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

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

But supposing she HAD found out that Lechmere had found a body? So what?

Cheers.
LC

Depends, Lynn. In any case, it would be wise to minimize her knowledge.

If she found out, and noticed that Lechmere was very close every time somebody died, he could have been in trouble.

There is also the possibility that he had been accused of something that could not be proven. Say, for example, that a woman had accused him of having done something improper towards her, but that no further steps were taken. If Frau Lechmere knew of this and perhaps nurtured some sort of suspicion against him, then it would obviously be very risky to admit to any involvement in a case like the Nichols one.
Incidentally, I have before suggested that such a thing could be what lay behind his nameswop - if he knew that there were policemen who had heard of the accusations against him, he would not want to provide these policemen with further fuel.

All conjecture, to be sure. But it should go to show you why there may have been good reasons to keep his wife out of the know.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I notice that Edward has offered a few other possibilitites too. I hope they suffice.

[Fisherman]

Hello (again) Christer. Thanks.

"There are more coming. . ."

Not to worry--you and Edward can change them about. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Thanks for that vote of confidence!

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Lynn
I was just thinking about that example of a name change that you often compare to Lechmere's where your University colleague or acquaintance changed a letter in the spelling of his name.
But that letter change didn't materially alter the pronunciation of the name nor could it conceivably confuse anyone as to his identity.
So I am left wondering why you think it is the basis for any sort of comparison?

[lynn cates]

questions/answers

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"Some people who went under different names did not keep their alternative names secret. This is obviously how we know about them. That is not a sign of guilt as it wasn’t a secret – there was no subterfuge. I hope that makes things obvious and clear."

Not really. We don't know whether he ever brought up Lechmere or not. And, as you say, we must go with what we know.

"Emily Holland – Jane Oram – of course wasn’t found anywhere near a dead body so I’m not entirely sure why you mentioned her."

Found? Why, she TALKED to the dead woman. And we don't know whether she walked further or not.

"Mrs Long wasn’t found standing by a dead body either."

Standing? No, but, as I say, she was a few feet away from the murdered woman.

"Usually when someone gives an alternative name – or a name they are not usually known by, it is for a particular reason."

Absolutely. And if Lechmere had disappeared, the point would be quite strong.

"If you are having difficulty in comprehending what Lechmere may have been trying to accomplish, then I would suggest it was to mask his involvement in this murder case."

Very well. But, as I have asked before, HAD he used Lechmere, would the result be different?

"This case, may I remind you, is regarded by most commentators as the first of a particularly gruesome series of unsolved murders.
May I also remind you that he was remarkably successful in masking his involvement as it was only discovered nearly 120 years later. But that isn’t grounds for suspicion?"

But what was there to be suspicious of in the first place? And the police knew of his finding a body. So I ask, So what?

"What did he accomplish by telling Mizen that he was wanted by anther policeman and that the woman was merely lying on her back, i.e. without telling him she was dead?"

What indeed? I'd say nothing. So what's the point in that?

"Are you seriously asking such a question?"

Yes, indeed.

"Presume he was the killer for a moment if you will."

Right. No problem.

"He would have had a knife on him. He needed to get past Mizen without being searched. Or brought back to the body."

Suppose he had? Your and Christer's theory is that he brasened it out instead of running. Why not remain brasen?

"If it had not been for Paul coming forward and blabbing to the press then he would not have had to come forward himself."

But this is a normal impulse for almost ANYONE. It's not wanting to get involved.

"So there were obvious reasons why a guilty man would want to get past the policeman with the minimum of fuss."

As with an innocent one.

"So what if his wife had found out?"

Yes, what?

'This is a rather naive question to ask."

Perhaps I am a naive person. Answer?

"Maybe if his wife knew he was connected to the murder she might have suspected him."

Why? He was purportedly on his way to work. Would she have alerted Pickford's for a search?

"If he was the murderer he in all probability acted at home sometimes in a way that would have made her put two and two together."

Not a sociopath who brasens rather than runs.

"Also, my presumption is that the killer would have wanted to kill again and so he would not want suspicion or extra vigilance over his movements at home. This should be rather obvious."

Not obvious at all. Why would she have become suspicious in the first place?

"The evidence points to his wife not finding out."

And his neighbours? And no one brought this up? Pity sake, his address was given.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

If her were really worried about the Mrs. finding out, etc, why not just run when Paul approached? Your and Edward's thesis has been that he was a sociopath and hence brasened it out. This worry about long term connections is surely not coherent with brasen?

"All conjecture, to be sure."

Agreed.

"I notice that Edward has offered a few other possibilities too. I hope they suffice."

Well, I don't feel sufficed.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

allegory

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"But that letter change didn't materially alter the pronunciation of the name. . ."

Actually, it does. But that is not an important point.

". . . nor could it conceivably confuse anyone as to his identity."

Quite. But I'm not sure anyone was confused about Cross's identity?

"So I am left wondering why you think it is the basis for any sort of comparison?"

You're joking? The whole point is that, in an official signed document, one must use the name occurring on one's birth certificate. Common parlance, however, is quite different.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Lynn

Do we know whether Charles Lechmere ‘brought up’ his true identity?
I think we do, as it went unrecorded and the police routinely recorded alternative names.
The natural conclusion is that he did not ‘bring up’ his true identity.
You may wish to insist otherwise.

You seem to be insisting that there is a comparison between Emily Holland, who came forward almost immediately as having spoken to Nichols distant in time and space from when she as killed, and Charles Lechmere who came forward days later after the appearance of Paul’s story and who was seen by the body and whose alternative name was undiscovered until nearly 120 years later.
That is a strange position to take in my view.

You say that if Lechmere had disappeared (presumably after giving his alternative name) it would be a different story.
I presume you are aware that in his circumstance he could not just disappear. He had a wife and family.
I’m not entirely sure what you are driving at in suggesting that he could or should have just disappeared if he were truly guilty.

If he had used Lechmere then his true identity would not have only been discovered in the mid 2000s. His family would almost certainly have been aware of his involvement from 1888 onwards.

I think that the police did not take him seriously as a potential murder suspect, for a variety of reasons, and overlooked him. Like you they thought ‘so what?’ That is often the case with murders – the actual culprit is, initially at least, overlooked. They think – like you do ‘so what’?

You seem to think that a psychopath or sociopath could braze out having a bloody knife on them. I would suggest that would be a step too far in terms of brazening out. Because a psychopath or sociopath lies readily and believably, does not mean that every time they tell a lie it is automatically believed. So being searched and being found with a bloody knife would be something to avoid.
Am I having to explain this?

You think that it is the normal impulse for anyone who has vital evidence to give in a well publisized murder investigation, would be to hide and not come forward?
If that were the case then I guess your Emily Holland and Mrs Long are exceptional.
I am afraid I can’t agree with your assessment of human nature.

You say that an innocent man would want to get past a policeman with the minimum fuss. Well every single other civilian who discovered a Whitechapel Murder victim did not share you view of human nature.

I’m not sure why you said of Charles Lechmere’s wife, if she suspected him:
‘Would she have alerted Pickford's for a search?’
I am tempted to think that this random comment suggest that you are at cross (ho ho) purposes in all of this and you are discussing a different case altogether and are on the wrong forum. Perhaps you are.

You then suggest that he could brazen it out at home if his wife became suspicious.
Sociopaths or psychopaths are likely to be able to brazen things out with people who do not know them well. Someone’s wife is likely to know them quite well. That is why it is quite conceivable that a wife may immediately suspect their husband if they know they have a connection to murder. Because a sociopath or psychopath will be unlikely to be able to mask their behaviour all the time – and Charles Lechmere had been married for almost 20 years in 1888.
Also he may come home with blood on his clothes and his explanations for this may run thin. Or any number of awkward things might crop up for a serial killer in his domestic setting that would require explanation. Keeping his wife in blissful ignorance would obviously be a major priority.
Again, surely I shouldn’t be having to explain this I detail?

You should be aware that his address was only given in the Star. That not a single other newspaper even got an approximation for his address. It has been suggested that this implies that he did not give his address in open court and the Star journalist got it from the clerk. This suggestion sounds credible to me.
In any case he only moved into Doveton Street in mid June so it is quite likely that he didn’t really know anyone else in the street, and in any case, for pity’s sake they would have known them as the Lechmere family – presumably.

[Lechmere]

Lynn
What you seem to be failing to understand is that signing a statement in a police station or swearing in at an inquest is just as 'official' as filling in an electoral registration form, a census form, a marriage certificate, a birth certificate, a death certificate, marriage certificate, a baptismal record (which isn't official), school records (not official), Trade directories (not official), or funeral records (not official).
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that giving testimony at an inquest counts as 'common parlance'.

Incidentally his step father seems to have given false information to the census taker in 1861 as he said his wives children had his surname.

You seem to have returned to the 'why didn't he run' canard - I suggest you read the relevant thread.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"But that letter change didn't materially alter the pronunciation of the name. . ."

Actually, it does. But that is not an important point.

". . . nor could it conceivably confuse anyone as to his identity."

Quite. But I'm not sure anyone was confused about Cross's identity?

"So I am left wondering why you think it is the basis for any sort of comparison?"

You're joking? The whole point is that, in an official signed document, one must use the name occurring on one's birth certificate. Common parlance, however, is quite different.

Cheers.
LC

Ms Cates can you do me the great courtesy of telling me where this all started please, I've been away for months (from this site) and have only just been able to return and I am completely lost, Who the deuce is this Cross fellow and why the deuce are we making a connection between him and the Ripper?

Kindest of regard
Mr Holmes

[Fisherman]

lynn cates: Hello Christer. Thanks.

If her were really worried about the Mrs. finding out, etc, why not just run when Paul approached?

Because he gained BOTH advantages by not doing so. He did not arouse suspicion and run the risk of being chased in Buck´s Row, and he still managed to keep Mrs Lechmere unknowing.

If he had run, he COULD have achieved the same, but there were no guarantees. Plus psychopaths/sociaopaths are not the running type.

Your and Edward's thesis has been that he was a sociopath and hence brasened it out. This worry about long term connections is surely not coherent with brasen?

I´m not sure what you are after here. Are you saying that if he was a psychopath, he could not care less if he was found out as a killer by his wife? If so, I disagree. Apart from being brazen, these men are also deeply practical in many a sense.

"I notice that Edward has offered a few other possibilities too. I hope they suffice."

Well, I don't feel sufficed.

Well, there´s only so much I can do for you, Lynn. Just like I suggest Lechmere may have done, it would seem you are playing little games of your own. When I get that feeling, I try to courteously avoid getting any further drawn into things.
So ask away, if you wish, but please don´t get offended if I choose not to answer! Any matter that I judge important and/or worth answering to, you will get an answer to, of course.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

incredible

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"Do we know whether Charles Lechmere ‘brought up’ his true identity?
I think we do, as it went unrecorded and the police routinely recorded alternative names."

Think? Do we have the police recording Mrs. Long's other name? (Of course, we DO have one from the Home Office--so it was known.)

"The natural conclusion is that he did not ‘bring up’ his true identity."

The "natural" conclusion is that we don't know.

"You may wish to insist otherwise."

Not at all. Since we have no information, I'd insist only that we don't know.

"You seem to be insisting that there is a comparison between Emily Holland, who came forward almost immediately as having spoken to Nichols distant in time and space from when she as killed, and Charles Lechmere who came forward days later after the appearance of Paul’s story and who was seen by the body and whose alternative name was undiscovered until nearly 120 years later."

I am SHOWING that there were others who used aliases and who were close to the bodies. My contention is that their use of aliases is irrelevant.

"That is a strange position to take in my view."

"Strange" if and only if one cannot grasp an analogy and its salient features.

"You say that if Lechmere had disappeared (presumably after giving his alternative name) it would be a different story."

I do, and it would.

"I presume you are aware that in his circumstance he could not just disappear. He had a wife and family."

Which speaks against your WHOLE enterprise.

"I’m not entirely sure what you are driving at in suggesting that he could or should have just disappeared if he were truly guilty."

I am trying to show a condition under which his use of alias would have a point--and a sinister one.

"If he had used Lechmere then his true identity would not have only been discovered in the mid 2000s. His family would almost certainly have been aware of his involvement from 1888 onwards."

Indeed. But it would be meaningless.

"I think that the police did not take him seriously as a potential murder suspect, for a variety of reasons, and overlooked him."

Absolutely. Just as I do.

"Like you they thought ‘so what?’ That is often the case with murders – the actual culprit is, initially at least, overlooked. They think – like you do ‘so what’?"

I agree that they overlooked the killer. Of course, it was NOT Cross.

"You seem to think that a psychopath or sociopath could braze out having a bloody knife on him."

No, I think that is silly. I was trying to emulate YOUR thinking about not running.

"I would suggest that would be a step too far in terms of brazening out. Because a psychopath or sociopath lies readily and believably, does not mean that every time they tell a lie it is automatically believed. So being searched and being found with a bloody knife would be something to avoid."

I was referring to returning to the body, not being searched.

"Am I having to explain this?"

Well, in YOUR mind you are.

"You think that it is the normal impulse for anyone who has vital evidence to give in a well publisized murder investigation, would be to hide and not come forward?"

Many wish NOT to be involved. I'll leave discussion of "impulses" to you.

"If that were the case then I guess your Emily Holland and Mrs Long are exceptional."

Why exceptional? Some come forward, some don't, few wish to complicate their lives.

"I am afraid I can’t agree with your assessment of human nature."

Nor I, yours. However, anytime you wish to discuss your paradigm of philosophical anthropology, I'd be delighted.

"You say that an innocent man would want to get past a policeman with the minimum fuss. Well every single other civilian who discovered a Whitechapel Murder victim did not share you view of human nature."

How do you know about their view of human nature? Perhaps you mean they had a different impulse from what I describe? Very well. Show we which ones wished for MORE fuss.

"I’m not sure why you said of Charles Lechmere’s wife, if she suspected him:
‘Would she have alerted Pickford's for a search?’"

I intend to convey that she did not suspect her husband. And for good reason.

"I am tempted to think that this random comment suggest that you are at cross (ho ho) purposes in all of this and you are discussing a different case altogether and are on the wrong forum. Perhaps you are."

I AM on the wrong forum. I seek the truth--not a lot of conjectural twaddle.

"You then suggest that he could brazen it out at home if his wife became suspicious."

My "suggestion" is derived from your and Chister's theory of "brasening" which was put in place, I take it, to explain why Cross did not run. I think the whole idea of "brasening" is SILLY--but it IS your theory.

"Sociopaths or psychopaths are likely to be able to brazen things out with people who do not know them well. Someone’s wife is likely to know them quite well."

Umm, like Peter Kurten's wife?

"That is why it is quite conceivable that a wife may immediately suspect her husband if she knows he has a connection to murder."

Finding the body? Oh, please.

"Because a sociopath or psychopath will be unlikely to be able to mask his behaviour all the time – and Charles Lechmere had been married for almost 20 years in 1888."

Which behaviours?

"Also he may come home with blood on his clothes and his explanations for this may run thin."

This would be true whether he called himself Cross OR Lechmere.

"Or any number of awkward things might crop up for a serial killer in his domestic setting that would require explanation. Keeping his wife in blissful ignorance would obviously be a major priority."

And calling himself "Cross" kept her ignorant? She was so isolated that she knew nothing of all this?

"Again, surely I shouldn’t be having to explain this I detail?"

Detail? I see none. I see only grasping at straws, trying to explain something as sinister when it is not.

"You should be aware that his address was only given in the "Star." That not a single other newspaper even got an approximation for his address. It has been suggested that this implies that he did not give his address in open court and the Star journalist got it from the clerk. This suggestion sounds credible to me."

But the point is the police had his address and knew where to find him. Moreover, his address could be found in the paper.

"In any case he only moved into Doveton Street in mid June so it is quite likely that he didn’t really know anyone else in the street, and in any case, for pity’s sake they would have known them as the Lechmere family – presumably."

Are you seriously suggesting that, in all the investigation, Cross was isolated and unknown by family and friends as involved?

Incredible.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

point

Hello (again) Edward. Thanks.

"What you seem to be failing to understand is that signing a statement in a police station or swearing in at an inquest is just as 'official' as filling in an electoral registration form, a census form, a marriage certificate, a birth certificate, a death certificate, marriage certificate, a baptismal record (which isn't official), school records (not official), Trade directories (not official), or funeral records (not official)."

You have his signed statement? Or do you refer to his verbal explanation?

"You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that giving testimony at an inquest counts as 'common parlance'."

Not talking about that. Stay with the point, please.

"Incidentally his step father seems to have given false information to the census taker in 1861 as he said his wives children had his surname."

Why false? They had his surname IF that is what he called them.

"You seem to have returned to the 'why didn't he run' canard - I suggest you read the relevant thread."

I have DELIBERATELY not done that, pretending to be satisfied with your "brasening" theory" Of course, absent that, your theory crumbles immediately.

Here's a suggestion. If you wish to discuss this further (I really don't), why not come to the point? It is this. There are sinister reasons for using an alias; there are non-sinister ones as well.

Convince me that his was sinister.

You have failed to do that.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

definitive story

Hello Mr. Holmes. Thanks.

"Who the deuce is this Cross fellow and why the deuce are we making a connection between him and the Ripper?"

He is the chap who found Polly's body--unless another did so and held his peace.

Connection? Well, a researcher a few years back adopted him as a suspect. Why is he a suspect here? He gave an alias--one which his stepfather gave him.

Case closed (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

until later

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"If he had run, he COULD have achieved the same, but there were no guarantees."

No guarantees either way. In my discussion with Edward, I TRIED to adopt your and his theory of "brasening." Unfortunately, it does not lie well with your other arguments.

"Just like I suggest Lechmere may have done, it would seem you are playing little games of your own. When I get that feeling, I try to courteously avoid getting any further drawn into things."

Yes, I, too, am sensitive about "games."

"So ask away, if you wish, but please don't get offended if I choose not to answer!"

Never offended. If your suggestion is to break off the conversation, then, with all my heart.

If, however, you should find a truly sinister reason for the alias, I would be glad to hear. So far, I do not find one.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

There you go, Lynn - you brought up a point of interest:

In my discussion with Edward, I TRIED to adopt your and his theory of "brasening." Unfortunately, it does not lie well with your other arguments.

No? Exactly what arguments does it not lie well with? Inform me, and I will help you out. We may even find ourselves discussing Kürten and his wife on the matter, let´s see!

Fisherman