The Mizen scam

[Rubyretro]

..

you still got a long way to go to reach Paris let alone Berlin !

It doesn't matter how far you've got to go, it only matters if you get there in the end.

I notice that we've all got staying power.

It's a shame that the same facts keep having to be repeated -but then repetition reinforces the argument....keep reading the thread daily Moonbegger
and one day you will find that you are convinced.

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"Like so many other documents Cross's original witness statement has not survived, so it is impossible to say whether or not it was headed "Charles A. Cross alias Lechmere."

It would have been headed Charles Lechmere alias Cross, if that was the case, Simon - not the other way around. And I think we may deduct that this was not gleaned by the time the original witness statement was signed, since it would have had the police referring to him by his CORRECT name in October. And they did not.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

"It seems likely to me that the police , after checking him out would be fine with allowing him to be registered as Cross , especially as it WAS indeed one of his former names he WAS known by . Technically it would be perfectly legal and there would be no need to even list it as an alias !"

As proven by the famed example with ...?

Erm ... Cross / Lechmere !! ( hows that for a taste of your own medicine )

" even if they did acknowledge his name as an Alias , who is to say that they would go against the wishes of a scared witness and print both names anyway .. "

And he would be dead scared since ...?

I Think it was you Fish that that introduced the reasoning that Lechmere did not give his name as Lechmere , because he was scared of his wife ( his illiterate wife who still didn't think it coincidence that every time a woman was killed he was not home ) and besides that , using the name Lechmere would have not made the slightest difference to anything or anyone ( apart from drawing unwanted suspicion upon him )

Do you really think the Police would not make a check .. and if they didn't, do you think the press hounds ( all desperate to be first to unveil the killer) would have not subtly checked him out .. not to mention his Broad st work colleagues and bosses , it is a FACT that they all did , and found no cause for doubt . ( see how annoying that is

"Its a bit like when a Dolphin breaches the open ocean .. we can definitely verify where it is at that particular moment .. but once it crashes beneath the waves , We know its still there , but there is no way of proving it !"

I´m sorry, but there is. Unless the dolphin elevates above the surface, it is beneath it. We therefore KNOW it is there, and it´s absence above the surface is proof of it. We can´t see it, but it´s a case of proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes we know its there Sherlock ! but we cant pinpoint exactly where it is once it dives out of sight .. that was my original point that i may not have put across to well .. so in light , you make fair criticism .

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"I Think it was you Fish that that introduced the reasoning that Lechmere did not give his name as Lechmere , because he was scared of his wife"

Then you think wrong. I have never claimed that he was scared of her.

"Do you really think the Police would not make a check .. and if they didn't, do you think the press hounds ( all desperate to be first to unveil the killer) would have not subtly checked him out .. not to mention his Broad st work colleagues and bosses , it is a FACT that they all did , and found no cause for doubt . ( see how annoying that is)"

It is not annoying at all. It is demonstrably wrong. As is any suggestion that I have claimed that it is a fact that he was not checked.

What I say is that what we have points to him never having been checked out. It is a fact that this is the direction in which the evidence points, if you wish for me to use the word fact. If you find the difference too subtle, then I cannot do very much about it - it still remains that this is so. If you can dig up any sort of proof that he was called Cross colloquially, then the way in which we look at this detail must change - but that is for then.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Spratlings report states enquiries were made. Out of those enquiries Mrs Emma Green, Mr Walter Purkis, William Court and the Railway PC gave information. Again, you make assumption."

Assumption? Here it is, from the inquest:

" Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.
The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.
Witness added [Spratling] that he made inquiries at Green's, the wharf, Snider's factory, and also at the Great Eastern wharf, and no one had heard anything unusual on the morning of the murder. He had not called at any of the houses in Buck's-row, excepting at Mrs. Green's. He had seen the Board School keeper."

Now, what Lechmere - the poster - said in his post was that there had been a "Failure to get interviews from THE MAJORITY of residents in Bucks Row."

As far as I can tell, the inquest report bears witness to this exact thing.

I would also point out that your reoccurring statement that the name was of no importance, is an answer to a question that was never asked. It is - when discussing the name issue - of no interest at all that the police accepted that Cross was the carman from Buck´s Row who had found Nichols.

The question that has been asked is whether it was strange or not that he gave the name Cross at the inquest and to the police, when he was in fact named Lechmere. That has nothing at all to do with what you are pointing to. It´s like answering the question "What political party did Ronald Reagan represent?" by saying "He was the president of the USA". It´s the correct answer - but to a question that has not been asked.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Lechmere,

I misread your post, apologies. Thanks to Christer for putting me right.

Was Baxters instructions carried out?

Monty

[Monty]

Christer,

Its clear you do not know what I'm pointing to.

There is an inference that because he used the name Cross that he is guilty. I am stating he could use the name Merry christmas as it has no bearing on his testimony which is confirmed by two others.

His name has no bearing.

It is also clear we operate in different worlds.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Eton

I prefer:
'They are coming on in the same old style and we will drive them back in the same old style'.
Wellington at Waterloo before defeating the Old Guard.

He also said: "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton". You can't get much more "Old Guard" than that.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jenni Shelden]

Christer,

Its clear you do not know what I'm pointing to.

There is an inference that because he used the name Cross that he is guilty. I am stating he could use the name Merry christmas as it has no bearing on his testimony which is confirmed by two others.

His name has no bearing.

It is also clear we operate in different worlds.

Monty

Hi Monty,
I think you make a very sensible point.
It seems a lot of people had more than one name at this time. Maybe they were trying to hide something maybe they werent.

I do recall reading somewhere reading that an alliterated name was a sign of a made up name. Something to do with Guy Fawkes possibly??

I think Cross is an interesting character though. Its a long time since i read the article which spelt out how we know he was called Lechmere

best wishes
Jenni

[Bridewell]

It made me think about Cross and how callous he must have been to abandon a woman who he thought had been raped and was quite possibly still alive.

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

Regards, Bridewell.

[harry]

Unless we know what the police did,and why they did it,it is negative to de cry their efforts.The early morning hours was not the best of times to begin a full scale investigation,and the availabity of personnel limited their efforts to what was considered the most suitable areas.People asleep in their homes would hardly take first preference.It seems the police did in fact,concentrate on place s that showed signs of activity.

[Rubyretro]

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

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin !

Cross to the coroner :

Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left. In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"There is an inference that because he used the name Cross that he is guilty."

Is there? What I hear stated is that using another name than the one you normally use, is something that MAY point to a wish to mislead.

I can meet a man called Simpson in the street, who chooses to call himself Higgins, and that does not necessarily imply that Simpson is anything but a man that chose to give me the wrong name. Technically, theoreticcally, practically and philosophically he may be clean as a whistle.

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. And why is this? Yes, exactly - it is because empirically, we can see that the ones who are reluctant to give their real names to the police, are often people who have something to hide.
Le Grand, for example, had numerous aliases, and it can of course be suggested that he had so because he liked the habit. But equally, it applies that he was a criminal who would have good use for aliases in that career. And you as well as me know that history is crammed with people who have tried to avoid justice by lying about their identities.

I do not have to elaborate more on this, I believe. Giving the wrong name to the police does not have to be any implication of guilt - but it very often is. I would go as far as to say that it is more credible to be coupled to a desire to mislead than to anything else. Albeit I cannot bolster it statistically, this is a very common view - and for a reason.

"I am stating he could use the name Merry christmas as it has no bearing on his testimony which is confirmed by two others."

That is correct, as I have already said. But it also an answer to a question that has not been put to you.

"His name has no bearing."

Not in the context you are speaking of, relating to the evidence ha gave. But it HAS bearing on the overall question of whether he was a truthful and honest man or a shady character and a liar. It is an untruthful statement on his behalf that he was named Cross - he was named Lechmere - and so the scales of truthfulness visavi a propensity to lie are tilted heavily in the latter direction. And that is NOT, dear Monty, saying that it goes to prove that he was guilty - it is just to say that we know that in the choice of giving his correct name or a false one (and any other name than the correct one are false ones), he opted for the lie.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

[Fisherman]

Jenny Shelden:

"It seems a lot of people had more than one name at this time. Maybe they were trying to hide something maybe they werent."

They did. But where are the examples of people who habitually signed all official papers with their correct name - but for that one occasion that they were involved in a murder investigation?

The best,
Fisherman