Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

You did not state that you believe it a reasonable assumption. You stated there is absolutely no question that he concealed a major part of his identity.

There is a difference.

Let's also not forget that the use of Charles Cross is founded in a census. So it it is correct that it was not totally unprecedented - you will perhaps then say that he was a child and had no choice in the matter, and that may well be, but it certainly shows that at one point, he was known as Charles Cross.

Oh, and there's absolutely no question that Queen Victoria was a woman. Since we have sources documenting that she was. We do not, however, presently have any sources showing that Charles Cross concealed anything.

The responsibility of providing census information fell to the head of the household, not to his 12-year-old ‘stepson’. So my point was valid.

[MrBarnett]

Cannot see your point Mr Barnett.He gave an alternate name to that of Lechmere, Cross,a name he has been known by for well over a hundred years.No error there.
You might say he should have given the name Lechmere,a given or baptisimal name.I say he had a choice and chose Cross.The evidence proves my point.

Then you are saying the same thing as me, although I would rephrase it by saying he chose not to use L… oh, I see why you phrased it the way you did.

The man, of course, has also been known as Lechmere for over a hundred years. Ask his descendants - the ones who had never heard of Charles Cross until it was discovered that the real name of the witness was CAL.

[The Baron]

1- "enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surrounding suspicion was cast in statements made to police"

(First premise)


2- Cross made a suspicious statement to the police (contradicted Mizen)

(Second premise)


3- Enquiries were made into the history and accounts given by Cross!

(Conclusion)


Simple deductive logic!

And no amount of bumbling buffoonery can change this logic.


And on top of this, we have Dew:


"Thoroughly Honest man"


This is more than enough to completely destroy this misguided theory beyond recognition.




The Baron

[MrBarnett]

Let’s compare the 1861 census use of Cross to the 1869 use of Lechmere on Emily’s death cert.

Who in 1861 can we be sure would have been aware that CAL had been recorded by the name of Cross?

Whoever completed the household schedule and whichever census officials processed it. In other words, no one who knew the family beyond Thomas Cross or possibly Maria.

Who in 1869 can we be sure would have aware that Emily’s real name (and by extension that of her brother) was Lechmere? Obviously the family themselves who provided the information and the registrar who knew bugger all about the family. Then there was Mrs Marshall and, unless she was the soul of discretion, anyone she discussed the matter with. The only copy of Emily’s death cert I’ve seen is heavily cropped, but there must have been a Dr involved at some point. There’s no mention of a PM, so perhaps a local doctor who had been treating her?

We should also remember that in 1859, the year after TC and Maria married, Charles snd Emily were baptised. Their father’s full name, John Allen Lechmere, was entered into the baptismal register and was no doubt also recorded on the baptismal certificates provided to Maria. Do we can add the local vicar to the list.

[Paddy Goose]

The man, of course, has also been known as Lechmere for over a hundred years. Ask his descendants - the ones who had never heard of Charles Cross until it was discovered that the real name of the witness was CAL.

So MrBarnett, you are convinced CAL was Jack the Ripper. Using the alias Charles Cross outed him.

[Kattrup]

You’re going to be in trouble with Kattrup with your categorical statement that he didn’t have to give the name Lechmere in court. If Lechmere was the name he was generally - or exclusively - known by, he did have to give it. And we have no evidence whatsoever that in 1888 he was known by anyone as Charles Cross.

I wouldn’t worry too much, though, yours is an anti-Lechmerian error and they seem to go unchallenged.

I do not understand why it'd be a problem. I believe I've always maintained that it was not obligatory for him to give his other name at the inquest. As such it is not an error.
I don't think that anti-lechmerian errors go unchallenged; what is challenged is dubious assertions of fact and baseless speculation.

[MrBarnett]

1- "enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surrounding suspicion was cast in statements made to police"

(First premise)


2- Cross made a suspicious statement to the police (contradicted Mizen)

(Second premise)


3- Enquiries were made into the history and accounts given by Cross!

(Conclusion)


Simple deductive logic!

And no amount of bumbling buffoonery can change this logic.


And on top of this, we have Dew:


"Thoroughly Honest man"


This is more than enough to completely destroy this misguided theory beyond recognition.




The Baron

Paul’s comments about Mizen’s reluctance to cease his knocking up supported Lechmere’s account. As did the fact that Neil was apparently unaware that the carmen had found the body before he did. The two carmen who jointly found the body rather than the honest carman and the suspicious mystery man in Dew’s flawed account.

[MrBarnett]

So MrBarnett, you are convinced CAL was Jack the Ripper. Using the alias Charles Cross outed him.

That’s almost as good as your nonsense about the working class being thrown under the lorry.

[Paddy Goose]

What do you mean by that MrBarnett?

You are convinced CAL was Jack the Ripper. Yes or no please.

[MrBarnett]

1- "enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surrounding suspicion was cast in statements made to police"

(First premise)


2- Cross made a suspicious statement to the police (contradicted Mizen)

(Second premise)


3- Enquiries were made into the history and accounts given by Cross!

(Conclusion)


Simple deductive logic!

And no amount of bumbling buffoonery can change this logic.


And on top of this, we have Dew:


"Thoroughly Honest man"


This is more than enough to completely destroy this misguided theory beyond recognition.




The Baron

Of course, what is meant by 1. is that people who were accused of acting suspiciously by people who made statements to the police were then checked out. That doesn’t describe Lechmere.

By simple deductive logic, I have come to the conclusion that Baron has a beef and cannot be relied upon to be objective.

[MrBarnett]

What do you mean by that MrBarnett?

You are convinced CAL was Jack the Ripper. Yes or no please.

Convinced? No.

He’s an interesting subject with a number of points in his favour.

[Paddy Goose]

So MrBarnett, you are convinced CAL was Jack the Ripper.

Edit, you answered already.

[MrBarnett]

So MrBarnett, you are convinced CAL was Jack the Ripper.

Is this a Monty Python sketch? Yes, or no?

[MrBarnett]

So MrBarnett, you are convinced CAL was Jack the Ripper.

Edit, you answered already.

I did.

[Paddy Goose]

No. It's a Suspect Thread. Not a Monty Python sketch.


Edit: that's why I edited my post. Because you had already answered when I asked the second time.

Okay so finally you say he is a interesting subject. Thank you for being honest. Because, and please forgive me if this is incorrect usage of the UK vernacular, but after all you used this phrase - you MrBarnett have been "banging on" about the name topic daily for some time. I was perplexed as to why you would do that. Now I know. You consider him an interesting subject with a fair number of points in his favour, to quote you exactly.

There is no sense in me repeating anything I've posted because you and Fisherman have mocked me at every turn.

Goodbye on the Lechmere Suspect threads.