A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[John Wheat]

that's exaxtly why i think the ripper was the torso murderer. the only way he could know whitechapel so well and plan the murders he had to live there. it seems the ripper as torso is the obvious explanation. It explains how Jack knew how to remove organs...he had plenty of practice cutting up bodies.

To Rocky

But the Torso Killer left body parts all over London, not just in Whitechapel. Also why the change of M.O. And thirdly which murders do you attribute to the Torso Killer are you including the murders from 1873-74 and 1884?

Cheers John

[GUT]

G'day Rocky

Another thing is most of the victims residing at flower & dean. The killer obviously knew all the victims...they are clearly chosen and not random or they wouldnt all be from the exact same intersection.

If they had all lived at Flower and Dean you MIGHT have a point, but any proposition that the killer knew all the victims can only be a guess.

[RockySullivan]

Two questions occur to me:-

What makes you think that the killer necessarily knew Whitechapel well? All the murders were committed within a relatively short distance (& easily retraceable route) of one of the main London thoroughfares.

What evidence is there that the murders were planned, rather than opportunistic?

hi bridewell...to me it appears the killer would only take the extreme risk in committing the ripper murders if he covered all his bases first. Studying the police beats...knowing small hidden spots to kill where he was positive he wouldnt be disturbed. He wouldnt just kill anywhere without watching that spot for weeks and being certain no one would disturb him at the time of the murder. He would have to know all possible escape routes in order to avoid anyone seeing him. A visitor to whitechapel could not have done these murders. This is someone who pre-planned the killings weeks in advance.

Another thing is most of the victims residing at flower & dean. The killer obviously knew all the victims...they are clearly chosen and not random or they wouldnt all be from the exact same intersection.

[GUT]

G'day Bridewell

Two questions occur to me:-

What makes you think that the killer necessarily knew Whitechapel well? All the murders were committed within a relatively short distance (& easily retraceable route) of one of the main London thoroughfares.

What evidence is there that the murders were planned, rather than opportunistic?

My feelings exactly, anyone limiting the scope to a local who planned is, in my opinion, limiting the range suspects far more than the evidence permits.

[Mayerling]

For what it is worth, in 1887 there was widespread discussion in the British Isles of the Coachward Poisoning Case in Ireland, where the murderer, Dr. Philip Cross, was guilty of killing his wife, and then (having pulled that off successfully as a natural death) ruined it for himself by marrying his children's "nanny" (a Ms Effie Skinner) within three months of the death of his wife. Cross was executed by James Berry in January 1888. Maybe he was a distant relative of Charles Lechmere's step father.

Jeff

[Bridewell]

i think the ripper was the torso murderer. the only way he could know whitechapel so well and plan the murders he had to live there. it seems the ripper as torso is the obvious explanation.

Two questions occur to me:-

What makes you think that the killer necessarily knew Whitechapel well? All the murders were committed within a relatively short distance (& easily retraceable route) of one of the main London thoroughfares.

What evidence is there that the murders were planned, rather than opportunistic?

[DVV]

I have identified upwards of 17 or so unsolved murders (or deaths at least) of women in London over a twenty year period of a similar age and class.
I doubt 'Jack the Ripper' killed them all but could well be in the frame for a significant number.

Hi Lechmere,

Don't get mean. Patty is far more prodigal with Sickert.

[Lechmere]

But he didn't 'just have his name taken down' did he.

I would be interested to see your list of people who hid their identity.

I would also be interested to see if you can produce a list of people who didn't want to be mentioned in relation to this case, or any evidence to that effect.

[lynn cates]

O Cross, Cross, wherefore art thou Cross?

Hello Edward. Thanks.

Using an alias for Isenschmid, in an English speaking country, makes good sense.

"Do we know of other innocent witnesses in this case who hid their true identity as they were bashful about being linked to the murders?"

Don't know their motivation, but I could give a litany of alias names.

"Isn't giving evidence to the police in a murder investigation just as 'official' - much more so - than completing a trade directory entry."

Not if you are just having your name taken down. Signing is something else--as in the case of my professor.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

finding out

Hello Edward. Thanks.

Are you suggesting she never found out about his involvement?

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

In the course of the Ripper case we know numerous alternative names used by people for all sorts of reasons.
For example Isenschmid's daughter Kate used the name Lawrence unofficially - but we know as it was recorded in a court case.
His other daughter Minnie unofficially called herself Smith, which is mentioned in her probate records.
Lechmere's probate records only mention Lechmere.
Do we know of other innocent witnesses in this case who hid their true identity as they were bashful about being linked to the murders?
Isn't giving evidence to the police in a murder investigation just as 'official' - much more so - than completing a trade directory entry. If he was known locally as Cross then surely he would list his business under Cross so his buddies could look his shop up?

[Lechmere]

He went to the inquest in his workclothes so my presumption is that he didn't tell his wife he was going - so his attendance at the inquest needn't have come to his wife's attention.

[lynn cates]

name

Hello Edward. Thanks for clarifying.

"Why use the name Cross?"

"He could have given his name and thought that would be that, only to then be asked his address and workplace."

Actually, I am good with this. In fact, that was always my opinion. This would make eminent sense if he were an innocent passerby who wished not to get too deeply involved.

"Was he ever known as Cross?"

"We have over 100 instances in his life of his surname being recorded as Lechmere in a very wide range of sources and never as Cross. . ."

Yes, and ALL official documents.

"What was gained by calling himself Cross?"

"My presumption is that he wanted to mask his involvement from his wife, who was incidentally illiterate."

So, given his presence at inquest, NOTHING was gained. But he did HOPE to gain.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Why stop after Kelly?
I personally have no faith no the C5 as representing the realistic tally of the killer – whoever he was. My belief is there was probably more before and after.
So I don‘t think he did stop after Kelly.
I have identified upwards of 17 or so unsolved murders (or deaths at least) of women in London over a twenty year period of a similar age and class.
I doubt 'Jack the Ripper' killed them all but could well be in the frame for a significant number.
Without having the suspect in front of us and without being able to go into the minutiae and subtleties of his life it is not realistic to expect to know why a serial killer may stop. I often see the query, ‘why did so and so stop?’ with the demand for an explanation. This is unrealistic. Having a sudden death or incarceration in much more final and satisfying on a human level – but not particularly more realistic as a solution.
Just as an example, family bereavement (eg the death of Lechmere’s baby daughter Harriet in 1890) or the removal of an irritant (eg the death of his second step father in December 1889) or being fully occupied in business. Psychopaths are often good businessmen, and conducting a business (around 1893) may have given him the feeling of control that he was lacking and which is a common motivating factor behind serial murders. Or he may have picked up a strain or injury that impaired his ability to carry on. Or something else entirely.

Why use the name Cross?
We don’t know the circumstances that led to this.
He could have given his name and thought that would be that, only to then be asked his address and workplace.
Given that he would (if guilty) have come forward to prevent himself from being found and questioned where he was not in control of events – where he did not in any way dictate the terms of his questioning – if he had not given his real workplace and address, then if the police had come back to find him and he wasn’t there, then he would be back to square one and they would come to search for him and suspicion of guilt would attach to him. This was all caused by Paul going to the press.
So he had to give his real address.
But at the inquest we have good reason to believe that he managed to avoid giving his address in open court, and just gave his workplace. Only one newspaper recorded his address – an evening paper - the Star. They got his address exactly right – no other newspaper even got an approximation. It is my best guess that they obtained the address from a court official during the lunch recess before their copy was sent in.
He may well have not appreciated before-hand that he would be asked to state his address and workplace in open court at the inquest.
But why use Cross?
I would suggest it because it was easy to remember and commonplace. Also if he did come under scrutiny he could claim a family connection. It was a perfect name to use.

Was he ever known as Cross?
We have over 100 instances in his life of his surname being recorded as Lechmere in a very wide range of sources and never as Cross - except in the 1861 census when he was 11 and the information will almost certainly have been supplied by his step father to the door to door compiler, quite possibly by giving the quickest information to get rid of him.
Oh, he personally gave the name Cross to the authorities when he was found next to a dead body.
After his step father and his mother bigamously married in 1858, Charles Lechmere and his sister was baptised as Charles and Emily Lechmere, in 1859.
When his sister died in early 1869 it was as Emily Lechmere. (Thomas Cross died later that year).
Charles Lechmere’s children were named after his Lechmere relatives (or his in laws).
His descendants do not have the slightest knowledge about the name Cross (nor of his involvement as a witness).
The police incidentally are an ‘authority’. So not giving the name he had always used when dealing with ‘authority’, but choosing instead to break the pattern of his lifetime by giving his long dead step-father's name (even if say he was known by it to some of his mates) requires explaining. If exposed it would needlessly put the shadow of guilt on him as after all he was found by a dead body.
If he was indeed guilty then it was a risk he took to emerge unscathed.

What was gained by calling himself Cross?
My presumption is that he wanted to mask his involvement from his wife, who was incidentally illiterate. They had only just (mid June 1888) moved into Doveton Street so may have been quite unknown to their neighbours.
Wives usually know their husbands better than anyone else. If his wife knew he was involved she may have started to put two and two together with respect to various aspects of his domestic behaviour.
I don’t know that much about Obama – but did he use Sotero in official records? Or was he just known by that name to his mates?
Was Obama known as Obama in all official records yet chose to call himself Sotero (as known to his mates) when he was found by a dead body?

[GUT]

I do not believe that we can rule out a particular suspect just because they lived past 1888 with no obvious reason to stop killing.

Maybe not but then you need a good hypothesis as to why he stopped.