Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[MrBarnett]

Either that or consider the possibility that the police knew exactly who he was but didn't leave an extant record of the fact for the benefit of ripperologists. This notion of a 'false' name is just one interpretation. The man gave the surname of his former stepfather but his correct address. I don't see the point of that if he was seeking to avoid identification. Why would it matter what name he gave? Was he likely to be suspected if he gave Lechmere, but not if he gave Cross? Why would that be? Had the police ever suspected him they would have located him at his home address in any event; had they never done so the giving of a 'false' name would have been pointless. It doesn't work for me.

My surmise (which is as valid as any other - no more, no less) is something along these lines:

Lechmere makes a statement, taken down by a police officer. Officer says,
"Hang on a minute. I know you. You're Cross's lad! What's your first name, son?"
"Charles"
"Middle name?"
"Allen."
"Of course it is. Charles Allen Cross. I never forget a face! What have you got to tell me then, about this murder?"

Pure hypothesis of course, but then so is the theory that he lied about his identity with nefarious intent. I can't recall anyone I ever met in my police career who gave a false name but a correct address. Plenty who gave a false name and address, but none who lied about one but not the other. Because if you give the police your correct address they will find you should they wish to do so.

If there's a pub in heaven, Fish, I'll buy you a pint if it turns out that Lechmere was the killer - as long as you stand me one if he wasn't.

Evening All, Bridewell,

I'm sure you must have been given all sorts of dodgy names when you stopped rowdy people just after kicking out time. If you had taken them seriously, there would probably still be a wanted poster for a certain M. Mouse in every police station in Leicestershire.

And it doesn't surprise me that you have never known a witness/suspect to voluntarily walk into into a police station and give his real address, place of work, correct forenames and the surname of his stepfather (who may have worked at the same station) in attempt to conceal his identity.

But that's the real world, this is Ripperland.

Mr B

[Lechmere]

I'm willing to bet that he never experienced the scenario he put forward either.
An explanation for why he may have given a false name has repeatedly been given and it is tedious to repeat.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, my theory is that they are opinions.

But can you prove it?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hutchinson.

He knew the victim, he was loitering near the murder scene, had questionable motives, delayed coming forward to the police, and spun an elaborate suspect description.

In truth, they're both weak.

So you are of the meaning that the killer knew his victims?

Whether his motives were questionable or not, I would not know. As far as I can see, he doesnīt state them.

As for delaying coming forward, Lechmere did not come forward until late in the process either, so how that can favour Hutchinson is something I find hard to understand.

I donīt think we can say that he "spun" an elaborate description. That would imply he lied, and we donīt know that. He gave a detailed description, and he was not the first man in history to do so.

He could have lied. He could have overelaborated. He could have had a vivid imagination. He could have had a great memory. Like, for example the plumber Toppy, who never wrote down any lists of all the gadgets he needed to fix a plumbing job, no matter how many details he needed.

Conversely, we KNOW that Lechmereīs story gainsays that of the police.

We KNOW that he used a name that was not his real one, something we do not know of Hutchinson.

We KNOW that the most logical routes to his job would take him past most murder spots, something we donīt know of Hutchinson.

We KNOW that he had a Berner Street connection, something we donīt know of Hutchinson.

We KNOW that he was found alone with one of the victims, something we donīt know of Hutchinson.

We KNOW that the time he went to work tallied with a number of the killings, something we donīt know of Hutchinson.

And we KNOW that some people cannot judge matters like these without getting it totally wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: Either that or consider the possibility that the police knew exactly who he was but didn't leave an extant record of the fact for the benefit of ripperologists. This notion of a 'false' name is just one interpretation. The man gave the surname of his former stepfather but his correct address. I don't see the point of that if he was seeking to avoid identification. Why would it matter what name he gave? Was he likely to be suspected if he gave Lechmere, but not if he gave Cross? Why would that be? Had the police ever suspected him they would have located him at his home address in any event; had they never done so the giving of a 'false' name would have been pointless. It doesn't work for me.

My surmise (which is as valid as any other - no more, no less) is something along these lines:

Lechmere makes a statement, taken down by a police officer. Officer says,
"Hang on a minute. I know you. You're Cross's lad! What's your first name, son?"
"Charles"
"Middle name?"
"Allen."
"Of course it is. Charles Allen Cross. I never forget a face! What have you got to tell me then, about this murder?"

Pure hypothesis of course, but then so is the theory that he lied about his identity with nefarious intent. I can't recall anyone I ever met in my police career who gave a false name but a correct address. Plenty who gave a false name and address, but none who lied about one but not the other. Because if you give the police your correct address they will find you should they wish to do so.

An explanation to why he hid his name has been given hundreds of times. It fits with how he hid his address too when witnessing at the inquest.

If there's a pub in heaven, Fish, I'll buy you a pint if it turns out that Lechmere was the killer - as long as you stand me one if he wasn't.

Iīll have Newcaste Brown Ale, then, please!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

it doesn't surprise me that you have never known a witness/suspect to voluntarily walk into into a police station and give his real address, place of work, correct forenames and the surname of his stepfather (who may have worked at the same station) in attempt to conceal his identity.

Mr B

But he did not want to conceal his identity when speaking to the police, Mr Barnett.

He needed to respond to TWO sets of demands:

1. Not to give the police information that would make them suspicious if they checked him out.

2. Not to provide those who read about it in the press enough information to be able to identify him.

Hereīs a question to you, Mr Barnett: If I am not correct on this score, why is it then that what he did is perfectly in line with these two points?

As an aside, why is it that you wonīt accept this suggestion?

It would have been a very logical thing to do on Lechmereīs behalf if he wanted to keep his family and aquaintances out of the know.

It would not have been intellectually insurmountable to come up with the idea, and if he was the killer, he was cleary a bright fellow.

So whereīs your problem?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

You forget that the most likely explanation is that the police were aware of his real identity, and unfortunately the records that reveal this have gone missing, and the only records that remain are the unrepresentative ones that record his 'alternative' name only. Sods law.
Or that he went to the police station someone recognised him from when his step father had died as a policeman 19 years before.
These are far far more likely explanations than that Lechmere deliberately chose to call himself Cross to conceal his true name. That simply cannot be true.

Strangely enough some in the 'Hutch camp' claim that he gave a false name and true address to the police... to make him seem more guilty.

[MrBarnett]

But he did not want to conceal his identity when speaking to the police, Mr Barnett.

He needed to respond to TWO sets of demands:

1. Not to give the police information that would make them suspicious if they checked him out.

2. Not to provide those who read about it in the press enough information to be able to identify him.

Hereīs a question to you, Mr Barnett: If I am not correct on this score, why is it then that what he did is perfectly in line with these two points?

As an aside, why is it that you wonīt accept this suggestion?

It would have been a very logical thing to do on Lechmereīs behalf if he wanted to keep his family and aquaintances out of the know.

It would not have been intellectually insurmountable to come up with the idea, and if he was the killer, he was cleary a bright fellow.

So whereīs your problem?

The best,
Fisherman

1. Nothing suspicious about the use of the name Cross ? Now where have I heard that before?

Ah, I remember: the massed ranks of Ripperology - 2.

2. Gruff voiced man: 'Does Charlie the Pickfords Carman live 'ere?'
Mrs L: 'Certainly not ! This is the abode of Charles Allen Lechmere.'

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Apologies for not responding to your aside.

If the papers describe him as Charles Allen Cross, Pickfords Carman, of 22, Doveton Street, then who is fooled ? His family, employers and neighbours would know it's him. The cops and the gangsters would know where to find him.

I did once suggest that perhaps some of the ladies of the night might recognise his surname, but that was given short shrift by team L. So I am genuinely at a loss to understand what the point of it all could have been.

MrB

[Jon Guy]

I did once suggest that perhaps some of the ladies of the night might recognise his surname, but that was given short shrift by team L. So I am genuinely at a loss to understand what the point of it all could have been.

I am wondering whether there might have been a "Brokeback Mountain" thing going on between Cross and Paul, and that Mrs L was aware of some previous, hence the name change ?

[MrBarnett]

I am wondering whether there might have been a "Brokeback Mountain" thing going on between Cross and Paul, and that Mrs L was aware of some previous, hence the name change ?

John,

You may have something there. They both worked with horses. And I've seen a photo of Lech - he was impeccably groomed.

MrB

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

If the papers describe him as Charles Allen Cross, Pickfords Carman, of 22, Doveton Street, then who is fooled ? His family, employers and neighbours would know it's him. The cops and the gangsters would know where to find him.

Only they didnīt. The first name varied, and The Star alone got his address, and that means that he did not give it himself (or he gave it in a manner that could not be made out).
So he apparently hid his address. Any idea why?

I did once suggest that perhaps some of the ladies of the night might recognise his surname, but that was given short shrift by team L. So I am genuinely at a loss to understand what the point of it all could have been.

Once again, what is your problem with the interpretation that he wanted the police not to be able to suspect him, but his wife and aquaintances not to be able to make him out?

There were three elements involved:
1. His name
2. His address
3. His working place

Make the assumption that he wanted to stay unsuspected by the police and undetected by those close to him. He would have no reason at all to lie about any of the parameters when speaking to the police. In fact, he would want to come as close as possible to being very clear about all three points.

However, the exact opposite applies when it comes to having it revealed in the papers - he would want to obscure as much as possible in that department.

So, ideally, he would use the information "Charles Allen Lechmere, 22 Doveton Street, working at Pickfords", when speaking to the police. That way, he could be sure that they would not suspect him on grounds of having misinformed them.

And, equally ideally, he would want to tell the inquest that he was "Rowan Pumpernickel, 16 Bath Street, working at Billingsgate market". That way, he could be sure that family and friends would not recognize him.

There was a slight problem, though - he could not get away with lying openly about it all. So he would have planned what to say in the respective arenas, cop shop and inquest room, to make it pan out.

That would have meant that heneeded to keep his real name out of the story he told the police, since he would have to repeat it at the inquest. But he also needed not to have the police suspect him. Therefore he needed a name that his family and aquiantances would not recognize him by, but that would not be an inexplicable lie. So he opten for the explicable lie "Cross".

The address he skipped over, since it would also make him recognizable.

The working place he gave, since it was a large working place with hundreds of men. It would not have him revealed by those who knew him.

If you, Mr Barnett, were in the same predicament - if you wanted to accomodate the police and keep the rest of the world out of the know - can you think of any better way to go about it than what Lechmere did?

Once more - what is your problem here?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

You may have something there. They both worked with horses. And I've seen a photo of Lech - he was impeccably groomed.

Definitely an avenue worth exploring.

[Fisherman]

John,

You may have something there. They both worked with horses. And I've seen a photo of Lech - he was impeccably groomed.

MrB

You sure you and Jon are not the better candidates? You both present asinine arguments that come sheep.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

You sure you and Jon are not the better candidates? You both present asinine arguments that come sheep.

The best,
Fisherman

That, sir, is a totally unwarranted calumny.

I'll have you know I am a happily married man. And the incident with the choirboy was a pure fiction dreamt up by the gutter press.

MrB (husband of MrsB)