So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[Fisherman]

Azarna: I actually think that Lechmere is a reasonable suspect for the murder of Polly Nichols. He was in the right place, at the right time, and there are things about his actions that certainly do look suspicious.

Of course he is a reasonable suspect for the Nichols murder. But to Trevor Marriott, he should be discarded. And thatīs coming from an ex-murder squad detective. Talk about shooting yourself through the foot!

I have not yet seen or read enough evidence to feel is a reasonable suspect for any of the other murders though.

All there is, is the correlation geographically, plus the fact that anybody who killed Nichols must be a very likely contender for the rest of the Ripper victims.

The business with the name is indeed odd.

It is - but not to some out here...

If Lechmere really never used the name Cross, then this makes using it as a "subtle lie" all the more surprising. Had the police ever inquired they could have easily found that Charles Allen Cross did not live at the given address... but Charles Allen Lechmere did.. and of course Paul or PC Mizen could have then identified him as being the same man who called himself Cross.

Yes. It entailed lots of danger, but the name Cross was a name for which he could produce an explanation. It seems that if he lied, he did so with a safety net.

If this happened (and it would have been a big potential risk) then Lechmere would, presumably, have said, "Oh, I didn't lie.. I am also called Cross, it is my step-father's name."

Yup, thatīs how I see it.

If he used this name SOMETIMES then this is going to sound a heck of a lot less suspicious than if he never ever used it and just happened to use it for this one time.

Perfectly true. Two times will suffice to dissolve much of the suspicions!

Christer, if you are right and he never used it other than this one time then that makes using it as a way to cover his guilt seem very unlikely as it just draws more attention if investigated. Saying Lechmere would have been safer (or going all out for a totally false name and address).

... and so I am reasoning that he wanted to keep the name from the public - for whatever reason, one of them perhaps being that he wanted to carry on his murderous carreer without some people knowing about it.

However if he used Cross sometimes, then using it would hopefully throw the police off enough for his purposes (as MAY have happened, of course)... but he could explain it if it was later investigated.

He could do that anyway. He could always say that he sometimes used the name, when he felt like it. Not all that often, but at times, and that it was his name to use. It would be pretty hard to disprove that.
At any rate, there was something odd going on when he chose Cross over Lechmere on that one and only occasion!

Thanks for that breath of fresh air, before I am submerged into the naysayer swamp again! Itīs good to see that people with no agenda are able to see clearly.

[Azarna]

How do you know it was the right time, as time of death cannot be firmly established? We know he found the body that`s all that is conclusive. What actions were suspicious ?

I am not being as specific as that. I am not convinced he did it, there is not enough evidence for that.

However he was in Bucks Row within a very short time of Polly Nichols death. This makes him somewhat more of a likely suspect for this particular murder than, say, Druitt or Ksominski.. simply because we have no idea where they were at the time.

The Lechmere/Cross name business is something that has caused much speculation. Whether this is deemed suspicious or curious depends on your point of view.

There are some suspects I consider "unreasonable" because we have strong evidence they could not have done it (Prince Eddy, for example), some who are "hmm, possible, but unlikely", some who are "well, maybe" and some who are "possible". I suspect that most of us have slightly different people in each category :-)

To my eyes Charles Cross is a possible suspect. Possible. Not probable.

[Fisherman]

The only thing I would like you to do is to accept all of what I said in post #115

But as you have already chosen not to by not replying in the first instance I must take it that you do accept all?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you cannot appear here with the moronic approach that Lechmere should be dropped altogether, and then ask me to accept your drivel.

It is a clownish approach, which in itself does not surprise me. But that does not help your cause.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman canīt help it. It is he who does it. The vampire. Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

Bravo, Pierre - very, very ethical of you!

[Trevor Marriott]

I actually think that Lechmere is a reasonable suspect for the murder of Polly Nichols. He was in the right place, at the right time, and there are things about his actions that certainly do look suspicious.

How do you know it was the right time, as time of death cannot be firmly established? We know he found the body that`s all that is conclusive. What actions were suspicious ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Azarna]

I actually think that Lechmere is a reasonable suspect for the murder of Polly Nichols. He was in the right place, at the right time, and there are things about his actions that certainly do look suspicious.

I have not yet seen or read enough evidence to feel is a reasonable suspect for any of the other murders though.

The business with the name is indeed odd.

If Lechmere really never used the name Cross, then this makes using it as a "subtle lie" all the more surprising. Had the police ever inquired they could have easily found that Charles Allen Cross did not live at the given address... but Charles Allen Lechmere did.. and of course Paul or PC Mizen could have then identified him as being the same man who called himself Cross.

If this happened (and it would have been a big potential risk) then Lechmere would, presumably, have said, "Oh, I didn't lie.. I am also called Cross, it is my step-father's name."

If he used this name SOMETIMES then this is going to sound a heck of a lot less suspicious than if he never ever used it and just happened to use it for this one time.

Christer, if you are right and he never used it other than this one time then that makes using it as a way to cover his guilt seem very unlikely as it just draws more attention if investigated. Saying Lechmere would have been safer (or going all out for a totally false name and address).

However if he used Cross sometimes, then using it would hopefully throw the police off enough for his purposes (as MAY have happened, of course)... but he could explain it if it was later investigated.

[Trevor Marriott]

Fisherman canīt help it. It is he who does it. The vampire. Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

You are right, time and time again he has been done up like a `kipper` by posters on here. He wont accept that his theory is made up of red `herrings` His `bloated` ego is showing through. This is not the `plaice` for him to be now. All he is doing is making himslef look like a `pilchard`

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

And you would be better taking your head out of the sand, and waking up to reality instead of being lost in this fantasy world of Lechmere that you have created.

I see you are still using the same old tactics to deflect posts that threaten your theory, oh dear

Fisherman canīt help it. It is he who does it. The vampire. Jack the Ripper.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Whenever somebody has constructive criticism to offer, I am thorough and concise.

Not everybody is up to that level, however. And they are quickly provided with a verbal boot in the bottom. Anseers to their questions have been offered hundreds of times, but they are too lazy to look for it.

Do you want me to specify who goes where?

The only thing I would like you to do is to accept all of what I said in post #115

But as you have already chosen not to by not replying in the first instance I must take it that you do accept all?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379168]

Hi Fisherman,

I understand your thinking.

No you donīt.

But thatīs okay - your thinking is alienated to me.

[Fisherman]

And you would be better taking your head out of the sand, and waking up to reality instead of being lost in this fantasy world of Lechmere that you have created.

I see you are still using the same old tactics to deflect posts that threaten your theory, oh dear

Whenever somebody has constructive criticism to offer, I am thorough and concise.

Not everybody is up to that level, however. And they are quickly provided with a verbal boot in the bottom. Anseers to their questions have been offered hundreds of times, but they are too lazy to look for it.

Do you want me to specify who goes where?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: I think this whole issue of Cross/Lechmere being a suspect should be put to bed once and for all.

I know.

You canīt.

It wonīt happen.

You would do better to try and read up on the case. It would be time better spent.

And you would be better taking your head out of the sand, and waking up to reality instead of being lost in this fantasy world of Lechmere that you have created.

I see you are still using the same old tactics to deflect posts that threaten your theory, oh dear

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;379139]

Pierre:

I do not agree with you on that last sentence; "It is not a fact that Elizabeth Lechmere was acquainted with the Cross name". It is an established fact supported by sources, I think, that Elizabeth Lechmere was acquainted with her husbandīs mother.[/B] [B]Are there not sources supporting this, Fisherman?

To elevate what we think is a would have into a must have is not a very intelligent thing to do.

Charles Lechmere married Elizabeth Bostock seven months after the death of Thomas Cross. He married her as Charles Lechmere. To which extent the couple - especially Elizabeth - associated with the rest of the Lechmere family, we donīt know.

It is therefore a very good suggestion that she may have heard about the Cross name, but it is in no way whatsoever any established fact.

Furthermore, if the name was not used, and drifted into oblivion over the nineteen years that passed between the death of the stepfather and the 1888 atrocities, then just how much of a done deal is it that Elizabeth would make the connection?

Hi Fisherman,

I understand your thinking. But the problem is the gap between the sources at hand and the hypotheses. Donīt you agree with me on that point?

Firstly, you hypothesize that Elizabeth Lechmere did not know the name, when we have no sources for her knowledge about the name.

The consequence of this thinking is that you seem (!) to think it is accepted to hypothesize without sources and, furthermore, to build a theory on that hypothesis.

Is that correct?

Because then you work by a certain, specific principle when you are constructing your history. The principle is:

A (historical source about Lechmere using the name Cross demands an explanation) > C (explanation) based on B (hypothesis without source).

So you find A, make explanation C for it but without B.

Would it not have been better for you if you had finished the work with researching Lechmere before you presented Lechmere as "Jack the Ripper", given that the evidence is not sufficient?

Also, why is there no evidence from the other murder sites that Lechmere was there? I know it is not Christmas now, but wouldnīt it have been better if you had found at least something in the sources indicating that he was on more than one of the other murder sites?

I very honestly wish that you were right about Lechmere, but there is no historical reason for saying that you are. As an historian, I analyse the sources from historical perspectives and with historical methods. So the use of a police investigator and a barrister in a documentary does not mean anything to me. You could put forth all the "experts" you like and let them all say that Lechmere could have been a killer, but since they are not historians, they can not research the past with a valid result.

When you research the past, you must do sources criticism, use text analysis, go through the work of interpreting the value of the sources from the perspective of validity and reliability, establish facts on a wide range - since you research a serial killer! - and find that the facts together make history with coherence.

I can tell you that I have a hard time with my historical sources. They are difficult since they point to one thing, but at the same time they have a variation in their reliability like all sources from the past, and I would never put forth a person from the past and try to persuade people that he was a serial killer if I did not have very good historical reasons.

Therefore, the sources must indicate that the killer can be connected to all the murders, the sources must show us that there was an explicit motive, that there was sufficient knowledge and skill to perform the murders, that the type of methods the killer used was a behaviour known by the person you think is the killer, and that there was a reason both to start and stop the killings. Also, you must be able to connect your "suspect" to the murders on a micro level. And the sources from the past must be explained by your theory. And finally, you need an item that is personal and can only be connected to one single person and that item must be from 1888. All this, Fisherman, is what I define as "very good historical reasons".

But you are a journalist, so why do you do this? Is it some journalistic attention seeking? Because I can tell you as an historian that your sources are far from sufficient for the theory of Lechmere being a serial killer called Jack the Ripper.

Your sources are sufficient for the theory that Lechmere killed Polly Nichols. And still, there are problems with the sources, which makes the theory weak. You do not have the original inquest sources and you have nothing to support the hypothesis discussed above.

I would be happy if you did. So what can you do to improve your source material?

Kind regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



To which the answer is a) yes, very obviously, b) not necessarily, as it could easily have come up in casual conversation, and c) someone who spotted that the Cross from the papers matched Lechmere from Pickfords and Dovestone Street. And even in the epically unlikely event that this didn't happen, what about all his carman colleagues? Did not a single one of them register the fact that they were one and the same? And more importantly, was Crossmere the ripper seriously banking on nobody making the connection - or making the connection but not saying anything about it?

If he was known as Lechmere at work, it would definitely have come to the attention of the police.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Ben.

Youīve claimed this before.

It is as interesting and informative now as it was then.

It īs nice to have you participating, but it would have been even nicer if you admitted that you are just guessin.

All these "near certainties" of yours and "epically unlikelies" and whatnot is getting a bit tedious. Sorry.

By the way, itīs Doveton Street, not Dovestone.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes , it is reasonable to think that Elizabeth Lechmere would have heard about the killings.

But was she ever told about the witness "Charles Cross"? Did somebody read it out loud to her? Who, in such a case?
Thatīs another question altogether.

To which the answer is a) yes, very obviously, b) not necessarily, as it could easily have come up in casual conversation, and c) someone who spotted that the Cross from the papers matched Lechmere from Pickfords and Dovestone Street. And even in the epically unlikely event that this didn't happen, what about all his carman colleagues? Did not a single one of them register the fact that they were one and the same? And more importantly, was Crossmere the ripper seriously banking on nobody making the connection - or making the connection but not saying anything about it?

If he was known as Lechmere at work, it would definitely have come to the attention of the police.

Regards,
Ben