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

[Azarna]

The murders were very big news. Elizabeth Cross surely must have heard about the murder at some point. It only requires part of the story for her to think "oh, a murder in Buck's Row at just the time Charles must have been going by on his way to work, I wonder if he saw anything"... and ask him.

Would not friends or neighbours have also thought of this too? Or his workmates? "Hey, Cross, you walk to work at that time of the morning, did you see anything of this murder that everyone is going on about?"

Or how about the chance that someone at the inquest would recognize him? He must have known a few people in the area, living and working there.

Maybe, just maybe, he actually used the surname of Cross quite often.. just not usually on written documents, which is why we have no record, and it would be hard to know if this were the case.

I personally use two different surnames on a regular basis, because one is very hard to spell and remember. Some people know me as one name, some as another. A few people still refer to me by my married name, although I am now divorced. And to add to the confusion, many of my old work mates know me by a different first name to usual because I used my second name for a while at work when there was five of us with the same first name in the office. Oh yes, and I have a title which some people call me by. Maybe one day my descendants will be tied in knots trying to unravel it all, hehe.

But I am not a murderer. Honest.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;379065]

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.

Hi Fisherman,

and therefore there is no historical reason for the hypothesis about the lack of knowledge of his wife considering the name Cross: the hypothesis has no source.

So that hypothesis is an ad hoc in your theory.

Also, it is an ad hoc in the foundations of the theory. Therefore, it weakens the theory when there is no source to support it.

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.

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. Are there not sources supporting this, Fisherman?

This can be chewed for years, and it wonīt alter much.

I see. Well, if you want to play the role of Sisyphus, that is your choice.

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

Here there are some "hows"...But no mother Cross.

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.

And then it begins with the "ifīs". "If" he carried..."If" noone told her..."If" her illiteracy...

You start with an ad hoc in the foundation of the theory and then add conditions without sources.

How do you expect intelligent people here to buy that?

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

No. It is not interesting with a weak theory full of conditions without sources. Why canīt you do better? I would be happy if you were right. But it seems hopeless.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

Not that it matters but I would lean towards the idea that Elizabeth Lechmere knew about the Cross name. There would be no reason to hide it from her and it's obvious by the number of kids that they did talk to one another on occasion.

I would also guess Lechmere told her about the inquest. again, there was no reason to not tell her. I'm sure it became a point of discussions with neighbors.

As far as the cops asking Elizabeth about Lechmere's wherabouts. If they didn't consider him a suspect at all then they wouldn't investigate him on any level. They didn't even walk Paul and Lechmere back to the body so why would they ask their wives about them?

Columbo

[John Wheat]

True there are similarities but it most definitely not a copycat. Bury stuck his wife in a trunk and turned himself into the police. he strangled her with a rope. If he were JTR he could've very easily taken his wife to a dark road and really kill her and make her a ripper victim. I have no opinion either way about Bury being JTR.

I know this is not for this thread but I thought it was proper to apply.

Columbo

It is worth noting that there is evidence Jack used a ligature in some of the C5. Yes but in your scenario why would Bury go to Dundee to murder his wife? Why not murder his wife a known prostitute and dump her in a London street?

[Columbo]

It is worth noting that there is evidence Jack used a ligature in some of the C5. Yes but in your scenario why would Bury go to Dundee to murder his wife? Why not murder his wife a known prostitute and dump her in a London street?

Yes I think that's a good question. Why not just dump her in the street? much easier.

I haven't read anything about ligature's in the C5. Can you lead me to the place to look?

Columbo

[Pcdunn]

Yes I think that's a good question. Why not just dump her in the street? much easier.

I haven't read anything about ligature's in the C5. Can you lead me to the place to look?

Columbo

Check here:

http://www.casebook.org/victims/

Pick a victim, read the summary, then look at the message board section for that victim. Medical reports are also a good place to start.

[Columbo]

Check here:

http://www.casebook.org/victims/

Pick a victim, read the summary, then look at the message board section for that victim. Medical reports are also a good place to start.

Thanks. I've read these and have not seen any indication of a ligature in any of the reports.

There was a theory at one time concerning Stride being strangled with her scarf.

So if there is an official document that mentions ligature then I'm not bright enough to see it.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

Hello Christer,

Since you've moved into defensive waffle mode and even posters like Columbo can understand the merits of my posts, I'll assume my point proven.

So are you suggesting that Emily Lechmere would give away her own brother? Do you really think that there is even an off chance that such a thing could happen? It would be truly priceless!

Since you asked, based on examples ... yes.
In fact I KNOW it could happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Brother_the_Serial_Killer

"Priceless" indeed.

Not your week is it?

[Columbo]

Hello Christer,
even posters like Columbo can understand the merits of my post,

Uhh...Thanks?

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hello Christer,

Since you've moved into defensive waffle mode and even posters like Columbo can understand the merits of my posts, I'll assume my point proven.



Since you asked, based on examples ... yes.
In fact I KNOW it could happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Brother_the_Serial_Killer

"Priceless" indeed.

Not your week is it?

I believe the Uni-Bomber's brother also turned him in based on his writing.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Not that it matters but I would lean towards the idea that Elizabeth Lechmere knew about the Cross name. There would be no reason to hide it from her and it's obvious by the number of kids that they did talk to one another on occasion.

I would also guess Lechmere told her about the inquest. again, there was no reason to not tell her. I'm sure it became a point of discussions with neighbors.

As far as the cops asking Elizabeth about Lechmere's wherabouts. If they didn't consider him a suspect at all then they wouldn't investigate him on any level. They didn't even walk Paul and Lechmere back to the body so why would they ask their wives about them?

Columbo

I want to expound on this just a bit. Even if his wife knew about the Cross name that really doesn't prove him innocent or guilty. We're delving into the area of their lives we're never gonna prove.

We have to remember that Lechmere was not a suspect at the time, and with the unwitting help of Paul he was (theoretically) able to slip under the radar. So no matter what he told his wife, it apparently didn't hurt or help him in his cause (theoretically).

Columbo

[Columbo]

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

Hi Fisherman,

Again this is a very good point you bring up. We just won't know since we can't question anyone, unless there are relatives of the lechmeres still living and know a great deal about their family history.

I take it Edward might know something?

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

Since you've moved into defensive waffle mode and even posters like Columbo can understand the merits of my posts, I'll assume my point proven.



Since you asked, based on examples ... yes.
In fact I KNOW it could happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Brother_the_Serial_Killer

"Priceless" indeed.

Not your week is it?

You KNOW it could happen?

Wow.

Well, I can only disagree. I am very certain that it never happened.

And thatīs mainly because Emily Lechmere had been dead for around twenty years in 1888. She died six months earlier than Thomas Cross.

As for whether it is my week or not, I leave that for others to decide. All I can say is that it certainly does not seem to be yours!

Then again, when IS it your week...?

PS. Anybody can understand the merits of your posts. It is not hard at all. DS.

[Fisherman]

The murders were very big news. Elizabeth Cross surely must have heard about the murder at some point. It only requires part of the story for her to think "oh, a murder in Buck's Row at just the time Charles must have been going by on his way to work, I wonder if he saw anything"... and ask him.

Would not friends or neighbours have also thought of this too? Or his workmates? "Hey, Cross, you walk to work at that time of the morning, did you see anything of this murder that everyone is going on about?"

Or how about the chance that someone at the inquest would recognize him? He must have known a few people in the area, living and working there.

Maybe, just maybe, he actually used the surname of Cross quite often.. just not usually on written documents, which is why we have no record, and it would be hard to know if this were the case.

I personally use two different surnames on a regular basis, because one is very hard to spell and remember. Some people know me as one name, some as another. A few people still refer to me by my married name, although I am now divorced. And to add to the confusion, many of my old work mates know me by a different first name to usual because I used my second name for a while at work when there was five of us with the same first name in the office. Oh yes, and I have a title which some people call me by. Maybe one day my descendants will be tied in knots trying to unravel it all, hehe.

But I am not a murderer. Honest.

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.

Did she know which route Charles took to Pickfords? Did she know that Bucks Row was called Bucks Row, and where it lay? She had just moved into the area, and she didnīt do the trek with him.

An illiterate housewife in new surroundings, with neighbours she did not know - was she going to poubce on how the caarman Charles Cross must be her husband? Would she even hear the name mentioned?

As for using two names, yes, it does happen. But it is not the norm in any shape or form. Thatīs about all that can be said.

[Fisherman]

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?