The Mizen scam

[Rubyretro]

It makes no sense at all that he would then voluntarily go to the station to give a statement and give a false name as well. It presumes a hell of a lot - that he had told nobody about his experience; that he was prepared to offer real information by which he could be identified as Lechmere, his 'real' name, very easily; but yet decided to call himself something else entirely - an act that would have immediately made him look suspicious if discovered.

There is an enormous difference between giving an alias which is entirely made up, and a different name to which Lechmere had a -perhaps tenuous- claim.

(and yes, I can see both sides of the coin).

IF this was a man who was cool enough to bluff it out in Buck's Row, then he could have bluffed a reasonable explanation for his change of name
surely ? It wasn't a total lie.

(Yes, I'm sitting on the fence).

Personally, I've often wondered if Hutch didn't give a statement under a name which wasn't on his birth certificate...?

I think that reading about all these different people shows that an awful lot of them used different names, and they obviously didn't carry identity or have computer checking.

I think that if any person with an innocent or criminal motive wanted to give a false name to the Police, then they'd have a good chance of getting away with it....especially if they had a justification, which Lechmere did, if challanged.

(not such a big risk).

[Lechmere]

Lynn
"You see the motivation for this switch as his wish to avoid Mizen, and predicated on his having killed Polly. I see the motivation, also, as a wish to avoid Mizen, but predicated on his wish to avoid a troublesome state of affairs for a working bloke."
Actually we can now say with near certainty that Cross didn't give his name to Mizen at all. He must have given his name at a police station, almost certainly on Sunday 2nd September.

Lynn, Tom and Fisherman
I think that it has long been the standard explanation that whatever Cross did (leave body, give fake name, be vague with Mizen etc) was based on his being late for work and presumably worried about having his pay docked.
However this is contradicted by his taking an unnecessarily long route to work with Paul and by his voluntarily coming forward (unlike Paul) so that he appeared at the inquest on the Monday which must have lost him considerably more money. It was a common complaint among working men that they lost out financially by attending inquests.
It is also contradicted by his claim to have left home at 3.30 (or even 3.20) and then to have dawdled along taking 15 minutes to cover what a normal person would in 7 minutes - from his house at 22 Doveton street to Brown's Stable Yard in Bucks Row.

Tom
The 'Cable Street address' is a short hand reference to Cross's mother's domicile which was a genuine stones's thow (which is a considerably shorter distance than a Ripperologists stone's throw) from Duffield Yard on Berner Street, and on the route between the 'Cable Street address' and Doveton Street.

Moonbeggar
Your theory that a friend of Cross/Lechmere's mascaraded as him is possible, even if extremely unlikely.
My reading of Cross/Lechmere's character is that he was a very controlled buttoned up and otherwise strictly law abiding person.
I see no contradiction whatsoever in a sociopathic pychopathic serial killer dispalying these traits - particularly the one where he is otherwise strictly, even anally law abiding. I suspect he didn't see his crimes as crimes.
I base this on the baptising of all his children, the registration of his children in schools with no gap between leaving one school and starting in another (at a time when universal education had only just been established), by all his children entering into formal and proper marriages, by his saving sufficient funds to open a grocery business, by his saving sufficient funds to leave a reasonable amount in his will, and by him not missing a single entry in the elctoral register from 1890 (when the franchise became more universal for men) to his death in 1920, despite moving house 5 times. One would expect a gap on one of the moving years - that is common place - but no.
If someone used his 'name' in vain and his genuine adress - i.e without permission - then I would expect the real Charles Lechmere to step forward and correct the lie given his anal law abiding nature. It makes his use of the name Cross all the more strange.

Miss Marple
It is my guess that the reason he started when he moved to Doveton Street was that he was no longer under the shadow of a domineering mother. I think that and the new route to work that took him through areas in which prostitutes were more prevalent - which opened up the possibility of easy victims on whom to demonstrate his frustated yearnings for dominance. I supect the attack on Emma Smith (which I very much doubt he was personally involved in) may also have given him ideas.
His connection to the other murders has been covered several times on this thread already.
I think you will find it difficult to connect any other suspect to more than one of these murders. Most can't be connected to any.

Wickerman
The issue of his use of the name Cross was what first raised questions about this man. Some people maintain and (in the face of mounting facts) still maintain that this is all that the case against him rests on. It is actually only one of many questionable things about the man as should be plain to most people now.
Why did he use a name that was not his regular name, a name he always used when dealing with authority (we can't know what he was called down the pub)? He was obviously dealing with authority on this occasion.When he was recorded as Charles Cross in 1861 he had no say in the matter.
If he did the crime, it is my best guess that he wanted to avoid his wife casting suspicion on him by the local grape vine talking about his involvement. She was illiterate and couldn't have read the papers.
He had only moved into Doveton Street some ten weeks before so he may well have not been well known there. His step father Cross had died 17 or so years before and that connection was probably forgotten by anyone who knew him. His mother had long since remarried someone else.
I would submit that he didn't want his wife to be suspicious as it could have caused to his exposure or hindered his further activities.
A different name but genuine work place and address would cause enough confusion I would guess among those who knew him as Lechmere - and his work mates may well have not identified him as living in Doveton Street as for the past twenty years he had lived in various addresses that adjoin Berner Street (ouch).
I would guess that he was being cautious in his subtefuge. Going as far as he felt safe - hence his use of a plausible fake name.
His wife died in 1940. Some of her and his great grand children are still alive. I know for a fact that not one of his great grand children including one who was 15 in 1940 and will have known the great grandmother reasonably well, knew anything of their great grand father's involvement in the Ripper case. I find this strange. Clearly he did keep it a secret. Clearly his family didn't put two and two together and suss out that Charles Cross of 22 Doveton Street was Charles Lechmere.

Curious
A possible reason for Cross/Lechmere stopping his rampage has been mooted. The death of his last step father. Also the death of his infant daughter at roughly the same time. The various impacts on his mentality that these events could have occasioned have been discussed.

Fisherman
You could add to your mathematical equation...
Number of East End fellows who:
Lived East of Bucks Row + Worked west of Dorset Street + Went to work in the period around 3.30 - 4.00 am + Had a connection to the Berner Street area + Were found near a murdered person + Failed to give his proper name to the police + Gave misleading information to a policeman after finding a body + Had moved into the above vicinity a short time before = 1

Ruby
Regarding Cross's risk taking in calling himself Cross - the simple fact of course is that he did call himself Cross when his proper name - used whenever he was dealing with authority - was Lechmere. So whether anyone likes it or not, guilty or not - he did take the risk of using that name to the police and that name alone. Had the police discovered his real name, and had he been innocent, he would have been inviting the unncessary finger of suspicion on his innocent shoulders. That would have been catastrophically mind bendingly nausiatingly silly.
And as I know you know, it is proposed that Cross came forward as he had read Paul's newspaper interview that fingered him as the other carman found over Polly's dead body and he wanted to avoid a man hunt. He would have been a real moron to ignore that report - if he had done the crime.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lechmere,

Why must Cross "have given his name at a police station, almost certainly on Sunday 2nd September"?

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

again

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

"Actually we can now say with near certainty that Cross didn't give his name to Mizen at all."

Very well. But what then of the name swap? I see Cross wishing to get past Mizen, and everyone else, not only because he was late for work, but also to avoid entanglement in the affair.

"He must have given his name at a police station, almost certainly on Sunday 2nd September."

Why then? And "certainty" is a very high level of epistemic involvement. I would NEVER use that for ANY empirical item. Better is Cadfael's "Under the certainty of Heaven . . . "

"I think that it has long been the standard explanation that whatever Cross did (leave body, give fake name, be vague with Mizen etc) was based on his being late for work and presumably worried about having his pay docked."

I don't know about the docking of pay. Nor do I think his tardiness his only reason for his behaviour. As I said above, he wished to avoid getting himself involved in a sticky wicket.

"However this is contradicted by his taking an unnecessarily long route to work . . ."

Not necessarily. Sometimes I take a longer route from X to Y simply because I am more familiar/comfortable with the longer route.

" . . . and by his voluntarily coming forward (unlike Paul) so that he appeared at the inquest on the Monday which must have lost him considerably more money."

But why would a guilty man do this?

"It was a common complaint among working men that they lost out financially by attending inquests."

Indeed. And his time was infringed upon by investigating Polly. But he was a descendant of the peerage (as you have asserted) and perhaps they have high standards of duty?

"It is also contradicted by his claim to have left home at 3.30 (or even 3.20) and then to have dawdled along taking 15 minutes to cover what a normal person would in 7 minutes - from his house at 22 Doveton street to Brown's Stable Yard in Bucks Row."

Do we KNOW EXACTLY when he discovered the body? And to what do we compare that time? Actually, Christer has already lodged this point earlier.

Is it at all possible that such "dawdling" is what caused his lateness in the first place?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hi Christer.

If Hutchinson had never come forward, Jon, then we would have two descriptions of that loiterer, given by the same witness; Lewis. In the first one she only mentioned the loiterers presence, and thus no intent watching of the court. In the second, she provided him with a lot more flesh on the bones and a demeanor that would have seemingly given away an interest in Miller´s Court, and therefore also possibly - but only possibly - an interest in Kelly.

I do remember you raising a criticism about the two statements given by Lewis, that you think the earlier one contradicts the latter.
I just don't agree, she said she couldn't describe him, then at the Inquest she said "I did not notice his clothes".
The fact he was short, stout and wore a hat does not really amount to a description, more of a sillhouette.
In the first, Lewis is not being questioned, in the second she is, but what she provides does not amount to a contradiction of the first statement.

Anyway, I have been trying to stay 'on the fence' with respect to this Lechmere/Cross, so I'm not convinced one way or the other.
Perhaps if I clarify what I said to Tom.

What we all know about this loiterer hanging around Millers Court is sufficiently suspicious considering a murder was committed within feet of where he was.
However, although numerous points have been raised to advance Lechmere/Cross as a suspect in the Bucks Row murder, I find most of it inconsequential, that is to say not containing sufficiently suspicious behaviour.
Therefore, I can only compare a suspicious loiterer in Millers Court with an apparent passing witness in Bucks Row. I just do not see what you see, but it's early days yet, isn't it?
If we see more activity between Lechmere/Cross and other victims in this series of murders then your argument will take on a more pursuasive form.

Wickerman
The issue of his use of the name Cross was what first raised questions about this man. Some people maintain and (in the face of mounting facts) still maintain that this is all that the case against him rests on. It is actually only one of many questionable things about the man as should be plain to most people now.
Why did he use a name that was not his regular name, a name he always used when dealing with authority (we can't know what he was called down the pub)? He was obviously dealing with authority on this occasion.When he was recorded as Charles Cross in 1861 he had no say in the matter.
If he did the crime, it is my best guess that he wanted to avoid his wife casting suspicion on him by the local grape vine talking about his involvement. She was illiterate and couldn't have read the papers.
He had only moved into Doveton Street some ten weeks before so he may well have not been well known there. His step father Cross had died 17 or so years before and that connection was probably forgotten by anyone who knew him. His mother had long since remarried someone else.
I would submit that he didn't want his wife to be suspicious as it could have caused to his exposure or hindered his further activities.
A different name but genuine work place and address would cause enough confusion I would guess among those who knew him as Lechmere - and his work mates may well have not identified him as living in Doveton Street as for the past twenty years he had lived in various addresses that adjoin Berner Street (ouch).
I would guess that he was being cautious in his subtefuge. Going as far as he felt safe - hence his use of a plausible fake name.
His wife died in 1940. Some of her and his great grand children are still alive. I know for a fact that not one of his great grand children including one who was 15 in 1940 and will have known the great grandmother reasonably well, knew anything of their great grand father's involvement in the Ripper case. I find this strange. Clearly he did keep it a secret. Clearly his family didn't put two and two together and suss out that Charles Cross of 22 Doveton Street was Charles Lechmere.

I really appreciate the time & effort you put into your replies, I didn't think I deserved it, but I thank you all the same.
Actually, you do touch on a point I was considering:

A different name but genuine work place and address would cause enough confusion I would guess among those who knew him as Lechmere - and his work mates may well have not identified him as living in Doveton Street

As many workers were paid in cash at the end of the day, the employers may never have concerned themselves where their employees lived. Most workers were taken from a pool, if you turned up in time you were set-on, if not, the next man got your job. I understand Carmen may have operated a little different but employers still may not have known their employees home address.
Giving a false name but current address is understandable, his employer would not know Lechmere had been involved in a murder enquiry. This then is not suspicious behaviour, if this is the real reason.

Incidently, I do remember going over your detailed arguments previously, currently I just feel your suspect is interesting but not arresting, if you know what I mean.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Charles Cross found the time to saunter up Hanbury Street with Robert Paul and still arrive at Pickfords' Depot, underneath Broad Street Station, at 4.00 am.

Deuced clever.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

I understand Carmen may have operated a little different but employers still may not have known their employees home address.

What's Bizet got to do with it?

Dave

[Lechmere]

Simon
The first police report we have on the murder - dated Friday 31st August (the day of Polly's murder) - gives no mention of the two carmen, Cross and Paul nor of their role in the discovery. Indeed allthe initial press reports fail to mention them. The first police report we have which mentions them was actually dated 19th October 1888! It actually suggests that they found Polly together, and told Mizen. We know that neither was the case in fact.
On the Friday evening Paul gave an interview to a reporter from the Lloyds Weekly Register in which he mentioned another man being by Polly's body and stated that he found a policeman and told him about the murder.
The inquest convened in the afternoon of Saturday 1st September. The inquest at this stage was under the impression that the body had been discoverd by PC Neil.
However interestingly Neil was asked whether he was called to the body by two men.
It was also stated that the two constables at either end of Bucks Row (Thain and Mizen) had not seen anyone (although it later transpired that Mizen had). It was also stated that Mizen was despatched immediately to get an ambulance.
On the Sunday Paul's story in Lloyds appeared.
On Monday 3rd September Mizen appeared in the witness box and said he was approached by two men, one of whom told him that he was wanted in Bucks Row by a policeman as there was a woman's there that may or may not be dead. He also stated that the one he spoke to he now knew was called Cross. Get that - he only learnt the name of the man who had approached him on the Monday because that man was also waiting in court to be called as a witness. The court and Neil were unaware of this man on the Saturday.
Paul did not appear until much later and then after the police had conducted a search for him and had raided his house. They did not know his address as he had not given his address. They only knew Paul's name because he was named in his newswpaper interview in Lloyds.
I would suggest that Neil was asked about the two men as a whisper of Paul's interview had got out and it was presumed at that stage that Neil might be the policeman that Paul referred to.
For Cross to have appeared at the inquest he must have appeared at a police station as it is beyond doubt that neither he nor Paul gave Mizen their name and address.
Given that the inquest on Saturday 1st September had no knowledge of Cross and Paul - beyond the rumour that two men had approached a policeman - Cross must have appeared at a police station at the earliest during the inquest.
I would suggest the most likely explanation is that Cross came forward after the appearance of Paul's newspaper interview in the late afternoon of Sunday 2nd September. Even if Cross didn't do it I would suggest that the likelihood would be that Paul's story would have prompted Cross's appearance at a police station.

[Wickerman]

What's Bizet got to do with it?

Dave

Lets hope nothing, he was dead...

Jon S.

[Lechmere]

My apologies the first police report we still have that mentions Cross and Paul is dated 19th September 1888

[Abby Normal]

Hi Lech
And Fish

Since Mary Kelly and Hutch have come into the discusssion, I have a serious question for you both and I really hope you both take the time and consideration to answer in detail. really want to know your thoughts on this.

Since you have Lech as the ripper-please explain how you think the events of the night of MK's murder occured. AS in-where do you think he encountered her? Do you think she went out again after her encounter with A-man. Do you believe Hutchs story about seeing her? Do you beleive MK met Blotchy, Hutch, A-man and Lech all in the same night? The more details of your thoughts on the movements of all involved the better.

Thanks in advance and I look forward to your response!!

[Lechmere]

Abbey
The trouble with the various alleged Kelly sightings is that by this time the Ripper scare was in full spate with all the mythology, urban legends and hysteria assciated with that. That colours all the witness statements some of which would be genuinely given but neverthless totally unreliabe. Some witnesses would probably genuinely think they saw Kelly or a suspicious looking fellow at such and such a location but it would be recreated memory. They wanted desperately to be part of it or were over keen to be helpful. Then again some would be hysterical false witnesses - nutters and attention seekers, like hoax emergency services callers.
That is why it is so difficult to reconcile the various witness accounts and to try to establish Kelly's movements and even the time of her death or the time of her last sighting.
My best guess is that Kelly will have met someone out while soliciting and will have taken that person back to her abode where he killed her. That is essentially how all the other victims met their end and I see absolutely no reason why it would be different in this case (I know some people think that the murderer broke in via the window or whatever, but these theories always seem contrived to me).
I am unsure whether blotchy existed, whether the wide-awake man was there, whether Hutchinson really saw Kelly with the A-man, whether Hutchinson was there at all. I don't doubt that Kelly was with a string of customers that night and that the killer was the last (obviously).
I am unsure what time Kelly was murdered. The evidence is very conflicting on that subject.
I am fairly certain that Kelly was murdered by the same person who had killed the other C5 and Tabram, McKenzie and possibly others.
I would suggest that Cross/Lechmere is the best candidate that has been identified so far for the culprit, therefore he is most likely to be Kelly's last customer.
Miller's Court is almost on Cross/Lechmere's route to work. He quite likely walked down Dorset Street on the fateful morning of 31st August after he left Paul. In all likelihood Kelly was picked up by her last punter somewhere on Commercial Street - which is no doubt where Cross/Lechmere will have met her. This could have been on his way to work or alternatively a bit later while he was on one of his first early morning deliveries.

[Abby Normal]

Abbey
The trouble with the various alleged Kelly sightings is that by this time the Ripper scare was in full spate with all the mythology, urban legends and hysteria assciated with that. That colours all the witness statements some of which would be genuinely given but neverthless totally unreliabe. Some witnesses would probably genuinely think they saw Kelly or a suspicious looking fellow at such and such a location but it would be recreated memory. They wanted desperately to be part of it or were over keen to be helpful. Then again some would be hysterical false witnesses - nutters and attention seekers, like hoax emergency services callers.
That is why it is so difficult to reconcile the various witness accounts and to try to establish Kelly's movements and even the time of her death or the time of her last sighting.
My best guess is that Kelly will have met someone out while soliciting and will have taken that person back to her abode where he killed her. That is essentially how all the other victims met their end and I see absolutely no reason why it would be different in this case (I know some people think that the murderer broke in via the window or whatever, but these theories always seem contrived to me).
I am unsure whether blotchy existed, whether the wide-awake man was there, whether Hutchinson really saw Kelly with the A-man, whether Hutchinson was there at all. I don't doubt that Kelly was with a string of customers that night and that the killer was the last (obviously).
I am unsure what time Kelly was murdered. The evidence is very conflicting on that subject.
I am fairly certain that Kelly was murdered by the same person who had killed the other C5 and Tabram, McKenzie and possibly others.
I would suggest that Cross/Lechmere is the best candidate that has been identified so far for the culprit, therefore he is most likely to be Kelly's last customer.
Miller's Court is almost on Cross/Lechmere's route to work. He quite likely walked down Dorset Street on the fateful morning of 31st August after he left Paul. In all likelihood Kelly was picked up by her last punter somewhere on Commercial Street - which is no doubt where Cross/Lechmere will have met her. This could have been on his way to work or alternatively a bit later while he was on one of his first early morning deliveries.

What time?

[Jon Guy]

What time?

Elizabeth Prater: "I woke up again and down stairs in the court a 5.30am but saw no one except 2 or 3 carmen harnessing their horses in Dorset Street."

[Sally]

I think that if any person with an innocent or criminal motive wanted to give a false name to the Police, then they'd have a good chance of getting away with it....especially if they had a justification, which Lechmere did, if challanged.

(not such a big risk).

Well I think that depends on the circumstances.

In these circumstances, Cross (or Lechmere if we like, whatever) appeared at the inquest as Cross. He also therefore gave a statement to the police, as Cross.

At the same time, he gave the police accurate details regarding:

His workplace.

His address.

By these details, he could be identified by others. How was this not a risk, if the name 'Cross' was not the one he used in everyday life?

The inquest proceedings were in the papers. All that had to happen was for somebody who knew him to read about a Charles Cross who lived at Doveton Street and worked at Pickfords for them to say - 'Eh? But that's Charles Lechmere, not Cross! Why is he giving a false name to the cops? And there's this murdered woman. Hmm. Maybe I'd better say something...'

This man had neighbours, friends and colleagues. If everybody knew him as 'Lechmere' it would've looked mighty odd if he'd suddenly called himself 'Cross' in connection with a dead prostitute.

The trouble here is that his use of the name 'Cross' at the inquest and use of the name 'Lechmere' on official documents effectively concealed his identity for a long time; and people have assumed that this means that his identity must have been concealed at the time. But that doesn't follow, necessarily.

If he had wanted to conceal his identity - and again I ask why, if he and Paul hadn't given their details to Mizen; how would the police have tracked him down exactly? - If he had wanted to conceal his identity, why on earth would he have given a 'false' name and the right address and workplace? So that the police didn't come to his house? A kind of pre-emptive strike? But then if that was his plan, why not give false details about his home and work as well? In case the police checked? But then if they did check, they'd discover that he was Lechmere, not Cross.

It doesn't make sense. However tempting it might be to see the 'name swap' as the cunning plan of an evil killer, I'm inclined to think that a more mundane solution applies.

Ruby - since you mention Hutchinson, I think the circumstances are different because he didn't appear at the inquest. We know where he lived. We don't know where he worked. We don't know how old he was. We don't even know whether the name he gave to the police was his real name, and we have no way (barring some piece of random luck) of telling. So unless we accept that he was Toppy, he's probably lost to history.