The Mizen scam

[Monty]

A false name?

He gave the name Cross, the name of his Stepfather. Not Smith, Brown, Jones, Thompson, something which could help him 'disappear' but Cross.

He gave a connecting name belonging to his Ex PC Stepdad, who would have known him by sight.

And that shows him to be a liar whose word should not be trusted?

If that's the case Cross wasn't the sharpest of murderers.

Monty

[Sally]

Its been pointed out many times over Monty. That Crossmere would have given the name Cross (legitimately his to use, so hardly a 'false' name, however some might wish it was) to fool the cops AND at the same time witlessly delivered correct and verifiable details regarding his workplace and home address defies logic.

Its silly.

[Lechmere]

Monty
As you will of course be aware, there is no law against anyone calling themselves by any name in this country although for certain purposes their true name is required.
We know from where Charles Allen Lechmere derived the name Cross.
However so far as the historic record tells us he never used the name Cross except when giving a statement about the Nichols murder to the police in a police station.
There are about 80 instances of Charles Allen Lechmere using Lechmere as his family name - or of blood relatives using it on his behalf (which only accounts for a handful of instances).
You and some others are unshakeable in your opinion that this is of no significance.
I think that is an unrealistic and naive stance when attempting to investigate a serious crime - 124 years ago or one day ago - more so when it is known that he was found by a murder victim and a policeman claims he misled him, and all the other hints that there may be more to this man than meets the eye.
The trouble with 'suspectology' is - as you indicated - it becomes very adversarial and people get into positions where they feel they cannot take a backwards step.
Innumerable wild counter claims have been made to try and decry the Cross/Lechmere case - such as denying that the houses in Bucks Row weren't knocked up or the use of aliases (Durrell)

[Lechmere]

Silly?
You have no idea when he was asked his name.
You have no idea how long after that he was asked his workplace or address.
You have no idea what he may have been trying to achieve by calling himself Cross.
His use of Cross is an anomaly so far as the historic record relating to this man is concerned. An anomaly associated with a brutal murder.
But let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
After all that's how the police conduct themselves in such cases even now.

[Bridewell]

Outraged

Bridewell:

"Where exactly does it say that Cross "thought she had been raped"? "

It says "outraged", Colin - which amounted to the same in those days, I believe.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Indeed it did. The Times obviously thought that too delicate an issue to report!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"A false name?"

Yes, a false name, Monty. You only have one. He had Charles Allen Lechmere, that was his name. His name was not Charles Allen Cross.

It is another thing altogether that he had a connection to the name Cross, by means of his former stepfather. Nobody is disputing that. He may also have used the name Cross colloquially - although we have no record of such a thing. He may have felt in his heart that he WAS Charles Cross, and may only have used the Lechmere name to sign official papers, there is no certainty that this was not so.

And still, Charles Allen Cross was not his true name. It was a false name, as are all names that are not your true name. The official registers had him down as Charles Allen Lechmere, he was christianed Charles Allen Lechmere, he was married as Charles Allen Lechmere - that was the one and only true name he had. Whatever claim he may had to any other name, and for whatever reason he had such claims, it remains that his TRUE name was Lechmere.

This is how I look upon it, and this is why I say - and will keep saying - that Cross was a false name.

"He gave a connecting name belonging to his Ex PC Stepdad, who would have known him by sight.
And that shows him to be a liar whose word should not be trusted?"

No, no, no, no and no again. It does NOT show him to be a liar. It shows him to have done something that is common practice amongst liars, though, and therefore it is a detail that must be regarded as potentially detrimental to his honesty.
Surely you can see the difference, Monty, and surely you can afford me the favour of recognizing that I am NOT saying that he must have been a liar for using a false name, other in the namegiving respect itself?

Two men are locked into a room, into which nobody else can enter. A shot is heard, and the door opens, upon which we see one man standing with a smoking gun in his hand and the other man shot dead on the floor.
Does this mean that we know that the man with the gun shot the man on the floor? No. The dead man on the floor could have shot himself, whereupon the other man picked the gun up before the door was opened.

Standing by the dead man with a smoking gun in the hand is thus not proof of guilt - but it IS something that should have us suspecting that the man with the gun DID shoot, given the other implications!

It is - to an extent - exactly the same with the false name. It is not proof of guilt, but it is a smoking gun nevertheless.

When I drop over the edge and start making unsubstantiable claims about any safe guilt in Lechmereīs case, Iīll make sure to let you know beforehand, Monty. But I am not there now - what I am saying is that a very good case can be built against him, whereas it cannot be proven.

And frankly, I am slightly amazed that I should have to defend myself against accusations like these. It doesnīt exactly facilitate a discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Defend yourself against these accusations?

Do take a vallium before something gives way.

You can wriggle all you like, the points been made. Anything else is beyond reason.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"If that's the case Cross wasn't the sharpest of murderers."

Well, that matters little if you are dealing with a police force that werenīt the brightest bulbs in the box. And we may need to recognize that if Mizen was correct, then it would seem that hoards of Ripperologists have failed to see the possible implications of it.

I hope we do not have to prove that the killer was superintelligent to make a useful case? I would have hoped that it would suffice to present a case where a killer was clever/lucky enough to get away with murder, and the police ignorant/understaffed/prejudiced enough to fail in their efforts to catch their man.

Then again, if I am correct, and if Lechmere was our killer, than he did not do badly intelligencewise between Brownīs Stable Yard and the junction of Hanbury Street and Bakerīs Row. The scam was ingenious, if so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Defend yourself against these accusations?"

Yes - you keep claiming falsely that I have stated that giving a false name equals knowledge on our behalf that Lechmere was a liar who could not be trusted. You repeatedly claim that I have presented conjecture as fact. It is not true. Those are the accusations I am speaking of. They disrupt and distort - upon which YOU say that I wriggle.

The discussion would be better served by avoiding such things.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Fisherman ,

But that does not change the fact that people who choose not to give their real names to the police in combination with criminal cases are people to whom more suspicion must attach than to those who give their real names.

So why exactly did he take the enormous risk of using a false name , and instantly becoming suspect number 1 ?

If Like you said he wasn't scared of his wife finding out , what was the big incentive for him in using a false name ? but at the same time giving his right home address , and work address ?

He would been expecting for certain that the Police would check up on him .. and by some miracle they didn't the the press hound sleuths most definitely would have .. And of course there is no proof that they didn't anyway .. either or both of them !

cheers

moonbegger.

[Rubyretro]

So why exactly did he take the enormous risk of using a false name , and instantly becoming suspect number 1 ?

If he was guilty then he took a calculated risk that, as a voluntary witness,
as opposed to one that had been searched for and appeared unwilling, he would not be checked up. if he were, the name 'Cross' was one which he could hopefully bluff his way through. If he had not come forward, then certainly when hunted down , he coud not have given the false name 'Cross' without it looking like an indication of his guilt.

If Like you said he wasn't scared of his wife finding out

Fisherman said that he didn't claim that Lechmere was 'scared of his wife',, not that he wasn't 'scared of his wife finding out'.

what was the big incentive for him in using a false name ? but at the same time giving his right home address , and work address ?

He would been expecting for certain that the Police would check up on him .

.

Well, he evidently wasn't expecting that 'for certain'. There is no record that the police checked at his work. It is extremely unlikely that they checked at his home, since we know that the Lechmere family had no idea that he had been a witness in the case. So if he didn't expect them to check up, he was probably right. Again, if he had not come forward voluntarily, they certainly would have checked his home -so his incentive in giving a false name was to avert that.

and by some miracle they didn't the the press hound sleuths most definitely would have .. And of course there is no proof that they didn't anyway .. either or both of them !

There are press reports, they name him as 'a carman' and 'Cross'. So much for the 'press hound sleuths.

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"So why exactly did he take the enormous risk of using a false name , and instantly becoming suspect number 1 ?"

No. Wonīt anser that one again, Iīm afraid. Itīs on the thread already, dozens of times.

"If Like you said he wasn't scared of his wife finding out"

I never said that. I said that In have not stated that I think that he was scared of his wife - which was what you suggested. Scared about her finding out - that is another thing.

"what was the big incentive for him in using a false name ?"

Anonymity is always the incentive in one respect or another. A wish to stay unrevealed by your true name. And once again, Iīve given my view dozens of times already. Itīs not as if your asking again will somehow slowly make you right, Moonbegger. It only makes you tedious. Iīd much prefer something NEW to comment on, instead of the old "it would have been stupid of him to use the name Cross". He did, and thatīs it.

"He would been expecting for certain that the Police would check up on him .. "

No, not for certain, I donīt think so. I agree that he would be anticipating that it COULD happen - but he would also realize that there was a chance that it would not.

"and by some miracle they didn't"

That "miracle" is called sloppiness, Moonbegger. Itīs normally listed as a trivial mistake and not as a miracle.

"the the press hound sleuths most definitely would have .. "

Would they? Would they pounce on "Cross"? Would the chief editors tell their staffs to concentrate all the had on digging up what they could on a 38-year old carman and family father who had informed the police himself about his find, and who had come to the inquest?
I donīt think so.
I think that they made the same deduction as the police - that these things more or less proved him to be honest. They did not see the possible implications adhering to "Crossī" interaction with Paul, which was what - if I am correct - got Lechmere into a position where he needed to play along with Paul in searching for a PC.

"And of course there is no proof that they didn't anyway .. either or both of them !"

No, Moonbegger. There is only the fact that the police treated a man named Lechmere as if he had been named Cross. And that is very fair evidence for those who say that the police never got to know his real name, since he hid it from them. And, of course, if the press HAD done that thorough check of him that you suggest, they too would have found out about his name. Do you honestly think that there is a realistic chance that they would NOT have written about the nameswop? That they would have dumped a potential scoop?

I know I donīt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Morning, Ruby!

I should have looked at the next page before answering Moonbegger - you had already pressed the points home, I see.

Tea?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Morning, Ruby!

I should have looked at the next page before answering Moonbegger - you had already pressed the points home, I see.

Tea?

The best,
Fisherman

Well, you can never tell him enough times, apparently....

Yes please, green tea with a tiny splash of milk...

[moonbegger]

I'm sorry folks but your excuse for his name swap is lame to the very last letter .

1) He was NOT blessed with the gift of hindsight .. He would have expected to have been checked out by someone after giving his details , to assume otherwise is a foolhardy presumption .. on both his and your behalf .

2) This whole False name malarkey was introduced to keep his missus in the dark ?? .. let alone the fact his address was in the papers .. and anyone with any East End knowledge will tell you how Neighbours interact and gossip amongst each other .. and if he was so confident ( apparently blessed with hindsight ) that the police would not come knocking , then why not give his old address ? I'm sure he could have bluffed his way out of that one too !

I don't know about Paris or Berlin , but on this particular point, Team Lechmere are not even on the beach .. as far as i can see, you are still on the landing craft !! And struggling to open the hatch doors .

Just for one honest moment Fish.. take a step back , peel back a few of those layers of arrogance ( just a few , we've not got all day ) and ask yourself this question ...

When Lechmere does the math and adds up the weight of trouble and grief he could possibly be in by simply telling his wife that he found a dead body on his way to work ( she would have heard about it anyway from all number of folk , after all nothing suspicious there .. it was his route to work ) against the pandora's box of shite that could rain down upon him from high , by not telling her and, lying to the police , the newspapers ,everyone about his name !

Surely you must concede there is clearly a wealth of advantages in telling his wife, as opposed to not telling her and hoping she never finds out .

moonbegger .