The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

What many people seem to miss on the name issue is what I am actually saying about it.

I am not saying, and have never said, that it proves the guilt of the carman.

I am not saying, and have never said, that it is the one most important detail in the accusation act against Lechmere. It is not.

However, it is something that lends itself very well to the overall idea that Charles Lechmere may have been the Whitechapel killer. To give a false name or to mislead about your true identity is the oldest trick in the book. There are uncountable examples of the tactic, as everybody will be aware. And the Lechmere business fills the requirement for joining those ranks - it seems he never gave his real, registered name to the police, there are no other examples whatsoever of him ever using the name Cross, but there are more than a hundred examples of him calling himself Lechmere.

As anybody realizes, there MAY be innocent explanations to this, but that does not detract from the implications of the material we have. As I keep saying, in terms of always getting hold of the short end of the straw, Lechmere is exceptional. There are NEVER any innocent explanatory facts at hand, although there could have been in lots and lots of instances. Any old private piece of paper with the name Charles Cross would have helped out, as would any official record with that name. But that never happens.

Instead, he has to rely on the helpfulness of latter day investigators, who buy into everything he says as if it was the proven truth. The WIKI entrance on him claims:
Born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1849, St Anne's, Soho, son of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa (nee Roulson). In 1858, Charles' mother remarried, to Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took his surname.

"Charles took his surname".

Really? And consequentially signed himself Lechmere through the decades afterwards?

There is nothing more to fear from me than a wish for some little realism. Whan he called himself Cross with the police, it was an anomaly. It was a strange thing to do, given how he otherwise never did this with authorities. That is what I am saying. It was strange, and strange things scream for explanations. He made an exception from the rule. Why?

Perhaps because it is the oldest trick in the book when you want to get away from the responsibility from something youīve done?

It certainly cannot be ruled out. This bit, as well as so many other bits, therefore fits the Lechmere bid.

[John Wheat]

What many people seem to miss on the name issue is what I am actually saying about it.

I am not saying, and have never said, that it proves the guilt of the carman.

I am not saying, and have never said, that it is the one most important detail in the accusation act against Lechmere. It is not.

However, it is something that lends itself very well to the overall idea that Charles Lechmere may have been the Whitechapel killer. To give a false name or to mislead about your true identity is the oldest trick in the book. There are uncountable examples of the tactic, as everybody will be aware. And the Lechmere business fills the requirement for joining those ranks - it seems he never gave his real, registered name to the police, there are no other examples whatsoever of him ever using the name Cross, but there are more than a hundred examples of him calling himself Lechmere.

As anybody realizes, there MAY be innocent explanations to this, but that does not detract from the implications of the material we have. As I keep saying, in terms of always getting hold of the short end of the straw, Lechmere is exceptional. There are NEVER any innocent explanatory facts at hand, although there could have been in lots and lots of instances. Any old private piece of paper with the name Charles Cross would have helped out, as would any official record with that name. But that never happens.

Instead, he has to rely on the helpfulness of latter day investigators, who buy into everything he says as if it was the proven truth. The WIKI entrance on him claims:
Born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1849, St Anne's, Soho, son of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa (nee Roulson). In 1858, Charles' mother remarried, to Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took his surname.

"Charles took his surname".

Really? And consequentially signed himself Lechmere through the decades afterwards?

There is nothing more to fear from me than a wish for some little realism. Whan he called himself Cross with the police, it was an anomaly. It was a strange thing to do, given how he otherwise never did this with authorities. That is what I am saying. It was strange, and strange things scream for explanations. He made an exception from the rule. Why?

Perhaps because it is the oldest trick in the book when you want to get away from the responsibility from something youīve done?

It certainly cannot be ruled out. This bit, as well as so many other bits, therefore fits the Lechmere bid.

You presume Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. And try to find anything you can to suggest he was. You completely disregard anything to suggest he wasn't Jack. If you looked at things remotely objectively you would notice Lechmere is at best a terrible Ripper suspect.

[Fisherman]

You presume Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. And try to find anything you can to suggest he was. You completely disregard anything to suggest he wasn't Jack. If you looked at things remotely objectively you would notice Lechmere is at best a terrible Ripper suspect.

You mean the way you look objectively on Bury?

Now, thereīs a thought! I would not have to place Lechmere in any case context at all, I would not even need to place him in London on any of the murder days, but I could still proclaim him the best suspect by many a country mile!

Why didnīt I think of that before?

[Pcdunn]

There are two reports by police officials referring to "Cross", there is the comment by Mizen that he now knows this car-man's name is "Cross" (which I would take to mean the car-man gave no name at all to Mizen earlier), and there is the mention of "Cross" in the newspaper coverage of the inquest of Nichols.

Still, this is all we have, as his paperwork is largely missing. We do know he went forward to the authorities and testified.

[Fisherman]

There are two reports by police officials referring to "Cross", there is the comment by Mizen that he now knows this car-man's name is "Cross" (which I would take to mean the car-man gave no name at all to Mizen earlier), and there is the mention of "Cross" in the newspaper coverage of the inquest of Nichols.

Still, this is all we have, as his paperwork is largely missing. We do know he went forward to the authorities and testified.

Which is what I am saying. We only know that he used the name Cross in combination with the murder inquest after Nichols.

Other paperwork is not "largely missing". There are 100+ examples where he signed himself or was signed Lechmere.

[Pcdunn]

Which is what I am saying. We only know that he used the name Cross in combination with the murder inquest after Nichols.

Other paperwork is not "largely missing". There are 100+ examples where he signed himself or was signed Lechmere.

I know... I meant his police paperwork in regard to the Nichols case.

[John Wheat]

You mean the way you look objectively on Bury?

Now, thereīs a thought! I would not have to place Lechmere in any case context at all, I would not even need to place him in London on any of the murder days, but I could still proclaim him the best suspect by many a country mile!

Why didnīt I think of that before?

For the record I do look at Bury objectively.

[Fisherman]

For the record I do look at Bury objectively.

Is that why you say that he is many a country mile ahead of any other suspect, John?

This may take you by surprise, but if you weigh together what other posters out here think about Bury as a suspect, you will find that the general feeling is that they disagree with you. And that tells us that either the people out here are not fit to make an evaluation of Bury as a suspect - or you are not looking objectively at him.

If you were, you would end up thinking that Bury is not a very good suspect, but as suspects go, he is still as viable as any other suspect who cannot be tied to the case in any shape or form, but are instead on the suspect list on account of having been proven a violent man, capable of murder.

You see, John, far from looking objectively at Bury, you are deeply, deeply biased.

[John G]

That is a VERY original post, I have to say. So you are saying that since Lechmere could not know where or if he would meet his next victim, he had no need to take precautions?

Donīt you realize that no matter where he would kill, it would be an advantage no to be pinpointed as the person found with a victim?

But he'd already been "pinpointed" as the person found with the victim. The police were aware of this, as were everyone who saw him at the inquest.

I also think you're putting the cart before the horse. If his family already suspected him of being a mad psychopath, then of course, he wouldn't have wanted them to know that he'd found a body of a violently mutilated victim. However, there's no evidence they did harbour any such suspicions.

And why target the next victim on one of his routes, if this was an issue he was concerned about? I mean, he could have started killing completely outside the Whitechapel district, in areas that he had no association with.

[Fisherman]

John G: But he'd already been "pinpointed" as the person found with the victim. The police were aware of this, as were everyone who saw him at the inquest.

Not, though, his family and friends, in all probability. And those are the ones I am speaking of. Perhaps it was just his wife he wanted to keep out of the know, perhaps he worried about more people, it is impossible to know.

I also think you're putting the cart before the horse. If his family already suspected him of being a mad psychopath, then of course, he wouldn't have wanted them to know that he'd found a body of a violently mutilated victim. However, there's no evidence they did harbour any such suspicions.

But you donīt have to harbour any initial suspicions at all about somebody, to be a liability to that person. It would all be about minimizing risks, and to be proactive. Itīs much like his going to the police, if he was the killer. That too is acting proactively - he would have prevented any suspicion BEFORE it arose.

And why target the next victim on one of his routes, if this was an issue he was concerned about? I mean, he could have started killing completely outside the Whitechapel district, in areas that he had no association with.

Not if he was going to kill en route to work. That would limit his options timewise. And he actually DID cloud his trail quite effectively if he killed, as I believe, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. There was no logic to the overall geography, other than how it seemed the killer focused on a relatively small area. It is not until you find a person who ticks all the geographical boxes that you may make sense of the choices of murder spots. And Lechmere ticks them all.

[caz]

Would he lie to "protect his family"? It would involve a risk that he was found out. Guess where that would get him?

In a worse position if he was a serial murderer than if he hadn't hurt a fly and wasn't planning to start now?

You seem to be arguing against yourself, Christer. Are you really saying he wouldn't risk lying [to protect his family, for example] because he could be found out and suspected of murder as a result? But isn't that precisely what you believe happened? That he lied about his name? What would his motivation for lying have to do with the price of fish?

Of course it is impossible to demonstrate that he did lie without evidence that nobody would have known him by the name of Cross now his step-daddy was no more.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Was Lechmere certain that he would not get checked out, John?

I think we can safely say that he could never be.

So, letīs see what would happen if the police checked him out, and letīs suggest two scenarios:

1. He said that he was Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, working at Pickfords in Broad Street.

2. He said that he was Charles Allen Cross of 5 Heneage Street, working as a butcher in Aldgate.

If he was checked, which scenario would serve him best? Whatīs your thoughts? Would scenario one, where he could easily say that he used his old stepfatherīs name at times, be a better option than scenario two, where he would be revealed as a liar? Would scenario one, so filled with honesty and true information work better to disguise his guilt than scenario two?

Any ideas?

Ah, so you are saying he would have been revealed as a liar with scenario two, but not with scenario one? So tell me again, Christer. Why would it have been too risky for him to lie about his name (just his surname) to "protect his family", but worth the risk if he was actively killing Spitalfields unfortunates?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: In a worse position if he was a serial murderer than if he hadn't hurt a fly and wasn't planning to start now?

Genius!

You seem to be arguing against yourself, Christer.

Oh, I have enough people to argue against to have any need to mix me up in there.

Are you really saying he wouldn't risk lying [to protect his family, for example] because he could be found out and suspected of murder as a result? But isn't that precisely what you believe happened? That he lied about his name? What would his motivation for lying have to do with the price of fish?

Years and years, and still you donīt get it. Believe it or not, but you can lie SELECTIVELY. You can choose to lie about object A and not lie about object B, if that is the most efficient thing you can do.
You seem to reason that a person will inevitably lie about everything or not lie at all. That didnīt even hold true in kindergarten, did it?

Of course it is impossible to demonstrate that he did lie without evidence that nobody would have known him by the name of Cross now his step-daddy was no more.

And MY do you like that! It can never be disproven that he was Cross with his chums, since there are nothing taken down to prove or disprove it. So you merrily join the ranks of the "I-know-there-is-no-evidence-but-my-idea-is-better-all-the-same" fraction. You are welcome to it, Caz.

[Fisherman]

Ah, so you are saying he would have been revealed as a liar with scenario two, but not with scenario one? So tell me again, Christer. Why would it have been too risky for him to lie about his name (just his surname) to "protect his family", but worth the risk if he was actively killing Spitalfields unfortunates?

Love,

Caz
X

Thesis ā la Caz: A serial killer cannot be protective about his family.

Disclaimers: Ridgway, Kürten, Rader....

Yes, I am saying that he would inevitably have been revealed as a liar in scenario two. Bravo, well spotted!

However, I am not saying that he would have necessarily been regarded as a liar in scenario one. He could well have claimed that he sometimes used the name Cross, and it would be hard to prove him wrong. To add, the litmus paper that was around was how he was honest about the rest. And he could well have used the old argument that he was trying to safeguard his family by using the name Cross - if he was investigated. The name Lechmere would leak out, he would think it a bummer, but hey, win a few, loose a few.

But to you, both scenarios are equally risky? Yes? That is how you do the math here, Caz, is it not?

Impressive.

[John Wheat]

Is that why you say that he is many a country mile ahead of any other suspect, John?

This may take you by surprise, but if you weigh together what other posters out here think about Bury as a suspect, you will find that the general feeling is that they disagree with you. And that tells us that either the people out here are not fit to make an evaluation of Bury as a suspect - or you are not looking objectively at him.

If you were, you would end up thinking that Bury is not a very good suspect, but as suspects go, he is still as viable as any other suspect who cannot be tied to the case in any shape or form, but are instead on the suspect list on account of having been proven a violent man, capable of murder.

You see, John, far from looking objectively at Bury, you are deeply, deeply biased.

As usual you're wrong.