Framing Charles

[Fisherman]

Plus we are very much a ware that when he spoke to authorities of any kind - save the police and in combination with violent death - he always used the name Lechmere and the name Lechmere only.

Of course, we may imagine that there is somewhere a hidden away treasure trove of unknown papers from the authorities where he signed himself Charles Cross, but as it stands, it is nothing but a wet dream.

It remains a fair ground of suspicion that he did not use his real and registered name on these occasions only.

[Kattrup]

The witness who explained the name situation said that Williams was his ‘proper’ name. That concept surfaces again and again.

Cross’s ‘proper’ name was Lechmere. Unless he was out of synch with the rest of society, he knew that.

Cross wasn't asked his "proper" name or what name he was baptised with. He was just asked to state his name. Which he did, along with his adress. So, no anomaly, sorry

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere is an unusual name. And when you add the allen (lower case a) in you have a name that would have been instantly recognised in certain quarters in Herefordshire.

Maria Louisa may still have receiving income from her father’s will which was in the hands of the Clive family lawyers. Her sisters had married well and were very respectable, but she had married a wrong ‘un and had bigamously married Thomas Cross.

Admitting that his ‘proper’ name was CAL but that his ‘stepfather’ was named Cross would not have been a sensible thing to do.

[MrBarnett]

Cross wasn't asked his "proper" name or what name he was baptised with. He was just asked to state his name. Which he did, along with his adress. So, no anomaly, sorry

Many other witnesses asked the same question revealed both names. Didn’t you produce a list of them at one time?

Anomaly restored.

[Fisherman]

Cross wasn't asked his "proper" name or what name he was baptised with. He was just asked to state his name. Which he did, along with his adress. So, no anomaly, sorry

Considering that he otherwise always answered the question about his name with ”Lechmere” when asked by various authorities, can you explain how it was not an anomaly when he suddenly deviated from that line? I would have thought that this is the very definition of an anomaly - to deviate from a common practice.

[MrBarnett]

Considering that he otherwise always answered the question about his name with ”Lechmere” when asked by various authorities, can you explain how it was not an anomaly when he suddenly deviated from that line? I would have thought that this is the very definition of an anomaly - to deviate from a common practice.

It was a double anomaly. He deviated from his normal practice when dealing with the authorities. And he deviated from the norm of witnesses revealing both names.

Look at this piece of ‘Legal Advice’ above given in the Weekly Telegraph on 4th August, 1888.

[Fisherman]

It was a double anomaly. He deviated from his normal practice when dealing with the authorities. And he deviated from the norm of witnesses revealing both names.

Look at this piece of ‘Legal Advice’ above given in the Weekly Telegraph on 4th August, 1888.

Yes, I am aware of this. And curious to see how our Danish friend will go about defending a stance that cannot be defended. It promises to be an interesting afternoon.

[Fisherman]

It should of course also be pointed out that there was no general wish for testifying people to present themselves by any name, since the very ground for the request was always going to be that the authorities wanted the testifyer to be identifiable fortwith.
That would go lost if people were allowed to use any name they felt like using on the day, and so the grounds behind the process would be compromised. I believe we may conclude that such a thing was never on the authorities wishlist.
It is another matter that people were allowed to assume and use aliases; they were, but the generosity of the authorities would not stretch to allowing for people to fly under the radar. If this was allowed, then there would be no purpose in establishing any names in the first place.

[rjpalmer]

The Pinchin Street woman was part of a series that involved cutting from ribs to pubes (very, very unusual), that encompassed taking out sexual organs (very, very, very unusual), that involved taking out non-sexual organs (even more unusual) and that also involved cutting away the abdominal wall in large sections from victims (almost unheard of and unusual in the extreme). Further to this, in both series, rings were taken from the victims fingers, and in both series, there was a lack of signs of physical torture, something that should be expcted in the torso series at any rate (abduction murders and murders where the killer see to it that he has ample time alone with his victims in a secluded space will normally involve serious elements of torture).

I asked you in my former post how you explain why this would NOT be the work of a single killer.

Can I have your answer now, please? It is a much less trivial matter, as I said, and so I am interested to hear your view.

For the sake of brevity, let me just say that I reject the Pinchin Street case as being part of the 'Ripper' series for the same reasons that Commissioner James Monro outlined in his 7 page report to the Home Office, dated September 11, 1889. I'm confident you have read it.

The only thing I would add to Monro's arguments is that the victim's head being removed shortly before the body was dumped is highly suggestive of a domestic killing, where knowing the victim's identity will lead to the murderer. It is a common feature of such cases.

The victim's hands were well manicured and showed no sign of physical labor; in fact, it was suggested she was spent a lot of time writing with a pen--so we aren't likely to be looking at a drunken street woman from Spitalfields, despite that fact that some here wish to label her a prostitute.

I notice in your above statement that many of the features you attribute to the alleged torso 'series' do not actually apply to the Pinchin Street case. I realize you are using 'shorthand,' but it is rather deceptive to lump the various torso cases together as one 'series,' and then pick and choose various attributes from individual case to make a cumulative argument that they conform to the Ripper's alleged motivations. No organs were removed from the Pinchin Street victim; no sexual mutilations occurred (except accidently from the incision); nor was her throat cut (according to medical opinion); nor--do I believe--were any rings missing. (A newspaper report makes this claim, but Hebbert specifically states the victim had not worn a wedding band).

The main pitfall of the pseudo-science of 'signature,' is that human behavior is complex, and behaviors that appear similar--or even identical--can, in fact, spring from entirely different motivations. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, we are experts at seeing subtle patterns. We are so good, in fact, that we see patterns even where they do not exist.

Welcome to the wonderful world of crime detection.

[rjpalmer]

I do have to wonder how relevant people's modern day work experiences (in our age of labor laws, unions, refrigeration, motorized vehicles, etc etc.) would be when theorizing the activities of an East End laborer in the 1880s. I doubt many of these blokes had the luxury to knock-off at noon and take a siesta, but I am open to persuasion if there is any actual record of this applying to Lechmere's case.

For years, I worked a schedule similar to the one that Lechemere supposedly worked, and the last place I would have been on a Saturday night at 1 a.m. is my mother's house.

Anyway, Lechmere was a forty year old family man with a steady work history. Painting the town red at the end of a long work-week becomes less and less appealing the older one gets. Could he have been there? Sure. Does it 'fit nicely'? We have no way of knowing.

[MrBarnett]

For the sake of brevity, let me just say that I reject the Pinchin Street case as being part of the 'Ripper' series for the same reasons that Commissioner James Monro outlined in his 7 page report to the Home Office, dated September 11, 1889. I'm confident you have read it.

The only thing I would add to Monro's arguments is that the victim's head being removed shortly before the body was dumped is highly suggestive of a domestic killing, where knowing the victim's identity will lead to the murderer. It is a common feature of such cases.

The victim's hands were well manicured and showed no sign of physical labor; in fact, it was suggested she was spent a lot of time writing with a pen--so we aren't likely to be looking at a drunken street woman from Spitalfields, despite that fact that some here wish to label her a prostitute.

I notice in your above statement that many of the features you attribute to the alleged torso 'series' do not actually apply to the Pinchin Street case. I realize you are using 'shorthand,' but it is rather deceptive to lump the various torso cases together as one 'series,' and then pick and choose various attributes from individual case to make a cumulative argument that they conform to the Ripper's alleged motivations. No organs were removed from the Pinchin Street victim; no sexual mutilations occurred (except accidently from the incision); nor was her throat cut (according to medical opinion); nor--do I believe--were any rings missing. (A newspaper report makes this claim, but Hebbert specifically states the victim had not worn a wedding band).

The main pitfall of the pseudo-science of 'signature,' is that human behavior is complex, and behaviors that appear similar--or even identical--can, in fact, spring from entirely different motivations. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, we are experts at seeing subtle patterns. We are so good, in fact, that we see patterns even where they do not exist.

Welcome to the wonderful world of crime detection.

And yet both Monro and Arnold put in a request for 100 extra PCs to patrol the streets of The East End. Not the banks of the Thames or Whitehall - Whitechapel Division.

Phillips was of the opinion that the victim had died as as a result of blood loss from a ‘former’ incision of the neck that had ‘disappeared on the subsequent separation of the head.’

So we have a victim whose throat was most likely cut and the police being concerned that there might be more such cases in the East End.


Did they imagine there might be a second throat- cutting Whitechapel serial killer?

[Astatine211]

Did they imagine there might be a second throat- cutting Whitechapel serial killer?

William Wallace Brodie - Strong circumstantial links to Whitehall Torso, Pinchin Street Torso and Alice Mackenzie. Definitely not Jack the Ripper as he was out of the country but to quote WWB himself he claimed to be "one of the Whitechapel murderers".

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/persons-of-interest-or-actual-suspects/24386-william-wallace-brodie

[MrBarnett]

I do have to wonder how relevant people's modern day work experiences (in our age of labor laws, unions, refrigeration, motorized vehicles, etc etc.) would be when theorizing the activities of an East End laborer in the 1880s. I doubt many of these blokes had the luxury to knock-off at noon and take a siesta, but I am open to persuasion if there is any actual record of this applying to Lechmere's case.

For years, I worked a schedule similar to the one that Lechemere supposedly worked, and the last place I would have been on a Saturday night at 1 a.m. is my mother's house.

Anyway, Lechmere was a forty year old family man with a steady work history. Painting the town red at the end of a long work-week becomes less and less appealing the older one gets. Could he have been there? Sure. Does it 'fit nicely'? We have no way of knowing.

Knock off for a siesta? We’re talking about starting at sparrow’s fart, working a long shift and still being able to get some shut-eye on a Saturday afternoon before paying a visit of a few hours to St Georges in the evening.

I wonder what % of East End working men didn’t enjoy a pint or two when the opportunity arose? And if they were ‘lightweights’ who weren’t up to doing so when they had to get up for work the next morning, then the evening before their day of rest would fit nicely.

[rjpalmer]

And yet both Monro and Arnold put in a request for 100 extra PCs to patrol the streets of The East End. Not the banks of the Thames or Whitehall - Whitechapel Division.

"I am inclined to the belief that, taking one thing with another, this is not the work of the Whitechapel Murderer but of the hand which was concerned in the murders which are known as the Rainham mystery, the new Police buildings case, and the recent case in which portion of a female body (afterwards identified) were found in the Thames"

--James Monro, Sep. 11, 1889.

I think this is a case where words speak louder than actions. You can't get a more direct answer to what Monro believed than that.

Obviously an increased presence of uniformed patrols in the East End would have a tendency to calm the public, and mollify the wagging heads at the Home Office.

A detective's work requires a more discreet approach.

[rjpalmer]

Knock off for a siesta? We’re talking about starting at sparrow’s fart, working a long shift and still being able to get some shut-eye on a Saturday afternoon before paying a visit of a few hours to St Georges in the evening.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I've known many 40 year old laboring men who worked the early shift, and it was exceedingly common for them to hit the pub the minute the week's work was over, drink heavily for three or four hours, and then be home dozing in their arm-chair or bed by nightfall.

Let's keep in mind that either scenario is utter speculation, piled on speculation.