Cross Theory II

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Everyone

As you may know I believe Charles Cross was the killer of Mary Ann Nichols. Why ? Well a couple of days ago I posted at the other place the following -

Well, the obvious difference with Cross compared to many other candidates is that he is mixed up in the heart of the investigation of one of the murders, so the idea that he needs to fit the typical serial killer profile is just not necessary, so I don't think we need to show him torturing animals or involved in knife fights or anything along those lines.

But his involvement in the Bucks row murder gives us another approach, we can analysis the information connected with the murder.
The story we have presents some anomalies in the information, that may be a sign that not all is how it should be. As Simon Wood has pointed out, everything happens at 3.45 for a start

I want an explanation where the witnesses, the beat policemen and the journalist are not lying or making things up. The killer is one who produces false information. others may make mistakes, forget things, or make the wrong choices, but only the killer intended to deceive. So, if PC Neil says the slaughter men arrived at the scene after the doctor then they arrived after the doctor, if the explanation involves them arriving before the doctor, then the explanation is wrong.

And really that's all I can present as a case. No tangible evidence or proof, just an alternative interpretation of what had happened.

I first became suspicious of Cross when Chris Scott and the others uncovered the name change regarding Cross or 'Crass' as he was for a while, years ago. Originally I did what Michael Conner, and then Christer and Edward have done, and just slotted Cross into the standard version of the autumn of terror that was already established, but for me, this didn’t actually explain anything, so it was unsatisfactory for me as a solution, and I abandoned it some three years ago or so


So then I started trying to analyse the material we have in a different way. (ok, - using a different bias!) What I have now is actually my third version, but I wasn’t ever particularly happy with the other two theories.

There are three small changes to the standard version of what happened on Bucks row and shortly after, three changes that open up a different possible solution to ones available before, a solution which I believe fits better than the ‘we don’t know who the killer is’ solution we have now.

Three very small changes in our understanding of Bucks row that I can show an argument for.

But after that, what I’m left with as a solution that fits in to those changes, is totally and utterly bizarre, put away your conspiracies, secret societies, anagrams and your messages hidden in paintings, and your fenians, freemasons and Russian agents. My solution is madder than those, my solution is the strangest one ever, perhaps the strangest one possible, but it only involves the people actually there, at the scene of the first of the C5 murders, at the time that it happened. But it is an explanation that I believe fits better than what we have now. But I also struggle to believe my own explanation.


Here’s the conclusion;- I not only believe that Charles Cross was Jack the Ripper, but that Robert Paul was the ‘hot potato’.

And what changes have I made to the standard version to get the maddest explanation possible;-

1 - When Paul approached Cross on Bucks Row, Nichols wasn’t dead only unconscious.

2 - Paul then left on his own to find a policeman, Paul found PC Mizen first, but only after Cross arrived did Mizen leave to go to Bucks Row and then find PC Neil at the scene.

3 - Cross arrived at the inquest, un-summoned by the Coroner.

There you are, a different take on what happened on Bucks row on the 31st August 1888, I thought I would bring it up here as well, as not everyone's a member of both sites so if you have any questions -

[Colin Roberts]

... I believe Charles Cross was the killer of Mary Ann Nichols.

"Charles Cross".

Considering the FACT that no such person existed, I assume that you are referring to Charles Lechmere.

[Mr Lucky]

"Charles Cross".

Considering the FACT that no such person existed, I assume that you are referring to Charles Lechmere.

'Yawn'

No, I'm talking about the man who gave his name as 'Charles Cross' to the inquest into the death of Mary Ann Nichols

Legally, his identity as far as the inquest is concerned is 'Charles Cross'. just PC Neil isn't called 'PC Neil' on his birth certificate either.

You identity is 'whom you purport to be' not necessarily what you are named.

[Monty]

'Yawn'

No, I'm talking about the man who gave his name as 'Charles Cross' to the inquest into the death of Mary Ann Nichols

Legally, his identity as far as the inquest is concerned is 'Charles Cross'. just PC Neil isn't called 'PC Neil' on his birth certificate either.

You identity is 'whom you purport to be' not necessarily what you are named.

Monty

[Colin Roberts]

You identity is 'whom you purport to be' not necessarily what you are named.

So the Mitre Square victim was Mary Ann Kelly.

[Phil H]

but only the killer intended to deceive

I see no logic in this comment - among many peculiar statements it stuck out.

In a recent thread, I seem to recall that we debated what was going on with the Nichols' killing.

It emerged that, in fact, several people may have had a motive or intent to deceive in connection with the crime - doctors and policemen appear to have treated the case rather dismissively at first, and probably made mistakes/ decisions they later regretted. They then, not surprisingly, attempted to cover-up their deficiencies.

Against that background it might be difficult to determine who did not have an intent to deceive.

I thought too that we had determined that "Cross/Lechmere" (or some such formulation) was the best way of referring to one of the two men who discovered Nichols' body??

Phil

[Colin Roberts]

A note to Michael Connor and Chris Scott:

Your discovery regarding the TRUE identity of the man that identified himself as 'Charles Cross' during the course of the Nichols inquest, obviously means diddly fυcking squat to certain people around here.

How sad.

[Monty]

What name did he chose to give at inquest Colin?

If you decide not to respect that then fine.

However its a moot point in the context of this thread, no?

Monty

[Colin Roberts]

What name did he chose to give at inquest Colin?

If you decide not to respect that then fine.

However its a moot point in the context of this thread, no?

I don't, because it is not the name that he should have given, even if he did - for some inexplicable reason - go by the name of 'Cross' in certain circles.

He had but one true identity; and any inquest that was worth convening should have been made aware of it: Lechmere.

It is not a moot point in the context of this thread, because Mr. Lucky has chosen to use the name 'Cross' - and only the name 'Cross' - in the thread's title.

[Damaso Marte]

People familiar with the details of the case will know exactly who is meant by the word "Cross".

People not familiar with the secondary literature on the case will have a much better chance of knowing who "Cross" is rather than "Lechmere", as he is called Cross in all of the accessible information about the case.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, it is always better to call him Cross.

[Monty]

As I stated Colin,

He chose that name himself, and as a human being he has that right. No matter how much you disagree, that's the name he wished to be known by at that moment in time.

Cross is his name.

Monty

[Mr Lucky]

A note to Michael Conner and Chris Scott

from the last work I sent to rip-

'Previous research by Derek Osborne, Michael Conner, Colin Roberts, Chris Scott and others has revealed that the man who called himself Charles Cross during the investigation of the murder of Mary Ann Nichols in 1888 was generally known as Charles Allen Lechmere. Cross was the name of his step father and the only other known use of the name Charles Cross occurs on census data from 1861. I have used the name Cross as it is the name I had originally associated with him and it’s the name used in the original source material.'

[Colin Roberts]

People familiar with the details of the case will know exactly who is meant by the word "Cross".

People not familiar with the secondary literature on the case will have a much better chance of knowing who "Cross" is rather than "Lechmere", as he is called Cross in all of the accessible information about the case.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, it is always better to call him Cross.

And so we should continue referring to Ostrog as a suspect.

And if it is discovered that the true identity of 'Mary Jane Kelly' is ... let's say ... Jane Doe, then we should continue to refer to her as 'Kelly'.

As I stated Colin,

He chose that name himself, and as a human being he has that right. No matter how much you disagree, that's the name he wished to be known by at that moment in time.

Cross is his name.

Very well, Neil.

Mary Ann Kelly is her name.

I think you should publish a revised version of the article that you and Jake compiled.

[Mr Lucky]

In a recent thread, I seem to recall that we debated what was going on with the Nichols' killing.

It emerged that, in fact, several people may have had a motive or intent to deceive in connection with the crime - doctors and policemen appear to have treated the case rather dismissively at first, and probably made mistakes/ decisions they later regretted. They then, not surprisingly, attempted to cover-up their deficiencies.

Hi Phil,

I don't remember debating anything with you about Bucks row, can you do a link, or indicate which thread.

Thanks

[Colin Roberts]

A note to Michael Conner and Chris Scott

from the last work I sent to rip-

'Previous research by Derek Osborne, Michael Conner, Colin Roberts, Chris Scott and others has revealed that the man who called himself Charles Cross during the investigation of the murder of Mary Ann Nichols in 1888 was generally known as Charles Allen Lechmere. Cross was the name of his step father and the only other known use of the name Charles Cross occurs on census data from 1861. I have used the name Cross as it is the name I had originally associated with him and it’s the name used in the original source material.'

That's all well and good, but I know through personal correspondence of some two or three years ago that Michael Connor - the person that deserves the absolute lion's share of the credit in this instance¹ - is extremely disappointed by the fact that so many of us continue to refer to Lechmere as 'Cross'.

¹ Derek Osborne discovered a carman, Charles Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town in the 1891 census records and stopped dead in his tracks. He merely surmised that perhaps this was 'Cross', and called it a day.

Some years later, - having no knowledge of Osborne's discovery - I alerted Michael Connor to the fact that 22 Doveton Street was to be found in the census records of Mile End Old Town, not those of Bethnal Green.

Michael Connor, - also having no knowledge of Osborne's discovery - went on to rediscover a carman, Charles Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town in the 1891 census records; but then went further to connect that Lechmere to the one that appeared in earlier census records of St. George in the East. He surmised that surely this was 'Cross'.

Chris Scott then put the icing on the cake with some additional discoveries that verified the connection, for which Michael Connor deserves most of the credit.

But, again: Michael Connor is extremely disappointed by the fact that so many of us continue to refer to Lechmere as 'Cross'.