Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > Persons Of Interest or Actual Suspects

Persons Of Interest or Actual Suspects To date, over one hundred have been proposed...many are considered...but only one [ or was it two? ] was Jack The Ripper.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 2nd, 2017, 06:47 PM   #11
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: West Midlands, Uk
Posts: 458
Default

I wondered recently about the killling of Annie Chapman and why Richardson is not considered a suspect and yet CL is (by some). It's down to the appearance of Robert Paul. This leads some to accuse CL of being 'caught in the act.' This is obviously untrue as he could easily have gotten away. Yet he chose to wait for Paul to arrive and drew his attention to Nichols.
What would we be thinking now if, just as Richardson opened the back door and saw Chapmans body, someone came into the passageway and saw him? Would he have been 'caught in the act?' It's likely that he would have had far more time than CL had to kill. His only 'saving grace' I suppose would have been the unlikelihood of someone killing in his mother's back yard.

Regards

Michael
Michael Banks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2017, 08:39 PM   #12
Gary Barnett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,603
Default

Hi Michael,

Re: the name thing.

Apart from when he was the 'discoverer' of Polly Nichols's body, there is no record of Charles Lechmere himself ever having used the name Cross. He was shown with that name on the 1861 census, but he was then only was 11 years old, and his stepfather, Thomas Cross, would most likely have filled out the form.

I have to say, the research on Casebook in respect of alternative names seems to me to have been misinterpreted. Yes, people used alternative names, but the research suggests that they generally felt it necessary to reveal the fact when presenting themselves to the authorities.

As far as we know, Charles Lechmere used the name in which his birth was registered on every occasion he had dealings with officialdom - at least a 100 times - with the one exception of the time he was a witness at a murder inquest. And there is no evidence that he then disclosed that the name Cross was one he used informally.


Gary
Gary Barnett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2017, 07:26 AM   #13
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: West Midlands, Uk
Posts: 458
Default

Hello Gary,

Thanks for the information. I must admit that when I first read the research (by David Orsam and another poster) it did occur to me that the examples he gave all mentioned their birth names as well as the names they used day to day (when asked in court.)

I don't know your opinion Gary but it still seems to me though that he gained no advantage from this error/lie? After all, he gave his correct address, which surely negates any effort to conceal? Maybe he was just a bit....dim? Perhaps he thought that that it was only important that he used Lechmere when writing? After all, people didn't live under the umbrella of beaurocracy that we are all to familiar with today.

Regards

Michael
Michael Banks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2017, 07:43 AM   #14
Robert Linford
Researcher Extraordinaire
 
Robert Linford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 18,920
Default

Fish and Ed believe that the police never checked Crossmere out, as they were either too lazy and dim or they were charmed by Crossmere's suave personality and cheerful bonhomie - all except Mizen who had been officially graded as 'good' and whose version of his encounter with Crossmere was obviously accurate.


As for Crossmere, he was photographed adopting a defiant expression and was clearly the kind of man who spent his time pulling the wings off pigeons.
Robert Linford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2017, 08:22 AM   #15
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: West Midlands, Uk
Posts: 458
Default

Hi Robert

Mizen does appear to be considered by some to be a kind of Dixon of Dock Green character (if you're old enough to remember him?). Honest and reliable.

Whatever CL and Paul told him (dead, dead or drunk, dead drunk, lying in the street or he was wanted by another Constable) you would have thought that he would have either held them or at least taken their details. He did neither. When he realised his error (possibly PC Neil said something) he decided to say that they had said that she was drunk and not dead.

Surely saying that CL was a liar but Mizen was as honest as the day is long is stretching it a bit. Especially considering the fact that CL and Paul both turned up for the inquest. The only way that CL and Paul would benefit from lying to Dirty Harry Mizen would be that they got to work on time.

Regards
Michael
Michael Banks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2017, 08:50 AM   #16
Robert Linford
Researcher Extraordinaire
 
Robert Linford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 18,920
Default

Hi Michael


I think their idea is that ordinarily Mizen would have been expected to take their details and perhaps even search them - bad news for Crossmere. However this was sidestepped by Crossmere cleverly telling Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, giving Mizen the impression that Crossmere and Paul had already been seen by a policeman. When I asked Fish if Paul too had been party to this 'Mizen scam' I was spun a story to the effect that Paul started off down Hanbury St leaving Crossmere to talk to Mizen alone.
Robert Linford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2017, 09:05 AM   #17
Gary Barnett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Banks View Post
Hello Gary,

Thanks for the information. I must admit that when I first read the research (by David Orsam and another poster) it did occur to me that the examples he gave all mentioned their birth names as well as the names they used day to day (when asked in court.)

I don't know your opinion Gary but it still seems to me though that he gained no advantage from this error/lie? After all, he gave his correct address, which surely negates any effort to conceal? Maybe he was just a bit....dim? Perhaps he thought that that it was only important that he used Lechmere when writing? After all, people didn't live under the umbrella of beaurocracy that we are all to familiar with today.

Regards

Michael
Yes, if he was trying to conceal something, it would seem to have been the Lechmere name itself rather than his identity. Anyone could have tracked him down from the info revealed in the press coverage of the inquest. It's odd, not necessarily sinister, but a bit of a mystery nevertheless.

The other rather odd (to my mind) thing is that Charles and his sister Emily were Christened with the name Lechmere in January, 1859, a year after his mother had married Thomas Cross. Charles was nine years old at the time, and Emily was a couple of years older. One possible reason for this could be that Lechmere's mother did not want her children to forget their birthright. The Lechmeres were a prominent Herefordshire family and at the back of her mind she may have harboured hopes of some kind of inheritance coming their way some day.

I think I'm right in saying that Ma Lechmere was a butler's daughter who married an impoverished member of the local gentry. I'd be very surprised if Charles wasn't brought up knowing he was a Lechmere and believing he was a cut above his rough East End neighbours. And from the little we know of him as an adult he was a literate and respectable man. So if he didn't disclose his 'real' name in court, the chances are it was not an oversight. Perhaps he, or his mother, didn't want the Lechmere name associated with such a sordid affair.


Did you know that in 1861 the family was living in Thomas Street, St George in the East, which would later be renamed Pinchin Street? At the time, that part of STGITE was known as Tiger Bay and was the most notorious red light district in the East End. The next street down from Thomas Street was Frederick Street, one of the worst in the district. Even the police weren't safe there.

You can well imagine old Ma Lechmere's anxiety about her son reaching puberty in such an environment. If she didn't repeatedly drum into her son how horrible the area's 'unfortunates' were, she wouldn't have been doing her duty as a responsible parent.
Gary Barnett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2017, 09:51 AM   #18
Robert Linford
Researcher Extraordinaire
 
Robert Linford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 18,920
Default

"Kind Hearts And Coroners" springs to mind.
Robert Linford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2017, 10:37 AM   #19
Gary Barnett
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 6,603
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Linford View Post
"Kind Hearts And Coroners" springs to mind.


Did poor Mama's silly dreaming plant in my brain some seed which was afterwards to grow into the most sensational criminal endeavour of the century?
Gary Barnett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 3rd, 2017, 11:43 AM   #20
Michael Banks
Registered User
 
Michael Banks's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: West Midlands, Uk
Posts: 458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Linford View Post
Hi Michael


I think their idea is that ordinarily Mizen would have been expected to take their details and perhaps even search them - bad news for Crossmere. However this was sidestepped by Crossmere cleverly telling Mizen that a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, giving Mizen the impression that Crossmere and Paul had already been seen by a policeman. When I asked Fish if Paul too had been party to this 'Mizen scam' I was spun a story to the effect that Paul started off down Hanbury St leaving Crossmere to talk to Mizen alone.
I've debated this with Christer on the casebook. He even said something to the effect of 'even though they arrived at Mizen 'together' together doesn't necessarily mean that they stood together! Even though there's no evidence that CL took Mizen to one side so that he could lie out of Paul's earshot. For me, the simple possible explanations are either a) Mizen wasn't exactly 'supercop.' He made an error then lied to cover himself. b) Mizen misheard what CL said or c) CL and Paul both lied. With the likeliest reason being that they didn't want to risk losing their jobs by being late for work.

Regards
Michael
Michael Banks is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022