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:
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - by Andrew Firth 4 minutes ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Robert 25 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - by Herlock Sholmes 44 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - by Andrew Firth 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (19 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (7 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (4 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (3 posts)
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - (3 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (2 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
  #341  
Old 11-14-2018, 12:55 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd View Post
Speaking of the route, JG. I’m wondering how the road construction for the new tramway on Commercial Street would have altered pedestrian traffic? Apparently the construction lasted day and night.
Yes, that would br interesting, Jerry. Of course, when referring to "quickest route", that's a reference to distance, not practically.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #342  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:17 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
See, that's where it starts to fall apart. Apart from Nichols, we can only say that of the Chapman murder - and then only if we (a) accept an earlier TOD that is by no means proven; and (b) we assume that Cross was actually en route to work via Hanbury Street at that time. Nichols aside, this is the only other occasion where Cross's work-route might have coincided with the scene and time of a murder, but even here we're on very shaky ground.

Incidentally, the same "logic" would apply to Robert Paul in respect of the Nichols/Chapman murders, not that it means much at all.
Of course, that only works if you consider that a serial killer would consider it sensible to carry out brutal murders, where there had to be a great risk of being covered in blood and gore, on his way to work.

Incidentally, Hanbury Street is 0.6 miles from Durward Street. Someone living at Flower and Dean Street wouldn't be more than 0.6 miles away from any murder site, except Mitre Street, and even there he would be 0.4 miles closer than Lechmere.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #343  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:18 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
This desire of mine?

Your post gives a lot away. The need to justify clear.

The fact remains he stated his name as Cross. From his mouth. He did.

Again, you assume this event was a one off. You claim it as a diversion. As stated before, there are many reasons why he may chose to use multiple names (a trait common for the era).

Gary asked a question. I answered.

I have no horse in this suspect race, unlike yourself. Therefore no bias, unlike yourself.

Monty
Your "unbiased" stance visavi me took it´s start when you accused me of making money off the people visiting the event we made in St Johns Church in Bethnal Green, disclosing Lechmere as our suspect.

Of course, it was a charity event, and every last penny went to the Stairway to Heaven foundation. And I payed for my flight to London out of my own purse.

That is how unbiased an approach you started out with. There was never any obstacle to check the real circumstances, but you skipped over that opportunity in favour of officially naming me somebody who benefitted from poor relatives of Bethnal Green tube disaster victims and castigated descendants of Lechmere - who we had beforehand approached and asked if they were okay with our presentation.

Before you speak of me as being too biased to warrant any trust, you would do well to consider this.

I favour Lechmere as a suspect, and I do so for a large number of given reasons. I believe the was the Whitechapel killer and the Torso killer, and I have provided my reasons in detail.

When one researches somebody as a suspect, one tends to look at all the matters that may point to guilt. The name matter is one such thing. It is by no means at all any given thing that his choosing the name Cross was innocent. Nor is it any given thing that it was sinister, but it goes - or should go - without saying that it is a red flag, and a possible pointer to foul play.

I have never once said that it is a given that it WAS sinister. I have never once denied that he could have used the name Cross on a day-to-day basis. These are possibilities, but weighing up just HOW possible they are and comparing them to the sinister possibilities is not an easy thing to do. Certainly, the fact that he seems not to have divulged the name Lechmere to the police and inquest and the fact that he was in the habit of using the name Lechmere in all other known contacts with the authorities does not help his case for innocence.

Therefore, they must be presented as possible pointers to guilt by somebody who makes a case for Charles Lechmere as the culprit. That is precisely what I do. The question must therefore be: What is your problem with it?

Do I have a quota I must fill every month, by acknowledging a certain amount of times that the name change MAY be innocent? Or what?

You may give your answer to this as you please, and you may take full advantage of how I state that regardless of which answer you give, I am done with this discussion with you. I have made my position very clear on numerous times, and that will have to do for you.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-14-2018 at 01:33 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #344  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:22 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Of course, that only works if you consider that a serial killer would consider it sensible to carry out brutal murders, where there had to be a great risk of being covered in blood and gore, on his way to work.

Incidentally, Hanbury Street is 0.6 miles from Durward Street. Someone living at Flower and Dean Street wouldn't be more than 0.6 miles away from any murder site, except Mitre Street, and even there he would be 0.4 miles closer than Lechmere.
Do sexual serial killers ply their trade on account of a wish to look sensible, John? Do eviscerators? Is or is not every act of murder fraught with risk in one way or another? Are some killer less put off by this than others?

Hanbury Street is 0,6 miles from Durward Street. But if you walk Hanbury Street on your way to work it suddenly becomes 0 miles away. Why do you not weigh in this factor?

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-14-2018 at 01:26 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #345  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:34 AM
Monty Monty is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Leicestershire
Posts: 5,241
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Your "unbiased" stance visavi me took it´s start when you accused me of making miney on the people visiting the event we made in St Johns Church in Bethnal Green, disclosing Lechmere as our suspect.

Of course, it was a charity event, and every last penny went to the Stairway to Heaven foundation. And I payed for my flight to London out of my own purse.

That is how unbiased an approach you started out with. There was never any obstacle to check the real circumstances, but you skipped over that opportunity in favour of officially naming me somebody who benefitted from poor relatives of Bethnal Green tube disaster victims and castigated descendants of Lechmere - who we had beforehand approached and asked if they were okay with our presentation.

Before you speak f me being too biased to warrant any trust, you would do well to consider this.

I favour Lechmere as a suspect, and I do so for a large number of given reasons. I believe the was the Whitechapel killer and the Torso killer, and I have provided my reasons in detail.

When one researches somebody as a suspect, one tends to look at all the matters that may point to guilt. The name matter is one such thing. It is by no means at all any given thing that his choosing the name Cross was innocent. Nor is it any given thing that it was sinister, but it goes - or should go - without saying that it is a red flag, and a possible pointer to foul play.

I have never once said that it is a given that it WAS sinister. I have never once denied that he could have used the name Cross on a day-to-day basis. These are possibilities, but weighing up just HOW possible they are and comparing them to the sinister possibilities is not an easy thing to do. Certainly, the fact that he seems not to have divulged the name Lechmere to the police and inquest and the fact that he was in the habit of using the name Lechmere in all other known contacts with the authorities does not help his case for innocence.

Therefore, they must be presented as possible pointers to guilt by somebody who makes a case for Charles Lechmere as the culprit. That is precisely what I do. The question must therefore be: What is your problem with it?

Do I have a quota I must fill every month, by acknowledging a certain amount of times that the name change MAY be innocent? Or what?

You may give your answer to this as you please, and you may take full advantage of how I state that regardless of which answer you give, I am done with this discussion with you. I have made my position very clear on numerous times, and that will have to do for you.
Rest assured. I shall answer as I please. No permission from you is required.

And as I’m about to go on duty, my response shall indeed be brief.

Your need to drag an incident up from many years ago is, again, quite telling. It has nothing to do with biased opinion in relation to Cross as a suspect but more to do with my opinion on yourself, and the way you mispresent your so called evidence.

It is true I was highly critical of your trip, as I was unaware that the event was a charity fundraiser. It wasn’t I tell Ed pointed that fact out, that I was indeed aware. I note you have omitted the fact I apologised at the time, and that I have promoted subsequent events upon my Facebook page and elsewhere, with the latest being Lucky Dogs play about that awful disaster some months back.

It is this skewered presentation that does Cross as a suspect no good.

Sadly, you seemed to have not learnt a thing in how to present your theory in the year I have been away.

Fake history repeating.

Monty
__________________




Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #346  
Old 11-14-2018, 01:59 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,914
Default

Cross was the name given under oath.It was the name used at the time to identify a person who found a body.Why not use it?

The name Lechmere was introduced to try and justify that Cross was a lier.That came unstuck by the fact that Cross properly and legally identified himself by giving his address,occupation and place of work,so there was no intent to deceive.

The geographical aspect is another non starter.If the police of that time considered such a fact to be of importance,then a qualifier would be any person with a nominal knowledge of the murder sites.I'm sure that would be a great number of persons. Whether they(the police)would then sift to find the person with the greatest potential, and name that person the number one suspect,is a laughable supposition,but something along those lines is being tried here.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #347  
Old 11-14-2018, 02:12 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
99% of suspect theories are built on speculation and subjective opinion.
True, but those opinions must be sensible and practical. It's when one ignores practicalities, taking one speculation and heaping more upon it, that we run into problems.
Quote:
It’s how the case shall be solved.
Not if the starting-point, and subsequent arguments, are flawed to begin with. So, for example, a firm belief that the Ripper was also responsible for the 1873 Battersea Torso isn't goint to solve anything. On the contrary, such supposition constrains one's thinking right from the get-go.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #348  
Old 11-14-2018, 02:23 AM
Darryl Kenyon Darryl Kenyon is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 343
Default

A lot has been said about the Police not knowing about Geo profiling [apologies if this point should be on the other thread], while that is true up to a point, they did have knowledge of the streets and the area [more, certainly than we do today]. This is what Anderson said - One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to know he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders. Is it so hard to disagree with him?
Also in a reply to a previous post I made about Cross turning up for work after the Double murder Fish replied that it was a Sunday and he doubted he would be working that morning. So what was he doing in Mitre Square? And what was he doing hanging around for half an hour if Pc long is to be believed? After Berner St if he wanted to kill again why not head back northwards maybe towards Doveton St or Cambridge Heath Rd areas he would know well [since he once lived there], closer to home yet still far enough away from were he now resided.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #349  
Old 11-14-2018, 03:13 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Cross was the name given under oath.It was the name used at the time to identify a person who found a body.Why not use it?

The name Lechmere was introduced to try and justify that Cross was a lier.That came unstuck by the fact that Cross properly and legally identified himself by giving his address,occupation and place of work,so there was no intent to deceive.

The geographical aspect is another non starter.If the police of that time considered such a fact to be of importance,then a qualifier would be any person with a nominal knowledge of the murder sites.I'm sure that would be a great number of persons. Whether they(the police)would then sift to find the person with the greatest potential, and name that person the number one suspect,is a laughable supposition,but something along those lines is being tried here.
The man's name was Charles Allen Lechmere. How can it be claimed that his real name was 'introduced' to justify him as a liar? That's who he was.

My take on why he may have deliberately withheld the name is probably different from Christer's. I think it may have been the name itself he was defending.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #350  
Old 11-14-2018, 03:32 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
A lot has been said about the Police not knowing about Geo profiling [apologies if this point should be on the other thread], while that is true up to a point, they did have knowledge of the streets and the area [more, certainly than we do today]. This is what Anderson said - One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to know he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders. Is it so hard to disagree with him?
Also in a reply to a previous post I made about Cross turning up for work after the Double murder Fish replied that it was a Sunday and he doubted he would be working that morning. So what was he doing in Mitre Square? And what was he doing hanging around for half an hour if Pc long is to be believed? After Berner St if he wanted to kill again why not head back northwards maybe towards Doveton St or Cambridge Heath Rd areas he would know well [since he once lived there], closer to home yet still far enough away from were he now resided.
I'm confused, Darryl. Are you implying he wasn't living in Doveton Street at the time of the Eddowes murder?
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 04:07 PM.


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