Framing Charles

[Trevor Marriott]

The mystery exists, Trevor. This guy who seems to have been somewhat anal about using his full name - Charles allen Lechmere - neglected to use it twice. On both occasions it was when he was involved in something unpleasant. I can understand why those of you who refuse to accept CAL as a suspect can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that he might have done so to hide his ID. Some of us, however, are able to look at the facts objectively and accept that as the most likely reason.

But you are also forgetting that if he had been the killer he had the chance to make good his escape as soon as he heard Paul approaching, why would he create a problem therefater for himself if it could be avoided.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

>>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.
Since he appeared Mrs Nichols inquest in his Pickford uniform and would have needed Pickfords permission to attend, again Pickfords, not school, not electoral forms, was key to the issue.

As far as we know, based on the actual information available, there is nothing unusual him using the name Cross at the inquest.

If he was not known as Cross at Pickfords then there is an issue. But that's up to the accusers to prove and, to date, they haven't. It's all been smokescreens about schools and election forms, which have no proven relationship to the inquest.

It is not exactly as if ytou have proven that he did call himself Cross at work, is it? So we are on equal footing on that score, and we will in all probability remain so. Claiming or trying to make out as if your position is in any way better is untrue, therefore.

He was able to remember that he was called Lechmere whenever he spoke to any authority. You now suggest that his wearing bhis working clothes when witnessing at the inquest would have lulled him into a Pickfords mode where he would automatically call himself Cross.

It is up to anyone to invest as much he or she wants to in that suggestion...

[Trevor Marriott]

Changing your name in combination with a crime has always walked hand in hand with suspicion. It is not frivolous or paranoid in any way, it is sound, empirically based thinking.

That said, there may of course be an innocent explanation. WHich is why more parameters need to be checked, like the geography. Like whether there may be other lies involved. And lo and behold ...

But you continually reject the inocent explantions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

There were four clear indications of identification that Cross gave ,a name,an address,a work situation,and last but not least,at the inquest exposed himself to body and features identification.What more was needed?.

How about his REAL name and his home address?

Those who regard it as a mere trifle that he forgot to identify himself by his real name would do good to ponder how long it took to identify the man for the ranks of researchers who tried to follow up on him. And that is the exact reason why the real name is asked for - to allow an identification.

[Trevor Marriott]

In which world are the authorities "happy" for testifying witnesses to give an aliasa only and not provide the name they were registered by?

You really - REALLY - need to get a grip.

I have a firm grip on this part of the investigation, and time and again you have been told that there is nothing recorded anywhere to show that there was any question marks surrounding his using the name Cross, we can now draw a proper inferenece to say that the name Cross was readily accepted by the coroner, the police, and it seems the press as well.

You need to now accept the fact that this part of your case against him is now a non starter.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I should probably let it go, and the conversation has moved on, but I'd like to return to the Pinchin Street torso for a moment, because it seems I have been misunderstood and my point mischaracterized.



This wasn’t Phillip’s observation, it was Hebbert’s and Swanson’s, but Yes! this is what I have been saying all along. Despite efforts to dismiss or downgrade Swanson's September 10^th report, we are faced with the apparent fact that the victim's legs were indeed removed some days before the head was removed. Even simple observation made this obvious.

And this is precisely why I am suggesting that any claim that the woman was murdered by having her throat cut is not proven...not by a long shot.

Could she have had her throat cut?

Yes, but to accept this, we are to believe that the murderer cut her throat (and remember that in some cases the Ripper cut his victim’s throats clear down to the spinal column, with a clear attempt at decapitation), but nonetheless decided to leave her head attached for several days while cutting off the legs. When he finally got around to removing the head, he did not simply continue with the throat cut that he had started (which by now would have had similar signs of drying and blackening at the front edges of the throat, just as the legs did) but made an entirely new cut, further down, leaving no trace of the original throat cut, which otherwise would have left tell-tale signs of decomposition. If not, surely Hebbert would have noticed some sign of drying skin and blackened flesh where the throat was originally cut and bled?

Is it possible that entirely new cuts were made? Again, yes. But if such were the case (and here is the key point): there would be no remaining evidence that the victim's throat HAD been cut in the first place, beyond the victim having died from hemorrhaging. The entirety of the neck wound was described as 'moist and red.'

And this doesn’t contradict Phillips one iota, because he admitted there was no evidence that the cause of death was the throat being cut—it was ‘supposition.’



This comment appears to be missing or avoiding the point. Clearly it is Christer's theory that the two cases are connected, not mine, so the attempt at turning the tables is unwarranted.

If something is obscured, it is obscured. If the cuts that removed the head “obscured the throat cuts,” as Phillips suggested, and left the entirety of the neck ‘moist and red,’ as Hebbert described, how do we know there were any throat cuts to begin with? Answer: we don’t. It is solely an assumption based on the victim having bled to death. Phillips makes this clear. There was no sign of stomach or lung bleeding, so he assumed it must have been a throat wound—though he was honest enough to admit there was no direct evidence of this.

Is this so difficult to accept?

And with no evidence to show how the victim died, we are left with a theory---and this is what Phillips admitted. The victim’s throat having been cut was a “supposition and only a supposition."

Apparently some here want to disregard Phillip’s admitted uncertainty, in a race to place an alleged throat slashing at the doorstep of Lechmere’s mother. I merely point out the difficulties in accepting Phillip’s theory, based on Hebbert’s notes and Swanson’s report, coupled with simple logic.

And, as I noted, people can bleed to death from head wounds or from leg wounds. I have no idea why Phillips did not raise these possibilities. But considering that both the head and the legs were missing, just as any evidence of an earlier throat cut was missing, I maintain that any insinuation that this is ‘similar’ to a Ripper crime is strictly theoretical, and, in some degree, illogical, considering the pains the Ripper took to divide his victim’s spinal columns at the time he murdered them. Equally, we must acknowledge that he failed in those attempts.

By contrast, whoever was involved in the Pinchin Street case knew how to divide the spinal column, yet didn’t do so for several days, showing that his motivation was entirely different from the Ripper’s. Since it was done soon before dumping the body, the obvious implication is that it was done to destroy evidence: the victim’s identity, to be specific, which is the hallmark of a domestic killing. Even if the Ripper learned how to separate the spine between 1888 and September 1889, why didn’t he do so immediately? Why wait until just before dumping the body, leaving the throat red and moist? And several days after the legs had been cut off? Did the Ripper ever exhibit such patience when attacking his victim’s throats?

Are the questions I raised now understood?

This, along with all lack of relevant genital injuries, is why I believe Monro, Macnaghten, and others were skeptical that the Pinchin Street victim was the work of the 'Ripper.'

Uncertainty exists, of course, but the motivations appear to be different, and there is reasonable doubt that the victim was even a street ‘unfortunate.’

"Motivations appear to be different".

If I was to advice anybody with an interest in the case to avoid something, then it would be to avoid relying too mucgh on your own hunches about the psychology involved.

Before I go any further: have you read my book, R J? If not, it would certainly help if you did, if you want to (but why would you...?) take a look at how I see it. Just for starters, the idea that it must be strange if someone cuts off the legs from a torso at an earlier stage than the head is something that I give an explanation to.

If you want to save up and donīt buy the book, hereīs two questions for you:

Why did the killer in the 1874 case leave a leg on that torso, while cutting away head, arms and the other leg? How does that jibe with your take?

Why did the killer leave the arms on the Pinchin Street torso? How does that jibe with your take?

Wasnīt he supposed to divide the corpses up in the traditional six parts?

Now, brace yourself, because I am now going to link you too a very, very gruesome set of pictures from the net. Take a good look at this, and then tell me why you think it was that the killer of this woman did not remove her head. And why did he sever the arms half way down?
If the killer of this woman subsequently cut her head off and dumped the body, ca you see how it could result in dry surfaces where the legs had been and a moist one where the head had been?
If you want a good nights sleep, you should perhaps not look at all, but if you want a better understanding of how I look at the killer, it may help:

http://www.charonboat.com/item/235

I apologize to the rest of the posters out here in advance, but I am trying to make a very important point here.

[Trevor Marriott]

How about his REAL name and his home address?

Those who regard it as a mere trifle that he forgot to identify himself by his real name would do good to ponder how long it took to identify the man for the ranks of researchers who tried to follow up on him. And that is the exact reason why the real name is asked for - to allow an identification.

But the police and the coroner had the opportunity to stop him in his tracks when he was asked to give his details when being sworn in on oath and then question him about the ambiguity. they didnt, why didnt they, did they knowingly all allow a person to perjur themesleves in an official and lawful inquest?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

And one more point, R J:

By contrast, whoever was involved in the Pinchin Street case knew how to divide the spinal column, yet didnīt do so for several days, showing that his motivation was entirely different from the Ripperīs.

To begin with, yes the killer of the Pinchin Street woman did know how to divide the spinal column by way of knife - in September of 1889.

In the summer of that same year, however, he did not. Hebbert makes it a point to show how the killer evolved in this context: in the Rainham and Whitehall cases of 1887 and 1888, he had to saw the heads off after having given it a try to use the knife. In the Jackson case, he almost succeeded with the knife, but in the end, he had to go and get the saw anyway. In the Pinchin Street case, he finally managed to do it.

So at the stage when the last accepted Ripper victim, Mary Kelly, was killed, neither the Ripper nor the Torso killer (who were actually not two but ONE man) were able to take a head off by way of knife. In the Torso cases, there was a saw at hand, in Millers Court, there was not, and so Kellys head remained on her neck.

This of course nullifies this perceived difference of yours. If it is a comfort, Phillips made the exact same mistake as you did; he said that the Torso killer had shown more skill in severing body parts in Pinchin Street than the Ripper had done in Millers Court. The one part where this was given a try in Millers Court was the neck. And so, Phillips also forgot about the time factor, just like you.

Far from being a difference, it is instead a very clear and very telling SIMILARITY: In 1888, both killers han an urge to try and decapitate by way of knife, but both failed to do so.
How common a trait within a killer do you think that is?

You then go on to say that the Torso killer did n ot sever the head for many days, and this would tell him apart from the Ripper. That begs the question whether you have pondered how much of a chance the Ripper would have had to wait for days in the backyard of Hanbury Street or in Millers Court before trying to take the head off?

Killing out in the open street does not allow for such a thing. But how does that tell us that the killer would not have wanted to take the head off at a later stage - if he had the opportunity? There are various examples of killers who have returned to their victims out in the open (Shawcross, Bundy etc) and mutilated them, but in those cases, the bodies had not been found. It was never as if the Riper could sneak into the mortuary in retrospect and do the cutting, was it?

Furthermore, the Pinchin Street woman is an exception. to the rule in this context: in all of the other cases, dismemberement followed swiftly after death, as given away by the muscle contraction of the victims.

So this is where your musings about the motivations may well lead you very wrong.

My own musings - that may also be wrong, we are talking about the psychology of a very curious mind here - suggests to me that the head was left on the Pinchin Street woman in the same way that is was left on the woman in the gruesome pic in my former post, as the result of a consious choice and an urge within the killer. It was then taken off as he decided that the time had come to discard the corpse, where decomposition had seet in. He took the head off, and he saw to it that the body was equipped with a tell-tale gash from ribs to pubes. It was not a gash from which he could take out any organs, but he did not want to do so from a decaying corpse. Instead he wanted to impress upon people that much as it was said that there were two serial killers roaming the East End streets, there was in fact just the one. And that man wanted to be recogized for ehat he did, so he stamped "Ripper work" on the abdomen and saw to it that the body was dumped deep in Ripper territory. And since it was Lechmere who did it, the choice of Pinchin Street was a given - it was likely the one street most directly linked to bhis backgriund and who he was himself.
It was all about recognition, and it supplies the link between the Ripper, The Torso killer and Charles Lechmere, all in one.

As I said, I may be wrong. But I donīt think I am.

[Fisherman]

But you continually reject the inocent explantions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, Trevor, it is not as if I can accept half of them and reject the other half, is it? If Lechmere was the killer, then ALL the innocent explanations are wrong. If he was not, then there will be innocent explanations for all the many pointers in his direction. And so, since I think he was guilty, I work from the assumption that the innocent explanations are all wrong.

It is not the same as being able to prove them wrong. It is saying that I think they all are wrong, because I donīt think that any person in the history of mankind has ever had so much pointing in his direction without being guilty.

[Fisherman]

I have a firm grip on this part of the investigation, and time and again you have been told that there is nothing recorded anywhere to show that there was any question marks surrounding his using the name Cross, we can now draw a proper inferenece to say that the name Cross was readily accepted by the coroner, the police, and it seems the press as well.

You need to now accept the fact that this part of your case against him is now a non starter.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I prefer to accept that you do not have a clue. Try and imagine that he gave an alias only that was not his registered name. Can you do that? Good! Now, try and imagine that the inquest did not understand that he conned them. Can you do that too? Fine!!

You see, history is crammed with examples of people who conned other people, without the latter understanding it. Crammed!! It is a VERY trivial, uncontroversial and sad truth.

Now, if there isnīt anything else...?

[drstrange169]

>>It is not exactly as if ytou have proven that he did call himself Cross at work, is it? <<

That's not my problem, because I'm I'm not accusing him of anything. The onus is on you. That's the way it works unless you QAnon.

We know that all the available evidence tells us whenever Pickfords is involved the name Cross is used.
It is not unreasonable to believe that Pickfords would be aware of both cases and would be approaching the police if the facts were wrong.
It is also reasonable to believe that the police would verify the story with Pickfords as standard procedure.
Add to that, the fact that the only recorded time he is called Cross in any documents that we have access to is closest to the time he started work at Pickfords and it is the cumulative effect that supports the story.

All else is just you behind the curtain, Great Oz.

[Trevor Marriott]

I prefer to accept that you do not have a clue. Try and imagine that he gave an alias only that was not his registered name. Can you do that? Good! Now, try and imagine that the inquest did not understand that he conned them. Can you do that too? Fine!!

You see, history is crammed with examples of people who conned other people, without the latter understanding it. Crammed!! It is a VERY trivial, uncontroversial and sad truth.

Now, if there isnīt anything else...?

You need to take the blinkers off.

so you are saying that not only did he con the police when they visited him and took down his statement, but the coroners court when he gave his testimony, and the newspaper reporters who also followed the case,and that none of them had any inkling that he was deliberatey misleading them, if you believe all of that then you are totally deluded

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

>>It is not exactly as if ytou have proven that he did call himself Cross at work, is it? <<

That's not my problem, because I'm I'm not accusing him of anything. The onus is on you. That's the way it works unless you QAnon.

It is only if I want to prove something that I have such an onus on myself. But I am not presenting a theory as proven, I am presenting it as a theory. And so, as I have said before, what I need to do is to point at possibilities aln likelihoods, where you, if you want to deny them, must PROVE your point.

You see, that is also how it works.

We know that all the available evidence tells us whenever Pickfords is involved the name Cross is used.

He gave his occupatoin as a carman at the census takings. And so Pickfords was involved there too. And he called himself Lechmere in them. And there goes your rather exotic suggestion.

It is not unreasonable to believe that Pickfords would be aware of both cases and would be approaching the police if the facts were wrong.

And it is not unreasonable that they didnīt.

It is also reasonable to believe that the police would verify the story with Pickfords as standard procedure.

And it is also not unreasonable that they never did.

Add to that, the fact that the only recorded time he is called Cross in any documents that we have access to is closest to the time he started work at Pickfords and it is the cumulative effect that supports the story.

All else is just you behind the curtain, Great Oz.

And who does that make you? The straw man? Toto? Ot the wicked witch of the East End?

[Fisherman]

You need to take the blinkers off.

so you are saying that not only did he con the police when they visited him and took down his statement, but the coroners court when he gave his testimony, and the newspaper reporters who also followed the case,and that none of them had any inkling that he was deliberatey misleading them, if you believe all of that then you are totally deluded

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And if YOU believe your own take on things, you are cutely naive.

How were they to know? What if my name is Jonsson and not Holmgren and I have deliberately misled you without you understanding it? Have you established how true or untrue that is by way of magic? Or? Just how does that work? Would the coroner have risen from his chair, exclaiming "NO!!! Your name is NOT Cross!! You canīt fool me, you carman you!!!"

This was entertaining in the beginning, but it is getting more and more tedious by the minute.

[harry]

The reason he gave his name as Cross ,might possibly be in relation to how the question or direction was phrased.If it was 'state your name',and not' state your full name' then Charles Cross would suffice.What is apparant is that he was given a choice and chose Charles Cross.Nothing illegal,and nothing obstructive,as there were four points of identification in excess of his home address ,and as Trevor has pointed out,the court and the police(Aberline was present} were satisfied.
There is no link between the killing of Nichols,and the use of the name Cross.There is no link between the killing of Nichols and Cross being observed at the scene by Paul.There is no evidence that links Cross to the killing of Nichols.There is no evidence that Charles Cross lied.A more innocent man in the history of mankind,will not be found.Amen.