Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[The Good Michael]

Why did Samuel Langhorne Clemens sign this name on all legal papers, but didn't use it in public? He wasn't ashamed of this name that I know of. He just became used to a different name and introduced himself and signed letters and books and probably memorabilia with an alias. All his great works were signed in an alias. Soon after beginning his literary career, the name stuck, though he was a young man, and he only very rarely allowed this old bit of baggage to come out in public. Still, his wife was obliged to take the Clemens name because, though it wasn't well known, it was, after all, his legal name.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Pelé = Edson Arantes do Nasciemento.


But, but, but these are famous people....it's uh different? Bah! It isn't. These are names they used before the world knew of them. Mark Twain was a chosen name and Pelé's nickname was given to him by schoomates because of a mispronunciation he'd had. So, yes they are famous people, and because they are famous we can see how such things develop. There are at least hundreds of simlar examples and I could list them all, but why? It's simple enough to understand without that.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

satirical pause:


Policeman: Sir, you do know your carriage is parked in a loading zone, right?

Mark Twain: Yes, officer. I was only planning on going in for a minute, but then…you know people recognized me and we got to talking.

Policeman: Is this your carriage then? It belongs to you?

Mark Twain: Yes. I just purchased it. Top of the line.

Policeman: Yes, anyway, I have to write you a citation sir.

Mark Twain: Perhaps we can forget about this…(reaching for his wallet)

Policeman: ‘fraid not sir. Now could you give me some identification and the bill of sale for the carriage?

Mark Twain: (handing his passport to the officer) Now see here my good man! I am great friends with the mayor.

Policeman: Sure you are Mr….Clemens. Just hang on while I take this down please.

Mark Twain: But…I am a famous humorist. Everyone knows and loves me.

Policeman: Yes, Mr. Clemens. Sorry, I’ve never heard of you. Clemens…Clemens… did you play in Missouri farm leagues? My dad and I use to go watch the games. Not as entertaining as the Negro leagues, but still…

Mark Twain: Baseball? No, no. I am a writer. Surely you’ve heard of me. I’m Mark Twain!

Policeman: Mark Twain. You don’t say. Turn around please.

Mark Twain: But, but…

(officer spins him around and puts manacles on him)

Officer: You are a nutcase, sir. I need to haul you in and get the sergeant on this case. Sorry, you look harmless enough.

Mark Twain: But I AM Mark Twain!

Officer: That’s not what your ID says, sir. If you believe you are, you have issues.

Mark Twain: No, no. My legal name is Clemens, but everyone knows me as Mark Twain. If you don’t let me out of these things (struggles a bit. Policeman deals him a blow behind the ear with a truncheon.)

Officer: That settled his hash.

[GUT]

I'll throw one into the mix why did Kate Eddows pawn things in names other than her own [Oh and by the way a Pawn is a legal transaction]?

Why does May Jane's death certificate [another legal document] say Marie Jeanette?

[The Good Michael]

I'll throw one into the mix why did Kate Eddows pawn things in names other than her own [Oh and by the way a Pawn is a legal transaction]?

Why does May Jane's death certificate [another legal document] say Marie Jeanette?

Gut,

Because...well....if she, uh....I don't know. Could it be because she used the name Mary Jane usually? Nah.


Mike

[Djb]

Djb: [I]


2. How did Lechmere chance upon Polly Nichols? Do you think he met her in Bucks Row and launched an immediate attack? Why is Polly Nichols in Bucks Row given that it was her stated intention to return to lodgings in Flower and Dean st. She was last seen walking east up Whitechapel High street. The idea that she wandered away from the busier commercial street into the dark, dangerous and relatively deserted back streets and headed in the opposite direction to home takes some explaining. I would contend she was picked up on Whitechapel road, and was lead by the killer to Bucks row. Do you believe that Lechmere took a detour?

I will not guess. I know that prostitutes habitually walked into the dark side streets - that´s where they worked!
Nichols was asked by Emily Holland to come back to the dosshouse, but said no thanks. She needed money, and before she had it, she could not return.

There´s no reason, for example, to think that Nichols could not have walked up Brady Street, which was a comparatively large street, and where prostitution could perhaps be had. Likewise, she may have wawed farewell to a customer in Buck´s Row just before Lechmere arrived there.

Nothing is given, sadly.

The best,
Fisherman

So you are not arguing that Lechmere took a detour.
There isn't really time is there?
However i suspect that the killer spends a bit of time with the victim.
If he just attacks women randomly and instantly then there should surely be more attacks, and attacks on ordinary women, and some attacks loser to doveton street.

I'm intrigued by the anonymous letter to mrs hardiman regarding polly nichols which alleges she was made tipsy prior to the murder.
And why write to mrs hardiman?

[Lechmere]

None of your wildly amusing satirical points nor your comparisons to Pele and Mark Twain vome anywhere near to answering the why he used Lechmere in a very wide range of instances where he recorded his family name, mostly 'official' yet he chose to use another name that we have no record of him having used when involved in a very official capacity in a murder investigation.

Prostitutes are known then and now to use false names.
This again is not relevant to the discussion.

And it seems to need repeating for the less attentive that it was not said that the name was insignificant it was said that was of less significance than many other points if evidence. The case doesn't hang on the name as some suggest - although it is an issue some obsess over, and nevertheless remains a glaring anomaly.

[Kaz]

Kaz: I suppose the two things you put most emphasis on, his name and whether he did indeed lie to mizen at all?

How has the proposition that it was odd that he used Cross with the police after having used Lechmere in all his other authority contacs been dismantled?
Hello?
Am I living on another planet...???

Read what Colin Roberts has to say. There is only one logical answer to the name issue - he should NOT have used Cross to the police. That is in no way or capacity dismantled.

How could it be?

Because some vociferous people say that he had the right to use Cross? It doesn´t help, since he never did it otherwise, when associating with authorities!

The notion that he was an everyday Cross is pure and utter conjecture, with no substanbtiation at all. The notion that he was an everyday Lechmere is bolstered by the many signatures all saying Lechmere, and by the fact that he was baptised Lechmere one year after his mother married Thomas Cross.

Let´s be fair and reasonable!

And just how has the lie been dismantled, by the way? I must have missed that totally!
Look at Mizens reactions! Explain to me why he didn´t correct Neil, when the latter thought he was the finder! Tell me why Mizen says that one man spoke to him, whole Lechmere claims that both he and Paul did!

Dismantled...? I´m flabbergasted!

Still nothing on his personal life and what this "trauma" was 2 months before the killings started? Are you holding information back for book sales?

No. A trauma was suggested by Gareth Norris, not by me. I find it very plausible, but I have not any such thing on record myself.

All the best,
Fisherman

'Your' documentary made a big thing about the so called lies, people on here have put forward a good case these 'lies' can be dismantled with enough scrutiny and common sense.

Bottom line is you don't have enough on lechmere's personal life and nothing that truly implicates him, all these coincidences don't make him JTR.

I look forward to you proving us all wrong though

[Sally]

You might be right tat he chose to call himself Cross because his long dead step father was a policeman - but that is hardly a sign of innocence is it.

No, it's one reasonable explanation for his actions. It says nothing whatever regarding his guilt or innocence.

The thing that most of the nay sayers fail to acknowledge is that even if this man called himself Cross in his everyday life (a suggestion for which there is not the slightest shred of evidence to back it up) then why did he call himself Lechmere when registering his child's birth, her baptism, his children's registration at school and his entry on the electoral register in 1888?

Firstly, I'd drop the whole 'naysayers' attitude if I were you - it doesn't help your cause.

Secondly - evidence that Crossmere called himself 'Cross' in his everyday life? Obviously you realise that if that was the case, it would be characterised by verbal, informal exchanges for which documentary evidence may be lacking. All you're doing is presenting a straw man argument. Others have present ethnographic examples which demonstrate that people have lived informally under one name and used another for formal/official/legal purposes - it's simply that you're choosing to ignore them because they don't suit your argument.

Surely he knew his official name.
Surely he knew that dealing with the police and a court over a very significant and well publicised murder was official business? So why go under a supposed unofficial name?

Yes, I'm sure he knew his 'official' name. There are a number of explanations which can rationally be forwarded as alternatives to yours - that his use of the name 'Cross' is an indication of guilt - although so far you've dismissed any put to you without any real rationale for doing so; apparently preferring instead to reach for tired claims of bias, intractability, etc. against anybody who questions your perspective.

All we actually know is that his use of the name Cross is a glaring anomaly.
When you find a glaring anomaly connected to a man who was 'found' very close to a very freshly killed body - then it is wise to take notice and not sweep it under the carpet.

What has in fact happened is that people have questioned your perspective [see above]. They have done this because there are other, equally plausible [at least] explanations for Crossmere's use of the name 'Cross' - a name which, incidentally, was not a 'false' name, as is often suggested by your 'team'. That isn't sweeping anything under the carpet.

The other thing here is that you're assuming a causal relationship between these two things:

• Cross finding a murder victim
• Cross using the name 'Cross' in his dealings with the police

- which may not have existed to begin with.

But let's assume, for the sake of argument that it did and the reason that Crossmere used the name 'Cross' on this occasion was directly connected to his discovery of a murder victim.

Tell me why we should believe that he wasn't simply trying to avoid press attention in an attempt to shield his family and - possibly - himself. As a general member of the public who was unlucky enough to stumble across a murder victim on his way to work; would you want to be involved if you could avoid it? In an age where it was relatively easy to use an alias, I should think that many would've been tempted to do what Crossmere did - for simple, explicable reasons.

At the end of the day, it isn't that you can't be right, Ed; it's that you haven't yet demonstrated why anybody should accept that you are.

[The Good Michael]

One more thing, and of course I could be mistaken (and there are those who will tell me so (in a nice tone)), I don't see that we know exactly how Lechmere gave the name of Cross to the police. He gave his address, and therefore, there was no attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. This we can be sure of. Yet, did he say (perhaps), "I go by Charles Cross." and that was accepted? Did the police check his birth certificate to look at his legal name? I think not. So, the first informal naming of himself on record is as Charles Cross (or George Cross to be fair to those who hang on a certain newspaper). Is this wrong of me to think this? Are there other articles in which he says, "My name is Charles Allen Lechmere?" A simple 'yes' or 'no' is warranted for that last question, convoluted answers being the ennui of these threads.

Mike

[lynn cates]

I go by . . .

Hello Michael. Well, I won't be one to tell you that you are wrong. Your scenario is altogether possible.

How he signed his name to legal documents is not relevant. What IS relevant is how he was known to his family and mates. And we have no record of that.

Incidentally, when I teach sub on Fridays, I call roll and many 'difficult' names--frequently associated with Asian students--are greeted with, "Here. But I go by . . . (interpolate one or two syllable Anglo-Saxon names)."

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Well, I won't be one to tell you that you are wrong. Your scenario is altogether possible.

How he signed his name to legal documents is not relevant. What IS relevant is how he was known to his family and mates. And we have no record of that.

Incidentally, when I teach sub on Fridays, I call roll and many 'difficult' names--frequently associated with Asian students--are greeted with, "Here. But I go by . . . (interpolate one or two syllable Anglo-Saxon names)."

Well, I only have Asian students. Often I call them all 'Bruce' to avoid confusion...the girls too.

Mike

[Robert]

Lynn calls all his 'Robert the Bruce.'

[The Good Michael]

Good one, Lobelt.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Robert: I say that if a man works hard, and provides for his family, then that is a plus mark in considering his character. You are entitled to point to negative factors - but first you have to find them.

What you and I are looking for, is evidence that he was a good person - or a bad person. Being industrious does not enter that discussion.
The people who run carpet factories in Pakistan are industrious men - and they use child labour.
The singalese guys who watch over the tamile teapicking women in Sri Lanka and who whip them with sticks if they don´t pick enough tea leaves are also part of an industrious movement.
Many industrious people are psychopaths, according to latter year research. Psychopaths like being top diogs and having respect.
John Wayne Gacy was industrious - a true pillar of society. His heart went out to a number of young men who were looking for a job, and he took them under his wings, good old industrious John.

So no, we cannot say that industrious equals good. We cannot even dub industrious a good thing, other than in terms of overall societal gain.

This is what I am trying to get across, Robert. The quality "good person" is not tied to the quality "industrial". If it was, then we should perhaps reason that the term "unemployed" is tied to the term "bad person" too?

Or should we say that "unwilling to work" equals bad person? Was Aaron Kosminski a bad person, necessarily? Unwilling to work goes against the norm, but it does not point to being bad as such.

Oh but hang on : what if they graded him incorrectly? What if he used to go home and beat up his wife? Maybe he stole the church collection from the plate. We don't know, do we?

No, we don´t. And I have said that before. I have even - jestingly - suggested that he could have been a killer himself.

But to just disregard all gradings would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater - Mother Teresa COULD have been a child molester, but the overall grading of her is that she was much more of a saint.

Once we have a grading, it must be given attention and at elast some sort of credibility.

We have one for Mizen. We don´t have one for Lechmere. Plus we know that Lechmere was a man found by a freshly killed murder victim who avoided giving his true name to the police.
Taken together, this tips the scales. It would be extreme folly to think it wouldn´t.

Ah, so Crossmere may have beat up his wife too, and that was why some of his children stayed behind - they were protecting her. Is there no end to this man's evil?....

He may, and he may not. It was you who claimed that it was a safe sign of goodness on his behalf that his kids did not run off or move away. I only took that black and white picture and added colour to it.

But hang on, this woman who bore him - what was it? - eleven children, and brought them up, while being battered by Crossmere as late as 1911 when they were both into their 60s - this woman actually died at the age of 91. She must have been a tough old bird! Maybe at some point she enrolled for a course of judo lessons. Anything's possible, Fish.

Twelve children, Robert. Yes, anything is possible. Did you know, by the way, that Elizabeth was buried in the same cemetery as Charles? Of course, one would expect these turtur doves to spend eternity as they spent life - together.

Sadly, though, they rest in one corner of the cemetery each. And anything´s possible.

You really need to get a more versatile picture of the world, by the way. There have been countless women who have been tormented by their husbands - and who have stayed on in spite of that. The phenomenon even has a scientific name (that I have forgotten).

And then there are the likes of Mrs Ridgway and Mrs Kürten, who were treated extremely well by their serialist husbands. Mrs Ridgway said that she had never met a better man in her whole life, and she had been married - and abused - twice before she met the lovely Gary.
He was a faithful worker who had held down his work as a car painter many years, and industrious enough to provide well for wife. Does that ring a bell?

It is a complex world, Robert, I cannot say that many times enough.

The best,
Fisherman