The Mizen scam

[Rubyretro]

Where i come from , to say " i or we are of the opinion this man lied" is one thing , but to say its a Known fact .. is wrong .. the evidence is not there one way or another to make that claim . when you have the evidence that says no one referred to him as Cross , then you can say " it is known " but until then all you can do is surmise and assume , that's the bottom line .

moonbegger

Moongurner, this is getting all so tedious...'Facts' are things that have legal documentation, 'surmising and assumption' are things that you 'think' may be true. Try and understand the difference.

Reading your post, objectively, it is clear that it is 'creative' (are you a poet in your spare time, by chance ? Or was it too much 'prog rock' ?).
Lechmere is always Lechmere in legal documents. To argue whether he was known as Chas or Charlie at work is guesswork; As is arguing whether he was known as Lechmere or Cross.

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"I was just of the opinion that 1) if he had a bad relationship with his step father he would not have been too happy or willing , to call his son Thomas."

You would have missed out on the fact that he had rather an impressive amount of relatives, some very close, that were ALSO named Thomas. Ergo, we donīt know after whom his som was christianed, do we? Which is why I pointed out that lecturing us about half facts and half truths would be a half-baked thing to do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Hi Moonbegger
I think you bring up some excellent points in your last few posts. Ruby, Lech's and fish's responses do them no justice. i wish they would give it a proper rebuttal or counter argument.

If he had not a good relationship with his stepfather Thomas, I doubt he would name his son Thomas, no matter how many other relatives he had by that name.

And if he was known by cross at work before he changed it back to Lechmere than it is not strange that he would still be known, and go by, Cross at work. Nor would it be strange that in a police matter, when his stepdad was a cop and known by cross, that he would give that name to the police.

He may very well have explained the whole lechmere/cross name thing to the police when he went to them and they said-well we'll just use cross.

[Lechmere]

Charles Allen Lechmere married Elizabeth Bostock.
Elizabeth Bostock's father wad called Thomas Bay Bostock.
If you want an explanatiion for why Thomas Allen Lechmere (who interestingly enough dioed in the Bethnal Green Tube Disaster) was called Thomas - there it is.

It is impossible for him to have told the police about the different names and for the police to have agreed to call him just Cross, as every time there was an alternative name known to them they noted it in their internal reports.
He is last mentioned in a report in mid October - I fortget the exact date - and he is again just listed as Cross.
Ther is a slight chance that he started work in 1868 as Cross - but that is pure speculation.
In any case he did not give his name while on the way to work. He gave it later when he turned up at a police station.
Thomas Cross had died 19 years before. A tiny proportion of policemen would still be in service and in the same Division.
These aspects have all been discussed at length before.

[Lechmere]

And...
I do believe I was the first to raise the prospect that it was slightly possible that Cross may have called himself Cross when he started at Pickfords in 1868, as his step father died the following year and he may have called himself Cross for whatever reason, up till then.
However I then thought that he had given his name to Mizen and was possibly in 'work mode' - but now we know he gave his name at a later date when he wasn't in 'work mode'.
Calling hismelf Cross the curry favour with the police is a slightly suspcious act in any event I would suggest - if that was the reason for it.

However I think it is doubtful that Thomas Cross was held in that high esteem.
The Lechmere name tradition and attachment to the name Lechmere is strong in that family.
His mother remarried (again bigamously) within a few years (in 1872 from memory) and Charles Lechmere was a witness. Could this suggest that - at least initially - he welcomed his mother marrying someone else to purge the memory of Thomas Cross?
There is a possibility that his mother was 'shacked up' with someone else altogether at the time of the 1871 census.
She did not stay in mourning for very long.

The long and short of it is we know that he always called himself Lechmere. Everything else is speculation. That on this one occasion he chose to call himself Cross should raise an eyebrow.

[Lechmere]

And...
Thomas Allen Lechmere has grandchildren still alive who knew and remember him. They know nothing of any Thomas Cross which tells me Thomas Allen wasn't named after him at all. The family have no knowledge of the name Cross.

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger
I think you bring up some excellent points in your last few posts. Ruby, Lech's and fish's responses do them no justice. i wish they would give it a proper rebuttal or counter argument.

If he had not a good relationship with his stepfather Thomas, I doubt he would name his son Thomas, no matter how many other relatives he had by that name.

And if he was known by cross at work before he changed it back to Lechmere than it is not strange that he would still be known, and go by, Cross at work. Nor would it be strange that in a police matter, when his stepdad was a cop and known by cross, that he would give that name to the police.

He may very well have explained the whole lechmere/cross name thing to the police when he went to them and they said-well we'll just use cross.

Thank you Abby ,

I tend to agree ..

To draw an analogy .. Its a bit like wrestling a bone out of a rottweiler's mouth .. Three of them in fact .. all at once

Whilst i actually like and respect fishermans stance over his suspect .. i do find it a tad frustrating and a little tedious , his sometimes slightly arrogant responses to my questions .

A lie is only a lie if its proven to be a lie .. and not just blindly assumed , because it fits nicely with the rest of the story .

"If he had not a good relationship with his stepfather Thomas, I doubt he would name his son Thomas, no matter how many other relatives he had by that name"

Total common sense to all and everyone Abby, apart from the three amigo's .

cheers

moonbegger.

[Abby Normal]

And...
Thomas Allen Lechmere has grandchildren still alive who knew and remember him. They know nothing of any Thomas Cross which tells me Thomas Allen wasn't named after him at all. The family have no knowledge of the name Cross.

Hi Lech
Now THOSE are rebuttals worthy of your theory!

[Lechmere]

Abbey (and Moomin)
These rebuttals or refutations have been made before but clearly were not absorbed.
This is, to be fair, understandable as the discussion about Cross/Lechmere's guilt is being conducted in a piecmeal fashion as no full rounded account has been published!
Accordingly if a poster misses a point or perhaps didn't join in a discussion on one thread or another (as will quite understandably often be the case), one aspect will be missed and will have to be gone over agian.

"If he had not a good relationship with his stepfather Thomas, I doubt he would name his son Thomas, no matter how many other relatives he had by that name"

Total common sense to all and everyone Abby, apart from the three amigo's .

...is an example of this. This father in law was called Thomas and his wife may have insisted on the name of her father being used. Their first son was called Charles Allen (after the father) but died at the age of three. By the time Thomas Allen was born, Thomas Cross had been dead 7 years and Charles Lechmere's mother had been re-married to Joseph Forsdike for four years.
Incidentally the middle name - Allen - was also Charles Lechmere's (the suspect) middle name, and it was his real father's middle name also - he was called John Allen Lechmere. This is the father who went absent and started a new family in Northamptonshire.

[moonbegger]

Howdie Leech ,

"I do believe I was the first to raise the prospect that it was slightly possible that Cross may have called himself Cross when he started at Pickfords in 1868, as his step father died the following year and he may have called himself Cross for whatever reason, up till then.

[ How about maybe , just maybe that was the name he took from his stepfather ]

However I then thought that he had given his name to Mizen and was possibly in 'work mode' - but now we know he gave his name at a later date when he wasn't in 'work mode "

And how did you come to this realization Leech, that Cross was not in work mode when he was interviewed at the cop shop .. He was after all in full work attire at the inquest ? .. Is there a mention of his dress code in the police records ?

Cross was 20 when Thomas died , 19 when he started at pickfords .. what do you suggest his name was , for the possible five years he worked before pickfords ?

We only have the 1871 census as a record that he now preferred to take on his fathers name , At the age of 22 ( understandably since he was starting his own family ) two years after the death of his stepfather . He more than likely wanted to keep his own bloodline as Lechmere alive .. to me it sounds like it was purely a family reason , and for the future of his children and the progression of the lechmere name .

Changing his name at work would make no difference at all to his future, apart from confusing everyone he had worked with for past three years at pickfords , and everyone he worked with prior to that ( maybe another five years ) unless team lechsmear are suggesting that Thomas Cross kept him locked up in a room since the age of 9 ?

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Good morning, Moonbegger!

I realize that you addressed your latest opus to Lechmere, but I can step in and take care of one of the questions you (once again) ask, since I think you are once again disregarding posts that have been made before, posts that would have answered the question at hand, namely ...

"how did you come to this realization Leech, that Cross was not in work mode when he was interviewed at the cop shop .. He was after all in full work attire at the inquest ? .. Is there a mention of his dress code in the police records ? "

Lechmere - the poster - has repeatedly stated that the best guess as to when Lechmere - the carman - reported in to the police, would be on the Sunday. That was the day when the Paul interview was published, and after that, our carman would have had a very good reason to contact the police before they came looking for him.

He appeared at the inquest on Monday, and he would have been summoned to be present all of that day. That summoning would have been issued on Sunday too - in combination with his visit to the police station, as it were.

So, Moonbegger, the day on which he went to the police would arguably be Sunday the 2:nd of August. And if there was any day on which you were not in working mode, then this was of course the Sunday, since it was not a working day.

I really think it is that simple. Iīll leave the rest of your post to Lechmere to sort out, should he feel up to it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

There is precisely no evidence that he called himself Cross ever between the 1861 census (when he had no choice in the matter) and when he got married in 1870/71 (can't remember off hand but it was before the 1871 census).
Records relating to Cross/Lechmere while Thomas Cross was married to his mother are scant - but the only other record we do have relating to that period is his baptism (he was baptised late) and he was called Charles Lechmere.
If he started work at 14 then we have no idea what he was doing. By the time he started at Pickfords he was no longer a minor - he was 19. This makes it less likely that he chose to call himself Cross at Pickfords I would suggest.

[caz]

If she could not read "Cross", then she could not read "Lechmere" either. His probable aim, though, would have been to stay off the radar with anybody that knew him, generally speaking. And "Wigginbottom" would have been just as risky - riskier, in fact, if revealed.
I have only pointed this out a dozen times or so …

Hi Fishy,

I disagree about his ‘probable aim’. If he had just killed Nichols and wanted to do it again, surely his aim was to avoid doing anything to arouse the suspicions of the police. He couldn’t ‘stay off the radar’ at work by changing his name, since he had to take time off for the inquest. Cross was therefore every bit as risky as Wigginbottom if he had never been known as Cross all the years he had worked for Pickfords, and the police would have found this out in moments had Cross given them the least reason to check. And he would have given them every reason if they suspected he had lied to PC Mizen and again on oath at the inquest.

The case against Cross therefore depends on him stupidly using a name he wasn’t known by, for no obvious benefit (assuming his wife could no more read Cross than Lechmere) then crossing his fingers and hoping the police would make no effort to reconcile his account with Mizen’s. If he was known as Cross at work, and if the police did reconcile the two versions to their own satisfaction, there is no case.

"He should have been worrying that the discrepancies between his and Mizen’s accounts might well have alerted the police and got them making discreet enquiries rather than questioning him again over something he had already denied on oath."

Absolutely. No qualms there, Caz. But - and thatīs my point - they did not do so. Calculated risktaking at play again. Worked again.

Again, you use this circular argument that doesn’t amount to a scrap of evidence. You may as well say that Paul did the murders while Cross kept all the wild elephants out of his way. It was a calculated risk that worked because the police made no enquiries into their movements and no wild elephants were seen in the vicinity.

Of course it must have ‘worked’ for whoever the ripper was, if he managed to keep the police out of his business. But it wouldn’t have worked if he had drawn too much negative attention to himself in the early days and caused the police put a watch on him.

…the by far simplest explanation is that he called himself Cross on the 31:st because he wanted the police to THINK that he was named Cross, while he in fact was named Lechmere. And the simplest explanation to such a ruse is, as you will know, that you wish to mislead the police because you have been up to something that they would not take kindly to. THAT is simple!

Ah, so he didn’t use the name Cross just to ‘stay off the radar’ generally; he also used it ‘to mislead the police’. Well it may sound simple enough on the surface, but how would it work in practice? How in heaven’s name would changing his name to Cross (while giving his home and work address) have ‘misled’ the police?

"I’m pretty sure the vast majority would make themselves scarce, given half the chance Lechy supposedly had."

I am sure you are correct, Caz! But that relates to PEOPLE IN GENERAL. When we speak of serial killers, the outcome will differ. And if we speak of serial killers with psychopathic treats, they will change even more. I have repeated over and over again that we are nothing like the Whitechapel killer, and I will do so again: Donīt make the mistake of beliving that we are, Caz.

No no no, I wasn’t talking about people in general at all. You should read more slowly and with a bit more common sense. Why on earth would I have meant that ‘people in general’ would make themselves scarce if they stumbled across a murder victim? I was talking about the vast majority of serial killers, given half the chance Cross supposedly had to make himself scarce, if he had just murdered and mutilated Nichols. The vast majority of serial killers don’t hang around their victims waiting to bluff it out with the next person on the scene - unless you have evidence to the contrary. The ripper - whoever he was - would have been caught pretty quickly if he hadn’t been aware of the conditions, and the need to be away on his toes at the first sounds of anyone approaching.

Incidentally, if you are right about Cross conning Paul into going on to work so he could spin Mizen a line and not be overheard doing it (because Paul would know he was lying, right?), why would he have reported a woman lying in Buck’s Row at all, knowing he had just murdered and mutilated her there? He could have said anything or nothing about it to Mizen, or even just asked the time before shoving off to work. What was the worst that Paul could have done if he found out later? He apparently found out anyway that Cross had told the copper a bare-faced lie, so what was the difference?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Lechmere,

You wrote:

A good point?
What, that the police wouldn’t have allowed Cross/Lechmere to explain why he used Cross should they have hypothetically established that his real name was Lechmere?
Would he have been lynched on the spot? Is that the suggestion?
In any case it didn’t happen. We also know that whoever the culprit was took risks.
This is clearly a nonsensical proposition.

It’s only nonsensical because you made up the suggestion that Cross would have been ‘lynched on the spot’. I suggested nothing of the sort. My suggestion was that if the police had checked at Pickfords and found out that Cross was only known as Lechmere there, their suspicions would naturally have been aroused. But he could not guarantee that they would come back to him for an explanation in that case, and he’d have had no idea if they were onto him or not.

We know ‘it didn’t happen’, but Cross would have been left crossing his fingers and toes every time he left home again with his knife, in case the police were now watching him like hawks because he had lied to PC Mizen within minutes of the murder; lied to them afterwards about his name; and lied again on oath about what he had told PC Mizen. Why would they necessarily have alerted him to any suspicions they had by challenging him over the name change? They would have been far better off gathering evidence without his knowledge.

The fact that this didn't happen was down to one of two things: sheer luck that the police didn't question anything Cross told them, or he was an innocent witness and they had no reason to think otherwise.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I disagree about his ‘probable aim’. "

Fine. Be my guest!

"If he had just killed Nichols and wanted to do it again, surely his aim was to avoid doing anything to arouse the suspicions of the police."

He couldnīt kill Nichols again - she was already dead. If, however, he wanted to kill somebody else, my suggestion is that he would try to do so but avoiding getting caught. There would, however, be no guarantees involved, no matter how he went about it.
Check - for comparison - serialist Harvey Robinson, and find out how far this otherwise intelligent young man was ready to go in order to kill, in spite of the knowledge that the police lay in wait for him.

"Cross was therefore every bit as risky as Wigginbottom if he had never been known as Cross all the years he had worked for Pickfords, and the police would have found this out in moments had Cross given them the least reason to check. And he would have given them every reason if they suspected he had lied to PC Mizen and again on oath at the inquest."

Oh! The name thing. Again. Think I will pass this time. Letīs just say that he could not kill without taking risks - and that the police apparently never checked his name out.

"The case against Cross therefore depends on him stupidly using a name he wasn’t known by..."

...and thereīs that "idiot" thing again. This has already been answered in depth, Caz! Not to your liking, obviously, but one can only do so much.

"Again, you use this circular argument..."

Again, you bring criticism up that has been answered. What is this???

"How in heaven’s name would changing his name to Cross (while giving his home and work address) have ‘misled’ the police? "

By making them believe that the man they spoke to was called Cross, whereas he was in fact no such thing. Coupled with a hope not to be checked out and a decision that if this failed, he would have had some sort of a coupling to that name just the same, it adds up to misleading.

"You should read more slowly and with a bit more common sense."

Ehrm ...!

"Why on earth would I have meant that ‘people in general’ would make themselves scarce if they stumbled across a murder victim? "

What I was discussion was whether MURDERERS in general would make themselves scarce in a situation like this. You should read more slowly and with a bit more common sense.

" I was talking about the vast majority of serial killers, given half the chance Cross supposedly had..."

"Supposedly" being the key word. And then itīs that statistical thing again?

"The vast majority of serial killers don’t hang around their victims waiting to bluff it out with the next person on the scene - unless you have evidence to the contrary. "

Caz, the vast majority of serial killers donīt make fruitbowls out of their victimīs skulls. Gein did, however. Am I to understand that statistics rule out the Lechmere scenario ...? The vast majority would think that a stupid thing to do, I believe.

"Incidentally, if you are right about Cross conning Paul into going on to work so he could spin Mizen a line and not be overheard doing it (because Paul would know he was lying, right?), why would he have reported a woman lying in Buck’s Row at all, knowing he had just murdered and mutilated her there?"

Because Paul had met him, walked with him, talked to him - and would be able to point him out. If he had lied totally to Mizen ABOUT SOMETHING PAULD COULD CONFIRM OR DENY, he would have been in a jam when the police got wind of it.

"What was the worst that Paul could have done if he found out later? He apparently found out anyway that Cross had told the copper a bare-faced lie, so what was the difference? "

If Paul took any interest at all in Lechmereīs and Mizenīs testimony, how would he know that a lie had been produced? If, as I presume, he was not close enough to hear what Lechmere told Mizen, how would he know that Lechmere had spoken of another PC? Why would he not - as did all the people at the inquest - just surmise that Mizen had gotten it wrong?

Will your "common sense" produce a good answer to that point, I wonder, Caz?

All the best,
Fisherman