Evidence of innocence

[Great Aunt]

Hi Fisherman - I understand what you are saying and agree that any attempts to find favour with the police by linking himself to his Cross step-father would not have carried much, if any, weight whatever. When faced with the possibility of a murder charge, however, I wouldn't blame him for giving it a go. I'm not saying it would have worked - just that may have been a fragile lifeline that presented itself in what could have been a difficult situation. I don't want to clog the forum up with this minor issue but it is something I feel was possible. Thank you.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman - I understand what you are saying and agree that any attempts to find favour with the police by linking himself to his Cross step-father would not have carried much, if any, weight whatever. When faced with the possibility of a murder charge, however, I wouldn't blame him for giving it a go. I'm not saying it would have worked - just that may have been a fragile lifeline that presented itself in what could have been a difficult situation. I don't want to clog the forum up with this minor issue but it is something I feel was possible. Thank you.

Like I say, anything is possible. But we must also take into account how the carman - if he chose to call himself ”Cross” in order to evoke sympathy - simultaneously ”forgot” to mention that although he once had a stepfather by that name, he himself was actually called Lechmere, which was the name he was registered by and used officially…

Knowing, as we do, that Charles Lechmere was the name he always otherwise used in authority contacts, he must have known that he needed to provide the police and inquest with that name too. He could use both names, get the sympathy he wanted AND steer free of any idea that he was obscuring his identity if he wanted to.

But he chose not to do so.

”A jury would not like that”…

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fish - Just passing through--and don't worry, I won't disturb you for long, but how does this help you?

Thomas Cross died in 1869, the year in which Charles Lechmere turned 20. Thomas Cross had therefore been dead for seven years when Charles ran over and killed the young boy. That is a long time.

But the 12 to 15 years that Thomas Cross was in CAL's life was a long time, too. Charlie must have been very young when PC Cross entered his life, and the relationship lasted the whole of his teen-aged years and into his young adulthood--his formative years. As far as we know, this strapping young constable was the only father figure Charlie ever had.

Furthermore, Maria Louisa had remarried after Thomas Cross demise; in 1872, she wed Joseph Forsdyke.

Have you ever read Hamlet?

Don't answer; it's a joke...sort of.

But what is the relevance of this observation? CAL is an adult when his mother remarried--so any influence Forsdyke had on his life was minor compared to the influence that Thomas Cross had exerted. If CAL had used the name 'Forsdyke' at the 1876 inquest it would have been infinitely more odd than his using the name Cross--the name of the man who had raised him, and who was still alive when he had started at Pickford & Co.

I believe CAL's signature is on the Forsdyke/Cross marriage cert. as witness, so he must not have wholly disapproved of Forsdyke, but that doesn't mean they were particularly close. Charles may have been resigned to the inevitable, or was hoping the best for his widowed mother.

Anyway, I'll leave you alone for now.

I did notice a constable in H Division who was still there in 1888, but had entered the force the year before Thomas Cross's death. There may have been others, though I agree it is not likely that many would have remembered him. For some reason, the constables in the Thames police seemed to have had longer careers. Fishing dead bodies out of the river is less physically taxing then dealing with drunks, I reckon.

Have a good afternoon.

[Great Aunt]

Like I say, anything is possible. But we must also take into account how the carman - if he chose to call himself ”Cross” in order to evoke sympathy - simultaneously ”forgot” to mention that although he once had a stepfather by that name, he himself was actually called Lechmere, which was the name he was registered by and used officially…

Knowing, as we do, that Charles Lechmere was the name he always otherwise used in authority contacts, he must have known that he needed to provide the police and inquest with that name too. He could use both names, get the sympathy he wanted AND steer free of any idea that he was obscuring his identity if he wanted to.

But he chose not to do so.

”A jury would not like that”…

Hello again - do you believe that Lechmere used Cross so as to obscure his real surname rather than link him to the Cross name? It's possible for some reason he wanted not to be associated with the name Lechmere or to bring it to the attention of the authorities. I know this goes against my previous post but I am open-minded and can see this as a possibility also. Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Hello again - do you believe that Lechmere used Cross so as to obscure his real surname rather than link him to the Cross name?

Yes, I do.

It's possible for some reason he wanted not to be associated with the name Lechmere or to bring it to the attention of the authorities. I know this goes against my previous post but I am open-minded and can see this as a possibility also. Best wishes.

To my mind, if he wasn´t hiding the name away for nefarious reasons, the perhaps likeliest alternative explanation would be that he tried not to have the Lechmere name copuled to any sordid activities. However, if this was the case, then he ran the risk of being found out - in which case the outcome would be very counterproductive to his original wish. In such a case, not only would the Lechmere name get disclosed, but it would get disclosed as a name that a man involved in a murder case tried to hide from the police...

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish - Just passing through--and don't worry, I won't disturb you for long, but how does this help you?




But the 12 to 15 years that Thomas Cross was in CAL's life was a long time, too. Charlie must have been very young when PC Cross entered his life, and the relationship lasted the whole of his teen-aged years and into his young adulthood--his formative years. As far as we know, this strapping young constable was the only father figure Charlie ever had.



Have you ever read Hamlet?

Don't answer; it's a joke...sort of.

But what is the relevance of this observation? CAL is an adult when his mother remarried--so any influence Forsdyke had on his life was minor compared to the influence that Thomas Cross had exerted. If CAL had used the name 'Forsdyke' at the 1876 inquest it would have been infinitely more odd than his using the name Cross--the name of the man who had raised him, and who was still alive when he had started at Pickford & Co.

I believe CAL's signature is on the Forsdyke/Cross marriage cert. as witness, so he must not have wholly disapproved of Forsdyke, but that doesn't mean they were particularly close. Charles may have been resigned to the inevitable, or was hoping the best for his widowed mother.

Anyway, I'll leave you alone for now.

I did notice a constable in H Division who was still there in 1888, but had entered the force the year before Thomas Cross's death. There may have been others, though I agree it is not likely that many would have remembered him. For some reason, the constables in the Thames police seemed to have had longer careers. Fishing dead bodies out of the river is less physically taxing then dealing with drunks, I reckon.

Have a good afternoon.

You never worry me at all, R J, so you need not ...well, worry about that!

I am aware, as you will know, that Thomas Cross is likely to have been a formative figure in Charles´ life. Whether or not that would make Charles likely to call himself Cross officially in honor of the dead PC seven years after his death, a seven year period when he consistently called himself Lechmere every time he signed a document or had a document signed for him, is quite another question.

I think we may all agree that Cross was a fairly common name? Therefore, it would not be a given thing that anybody who called himself Cross was the stepson of Thomas C - in fact, it is very likely that Charles must have EXPLAINED his step ancestry if he wanted to use his name for sympathy, before he could hope to be given any. This would apply in 1876 and much, much more in 1888. And so, if he told the story about his stepfather in order to explain where he had his name from, then he SHOULD also have told that he normally called himself Lechmere in any official capacity.

Personally, I don´t think he called himself Cross at work or colloquially. I very strongly suspect that if a census taker had approached him in the Pickfords Yard, he would have said that he was Charles Lechmere. The idea that somebody would fill out official documents in different fashions depending on where he was when he signed them does not sit at all well with me. You may differ, of course, but as I said, that does not worry me at all.

Why did I mention the marriage between Maria Louisa and Joseph Forsdyke? Mainly to point out how a LOT of water had floated under the London bridges as the carman called himself Cross at the Nichols inquest.

As for your view that it would have been "infinitely more odd" if Charles had called himself Forsdyke instead of Cross in 1876, the argument kind of looses a bit weight, does it not, when we KNOW that he called himself neither Cross nor Forsdyke on official documents - not in 1870, not in 1872, not in 1888, not ever.
So if he could call himself Cross while BEING Lechmere, then why would he not be able to call himself Forsdyke as well? People go out of their way to tell me how middle of the road it was to have a dozen various identities to shift inbetween. Consequentially, I don´t see how it would have been "infinitely more odd" if he used his current stepfathers name in 1872 instead of his three year dead former stepfathers name - that he didn´t use on official papers anyway.

You see, the REAL problem is not - and never was - that he called himself Cross. Or Forsdyke. Or von Pappenheim.

It is that he did NOT call himself Lechmere, thereby actively choosing not to do what he otherwise always did in contacts with authorities.

I may, though, have mentioned that before ...?

PS. Have I read Hamlet? Yes. I can actually see Kronborg Castle from my home town, just across a narrow sound. I sometimes fish for plaice right below it´s walls.

[bolo]

Not only that, it has - and has had - a tremendous impact. It´s not as if I am unaware of that. But I would have been a bit more impressed with it if all the bigwigs of the time had named the SAME killer.
I have read up on these men - and a fair few others - for forty years plus, and I am anything but impressed with them. And so I say that. There are those who dislike me doing so, but I have come to th conclusion that I will not be awarded two lives, and so I tend to spend as little time as possible on matters I find a waste of time.
Luckily, there are those who have researched Kosminski, Druitt and Cutbush in great detail and who have spent years on end trying to find useful evidence against them. Many of these researchers are people I admire greatly. There has been some sterling work done on these suspects, and the material has been gone over with a fine toothed comb. The outcome has not in any way convinced me that are good suspects. To me, they are likely a burden, for the very reason that I suspect that they had nothing at all to do with the murder series, either of them. In fact, if I am correct on how the Thames Torso murders from 1873-1889 were committed by the same man as the Ripper murders, noone of the three could have been the perpetrator.
Respect is due to those who have researched these suspects in depth. I nevertheless think that they researched men that were not involved in the case.

The Anderson/Macnaghten/Swanson suspects have more facets than just a criminological one, there also are socio-political aspects that go beyond the mere question of guilt. It would be bad practice in my eyes to ignore them as they are part of the small amount of historical first-hand info we have and should be valued as such. You may drop them for reasons of convenience but that would not change their overall relevance.

Historical/contemporary "authenticity"? Does that mean that he was not a suspect back then? If so, I agree. But I would warn against thinking that such a thing would in any way take away from his viability as a suspect overall.
I would also warn against saying that the compiled evidence against Lechmere was not strong enough for the police back then. I am quite convinced that if they had had a chance to look at the whole case against Lechmere as it is presented today, they would have arrested him immediately and if he could not prove his innocence, they would have tried and sentenced him. The problem is that they in all likelihood never looked at him in retrospect, they arguably failed to investigate him in combination with the Nichols murder, and that was that.

First-hand information from witnesses or officials who were directly involved with the murder cases of 1888/9 will always have more weight for me than contemporary second-hand info (e.g. press articles) or current deductions but I'm not dogmatic here, oftentimes we have to cope with what is available and make the best of it. With official info, most of the problematic guesswork can be eliminated, just take the Paul situation with three conflicting press articles. It's shaky ground.

The police knew Crossmere's home address, they knew that he was the first person seen on the crime scene, they knew his profession and place of work so they probably knew about his way to work and they also realised that he told Mizen he is wanted in Buck's Row but by then PC Neill had already found the body, yet they did not act on it. Ignorance, stupidity? Maybe, but that explanation as to why the police did not suspect him seems a bit too simple to me. It was Whitechapel, after all, and I'm sure the police knew about the usual suspects when it came to violent crimes in their area, they may have been a bit blind or simply went with experience, your choice.

[Fiver]

Having worked now and then in logistics, I find myself roaring with laughter at the idea that a delivery driver 'spends most of his daytime at his works'.

Congratulations on refuting a position no one held.

Like many in the Fisherman Fanclub, you're putting words in other people's mouths instead of refuting what they actually said.

PIckfords carmen had a series of pickups and deliveries. These had to be signed for. Each of these would be a chance for one, possibly several people to note unexplained bloodstains on the carman. Unexplained gaps in the delivery schedule would be obvious, especially if they matched up with the times a Ripper victim was killed.

[Fisherman]

The Anderson/Macnaghten/Swanson suspects have more facets than just a criminological one, there also are socio-political aspects that go beyond the mere question of guilt. It would be bad practice in my eyes to ignore them as they are part of the small amount of historical first-hand info we have and should be valued as such. You may drop them for reasons of convenience but that would not change their overall relevance.

I do not question how many people regard them as relevant - they ARE relevant, but for all the wrong reasons if you ask me. Tumblety is also relevant. As is Le Grande. They all fill roles in the story since they were all linked to it back in the day.

I have looked extensively on all of them, and I am personally convinced that none of them were the person we are looking for, and so, until anything happens to change my view, I take no interest in them as suspects.

First-hand information from witnesses or officials who were directly involved with the murder cases of 1888/9 will always have more weight for me than contemporary second-hand info (e.g. press articles) or current deductions but I'm not dogmatic here, oftentimes we have to cope with what is available and make the best of it. With official info, most of the problematic guesswork can be eliminated, just take the Paul situation with three conflicting press articles. It's shaky ground.

If no modern suspect can be found, it is always wise to put trust in the contemporary suspects, but that advice is diluted if there are many such suspects to whom no real evidence exists. Once a modern suspect is identified and has the kind of evidence going for him that Lechmere has, that is a game-changer for me. It would be odd in the extreme if he was not the killer of Polly Nichols, and to me, the contemporary suspects are flushed away by his candidacy. In a sense, it should not be too dramatic - out of the five mentioned above, all contemporary suspects, four MUST be wrong. Allowing for how five may be wrong is no big leap thereafter.

The police knew Crossmere's home address, they knew that he was the first person seen on the crime scene, they knew his profession and place of work so they probably knew about his way to work and they also realised that he told Mizen he is wanted in Buck's Row but by then PC Neill had already found the body, yet they did not act on it. Ignorance, stupidity? Maybe, but that explanation as to why the police did not suspect him seems a bit too simple to me. It was Whitechapel, after all, and I'm sure the police knew about the usual suspects when it came to violent crimes in their area, they may have been a bit blind or simply went with experience, your choice.

Any deep insights into his person would entail knowing that his name was Lechmere. And to be frank, the Nichols investigation involved a fair few serious mistakes. So the old canard that the police are always thorough and diligent is a stance I leave to others in this case, Boris. But as I keep saying, it is a good thing that others take care of avenues of research and matters of belief that I prefer to leave behind. It is a good way of covering all the bases.

[Fiver]

Outraged resistance to Lechmere's candidacy has to be the single most brain-destroying obsession ever seen on these boards. I am, frankly, stunned to see the things people come out with.

And now you fall back on the other common dodge by the Fisherman Fanclub - attacking the people you disagree with instead of refuting what they said.

It shows how weak the position of the FF is. Fisherman's theory has more holes than a fishing net. Noting those holes is basic fact checking and logic, not desperation.

[Fiver]

Improbability? Why so? How many families in that part of STGITE are known to have had any connection to the horse flesh trade? It’s a bit like saying I found my grandfather recorded as a docker on the 1891 census but because he was at school in 1881, it’s highly unlikely he was working at the docks in 1889.

There were two sheds side by side. Are you suggesting Ma sold cats meat out of both simultaneously?

What is your obsession with horse meat? There is no evidence that selling cats meat has anything to with the Ripper killings. There is no evidence that selling cats meat had anything to do with the Torso killings.

[Mark J D]

Congratulations on refuting a position no one held.

Like many in the Fisherman Fanclub, you're putting words in other people's mouths instead of refuting what they actually said.

PIckfords carmen had a series of pickups and deliveries. These had to be signed for. Each of these would be a chance for one, possibly several people to note unexplained bloodstains on the carman. Unexplained gaps in the delivery schedule would be obvious, especially if they matched up with the times a Ripper victim was killed.

The nonsense that the OP wrote -- and I here copy and paste it with emphasis added -- was this:

"... if the police wished to question him at a later time,the best place would be at his works where he was known by the name Cross.Why at work?,well that was the location where most of his daytime was spent..."

For gods' sake, man, get some self-respect. This degree of public self-mortification is disgusting to see.

M.

[Mark J D]

And now you fall back on the other common dodge by the Fisherman Fanclub - attacking the people you disagree with instead of refuting what they said.

God Almighty, what a spectacle...

Folks, my posting was refuting the following. Because it is bollocks:

... if the police wished to question him at a later time,the best place would be at his works where he was known by the name Cross.Why at work?,well that was the location where most of his daytime was spent...

Out. Of. Control.

M.

[harry]

Where and when would you expect the police to question Cross,Mark,should they have felt the need to do so?When are most routine enquiries made? As only you remarked on my post I put your reply down to ignorance,unless the folk you appealed to think otherwise.
So instead of criticising,lets hear your entertaining and knowledged account of how the police would have acted.

[Great Aunt]

God Almighty, what a spectacle...

Folks, my posting was refuting the following. Because it is bollocks:

... if the police wished to question him at a later time,the best place would be at his works where he was known by the name Cross.Why at work?,well that was the location where most of his daytime was spent...

Out. Of. Control.

M.

I would have thought the best thing for the police to do would be to leave a message at his work address or home address for him to contact them. The majority of his working day would be spent out and about around Whitechapel and Spitalfields, not at his place of work. With little or no access to telephones, the police would not waste time chasing around town after him (I understand that some police stations did have a basic telephone system in place around that time - but can't see merchants or shopkeepers having that luxury.) Best wishes.