The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Miss Marpole:

"That is a very interesting idea of Moonbegger's, that another man may have been using Letchere's identity."

A good thing then, that most have no trouble to regard it proven that the two were the same!

"What I cant get my head around is why a respectable working man, with a regular job. several children, and twenty years marriage would suddenly indulge in a bout of woman hating serial killing at the age of 40, and take to knocking off women on his way to work, he had not done so before he moved to Doveton St."

All serial killers throughout history have snapped, Miss Marple. All of them. Each and everybody of them have been none-serial killers before that. In each and every case there has been something that have pulled the trigger for them, sometimes trivial things, other times much more important matters.

Ted Bundy did not kill until he killed. Why would he do so? John Wayne Gacy did not kill until he killed, so why start? Joel Rifkin: same thing. Every serial killer in the history, in fact: same thing.

Bundy was once a promising man. I canīt get my head around why he became a killer. Gacy was a pillar of society, and I canīt get my head around why HE killed either.
Of course, there was a restlessness, and a disability to commit in Bundyīs case and Gacy was secretely homosexual. That may have played a major role in their sprees.
But you canīt get your head around why Lechmere would kill. I see.

"This man has no previous, in crime or violence or no afterwards, just a life of ordinary, steady achievement, as in being a supportive husband and father."

He does not have the Ripper killings listed in his CV, thatīs correct. But nobody has, and yet the murders were carried out. This very clearly indicates the possibility that not all people who commit crimes, are people that have their crimes made official and listed in them CV:s.
Why do you paint Lechmere out as a supportive husband and father, making him sound like Santa Claus? Is that because you know that HE did not have trouble to committ, or that he was secretely homnosexual? Or is it because we should regard all people as good people if we know of nothing else? Was Dennis Rader a good guy before he was nicked? Sutcliffe? Ridgway? They had clean sheets, did they not? I canīt get my head around why they would soil them.

"How can you connect him to the other murders?"

Itīs in the thread, Miss Marple - promise!

" he was probably too knackered to go whore hunting in the early hours."

Yes, probably. I didnīt think of that. Case closed, everybody!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

GregBaron:

" Cross was on the way to work and sober "

Ouch - thatīs another devastating blow to the Lechmere theory. Two of them have surfaced, therefore: Lechmere was tired AND sober.

How I am supposed to clear that double hurdle, I wil never know. Why did I not think of that myself...?

Thanks, Greg. The case is finally moving forward!

Fisherman

[lynn cates]

ready, begin

Hello Miss Marple, Christer.

MM: "What I can't get my head around is why a respectable working man, with a regular job. several children, and twenty years marriage would suddenly indulge in a bout of woman hating serial killing at the age of 40, and take to knocking off women on his way to work, he had not done so before he moved to Doveton St."

CH: "All serial killers throughout history have snapped . . . "

Well, this is the easy part. Given that Cross did kill some prostitutes, and that he began with Polly, and given that it began directly he moved, then, retrospectively, one could argue that Bucks Row was a quasi red-light district. Passing through there every morning and being ogled by the ladies sent him over the edge.

This could be particularly effective as an argumentative strategy when coupled with his background amongst the peerage. Rather a , "How dare you trash . . . !" phenomenon.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

..... so when I speak of Hutch I speak of the young man who stood in front of Mary Kelly's door, and then her court, on the same night she was butchered. I think THAT guy is a better suspect than Cross,

If Hutch had never come forward, the loiterer Sarah Lewis saw in Dorset St. & up the Court, would surely have been a principal suspect. In that case yes, a better suspect than Cross.
And, Lewis would have ranked the same as Cox, possibly seeing the killer.
It's him coming forward like he did that throws the cat among the pigeons.

though I must admit I'm dumbfounded how he remains such a primary suspect on the boards based on so very little.

Hutch a primary suspect? He's only being debated because of the pack of lies being spread about him (not as a suspect).
Or, were you talking about Cross?

As it stands now, I've gotta go with Chapman and Eddowes having been killed by the same person.

Thats the way it looks to me Tom.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

"That is a very interesting idea of Moonbegger's, that another man may have been using Letchere's identity."

A good thing then, that most have no trouble to regard it proven that the two were the same!

"What I cant get my head around is why a respectable working man, with a regular job. several children, and twenty years marriage would suddenly indulge in a bout of woman hating serial killing at the age of 40, and take to knocking off women on his way to work, he had not done so before he moved to Doveton St."

Hi, Fisherman,
Actually, I, too, find it an interesting thought that someone else might have used a steady, reliable friend's name in place of his own that might have gotten him into trouble. I don't think Cross was required to present his photo ID. So how would the authorities have known unless they went to his workplace or home to talk to him? -- and you are adamant that they did not.

In addition, the person who appropriated the name could have been someone from the time that Lechmere was living in the household of Thomas Cross. Just because someone changes a name does not mean that the people who know them call them by the new name.

Lechmere could still have been thought of as "Cross" by people who knew him during that time while they knew what his real name was. Thus that name was chosen, because it was almost his name, but not really, and so was fair game to use.

From Fisherman:"A good thing then, that most have no trouble to regard it proven that the two were the same!"

Well, until another possibility presents itself. The two men seem to match up record-wise, but once the idea is broached that the name is appropriated, many things make more sense.

We know nothing about the appearance of Cross, the witness, and Lechmere, the hardworking husband/father, so it is not impossible that his name was appropriated by someone else.

And, Fish, I completely echo Miss Marple's :"What I cant get my head around is why a respectable working man, with a regular job. several children, and twenty years marriage would suddenly indulge in a bout of woman hating serial killing at the age of 40, and take to knocking off women on his way to work, he had not done so before he moved to Doveton St."

From what I have read, you have never established anything in Lechmere's life to indicate he knew how to handle a knife or had the skills to commit these crimes. Where did that knowledge come from with Lechmere? What in his background gives any indication he could possibly carry out a crime of this nature?

Furthermore, you seem to have no real stressor and no reason for the crimes to have stopped.

While the evidence you have presented shows some interesting anomalies and I applaud your research and appreciate your sharing what you have learned, at this point I find Lechmere nothing more than interesting.

In my opinion, you are a long way from proving Lechmene a murderer or even capable of one murder, let alone an entire series.

I'm open to changing my mind, but at the moment, I remain unconvinced.

I do, however, sincerely hope you will continue the research so we might know one way or the other.

curious

[Fisherman]

Curious:

" I, too, find it an interesting thought that someone else might have used a steady, reliable friend's name in place of his own that might have gotten him into trouble."

Itīs a far shot, however we look upon it, Curious. And it becomes an INCREDIBLY far shot when we include the identitysnatcher opting for not "Lechmere", but "Cross". The primary reson for this is made obvious by this next quote:

"In addition, the person who appropriated the name could have been someone from the time that Lechmere was living in the household of Thomas Cross. Just because someone changes a name does not mean that the people who know them call them by the new name."

The name Lechmere, Curious, was anything but new! Charles had married Elizabeth Bostock some 18 years earlier under his real name, Lechmere. And it was only nine years before THAT we know of him being called Cross. And that does not mean that he for one single day did so HIMSELF, since the signature would have been written by his stepfather at that stage.
So what we would have if the namesnatcher did what is suggested that he did, is a man who grabs an identity that has not been around for a couple of decades, judging by what we have. And that makes me think along lines that activate yet another quote by you:

" how would the authorities have known unless they went to his workplace or home to talk to him?"

They would not know, that is correct. But if the namesnatcher had wanted to actively choose and use an identity of a real person (Lechmere) instead of simply doing a John Doe routine, then why did he not use the correct name? One must assume that this namesnatcher had a reason for opting for a real life character, and that reason could only be that the police could confirm that there was indeed a Charles Cross of 22 Doveton Street - but there wasnīt, was there? So what then was the use of snatching a real life name and a real address?
Equally, if the snatcher knew that Charles Lechmere had once been called Cross - albeit many, many years earlier - and lived in 22 Doveton Street, then one must also assumet that there would have been quite a risk that Charles Lechmere had read about how somebody used his old name and new address, and so may have contacted the police to clear himself, after which the hunt would have been on. A very risky business, therefore. Giving a John Doe name and address would not have entalied those risks, if you were indeed as lucky as to stay unscrutinized by the police, something the namesnatcher could of course in no way bank on.

The man that witnessed at the inquest as Charles Cross was with almost total certainty Charles Lechmere. He gave the correct address and he was in Buckīs Row at a time that tallied nicely with a carman living in Doveton Street and working in Broad Street. If the proposed namesnatcher went as far as to not only nick Charlesīearlier name but also effectively even his route to work at the correct time, then we are left with a man that was after Lechmere and wanted to frame him, Hollywood style.

And what would he frame him FOR, if he was not suspected of the murder?

There are some mega holes in this namesnatcher business, Curious, I hope you can see that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

why a respectable working man, with a regular job. several children, and twenty years marriage would suddenly indulge in a bout of woman hating serial killing at the age of 40

He could have been hit by that famous male mid-life crisis......?

Some men seem to suddenly change personality.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"If Hutch had never come forward, the loiterer Sarah Lewis saw in Dorset St. & up the Court, would surely have been a principal suspect. In that case yes, a better suspect than Cross."

If Hutchinson had never come forward, Jon, then we would have two descriptions of that loiterer, given by the same witness; Lewis. In the first one she only mentioned the loiterers presence, and thus no intent watching of the court. In the second, she provided him with a lot more flesh on the bones and a demeanor that would have seemingly given away an interest in Millerīs Court, and therefore also possibly - but only possibly - an interest in Kelly.

This is what you think makes this man a better suspect than Lechmere.

Now, we can be very sure that Lechmere was in contact with Nichols at a point in time that tallied more or less exactly with her time of death.

We cannot be anywhere near any certainty that the loiterers presence was close to Kellyīs time of death. Hours could divide the incidents.

We know that Lechmere was physically very close to Nichols while alone with her, no separating walls or doors inbetween him and her.

We donīt have the loiterer that close to Kelly - not at all. Ten yards or so, and brick walls and a door divided them.

We donīt know the loiterers name, and so we cannot tell if he was given to provide the police with an alias.

But we know that Lechmere did so.

We have no testimony about any spoken opinions at all on behalf of the loiterer, and so we cannot nail him for any anomalies or potential lies.

But we can do so for our carman, who according to PC Jonas Mizen stated that there was a PC awaiting him in Buckīs Row, something we know was not true - but would make a perfect reason to bypass the police.

Buckīs Row was seemingly a street with very little people in it at the small hours, whereas the place in which the loiterer was seen was directly outside a doss house, a spot of which it was said in newspaper reports that it was very often frequented by men standing there.

All of this, Jon, you also know. Therefore this cannot be what you ground your statement on. It must be something else, and much as I have a guess what that something is, I would very much like to hear it from you.

All the best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Curious:


Itīs a far shot, however we look upon it, Curious. And it becomes an INCREDIBLY far shot when we include the identitysnatcher opting for not "Lechmere", but "Cross". The primary reson for this is made obvious by this next quote:

"In addition, the person who appropriated the name could have been someone from the time that Lechmere was living in the household of Thomas Cross. Just because someone changes a name does not mean that the people who know them call them by the new name."

The name Lechmere, Curious, was anything but new! Charles had married Elizabeth Bostock some 18 years earlier under his real name, Lechmere.

There are some mega holes in this namesnatcher business, Curious, I hope you can see that.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi, Fisherman,

Actually, I worded that badly. Cross was not a new name.

Some people tend to remember people by the names they first knew them as.

As I have followed your posts on Cross-Lechmere, it has seemed possible to me that the man was still known in certain parts of his life and by certain people as "Cross" despite always using Lechmere as his official name.

Surely there were a few kids in school that you knew who had more than 1 last name. Perhaps they had been adopted over the summer. Didn't and don't you still think of them as perhaps the first name? I changed my last name in 2004, but still get mail at the office addressed to my old name because I wrote an extremely popular column under that name and some people still think of me by that name -- even my boss occasionally when he is introducing me. (and we're talking phi beta kappa at Princeton)

I am saying the "snatcher" (as you prefer to call a person who might have appropriated the name) chose an almost correct name, but one that if checked out would have exonerated the real Charles Lechmere had the authorities gone to see him at either work or home. I don't think the name was chosen to frame Lechmere, but because it was a good name that really did not belong to anyone.

The murders took place in an amazingly small area that was densely populated. While Lechmere is the only man we presently know of who walked those routes, he can not possibly be the only one who must have walked those routes.

To me, Lechmere the man who lived a long and seemingly blameless life makes no real sense as the Ripper.

I realize that you always use Dennis Rader as the go-to explanation, but Rader could not keep it up forever. He was driven to an action that was his undoing. Do you seriously believe that the man who committed the Kelly atrocity then lived a long and blameless life?

Really?

Nah. I know you do, but no, that doesn't make sense to me.

I recognize that while I and others see glaring holes in your theory, you will never see them.

In fact, you always dismiss everyone else's ideas without seeming to realize they are actually mulling your idea over but trying to fill those glaring holes.

As I stated earlier, I remain open, but unconvinced.

You still have lots of work to do to get there.

What I find intriguing is the possibility that you, or Lechmere who was the original discoverer, may have spotted the killer, but still would not have his name.

Good luck with your continued research.

curious

[curious]

Now, we can be very sure that Lechmere was in contact with Nichols at a point in time that tallied more or less exactly with her time of death.

We know that Lechmere was physically very close to Nichols while alone with her, no separating walls or doors inbetween him and her.

But we know that Lechmere did so.

All the best,
Fisherman

I think we know that the man known as CROSS did all these things.

curious

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Actually, I worded that badly. Cross was not a new name."

Neither of the names were. Cross was the comparatively newer one, though.

"Some people tend to remember people by the names they first knew them as."

Absolutely. There are girls from my past to whom I ascribe maiden names. Of course. Then again, we donīt even know for a fact that Charles ever accepted the name Cross and used it, do we? So whichever way we turn, we find that the one name we KNOW he made very frequent and habitual use of is Lechmere. After that, we can go on discussing potential parallel scenarios forever.

"As I have followed your posts on Cross-Lechmere, it has seemed possible to me that the man was still known in certain parts of his life and by certain people as "Cross" despite always using Lechmere as his official name."

But where is the evidence for that? Still known as Cross in" certain points of his life"? What points? Proof? Still known by certain people as Cross? Who would that be? Proof? Possible, yes, anything is possible. Probabilities, though, are different creatures.

"Surely there were a few kids in school that you knew who had more than 1 last name."

No. Not that it makes your reasoning unjustified, though! But the fact of the matter is that I canīt remember such a thing. Then again, divorces were rather unusual back in them days, at least where I come from.

" I don't think the name was chosen to frame Lechmere, but because it was a good name that really did not belong to anyone."

You really think that this was what happened? Yes? You think that a namesnatcher is the MORE credible scenario here? If thatīs the case, then wow!

"The murders took place in an amazingly small area that was densely populated. While Lechmere is the only man we presently know of who walked those routes, he can not possibly be the only one who must have walked those routes."

Anybody who lived east of Buckīs Row and had a job to go to that was situated roughly inbetween the outlets of Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street, and who did that trek at around 3.20-4.00 AM, and who similarly had reason to visit the area surrounding Berner Street on weekends would geographically and timetablewise make as good a bid as Lechmere. To be perfectly honest, I donīt think they would make up a very large amount of men. We know that Mizen and Thain confirmed that - apart from the carmen - no other men had walked onto their beats at the time of interest, and that time would make up a, perhaps, ten minute frame. If we were to work semi-statistically from that, then we have two men per ten minutes walking Buckīs Row westwards. Letīs assume - although this may have been all that happened that hour - that this was the rate. Then we have two men per ten minutes, that makes twelve per hour.Letīs generously say we allow a full two-hour period as the killing window, then we are dealing with 24 persons.
Now, how many of these 24 persons would have a reason to visit the Berner Street area on weekends? Hard to say. Not all, thatīs almost a certainty. Letīs say that half of the 24 had a reason to go visit somebody on weekends. Letīs furthermore divide the area surrounding the murder area into four districts, north, east, west and south, ascribing Berner Street to the southern area. Then we have 25 per cent of the 12, that is 3 people visiting in the area. And one of them was Lechmere.

So, using this totally unscientific and extremely rough frame - which could be totally wrong, but still represents a thinking that cannot be said to be totally mad, I should hope - we have three men answering to what we are looking for. But only one of them was found by the body of the murdered woman. Only one gave an alias, and only one mislead the police.

Of course, we canīt go by this in any truly useful way! Maybe it was fifty men per hour who did the trek this way, in which case a dozen men would answer roughly to the one we look for. But that still is a very small group of men! And it adds no further alias user or police misleader.

"To me, Lechmere the man who lived a long and seemingly blameless life makes no real sense as the Ripper."

To me, yes, just like you suspected, Dennis Rader, who lived a long and blameless life after having killed some ten or twelve people, would have made no sense as the BTK killer.
Many serial killers lived - and live - long lifes. Many of them lived - and live - seemingly blameless lives. And we have our eyes on todayīs killers, STILL allowing for descriptions like these.
With Lechmere, 124 years have passed. He may have been anything from a good family guy to a wife beater and a thoroughly frightening man. Such things do not go down in history unless they are recorded. So once again, I would very much advice against regarding no news as good news - we canīt tell.

"Do you seriously believe that the man who committed the Kelly atrocity then lived a long and blameless life?"

I am just as much the victim of lacking evidence as you are in this case, Curious - I believe that Lechmere killed Kelly as well as the rest, but I donīt think that much can be proven of his life after that.
What you do here is to use an emotional argument - the Kelly deed was such an atrocity that the killer could never have hidden his madness after it, sort of.
Very well! That brings us back to the dreaded Rader, then. He killed the entire Otero family for the thrill of it. The young girl, Josephine, he strangled, but only to discover that she survived it. He then took her down to the basement and hung her from a pipe, "enjoying sexual fantasies" as she succumbed - a girl of, what, eleven years or so...?

Letīs keep the emotions up, Curious, and letīs ask for a "justifiable" demeanour on behalf of Rader after this deed. Surely he could not go from such an atrocious deed into decades of blameless life afterwards? Surely, having done a thing like this prevents you from that? Surely a text emerges on your forehead, saying "vicious killer"?

If it had worked like this, we would all live in a safer world. Alas, this is not so. And the same things that applies in Raderīs case would equally potentially have applied to Lechmere. No matter how much we dislike it and cry for justice.

"I recognize that while I and others see glaring holes in your theory, you will never see them.
In fact, you always dismiss everyone else's ideas without seeming to realize they are actually mulling your idea over but trying to fill those glaring holes."

And there we go again! I fail to see what more I can do in this respect than to say that I KNOW that here are holes, Curious. If there were no holes, Lechmere would have been convicted to everybodies satisfaction.

But he is not. Rationally, no other explanation can exist than a justifiable scepticism, led on by holes in the theory.

It would have been nice if we had evidence of any sort of other criminal behaviour on Lechmereīs behalf. But the thruth of the matter is that being a serial killer does not predispose that you must also engage in other crimes.

It would be nice to know what kind of man he was in private, something that could strenghten or lessen my case, depending on the outcome. That is another hole, but one that is hard to fill at this remove.

You can use an alias for other reasons than sinister ones. That holds true.

You can con the police for perfectly innocent reasons. That too holds true.

You can attend an inquest in working clothes for any variety of reasons. Yes.

I have, over and over again, pointed out that with Lechmere, there are almost always two sides to the coin. I canīt see why I would do that if I only recognized ONE of the sides. Can you? Is it to lead on that I am open to other solutions, whereas I am truly nothing of the sort?

Lechmere to me is a strong case that has grown stronger, by the additions of a number of potentially very damaging details. I thought him very suspicious BEFORE it dawned on me that he apparently had conned his way past Mizen on the murder night. And that is a detail based on the factual evidence, as is the name swap and the Cable Street thing.

Suggestions like the one with an identitysnatcher are based on no factual evidence relating to the case at all, and as such, they make for useful brain exercise but poorly underbuilt theorizing factually.

"What I find intriguing is the possibility that you, or Lechmere who was the original discoverer, may have spotted the killer, but still would not have his name."

Like I said, that predisposes a lot - among other things that he copied Lechgmereīs work route and timing - without running into him ... It sounds very much more like a Hollywood script to me than like dull reality, quite frankly. But I take your point!

"I think we know that the man known as CROSS did all these things."

Although he may be known as "Cross" to generations of Ripperologists, he would have been known as Lechmere to his contemporaries.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

"But if the namesnatcher had wanted to actively choose and use an identity of a real person (Lechmere) instead of simply doing a John Doe routine, then why did he not use the correct name?"

Because as i stated in my original post , He may have well known Lechmere , even asked the favour of him .. " hey Lech , got myself in a bit of a pickle , could i use your name so the ole Bill wont nick me when i tell em my name .. yeah corse ya can ol **** , tell ya what , use my old name , so if it comes on top no one would be non the wiser , but if ol bill show up around here , i'll have to deny i know anything "

equally plausible me thinks as any other scenario pertaining to CrossMere .

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

maybe you missed this ..

OK what about the possibility that our man who found Polly , was maybe a friend , acquaintance or neighbour of Lechmere , who used his (Lechmere's less familiar ) identity as some kind of a mask to hide his own identity from the police , especially if he was wanted by the police and had many a reason himself to avoid police involvement , maybe he was wanted on some other unrelated and more mundane police arrest warrant ?

This could possibly explain his apparent unwillingness to get involved once he realized he could be drawn into something that may get him arrested for a totally unrelated crime .

It would even explain him showing up to the inquest wearing a sagging carman's apron .. totally embracing the roll he was forced to play ,
( Look at me , i AM Cross the carman ) and if he was a friend of Lechmere , who's to say Lechmere didn't give him an apron to add to his believability

In much the same way as my younger ( un-licenced ) self was allowed to drive around the streets of London , using my brothers driving Licence and ID, and i even managed to bluff my way past the occasional stop check

Another example would be Eddows passing herself of as Mary Kelly ..
History is littered with hundred's of examples of wanted men passing their selves off as law abiding citizens when they are forced to do so in dealings with the law , and in many of the occasions their namesake's are fully aware of the scam .. perhaps this thread should not be called the Mizen scam , but indeed the Cross scam ?

So i guess my question would be , Is there any positive identifying evidence that links " witness #1 " as being the same Charles Lechmere who lived in Doveton rd .. any court sketches , descriptions that we can cross reference ?
Having said that i guess if he ( witness #1 ) was on the ball , which i'm pretty sure he was , he would have taken all that into consideration as well !

cheers

Moonbegger .

[Sally]

Although he may be known as "Cross" to generations of Ripperologists, he would have been known as Lechmere to his contemporaries.

Not to mention that you have no evidence there, Fish - but patently, it was not so.

Cross appeared at the inquest. Ergo, he signed his name 'Cross' on the witness statement he gave to the police.

Why do that if he wasn't known by his contemporaries as 'Cross'? Killer or not, it would have been catastrophically stupid. And for what reason? If, as you suggest, he had not given his details on the morning of Nichols' death, the effectively he had no reason to involve himself further if he had something to hide. Who knew who he was? Not Paul. Not Mizen.

It makes no sense at all that he would then voluntarily go to the station to give a statement and give a false name as well. It presumes a hell of a lot - that he had told nobody about his experience; that he was prepared to offer real information by which he could be identified as Lechmere, his 'real' name, very easily; but yet decided to call himself something else entirely - an act that would have immediately made him look suspicious if discovered.

Unless he was a moron, no.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]OK what about the possibility that our man who found Polly , was maybe a friend , acquaintance or neighbour of Lechmere , who used his (Lechmere's less familiar ) identity as some kind of a mask to hide his own identity from the police [/QUOTE

Oh, for goodness sake..

This thread is now veering off into the surreal, like so many others...

We know that Cross/Lechmere was the same man, and I will have to agree with Fish (grudgingly), that this sort of conjecture is the stuff of Hollywood, or conspiracy theories.

It doesn't have to be so complicated ; We're not obliged to agree that Cross was guilty.

We can just accept the basic facts, and then debate, using conjecture which is rather 'deduction' based on reality.

It is true that we might arrive at different deductions, and even see that different deductions are possible and keep an open mind..

But what we surely shouldn't do is try and fabulate over the basic research and facts from which we are trying to deduce.