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

[Fisherman]

Dear oh dear. I suppose Fisherman will come back with some sledgehammer response..
Miss Marple

In your case, it would be a total waste of time, so no.

[drstrange169]

Verifiable fact: When Charles Lechmere married Elizabeth Rostock in 1870, his mother was still using the name Maria Louisa Cross.

Verifiable fact: In 1871 Charles and Elizabeth Lechmere lived at 11 Mary Ann Street, St George in the East.

Verifiable fact: In 1871 Maria Louisa Cross lived at 11 Mary Anne Street, St George in the East.

Information from the census records as discovered by the late, great Chris Scott.

Obviously Charles and Elizabeth did not met for the first time and marry each other on the same day, 3rd July 1870, so there here must have been a courting period. A week? A month? A year? Two years? More? Who knows.

Ergo, Elizabeth knew of her husbands connection to the name "Cross", fact.

To suggest that Charles's sister, Emily, didn't know the name of the man who brought her up, is as you wrote previously, "priceless".

If I'm wrong, stop being so angry and prove me wrong. In fact just stop getting angry, full stop.

[drstrange169]

[QUOTE]Of course, Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, so she would not read any article herself. /QUOTE]

It seems pretty clear by her "x" on their marriage certificate, that Elizabeth was illiterate in 1870. Are you claiming you have proof she was still illiterate in 1888?

Elizabeth came from a family that apparently could not read and write but she married a husband who could and I believe all her children could too. Is it not possible that she too learned in the intervening years?

For someone who gets so hot under the collar about "facts" your sentence above seems pretty cavallier.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=drstrange169;379044]

Of course, Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, so she would not read any article herself. /QUOTE]

It seems pretty clear by her "x" on their marriage certificate, that Elizabeth was illiterate in 1870. Are you claiming you have proof she was still illiterate in 1888?

Elizabeth came from a family that apparently could not read and write but she married a husband who could and I believe all her children could too. Is it not possible that she too learned in the intervening years?

For someone who gets so hot under the collar about "facts" you sentence above seems pretty cavallier.

The other issue is that there are people, even today, who can write and not read, or read and not write.

Hey maybe she signed with a Cross for a reason.

[drstrange169]

Boom Boom!

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=GUT;379045]

The other issue is that there are people, even today, who can write and not read, or read and not write.

Hey maybe she signed with a Cross for a reason.

Nice!

[Columbo]

He was on his way to work and found a women in heap either drunk, dying or dead. Being a concerned citizen he stopped to investigate and involved another passer by and a policeman. They are facts, everything else is speculation, so a thread entitled ' So Cross the ripper got involved in the investigation why did he stop ' is sheer fantasy.
It presumes Cross killed Nichols, so must have been the ripper, so must have killed all the others, so must have involved himself in the investigation of the others, but he did'nt so that is weird!

Dear oh dear. I suppose Fisherman will come back with some sledgehammer response.. It is a mountain of speculation built on the fact that Lechmere had two names, not uncommon in the east end. Some of my ancestors used different names.

No one has proved Lechmere was a 'wrong un, a psychopath or broke the law. The actual evidence as opposed to the speculation is that Lechmere was a hard working family man who raised sucessful children but nobody is interested in that, its not sexy.

Miss Marple

I think we all realize this is speculation. I think the thread is also kind of a strange one.

I also think that, although there is strong evidence to support Lechmere's innocence, he is still a viable suspect, much more so than Thompson or Bury or any of the newer ones put forth. That comes from the fact there are discrepancies in his story and he was found with a victim.

Lechmere may seem to be an unlikely killer, but let's keep an open mind.

Columbo

[MrBarnett]

In your case, it would be a total waste of time, so no.

Oh Fish, you missed a golden opportunity: you could have at least asked her for a single example of an East Ender who used a false name and didn't have something to hide - just to dispel, once and for all, the stupid idea that the majority of people living in east London used multiple names.

Over to you, Miss M.

[John Wheat]

I think we all realize this is speculation. I think the thread is also kind of a strange one.

I also think that, although there is strong evidence to support Lechmere's innocence, he is still a viable suspect, much more so than Thompson or Bury or any of the newer ones put forth. That comes from the fact there are discrepancies in his story and he was found with a victim.

Lechmere may seem to be an unlikely killer, but let's keep an open mind.

Columbo

The idea that Lechmere is a more likely suspect than Bury a proven murderer with a very similar MO to Jack in fact so similar that its likely he's either Jack or a copycat killer is absurd.

[Columbo]

The idea that Lechmere is a more likely suspect than Bury a proven murderer with a very similar MO to Jack in fact so similar that its likely he's either Jack or a copycat killer is absurd.

I don't think it was a very similar MO. He strangled and stabbed his wife. He didn't eviscerate her and pose her and he didn't take any bodyparts. And he was investigated as a suspect at the time and struck off the list.

Strangling and stabbings were pretty common and still are. And if you think they weren't in Whitechapel 1888 then you're not doing your research. Not every murderer and wife beater was found with the body of a JTR victim.

To be fair Lechmere probably never beat his wife or kids or was violent towards his family which is another point in his innocence.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Verifiable fact: When Charles Lechmere married Elizabeth Rostock in 1870, his mother was still using the name Maria Louisa Cross.

Verifiable fact: In 1871 Charles and Elizabeth Lechmere lived at 11 Mary Ann Street, St George in the East.

Verifiable fact: In 1871 Maria Louisa Cross lived at 11 Mary Anne Street, St George in the East.

Information from the census records as discovered by the late, great Chris Scott.

Obviously Charles and Elizabeth did not met for the first time and marry each other on the same day, 3rd July 1870, so there here must have been a courting period. A week? A month? A year? Two years? More? Who knows.

Ergo, Elizabeth knew of her husbands connection to the name "Cross", fact.

To suggest that Charles's sister, Emily, didn't know the name of the man who brought her up, is as you wrote previously, "priceless".

If I'm wrong, stop being so angry and prove me wrong. In fact just stop getting angry, full stop.

I canīt tell if you are right or wrong. You canīt tell if you are right or wrong. A case can be made that Elizabet should have known the name. But no case can be made that it is a fact that she did.

If there is anybody out here who is told that things cannot be claimed as facts until they are proven, then that somebody is me. There is nothing at all you can teach me about facts. And it is not a fact that Elizabeth Lechmere was aquainted with the Cross name.

This can be chewed for years, and it wonīt alter much. I think it is much more valuable to look at how Elizabeth was married Lechmere, how her kids were given the name Lechmere, how Charles writes himself Lechmere - and then ask yourself why Elizabeth would entertain any suspicions that the carman of Nichols inquest fame was her husband if he carried the usual first name Charles and the usual surname Cross, if his address was not in any of the papers but for one, if noone of her neighbours - probably all unknown to her - told her about how they had read about a carman at an inquest that shared first name with her husband, and if her illiteracy kept her from being able to take the information in by herself.

I would suggest that this is much more interesting than any fact-building enterprise of yours.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=drstrange169;379044]

Of course, Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, so she would not read any article herself. /QUOTE]

It seems pretty clear by her "x" on their marriage certificate, that Elizabeth was illiterate in 1870. Are you claiming you have proof she was still illiterate in 1888?

Elizabeth came from a family that apparently could not read and write but she married a husband who could and I believe all her children could too. Is it not possible that she too learned in the intervening years?

For someone who gets so hot under the collar about "facts" your sentence above seems pretty cavallier.

It is possible, but not probable. And for someone who gets all hot under the collar trying to claim probabilitites of varying degrees as facts ...

I think you know where I am going with this.

[Fisherman]

The idea that Lechmere is a more likely suspect than Bury a proven murderer with a very similar MO to Jack in fact so similar that its likely he's either Jack or a copycat killer is absurd.

If we only look at the rap sheets of the two men, then Bury is the much better suspect.

If we add the circumstances surrounding the murder, that is turned around, and Lechmere is by far the much better suspect.

If it was not like that, then any man with criminal record would be a better suspect than Lechmere, as long as we cannot prove that this criminal man was not anywhere near the murder scene.

It does not work like that. It is deeply ignorant not to realize this.

I have told you this for months on end, but it seems it is a total waste of time. So I will not tell you this anymore. That means you are free to either accept the basics of any murder inquiry (opportunity is the most important demand and proven opportunity makes a man - any man - a better suspect than a man - any man - with no proven opprtunity), or to make a fool of yourself.

Itīs a free world.

[Fisherman]

Oh Fish, you missed a golden opportunity: you could have at least asked her for a single example of an East Ender who used a false name and didn't have something to hide - just to dispel, once and for all, the stupid idea that the majority of people living in east London used multiple names.

Over to you, Miss M.

All the lucid moments gone. Thatīs sad. So often cheap irony is the last retreat of people who cannot make a case.

I never figured you to go down that road so unhesitatingly, but there we are.

[Fisherman]

Not every murderer and wife beater was found with the body of a JTR victim.

Columbo

Why did not I come up with that one-liner...?

Brilliant stuff, Columbo.

There is at least one man out here who will not be able to swallow that pill, but that does not detract from the bullīs eye hit you produce.