Framing Charles

[drstrange169]

>> Once more, you have a lot of ideas about how the Lechmere theory would be wrong, just like many "thinkers" out here (have a look at the company you are currently travelling in...), ...<<


You mean like Stewart Evans, Paul Begg and a veritable who's who of Ripperolgy? Thanks.


>> ... but those ideas are only of interest when you prove them.<<

Following that logic, Lechmere would only be of interest if you proved his guilt, let's try and have a sensible debate.



>> This is typical Dusty stuff. You try to make out as if I had said that I believe that nobody at Pickfords was aware of the Ripper murders. But letīs be honest now: Where exactly did I do that?<<

And I'm afraid this is typical Christer stuff. Knowing you're wrong, you take one part of a sentence out of a sentence out of context to avoid the issue being discussed.

The issue, that you are trying to avoid, was your claim that is reasonable to claim Pickfords didn't know about the boy being run over and Cross attending the inquest. I note Gary has already pointed out that he believes Pickfords would have had legal representation at the accident inquest.


>> This is the sort of indecent stuff that we really should try and avoid. <<

Precisely, so please don't do it and stick to sensible debating.


>> ... if we persist in thinking that Pickfords conducted a full-blown investigation of their own...<<

There you go again.

Of course Pickfords would have checked the drivers story with regards to to the accident. Are you seriously trying tell us, they would have let the matter go to an inquest without protecting themselves? Surely even you can see how silly your argument is coming across.



>>... if this had been found out, then the Swanson reports would have said that he was named Lechmere but on chosen occasions, he called himself Cross <<

Swanson's reports were nothing more than heavily précised versions for the benefit of more senior officials general knowledge of the case. Cross, is but a part of a throwaway line.

Why would that be? Since you've read Swanson's report you should already know.

"...enquires were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, reporting whose character & surroundings of suspicion was cast in statements made to police."
Chief inspector Donald Swanson 19th Oct 1888


>>Please do not claim things on my behalf that I have never said. <<

As shown, I haven't, but you constantly do, which is frustrating to serious debate. So please try and address the actual issues being raised rather than trying to avoid them.

[paul g]

Is there any documentation after the the murders and before his death of him switching names.

also off topic in the documentary it indicates he became a wealthy man in later years . How did he make his money .

what name is on his death certificate ?

[MrBarnett]

It is a shrewd point, but it’s one that has been made many times before. The anomaly in my mind is not that he used the name Cross, but that he neglected to mention his ‘real’ name. Others in the same/similar situation with far less reason to honour their birth name felt it appropriate to give both.

I think it’s highly likely that Pickford’s had some legal representation at the 1876 inquest. If so, the name Cross must have been known to them.

[MrBarnett]

This is a shrewd point, of course, and not easy to refute.

In the 1876 case that killed little Walter William, it would have been entirely pointless and even counterproductive for Lechmere to have used an alias. His employers would have followed the inquest closely, and may have even provided a legal observer, or at least a watcher from Pickford's. Unless someone wants to argue that Pickford & Co. was "in on it," it certainly suggests that Lechmere was widely known as 'Cross' at work.

It might not be entirely analogous, but I worked with a guy named 'Woody' for years. Everyone knew him by that name. One day, when someone in the corporate office referred to a 'Steve,' I had no idea who the heck he was talking about--it was 'Woody's' real name, but I had never once heard it used in all those years. Names stick, and people don't necessarily share their private life with co-workers. Many people 'compartmentalize."

Had Lechmere been stupid enough to use an alias in the 1876 case, it would have been used against him--showing he had something to hide.

But no blame was attached to him for this tragic accident, and his blamelessness was entirely independent of the name he was known under, which suggests he wouldn't have tried to hide his identity--it would have been futile.

Thus, I suspect you're right. 'Cross' was his Pickford's name. It's a little unusual, admittedly, but not out-of-the-question.

It is a shrewd point, but it’s one that has been made many times before. The anomaly in my mind is not that he used the name Cross, but that he neglected to mention his ‘real’ name. Others in the same/similar situation with far less reason to honour their birth name felt it appropriate to give both.

[rjpalmer]

>>He may have been known as Cross at Pickfords, but elsewhere he would have been known as Lechmere. ... CAL was a stickler for providing his full ‘real’ name - except when he appeared before coroners.<<

And what is the common denominator in the inquest appearances?

Pickfords!

He joined Pickfords at a time Thomas Cross was his step father.
Assuming the "boy accident" case was our man, being recognised by Pickfords people, not school people, not electoral, was a key factor at the inquest.

This is a shrewd point, of course, and not easy to refute.

In the 1876 case that killed little Walter William, it would have been entirely pointless and even counterproductive for Lechmere to have used an alias. His employers would have followed the inquest closely, and may have even provided a legal observer, or at least a watcher from Pickford's. Unless someone wants to argue that Pickford & Co. was "in on it," it certainly suggests that Lechmere was widely known as 'Cross' at work.

It might not be entirely analogous, but I worked with a guy named 'Woody' for years. Everyone knew him by that name. One day, when someone in the corporate office referred to a 'Steve,' I had no idea who the heck he was talking about--it was 'Woody's' real name, but I had never once heard it used in all those years. Names stick, and people don't necessarily share their private life with co-workers. Many people 'compartmentalize."

Had Lechmere been stupid enough to use an alias in the 1876 case, it would have been used against him--showing he had something to hide.

But no blame was attached to him for this tragic accident, and his blamelessness was entirely independent of the name he was known under, which suggests he wouldn't have tried to hide his identity--it would have been futile.

Thus, I suspect you're right. 'Cross' was his Pickford's name. It's a little unusual, admittedly, but not out-of-the-question.

[Fisherman]

One says that we have evidence that Nichols was cut before Lechmere arrived at the scene. Evidence given by guess who...?

Another one claims that I am daydreaming when I build a case solely on how Lechmere may have passed the murder sites.

A third thinks the name swapping matter is "going down the drain" swiftly. And why? Because he thinks the victorian police was infallable and made a thorough check of a man they didnīt even find out the name of.

A fourth claims that I do not think that the people at Pickfords knew anything about the Ripper murders.

I spend time out here hoping to get intelligent reactions and useful criticism of the theory I have presented in my book. And THIS is what I get....??? People jumping around and jeering "Fisherman is wro-ong, Fisherman is wro-ong, all day lo-ong, all day lo-ong!" And calling ME juvenile?

Iīm off for some time. If I want the kind of criticism on offer out here, I may just as well get it at the local kindergarten.

[Trevor Marriott]

To claim that it is proven that the attack had already taken palce as Lechmere arrived, and to base that claim solely on Lechmereīs own testimony is to try and set a standard for the detection of crime that is not dumb, not foolish, not laughable and not naive.

But the reality is that you cannot disprove his account. The blood flow you seek to rely on is flawed because he could have quite easily have disturbed the killer.

If he had have been the killer he could have made good his escape but he didnt, how foolish would that have been for a supposed killer who had according to you killed on the streets before to put himself as the crime scene with a freshly killed victim.

There is nothing to show that when he gave the name Cross there was any intent to decieve, this is something you have invented to back up your theory which has no foundation other than your persitence to support this wild speculative theory sadly lacking in any substantive evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

A conversation in 1905:

‘Lets meet up for a coffee later. At Charlie Cross’s’

’Where’s that?’

‘It’s in Campbell Road. You can’t miss it, you’ll see the name CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE above the door.’

I have my eyes peeled for photos of CAL’s business premises. :-)

[MrBarnett]

Once more, you have a lot of ideas about how the Lechmere theory would be wrong, just like many "thinkers" out here (have a look at the company you are currently travelling in...), but those ideas are only of interest when you prove them.

As long as you canīt - and that wonīt change - it amounts to nothing more than a place alongside Trevor Marriot, who just tired to prove his point by saying that he knows that he is right and that I will never admit it.

That is a standard of Ripperology that was always to be found out here, of course.

Just to give you a little something in return, here is my answer to your last two dramatic points:

You think it's not unreasonable to believe Pickfords would not know about an inquest into the death of a boy by one of their drivers and you think it's not unreasonable to think nobody at Pickfords knew about, arguably, the most sensational murder series in English history?

This is typical Dusty stuff. You try to make out as if I had said that I believe that nobody at Pickfords was aware of the Ripper murders. But letīs be honest now: Where exactly did I do that?

This is the sort of indecent stuff that we really should try and avoid. What I think is that when Polly Nichols died, although a lot was written about it, it was not a murder of the queen of England, it was the murder of a lowly prostitute in the East End. That will have had an influence on how people in general looked at it. There would not have been the kind of outrage a similar murder of a respectable Westender would have provoked. Even today, people react in much the same way - when a criminal gang member is shot, many reason that he had it coming. When a prostitute is killed, many reason it comes with the trade.

This may have played a key role in the degree to which people were outraged by the murder and the degree to which they felt an obligation to get involved in it. I suppose you will now get all upset and say "He thinks the Nichols murder was something that passed unnoticed!", and then you will go ahead and claim that as another of your "truths". I am not saying that it passed unnoticed, but I am saying that it was not the kind of deed that would provoke a maximum outrage. I hope you can see how that works. If not, Iīm sure most people can.

So it is against this backdrop that we should ask ourselves to which degree - if any - we may be certain that Pickfords made enquiries into who the carman was.

Once we have gotten that far, and if we persist in thinking that Pickfords conducted a full-blown investigation of their own, how do we for instance know that Lechmere did not tell his superiors "Thatīs me they wrote about, but I did not want to upset my mother so I used my old stepfathers name instead of Lechmere"?

You see, it is not as if we cannot find explanations to how the carman may have conned his way out of such a dilemma. it is much the same as how you people have no problems finding innocent alternative explanations to anything. It is the easiest thing in the world to do.

Once thatīs been said, letīs take a look at your next dramatization along the same lines:

You think it's not unreasonable to think the police wouldn't verify a witness claims, specifically when that witness disagreed with first the police version of finding the body and then directly disagreed with a policeman's testimony?

Here, we of course have the fact that the carman was described as Charles Cross in both the September and the October report by Swansons hand. You clearly suggest that since there was a contradiction between what Mizen and Lechmere said, the police must have set about verifying if he really WAS named Cross, if he really DID live in Doveton Street and if he really DID work at Pickfords. And the fact of the matter is that at least the two first matters - and very likely the third too, if you ask me - would have given away that he was actually named Lechmere, not Cross.

And if this had been found out, then the Swanson reports would have said that he was named Lechmere but on chosen occasions, he called himself Cross (it is not as if he did so generally speaking we know that from the many signatures - we in fact do not know that he EVER called himself Cross other than in combination with violent deaths he was involved with). And that is the minimalistic outcome. There is also the option that if the police had found out, we would have articles covering how a witness had been found out to lie and how he subsequently was checked out and iterrogated and found to be the killer. If so, we would not have any Ripper riddle to solve.

Anyways, the bottom line/s: Please do not claim things on my behalf that I have never said. And please do not treat it as a given that the police would always act the way we would have wanted them to.

For an idea of how ‘respectable’ citizens viewed the victims, listen to what Wynne Baxter said about Alice McKenzie:

“People having the character of the victims had it entirely in their hands to prevent this kind of thing. If they could only be induced not to assist the man who did this sort of work it would be stopped, but unfortunately it was hoping against hope, because they would lend themselves to it.”

[harry]

But the murder of Nichols helped to produce the outrage that followed.and I am sure the police put as much effort in solving that crime as they would have had the victim been a member of note.Just another excuse to downplay the police activity,as a reason for failing to properly understand that master criminal Cross.How entertaining.How juvenile.

[Fisherman]

He gave his name as Cross.No amount of arguement can prove otherwise.It was a voluntary and not a forced declaration.It was given under oath and accepted by the court.It was legally given.In another hundred years Mr Barnett, it will read the same.It proves nothing as to guillt.He broke no law.
Cross was the first witness to arrive at the crime scene.As the victim had already been attacked,and was dead or dying,the element of opportunity cannot be leveled at Cross.He cannot be placed in the company of Nichols while she was alive,another basic element of the crime,he cannot be proven to have lied about his presence in Bucks Row,there was no physical evidence noted on his person by other witnesses.In total no real or circumstantial evidence.Argue as long and as you like,those circumstances will not change.Amen.

To claim that it is proven that the attack had already taken palce as Lechmere arrived, and to base that claim solely on Lechmereīs own testimony is to try and set a standard for the detection of crime that is not dumb, not foolish, not laughable and not naive.

None of these descriptions cover it, and I cannot think of a term that does. Can anybody help me?

[Fisherman]

A theory that someone is probably guilty because they had opportunities based on possible passings by murder sites isnt really a theory at all..its just daydreaming.

And claiming that I only base my theory on that factor is just false. But hey, we do what we can, right?

You "forgot":

- the blood evidence
- the covered up wounds
- the name change
- the timing aspect
- the fact that Paul never mentioned seeing or hearing Lechmere in front of himself
- the refusal to help prop Nichols up
- the disagreement with Mizen
- the links to the Torso series

If it wasnīt for that, I may have been charitable and said "Nice try!". But in all honesty, it really is nothing of the sort, is it?

Guess it is time to stop answering your posts again, until you start being a bit more honest.

[Fisherman]

>>It is only if I want to prove something that I have such an onus on myself. <<

Interesting.


>>... what I need to do is to point at possibilities aln likelihoods, where you, if you want to deny them, must PROVE your point.<<

As I wrote, the QAnon approach.

That certainly explains a lot about your attitude. The, "Nelson's blind eye", approach.


>He gave his occupatoin as a carman at the census takings. <<

You have a census record closer to his starting work at Pickfords where he used the name Lechmere? I think not.

How is any other census record relevant to his starting work?


>>And it is not unreasonable that they didnīt.<<

You think it's not unreasonable to believe Pickfords would not know about an inquest into the death of a boy by one of their drivers and you think it's not unreasonable to think nobody at Pickfords knew about, arguably, the most sensational murder series in English history?


>>And it is also not unreasonable that they never did.<<

You think it's not unreasonable to think the police wouldn't verify a witness claims, specifically when that witness disagreed with first the police version of finding the body and then directly disagreed with a policeman's testimony?

"I see no ships!"

Once more, you have a lot of ideas about how the Lechmere theory would be wrong, just like many "thinkers" out here (have a look at the company you are currently travelling in...), but those ideas are only of interest when you prove them.

As long as you canīt - and that wonīt change - it amounts to nothing more than a place alongside Trevor Marriot, who just tired to prove his point by saying that he knows that he is right and that I will never admit it.

That is a standard of Ripperology that was always to be found out here, of course.

Just to give you a little something in return, here is my answer to your last two dramatic points:

You think it's not unreasonable to believe Pickfords would not know about an inquest into the death of a boy by one of their drivers and you think it's not unreasonable to think nobody at Pickfords knew about, arguably, the most sensational murder series in English history?

This is typical Dusty stuff. You try to make out as if I had said that I believe that nobody at Pickfords was aware of the Ripper murders. But letīs be honest now: Where exactly did I do that?

This is the sort of indecent stuff that we really should try and avoid. What I think is that when Polly Nichols died, although a lot was written about it, it was not a murder of the queen of England, it was the murder of a lowly prostitute in the East End. That will have had an influence on how people in general looked at it. There would not have been the kind of outrage a similar murder of a respectable Westender would have provoked. Even today, people react in much the same way - when a criminal gang member is shot, many reason that he had it coming. When a prostitute is killed, many reason it comes with the trade.

This may have played a key role in the degree to which people were outraged by the murder and the degree to which they felt an obligation to get involved in it. I suppose you will now get all upset and say "He thinks the Nichols murder was something that passed unnoticed!", and then you will go ahead and claim that as another of your "truths". I am not saying that it passed unnoticed, but I am saying that it was not the kind of deed that would provoke a maximum outrage. I hope you can see how that works. If not, Iīm sure most people can.

So it is against this backdrop that we should ask ourselves to which degree - if any - we may be certain that Pickfords made enquiries into who the carman was.

Once we have gotten that far, and if we persist in thinking that Pickfords conducted a full-blown investigation of their own, how do we for instance know that Lechmere did not tell his superiors "Thatīs me they wrote about, but I did not want to upset my mother so I used my old stepfathers name instead of Lechmere"?

You see, it is not as if we cannot find explanations to how the carman may have conned his way out of such a dilemma. it is much the same as how you people have no problems finding innocent alternative explanations to anything. It is the easiest thing in the world to do.

Once thatīs been said, letīs take a look at your next dramatization along the same lines:

You think it's not unreasonable to think the police wouldn't verify a witness claims, specifically when that witness disagreed with first the police version of finding the body and then directly disagreed with a policeman's testimony?

Here, we of course have the fact that the carman was described as Charles Cross in both the September and the October report by Swansons hand. You clearly suggest that since there was a contradiction between what Mizen and Lechmere said, the police must have set about verifying if he really WAS named Cross, if he really DID live in Doveton Street and if he really DID work at Pickfords. And the fact of the matter is that at least the two first matters - and very likely the third too, if you ask me - would have given away that he was actually named Lechmere, not Cross.

And if this had been found out, then the Swanson reports would have said that he was named Lechmere but on chosen occasions, he called himself Cross (it is not as if he did so generally speaking we know that from the many signatures - we in fact do not know that he EVER called himself Cross other than in combination with violent deaths he was involved with). And that is the minimalistic outcome. There is also the option that if the police had found out, we would have articles covering how a witness had been found out to lie and how he subsequently was checked out and iterrogated and found to be the killer. If so, we would not have any Ripper riddle to solve.

Anyways, the bottom line/s: Please do not claim things on my behalf that I have never said. And please do not treat it as a given that the police would always act the way we would have wanted them to.

[Fisherman]

I know I am correct but you are never going to admit this part of your theory is flawed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I know I am much more clever than you, but you are never going to realize it.

There, an argument in your own vein. Can you see how productive it is?

[harry]

He gave his name as Cross.No amount of arguement can prove otherwise.It was a voluntary and not a forced declaration.It was given under oath and accepted by the court.It was legally given.In another hundred years Mr Barnett, it will read the same.It proves nothing as to guillt.He broke no law.
Cross was the first witness to arrive at the crime scene.As the victim had already been attacked,and was dead or dying,the element of opportunity cannot be leveled at Cross.He cannot be placed in the company of Nichols while she was alive,another basic element of the crime,he cannot be proven to have lied about his presence in Bucks Row,there was no physical evidence noted on his person by other witnesses.In total no real or circumstantial evidence.Argue as long and as you like,those circumstances will not change.Amen.