The Mizen scam

[IchabodCrane]

Hmmmn, Ichabod...it suggests that they didn't want to meet him ?

Intriguing.. i have no problem to accept that the sound of a Bobby's footsteps were distinctive. Looking at the map however I wonder how they could avoid meeting him when he was so close that they heard his footsteps... also, they didnt want to meet a Bobby but were walking right up to the next one at the Hanbury/Montague intersection for a little chat? Hmm.... I am also interested whether Charles Cross was a liar and they didn't hear any footsteps...? that could pertain to our murder case here...

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger -

I looked at your photos on the other thread and I really, really liked them...it is just that I have a personal problem in that I have a twisted sense of humour towards life in general, Moonbegger, please don't think that I'm a bitch...

It is just that Bunny's (entirely innocent) comments had me curled up with mirth given my reaction to your previous posts on this thread...

Kafkaesque. (Kafka's literary characters tended to have existences that were like long miserable bad dreams that just went in endless circles, from which there was no waking up and no escape... Not the kind of existence you really want to experience.)

I also like how the way seems blocked and uncertain. It looks like 'The Road To Nowhere

'.

I repeat : I genuinely loved your photos.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Caz

Thanks for the explanation, most enlightening!

I think it fair to say that the reports from the evening papers on the 3rd are more likely to 'give the game away', particulary the Star which would definately identify him to any one who know him well enough, although as poster Lechmere has mentioned, he had only resently moved address -

‘Carman Cross was the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road. He was employed by Pickford’s. He left home on Friday at twenty minutes past three, and got to Pickford's yard at Broad-street at four o'clock. He crossed Bradley-street into Buck's-row.’- The Star 3rd Sept. 1888

The Star is the only paper to mention his address and it gives details about Cross's work place. The Echo gives similar details about his work place -

'Charles A. Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford and Co., said that on Friday morning he left his home about half-past three. He reached Messrs. Pickford's yard at Broad-street, City, at four o'clock. He crossed Brady-street into Buck's-row.’ - Echo 3rd Sept 1888

Personally, I don't think some of the press from the 4th really gives enough information for Mrs Lechmere's friends or neighbours to become suspicious enough to inform her of this specifically.

‘Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row.’ - Daily Telegraph 4th Sept

‘George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock. Witness walked along Buck's-row’ - The Times 4th Sept. 1888

‘Charles A. Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years. On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work, and passing through Buck's row’- Daily News 4th Sept 1888

Anyway, as I mentioned in post 259 to Lynn Cates I don't attach much importance to this name swop.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Moonbegger/Bridewell

Thanks for the photos

[Lechmere]

For all we know Cross/Lechmere was only known as Lechmere at his work and did not have to give his change of address when he moved to Doveton Street. For all we know, he was known as Lechmere of James Street at Pickfords.
For all we know he and his family kept themselves to themselves and did not mix in with their new neighbours in Doveton Street.
For all we know Cross/Lechmere may have been the solitary type and may not have had any intimate friends.

We do know that in all the very many instances that he had dealings with any sort of authority he always used the name Lechmere - except in the Ripper case.
The police and the inquest officials are 'authorities'. They are not mates of his down the pub.
We know that his family had no knowledge of his involvement in the Ripper case.
We know that he turned up to the inquest in his work clothes which may be construed as indicating that he did not tell his wife he was attending the inquest when he left home in the morning.
We know he was not poor and so will not have only owned one set of clothes (and in any case the addition of his apron would have been unnecessary). There are also pictures of his children in existance - in very smart clothes - that were taken about ten years later.
We know that the nature of a carman's work would have meant that it would have been impractical for him to do a bit of work and then go to the inquest.
We know that Robert Paul was given prior warning that he would not be able to attend work on the day of his inquest attendance.
So teh work clothes at the inquest is an oddity possibly explained by his desire to keep his wife in the dark.

While those who make claims that Cross/Lechmere cudda-shudda-wudda done this that or the other, it is never backed up by anything firmer than the writers contention or... supposition.

I can quite cheerfully accept that much of what I say about the Cross/Lechmere senario is based on supposition - just as every single aspect discussed by virtually everyone on this forum is similarly based. Was the apron cut by Eddowes, the Ripper or someone else? It can only be supposition one way or the other.
I try to back my supposition up with other pieces of evidence rather than just rely on what I imagine might be the case.

However unlikely it may seem to a comfortable resident of London in the 21st century, it seems that Lechmere's subtefuge (if subtefuge it was) in using the name Cross was not discovered, as his family were in ignorance. I would suggest the explanation for this was that the East End was a sprawling metropolis with a lot of itinerant individuals. Many of his neighbours would have been illiterate and many would not have read newspapers. They may have picked up on the broad brush strokes of what was going on but not the little details. Also he had recently moved from an entirely different East End district and would not ahve been well known in the Doveton Street area.

Cross/Lechmere's testimony was uncontroversial and understated. It was not the stuff that would attract journalists for a sensational story. In any case at the outset of the Ripper case who would have predicted the eventual press hysteria where every aspect was poured over and reporters competed with each other to find an extra snippet of information? Why would Cross/Lechmere - on Sunday 2nd September - have thought for a second that he might be doorstepped?
In any case, I would suggest that the Ripper was a risk taker. He took calculated risks all the time.


Lynn
Again - Cross/Lechemer felt compelled to go to the police because he will have been concerned that Paul's newspaper interview compromised him and he wanted to put his side of the story forward. This will almost certainly have been the case whether he was guilty or not. Cross/Lechmere will not have known for sure that the police would come looking for him but it would be a reasonable fear - I would suggest.
The difficulty for him in being apprehended in a dragnet of some sort would be that he would be closely interrogated and his wife would probably be asked questions as well. It is my contention that he wanted to avoid having his wife dragged into it as it would have cramped his style in the murder stakes.

IchabodCrane
The reference to having heard a policeman was possibly an excuse for lying to Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row.
Cross and Paul must have just missed Neil. I would suggest that Cross's reluctance to prop Polly up and his agreement that he was late for work and that they should leave her was partly motivated by anxiety that the beat copper (Neil) might happen along.

Caz
No one has ever suggested that Cross/Lechmere hung around for Paul. The suggestion is that he noticed Paul about maybe 60 yards away and decided it was safer to bluff it out with him rater than flee and possibly have a hue and cry ring out when Paul reached Polly, possibly just as Cross reached Neil. That would have been bad for him.
But once he made the choice to confront Paul and once Paul went running to the press, Cross had no option but to give the information he did and when he did.

Ruby
I think the train is a red herring - a bit too early. And that was the only train Bridewell.
The issue of when Cross said he left home and when Paul said he left home - and the distance between their respective houses and the distance (40 yards ) that seperated them at 3.45 has been discussed. It is another big hole in Cross/Lechmere's testimony.

And Bridewell... when discussing things said by other people it is common to render them in ones own words - hence "standing where the woman was" can legitimately become “Found over a Ripper victim”.
Now in the inquest Paul could have said that Cross was 200 yards from Polly. That would still not make it illegitimate to contend that Paul actually saw Cross over Polly's body. Because that in essence is what he told the press on the day of the murder notwithstanding whatever he said at the inquest.
But...
If he was roughly half way across the road - he would have been maybe 5 feet from her body. This really is immaterial to the case against Cross/Lechmere.

[Rubyretro]

Ruby
I think the train is a red herring - a bit too early

.

I'm still very interested in Mrs Lilley and what she says that she heard.

This is from LLoyds Weekly Sept. 9th

An important statement, throwing considerable light on a point hitherto surrounded with some uncertainty - the time the crime was committed in Buck's-row, or the body deposited there - was made on Thursday by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered. Mrs. Lilley said: I slept in the front of the house, and could hear everything that occurred in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was dark, but a luggage train went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distinctly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night." Mrs. Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.

It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row.

What is your take on it, Lechmere (I don't think that you can just dismiss it) ?

-do you think that Mrs Lilley was telling the truth or was remembering something coloured by her knowledge of the murder ?

(It is possibly telling that she wasn't asked to witness at the inquest).

The moans could only have come from Polly really.

The voices are obviously two people whispering after the murder and are logically Cross and Paul (this is the conclusion that was reached).

If it were them -it is interesting that they were whispering, and so did not want to attract attention to the body.

I agree that it is a bit early, but the train is given as 'about' 3.30 am which might mean closer to 3.35 am on that particular day ?, just as Cross may have left home earlier than he said. The timing is just one more of the oddities in the case.

I find it very intriguing as Mrs Lilley evidently has the whispering hard on the heels of the moans, which looks bad for Cross.

The train would explain why he didn't scarper before Paul drew close -he couldn't hear him enter the street.

[moonbegger]

Hello,Hello,Hello

Or How about this from ( the Evening News ) 1st sept 88

A general opinion is now entertained that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder. Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street, and in the latter street what appeared to be blood stains were, early in the morning, found at irregular distances on the footpaths on either side of the street. Occasionally a larger splash was visible, and from the way in which the marks were scattered it seems as though the person carrying the mutilated body had hesitated where to deposit his ghastly burden, and gone from one side of the road to the other until the obscurity of Buck's-row afforded the shelter sought for. The street had been crossed twice within the space of about 120 yards. The point at which the stains were first visible is in front of the gateway to Honey's-mews, in Brady-street, about 150 yards from the point where Buck's-row commences. Several persons living in Brady-street state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is a by no means uncommon incident in the neighbourhood, and, with one exception, nobody seems to have paid any particular attention to what was probably the death struggle of the unfortunate woman. The exception referred to was a Mrs. Colwell, who lives only a short distance from the foot of Buck's-row

According to her statement she was awakened early in the morning by her children, who said some one was trying to get into the house. She listened, and heard a woman screaming "Murder! Police!" five or six times. The voice faded away, as though the woman was going in the direction of Buck's-row, and all was quiet. She only heard the steps of one person. It is almost needless to point out that a person suffering from such injuries as the deceased had had inflicted upon her would be unable to traverse the distance from Honey's-mews to the gateway in Buck's-row, which is about 120 yards from Brady-street, making a total distance of at least 170 yards


moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
That story has no bearing on anything to do with the case. It concerns a woman in Brady Street who claims to have heard somethig.

Ruby
I haven't checked about Mrs Lilley specifically but most residents on Bucks Row were not even interviewed by the Police which would explain why she wasn't calledto the inquest befoe it adjourned. However it is less clear why she wasn't called for the nquests second sitting later in the month.
However her statemnet seems to have been made after the news reprots of the first few days sittings and seems to be coloured by hysteria and probably recreated memory.
I think the attack would have taken two minutes.
I don't think trains were late in those days.
The attacker would have been gone by say 3.32. I don't think that suits the time of death. Paul didn't leave home till 3.45 or so.
I have tried to fit the train and whispers in before and it doesn't work.

[caz]

Well, it's an entertaining post, and you made me laugh, Caz.

However, I can very well see the logic in the killer giving a 'half truth' in order to slip through the net .

Thanks Ruby.

But first you have to demonstrate that Lechmere was only known as Lechmere at home and work and that therefore he did tell the police a 'half truth' when giving his name as Cross.

Even then, his supposed motivation to 'slip through the net' is rendered risible by the fact that he came forward voluntarily and gave his first names (Charles A.), his home address and details of his employers for the past twenty years. If this man had had a pressing need to 'slip through the net' he was an idiot. If he had no choice but to wait for Paul's arrival (and you don't even know that much), he got away on that occasion with giving no identifying details, and there is no reason to suppose he could have been tracked down later, had he not come forward. Even in the unlikely event that Paul and Mizen were able to recognise him again, he would still have had every chance to 'slip through the net' by simply saying he didn't realise he was wanted again. Mizen never gave him to understand he would be required to give evidence.

Why not give a 'real' name ?

Again, you don't know that Cross wasn't the name he ordinarily used at home and work. If so, there was no need to invite questions - guilty or innocent - by telling the police his 'real' name was Lechmere. Conversely, if everyone at home and work had known him as Lechmere, it would have been foolish in the extreme to conceal this from the police, while giving them all the information they needed to discover it.

Well, presumably whoever the Ripper was, he didn't live in a vacuum. The people around him would know what hours and times that he was in and out, and might give him away in all innocence and ignorance, if questioned, if they didn't know what they were protecting. It would be best if they weren't involved.

Exactly. So he would have been a twit to give them the chance of going to the police and saying "We think you should know that the man who discovered the dead woman told you porkies, his name's Lechmere. At least, it was Lechmere who was off work to attend the inquest".

You're an intelligent woman -I'd opt for that route in the circumstances, wouldn't you ?

Actually, no I wouldn't.

As with Hutch, the killer has to be manipulated so he veers from total fool to cool calm calculating machine or double bluff merchant, then back again to total fool in an instant.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

.It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row. [/B]

Hi Rubyretro, I think the timing of this train is extremely interesting.

-do you think that Mrs Lilley was telling the truth or was remembering something coloured by her knowledge of the murder ?

The police seemed to be asking witnesses if they had heard screaming or sounds indicating a fight. So if Mrs Lilley was making it all up it would seem that this would be the type of sounds she would be describe. What she describes, sound more like what we believe today, that Polly was asphyxiated before she was killed by the knife cuts to the throat.

I'm not at all sure that the police initially knew Polly had been strangled and their local enquireries may have been made with out this knowledge.

Initially, Dr Llewellyn talk about Polly being assaulted from the front, the killers right hand over her mouth and throat cut being done with the left.

It is possibly telling that she wasn't asked to witness at the inquest

Again, I find this extremely curious

I agree that it is a bit early, but the train is given as 'about' 3.30 am which might mean closer to 3.35 am on that particular day ?, just as Cross may have left home earlier than he said. The timing is just one more of the oddities in the case.

The 3.7, left at 3.07

From contemporary timetables the passenger trains on this line journey times between Newcross and Whitechapel station are 30 minutes, 32 minutes and 36 minutes, although this would inclued the time waiting for passenger to get on and off the train at Whitechapel

A signel boy was killed crossing the line at Newcross station on Thursday 30th August, however this didn't seem to cause any noticable disruption.

The moans could only have come from Polly really.

Yes, whether it was Cross or someone else, I do think it's likely Mrs Lilley heard Polly being murdered.

[caz]

Hi Caz

Thanks for the explanation, most enlightening!

You are most welcome, Mr Lucky. And thank you for all those press quotes. I think you are wise not to attach much importance to the name issue. We simply don't know enough to use it as evidence for or against the man.

But I think if others are going to claim that calling himself Cross was motivated by a need to keep a low profile, they need to think it through from Cross's point of view. He went voluntarily to the police to give details that could very easily be checked and would now allow them to keep tabs on him. Furthermore, he didn't know what would appear in the papers, so it's not what actually appeared that matters in this context; it's what he could expect to appear. And he had given sufficient detail for any reader who knew him either as Charles Cross or Charles Lechmere, or were even vaguely aware of the couple living at 22 Doveton, to have been in no doubt that he had been with the murdered woman when Paul arrived.

The fact that none of his family seem to have been aware of his brief involvement in the case (or those who were aware at the time didn't make more of it) is neither here nor there, because there is no evidence that this was the desired outcome of Cross's actions, nor indeed could it have been the expected outcome, all things considered.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

For all we know Cross/Lechmere was only known as Lechmere at his work and did not have to give his change of address when he moved to Doveton Street. For all we know, he was known as Lechmere of James Street at Pickfords.
For all we know he and his family kept themselves to themselves and did not mix in with their new neighbours in Doveton Street.
For all we know Cross/Lechmere may have been the solitary type and may not have had any intimate friends.

Hi Lech,

Thanks for laying it out on the line like this.

And for all we know, none of the above applies.

In fact, I consider it a tad unlikely that he was in such a very convenient position and knew it, when initially faced with his "do I stay or do I go?" moment, and had a conveniently semi-legit alias to use, when later facing his "should I go to the cops or avoid them like the plague?" decision.

On the other hand, for all we know he was known as Cross and gave the name Cross, and did all that was expected of any witness in his position - and more willingly than Paul.

While those who make claims that Cross/Lechmere cudda-shudda-wudda done this that or the other, it is never backed up by anything firmer than the writers contention or... supposition.

That goes for everyone who does it, on both sides or on the fence. But supposing alone will not do when it's done to make him look as guilty as possible in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that he ever harmed a hair on a woman's head.

Caz
No one has ever suggested that Cross/Lechmere hung around for Paul. The suggestion is that he noticed Paul about maybe 60 yards away and decided it was safer to bluff it out with him rater than flee and possibly have a hue and cry ring out when Paul reached Polly, possibly just as Cross reached Neil.

If he noticed Paul when he was 60 yards away, and decided to 'bluff it out with him', then he hung around for him. I don't know what else you'd call it.

Actually, I do know. You'd call it standing over the body.

Love,

Caz
X

[Rubyretro]

But first you have to demonstrate that Lechmere was only known as Lechmere at home and work and that therefore he did tell the police a 'half truth' when giving his name as Cross.

Hi Caz,

I think that it is quite categorically an 'half truth' -and in saying that, I am going someway to agree with people who say that he had the right to use the name 'Cross' and that it wasn't an 'alias' as such.

We know that he always used the name Lechmere for anything official, and I would guess that his descendants always used the name 'Lechmere' ordinarily (?). He was quite simply a Lechmere by birth and transmission.

But he had once had a Stepfather who had put him down as Cross in a census. As a child, he may have been known for a time as 'Cross'. So the name Cross wasn't a lie as such....there was some truth to it.

It wasn't a lie and it wasn't the truth either -it was an 'half truth'.

So I think that I can state that he gave the Police an 'half truth', with impunity.

Even then, his supposed motivation to 'slip through the net' is rendered risible by the fact that he came forward voluntarily and gave his first names (Charles A.), his home address and details of his employers for the past twenty years. If this man had had a pressing need to 'slip through the net' he was an idiot.

Or clever. I think that you will agree that if you 'hide' and give your name as Fred Bloggs, then the day that you are outted (and if you can't justify to the family a preciptous move to Scotland or somewhere -being outted ..and hung..would be a distinct possibility), if you can't hide then making yourself visible is an option.

The bluff. I read that there is a problem today in getting people to come forward as witnesses in a murder case, because the Police automatically look at voluntary witnesses as suspects. That is because, with experience, the Police now know that the culprit has proven in the past to have been someone who has tried to bluff the Police by inserting himself willingy into a case, hoping in that way to stay in control of the situation.

It's a risk -but we know for a fact that the Ripper took risks.

Yet, people are naturally self defensive.

An 'half truth' would not be as plain down right scary as the plain truth, nor as stupid as an outright lie.

If he had no choice but to wait for Paul's arrival (and you don't even know that much), he got away on that occasion with giving no identifying details, and there is no reason to suppose he could have been tracked down later, had he not come forward.

Let's put it this way..he had spent some time talking to Paul. It wasn't a fleeting instant, and it was in very unusual and dramatic circumstances. What are the chances that Paul wouldn't know him in any crowd ?

It's not just features in the dark..it's voice, mannerisms, everything. And an incident to concentrate Paul's memory.

Lechmere/Cross only lived a short distance from Paul and if he couldn't flee the area easiy, he might bump into Paul again at any instant. Even as he was moving around with his cart (the journey's of which were his employer's
instructions, and not his choice).

I would put it to you, that the chances of running into Paul again were very high, and the chances of being recognised again by Paul were equally high.

In a way, the more success that he might have at 'hiding', then the guiltier he would look (innocent people have nothing to hide).

Even in the unlikely event that Paul and Mizen were able to recognise him again, he would still have had every chance to 'slip through the net' by simply saying he didn't realise he was wanted again. Mizen never gave him to understand he would be required to give evidence.

Well, a premise of this thread is that Lechmere/Cross gave Mizen to understand that Mizen had no need to take down details, because 'Cross' had already been in contact with another Policeman.

One has to wonder if Mizen didn't get a bolockkking for that when it emerged that infact, he had let the two prime witnesses to the murder scene get past him. He might not have been a happy bunny viz à viz 'Cross', when he thought about the incident later (as he must have done).

In the circumstances, obviously Mizen hadn't "given him to understand that he would be required to give evidence". That's because he had been 'had' by 'Cross' and Paul -and surely he risked saying that in his own defence ?

I don't suppose that Mizen would have been able to identify 'Cross' ever again..but Paul could, and Paul was putting his story out in the public domaim via the Press.

Again, you don't know that Cross wasn't the name he ordinarily used at home and work.

I don't know, but going by factual evidence then it would appear not. The supposition ball is firmly in your court.

If so, there was no need to invite questions - guilty or innocent - by telling the police his 'real' name was Lechmere

.

Sorry ?? I don't follow you here. I don't think that he ever told the Police that his real name was Lechmere ? Did he ??

Conversely, if everyone at home and work had known him as Lechmere, it would have been foolish in the extreme to conceal this from the police, while giving them all the information they needed to discover it.

I've already addressed this issue, above.

Exactly. So he would have been a twit to give them the chance of going to the police and saying "We think you should know that the man who discovered the dead woman told you porkies, his name's Lechmere. At least, it was Lechmere who was off work to attend the inquest".

A half porky !

You know, after 20 years in the same job, he probably knew the people that he worked with very well. He probably had an amicable team relationship with them (if he coudn't get along with them -surely he would have been fired before ? There weren't the employment laws then, that there are today).

If he was the type that could plausibly get other people on his side..; People who would never ever suspect him of being The Ripper and saw him as a likeable colleague..would they really denounce him and upset their own personal apple carts ?

As with Hutch, the killer has to be manipulated so he veers from total fool to cool calm calculating machine or double bluff merchant, then back again to total fool in an instant.

I have proclaimed it high and low : Danilo Restivo.

You have just described him to a T (a man who displayed Heather Barnett like a Ripper victim, and cut off her breasts and placed them under her head, I have to say. And went to the Police as an 'innocent witness').

His first victim, Elisa Claps, is the analogue of Martha Tabram's murder.

I see that there is to be a new trial attributing the murder of student Jong Ok-Shin to Restivo.

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

Great post Caz .

Another thing that doesn't sit too well with me is the reason that Lechmere (poster) gives for Lechmere (witness) feeling the need to use his less familiar name ( if in fact it was ) .

So what was the problem with giving his name as Lechmere ( if that was in fact the name everyone knew him by )

i really don't see it making the slightest difference to any one or anything if he actually said his name was Lechmere instead of Cross .

In fact it becomes another one of those decision's that could cause him a lot more trouble than good .

So he could hang about ( as he clearly did ) and wait for Paul to catch him up from 60 yards away , simply to hone his Bluffing skills ..

And then hand himself in to police , Solely to spin them a yarn ( bluff and lie some more )

BUT ! big but , he couldn't bluff his way past his ol lady (His illiterate ol lady)
who apparently had no friends
The Same Lady that watched him walk out the door .. just before Jack the Ripper struck , every time , and never suspected a thing .

Surely if he was known as Lechmere ( IF ) .. would it not be a lot easier to simply tell folk " you'll never guess what happened to me, on the way to work today "

And if ever there was a great excuse as to why your late for work, this is it! ( although i think he said he made it on time )

So my Question is .. What were the overwhelming circumstances , or what repercussions would he fear so much that he would possibly feel the need to use his lesser known name ( If indeed it was his lesser known name ) ???

How would being one of the two men who found a dead woman on the way to work be so detrimental to his character , or how would it hinder his future murder outings ? ( if he was the killer )

Why would he need to hide the fact that he (Cross or Lechmere) acted like a straight up , law abiding citizen ..

There is Still no solid proof that he wasn't totally up front with the police and told them he was known by two names at the very start ..

There is also a more likely Scenario, where as he goes into to the police station and either before or during his interview he mentions the fact that his Dad ( stepdad ) was a copper . As he most definitely would have .
" oh really , What was his name ? " " Cross " " oi Gov we got Cross's boy here , dya remember a copper named Cross " ( And so his name goes on file as Cross ) Its probably not even mentioned again , everyone just automatically assumes his name is Cross .. And why would he contend it ? after all his name is also Cross .

cheers

moonbegger .

[Rubyretro]

Another thing that doesn't sit too well with me is the reason that Lechmere (poster) gives for Lechmere (witness) feeling the need to use his less familiar name ( if in fact it was )

.

OK, Moonbegger, let us take as a fact that Lechmere (the witness) used a less familiar name (Cross) when giving his particulars to the Police.

If you don't feel that Cross was a less familiar name, then please support your
opinion here with other 'official' instances where Lechmere used the name Cross.

Here is your big opportunity !

So what was the problem with giving his name as Lechmere ( if that was in fact the name everyone knew him by )

i really don't see it making the slightest difference to any one or anything if he actually said his name was Lechmere instead of Cross .

I certainly agree that you have a very good point here, Moonbegger.

Can I turn it on it's head ?

If it really wasn't important..than why didn't Lechmere simply give the name 'Lechmere' to the Police ?

We know that he didn't ( verifiable fact), and we know that normally he would have done when dealing with authority (verifiable fact), and so it is effectively a mystery that he didn't..

I wonder why that might be ?

Oh ! Maybe he wanted to confuse the cops, without risking being accused of being a downright liar if caught out ?

In fact it becomes another one of those decision's that could cause him a lot more trouble than good

.

Less troublesome than being caught plain lying.

So he could hang about ( as he clearly did ) and wait for Paul to catch him up from 60 yards away , simply to hone his Bluffing skills ..

Run away and you might just as well have a sign above your head saying " it woz me wot done it". His neck would be in the hands of fate, and no hope of (false) explanation afterwards. His life (literally)woud be down to pure luck, if he were stopped.

(I don't know what sort of person you are, Moonbegger, nor even if you are male or female...surely you wouldn't want important decisions about yourself to hinge on pure luck ?).

Personally, I have always maintained that a person that presumes to have the right to life and death over another person is a 'control freak' per se. I think that person would wish to control their own destiny.

And then hand himself in to police , Solely to spin them a yarn ( bluff and lie some more

)

But that is control -in the light of Paul blabbing to the Press.

BUT ! big but , he couldn't bluff his way past his ol lady (His illiterate ol lady)
who apparently had no friends

But by calling himself 'Cross', and leaving home on the day of the inquest in his workclothes, his ol' lady didn't know. She had only moved a short time earlier, and she must have been busy with a brood of small snivellers..maybe she didn't have time for coffee mornings, sherry parties, or lunch ?

The Same Lady that watched him walk out the door .. just before Jack the Ripper struck , every time , and never suspected a thing .

Knackered. Asleep.

Surely if he was known as Lechmere ( IF ) .. would it not be a lot easier to simply tell folk " you'll never guess what happened to me, on the way to work today "

Possibly. Possibly not. ??

And if ever there was a great excuse as to why your late for work, this is it! ( although i think he said he made it on time )

We don't know what he said at work.

I can think of better excuses (try me !).

So my Question is .. What were the overwhelming circumstances , or what repercussions would he fear so much that he would possibly feel the need to use his lesser known name ( If indeed it was his lesser known name ) ???

Although Neil had supposedly discovered the body, Paul was telling the press that not only he and another bloke had actually discovered the body first, but that the other bloke had been hovering aloft the corpse as he arrived on the spot.

How would being one of the two men who found a dead woman on the way to work be so detrimental to his character , or how would it hinder his future murder outings ? ( if he was the killer )

It might be fairly hindering if he were hung, I would think.

[/QUOTWhy would he need to hide the fact that he (Cross or Lechmere) acted like a straight up , law abiding citizen ..

[/QUOTE]

He didn't exactly. He only came forward after Paul had blabbed.

There is Still no solid proof that he wasn't totally up front with the police and told them he was known by two names at the very start ..

There is no proof that he didn't. It's extremely unlikely that it wouldn't have been stated at the inquest.

There is also a more likely Scenario, where as he goes into to the police station and either before or during his interview he mentions the fact that his Dad ( stepdad ) was a copper . As he most definitely would have .
" oh really , What was his name ? " " Cross " " oi Gov we got Cross's boy here , dya remember a copper named Cross " ( And so his name goes on file as Cross ) Its probably not even mentioned again , everyone just automatically assumes his name is Cross .. And why would he contend it ? after all his name is also Cross .

His stepfather died 19 years before (do I remember this right, Lechmere ?). It was too long before to believably have a bearing on the events.