Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by caz 3 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 28 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by caz 34 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 37 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 40 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 43 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (25 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (11 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (5 posts)
General Discussion: What Would an "Investigation" Consist of? - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (2 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: The East End Conference 2018: London - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1391  
Old 06-14-2018, 08:58 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I refer you to your post 844, where you commented on my statement that Paul could have been out of earshot:

Until such time as you can prove the carmen both lied, your theory is dismissed by them.
Your statement is incorrect.


And to post 972, where this is said:
I will say again.*
There is nothing in the acvount of Mizen which challenges the account of the Carmen, that they were together and both spoke to Mizen.*
Therefore it is not possible that Paul was out of earshot.

I don´t think more needs to be said on the point.

Lets look at those posts.

844: "until such time as you can prove"

Clearly in line with my response that you have not proven the possibility.

Post 972.: different langague but still the same point, the evidence of the carmen is not challenged, therefore you have not proven it is possible

Again in keeping with my view.

I do not say i have proven it is impossible, only that you have not demonstrated that such is possible.

Indeed that seems very clear and nothing else need be said i agree.



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1392  
Old 06-14-2018, 09:01 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Steve, in a context where reality is turned on end by a suggestion that Kelly´s both TOD:s must be accepted, I am quite likely to turn things on end myself.


hang on a minute, that was never said.
It was never said you must accept the Kelly TOD'S was it!


I was answering a "Behind the mirror" point with another point from the same venue.
No you were being misleading, repeating it in several posts.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1393  
Old 06-14-2018, 09:17 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
A suspect can only become a suspect on factual grounds, Herlock. And regardless of how rewarding and satisfying you find it to say "he is not a suspect", that does not change matters.
The point that I was making was an obvious one. You were saying that you’ll continue to support CL’s candidature until someone comes up with a categorical exoneration. I was simply pointing out that at a distance of 130 years such exoneration is unlikely in the extreme. Not because he’s definitely guilty but because it’s unlikely that that kind of conclusive evidence will ever appear.

The same is the case for Hutchinson, Bury, Druitt, Kosminski, Mann, Backert, Lewis Carroll and many, many more. If your criteria for someone being a worthy suspect is “well you cannot categorically exonerate him,” then I’d say the less said about that the better.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

Last edited by Herlock Sholmes : 06-14-2018 at 09:43 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1394  
Old 06-14-2018, 09:40 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
No need for a tin hat.

I never met Scobie, and contrary to what Herlock Sholmes has claimed, I did not supply him with any material. The docu crew did, and they were very professional in what they did, so working from an assumption that he was misinformed does not work with me.

But you agreed in an earlier post that he was presented with a case for the prosecution only. If you say that you weren’t involved in presenting or compiling a case against then of course I wouldn’t call you a liar on that point. I was simply mistaken on that point but I’ll say that it was a fairly reasonable assumption as you are pretty much the star of the documentary as it follows you from Sweden to London to find the ‘truth.’ The more important point though is that ‘someone’ presented him with a case for the prosecution unless you are suggesting that the documentary crew took a month or two to research the case in detail and presented ‘their case without consulting anyone with a prior knowledge of the The Whitechapel Murders?

So to conclude Fish, and not for the first time, I’m not saying that Scobie was misinformed. I’m not saying that Scobie was lied to. I’m not saying that Scobie was biased or in any way dishonest. What I’m saying is....HE ONLY SAW THE CASE FOR THE PROSECUTION AND NOT AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT. AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT WHICH MAY HAVE AFFECTED/CHANGED HIS FINAL OPINION. Just for once Fish can you just accept a point which is absolutely beyond arguement?

Griffiths I met and spoke a lot to. He had the same compilation as i did, with a large number of police reports and articles. He read it extensively, and arrived at his conclusions on his own account. Nobody has, as far as I know, asked him "but exactly why do you think that the team had a good case?"

You choose to accept Griffith’s opinion (obviously it suits your case.) I feel pretty certain that he would be in a minority if you asked a larger number of people though. Especially when considering how dangerous (not just a risky thrill) that CL’s decision to stay and call over Paul would have been for a guilty man. This surely has to be counted as a point that is heavily against a guilty CL.


I sometimes wich somebody had done that, since I believe it could have saved me a lot of time.

I sometimes wish that people wouldn’t get so exasperated when someone dares to disagree with them.
I sometimes wonder if there are any facts about this case that give you even the slightest pause for doubt on CL’s guilt?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1395  
Old 06-14-2018, 03:53 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is online now
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,483
Default

Can anyone offer an 'innocent' explanation of why Charles Lechmere (as he seemingly described himself in every other recorded situation where he had dealings with officialdom) might have used his long deceased stepfather's surname alone when reporting his finding of Polly's body to the police and subsequently appearing at her inquest? Even if he was known by the name of Cross at Pickfords, isn't it just a bit odd that he didn't mention that his real name was Lechmere? Or that if he did, no record of the fact exists?

Could it really have been a simple oversight?

Last edited by MrBarnett : 06-14-2018 at 03:59 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1396  
Old 06-14-2018, 04:07 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is online now
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,483
Default

Was this our guy? He was apparently working for Pickfords at the time. If it wasn't him, he surely must have heard of the incident. Pickfords' drivers were notorious for their reckless driving, but the killing of a child by one of them was not an everyday event.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....ross&pag e=13

Could this have been what he was trying to conceal in 1888, as in 1876, - in relation to the name Lechmere?

Last edited by MrBarnett : 06-14-2018 at 04:27 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1397  
Old 06-14-2018, 04:26 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Can anyone offer an 'innocent' explanation of why Charles Lechmere (as he seemingly described himself in every other recorded situation where he had dealings with officialdom) might have used his long deceased stepfather's surname alone when reporting his finding of Polly's body to the police and subsequently appearing at her inquest? Even if he was known by the name of Cross at Pickfords, isn't it just a bit odd that he didn't mention that his real name was Lechmere? Or that if he did, no record of the fact exists?

Could it really have been a simple oversight?
Hi gary
I think since he was probably still under the auspices of his stepdad cross when he joined pickfords, that was the name he was going under at the time he joined. Keeping it as his work name after going back to lechmere when old cross died. And since under the circs, a carman on his way to work, and his stepdad cross being a copper, he used that name. Plus he maybe wanted to keep himself and family low profile as not to be bothered by eberyone if he used his more common name.

Now all that being said, yes i do find it odd, that there is no AKA lechmere in the record. And yes i do see it as another potential red flag. Another discrepency that one has to address with lech.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1398  
Old 06-14-2018, 04:41 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is online now
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi gary
I think since he was probably still under the auspices of his stepdad cross when he joined pickfords, that was the name he was going under at the time he joined. Keeping it as his work name after going back to lechmere when old cross died. And since under the circs, a carman on his way to work, and his stepdad cross being a copper, he used that name. Plus he maybe wanted to keep himself and family low profile as not to be bothered by eberyone if he used his more common name.

Now all that being said, yes i do find it odd, that there is no AKA lechmere in the record. And yes i do see it as another potential red flag. Another discrepency that one has to address with lech.
Hi Abby,

I imagine having a copper as a stepdad would have been useful in securing a job at Pickfords. Of course, we shouldn't forget that his mother's marriage to Thomas Cross appears to have been a bigamous one and Lechmere wasn't a common name in the East End at the time. It's not difficult to think of reasons why he chose not to use his 'real' name in the Nichols case and the 1876 incident that don't imply he was the guilty party in either.

Gary
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1399  
Old 06-14-2018, 04:44 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,334
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Was this our guy? He was apparently working for Pickfords at the time. If it wasn't him, he surely must have heard of the incident. Pickfords' drivers were notorious for their reckless driving, but the killing of a child by one of them was not an everyday event.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread....ross&pag e=13

Could this have been what he was trying to conceal in 1888, as in 1876, - in relation to the name Lechmere?
Thanks.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1400  
Old 06-14-2018, 05:11 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is online now
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Thanks.
You're welcome, GUT.

I think pretty much everyone is of the opinion that by using the name Cross rather than Lechmere but giving his correct two forenames, address and place of work the finder (or killer) of Polly was not concealing his identity in any meaningful way. But what his actions did conceal, deliberately or inadvertently, was the name Lechmere itself.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.