Early Lechmere Essay’s

[SuperShodan]

Afternoon.
I would be grateful if anyone could put up either links or copies of Chris Scott, Michael Connor and Derek Osbournes esssys on Lechmere being JTR.
I believe they are the first guys to propose this theory. I have found 2 essays by Michael Connor, but I haven’t been able to find anything by Scott or Osbourne.
Thanks for any help you can give.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

https://www.jack-the-ripper.org/charles-cross.htm

[jmenges]

Chris put his notes up here.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/7188-full-notes-on-charles-cross-lechmere#post328177

JM

[Abby Normal]

https://www.jack-the-ripper.org/charles-cross.htm

who wrote this and when was this published/presented. hard to tell

[Scott Nelson]

It appears to be Richard Jones. The piece is from his site.

[Fisherman]

It appears to be Richard Jones. The piece is from his site.

It is. And he wants a complicated solution. Not a simple one.

[drstrange169]

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-charles-cross-was-jtr.html

[drstrange169]

Perhaps the first to name Cross was Derek Osbourne, his version can be found in Ripperoo #7 and 8 waaay back in 2001.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

It appears to be Richard Jones. The piece is from his site.

Indeed it is. I was reading around and meant to link an entirely different article, but hey, Richard Jones is good too? He's been on TV, he must be good?

[MrBarnett]

Perhaps the first to name Cross was Derek Osbourne, his version can be found in Ripperoo #7 and 8 waaay back in 2001.

Hi Dusty,

In July, 2001 an article of Osborne’s, ‘To the Ripper a Son’, appeared in Ripperana. In it he put forward the idea that Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere may have been one and the same, based on what he called a ‘set of remarkable coincidences’:


‘Both were employed

Both had lived at the same address

Both were called Charles

Both shared the same ‘A’ as the letter of their middle names

And both appeared to be of the same age’


Osborne doesn’t appear totally convinced that his speculation is correct, though. He says, ‘Of course, I cannot prove Cross used the name Lechmere, or even if he changed his name. I can only ponder on the possibility.’

At this stage, Maria Lechmere’s marriage to Thomas Cross was unknown. That and the appearance of CAL on the 1861 census as Charles Cross would presumably have removed any lingering doubt in Osborne’s mind as to whether Cross/Lechmere were one and the same.

Some time before he had written this article, Osborne had already formed the idea that ‘Cross’ may have been the Ripper. He mentions an earlier article that had appeared in Ripperana 33 in 2000 in which he outlined this theory.

Gary

[drstrange169]

And in the 2001 Ripperana article he points out, "But going by, or using another name is not an uncommon occurrence" ;-)

P.S. I don't have #33, do you? I'd love to see a scan, to see if it's the same article hat appeared in Ripperoo.

[MrBarnett]

And in the 2001 Ripperana article he points out, "But going by, or using another name is not an uncommon occurrence" ;-)

P.S. I don't have #33, do you? I'd love to see a scan, to see if it's the same article hat appeared in Ripperoo.

I’ve got 37 (July, 2001) in which he seems to present the discovery of the Cross/Lechmere connection as a new discovery. From that I assume that his article in 33 (July, 2000) the previous year didn’t included anything about the name issue.

[drstrange169]

Yeah, I've got that one too. Ah well.

[MrBarnett]

Yeah, I've got that one too. Ah well.

I’ve found one online and ordered it. Hopefully it’ll arrive before I go on holiday.