Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Charles Cross

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Hi Fish,

    You ask:

    Gary, what do you think about the possibility - could he have used an alias throughout, to keep an escape route open? If he was the killer?


    Well, yes, of course he could have conceived the idea of using an alias as soon as his murderous urges started to surface (assuming they ever did), but I question the value of an alias that is given alongside other information that would identify him, such as his home address and place of work. Aliases are normally used to prevent a person being tracked down by the authorities or to conceal previous criminal convictions. In the two examples we have -1876 and 1888- the name Cross wasn't being used in either of those ways, was it? But perhaps he saw the name Cross as a sort of psychological shield, or a pair of psychological rubber gloves so to speak, used to distance himself - the hard working family man - from the predator. And as you say, should the use of the name Cross be questioned he could always demonstrate that it was not entirely fictitious.

    It did occur to me at one time that perhaps there were some who might have had reason to suspect a man named Lechmere of dubious activity and his use of Cross was to prevent them making the connection between the man they suspected and the one they might read about in their newspaper. But having done a bit of research into Lechmere's mother's* background I'm increasingly of the opinion that it was the name Lechmere itself that was being protected from bad publicity.

    Whatever, there's no getting away from the fact that it's odd that the Lechmere name does not appear in the records of the Nichols case or (if it was indeed him) the 1876 incident.

    Gary



    *I can't let this opportunity pass without quoting (not for the first time) these wonderful lines from the classic movie Kind Hearts and Coronets:

    'Did poor Mama's silly dreaming plant in my brain some seed, which was afterwards to grow into the most sensational criminal endeavour of the century?'
    I have in the past suggested that the name Lechmere could perhaps have been tied to something that would ring a bell with the police, and that this could have been the reason for his using the name Cross instead. If I remember correctly, I suggested that he could have been accused by a woman of some sort of indecent attack against her, and if this was the case and the police was involved, then it may be that there was never any evidence grounds to push the case - but the name Lechmere could have stuck with the police anyway, if he gave that name, or was called it by the woman.

    I am fully aware that he gave his real address and working place to the police and that he therefore could be ID:d by them, should the need arise. But the possibility that he did NOT give the address to the inquest is a very real one, and taken together with the fact that the article about the run over boy did not involve Charles Crossī address either is a red flag to me - if we are dealing with the same Pickfords carman.

    Your idea about psychological rubber gloves is interesting - it may be that he wanted to distance himself from the Mr Hyde part of himself, if he was indeed split in two. Personally, I think the simpler explanation is that he tried to keep his identity hidden - not from the police, but from the public.

    Thanks for your answer!

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
      Not at all, it indicates either a failure to record it by the press or a request from either him or the coroner not to include it. Which it is, we have no idea of and any suggestion that we do or can reach a decsion on it fantasy.

      To suggest it was not supplied (withheld) meam we must pressume the coroner did not ask for it? Why not
      If that is the thinking, what is that based on other than wishful thinking.

      This continuing invention of "possible" alternatives, as serious suggestions has reached a point where all pretence of historical integrity as vanished. Truly great for a novel, not for history.


      Steve
      ... and when Gary said that there WAS a third source, you decided it was still not enough.

      That "three source evidence" thinking of yours is really... really... nope, I canīt find the word for it.

      I do not "wish" that I am correct in thinking Lechmere was the killer. So far, that has totally eluded you.

      As for "possible" alternatives, may I remind you that such "possible innocent alternatives" has been the bread and butter for all of your own posting for many years now?

      Thereīs a name for it, you know.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
        Not actually addressing the post, not for the first time.
        Here you decided to debate my use of "astonishing", and to return to "possibilities"( that is anything you care to invent), par for the course

        Now on to facts. And part of the post ignored.
        Why were posts made that were factually untruly , in the thread on Mizen's inquest statement?


        Steve
        "Factually untruly"?

        I have no problems at all with people having a hard time handling language - it happens, and noone is to blame. But I cannot answer what I donīt understand.

        If you have any question, please specify and I will answer it.

        If you feel that my suggesting things as possible is equal to presenting them as facts, then either I have misworded myself or you have misunderstood it.

        But I find the fact that there is an onslaught whenever I say something or suggest something intensely interesting.

        Once again: I look at whether Lechmere is a possible killer or not, if there are unsurmountable obstacles to that idea or not. I do not say or claim that he WAS the killer, I say that I PERSONALLY am convinced he was.

        I am allowed to do that, you know. And I should be allowed to do that without being attacked. Most of all, I should be able to do it without being misrepresented.

        Any thoughts on how we reach that point?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          ... and when Gary said that there WAS a third source, you decided it was still not enough.

          In Gary's own words it was a very brief account. In that case it was unlikely to clarify the situation.

          That "three source evidence" thinking of yours is really... really... nope, I canīt find the word for it.

          I do not "wish" that I am correct in thinking Lechmere was the killer. So far, that has totally eluded you.

          No it has not eluded me. The posts, the vast weight of pro Lechmere posts argue that is indeed Your "wish".

          As for "possible" alternatives, may I remind you that such "possible innocent alternatives" has been the bread and butter for all of your own posting for many years now?

          Thereīs a name for it, you know.
          My Alternatives are for the most part backed by historical sources, they are not the product of imagination. Those that are not backed are clearly signposted as conjecture.


          Steve

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            "Factually untruly"?

            I have no problems at all with people having a hard time handling language - it happens, and noone is to blame. But I cannot answer what I donīt understand.

            If you have any question, please specify and I will answer it.

            If you feel that my suggesting things as possible is equal to presenting them as facts, then either I have misworded myself or you have misunderstood it.

            But I find the fact that there is an onslaught whenever I say something or suggest something intensely interesting.

            Once again: I look at whether Lechmere is a possible killer or not, if there are unsurmountable obstacles to that idea or not. I do not say or claim that he WAS the killer, I say that I PERSONALLY am convinced he was.

            I am allowed to do that, you know. And I should be allowed to do that without being attacked. Most of all, I should be able to do it without being misrepresented.

            Any thoughts on how we reach that point?


            No misrepresentation at all.

            The thread on Mizen's inquest testimony #6 contains several historical untruths. Not a question of interpretation, basic untruths.


            Steve

            Comment


            • #51
              Good morning Christer,

              I posted up the transcription of Gary's find here to demonstrate that yes, Charles Cross is the name the carman used in his capacity as a driver. Surely everyone at Pickford's, plus his customers instantly know who that is. It's Charles Cross.

              Recall that the finding of the name Lechmere happened a decade or so before you and Ed turned it into anything suspicious. Your "aha" moment was him using the name Cross at the Nichols inquest this one and only time to the exclusion of all other times ever in recorded history.

              Turns out that's not so. The 'aha' moment becomes a nothing burger. Sorry.

              And no him not giving his address in this instance is not suspicious in the least bit. He gave his address in the Nichols inquest because he was a pedestrian on the way to work when he discovered her body. By contrast, for the accident inquest, his home address is not asked for nor given. He is identified as the Pickfords driver. The other addresses are given because they are germane to the story. Those people live/work there in the immediate vicinity of the accident. Likewise the father's address. Poor dad, he is upset, rightly and initially wants to blame the driver. But note the verdict, an accident.

              Roy
              Sink the Bismark

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                My Alternatives are for the most part backed by historical sources, they are not the product of imagination. Those that are not backed are clearly signposted as conjecture.


                Steve
                Which "historical sources" back up a single one of the alternative innocent explanations that you have suggested over the years, Steve?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                  No misrepresentation at all.

                  The thread on Mizen's inquest testimony #6 contains several historical untruths. Not a question of interpretation, basic untruths.


                  Steve
                  I was not pointing you out as the single source of misrepresentations. But when you speak of self deception on my behalf when I describe how I do my work on Lechmere, you are overstepping the line. For example. And the same goes for being "astonished" by how I check whether Lechmere can be guilty or not - and then whining about how I picked you up on that particular word.

                  It wonīt do, quite simply.

                  Now, instead of hinting at things, go ahead and produce the EXACT things where you claim I am lying about Mizen, more or less. Surely, that cannot be asking too much from a poster who claims that I avoid issues?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
                    Good morning Christer,

                    I posted up the transcription of Gary's find here to demonstrate that yes, Charles Cross is the name the carman used in his capacity as a driver. Surely everyone at Pickford's, plus his customers instantly know who that is. It's Charles Cross.

                    Recall that the finding of the name Lechmere happened a decade or so before you and Ed turned it into anything suspicious. Your "aha" moment was him using the name Cross at the Nichols inquest this one and only time to the exclusion of all other times ever in recorded history.

                    Turns out that's not so. The 'aha' moment becomes a nothing burger. Sorry.

                    And no him not giving his address in this instance is not suspicious in the least bit. He gave his address in the Nichols inquest because he was a pedestrian on the way to work when he discovered her body. By contrast, for the accident inquest, his home address is not asked for nor given. He is identified as the Pickfords driver. The other addresses are given because they are germane to the story. Those people live/work there in the immediate vicinity of the accident. Likewise the father's address. Poor dad, he is upset, rightly and initially wants to blame the driver. But note the verdict, an accident.

                    Roy
                    1. The witnessesīaddresses are not germane at all to the event, Iīm afraid. Anybody who had witnessed the event and had relevant information to offer was asked to do so - not on account of where they lived but on account of what they had seen.

                    That was why the addresses were given, and that was why Crossī address was equally interesting.

                    2. We do not know that the Charles Cross that run over the boy was Charles Lechmere.

                    3. If he WAS, then it still applies that he on a regular basis said his name was Lechmere - not Cross - when speaking to all sorts of authorities, and it applies that it is an anomaly that he suddenly opts for Cross when violent death is involved.

                    4. I - or Edward - canīt turn a name change into "something suspicious". It either is or it is not, and that is not on account of what I think about it. It is an anomaly, and that fact remains. Whether that anomaly points to guilt or not is not establishable.Certainly, the MORE anomalies involved, the LESS the chance that a suspect is innocent. That is a generalized but neverthless universal truth.

                    5. It is not established that Lechmere gave his address to the inquest - one paper only had the address, and they could have gotten it from a clerk. Compare the person most similar to Lechmere, Robert Paul, and check how many papers made an effort to publish his Foster Street address.

                    6. I had already noted the verdict. Just as I have noted how all verdicts are not justified verdicts. Nota bene that I am not saying that it seems not to have been an accident, and I for one have never suggested that it was a wilful thing. But I am not daft enough to accept a verdict as representing anything else but a legally reached stance, a stance that can have been reached on correct, wrongful, insufficient, good, bad, biased, brilliant and/or thick grounds.

                    7. No, I donīt think you are sorry at all. That lies in the future, if you ask me.

                    8. Now I have got a football match to watch, so you must forgive me for not participating any further in this. Maybe itīs just as well, going by the mistakes you made in your post.

                    Sor.... No, Iīm not

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Which "historical sources" back up a single one of the alternative innocent explanations that you have suggested over the years, Steve?
                      Ask for a specific example and i will happily oblige.


                      Steve

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        I was not pointing you out as the single source of misrepresentations. But when you speak of self deception on my behalf when I describe how I do my work on Lechmere, you are overstepping the line. For example. And the same goes for being "astonished" by how I check whether Lechmere can be guilty or not - and then whining about how I picked you up on that particular word.

                        It wonīt do, quite simply.


                        Unfortunately you have not described how you do your work on Lechmere, I have no idea how you work.
                        However real research, data collection, should not be confused with personal opinions that masquerades as historical anaylisis

                        I used the word astonishing just once, in the following context:

                        "Now logically we would think if it were the same man it would imply he used the name Cross at work. However what has occurred from some pro Lechmere "researchers" is truly astonishing.

                        It has been suggested that :

                        He used the name Cross when he was in trouble (if he used it at work all the time, such of course fails).

                        That he may have deliberately run over the child, and it was not an accident.

                        Or that he decided at a very early age to use the alias "Cross" at work to allow him to hide his identity when he wanted."


                        It was used to describe how several proLechmere researchers have responded over the last few months, since the discovery of the Puckfords "Cross"


                        Yet in your post #39 you mentioned it 4 times in various forms of the word.

                        There is no overstepping of any line, if one is going to propose historical, or any form of research for that matter, theory in a public forum, so long as there are not attacks on the person of a personal nature or similar comments about their family; then all critism, if honest, is justified.
                        That includes obseravations and critism of the methodology used.



                        Now, instead of hinting at things, go ahead and produce the EXACT things where you claim I am lying about Mizen, more or less. Surely, that cannot be asking too much from a poster who claims that I avoid issues?


                        I appears you do not fully read what is posted in response to your own posts.
                        I refer to your post # 6 in the thread on Mizen's inquest statement, and my post's 7,8,9 &10.
                        I have followed this up with another post this evening on the same thread.


                        Steve
                        Last edited by Elamarna; 06-24-2018, 12:45 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          I think thar the fact that the carmans address does not figure in an article where the other witnessesīaddresses do, is indicative of him not having supplied it.
                          The reason I asked was because you stated with certainty that the carman omitted to give his address "all the other witnesses supply their addresses but the carman ommits to mention where he lives."

                          So.

                          It would seem obvious that such a statement cannot be based on the article alone, at least not if one adheres to a coherent methodology.

                          I therefore expected you to have some other source with which to back your claim. But I see now that you've moderated your statement, so it's only "indicative".

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Gary, first of all, thanks again for finding this news clip in the first place. I believe it is you also who has raised the question about not giving his, the driver's home address. On this very thread.

                            Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                            It goes without saying that the absence of an address for the Pickfords man need not be significant. But it could be. And I find the fact that every other person mentioned in the report has an address quoted intriguing. No more than that.
                            You opened a can of worms with your comment about "addresses." Knowing you, I don't think you typed your 'address' posts from a bag phone at 5.58 am from the moors of Stonehenge. No, knowing you Gary, you have an ace in the hole. In addition to this find, you have also found a newspaper report from the 1870's - 1880's covering an inquest into a vehicular accident on the streets of Metropolitan London involving a fatality, and contained in this other news report, in addition to stating the name and company affiliation of the commercial van driver involved, the report also prints the driver's home address. You have found such a report. Haven't you.

                            Roy
                            Sink the Bismark

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
                              Gary, first of all, thanks again for finding this news clip in the first place. I believe it is you also who has raised the question about not giving his, the driver's home address. On this very thread.



                              You opened a can of worms with your comment about "addresses." Knowing you, I don't think you typed your 'address' posts from a bag phone at 5.58 am from the moors of Stonehenge. No, knowing you Gary, you have an ace in the hole. In addition to this find, you have also found a newspaper report from the 1870's - 1880's covering an inquest into a vehicular accident on the streets of Metropolitan London involving a fatality, and contained in this other news report, in addition to stating the name and company affiliation of the commercial van driver involved, the report also prints the driver's home address. You have found such a report. Haven't you.

                              Roy
                              Not sure I'm following you, Roy.

                              If I had found such a report, I would probably have worded my post a little more strongly than '...intriguing. Nothing more than that.'

                              But it's perhaps worth looking for reports of similar incidents to see whether the omission of the driver's address was the norm.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                                The reason I asked was because you stated with certainty that the carman omitted to give his address "all the other witnesses supply their addresses but the carman ommits to mention where he lives."

                                So.

                                It would seem obvious that such a statement cannot be based on the article alone, at least not if one adheres to a coherent methodology.

                                I therefore expected you to have some other source with which to back your claim. But I see now that you've moderated your statement, so it's only "indicative".
                                Since that is what we have to go on, yes. it IS indicative of the carman not having given his address. I often wish there was decisive proof in every twist and turn of the case, but letīs face it - if there was, i would not have the pleasure of debating you about it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X