The Mizen scam

[DRoy]

My real name is D..... Roy
My most common nickname is DRoy (my friends and co-workers all call me that)
Other nicknames: D, DRock, Babe (don't ask), etc
My brother calls me Brother
I call myself DJ Mixmaster D when I'm cranking tunes at a party
Being adopted, my last name was formerly Dancey

If I were ever asked by a policeman what my name was...it would be what my legal name is which is D..... Roy. If I were to testify in court, I would swear my name as D..... Roy.

...unless I was the one in trouble or trying to hide something

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"The cops don't appear to have turned a hair at the fact that Mrs Elizabeth Long, one of their key witnesses, went under the alias of Durrell."

To drive home the point made by Lechmre (the poster) on numerous occasions, take a look at the index to the Chapman murder in the Home Office files, dated the 25:th of October 88. In it, under the heading "subject", we find listed "Long Mrs. alias Durrell".

And there we have it: it was known that there were two names attaching to this witness, therefore she was officialy listed by her true name (she was married to a James Long, I believe) and her alias was given after.

That means that we should have Lechmere listed in October as Lechmere, Mr. alias Cross.

But that we donīt, do we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"That it was unknown to us doesn't mean it was unknown to the LVP cops."

Ah, THERE it is again, the dolphin!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"It seems likely to me that the police , after checking him out would be fine with allowing him to be registered as Cross , especially as it WAS indeed one of his former names he WAS known by . Technically it would be perfectly legal and there would be no need to even list it as an alias !"

As proven by the famed example with ...?

" even if they did acknowledge his name as an Alias , who is to say that they would go against the wishes of a scared witness and print both names anyway .. "

And he would be dead scared since ...?

"Yes commonly but not entirely ."

Bravo, Watson, bravo!

"Its a bit like when a Dolphin breaches the open ocean .. we can definitely verify where it is at that particular moment .. but once it crashes beneath the waves , We know its still there , but there is no way of proving it !"

Iīm sorry, but there is. Unless the dolphin elevates above the surface, it is beneath it. We therefore KNOW it is there, and itīs absense above the surface is proof of it. We canīt see it, but itīs a case of proven beyond reasonable doubt. The more interesting thing, though, is that this thinking is completely analogous to the one you embrace when it comes to Lechmere ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Stephen Thomas:

"Why do you always put a space either side of an apostrophe?"

Since I am not British ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

...although she did attend the inquest as Long (name), not Durrell (alias)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ruby,

That it was unknown to us doesn't mean it was unknown to the LVP cops.

Regards,

Simon

[Rubyretro]

Hi All,

The cops don't appear to have turned a hair at the fact that Mrs Elizabeth Long, one of their key witnesses, went under the alias of Durrell.

Regards,

Simon

?

But we've always known that Long was also known as Durrell.

There was never any secret made of the fact.

It has only been discovered recently that Cross was Lechmere -because a secret had been made of the fact.

[Monty]

Hi All,

The cops don't appear to have turned a hair at the fact that Mrs Elizabeth Long, one of their key witnesses, went under the alias of Durrell.

Regards,

Simon

Exactly Simon,

It was fairly common for the period.

The point is Cross was obviously known and contactable.

The name is completely irrelevant.

Monty

[Stephen Thomas]

Fisherman/Christer, my friend

Why do you always put a space either side of an apostrophe?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The cops don't appear to have turned a hair at the fact that Mrs Elizabeth Long, one of their key witnesses, went under the alias of Durrell.

Regards,

Simon

[moonbegger]

Maybe I'm being dense here, Lech. I know the above has been said over and over again, and we've all just accepted it as a fact. But how exactly has it been established that this happened every time without fail, and not just some of the time? Behind every mention of an alias in an internal report, it goes without saying that the police had to be aware of it, in order to mention it. But how does that in any way demonstrate a lack of awareness in all the other reports where no alias is mentioned? How were you able to establish in every case a) whether or not the person named was using an alias, and b) if they were using one, like Cross, that the police would have been unaware of the fact?

Or is there some written rule you've found that the police were obliged to record both names whenever they became aware of an alias?

I'm struggling with what you used to arrive at the above statement of fact, because you can't just use the examples where the police have shown their awareness by recording both names. It says nothing about all the times they could have been aware without doing so.

Love,

Caz
X

Great call Caz ,

The Whole point of someone not wishing to be involved in a murder investigation for whatever reason ( safety of his kids , his wife , himself ) but subsequently getting dragged into it, would be to keep his name out of the public eye . by giving the police all relevant information , names he was known by , work address , home address , but insisting on his more common family name be left aside .

It seems likely to me that the police , after checking him out would be fine with allowing him to be registered as Cross , especially as it WAS indeed one of his former names he WAS known by . Technically it would be perfectly legal and there would be no need to even list it as an alias !

But even if they did acknowledge his name as an Alias , who is to say that they would go against the wishes of a scared witness and print both names anyway .. Like Caz called it in her post , There is no mention of an alias because that's the way the police and witness wanted it ..

I would however be interested to see another similar Victorian murder trial where a witness who feared for his own and his family's life .. had both his real name and his alias printed side by side .

But I AM saying that it is something that must instigate an interest, since we all know that the shadowy parts of society was where nameswops were common, and we all know that using a false name is a ruse commonly used when committing crimes.

Yes commonly but not entirely . Check out the [witness protection program]

Its a bit like when a Dolphin breaches the open ocean .. we can definitely verify where it is at that particular moment .. but once it crashes beneath the waves , We know its still there , but there is no way of proving it !

cheers

moonbegger .

[Rubyretro]

I'm struggling with what you used to arrive at the above statement of fact, because you can't just use the examples where the police have shown their awareness by recording both names.

Love,

Caz
X

[/QUOTE]

Caz -this just illustrates the hard slog of this thread :

if you don't 'just' use the examples where the " police have shown
their awareness by recording both names" , then just what other examples are you proposing to use ?

It says nothing about all the times they could have been aware without doing so.

But this is simply back to 'missing records' or imagined scenarios. I look up to you as being a clever person, Caz...please don't disappoint me by just ducking the question. You know very well that anyone 'could' have done anything...we need to keep the discussion based on the existent paperwork
which proves that the police were not aware of both names.

"Missing records" is not an argument here, ever.

[Fisherman]

Deleted - double posting.

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Ah but Fishy, how many criminals do you know who have used a false name as a 'ruse' to get themselves out of trouble and in the next breath given their home address and employment details?"

One.

"You can't just ignore the fact that, even IF Cross had no business calling himself Cross when dealing with the police, he gave himself enough rope to hang anyone who calls it a 'ruse' to avoid the consequences of his crimes. "

Iīm ignoring something? Good Lord, Caz, Iīve been out here for ages, answering each and every post directed against the Lechmere proposal, yours included. I am not ignoring anything. But it seem YOU may have ignored the dozens of times the question about right address/wrong name has been answered.

Need me to repeat? Just say. Otherwise, letīs save some space.

The best,
Fisherman