Charles Lechmere interesting link

[DRoy]

But that does not follow at all, DRoy. If a thief named Brown is asked his name by a policeman what his name is, quickly decides to lie and burps out "Smith" - does he think of himself as Smith as a reason of that? Or does he think of himself as the thief Brown who fooled a copper by calling himself Smith?

Fish,

All you've been able to do is guess at why he called himself Cross. Quickly decides to lie? That is an assumption on your part. I'm saying he called himself Cross because that is what he goes by.

And listen again and listen carefully this time: IT IS TOTALLY UNINTERESTING WHAT THE CARMAN THOUGHT OF HIMSELF AS - WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW IS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHT OF HIM AS! You are leading the issue astray with childish suggestions that you automatically think of yourself as the name you give at an inquest.

I'm paying attention Fish, we don't know what other people called him. That is established. I sent the example of Hyams which shows an innocent reason on why someone in the hood would call someone other than their legal name.

If you had been right, there would not have been any lies presented by the bad guys - they would have been morally entitled to their aliases since they would be thinking of themselves as the conjectured-up identity they had served.

You forgot about the innocent people that use different names and are called different names like brother Hyams. Once again you are going under the presumption he is guilty hence the name change but innocent people did it too.

"In the moment" is your speculation only. Whether he was known locally as Cross or not, you've accepted we just don't know.

No it was not my speculation - it was part of reasoning knit to a suggested scenario. Please keep things apart.

Your reasoning which is specualtion based on presumed guilt otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The last time you tried, you got it very, very wrong by claiming that everybody called Solomon Hyams "Mitchell", so thanks but no thanks. Thatīs not the kind of teaching I prefer.

Excuse me? How is that very very wrong? Two police officers and the victim knew him as Mitchell, a name he never ever owned. If you can't grasp the very simple reason for me posting it, or if you do get it but choose to ignore it then just say so.

Iīm there, DRoy. I always was. What you need to accept is that you actually may be wrong yourself. Thatīs a tough task, I know, but you can begin by reading this post.

It's okay Fish, I'm done with Lech threads. I've been foolish staying while most others have left never to return. I do however hope to see you in other threads, you always give true thought and sound reasoning in those ones.

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

And the fact that he gave his authentic address and workingplace tells me that he would never give a totally false name to go with it. That would be completely bonkers.

Maybe almost as bonkers as waiting on Paul to make it up the Row and encouraging him to examine his fresh mutilation

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

Fish,
I hope you aren't trying to teach me?

Only when you get things hopelessly wrong, DRoy.

It isn't about right or wrong, he called himself Cross so he obviously thought of himself as Cross.

But that does not follow at all, DRoy. If a thief named Brown is asked his name by a policeman what his name is, quickly decides to lie and burps out "Smith" - does he think of himself as Smith as a reason of that? Or does he think of himself as the thief Brown who fooled a copper by calling himself Smith?

To think of yourself as somebody involves accepting a chosen identity as being a true representation of you. And that does not apply when we speak of quick lies told by criminals to the police.

And listen again and listen carefully this time: IT IS TOTALLY UNINTERESTING WHAT THE CARMAN THOUGHT OF HIMSELF AS - WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW IS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THOUGHT OF HIM AS! You are leading the issue astray with childish suggestions that you automatically think of yourself as the name you give at an inquest.
If you had been right, there would not have been any lies presented by the bad guys - they would have been morally entitled to their aliases since they would be thinking of themselves as the conjectured-up identity they had served.

Itīs cocoo-land, DRoy. We donīt need it.

"In the moment" is your speculation only. Whether he was known locally as Cross or not, you've accepted we just don't know.

No it was not my speculation - it was part of a reasoning knit to a suggested scenario. Please keep things apart.

No evidence of this Fish, you're filling in the blanks with your own supposition. It is in evidence at least he thought himself as Cross.

Not necessarily, no. In the moment he may just as well - and probably, to my mind - have thought of himself as Charles Lechmere, fooling the inquest by claiming he was Cross.
But this point seems to subtle for you to take on board...?

How many of the people within the WM case have we established their true names? How many gave their real names whether witnesses, whether giving their story to the press, whether testifying, etc? How much research have ripperologists done to establish the true identities of many involved? How many still aren't known?

If we canīt tell, it has no bearing on the issue at hand. One of the main problems is that you keep wheeling in one example after another of people with more than one identity, whilst we have no evidence at all that tells us that this applied to Lechmere. HE - not your examples - is the man we should look at. Just because there are examples of alias-using people, letīs not forget that they are in an extreme minority!

Overall, though, you can bank on most people having given their true names at the inquest. After that, you can lead on that they all may have lied, I donīt care. When a topic is turned kindergartenish, I loose my will to participate.

What? What progress? If you can't understand the case, don't throw it back at me as an attempt to get under my skin. If you want me to teach you, I will, just ask nicely.

The last time you tried, you got it very, very wrong by claiming that everybody called Solomon Hyams "Mitchell", so thanks but no thanks. Thatīs not the kind of teaching I prefer.

I have to Fish, you're scaring me with how far you've fallen down the rabbit hole. Come back to your senses buddy!!

Iīm there, DRoy. I always was. What you need to accept is that you actually may be wrong yourself. Thatīs a tough task, I know, but you can begin by reading this post.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

You never learn, do you?

Fish,
I hope you aren't trying to teach me?

Now you want to tell me that you meant that he himself thought of himself as Cross, and that such a thing makes you right.

It isn't about right or wrong, he called himself Cross so he obviously thought of himself as Cross.

That is just sad. The issue at hand was whether OTHER people did so - if he was locally known as Cross. Not if he in the moment he gave his name at the inquest did so. Such a thing has no bearing at all on the overall question of deception or not.

"In the moment" is your speculation only. Whether he was known locally as Cross or not, you've accepted we just don't know.

And at the end of the day, he need of course not even have thought of himself as Cross at all, in spite of giving that name. If I wanted to con the police and give them a false name, I could choose any name at all, like, say, Clemence. If I used that name, it would not equal me thinking of myself as Clemence. I would still think of myself as Holmgren. The Clemence name would be a lie, not something I thought of myself as.

No evidence of this Fish, you're filling in the blanks with your own supposition. It is in evidence at least he thought himself as Cross.

Show me anyone (including himself) calling him anything but Cross. You have he signed his name as Lech, that's it. I've told you these are two different things.

Besides, if you are saying that a written name is not something that somebody is called, then you can forget about Thomas Cross signing Charles as Cross in 1861. Then you ONLY have himself using the name Cross. And that really is not much of a guarantee that he used that name otherwise, since we have 120 signatures that tell us he didnīt.

How many of the people within the WM case have we established their true names? How many gave their real names whether witnesses, whether giving their story to the press, whether testifying, etc? How much research have ripperologists done to establish the true identities of many involved? How many still aren't known?

How about the Hyams/Mitchell rot, by the way? Any progress on that one?

What? What progress? If you can't understand the case, don't throw it back at me as an attempt to get under my skin. If you want me to teach you, I will, just ask nicely.

PS. A word of advice: Donīt do it! Even if you are tempted, donīt

I have to Fish, you're scaring me with how far you've fallen down the rabbit hole. Come back to your senses buddy!!

Cheers
DRoy

[Patrick S]

Of course, the pro-Lechmere camp will respond: If the police check up on it, he needs a reasonable explanation.

Exactly. And the fact that he gave his authentic address and workingplace tells me that he would never give a totally false name to go with it. That would be completely bonkers.

But it could be argued (more effectively?) that if they checked up on it and Lechmere was known by Lechmere everywhere then he'd have an awful lot of explaining to do regardless.

Yes, he would. But what was his alternative if he had the aim to stay undetected by his kin and friends?

Like Michael Corleone, I keep being pulled back in.

Let's explore this particular absurdity for a moment. He gives the name Cross becuase he'll then have some reasonable explanation for using that name (even though it's been postulated by Edward and Fish that it was completely unreasonable for him to use the name Cross in any situation and there is no record of him ever doing so, but somehow he felt that it would seem reasonable to the police through all of this murder business). He gives his real home address and his real workplace. So here's the question: WHY?

Paul didn't know him. He could have told Paul his name was Charles Xavier and he was going to work at the traveling circus in town from Paris. Paul wouldn't have known better. So why not? While we are on his interaction with Paul, let's pause to examine all of the actions of your "murderer" here.

1. Virtually caught in the act of murder, he doesn't run.
2. He doesn't attack Paul. He's armed, Paul isn't.
3. He approaches Paul and says, "Come see this woman (I just killed?)". He doesn't pull a ruse, "My wife is drunk again!", wait for Paul to pass, and disappear into the night. No. He invites a stranger to get involved! Paul didn't see what was going on and say, "Hey, you!" No. Crossmere approached him and said, "COME SEE!"
4. He declines to move the body (which would have given him a reason for having blood on her person, which - in the dark and having just killed Nichols - he had no way of knowing if had blood visible on his clothing or not.
5. He moves off with Paul in the same direction, in search of police. He doesn't say, "I go this way. I'll look for a copper on my way. See you later." No. He goes on a walk with Paul.
6. He finds Mizen and tells him, "I think she's dead." Not, "She's probably drunk." No. She's dead. And he killed her (?). He he tells a cop she's dead. He's the killer. Brilliant.
7. He's not asked for ID. He's asked his name. He gives a "fake" name, but one that can be reasonably argued that he's entitled to (although want it both ways: He's entitlted to it, except his not, because he's never used it in official documents). He gives his genuine home address. He gives his genuine place of work. AND a "fake" name (?). He doesn't give fake everything - which he could easily have done, and then simply disappear into the crowded abyss of the East End. No. He gives information that can lead the police DIRECTLY to him. Here's where I live. Here's where I work....you know...just in case you want to find me and talk to me and investigate me...at any time of the day or night...you'll know where to find me (the killer). He wants to remain undetected by his kin? How about remaining undetected by the POLICE?

At every decision point he acts with no consiousness of guilt. He's completely unaffected by the fight or flight instinct (and it's called INSTINCT for a reason in that you ACT without THINKING). He's cool as a cucumber throughout his interactions with Paul and Mizen, even though he just killed and mutilated Nichols mere SECONDS before approaching Paul and pulling the fabled "Mizen Scam".

Every point above can and will be argued. But, as ever, it will take a great deal of assumption, backward logic, and verbal gymnastics to make even an incredible case. Couple with ALL OF THIS the FACTS (remember those?) that Charles Allen Lechmere died at home, peacefully, in his bed, at the ripe age of 71. Husband. Father. Gainfully employed throughout his life. No arrest record has been uncovered. No record of psychiatric problems. No record of treatment for sexually transmitted disease. No record of violent behaviour of any kind. Never suspected by his "kin" or the police or the press or his neighbors or his enemies (although we don't know he had even those) IN HIS LIFETIME (plus 75 years).

Since we can't deal in absolutes after 125 years. Let's deal in probabilities. Based on what we KNOW, not what's been INVENTED, it's pretty clear that Charles Lechmere was probably NOT Jack the Ripper. And that's being very, very, very kind. In fact, the idea is absurd. Thankfully, most people realize that.

[Fisherman]

My boat has been rocked. And I definitely think there's something to this.

Thatīs awesome, Scott. If we push on at this space, getting one poster per year to realize the implications of the Lechmere case, weīll have a majority of posters supporting us in early May 2186!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Barnaby:

To play devil's advocate, however, he didn't exactly pull "Cross" out of thin air.

He most decidedly didnīt!

Of course, the pro-Lechmere camp will respond: If the police check up on it, he needs a reasonable explanation.

Exactly. And the fact that he gave his authentic address and workingplace tells me that he would never give a totally false name to go with it. That would be completely bonkers.

But it could be argued (more effectively?) that if they checked up on it and Lechmere was known by Lechmere everywhere then he'd have an awful lot of explaining to do regardless.

Yes, he would. But what was his alternative if he had the aim to stay undetected by his kin and friends?

He couldnīt say Lechmere, because that would give him away. So he didnīt.

He couldnīt say 22 Doveton Street, because that would give him away. So he didnīt.

He couldnīt leave home that day in his Sunday best, because that would give him away. So he didnīt.

The signs are there, and they are obvious to my mind.

This lends support to the fact that he was known as "Cross" at least to some who could vouch for it.

Or to the suggestion that Edward and I have put forward - he was NOT known as Cross to anybody at all, but he was ready to gamble that he could convince the police that he sometimes called himself by that name if push came to shove. And he would have had his past to support the choice of name.

There will have been situations where Lechmere did not enjoy the luxury of having at least one good alternative when choosing how to get out of the woods. In such instances, one must opt for the least bad alternative, and I think that was exactly what he did in the name issue.

By the way, if he was known by Cross at work, I don't see that as necessarily problematic with his Ripper candidacy. He's a good suspect regardless.

He is, Barnaby, no question about it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

Haha Fish, try again. He testified at the inquest as Cross. That is in evidence. This is evidence he thought of himself as Cross otherwise he wouldn't have gave evidence as Cross.

You never learn, do you?

You wrote - and I am quoting you ad verbatim - "We have evidence he was known as Cross because that is what he called himself."

Now you want to tell me that you meant that he himself thought of himself as Cross, and that such a thing makes you right.

That is just sad. The issue at hand was whether OTHER people did so - if he was locally known as Cross. Not if he in the moment he gave his name at the inquest did so. Such a thing has no bearing at all on the overall question of deception or not.

And at the end of the day, he need of course not even have thought of himself as Cross at all, in spite of giving that name. If I wanted to con the police and give them a false name, I could choose any name at all, like, say, Clemence. If I used that name, it would not equal me thinking of myself as Clemence. I would still think of myself as Holmgren. The Clemence name would be a lie, not something I thought of myself as.

You need to give the whole issue up, DRoy. The only thing you are doing is to embarras yourself with faulty perceptions.

Show me anyone (including himself) calling him anything but Cross. You have he signed his name as Lech, that's it. I've told you these are two different things.

And I told you that is wrong. When the tax authorities write to you, they are naming you on the envelope. They are calling you by a name.

Besides, if you are saying that a written name is not something that somebody is called, then you can forget about Thomas Cross signing Charles as Cross in 1861. Then you ONLY have himself using the name Cross. And that really is not much of a guarantee that he used that name otherwise, since we have 120 signatures that tell us he didnīt.

How about the Hyams/Mitchell rot, by the way? Any progress on that one?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. A word of advice: Donīt do it! Even if you are tempted, donīt.

[Barnaby]

To the powers that be: This debate would make an awesome Rippercast!

[Barnaby]

With respect to the name, I tend to agree with the arguments put forward by the pro-Lechmere camp. To play devil's advocate, however, he didn't exactly pull "Cross" out of thin air. He didn't say his name was Charles Smith, Jones, Cohen (or better yet, Blade, Jackman, Kills, Dononhors, etc.). Of course, the pro-Lechmere camp will respond: If the police check up on it, he needs a reasonable explanation. But it could be argued (more effectively?) that if they checked up on it and Lechmere was known by Lechmere everywhere then he'd have an awful lot of explaining to do regardless. This lends support to the fact that he was known as "Cross" at least to some who could vouch for it.

By the way, if he was known by Cross at work, I don't see that as necessarily problematic with his Ripper candidacy. He's a good suspect regardless.

[Scott Nelson]

My boat has been rocked. And I definitely think there's something to this.

[Lechmere]

He testified that his name was Cross.
His name was not Cros.
Every time he gave his name, not necessarily as a signature, but when dealing with any form of authority that we have a record for, he gave Lechmere.
Testifying at an inquest into a brutal murder victim was possibly the most serious incident in his life. It was not a moment to engage in matey nick names.
In his well documented life the only instance we have for this person choosing to use the name Cross was at the inquest.
Thanks to DRoy we know that people tended to 'fess up to any other name when testifying. Lechmere notably did not. He kept his gob shut.

You are welcome to think that there can be nothing in this, if that rocks your boat.

[DRoy]

Sorry, DRoy, but we do not have any evidence at all that he was known as Cross. We only have evidence that he called himself Cross at the inquest, but that is not the same thing.

Iīll show you why:

Rupert Wigginbottom!

There, I just called you Rupert Wigginbottom.

This post is evidence that I called you Rupert Wigginbottom.

Is it therefore also evidence that you are KNOWN as Rupert Wigginbottom?

Maybe you should have thought about that before you posted?

Haha Fish, try again. He testified at the inquest as Cross. That is in evidence. This is evidence he thought of himself as Cross otherwise he wouldn't have gave evidence as Cross. Show me anyone (including himself) calling him anything but Cross. You have he signed his name as Lech, that's it. I've told you these are two different things.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

I sense them old goalposts are being shifted once again

How so, Moonbegger? Just tell me, and we will see. Iīm sure I can straighten it all out for you.

Can you prove he was not ? NO ... We have only one example of what he called himself in day to day life revolving around day to day events , and that is Cross ! He was known as Cross ..

Well, whaddoyouknow? You have my post to DRoy right in front of you, and you still make the exact same mistake.

The fact that you call yourself by a name does not mean that you are known by that name. Is that in any way hard to grasp?

If you are taken by the police, and if you do not wish the police to identify you, you may think up a name and claim that it is yours; Brown, Higgins, von Strutz, Archimboldo, van Brainless ...

Now tell me precisely how using such a name at an inquest guarantees that you are known by that name!

By the way, witnessing at an inquest after a murder is interestingly something you choose to describe as a "day to day event". Are you sure that you donīt want to rephrase that?

There are hard Facts that he called himself Cross .

Yes! At the inquest he did so. But there are no facts whatsoever that anybody else did call him Cross in 1888. If I am wrong, correct me. If I am right, accept it!

He was accepted as Cross , No one questioned he was Cross

To do so, it would require that the inquest suspected that he lied about his name. They accepted ALL the names they were told, did they not? And that, my friend, makes the "point" you are making totally and utterly worthless.

...his address was public knowledge

IF you read the witness list, yes. Otherwise not - and YOU were the one who spotted this, remember, thinking that he was part of a witness protection programme. A programme that kept the names Charles Allen ...!?

his Work place ,

.... which he shared with hundreds of other men.

his neighbors , no one questioned his honesty because he was who he said he was ..

Are you suggesting that his neighbors were at the inquest...? Nobody questioned ANY of the names and addresses presented. Why would they, Moonbegger? Tell me!

Regardless of his respectable family name that he used as a lottery ticket,

That is conjecture and nothing else. You are disqualifying yourself by resorting to it.

as has been well documented throughout history , everyone knew him as Cross .

That is a blatant and obvious untruth, Iīm afraid. We know for a fact that all the authoirities knew him as Lechmere, but we donīt have any recording of any person in the whole wide world knowing him as Cross, apart from his stepfather in 1861 - and that signing of the name Cross is something we donīt even know whether the rest of the family approved of or not.

You are hallucinating, Moonbegger. And badly so.

There is nothing you have to disprove that he was known as Cross at work , in the pub , on the street , in 1888 ..

Oh yes, there is! There are 120 signatures that, in combination with the statistical fact that people who sign themselves by a name also normally call themselves by that same name, tells us that he in all probability was called Lechmere in the pubs and streets too.

We can all fantasize ! but lets call it what it is ..

I donīt mind you doing that at all, Moonbegger. As long as you admit it freely, you just conjecture away. Be my guest!

Myself, I stick with the known facts and the statistical truths.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

I sense them old goalposts are being shifted once again

But still nothing about Stepney 1903 neighbors

"Perhaps if we ignore it long enough people will forget it , then we can wheel out the false assumptions again" is that the game plan ? I'm seeing that a lot here .

We are supposed to accept that Lechmere was in fact calling himself Cross locally,

Can you prove he was not ? NO ... We have only one example of what he called himself in day to day life revolving around day to day events , and that is Cross ! He was known as Cross .. There are hard Facts that he called himself Cross . He was accepted as Cross , No one questioned he was Cross , his address was public knowledge , his Work place , his neighbors , no one questioned his honesty because he was who he said he was .. Regardless of his respectable family name that he used as a lottery ticket,
as has been well documented throughout history , everyone knew him as Cross .

There is nothing you have to disprove that he was known as Cross at work , in the pub , on the street , in 1888 ..

We can all fantasize ! but lets call it what it is ..

cheers , Moonbegger