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

[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

[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)

[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.

[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

[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 ? ....??????

[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.

[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]

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.

[Phil H]

Very wise, Jenni. Phil

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Ruby


It would indeed be ironic ! However my accusation of 'bloodymindedness' was more intended to suggest that if Ed or Fishy made posts saying 'white', some posters here would automatically say 'black'. Conversely, if Begg or Fido wrote a post, then some posters would sit up to attention and consider its merits solely because of the person who wrote it. Can't we leave personalities out of it and consider each idea on its merits ?

I admire Stuart Evans et al, as anybody interested in the Ripper case must do, but the wheel turns and they don't have a monopoly on the case by some divine right.

( and before someone accuses me of just supporting Ed and Fish, I can assure them that if we were discussing Hutchinson, then I would find myself arguing against them).



That is what I for one was doing.

I dont see why people keep mentioning other suspects.

This suspect can be considered on his own merits, he's better than X isnt an argument

Jenni

[Phil H]

I really do despair. Either people can't or won't understand what I write.

John gets it, but I don't think you are even trying Ruby.

But your points a) and b) were hard facts ! (and what facts !) Its all your 'innocent explanations' which would be conjecture and speculation !
You are outrageous, Phil !

But any interpretation of them is speculation and conjecture. Any fact (as EH Carr made clear in his "What is history?" decades ago) becomes less certain when considered in juxtaposition to any other fact. These are all basic tenets familiar to any serious student of history.

I am not going to refute your long post replyling to mine since most of what you say is "daft" not to put too finer point on it. One point demonstrates why:

Was Dr Banardo ever found standing over a warm body giving a false name ? Nope. Dr Banardo was famous -which gives a motivation for people to put him forward as a suspect- Lechmere wasn't. To put them in the same sack is being plain silly.

But Barnardo HAS been promoted as a "suspect" and did meet Stride (it appears) before her death. You try to use my analogy to dismiss what I say - but I do not (never have) asserted Barnardo's candidacy. I simply suggested that Crossmere falls into the same category of RECENTLY (ie long after the 1880/90s) identified suspects, rather than into the historically recorded individuals (named above) who must, in scholarly terms, take precedence. they have standing, modern suspects do not unless peer review establishes them as worthy of such status. I argue Lechmere does not warrant such standing, albeit he is of interest.

To suggest somehow that I support Barnardo as a "suspect" or that my post can be interpreted as doing so, shows how inadequately you read what I wrote.

If a case is made that someone should be regarded as a suspect in the Whitechapel murders then it naturally follows that they are being built up - potentially - as bring Jack the Ripper. That is a little unavoidable.

Think again - the terminology here is difficult because not agreed. Druitt, Tumblety and Kosminski are contemporary suspects named in the record, they thus have an ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT standing from those proposed more recently. No question of that.

Rob Houses' book on Kosminski is an excellent example of seeking to understand why Kosminski might have been a suspect. It does not argue the case for him as JtR.

You are seeking to promote Crossmere as the Ripper - there is insufficient evidence (as against conjecture) to do so IMHO.

Studying WHY the police suspects became suspects - how they came to the attention of the police, what made them suspicious or likely candidates - is quite a different activity from trying at this remove to establish who was most likely to have dunnit.

Precisely and that is as much as we can do.

There is a word for what you Crossmerites are doing and that is "sophistry". What you are doing is akin to that and it is a dangerous intellectual game to play. Everything becomes distorted by the reflecting mirror of your theses and the critical faculty is lost.

I do not dismiss Cross/Lechmere by any means, but perfervidly (look it up!) pushing a notion into a thesis is more than the material will bear - at this stage.

Phil

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi Ruby,
I was just catching up on Casebook and came across this thread and read it with increasing disbelief, since those who refuse to admit Lechmere as a suspect appear to do so out of sheer bloodymindedness and personal animosity.

This is a classic tatic of suspect Ripperology of trying to turn around things onto those pointing out problems with a theory. How is that bloody mindedness? I have no axe to grind whatsover.

Others have their authority and reputation linked to who they think the murderer is. I for one and not one of these people.

I am quite happy to alter my opinion if the facts or my knowledge of them change.

However, nothing anyone has said on this theory has done so.

Where is all the evidence against Cross?

There is not any, any more so than against Bowyer or Richardson or PC Watkins or Louis D.



I]In that case, we'd have no suspects at all, as hard evidence is missing for all of them

In my opinion we have plenty of suspects, Cross is now one ofthem as his name has been dragged into it. But we have not got any Rippers. Hard evidence is what you need to say your candidate is Jack the Ripper.

In my opinion it is wrong and imoral to name someone so vehemntly as the Ripper but without any evidence, hence forever tainting them. And for what purpose? What good does it do?

Still, if this were a modern day case, then the first person that we would have to look at closely would be the person placed over the body at the TOD. What is so hard about admitting that ? (and surely most people would agree that, if the killer wasn't Lechmere, then he interrupted the killer -so he was certainly there at the TOD).

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.


Furthermore, if that person can be linked to all the different murder sites in the right time frame, he has to be of interest. That is just logical. It is also logical to be suspicious when that person gave police a name that was different to the name which we know that he gave on every other occasion that has come down to us.

How does Cross link to e.g Miller's Court, Berner Street or Hanbury Street, in fact, what are the links to all the murder sites in the right timeframe?

Never mind what different name he gave police, nor if we think that he might of used it at work -that is speculation. We don't know. We only know that he gave police a name that he never ever used on official papers -and there are lots of examples. It is simply being wilfully obtuse to deny it.

We do not know that, he used it on the 1861 census, i accept the 'problems' outlined with this, but equally it is an offical document. Yes, you want to ignore that, but doing so is in itself speculation.

It would be more troubling if he used a totally different name, I would see your point.

I dont see how it is being any more willfully obtuse than to say that he used it as he was the Ripper.

Whenever there are opinion polls, the majority of people seem to opt for 'unknown local man' -so someone who wasn't suspected by contemporary senior figures at the time. This doesn't appear to cause anybody any problems ? Whoever the Ripper was, he must have lived with/next to loads of people in such an overcrowded city, none of whom suspected him. It seems to me that 'no contemporary suspicion' is no sort of argument at all. Surely we can agree on that ?

When we are thinking of this type of person we do not mean someone the police met in the course of the investigation, that kind of person is known. Contemporary suspiscion is one of the few things we have in terms of nailing the Ripper. There is very little else that is solid. That is the problem really.

Of course one tries to take evidence from various different sources ! Taking evidence from only one source at your own discrimination would hardly be better, would it

no indeed. but where we fall down on occasion is to say speculation is evidence, Charles Cross gave a name he didnt use, he was trying to hide something maybe it was the fact he was the ripper, for example, relies on speculative evidence only.

I have no idea if Lechmere was JTR or not, but he is a bloody good suspect

I fail to see what makes him a good suspect, but we can agree to disagree

You could call it willfully obtuse, i see it more as a failure on the part of those putting him forward.

And last time I checked, the burden of proof was on those who are putting someone forward.

Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Sorry Phil, I haven't yet read your post -which I'll now do with great interest.
I just got this far, and collapsed in giggles....you've got to see the irony in it ?

Where is the irony?

Laughing at others is all very well , but they are not the ones trying to build a case.


Jenni

[Fisherman]

Lechmere as the Ripper needs more than just filling in gaps with conjecture and 'what if's'.

Imagine this: that there is an interview with Inspector Reid in some newspaper many years after the event where he says:

"We made extensive enquiries after the Buck's Row murder and were strongly of the suspicion that the murderer was somebody near to the scene of the crime. However, our investigations came to nothing, yet I still feel that we were on the right track even then and had it not been for countless claims and red-herrings following the later outrages, my detectives would have not been so distracted and that we would have got our man."

Now that would be something. No name, but you have a choice of some of the residents of Buck's Row, the Barber's slaughtermen and of course Lechmere and Paul. It would serve as an interesting pointer.

Or what about a City Police detective saying:
"We knew who he was and under the suggestion of the Metropolitan force we conducted surveillance of this man on his way to work in the City."

Another little tease and the sort of thing we have with a number of other suspects. But, alas, not with Lechmere.

John, if they had been on to Lechmere, they would have nailed him. Starting with the name swop, and going on to realize that the victims died along his trodden paths at times when he could or even would reasonably have been there.

He is not a man you can start to dig into, only to say "Nah, it probably was´nt him".

The mere fact that they never even bothered to check his name - or so it seems very clearly! - says it all.

He went voluntarily to the police not once but twice, seeking out the long arm of the law of his own free will. That must have impressed - and kept him in the clear.

Having the sort of passage written about him that you suggest would be an absolute anomaly - once seen, soon nailed. But noone saw - that´s my contention.

All the best,
Fisherman

[John Bennett]

On another note, the sad thing about the Lechmere theory is that it exists in pieces; in lectures, periodical articles and extensively on the message boards. That's a lot of work!

Have you guys considered bringing the whole thing together and turning it into a book? It would be good to see the whole case as one study and I for one would buy it, even though I am not convinced.