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: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 4 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Harry D 49 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 1 hour and 16 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - by Harry D 1 hour and 21 minutes ago.
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Harry D 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (54 posts)
General Discussion: Ripper was several people... - (15 posts)
General Discussion: Jack The Ripper and Venus - (7 posts)
General Discussion: Eddowes' Shawl - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (4 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate - (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 > General Suspect Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1591  
Old 06-22-2018, 05:17 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
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
Hi Gary,

We don't know for certain that he didn't say that. But if he was the same Charles Cross, carman at Pickford's, who was involved in that tragic accidental death of a child in 1876, there is nothing to suggest he mentioned the name Lechmere on that previous occasion either, and he couldn't have worried about using the name Cross again 12 years on, in the capacity of a murder witness this time.

The common factor would be that both incidents were work related: the first happened during the course of his working day; the second during his journey to start his working day. He may have felt it served no purpose to give his name as Lechmere in a work context. He gave both his forenames, his home address and workplace, so he had no issue about identifying himself in case he was needed again following his appearance at the inquest.

For all we know he may simply have preferred to use the name Cross, keeping Lechmere strictly for when he was obliged to use it. Or he wanted to keep the surname of his wife and kiddies out of the papers for obvious reasons. "Your dad nearly caught the murderer! P'raps the murderer will catch you next!"

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1592  
Old 06-22-2018, 05:53 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
How many suspect theories have there been so far - 300+? How many more will there be I wonder?

On my list I have several names I would describe as persons of interest - in the general sense of the term - who haven't yet seen much daylight:

The Tomkins brothers (Smith +),
Thomas Fogarty (Tabram),
Stephen Maywood (Kelly)
Billy Maher (Austin).

There must be thousands more who with a bit of spin could be wrestled into suspect material.

Bring 'em on, I say.
This is the problem as far as I'm concerned, Gary.

I'd have expected the real ripper, if ever proposed as a suspect on more than a gut feeling and a shitload of confirmation bias [so not just because he was one of the men who found a victim; or one of the men who gave evidence as a witness; or one of the men who lived in the area and was a bit 'dodgy'; or worse, someone who doesn't appear remotely dodgy and could therefore have been a cunning psychopath ], to leap off the page and grab us all by the throat, with no need for any spin, wrestling or special pleading.

If 99% of us are 99% underwhelmed by a suspect, how likely is it that the two or three theorists who believe they've got him, will be right, let alone be able to produce the kind of evidence that would satisfy a majority?

If they think they know Jack, they probably don't know Jack.

Love,

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



Last edited by caz : 06-22-2018 at 05:59 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1593  
Old 06-22-2018, 06:07 AM
Premium Member
caz caz is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Devon UK
Posts: 6,355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
he should change his name to Shmerican Arlock!
Good one, Abby.

Love,

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


Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1594  
Old 06-22-2018, 07:40 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
This is the problem as far as I'm concerned, Gary.

I'd have expected the real ripper, if ever proposed as a suspect on more than a gut feeling and a shitload of confirmation bias [so not just because he was one of the men who found a victim; or one of the men who gave evidence as a witness; or one of the men who lived in the area and was a bit 'dodgy'; or worse, someone who doesn't appear remotely dodgy and could therefore have been a cunning psychopath ], to leap off the page and grab us all by the throat, with no need for any spin, wrestling or special pleading.

If 99% of us are 99% underwhelmed by a suspect, how likely is it that the two or three theorists who believe they've got him, will be right, let alone be able to produce the kind of evidence that would satisfy a majority?

If they think they know Jack, they probably don't know Jack.

Love,

Caz
X
Agreed Caz

I personally feel that we have to work far too hard to create a case against CL. A collection of ‘what if’s’ or ‘its not impossibles’ doesn’t anywhere near shout ‘guilty’ at me. Of course we could be wrong and Fish could be right and research should definitely continue but we can only view the situation as it stands now. Like many ‘suspects’ CL cannot be categorically exonerated and that’s the best that we can say. The fact that he was alone with the body is all that really raises CL above Hutchinson and others. The doubts far, far outweigh the point for guilt (and yes I do mean point (singular) Far too much wriggling has gone on. Too much willingness to view everything in the light of a guilty CL without genuine reason. To many attempts to belittle the opinions of others and insult them. Too much ‘mock offence’ when the person complaining is the original cause.

I think that CL would be acquitted easily in a mock trial. I also think that if a Barrister was given both sides (the case for and the case against) he wouldn’t want to go anywhere near a courtroom with an accusation against CL. In the absence of any proper evidence and ignoring all that reeks of wish-thinking, CL will remain a minor suspect (and only in the minds of a few.)
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1595  
Old 06-22-2018, 07:40 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,226
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Hi Gary,

We don't know for certain that he didn't say that. But if he was the same Charles Cross, carman at Pickford's, who was involved in that tragic accidental death of a child in 1876, there is nothing to suggest he mentioned the name Lechmere on that previous occasion either, and he couldn't have worried about using the name Cross again 12 years on, in the capacity of a murder witness this time.

The common factor would be that both incidents were work related: the first happened during the course of his working day; the second during his journey to start his working day. He may have felt it served no purpose to give his name as Lechmere in a work context. He gave both his forenames, his home address and workplace, so he had no issue about identifying himself in case he was needed again following his appearance at the inquest.

For all we know he may simply have preferred to use the name Cross, keeping Lechmere strictly for when he was obliged to use it. Or he wanted to keep the surname of his wife and kiddies out of the papers for obvious reasons. "Your dad nearly caught the murderer! P'raps the murderer will catch you next!"

Love,

Caz
X
Of course we don't know, Caz. No one, least of all me, is suggesting we do.

But what we have here is unquestionably (in my mind at least) an anomaly. Someone, I think it may have been Kattrup (apologies if not), once posted a whole raft of examples of people standing up in court and explaining that although they went by the name X their real names were Y and explaining the various reasons why they used the alternate name. And didn't the judge at Chapman's trial refuse to sentence him under that 'assumed name'? The idea that one's 'proper' name should be disclosed in court seems to have been fairly widespread at the time.

There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that CAL thought of the name Lechmere as his real/official/proper name. He was literate, and his mother who must have been the major influence in his early life seems to have had a very respectable upbringing. I find it hard to credit that he would have thought it necessary to use the name Lechmere on all his other dealings with authority (that we know about) but not when he was giving evidence in a coroner's court.

So I'm forced to the conclusion that he (or for some unknown reason the authorities) deliberately chose not to reveal it. The idea that in certain cases the authorities might agree to keep some or all of a witness's details under wraps to protect them from harassment seems reasonable, but was there such a risk to 'Cross' in the Nichols case? And is it credible that such an officialy sanctioned subterfuge would extend to internal police reports? No on both counts, I'd say.

So the most likely reason for the non-appearance of the Lechmere name in the official records of the Nichols case is the CAL himself withheld it even though he probably believed it was wrong to do so and there was a risk of the subterfuge being discovered at some point.

The big question is obviously - why?

Gary
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1596  
Old 06-22-2018, 08:08 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
No intrusion, AS.

At least you're on topic!
I try! Beats some politicians.

Cheers
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1597  
Old 06-22-2018, 08:11 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
Hello AS,

I expect a few researchers have glanced his name. They just haven't realised it.
Probably you're right. There have to be tens of thousands of names glanced over, virtually everyone remotely plausible as the perp living in proximity at that time and maybe a 100 or so "general suspects"

Nothing compelling enough in the top 100 to override the numbers game in terms of which pool the killer is most likely to come from.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1598  
Old 06-22-2018, 08:15 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
So not only do we agree on the Wallace case AS........


Great minds think alike.

I tend to find the Wallace case more interesting as a mental exercise because there aren't that many people it realistically could be.

And even if there were, you could view it as the binary "Was WHW guilty or not?"

With JTR, it could literally be almost anyone

I find the crimes, the setting interesting from a psychological perspective as well as analyzing some of the more likely perps in terms of a character study.

But there just isn't enough here to even make a case against anybody.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1599  
Old 06-22-2018, 08:21 AM
AmericanSherlock AmericanSherlock is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 680
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
he should change his name to Shmerican Arlock!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1600  
Old 06-22-2018, 12:19 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Of course we don't know, Caz. No one, least of all me, is suggesting we do.

But what we have here is unquestionably (in my mind at least) an anomaly. Someone, I think it may have been Kattrup (apologies if not), once posted a whole raft of examples of people standing up in court and explaining that although they went by the name X their real names were Y and explaining the various reasons why they used the alternate name. And didn't the judge at Chapman's trial refuse to sentence him under that 'assumed name'? The idea that one's 'proper' name should be disclosed in court seems to have been fairly widespread at the time.

There isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that CAL thought of the name Lechmere as his real/official/proper name. He was literate, and his mother who must have been the major influence in his early life seems to have had a very respectable upbringing. I find it hard to credit that he would have thought it necessary to use the name Lechmere on all his other dealings with authority (that we know about) but not when he was giving evidence in a coroner's court.

So I'm forced to the conclusion that he (or for some unknown reason the authorities) deliberately chose not to reveal it. The idea that in certain cases the authorities might agree to keep some or all of a witness's details under wraps to protect them from harassment seems reasonable, but was there such a risk to 'Cross' in the Nichols case? And is it credible that such an officialy sanctioned subterfuge would extend to internal police reports? No on both counts, I'd say.

So the most likely reason for the non-appearance of the Lechmere name in the official records of the Nichols case is the CAL himself withheld it even though he probably believed it was wrong to do so and there was a risk of the subterfuge being discovered at some point.

The big question is obviously - why?

Gary
Hi Gary,

Interesting point.

Now, I’m not at home so I don’t have any books available and I have the memory of a goldfish but might it have something to do with the manner of CL’s appearance at the inquest? I’m stabbing in the dark here and so I certainly accept that I’m likely to be way off the mark but, from what I can recall CL just turned up at the Inquest without any contact with the police. Wouldn’t other witnesses at other court appearances that you mentioned have had prior contact with the police and thus given their ‘official’ name along with any that they used on a day to day basis. Is it possible that CL just came into where the Inquest was held and just gave his ‘everyday’ name to the clerk, and that was the one used. If CL was indeed innocent he might have just seen himself as an insignificant footnote in the case.

Before I get ridiculed by Fish for that I’ll just make it clear again that I’m not saying that this was likely or even possible. Like I said, a stab in the dark. (Perhaps not the best choice of words under the circumstances )
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
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 05:49 AM.


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