportuity to escape long before Paul reached the spot where the body was found and then there would be no mystery surrounding the names. An action that I would suggest would apply to any killer having murdered a victim and being put in the same situation. If he had been the killer he had no need to put himself at risk by staying and concocting such a story.

This is something that Christer has no plausible explantion to be able to rebut, and in my opinion it is pivotal in showing that Lechmere/Cross was not the killer

I should remind Christer that the burden of proof always lie with the prosecution in this case (Christer) it is for them (him) to prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not for an accused (casebook researchers) to prove him innoncent !!!!!!!!!!

Has Christer been able to do that?

From an evidential perspective Christer has absolutley no hard evidence which would justify any criminal proceedings being brought against Cross, back then in 1888 or in 2021.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Harry
You are 100% correct in your post and what some seem to not be able to comprehend when making a big issue on the use of different names as a sign of guilt, is that if he had have been the killer he had the opportuity to escape long before Paul reached the spot where the body was found and then there would be no mystery surrounding the names. An action that I would suggest would apply to any killer having murdered a victim and being put in the same situation. If he had been the killer he had no need to put himself at risk by staying and concocting such a story.

This is something that Christer has no plausible explantion to be able to rebut, and in my opinion it is pivotal in showing that Lechmere/Cross was not the killer

I should remind Christer that the burden of proof always lie with the prosecution in this case (Christer) it is for them (him) to prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not for an accused (casebook researchers) to prove him innoncent !!!!!!!!!!

Has Christer been able to do that?

From an evidential perspective Christer has absolutley no hard evidence which would justify any criminal proceedings being brought against Cross, back then in 1888 or in 2021.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, in your former post you claimed that I was of the meaning that the police suspected Lechmere. VERY clearly, you do not have a clue about what you are talking about.
The idea that it would be a given that Lechmere would flee the scene is something you are welcome to entertain. However, do not claim it as a fact, please.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, in your former post you claimed that I was of the meaning that the police suspected Lechmere. VERY clearly, you do not have a clue about what you are talking about.
The idea that it would be a given that Lechmere would flee the scene is something you are welcome to entertain. However, do not claim it as a fact, please.

Well there are only two asceratined facts, the first he was an innocent man and he did find the body as he stated, or your theory is that he was the killer and decided to stay and front it out when he had the time and the opportunity to flee

Well perhaps you might want to explain you illogical reasoning for suggesting why he stayed at the crime scene knowing that he had committed a murder, probabaly still in possession of a knife, still with blood possibly on his clothes, when he had the time and the opportunuty to dissapear into the darkness unseen, and even if Paul had later stated that he saw a shadowy figure run off where does that point to Lecmnere. It doesnt you theory is a crackpot theory based on no evidence other than your wild speculation.

Why dont you set up a poll on Nichols murder asking this simple question

1. If you were the killer of Nicholls and you saw and heard someone coming towards you would you

A Escape into the darkness unseen
B Make up an excuse of finding the body and front it out

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Maybe it is once again time to point out what a theory is, since the demands of proof are once again being bandied about.

A theory is a suggestion, based on assumptions made from the existing facts. It is not a fact in itself, and speaking about how the "onus of proof" is on me is therefore silly.
When it comes to a theory in a case like the Ripper or Thames Torso cases, any suggestion about a suspect will be based on an interpretation of the facts. It is not as if the suspect is likelier to be innocent because a case cannot be proven. That idea is an example of mixing the principle of how everybody has the right to remain innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty up with the intellectual weighing process behind a suspect theory. There are numerous cases where there is what is commonly called a police solution, but no conclusive evidence. This means that the evidence is very clear in pointing somebody out - but the proof is not there to convict that somebody, and so he or she remains innocent in the eyes of the law. That, however, does not mean that they are necessarily innocent from a practical point of view. It only mneans that no legal steps can be taken on grounds of what may well be totally just suspicion.

So, if I want to prove my case conclusively, then the onus of proof is indeed on me. However, any case, ranging from very bad to very good can be brought about a suspect without such proof being present. Typically, in such cases there is circumstantial evidence only, and that is what applies in Lechmere“s case. Since it is quite common with cases being decided on circumstantial evidence only, it should go without saying that hollering about proof ą la and Harry is totally inappropriate and out of touch with what a suspect theory actually is.

Harry“s post 326, lauded as "100 per cent correct" by Trevor, tells the whole story about the shortcomings of these gentlemen when it comes to understanding the above:

"Whoever was the Killer had to be in her presence when she was killed.This raises a number of questions.Who was that person,where and how and at what time did he meet and kill her.Cross cannot be that person unless his evidence can be proven to be false,so he should not be classed as suspect for the same reason."

As we can see, Harry works from the presumption that unless we can prove Lechmere“s given evidence false, he cannot be the killer. Apart from being patently faulty on a general level, this conveniently also disregards the fact that other evidence was given that was in conflict with Lechmere“s. If we were to regard the carmans evidence as truthful, come what may, then Mizen must have been wrong about the second PC whereas Lechmere must be correct about it.

Once again, we have a mixing up of the principle of staying innocent in the eyes of the law and the practical reality of how "unknown" does not mean either proven true or proven false.

If we could have some respect for these matters it would greatly facilitate the discussion out here.

[Fisherman]

Well there are only two asceratined facts, the first he was an innocent man and he did find the body as he stated, or your theory is that he was the killer and decided to stay and front it out when he had the time and the opportunity to flee

Well perhaps you might want to explain you illogical reasoning for suggesting why he stayed at the crime scene knowing that he had committed a murder, probabaly still in possession of a knife, still with blood possibly on his clothes, when he had the time and the opportunuty to dissapear into the darkness unseen, and even if Paul had later stated that he saw a shadowy figure run off where does that point to Lecmnere. It doesnt you theory is a crackpot theory based on no evidence other than your wild speculation.

Why dont you set up a poll on Nichols murder asking this simple question

1. If you were the killer of Nicholls and you saw and heard someone coming towards you would you

A Escape into the darkness unseen
B Make up an excuse of finding the body and front it out

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Too dumb to comment on, I“m afraid. Read my post 343, Trevor.

PS. A poll was set up for Galileo Galileo when he suggested that the Earth revolves around the sun. Everybody was against the idea, and Galileo was sent to house arrest. So poll away, Trevor, poll away!

[Trevor Marriott]

"Whoever was the Killer had to be in her presence when she was killed.This raises a number of questions.Who was that person,where and how and at what time did he meet and kill her.Cross cannot be that person unless his evidence can be proven to be false,so he should not be classed as suspect for the same reason."

Wow, who would have ever thought of that, but has it not occurred to you that same person you refer to may not have been in her compnay when her body was found have you not thought of that, which would then make Cross and innocent man.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk