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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Joshua Rogan 9 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 28 minutes ago.
Research Related: Henry Kelly - by Paddy 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (58 posts)
General Discussion: Masonic and the number 39. - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (5 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (2 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (2 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (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
  #1551  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:12 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
In your world, any person in the copper-hating East End would "undoubtedly suggest" that they go searching for a constable, in spite of how they did not even know that there was a crime involved.

Says all.

And these kinds of grounds and insights are what you build your picture of Andy Griffiths being "idiotic" on.

Brrrrr!!!!!
You were addressing Herlock above, Fish, but were you seriously suggesting Lechmere was psychic, and could rely on the next man to arrive on the scene not only not being a copper, but being a cop hater, who would, on assessing the woman's condition, not even suspect foul play, despite her head nearly being off?

The fact remains that whatever this cop-hating Eastender thought the matter was with this woman, he did suggest that they go in search of a cop, and Lechmere meekly went along with it. For a man supposedly so in control of the situation, why did he need to let that happen? What could Paul have said or done if Lechmere said he was already late for work because he'd stopped to look at the woman, and would get the sack if he stopped again to tell a copper about it, so it was up to Paul if he thought the matter serious enough to do so himself? So much the better that Paul was his witness that neither of them knew that a crime was involved at that stage. If Lechmere was ever tracked down, that would be his explanation: couldn't afford to get the sack; no more idea than Paul that the woman was a murder victim; Paul had agreed to do the reporting.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov



Last edited by caz : 06-18-2018 at 09:16 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1552  
Old 06-18-2018, 09:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
As the original comment was an answer to a question of if the lack of change was an oversight, my answer is perfect clear,
While it could be, it is more likely not to be, but the reason for it need not suspecious.

The alternative answer is pure fantasy, like much of the case against Lechmere.

The posts are becoming increasing surreal in nature, in keeping with my suggestions yesterday.


Steve
I understood what you meant, Steve. I put it down to English not being Fisherman's mother tongue. But maybe that was being too generous.

You were saying it was more likely that some reason other than an oversight was behind only Cross appearing on the record, but that reason [whatever it was] need not have been suspicious.

You were not saying anything at all about whether the reason itself was more or less likely to be suspicious. How could you, without knowing what that reason might have been?

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1553  
Old 06-18-2018, 10:07 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The "oops" was, I think, in response to Fisherman's statement that "we should treat people as being truthful and honest until it can be proven that they are not"... which doesn't quite tally with Fisherman's approach to Cross's testimony.
Quite so, Gareth. Thank you for explaining it to Abby for me. He apparently thought that the 'discrepancy' with the cop, and using the name Cross - which may or may not have been the one he commonly used at work, for example - was enough to prove that Lechmere was not being truthful and honest.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1554  
Old 06-18-2018, 10:18 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
seems to me like he was using cross at work and lech more commonly.
Tell that to Fish, Abby. His argument appears to be that nobody at Pickfords would have connected the Buck's Row witness, calling himself Charles Allen Cross, with their employee and carman, Charles Allen Lechmere.

The alternative would be to concede that if his suspect had always been known as Cross at work, he'd naturally have gone by that name when needing time off work to attend the inquest.

That would make far too much sense and be far too simple. And it wouldn't even make Lechmere innocent! On the contrary, it would have been safer for the killer to use a name that would check out if the police wanted to confirm what business he had being in Buck's Row at that hour.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1555  
Old 06-18-2018, 10:35 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,239
Default Lechmere's Day Off

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
If the police stopped someone for questioning in the immediate wake of a grisly murder at say 3.00am would they be particularly impressed with the explaination Im just on my way to paying my mum a visit?
Not if the same man had said "I was just on my way to work" when the grisly murder of Nichols took place.

If Lechmere killed even one victim on his day off, when he had the freedom and excuse to come and go as he pleased, and at his leisure, one wonders why on earth he'd have chosen to kill on the way to work at all. If most men had the same day off, a Sunday, he couldn't be suspected or accused on the basis of all the murders being committed on "Lechmere's Day Off".

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
"Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1556  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:27 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Quite right Gary, but so would Backchurch Lane, Batty and Christian Street, Berner beung the middle option.
Not the most obvious route to either Doveton Street or Broad Street, but certainly possible.

Steve
A question for you, Steve. Have you ever used an OS map and a map measurer when walking around an area you have been familiar with for decades to make sure your route wasn't a few yards longer than necessary?

I know I haven't.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1557  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:38 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
A question for you, Steve. Have you ever used an OS map and a map measurer when walking around an area you have been familiar with for decades to make sure your route wasn't a few yards longer than necessary?

I know I haven't.
Of course not Gary, and why i said "certainly possible.". Not Ruling out at all.

However, i sense a change in the argument from Fish, if not going to his mothers, meeting his Mates for a drink. Not convinced such is a strong argument.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1558  
Old 06-18-2018, 12:53 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Tell that to Fish, Abby. His argument appears to be that nobody at Pickfords would have connected the Buck's Row witness, calling himself Charles Allen Cross, with their employee and carman, Charles Allen Lechmere.

The alternative would be to concede that if his suspect had always been known as Cross at work, he'd naturally have gone by that name when needing time off work to attend the inquest.

That would make far too much sense and be far too simple. And it wouldn't even make Lechmere innocent! On the contrary, it would have been safer for the killer to use a name that would check out if the police wanted to confirm what business he had being in Buck's Row at that hour.

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

But why didn't he even mention that his 'real' name was Lechmere? Is it likely that it didn't even occur to him to mention that he normally identified himself to the authorities by that name?

'I'm known at work as Charlie Cross - Cross was my stepdad's name - but my real name is Charles allen Lechmere', sort of thing?

Gary
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1559  
Old 06-18-2018, 01:08 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Of course not Gary, and why i said "certainly possible.". Not Ruling out at all.

However, i sense a change in the argument from Fish, if not going to his mothers, meeting his Mates for a drink. Not convinced such is a strong argument.


Steve
Do we really need to pin people down to the precise wording of their theories? Charles Lechmere had a long-standing connection to the area where Liz Stride was killed. His mother and daughter were living a short walk away in 1888. He probably still had schoolmates, drinking buddies etc in the area. However, his strongest ties would presumably have been the family ones.

Is that a 'strong' argument for his guilt.? Of course not. No proof, or even strong evidence in my opinion, but as a narrative the theory works for me.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1560  
Old 06-18-2018, 01:38 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Do we really need to pin people down to the precise wording of their theories? Charles Lechmere had a long-standing connection to the area where Liz Stride was killed. His mother and daughter were living a short walk away in 1888. He probably still had schoolmates, drinking buddies etc in the area. However, his strongest ties would presumably have been the family ones.

Is that a 'strong' argument for his guilt.? Of course not. No proof, or even strong evidence in my opinion, but as a narrative the theory works for me.
Hi Gary

Yes of course it works as a narrative, however has i have said several times, in connection to Stride, what applies to Lechmere, also applies to Kosminski. Possible but thats as far as we can go I think.

Do we need to tie people down to pricise wordings of theories, well i think that depends entirely on how the theory is presented, if its "this could have happened", then no.


If however we are suggesting something is not just possible, but almost certain then yes the wording is important in my opinion and needs to be much more pricise with supporting evidence.


Steve
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 11:26 AM.


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