Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Colin Roberts]

Maybe not the place for it, but the biggest piece of nonsense in this whole theory is the foundation it's built on: Cross gave an incorrect name. Of course it is quite normal, and almost automatic for a child to take on the surname of a new father. Now, if Cross had been 16 or 17, maybe it would be different, but I believe he was quite a young boy. It has no bearing on things that he didn't have his name legally changed. That would take time and effort, and what would the point be. When Lechcross gave his address to the police, he proudly used his surname for 30+ years, Cross. How could it be any different? So let's just drop that one from the argument forever, because it only is another tick against not Lechmere, but the proponents. If the Lechemerites can fins any evidence that Cross used the name Lechmere growing up with his schoolmates, I may rethink things. As it is now, it's hogwash at best.

Perhaps we should petition to have the name on his tombstone changed to 'Cross'.

How naïve his descendants must be to believe that his name was 'Lechmere'.

For that matter, how naïve they must be to believe that their name is 'Lechmere'.

Perhaps we should petition to have the name on his tombstone changed to 'Cross'.

How naïve his descendants must be to believe that his name was 'Lechmere'.

For that matter, how naïve they must be to believe that their name is 'Lechmere'.

I agree.

Feeling as if I had played a small part in Michael Connor's and Chris Scott's discovery of the true identity of Charles 'Cross', …

Derek Osborne (Ripperana No. 37, July 2001) discovered a Charles Lechmere in residence at 22 Doveton Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, as recorded in the Census of England & Wales, 1891. But he merely surmised that Lechmere and Charles 'Cross' might have been one and the same. His discovery and supposition regarding Lechmere then faded into obscurity.

Michael Connor (Ripperologist No. 87, January 2008) - in the absence of any knowledge of Osborne's work - made the same discovery, but delved more deeply into the background and post-1891 life of Charles Lechmere. He concluded quite rightly that Lechmere and 'Cross' most probably were one and the same.

Chris Scott then put the icing on the cake.

Having steered Mr. Connor away from Bethnal Green and toward Mile End Old Town, in his quest for Doveton Street in various census enumerations, I felt as if I had played a small part in the discovery of the true identity of Charles 'Cross'. Naturally, I was most intrigued by the possibility that his use of 'Cross' as a means of identity during the course of the Nichols inquest was intended to be a subterfuge. I still am!

… I have subconsciously wanted there to be a real significance to Lechmere's chosen use of the name 'Cross', during the course of the Nichols inquest; … as if I had some sort of personal stake in its importance.

Somewhere along the way, however, I have begun to believe that perhaps he did typically identify himself as 'Cross', as it makes for such a simple solution to the identity dilemma.

Simple as it may seem, however, i.e. as easily as day-to-day usage of 'Cross' would allow everything else to fall into place; it would be nothing less than bizarre.

Those that would pass this sort of dual identity off as being perfectly normal need an objectivity check.

[The Good Michael]

F
Somewhere along the way, however, I have begun to believe that perhaps he did typically identify himself as 'Cross', as it makes for such a simple solution to the identity dilemma.

Simple as it may seem, however, i.e. as easily as day-to-day usage of 'Cross' would allow everything else to fall into place; it would be nothing less than bizarre.

Those that would pass this sort of dual identity off as being perfectly normal need an objectivity check.

Why does it have to be dual identity? A young child would take the name of the stepfather naturally, but that doesn't mean it was ever legally changed. Why is it any different than someone named John having the identity of 'Bud' his whole life, but signing his checks as John?

Mike

[Colin Roberts]

Why does it have to be dual identity? A young child would take the name of the stepfather naturally, but that doesn't mean it was ever legally changed. Why is it any different than someone named John having the identity of 'Bud' his whole life, but signing his checks as John?

How often do you encounter someone that identifies themselves to law enforcement by one surname, and to every other form of authority by another surname?

Have you ever encountered someone that does such a thing?

[The Good Michael]

How often do you encounter someone that identifies themselves to law enforcement by one surname, and to every other form of authority by another surname?

Have you ever encountered someone that does such a thing?

You got me there because I haven't seen where Cross is going all over the place to other offices telling people his name is Cross. I'm looking at a guy who has the legal name of Lechmere, but doesn't refer to himself as that because he got accustomed to Cross from a young age. There is no other explanation that I can see for him giving his name as Cross to the police and his address. He simply gave police the name he is known by along with his address because...that's his name. Now, if you can show me where he is going around town telling people his name is Lechmere, as I said earlier, then I would say he's insane. I wouldn't say he's hiding something. I mean the police go to his door, knock on it, and he's there regardless of surname.

Mike

[Sally]

I've wondered whether the fact that stepfather Cross was a policeman himself may perhaps offer an explanation here?

I have been assured several times over during the last couple of years by Lechmere supporters that this is implausible since no living, serving policeman could have known who Thomas Cross was.... but still?

[Trevor Marriott]

I've wondered whether the fact that stepfather Cross was a policeman himself may perhaps offer an explanation here?

I have been assured several times over during the last couple of years by Lechmere supporters that this is implausible since no living, serving policeman could have known who Thomas Cross was.... but still?

As far as giving a false name Scobie told me this was insignificant in any event in the grand scheme of things

[Fisherman]

Fish - perhaps you can clarify exactly what you mean by 'ridiculous opposition'?

In what way has the logical, virtually unanimous questioning of your theoretical framework by the Ripperological community been 'ridiculous'?

Do tell.

The opposition has been shrill, ill-tempered, mocking, uninformed in many ways and extremely repetitive. I find that ridiculous.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I did ask the question some time ago regarding lechmeres personal life and what exactly happened 2months before the killings started. 'Something' that meant he wasn't any longer living with his daughter? What about all his other children he had at that time?

I found the documentary fascinating and you built very good grounds for cross being JTR, these threads are doing a good job at dismantling it all though. Some of the sarcasm is of the highest order aswell

What is it you find has been "dismantled"?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert: Fish, I have already said that it is not having lots of children that is praiseworthy, but looking after them that is praiseworthy. And in my opinion it is reprehensible to refuse to look after them. Call me old-fashioned if you will.

How do we know how he looked after them? How do we know that he did not beat up on them? How do we know that they were not psychologically tormented?

Exactly - we dont.

Absence of evidence can indeed be evidence of absence, but not in this particular example. However, given that a thorough search has doubtless been made by you and Ed, it is something worth taking account of.

There are frequent examples of serialists with no criminal track record, I´m afraid. And absense of evidence is NOT evidence of absense - he could have committed many undiscovered crimes.

It's true that a master thief may be industrious. But if I saw a master thief risking his liberty year after year for the kind of money that Crossmere was earning, I would tell him :
1. You're not in the Joker, Penguin or Riddler class.
2. Get a job at Pickford's instead.
Unless of course you're suggesting that Crossmere was swiping joints of meat from the depot?

No, I am saying that "industrious" is no useful measure of a person being a good citizen. Most people who are industrious are industrious for the sake of gain. Their own gain.

Paul says that 'they' told Mizen what they had seen. According to you, Paul said nothing. He was actually round the corner and out of earshot when Crossmere told Mizen a lie about being wanted by a constable. We have already been through all this, Fish, and I do not wish to get drawn into that maelstrom again. However I do ask : if you are an investigating officer and one of your policemen (a good policeman, who has been graded!) insists on one version of a story, while a member of the public insists on the diametrically opposite version, then wouldn't you smell something? Wouldn't you ask a few questions and try to get to the bottom of the matter?

If I noticed it, then yes. Like I said, all the ones who have written books on the Ripper, more or less, failed to notice and mention it. They regarded it as insignificant.
I don´t think that the jury will necessarily have picked up on how Mizen spoke of one man whereas Lechmere said both men spoke. The jury knew two men were there, and may well have missed the potential danger hidden in the discrepancy.

Finally I must give you credit for raising one point that I think is particularly important, namely that we won the World Cup in 1966, and I was instrumental in that, though I have never received any credit for it. You find in these things that it's always the men on the pitch who get the kudos. Favouritism, I call it.

But that ball from Geoff Hurst really wasn´t in, was it? So the British team STOLE the title.

But they are not listed for any criminal offense, are they...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Colin Roberts]

You got me there because I haven't seen where Cross is going all over the place to other offices telling people his name is Cross. I'm looking at a guy who has the legal name of Lechmere, but doesn't refer to himself as that because he got accustomed to Cross from a young age. There is no other explanation that I can see for him giving his name as Cross to the police and his address. He simply gave police the name he is known by along with his address because...that's his name. Now, if you can show me where he is going around town telling people his name is Lechmere, as I said earlier, then I would say he's insane. I wouldn't say he's hiding something. I mean the police go to his door, knock on it, and he's there regardless of surname.

Last I checked, Mike, the score was …

Lechmere: ~110 (from womb to tomb)
Cross: 2 (1861 census, 1888 Nichols inquest)

Those that insist that he typically identified himself as 'Cross' in his day-to-day dealings with others, are the ones that need to put up - or shut up.

I've already admitted that I have begun to tend toward the gut feeling that he did in fact do so. But it is a gut feeling that is borne of an acceptance that bizarre things do occasionally occur.

---

I had a fourteen year-old autistic student - that unlike most of my other students, could be described as being a closely guarded 'Disney Princess' - tell me recently that she had spent part of her weekend playing "Gay Marriage" with her grandmother; in her grandmother's bedroom; while her grandfather was sleeping in his bedroom; and while her mother was at the grocery store. When I asked her to describe the manner in which "Gay Marriage" was played, she clammed up and exhibited a noticeable degree of uneasiness.

I made a report to the appropriate authority, and an inquiry was conducted by local law enforcement, during which the term "Gay Marriage" was repeated six or seven times.

It turns out, however, that "Gay Marriage" was a corruption of "Getting Married"; and that the videos that were being watched during the course of the game were Disney movies, such as Frozen.

A simple solution; but a bizarre form of interaction nonetheless.

---

We shouldn't feel compelled to tout the party line and attack every single aspect of the 'Lechmere the Ripper' theory, as some of its points actually stem from rather intriguing nuances.

Here's something that Neil Bell said on JTRForums a few years ago:

http://jtrforums.com/showpost.php?p=108156&postcount=6

"This aspect has fascinated me also.

Why would Lechmere do this?"

And yet today, Neil - like you, Mike - is demanding proof that Lechmere did not call himself 'Cross' on a day-to-day basis.

[Kaz]

What is it you find has been "dismantled"?

All the best,
Fisherman

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

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?

[MrBarnett]

Feeling as if I had played a small part in Michael Connor's and Chris Scott's discovery of the true identity of Charles 'Cross', …

Derek Osborne (Ripperana No. 37, July 2001) discovered a Charles Lechmere in residence at 22 Doveton Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, as recorded in the Census of England & Wales, 1891. But he merely surmised that Lechmere and Charles 'Cross' might have been one and the same. His discovery and supposition regarding Lechmere then faded into obscurity.

Michael Connor (Ripperologist No. 87, January 2008) - in the absence of any knowledge of Osborne's work - made the same discovery, but delved more deeply into the background and post-1891 life of Charles Lechmere. He concluded quite rightly that Lechmere and 'Cross' most probably were one and the same.

Chris Scott then put the icing on the cake.

Having steered Mr. Connor away from Bethnal Green and toward Mile End Old Town, in his quest for Doveton Street in various census enumerations, I felt as if I had played a small part in the discovery of the true identity of Charles 'Cross'. Naturally, I was most intrigued by the possibility that his use of 'Cross' as a means of identity during the course of the Nichols inquest was intended to be a subterfuge. I still am!

… I have subconsciously wanted there to be a real significance to Lechmere's chosen use of the name 'Cross', during the course of the Nichols inquest; … as if I had some sort of personal stake in its importance.

Somewhere along the way, however, I have begun to believe that perhaps he did typically identify himself as 'Cross', as it makes for such a simple solution to the identity dilemma.

Simple as it may seem, however, i.e. as easily as day-to-day usage of 'Cross' would allow everything else to fall into place; it would be nothing less than bizarre.

Those that would pass this sort of dual identity off as being perfectly normal need an objectivity check.

Couldn't agree more. And the fact that Charles and his sister were baptised as a Lechmere after their mother married Thomas Cross speaks volumes to me .

[Robert]

Fish

"No, I am saying that "industrious" is no useful measure of a person being a good citizen. Most people who are industrious are industrious for the sake of gain. Their own gain."

Crossmere's industriousness did save himself and the family he'd fathered from being a burden on everyone else. I think that's good citizenship. But again, call me old-fashioned if you will.


"There are frequent examples of serialists with no criminal track record, I´m afraid. And absense of evidence is NOT evidence of absense - he could have committed many undiscovered crimes."

Well, of course, Mizen may have been up to all kinds of shady shenanigans that the superiors who graded him as good never suspected. It's possible, but there isn't the slightest reason to think so.

Equally, Crossmere may have come home and beaten his children. Perhaps they trembled at his frown. It's possible, but there isn't the slightest reason to think so.

In fact, there is reason to think NOT, for in 1901 Crossmere has two adult sons living at home, while in 1911 he still has one adult son living at home. Doesn't look like psychological torment to me. But hey, maybe these sons joined in with beating up their siblings! It's a wicked world, Fish.

And in my opinion, the ball clearly bounced off the Lechmerebar and over the line, but have it your own way, Fish.

[DVV]

But hey, maybe these sons joined in with beating up their siblings! It's a wicked world, Fish.

Who can show me a better poster than Robert ?

[Fisherman]

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