A new critique of the Cross/Lechmere theory from Stewart Evans

[Lechmere]

The supposedly lofty academic posture that we see being put forward is actually the antithesis of historical study.
Phil has created an artificial wall around the police suspects and then disregards unappealing evidence as being indiscriminate.

Apply the same rationale to – for example – a study of how Custer’s command came to a sticky end at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
Is it credible to only use evidence presented to the official (Reno) enquiry?
After all the members of that board knew a lot more about the circumstances and the personalities than anyone can today.
But they were also prisoners of their age – influenced by personal rivalries, and their own prejudices.

Or should we seek to obtain a more rounded picture by also consulting Native American (as they must be called nowadays) sources, take account of battlefield archaeology, take account of the topography? That is exactly the way modern historical investigations are conducted. Of course different weights need to be applied to different types of evidence in building the overall picture.

These are general purpose discussions that can be applied on any thread about any suspect.
So I ask again – why are these ‘objections’ only raised against Lechmere?
I could go on to one of Phil’s Barnett threads and complain that the police didn’t end up suspecting Barnett of killing Kelly, so he is talking amusing nonsense.
I wouldn’t do that – as I would be a hypocrite. Also it is a claim that can be made on probably hundreds of threads on here and which is a different topic for discussion altogether.

Posting these general purpose objections on this thread it is just muddying the waters which is no doubt the intention.

John
You seem to be saying that a valid suspect must have been suspected by the police at the time and without some hint that they suspected Lechmere the case against him is poor. I am sorry but that just does not follow.
It puts tremendous faith in the ability of the police in 1888 to catch and understand the motivations of a serial killer. That ability and understanding was virtually non-existent – for understandable reasons.
There is a talk on Lechmere at the Whitechapel Ideas Store (the library, near Sainsbury’s, to mark the 125th anniversary) on 12th October in which the whole case will be put…

Jenni
'Stewart already mentioned he thought this would have been done. Why do you not think so? Yes, that is speculation, but it works both ways. Lack of evidence is not evidence'.

You might have missed it in the muddying of waters that is going on here, but I explained in considerable detail, using a wealth of supporting evidence from the police files where possible, why Stewart Evan’s proposition is almost certainly incorrect. The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly against his speculation.

Again ‘he’ didn’t use Cross in 1861. His step father did. You repeatedly discuss this matter inaccurately. You also seem to have chosen to ignore the valid (guilty) reasons given as to why he may have chosen to call himself Cross.

Lechmere’s links to the other murder sites has been documents but this can be discussed again in due course – not now by me anyway.

If you think that ‘Contemporary suspiscion is one of the few things we have in terms of nailing the Ripper’ then you are dramatically reducing the chances of anyone ever ‘nailing him’ – not that it will ever be proved to everyone’s satisfaction anyway. And that is an understatement!

But again that is a general purpose discussion for elsewhere.

[Sally]

Out of interest, Ed (well, mild curiousity, anyway) why do you think Crossmere chose to use the name Cross, specifically?

I feel bound to say that the use of an alias in that social milieu was neither unusual nor necessarily suspicious in and of itself; so I think you'd need to demonstrate that it was suspicious with more than pure conjecture to convince.

[Lechmere]

Sally
the use of an alias by a hard working normal family man was not normal and from what we can tell of his exceptionally well documented life this man never used an alias.
if you trawl back several pages I have given my guessed explanation - it can only be a guess.

[Rubyretro]

To those that seem determined to think that I am trying to prove that Lechmere was JTR, let me reiterate it for the n-iem ( try looking that up in the dictionary Professor Phil ) time : I am not saying that Lechmere was JTR. I am saying that he is a bloody good suspect.

If someone is a suspect then it goes without saying that there is the possibility that they were Jack the Ripper. This might seem obvious, but some people prefer 'suspects' who could not physically, or mentally be capable of the deeds, and/or were not in the vicinity at the time. I would venture that this is the case with some of the police suspects.

I have not been assiduously (Phil, try...etc) reading Casebook for a while, and so I was fascinated to learn that Joe Barnett is your favourite suspect ? Poor Joe ! I've got a bit of a weakness for Joe Barnett and so I would love to know just why you might consider him a suspect ? ....??????

[John Bennett]

John
You seem to be saying that a valid suspect must have been suspected by the police at the time and without some hint that they suspected Lechmere the case against him is poor. I am sorry but that just does not follow.

No, what I am saying is that there is, in some cases, contemporary (or near-contemporary) references that can be drawn upon to bolster a suspect theory. They don't have to be from police sources, but this was just an example. But this is why suspects like Kozminski and Druitt, whether one believes them to be JTR or not, are so interesting. One could say the same about James Lampard who was spoken of so fully in a letter from somebody who knew him, and which resulted in some jolly good research by many on the boards.

It didn't prove him as JTR not by a long stretch, but there were some snippets gleaned that I reckon somebody could use if they wanted to push the boat out and say that he was.

With that in mind, maybe a letter to the East London Advertiser from a local resident claiming that they knew Lechmere well and that he displayed some rather peculiar behaviour at the time of the murders or arrived at Pickfords with blood on him one morning would serve the same purpose.

That's the sort of point I am trying to make.

JB

[Sally]

Sally
the use of an alias by a hard working normal family man was not normal and from what we can tell of his exceptionally well documented life this man never used an alias.
if you trawl back several pages I have given my guessed explanation - it can only be a guess.

Mmm – thanks Ed, but I’m not sure I have the commitment to trawl back over several pages of what already promises to be an epic thread awash with Über-posts; many of which are, in any case, broad repetitions of those made last year on the earlier Crossmere discussions.

Still…. Back to the alias. I think that you’re right (but shh, don’t tell anybody) in that Lechmere’s use of the name ‘Cross’ may well have been context-specific. However, I see no special reason to prefer a ‘suspicious’ explanation for that than an ‘innocent’ one.

People used an alias (in this case more of an alternative name – I think there is a distinction) really only for one reason – to escape detection. That doesn’t mean by default that they were guilty of anything – although of course it might. I’m thinking of two examples that I’ve recently encountered; one a charismatic criminal whose use of an alias was so successful that he was able to live a double life for decades. It isn’t clear whether anybody ever discovered him at the time; the other a woman who grew up in the workhouse and when her fortunes improved, adopted an alias to protect herself and her family from social stigma. One guilty, the other not – yet both used an alias.

So, go on then – let’s say that Cross wanted to evade detection. The question that cannot be resolved, as I see it, is by whom? Are you correct, Ed, in thinking that Crossmere was trying to elude the cops? Or, was he simply trying to ensure that his privacy wasn’t invaded by media types and nosey neighbours? Did he fear that he would be discovered as a killer of women? Or, did he fear that as the discoverer of a murdered woman, he, and his own family might be at risk?

The problem is that it could work either way; and as, either way, it is conjecture, I don’t see how the argument can go forward as it is.

[Jon Guy]

Cross has to be the name he used at work.

That`s the missing information we need for the alias thing to work (ie he was known as Lechmere at Pickfords)

[Phil H]

John, isn't that contradictory (or am I missing your point?)

Cross has to be the name he used at work.

That`s the missing information we need for the alias thing to work (ie he was known as Lechmere at Pickfords)

Surely Pickford was where he worked?

Do you mean cross was the name he used at work, or at home?

As for the rest - I give up!

Phil

[Robert]

Perhaps Cross sensed that Paul was a bit dubious about him and therefore gave the name "Cross" to the PC in Paul's presence. Natural enough, if Cross thought that Paul suspected he had attacked the woman.

[Jon Guy]

John, isn't that contradictory (or am I missing your point?)

Cross has to be the name he used at work.

That`s the missing information we need for the alias thing to work (ie he was known as Lechmere at Pickfords)

Surely Pickford was where he worked?

Do you mean cross was the name he used at work, or at home?

As for the rest - I give up!

Phil

Yes, he worked at Pickfords
Rather than write Pickfords twice, I used the word work in my first sentence, and then elaborated in the second sentence by using the word Pickfords.

Cross has to be the name he was known as at work, because he gave the Coroner the name Cross, and where he worked, for over twenty years.

[Rubyretro]

Perhaps Cross sensed that Paul was a bit dubious about him and therefore gave the name "Cross" to the PC in Paul's presence. Natural enough, if Cross thought that Paul suspected he had attacked the woman.

Aha. So maybe Lechmere (for that was the mans name) " sensed that Paul was a bit dubious about him" ? " thought that Paul suspected that he had attacked the woman"........and that would make it "natural" to give a different name ?

If he were innocent ?

?????

curiouser and curiouser, said Alice

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

Cross has to be the name he was known as at work, because he gave the Coroner the name Cross, and where he worked, for over twenty years.

This has been up for discussion before, Jon. But even if we accept that he for some reason called himself Cross at work and Lechmere at home, it still applies that not only when he signed his name himself, but also on all the occasions we have on record when he was ASKED about his name by different representants of the authorities, he answered "Lechmere" - and then the ones who had asked him, wrote Lechmere on the form. There are dozens of examples to prove this.

So tell me why we should accept that he called himself "Cross" when going to the police? He very apparently did not give his name on the murder night, but instead as he approached the police, most probably on the evening before the inquest.

Now, since we have him approaching other authorities and giving his name as Lechmere for them to write down, why would he not do the exact same thing as he approached the police? He was NOT at work - he was at the cop shop.

You see, we have to take this one step further to be able to believe in your proposition - we must believe that he called himself Cross at work, that he gave his name as Lechmere when authorities asked for it - but that he gave it as Cross when the police authorities did the exact same thing.

It does not add up, thus. Not at all, in fact.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

It is known that he didn't give his name to Mizen.

John
what you are saying in effect is that you find people who were mentioned by the police interesting per se and interesting to investigate to flesh out their lives - but what I am trying to do is find a credible culprit - a different task.
having Said that finding extra details about many of the characters' involved lives' is interesting as it adds colour and context to the overall case - that would go for Lechmere whether he is guilty or not.
if Lechmere had been mentioned in the way you suggest in the East London Advertiser I would regard that as a big negative against his likely culprit status.

[Jon Guy]

This has been up for discussion before, Jon. But even if we accept that he for some reason called himself Cross at work and Lechmere at home, it still applies that not only when he signed his name himself, but also on all the occasions we have on record when he was ASKED about his name by different representants of the authorities, he answered "Lechmere" - and then the ones who had asked him, wrote Lechmere on the form. There are dozens of examples to prove this.

So tell me why we should accept that he called himself "Cross" when going to the police? He very apparently did not give his name on the murder night, but instead as he approached the police, most probably on the evening before the inquest.

Now, since we have him approaching other authorities and giving his name as Lechmere for them to write down, why would he not do the exact same thing as he approached the police? He was NOT at work - he was at the cop shop.

You see, we have to take this one step further to be able to believe in your proposition - we must believe that he called himself Cross at work, that he gave his name as Lechmere when authorities asked for it - but that he gave it as Cross when the police authorities did the exact same thing.

It does not add up, thus. Not at all, in fact.

Hi Christer

Yes, I recall discussing this and noting that the examples you have of the name Lechmere been used were official things that involved the kids, census and the church. Sunday best stuff.
Giving a statement to the police in 1888 was a different matter. Yes, it was a very serious and important thing but it wasn`t a baptism record.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Yes, I recall discussing this and noting that the examples you have of the name Lechmere been used were official things that involved the kids, census and the church. Sunday best stuff.
Giving a statement to the police in 1888 was a different matter. Yes, it was a very serious and important thing but it wasn`t a baptism record.

So what do you suggest? That he would be cautious about giving his real name in connection with a police inquiry?

If so, remember that he would have been very well aware that he was the one to find the body - and alone at that.

I´m sure you can see the implications of giving a false name to the police in a high-profile murder case such as this. If he was innocent, don´t you think that Lechmere would have realized the exact same thing? The risks involved would have been huge.

Or is it something else you are saying?
We know that he had been asked by dozens of officials: "And your name, sir?", whereupon he had answered "Lechmere. Charles Allen Lechmere". At the cop shop, somebody would have taken out a form and asked him "And your name, sir?"

Why on earth would he say "Cross" at that stage?

I know, Jon, that we can conjure up any sort of explanation to anything. But surely, just as I can say that he COULD have answered "Cross" for some reason that we don´t know, without being guilty, don´t you think that you need to admit that it is a strange anomaly? He leaves the path he habitually treads in every other instance we have on record, and he does it in combination with a murder inquiry where he had found the body - alone.

The best,
Fisherman