The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John G]

caz: 'Called in' sick, Christer? How did that work in 1888? Did he send a carrier pigeon so nobody else would get wind of what he was up to? A workmate then pops round with some grapes to see how serious it is and how long he is likely to be laid up and his wife says "He's not here, I thought he was at work". Great idea. He gets the sack for his trouble.

Very amusing, Caz! Now, letīs hear it - do you think that everybody who got sick lost his work in 1888? I would not think so.
I wrote "called in sick" without expanding on HOW he got that message to his employer. In some cases, somebody would be sent round the the employer, in others, the worker would return and explain later. Some would send word with a working mate, etcetera.
Can you see how this will have worked now?


That would work, but it doesn't help put your noose round his neck, does it?

Once more - and forever if I have to - if I am correct and he was the killer, then we can be very certain that he was a risktaker. He would have risked coming forward in order to be proactive about the matter that he had been seen at the murder spot, and could be identified.

This is something we MUST accept - if he truly WAS the killer, then he actively chose to come forward. Once he took that step, he needed to have a story to tell that would explain his presence at the site, a story that was of an exconerating character. And if he wanted to keep his identity hidden as much as he possibly could, without demonstrably lying and potentially putting himself in trouble, the best he could do would be to hide his name from the papers, hide his address from the papers and give away where he worked. The latter matter could not be concealed.

The moment he stepped into that inquest room, Caz, he put himself at lethal risk, if he was the killer. We know that a member of the jury latched onto the "extra PC" thing. If any people from the jury or the police had identified the potential meaning of this, I believe he would have been very closely scrutinized from a suspect point of view, I think that his name swap had been revealed, and I think he may have been hanged for murder as a result of the investigation that would have followed.

You, on the other hand, seem to say "There you are - he would NEVER be foolish enough to risk that, so you are wrong about his culpability". Well, Caz, that would be nice enough and we would all live in a safer world if that was true.
We donīt, however.

Why do you say that he could have successfully concealed his name, but not his address or place of work?

[John G]

I would like to quote Dusty from a post of his:


You wrote,

“I never said he took his old working route TO GONTO PICKFORDS, did I? “

That sentence wasn't true was it? because, in fact you actually wrote,

“It would have stopped any speculation that Lechmere went to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up."


Dusty likes to call me a liar.

Of course, he is easily revealed as being wrong on most things - and indeed on this one too.

In this case he claims that my stating that I never said that Lechmere would go on to Pickfords when I said that he took his old route from work after the Berner Street deed when heading West, is dismissed and proven a lie by the fact that I also spoke of how any speculation that Lechmere went to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up could have been stopped.

The general idea is that I would have said that he took his old route from work when seeking out Eddowes, which could only be a lie on my behalf since I also entertain the idea that he would have gone to Pickfords to deposit innards and clean up. Mitre Square is not on the old route, it demands veering off from it to an extent.

However, what Dusty misses out on is that Lechmere could not have taken the old route from Berner Street to Pickfords to deposit innards - because he HAD no innards to deposit when leaving Berner Street! He only picked them up after having walked what seems to have been his old working route from up to Aldgate High Street, and only THEN veering off to St Botolphs - something I have suggested on the boards several times, by the bye - and the surrounding area, where he found the innards, inside Katherine Eddowes.

It is not amusing to be called a liar, least of all by somebody who seems to have unsurpassable difficulties in producing chosen snippets of information, cutting away the parts he does not like.

I therefore am not inclinded to let it pass.

Not am I inclined to debate with such a dubious figure.

My solution is to produce a pre-written answer, which I will use on such occasions, unless Dusty makes an effort to better his ways.

This is the wording:

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.

But considering that all of the C5 victims were killed within a remarkably small geographical area-I believe just one square mile- isn't it likely that the murder locations would have been on the possible routes to work-in respect of either current or previous jobs-of most of the local residents?

[Fisherman]

What do you mean "investigated annually"? How does this argument undermine the view that Cross was the name he used in his everyday day life, whereas for official documents he continued to use the name Lechmere for consistency.

I would say that the more often you use one name, the less likely it becomes that you use another too.

[Fisherman]

Why do you say that he could have successfully concealed his name, but not his address or place of work?

Because you CAN have two - or more - names and use them. We know many people did.

You cannot have two home addresses, generally speaking - you have an official address where your mail ends up.

You can have more than one work, of course, but as far as we can tell, Lechmere only had one work.

So he could tell the police that he was Charles Cross - or Charles Lechmere.

But he could NOT tell the police that he lived in 22 Doveton Street or in 5 Pall Mall.

And he could NOT tell the police that he worked at Pickfords on Broad Street or in Buckingham Palace, as a butler.

[Fisherman]

But considering that all of the C5 victims were killed within a remarkably small geographical area-I believe just one square mile- isn't it likely that the murder locations would have been on the possible routes to work-in respect of either current or previous jobs-of most of the local residents?

Make a map of the killing zone. Take two buttons. Throw them up in the air and let them land on the map. Then ask yourself if you get the same correlation as Lechmere has. Plus ask yourself at what time your buttons left home. And donīt forget that they must land on the map so as to make a passage through Bucks Row a necessity.

The area around Bucks Row was dead silent and empty at the time of the murder. Where were the scores of Ripper candidates that are spoken of at that stage?

[Harry D]

It's oft repeated that Lechmere's work route took him past the other murder sites at the approximate times of the murders. Can we see some evidence of this please?

[caz]

caz: 'Called in' sick, Christer? How did that work in 1888? Did he send a carrier pigeon so nobody else would get wind of what he was up to? A workmate then pops round with some grapes to see how serious it is and how long he is likely to be laid up and his wife says "He's not here, I thought he was at work". Great idea. He gets the sack for his trouble.

Very amusing, Caz! Now, letīs hear it - do you think that everybody who got sick lost his work in 1888? I would not think so.
I wrote "called in sick" without expanding on HOW he got that message to his employer. In some cases, somebody would be sent round the the employer, in others, the worker would return and explain later. Some would send word with a working mate, etcetera.
Can you see how this will have worked now?

Did you not read what I wrote above, Christer? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory.

If Lechmere had pretended to be too ill to work so he could attend the inquest without anyone at Pickfords knowing, he'd have lost his job if he got found out. Getting word to his bosses that he was too ill to turn up and must not be disturbed at home, without involving a third party in his little subterfuge, would not have been easy, would it? Not a great idea to toddle off to the inquest and leave his bosses to wait until his return to find out why he was absent and why he couldn't get anyone to take a message for him. Workmate gets sent round to Doveton Street to find out why he didn't turn up for work and he's not there because he's at a murder inquest and didn't bother to tell anyone. Terrific. Employment record of 20 years down the drain.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

Because you CAN have two - or more - names and use them. We know many people did.

You cannot have two home addresses, generally speaking - you have an official address where your mail ends up.

You can have more than one work, of course, but as far as we can tell, Lechmere only had one work.

So he could tell the police that he was Charles Cross - or Charles Lechmere.

But he could NOT tell the police that he lived in 22 Doveton Street or in 5 Pall Mall.

And he could NOT tell the police that he worked at Pickfords on Broad Street or in Buckingham Palace, as a butler.

But If you're saying that he had no option but to reveal information about himself by which he could be publicly identified, i.e. work and home address, how did it benefit him to give a false name?

[John G]

Make a map of the killing zone. Take two buttons. Throw them up in the air and let them land on the map. Then ask yourself if you get the same correlation as Lechmere has. Plus ask yourself at what time your buttons left home. And donīt forget that they must land on the map so as to make a passage through Bucks Row a necessity.

The area around Bucks Row was dead silent and empty at the time of the murder. Where were the scores of Ripper candidates that are spoken of at that stage?

Okay, you've argued that Bucks Row and Hanbury Street were on his routes to work, but what direct connections did he have to other murder sites?

[Fisherman]

It's oft repeated that Lechmere's work route took him past the other murder sites at the approximate times of the murders. Can we see some evidence of this please?

Unless you were blindfolded at the time, you already have.

[Monty]

It has often been claimed by Lechmere proponents that he misled the Nichols inquest by giving false name, presenting himself as Cross when his "real name" was Lechmere.

Here are some examples from the Old Bailey, 1880-1895. Only one, George Peacock, was actually on trial, the others all appeared as witnesses. I have not included the many, many examples of criminals using aliases and false identities.


Link


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to have a "real name" while using the name of one's stepfather. The authorities will not necessarily use the so-called "real name" when referring to a person.


Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to have a "real name" but be known by another name in certain social situations and contexts.


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to assume another name than one's "real name" to avoid confusion and misspellings and appear more "english". The authorities will not necessarily refer to such a person by his or her "real name".


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to inform the authorities of one's real name during a trial, but they may continue to use one's alias.


Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to give a false name and address in order to avoid appearing at trial. This does not mean that one is guilty of the crime on trial (though possibly of perjury).


Conclusion:


Using an alias, or secondary name, was not uncommon.

There were many different legitimate reasons why a person might choose to use a name other than the "real name".

Using an alias, or secondary name, was accepted, and the authorities did not necessarily register people by their "real name".


There's no reason to assume that Charles Cross misinformed the inquest, or intended to mislead anyone.


All of this reasoning has, of course, been mentioned many times over the years. It is unlikely to sway Lechmere-supporters, who will most likely attempt to argue that the "name issue" is not (to them) the only thing tying suspicion to Lechmere.

Be that as it may, hopefully these examples of ordinary witnesses using aliases will help counter the argument that Charles Cross gave a "false name".

Yeah, it has been mentioned many times.

Many, many, many....

Good work btw

Monty

[Monty]

Contrary to what some have said, it was not illegal to give another name in court related circumstances.

The only requirements were that you would be reasonable recognised by the name you used and that it was not used for deceptive puposes.

Correct. Also know as.

Monty

[Harry D]

Unless you were blindfolded at the time, you already have.

Wouldn't hurt to refresh my memory.

[Fisherman]

caz: Did you not read what I wrote above, Christer? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory.

It was more like a bit ignorant, Iīd say. And more than a tad naïve. Let me just say that if I get another life after this, I want you to decide how people should live in it. It will ensure that no murders ever take place, since nobody would dare to kill.
And thatīs where the naïvety comes in.

If Lechmere had pretended to be too ill to work so he could attend the inquest without anyone at Pickfords knowing, he'd have lost his job if he got found out.

He would POSSIBLY have done so - I donīt think that you are cut out to decide how the Pickfords managers reasoned. But I AM sure that although they would have the right to sack him, some would think twice if it was about a valuable worker. I believe that giving him the sack would have been the logical thing to to, but I do not share in that crystal ball security of yours.

Getting word to his bosses that he was too ill to turn up and must not be disturbed at home, without involving a third party in his little subterfuge, would not have been easy, would it?

Same thing - neither of us knows, do we? Once more, you make a logical enough guess, but nothing more than that.

Not a great idea to toddle off to the inquest and leave his bosses to wait until his return to find out why he was absent and why he couldn't get anyone to take a message for him.

No! Absolutely not! But would you describe killing Polly Nichols in public was "a great idea"? You see, Caz, this is what these people do, the psychopathic serialists: they take chances. They PLAY with their surroundings, enjoying fooling people. They are - believe it or not - reckless people. They are, in short, people you will NEVER allow into the world you and I are to share in the next life, and where you will be my guardian angel. A if I needed one, with crime exinct on behalf on the unwillingness of criminals to take risks!


Workmate gets sent round to Doveton Street to find out why he didn't turn up for work and he's not there because he's at a murder inquest and didn't bother to tell anyone. Terrific. Employment record of 20 years down the drain.

Or he said on the Thursday that he felt very, very ill and that if he did not turn up the next day, they knew why.
You see, Caz, people ARE sometimes that clever. If you want to join the clever people ranks, itīs time you realized that the next, crimeless world is not here yet.

[Fisherman]

But If you're saying that he had no option but to reveal information about himself by which he could be publicly identified, i.e. work and home address, how did it benefit him to give a false name?

Shall we do it all over again? Really? Okay.

Because much as he gave the POLICE the address, he did not do so with THE PRESS. And please, please, please, please, please do not dredge up the Star again. Please?