Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Patrick S]

So how many do you want? Fisherman provided two great examples and you're still not happy with that?

Let's suspend our focus on the name issue. I - for one - think it's somewhat easily explained. Keep in mind that it was mentioned in another thread that boys entered the workforce at 13 or 14 years old, and we have "Charles Cross", age 11, appearing in the 1861 census. Thus, it's not a leap that he was known as Charles Cross upon starting his first job a few years later.

So, let's assume an intent to deceive. He told them he was Cross and no one called him by that name. He was Lechmere. Always Lechmere. And? Now what? What else is there? The Mizen Scam? The 'blood evidence"? Both were - as I see it - created BECAUSE of the name issue (in order to make Lechmere "Jack the Ripper"). They don't stand on their own and they require immense assumption, trust in certain sources, disregard for others, and complicated mental gymnastics. It's sound and fury constructed to give an interesting if insignificant and likely innocently explained detail (Cross v. Lechmere) sinister implications.

[Patrick S]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You're still not getting it are you? You can't disprove Fisherman's theory and it's eating you up. Funny thing is that your approach is completely backwards.

Done with Choo!

Columbo

I'm sure it's quite "backwards", Columbo. I live in shame.

And may I say that I'm a big fan of the all caps "haha" with exclamation point. Well done. Your contributions are not going unnoticed.

[Columbo]

The ONLY two we have say Cross. There is no reason at all to think that any other report said Lechmere.

Lechmere was the name he was registered by, the name that he used officially. It was also the only of the two names that offered a possibility to search for him in the registers.
Are you suggesting that the police gave up that possibility, leaving posterity - including their own colleagues - at a loss to identify the man?
Why would he call himself Lechmere when speaking to the school authorities, the census takers, the voting administrators, the church authorities, instead of calling himself Cross there too, if he really did call himself Cross normally?

The desperation that surfaces when it cmes to this matter is astonishing. There is not a iot of evidence that he ever called himself Cross on any other occasion, in everyday life or in official circumstances, and still this idea is being pushed as if it was a very good one.
Amazing.

I agree. The theories posted have become thin. Evidence provided and they don't want to see it.

Columbo

[MrBarnett]

Let's stand back for a moment and look at the closest official record of his name to when he most likely started work. What was it?

[Patrick S]

I agree. The theories posted have become thin. Evidence provided and they don't want to see it.

Columbo

WHICH "theories" with resect to name have "become thin"? The prevailing view is that the Crossmere theory, as a whole, has not held up to scrutiny and that the arguments supporting it are so thin as to be invisible. So, let's deal with each "thin theory" one at a time. Pick one and we'll start there.

[David Orsam]

Since the issue about how long the trek from Doveton Street to Bucks Row would have taken, and since it has been questioned that Andy Griffiths and I did it in a normal pace, arriving at 7.07 minutes, it may need to be added how Michael Connor - one of the very first to point a finger at Lechmere - timed it:
Walking time between Doveton Street and the Buck’s Row murder site today is approximately six minutes—it would have been quicker in 1888. Even on the basis of this modern timing, if he left home on that morning about 3.30 then he would have been in Buck’s Row about 3.36.

I see Fisherman is responding to my posts now without actually saying so which strikes me as a bit silly.

Anyway, a few points in response.

1. Fisherman quotes Michael Connor as saying: "Walking time between Doveton Street and Bucks Row murder site today is approximately six minutes". Given the use of the word "today" what relevance is this to the issue at hand?

2. Fisherman says that Michael Connor says "it would have been quicker in 1888" but how does Michael Connor know this? I challenge this claim and request some supporting evidence more than the word of Michael Connor whoever he may be.

3. Does Fisherman agree that if Conner is saying the route would have been quicker in 1888 than it is "today" then Connor must have walked a route that did not exist in 1888?

I also have some additional questions for Fisherman which he will presumably ignore:

1. What exact route did he take when he performed the walk as shown on the television documentary?

2. Was it a route that existed in 1888?

3. On the TV documentary, we see him and Andy Griffiths set off on their walk from Doveton Street and in the next shot we see them arriving, which means the cameraman was already in Durward Street (Bucks Row) when they arrived. Then Fisherman stops his stopwatch at 7:07. Was this a genuine moment at the end of the walk showing the true moment of arrival? If so, how did the cameraman get there before him? Did the cameraman race on ahead? Or was there a second cameraman waiting in Durward Street for his arrival? Or was that a reconstruction created for the camera and the actual walk wasn’t filmed?

[Fisherman]

Let's stand back for a moment and look at the closest official record of his name to when he most likely started work. What was it?

That would be a bit disingenuos to my mind, since one must assume that Thomas Cross was the person who signed the census record when Lechmere was eleven.
He was christianed Lechmere one year after Thomas Cross wed Maria Louisa, so a conscious choice was made about which name Charles would carry, presumably after Thomas and Maria having spoken together about it. And Lechmeres sister was born, baptised and died young - as a Lechmere.

Allowing the census to govern our reasoning on this issue would be unsound, for the reasons given. It is not what others called Lechmere we are after, it is what he called himself.

[Columbo]

Since the issue about how long the trek from Doveton Street to Bucks Row would have taken, and since it has been questioned that Andy Griffiths and I did it in a normal pace, arriving at 7.07 minutes, it may need to be added how Michael Connor - one of the very first to point a finger at Lechmere - timed it:
Walking time between Doveton Street and the Buck’s Row murder site today is approximately six minutes—it would have been quicker in 1888. Even on the basis of this modern timing, if he left home on that morning about 3.30 then he would have been in Buck’s Row about 3.36.

I would make a guess it would generally take 6-8 minutes by the research.

[David Orsam]

I would make a guess it would generally take 6-8 minutes by the research.

There were a number of different routes he could have taken. We don't know what route he took, nor do we know if the route he took is in existence today.

There were a number of different speeds he could have walked at. We don't know what speed he walked at.

I believe we can only reasonably say that the walk from his house to the murder site would have taken somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes.

[Columbo]

There were a number of different routes he could have taken. We don't know what route he took, nor do we know if the route he took is in existence today.

There were a number of different speeds he could have walked at. We don't know what speed he walked at.

I believe we can only reasonably say that the walk from his house to the murder site would have taken somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes.

That sounds reasonable to me as well.

[Patrick S]

That would be a bit disingenuos to my mind, since one must assume that Thomas Cross was the person who signed the census record when Lechmere was eleven.
He was christianed Lechmere one year after Thomas Cross wed Maria Louisa, so a conscious choice was made about which name Charles would carry, presumably after Thomas and Maria having spoken together about it. And Lechmeres sister was born, baptised and died young - as a Lechmere.

Allowing the census to govern our reasoning on this issue would be unsound, for the reasons given. It is not what others called Lechmere we are after, it is what he called himself.

Again, any source that helps "Fisherman" is unimpeachable. Any source that does not is "unsound". News papers are demonstrably inaccurate, but we must trust them when it comes to this issue: he called himself Cross and only Cross (maybe 'George', maybe "Chas Allen", but always Cross), and never Lechmere. We must assume that Jonas Mizen is accurate and honest in his retelling of his interaction with Cross and Paul in Baker's Row. He was lied to. Misled by a psychopath. After all, Mizen was, as "Fisherman" has told us, a good Christian and a veteran officer. So, he is certainly not an unsound resource. He is not be questioned. This census taker? A pagan! An incompetent or a liar. Likely both! And we cannot take Paul's word for what Mizen did or did not do as he MUST be a self-aggrandizing, police-hating publicity whore in order for this "Mizen Scam" bit to stand on even one wobbly leg. It's the same old song from "Fisherman", only now he has his own Bundini Brown in his corner, tellin him he's "the greatest".

I'll say this again. Let's - for now - disregard this issue of Cross vs. Lechmere. Let's pretend the we know - as an undisputable fact - that Lechmere intentionally deceived everyone by using the name Cross throughout his involvement in the Nichols murder, inquest, etc.

[Pierre]

An answer please!

That would be a bit disingenuos to my mind, since one must assume that Thomas Cross was the person who signed the census record when Lechmere was eleven.
He was christianed Lechmere one year after Thomas Cross wed Maria Louisa, so a conscious choice was made about which name Charles would carry, presumably after Thomas and Maria having spoken together about it. And Lechmeres sister was born, baptised and died young - as a Lechmere.

Allowing the census to govern our reasoning on this issue would be unsound, for the reasons given. It is not what others called Lechmere we are after, it is what he called himself.

Hi Fisherman,

I have an important historical question for you.

If Lechmere

1) wanted to lie to the police and
2) wanted his ID to be unknown

- Why did he use the name Cross and not a false name which was in no way connected to him?

You managed to find Lechmere. Do you not think that the police would have been able to do the same?

So if he wanted to hide his ID, why did he not hide his ID properly, instead of making it possible to find it?

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I agree. The theories posted have become thin. Evidence provided and they don't want to see it.

Columbo

Yes, there is "evidence" provided and I see it. The "evidence" is that Lechmere found a dead woman, gave the name of his stepfather at the inquest and took back the statement that he had seen a policeman at the murder site.

What do you think could be the motive for Lechmere wanting to hide his name in the press and not wanting to state that he saw a policeman at the murder site?

Is there any other interpretation for those bits of rather problematic "evidence", i.e. sparse sources, than the idea that Lechmere himself was the murderer of Nichols?

And since there is not one single item found at any other murder site pointing to Lechmere as a killer, there is nothing to base the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper on.

Regards, Pierre

[Patrick S]

Hi Fisherman,

I have an important historical question for you.

If Lechmere

1) wanted to lie to the police and
2) wanted his ID to be unknown

- Why did he use the name Cross and not a false name which was in no way connected to him?

You managed to find Lechmere. Do you not think that the police would have been able to do the same?

So if he wanted to hide his ID, why did he not hide his ID properly, instead of making it possible to find it?

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

If I might, I'll save you the time of waiting for "Fisherman" to answer. I've read his justification for this many times.

His answer is that Lechmere needed to use a name that was false but not completely false. He needed a name that he had a connection to, rather than an entirely "false" name, in case his ruse did not work. Thus, he employed "Cross", a name he was likely - according the "Fisherman" - never actually known by, but had some justification for using.

Of course, I should mention that no one ASKED him to give a name at all. Mizen didn't ask him for one on August 31. He didn't give an interview, as Robert Paul did in Lloyd's, and identify himself as "Cross". He appeared at the inquest voluntarily. So, clearly he could have simply gone about his business and not submitted himself to questioning and thus not given ANY name. Ever. To anyone. Alas, he did. He did all this....because he was Jack the Ripper and wished to avoid detection in order to keep on killing. Which he did. While he was a pensioner. While he was a shop keeper/owner. Right up until he died. In his bed. In 1920. Aged 71. With his wife of 50 years at his side. Having fathered 11 kids.

COME ON! It's so SIMPLE! And OBVIOUS!

[Patrick S]

Yes, there is "evidence" provided and I see it. The "evidence" is that Lechmere found a dead woman, gave the name of his stepfather at the inquest and took back the statement that he had seen a policeman at the murder site.

What do you think could be the motive for Lechmere wanting to hide his name in the press and not wanting to state that he saw a policeman at the murder site?

Is there any other interpretation for those bits of rather problematic "evidence", i.e. sparse sources, than the idea that Lechmere himself was the murderer of Nichols?

And since there is not one single item found at any other murder site pointing to Lechmere as a killer, there is nothing to base the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper on.

Regards, Pierre

To be fair to "Fisherman", Pierre, Lechmere had the murder weapon ON HIM when he approached, spoke to, and interacted with Paul. He had the murder weapon ON HIM when he went LOOKING for a PC, found Mizen, told him that he found a woman and the he thought she was dead. So, there would be no evidence at the scene as he had what evidence there was (i.e. a BLOODY KNIFE) in his coat, or trousers. And he behaved like a man who was obviously quite worried about this evidence being discovered, didn't he? He obviously knew he had no blood on his person, as well (despite the near black conditions), in that he was going around touching people (Paul) on the shoulder and chatting up PCs holding lanterns.