Charles Lechmere interesting link

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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 .

[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

[Fisherman]

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

moonbegger .

Yeah. Or as bonkers as running and waking up the whole neigborhood, even.

Havenīt you realized yet that if Lechmere was the killer, then he ever so smoothly stole away from what he had done and stayed undetected and unsuspected? Hasnīt that penny dropped?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

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 none of us can prove our respective points, right? So we have to look at the collected evidence. Do we know of any other instances where we have his name on record?

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.

Innocent? Well, if you accept what his brother said, then perhaps. But it deserves pointing out that Solomon Hyams seemingly belonged to a gang of thieves, amongst whom MANY called themselves Mitchell, presumably to hide who they really were.
We may need to be a bit less allowing and a bit more cynical here, thatīs all Iīm saying.

But it is important to establish that we have no knowledge of what other people called the carman. So far, what you have been pushing is the rather odd view that we have established that he was known as Cross. Once we realize that the only person that seemingly knew him as Cross was Cross himself, that "evidence" kind of dissolves, does it not?

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.

No, DRoy, I did not forget about them - I pointed out that with your reasoning, there would BE no bad guys - you would allow them the right to aliases, regardless of why the used them.
I am perfectly aware that there are people in this era that used aliases - but they were very, very few once we rule out the criminal classes! Dig really deep in your books and see how many you can come up with.

... and once again, the Hyams/Mitchell matter seems anything but innocent to me. It has a fishy smell to it. Have you actually read the WHOLE story...?

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

Yes, thatīs better and more close to the truth. I do speculate that he was the killer, but then again I do have a good many pointers to bolster that speculation. If you had counted them and seen the implications, then that would have equally been a good reason not to have this discussion!

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.

It went awry when you stated that EVERYBODY knew Solomon Hyams and his brother as Mitchell. That clearly was not the case. I therefore think that you misrepresented the whole thing. Itīs all very simple.

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.

Which maybe should lead you to the conclusion that I just may have that exact capacity in this matter too?
But we all have to make our own decisions, and you are free to make yours. Thank you for the kind words, by the way, DRoy - I am of the exact same opinion about you: apart from one crucial topic, you have a good grip.

Trust me. There is more to come on Lechmere. All the evidence and all the implications are not on the table yet.

All the best!
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

Trust me. There is more to come on Lechmere. All the evidence and all the implications are not on the table yet.

I , and i suppose most on here would like nothing more than yourself and Edward to nail down some undeniable irrefutable evidence against Mr Lechmere .

Everything guilty allegation so far has a perfectly understandable innocent reasoning on its flipside .. Even when make your little lists of each individual allegation , most of the stuffing included has no base in fact .. for example , your well trotted out line ..

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

.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest he knew in advance of he's imminent court appearance .. in fact as I have pointed out on many an occasion , the fact that he was in work attire suggests that's exactly where he thought he was going to be that day ..

So basically , if you can produce some irrefutable solid evidence that does not consist of flimsy coincidence or conjecture , I would love to hold my hands up and sing the praises of team Lechmere ! Lets be aving ya

cheers , moonbegger

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

Everything guilty allegation so far has a perfectly understandable innocent reasoning on its flipside

Yes, that is absolutely true. And Edward and me have never said anything else - there has always been an innocent explanation to each individual allegation. We have pointed that out ourselves, numerous times.

What we have also said, though, is that the sheer amount of allegations based on anomalies, is enough to convince rationally reasoning people that Charles Lechmere is the top contender for the Ripper title.
You donīt have this kind of controversy surrounding any other suspect, and thatīs because none of them have one tenth of practically based, cirumstantial evidence pointing in their respective ways.

Circumstantial evidence convicts people in courts of law, if there is enough of it.

...if you can produce some irrefutable solid evidence ... I would love to hold my hands up and sing the praises of team Lechmere !

Iīll be specifically listening for your voice in the choir when that happens, Moonbegger. But I am not sure exactly how the kind of evidence would look that truly talented naysayers like your own good self could not refute if you truly put your mind to it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Everything guilty allegation so far has a perfectly understandable innocent reasoning on its flipside

Yes, that is absolutely true. And Edward and me have never said anything else - there has always been an innocent explanation to each individual allegation. We have pointed that out ourselves, numerous times.

...

Circumstantial evidence convicts people in courts of law, if there is enough of it.

But not when each and every item of that circumstantial evidence has an innocent explanation.

[Fisherman]

But not when each and every item of that circumstantial evidence has an innocent explanation.

Totally wrong, Iīm afraid.

If no absolute proof can be provided, then it is up to judge and jury to decide whether the sinister or the innocent implications should be given more weight.

When we speak of circumstantial evidence, we speak of matters where absolute proof is beyond our reach. It therefore applies that in each and every case of convictions made on circumstantial evidence, there has always - no exceptions - been alternative, innocent explanations to each and every item:

I slipped and thatīs when the gun went off.

I lost my grip on that bowling ball, otherwise I would not have dropped it on the head of the deceased.

I actually thought it was sugar. How was I to know it was poison?

This is what a case built on circumstantial evidence is about - a weighing between the guilty and the innocent explanations. If there had been proof, there would not have been any innocent explanations possible.

So yes, people who are convicted on circumstantial evidence are always convicted IN SPITE OF the existence of alternative, innocent explanations. The very thing that there IS an alternative, innocent explanation around is what makes the case circumstantial in the first place.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Totally wrong, Iīm afraid.

If no proof can be provided, then it is up to judge and jury to decide whether the sinister or the innocent implications should be given more weight.

When we speak of circumstantial evidence, we speak of matters where absolute proof is beyond our reach. It therefore applies that in each and every case of convictions made on circumstantial evidence, there has always - no exceptions - been alternative, innocent explanations:

I slipped and thatīs when the gun went off.

I lost my grip on that bowling ball, otherwise I would not have dropped it in the head of the deceased.

I actually thought it was sugar. How was I to know that it was poison?

This is what a case built on circumstantial evidence is about - a weighing between the guilty and the innocent explanations. If there had been proof, there would not have been any innocent explanations possible.

So yes, people who are convicted on circumstantial evidence are always convicted IN SPITE OF the existence of alternative, innocent explanations.

All the best,
Fisherman

G'day Fisherman


WRONG

A judge in a criminal trial must give the jury a direction that if there is an explanation that is consistent with innocence they MUST acquit.

Have you ever studied law? Have you ever ran a criminal trial? Do you have a degree in law? Have you ever read a Judge's bench book? Have you ever sat on the bench?