The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

Jon:

"i`ll go back to my crossword"

Right! Ill help out! "Victorian killer", eight letters, letīs see here ... L-E-C......

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

...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.

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?

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.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We know that whenever the police were aware of alternative names and aliases then they mentioned them in their internal reports Monty.

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

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

No you`re correct, the correct address he gave is not being discussed.

i`ll go back to my crossword, crossant and coffee.

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon!

He was named Charles Allen Lechmere. He was not named Charles Allen Cross. One of the names is correct, the other is not. As for the address, it is not being discussed, is it? It HAS been though - a zillion times, justaboutish.

Donīt misunderstand me - I am not cross with you. Then again, I am not Cross with Lechmere either.

All the best, Jon!
Fisherman
off for now

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

and we all know that using a false name is a ruse commonly used when committing crimes.

False name? He gave his step dad`s name and his correct address - an address which was a house for his large family, and not an address like Crossinghams or the Victoria Home. which had a transient nature.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"It is very clear what I am saying."

Yes, Monty, it IS very clear what you are saying, obviously. I had my doubts for a very simple reason: what you are saying has no much bearing on the issue discussed. Which amazes me slightly.

"At no stage whatsoever did I state the Police did not verify Cross. Procedure dictates that."

Ah - but WHAT did they verify, Monty! Only that the man they spoke to was the man that had been in place, nothing else. Therefore the name issue was not touched upon. Therefore, it has no much bearing at all upon the question whether it implies guilt to use a false name speaking to the police.

"The point is a change in name is no admission nor evidence of guilt."

And indeed, nobody is saying that it is. 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.

Are we not getting a tad too academic here, Monty? I know I think so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

It is very clear what I am saying.

At no stage whatsoever did I state the Police did not verify Cross. Procedure dictates that they did.

The point is a change in name is no admission nor evidence of guilt.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"what I am stating is that he gave the name Cross and that is what he was known as by the Police ... Mizen uses the name Cross in his testimony. When he found out the person he spoke to that night was called Cross is neither here nor there."

So what are you saying here, Monty?

That the police had established that his name was Cross? Not by any stretch, right?
You are instead, unless I am misreading you, saying that the police had established that the man they were dealing with CALLED himself Cross. And that this was all they needed to go on with the inquest.

Aha. I can buy that.

But where does that put us in the guilt issue? What possible positive implications for Lechmere do we have here? What exonerates him?

What you are saying here has no bearing on the guilt issue, Monty. That is - once again - if I am reading you correctly. What you say simply corroborates what I have been saying all along - that no matter what Lechmere called himself, the police apparently did not bother to check how true it was. At least not BEFORE the inquest, and seemingly not after either, since there is police material referring to him as Cross well after the inquest too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

We know that whenever the police were aware of alternative names and aliases then they mentioned them in their internal reports Monty.
Or are you going to deny that?
Mizen learnt the name Cross on the morning if the inquest. That is in the record. I did not misunderstand the risible claim you made that the police would be satisfied and content with any name anyone gave them so long as they turn up to the inquest or give an address or workplace - neither of which were almost certainly double checked - certainly not his home address. I have no absolute proof for this but I have one hell of a lot more to back up by guess than you would have to back up any contrary guess.

Im not denying that Lechmere, what I am stating is that he gave the name Cross and that is what he was known as by the Police.

Yes, it is clear that by using the word 'risible' you have completely misunderstood. Firstly its not a claim, its a statement of fact, it is known as. Always has been. Secondly Mizen uses the name Cross in his testimony. When he found out the person he spoke to that night was called Cross is neither here nor there.

Almost certainly? Its either certainly or it isnt. Again you are misleading the reader.

I have no absolute proof for this but I have one hell of a lot more to back up by guess than you would have to back up any contrary guess.

Brilliant, so essentially your guess out qualifies mine? You admit you have no proof but your guess is a superior one?

Now that is risible.

Monty

[Lechmere]

We know that whenever the police were aware of alternative names and aliases then they mentioned them in their internal reports Monty.
Or are you going to deny that?
Mizen learnt the name Cross on the morning if the inquest. That is in the record. I did not misunderstand the risible claim you made that the police would be satisfied and content with any name anyone gave them so long as they turn up to the inquest or give an address or workplace - neither of which were almost certainly double checked - certainly not his home address. I have no absolute proof for this but I have one hell of a lot more to back up by guess than you would have to back up any contrary guess.

Sally I just did sOme mental arithmetic
In the 1890 to 1921 electoral register (he died in December 1920 and the 1921 register was actually compiled in 1920) equals 32 entries alone. He was a very punctilious - even anal - type of a guy. He never missed an entry despite moving 5 times in that period.
He had 11 kids who had their births register, who were baptised, who married - or died young. That is another 30 or so entries.
There are school records - starting, leaving, starting again (when he moved to Doveton Street just before the killings commenced) and leaving again - not for all but for most of his kids - we are well over 70 entries now.
Then there ate the census returns and his own birth, baPtism, marriage, death etc.
I am an economical kinda guy Sally.
There are probably 80

[Monty]

Monty
As fisherman amply demonstrated - if you want to try and sustain a case that the police will have checked the official records as they were in 1888 (at which point incidentally, by a rough estimation he had called himself Lechmere 20 times in official records of various descriptions) - then be my guest.
I think you know you will be flying in the face of what we know about police name recording procedures as per 1888. But who cares about things like that.

And what do we know about Police name recording procedures as per 1888?

Again, and God knows Im bored of repeating it however it seems both you and Christer fail to comprehend this, it is irrelevant what name Cross gives himself.

The Police operate on a known as basis, and Cross was known as Cross, this is clear in Mizens testimony.

Im still trying to figure on how this name change implies Cross's guilt. Especially when all other known contemporary details of him are known.

Monty


PS I find it interesting that whilst posters are quick to jump to the defence of this theory not many, if any, actually subscribe to it.

I find that curious and hypocritical.

[Lechmere]

Monty
As fisherman amply demonstrated - if you want to try and sustain a case that the police will have checked the official records as they were in 1888 (at which point incidentally, by a rough estimation he had called himself Lechmere 20 times in official records of various descriptions) - then be my guest.
I think you know you will be flying in the face of what we know about police name recording procedures as per 1888. But who cares about things like that.

Sally you can be as sceptical as you like about whether the magical 60 entries exist - it is a rough figures as I haven't actually counted them thoroughly. However I am not about to post them all here so hard cheese.
If I did post them up then I'm sure some officious poster will accuse me of breaching copyright or some such nonsense.

[Rubyretro]

So how do we line up this with pauls inquest statement as to the condition of Polly's body after roughly the same amount of time ?

" I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold "

It says in the victim's section of this site, referring to the Nichol's murder

'Her hands and face are cold but the arms above the elbow and legs are still warm. Paul believes he feels a faint heartbeat. "I think she's breathing," he says "but it is little if she is." '

(Are you going to pick a fight with the people responsible for setting out the
potted history of the murder for the victim's page ?)

So how could he think that she were dead if he thought that she was breathing and he could detect a heartbeat ? it is normal to be cold in the extremities which are exposed to the night air, and not in the bits covered by clothing.

[Fisherman]

How, Moonbegger? Well, perhaps by asking Neil and Llewellyn what THEY thought, and then weigh it all together? And maybe we need to realize that some people (I am one of them, sadly) have lacking blood circulation and easily get very cold hands and feet. Last time I looked, that was not because I was dead, however.

The best,
Fisherman