Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Charles Cross

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

  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    An unneccessarily long post. All it would have taken was for you to say "Yes, I misrepresented you again - sorry".
    There’s only one person on here that constantly misrepresents. The same person that will go to any lengths to shoehorn CL into the ripper’s shoes. Ill take no ‘high-horse’ lectures from you Fish!
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-24-2018, 07:58 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    This argument was suggested on Facebook some weeks ago, although Fish was not involved in the debate.
    What has develped since this information was uncovered last year by Gary i beleive, is the real possibility that Charles Lechmere used the name Charles Cross when working at Pickfords.
    Unfortunately it is not possible to be 100% certain that the carman involved in the accident was the same man who was also known as Charles Lechmere.

    Lets be clear here, without an address, there is no way to see if it is the same man. And there are no suriving records of employees relating to Lechmere while he worked at Pickfords.

    The lack of address in the press report of the incident need not be significant, only two minor papers cover the accident, and just from the Nichols inquest it is clear that addresses are not always recorded by the press in their published reports, such is true of Mulshaw and surpringly enough Llewellyn in some reports.

    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 needs to be repeated, that there are no records to allow us to check if it is the same Charles Cross, however that has not prevent a full on counter attack, almost peremptory, with regards to the name he used at work, which until now has been strongly of the view that there is no evidence he used "Cross" by the pro Lechmere camp.


    It has been suggested in the past that if there was evidence of him using "Cross" at Pickfords it would raise issues on the "False Name" claim.
    Of course such was said in the knowledge that apparently there were no records and so that issue of his working Name would never have any actual source evidence to support or suggest that "Cross" may have been used.

    And then some source based information turns up, which was never suspected and we see this turn around.

    Fish quite rightly says views can and do change as evidence comes to light, but rather than say, "this may need us to reconsider", we see a full 180' turn about saying if he used "Cross" it now actually strengthens the case against Lechmere.


    Indeed on Facebook it was claimed to be a very clever approach which could not be disproved, there being no evidence at all.

    I see several issues here revolving around intellectual integrity and honesty.

    Similar issues were recently seen in the thread on Mizen's Inquest statement, where apparently untruthful claims were made about the contents of two Newspaper reports, not issues of interpretation, but factual untruths.

    If arguments such as these need to be made to pursue the Lechmere case, what does it say about the strengths of that case?



    Steve



    .
    Let me echo Gary´s 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.


    The point of interest here is that it "could be" significant that the address was not present.

    In your post, you say that you are "astonished" by how a couple of different scenarios are suggested.

    If they hafd been put forward as more probale than other or even as factual, you would be correct to be astonished.

    But I think that it has by now been said a suffiient number of times that when a person is researched as a murder suspect, different scenarios will be looked into to see if the suspicions MAY (meanig that it is possible, not certain) hold water.

    Look at it, if you will, as a never ending river of innocent alternative explanations provided by you and a number of other posters out here, a river that must be bridged by guilty possibilities.

    The examples you were "astonished" by, were different examples of this kind of engineering - bridge building over your river of innocence.

    Nothing more than that. Evidence that the suspicions have not drowmed in that river. If no bridge can be built, the carman is proven innocent. But no such failure to provide good, sound bridge material has occured.

    To claim otherwise would be - you guessed it - astonishing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
    On what grounds do you conclude that the carman omitted to mention his address?
    Welcome back to the Lechmere threads, Kattrup! It´s good to see that you have reconsidered your unwillingness to participate in them. Again.

    I think thar the fact that the carmans address does not figure in an article where the other witnesses´addresses do, is indicative of him not having supplied it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    Debating with Fish illustrates why eel wrestling would never take on as a sport

    I think that the tactic now is to wriggle so much and insult so much and to constantly accuse others of what he blatantly and repeatedly and egregiously does himself that all of us that dare to disagree might just tire of the effort and leave the field open for the Fish Lectures. To be honest Fish, you are close to succeeding.

    All that I’ve ever done is to raise doubts. And I personally, because I have an opinion, conclude that the accumulation of those very reasonable and sensible doubts lead me to conclude that CL is an unlikely Ripper. Every doubt that I’ve raised Fish, as he has a perfect right to do, puts forward his ‘take.’ Unfortunately it’s a constant that when this is done it suggests ignorance, stupidity or bias on the part of the doubter(s).

    Would CL have allowed himself only 30 minutes or so to find a victim, kill her, check for blood and clean up and still turn up on time for work no matter where he’d eventually found his victim? - is that an unreasonable doubt?

    Would CL have killed on the way to work with all the ensuing risks involved (time, blood etc?) - is that an unreasonable doubt?

    Would a guilty CL, with every chance of getting away Scot-free, hang around for Paul when it’s reasonable to expect that it would have been likely that they would end up face to face with the police (with CL in possession of the murder weapon and possibly contaminated with blood?) - is that an unreasonable doubt?

    As the evidence shows that CL and Paul were together from when they met in Buck’s Row to when they met Mizen is it not far more likely that they were together when they spoke to Mizen and that CL hadn’t manoeuvred Mizen away? - is that an unreasonable doubt?

    As the ‘name-thing’ is being used to show criminal deception on CL’s part doesn’t the fact that he used his correct Christian names, the surname of his stepfather (that had been used on a census) and his correct address suggest otherwise? - is that an unreasonable doubt?

    Whilst not conclusive in any way is it not worth pointing out that despite having someone who was alone with the victim around the time of her murder and yet they had absolutely no interest in him as a suspect? - is this an unreasonable doubt?

    We have no evidence to place CL at the other crime scenes (mommy’s house doesn’t count I’m afraid).

    The timings of the other murders would appear to suggest more someone who was freer with his time. Someone who could be out at all hours without anyone (like family) becoming suspicious. And someone who didn’t have to be at work at 4 am.

    Again not conclusive but we have no evidence of violence or criminality on CL’s part.

    So why is Fish so certain that this man was Jack The Ripper?

    Why?
    An unneccessarily long post. All it would have taken was for you to say "Yes, I misrepresented you again - sorry".

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    I did no such thing! I stated, quite correctly, that neither he nor his mother "arranged" to be registered as Cross on the 1861 census and that it was his stepfather's name.
    Then you were discussing something that I was not. I made the point that the carman could perhaps have made an arrangement where he used the name Cross at Pickfords in order to be able to swop inbetween identities when it suited him. Apparently, he was otherwise always Lechmere with the authorities.

    That was the point I made and one I did not wish to get lost in a semantic fog.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    If only i had the chance to talk to a "bad" women, Gary .


    Steve
    Live where I do Steve and you’ll be tripping over them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Haven't done the rounds for a while, we're spending most our time in Dorset these days. I don't miss Romford a bit, but I regret not being able to jump on the train and be in Spitalfields in 20 mins or so.

    Enjoy yourself and don't talk to any 'bad' women.
    If only i had the chance to talk to a "bad" women, Gary .


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Gary

    May i just say i think that is a very fair post.



    Steve
    Seconded.

    Very good post Gary

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Have to say, i am not sold on the idea in the slightest. I find, shall we say the HB Boys just as likely for Nichols.
    Having said the Kos remains my prefered person. I note of course that the most likely escape routes from Nichols head South. Now who lived south again?


    Have a good day mate, heading up to Whitechapel next hour.


    Steve
    Haven't done the rounds for a while, we're spending most our time in Dorset these days. I don't miss Romford a bit, but I regret not being able to jump on the train and be in Spitalfields in 20 mins or so.

    Enjoy yourself and don't talk to any 'bad' women.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Thanks, Steve, I was worried my 'psychological rubber gloves' might attract a few chuckles.

    As a narrative, the overbearing mother, possibly holding the purse strings and drumming a hatred of bad women into her son works a treat for me. What little evidence there is certainly complements that view.

    I await Fish's post-Equinox response with bated breath.
    Have to say, i am not sold on the idea in the slightest. I find, shall we say the HB Boys just as likely for Nichols.
    Having said the Kos remains my prefered person. I note of course that the most likely escape routes from Nichols head South. Now who lived south again?


    Have a good day mate, heading up to Whitechapel next hour.


    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Busy Beaver View Post
    If Charles was using the name Cross, he wouldn't be hiding from anyone, as his stepfather, Mr Cross was a Policeman. And to give his name as Cross when he found, Mary-Anne (Polly) Nichols would imply to me that he was a good citizen who showed concern for something not quite right in the street he was walking down and therefore also showing he had a respect for the law and what was the right thing to do.
    Hi BB,

    Cross is a fairly common name, though (unlike Lechmere), and CAL's stepfather had been dead for almost 20 years.

    If he was a good citizen who liked things to be right and proper, wouldn't he have revealed both his names to the police/coroner? Surely, he would have known that that was the 'right thing to do'?

    Gary

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Gary

    May i just say i think that is a very fair post.



    Steve
    Thanks, Steve, I was worried my 'psychological rubber gloves' might attract a few chuckles.

    As a narrative, the overbearing mother, possibly holding the purse strings and drumming a hatred of bad women into her son works a treat for me. What little evidence there is certainly complements that view.

    I await Fish's post-Equinox response with bated breath.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-22-2018, 01:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    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?'

    Gary

    May i just say i think that is a very fair post.



    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    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?'
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-22-2018, 01:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Busy Beaver
    replied
    If Charles was using the name Cross, he wouldn't be hiding from anyone, as his stepfather, Mr Cross was a Policeman. And to give his name as Cross when he found, Mary-Anne (Polly) Nichols would imply to me that he was a good citizen who showed concern for something not quite right in the street he was walking down and therefore also showing he had a respect for the law and what was the right thing to do.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X