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:
Scene of the Crimes: East End Photographs and Drawings - by MrBarnett 1 minute ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by MrBarnett 1 hour and 13 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by PaulB 1 hour and 25 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by Robert 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by PaulB 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (62 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (10 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (7 posts)
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - (2 posts)
Annie Chapman: AC and TOD - (1 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: East End Photographs and Drawings - (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 > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #141  
Old 08-14-2018, 06:47 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is online now
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 1,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I agree with Gary (and yourself seeing your response) that a likely explaination is that he didn’t want the Lechmere name in the paper.

This however didn’t give him any advantage in escaping justice. Do we need to keep repeating that he gave the his correct Christian names, his correct address and his stepfathers surname. Not exactly ‘the man of a thousand faces’ was he?
Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 08-14-2018, 07:09 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
The same once went for Christie and Sutcliffe for example, so I´m fine with that - they too were more likely not guilty.

Statistics will not help us , Herlock.
Tim Evans and 'Wearside Jack' the hoaxer were wrongly put in the frame as easy targets. The latter was finally brought to justice for the crime he did commit, but the former was denied justice and executed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Like Evans, Lechmere was likely as not in the wrong place at the wrong time, and an easy modern target, left there with Nichols by a fleeing Christie or Sutcliffe, who managed to get away to kill another day [the following weekend in fact] unseen, unidentifiable and unconnected with this early murder of his.

If only Lechmere had walked on by, he'd have been in no position to be identified today as either a reluctant witness or potential suspect. I'd need a good deal more imagination than I possess - and a great deal more evidence than Fish possesses - in order to label this man as a Christie or a Sutcliffe.

I certainly can't see a Christie or a Sutcliffe hanging around one of their victims, persuading the next man to come along to inspect their handiwork! Yet they were both caught in the end because of other mistakes they made.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 08-14-2018 at 07:15 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 08-14-2018, 07:16 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.
That’s a good point Gary
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 08-14-2018, 07:23 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,018
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.
I know this has been gone over hundreds of times

But I think there are two likely possible explanations surrounding the two names used, and both are easy to explain and to understand.

By the time Cross gave his inquest testimony I would suggest the authorities would have known his other name, so for clarification purposes when he entered the witness box and was asked to give his name, he would I suggest have had the question asked of him "Are you also known as Charles Lechmere"? when he answered in the affirmative there would be no need to question the two names thereafter, and that is why there is no suggestion by the authorities that the two names were used to pervert the course of justice, or create something sinister as Fish would have you believe

The second explanation is that he didn't want to be formally identified, as being a material witness, and might have later had to spend many hours sitting around at a court, at his own expense.

I refer to what Walter Dews says on the topic

" It is an established fact that many law-abiding folk are reluctant to communicate valuable information to the authorities in murder and other serious cases."

"Some people take the view-Why should I say anything"?

"If I do I have to go to the police court, hang about there in a musty room waiting to give evidence: my name and perhaps my photograph will be published in all the newspapers. Then I shall have to give evidence again at the Old Bailey or the Assize Court as the case may be"

"Another man hangs back because of a skeleton in his cupboard. He is frightened of cross-examination and what might be revealed."

"I myself have stood in criminal courts and listened to the cross-examination of witnesses until I have been led almost to wonder whether the witness has not been mistaken for the prisoner"

"The plain fact is that few people court the publicity which is bound to follow a person's close association with a sensational trial."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 08-14-2018, 07:40 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
"The plain fact is that few people court the publicity which is bound to follow a person's close association with a sensational trial."
Good post Trevor, but I thought I'd just remind us that this was only an inquest held in a room in a school for poor boys - a sensational trial it certainly wasn't. With that in mind, would the protocols adhering to a criminal trial necessarily have been applied to their fullest extent? Would the authorities have really cared if a mere witness used his "work name" in this context? Would they even have thought of asking a witness whether he was giving his real name? Would it have even occurred to Cross to inform them otherwise?
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 08-14-2018 at 07:44 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 08-14-2018, 07:49 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
We have a man who found the body and so spent ‘some’ time alone with her. He then tells a provable lie to a Constable immediately after the event. It’s reasonable to assume therefore that the police might have at least found this of interest.
Hi HS,

I think a point to make here is that a guilty Lechmere could have had no idea that the police did not find this of interest, and were not going to keep an eye on him and his movements over the coming days, in case any other 'anomalies' arose in connection with this witness. After all, he had seen the victim but had then shown an apparent unawareness of her extreme and fatal injuries, when reporting the matter to PC Mizen and falsely claiming another PC wanted his assistance.

How could he have dared do the same and more just days later, in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, when once again on his way to work, with the police possibly watching his movements on account of his having demonstrably lied not once but twice, to Mizen on the morning of the murder and then at the inquest - not to mention that a simple discreet enquiry at Pickfords would have led to his rather sudden change of name being discovered?

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 08-14-2018, 07:54 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.
Do you think that Lechmere might have been concerned that the police might have decided to visit Pickford’s for a bit of background info? Lechmere’s character, his honesty, his reliability etc ? If they’d decided to do that his real name would have come out if he was employed under that name.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 08-14-2018, 08:07 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi HS,

I think a point to make here is that a guilty Lechmere could have had no idea that the police did not find this of interest, and were not going to keep an eye on him and his movements over the coming days, in case any other 'anomalies' arose in connection with this witness. After all, he had seen the victim but had then shown an apparent unawareness of her extreme and fatal injuries, when reporting the matter to PC Mizen and falsely claiming another PC wanted his assistance.

How could he have dared do the same and more just days later, in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, when once again on his way to work, with the police possibly watching his movements on account of his having demonstrably lied not once but twice, to Mizen on the morning of the murder and then at the inquest - not to mention that a simple discreet enquiry at Pickfords would have led to his rather sudden change of name being discovered?

Love,

Caz
X
Hi Caz,

It’s hard to accept that the police could have been so dull as to not, at the least, have kept Lechmere's in mind and also that Lechmere wouldn’t have been aware of this. As you say he might have been wary of being watched. I’m repeating myself here but even as the murders progressed and the police were being accused of either being incompetent or even worse not caring about the deaths of mere prostitutes and with the ensuing increase in pressure for results, no one thought of looking back at previous murders. Or if they did no one said “what about that bloke that found Nichols and then lied to Mizen? Worth another look?”
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 08-14-2018, 08:10 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,450
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Personally I lean towards his wanting to protect the noble Lechmere name, but there is one scenario where using the name Cross in conjunction with his occupation, employer and home address might have helped him escape justice. If there were those who new him as Charles Lechmere, but new little else about him and had suspicions or actual knowledge about his character, they might not connect the finder of Nichols body with the dodgy character they new only as Lechmere.
exactly Gary

personally, I think that in all probability he used Cross, because it was in conjunction of a carman on his way to work and he was still known as cross at work. also if innocent-might just wanted to keep his more well known domestic name out of the papers to keep his family out of it.

But if guilty-as you say-someone who knew him as Lechmere , like family or friends, might have put two and two together-had an aha moment (if they knew anything else suspicious about him of course) and gone to police.

I could see a guilty Lech reasoning this way.
__________________
"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
  #150  
Old 08-14-2018, 08:34 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Lechmere would be in the clear at the inquest, even if he told a lie. It would be his word against Mizens, and no evidence to tell either way. His priority when meeting Mizen would have been to get past him, and he did.
His next priority would have been to kill again the very next weekend on his way to work without being seen or recognised near the scene this time - or at any time in the future whenever he fancied killing again outdoors.

But if he knowingly lied to Mizen and played down his victim's condition, then lied again at the inquest, and gave a name he didn't normally use, there would have been a very real possibility of one or more of these 'anomalies' registering with the police without his knowledge and causing them to look discreetly into his movements to check he had nothing to hide.

Quote:
But you miss the point I am making about psychopaths. Almost every serial killer has psychopathic traits. And psychopaths LIKE playing games and lying. They very often entertain a sense of superiority, and are not afraid that they wil be outwitted or found out.

Who would know that the two policemen who tended to the Thai youngster outside Dahmers hiome would be such pushovers? They handed Dahmers murder victim over to him, when Dahmer claimed that the boy was his lover.

Once we try to apply our own thinking and reactions to what we think a serial killer would do, we will inevitably get it wrong. The problem is that most people do. Those who read your post will think "Yeah, she´s right, nobody would do that" - and they will be totally and utterly right. Even the police in victorian days would have agreed with you - and I think they did. They rasoned that a man who did what Lechmere did could not be the killer. But he could, and his actions would be very much in sync with how a psychopathic serial killer may go about things.
But even as a psychopath Lechmere couldn't have safeguarded himself against the unknown when he decided to repeat the thrill on September 8th. Giving the police reasons to take an interest in his activities at such an early stage would not have been the smartest thing to do if he wanted to carry on murdering on the same streets and in the same fashion. Psychopaths may feel omnipotent but do they imagine they are also psychic?

Love,

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


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 08:44 AM.


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