The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

So, a purely hypothetical suggestion, for the sake of clarification?

Okay.

Exactly.

Your post to me yesterday commenced with the words: "Well to begin with, it is not as if he was going to call himself Cross with the police and then Lechmere at the inquest."

It wasn't a very good beginning and this false premise affected and corrupted the rest of your post.

That's why I corrected you.

[Sam Flynn]

Anybody more who feels it would be of value to tell about how that have known people who have been known under more than one name? Maybe we should have a separate thread, and fill it with examples?

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm, Christer? Sorry... Fisherman, to use your other name

No need for a separate thread, or for further examples for that matter. The practice of using different names in different contexts, for entirely innocent reasons, is well-known and well-established, in any case.

[Fisherman]

Exactly.

Your post to me yesterday commenced with the words: "Well to begin with, it is not as if he was going to call himself Cross with the police and then Lechmere at the inquest."

It wasn't a very good beginning and this false premise affected and corrupted the rest of your post.

That's why I corrected you.

Corrected me? I guess you did. I was not anticipating an entirely meaningless post from you. I thought you were a bit better than that.

But you corrected me on that score too.

[Fisherman]

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm, Christer? Sorry... Fisherman, to use your other name

No need for a separate thread, or for further examples for that matter. The practice of using different names in different contexts, for entirely innocent reasons, is well-known and well-established, in any case.

Sarcasm? No, not sarcasm. It´s more like a fit of laughter on my behalf. The urge to "establish" the use of two names is becoming hilarious.

[Fisherman]

Yep yet when it comes to cross you just can't see it.

Truly amazing stuff.

Tell me what it is I cannot see, Gut. I am waiting with great anticipation.

[Fisherman]

Has anybody reading this gem of a thread noticed that nothing at all has changed?

It still seems the carman swapped names in combination with the murder case.

It still remains that this is the only time we can see that he DID swap names.

It still remains that lying about your name to the police is the oldest trick in the book.

It still remains that there is not a iot of evidence that the carman ever used the name Cross other than in combination with the murder case.

And it still remains that he COULD have used the name Cross otherwise.

And it still remains that this is the ultimate wet dream for those who cannot stomach the implications of the matter.

And WOW, am I surprised!!!! WHO would have thought it?

[caz]

Hi Gareth, David, All,

Christer usually argues that the police never knew Cross was also called Lechmere, but that if they had found out (by, for example, checking with Pickfords and wasting everyone's time looking for a Cross when he was down on their books as Lechmere) he could very easily explain that he had been using his late stepfather's name and there would be no harm done.

So might it not have been a better idea to be proactive and tell the police up front that he sometimes went by Lechmere and sometimes Cross, and for the inquest he was going to be Cross? That would have saved them time later if they did want to confirm his name and contact details, and he had a perfect right to use either name anyway. In fact, if he'd been honest enough with the cops to give them two contact addresses and both names, there'd have been less chance of them poking their noses in at Pickfords or Doveton.

Christer knows he can't argue that Lechmere was trying to hide his true identity from the police (he gave his real first and middle name and correct home and work addresses) so he is stuck with suggesting the 'suspicious' choice of Cross was an attempt to prevent his wife, family members or close associates knowing that he - Charles Allen Lechmere - had discovered a dead prostitute.

Clearly this cunning plan would have fallen flat if the police did decide to check at either address and ask for a Charles Allen Cross (whoops! cat out of bag time), and the whole thing relies on him not being known as Cross anyway, either now or at any time in the past (nor even known to have had a stepfather called Cross as he was growing up) by the very people he is meant to have been fooling.

I suspect Christer is only fooling himself with this line of argument.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Gareth, David, All,

Christer usually argues...

You can speak directly to me. Don´t be shy!

that the police never knew Cross was also called Lechmere,...

No, I argue that this is a very probable thing, altbeit not 100 per cent proven.

...but that if they had found out (by, for example, checking with Pickfords and wasting everyone's time looking for a Cross when he was down on their books as Lechmere) he could very easily explain that he had been using his late stepfather's name and there would be no harm done.

No, I am not saying that either. It could well have him hanged if the police became truly suspicious abd played their cards correctly. However, if he decided to bluff it out at the inquest, I think this was as best as he could do. Correct working place, correct address and a name he could offer an explanation for. It COULD work. And, as I say, I think he was a psychopath, and psychopaths like to play games and have an elevated selfe-sense that sometimes make tham take things one step too far.

So might it not have been a better idea to be proactive and tell the police up front that he sometimes went by Lechmere and sometimes Cross, and for the inquest he was going to be Cross?

You mean that the police would allow him to use the name Cross only at the inquest? Is there a precedence for that? Anyhow, if this was what he did, I think it answers quite well to my suspicion that he wanted to keep his family and friends out of the loop.

That would have saved them time later if they did want to confirm his name and contact details, and he had a perfect right to use either name anyway. In fact, if he'd been honest enough with the cops to give them two contact addresses and both names, there'd have been less chance of them poking their noses in at Pickfords or Doveton.

True enough! But why would they use the one name only in their reports, Caz? And why would they choose the unregistered Cross over the registered Lechmere? There´s the crux (cross).

Christer knows he can't argue that Lechmere was trying to hide his true identity from the police (he gave his real first and middle name and correct home and work addresses) so he is stuck with suggesting the 'suspicious' choice of Cross was an attempt to prevent his wife, family members or close associates knowing that he - Charles Allen Lechmere - had discovered a dead prostitute.

Spot on. Exactly what I think.

Clearly this cunning plan would have fallen flat if the police did decide to check at either address and ask for a Charles Allen Cross (whoops! cat out of bag time)...

Yes, it would. But he would have a safety net that would not be there if he lied throughout.

...and the whole thing relies on him not being known as Cross anyway, either now or at any time in the past (nor even known to have had a stepfather called Cross as he was growing up) by the very people he is meant to have been fooling.

Yes, it relies on him not being known as Cross. And that is partly because there is not a whiff of evidence making him Cross, other than the murder case proceedings. The problem is that you write about "the very people he is meant to have been fooling". You see, there is no telling who these people were. It caould have been his wife, it could have been his friends or aquaintances - we can´t tell. But we CAN tell that there is no reason for them all to have known that he had had a Cross stepfather 19 (nineteen) yars earlier. Less so, if he never used the name himself.

I suspect Christer is only fooling himself with this line of argument.

I suspect you have not thought any longer than the tip of your nose. And I suggest that this post, as well as the rest of the posts out here, changes nothing of what I wrote in my former post. Unless you disagree, and has something to show for it? No?

[John G]

It demonstrates that he didn´t opt to conceal his identity from the police - who could investigate him. Whether he opted to conceal it from the public is another matter.

But why would he want to conceal his ID from the public? I mean, are you seriously suggesting that neighbours, family members, work colleagues etc, suspected that he had a secret life as a serial killer? In fact, considering the number of people who alerted the police to people they suspected of being JtR, and on the flimsiest of evidence, I think we can safely conclude this was not the case.

[Fisherman]

But why would he want to conceal his ID from the public? I mean, are you seriously suggesting that neighbours, family members, work colleagues etc, suspected that he had a secret life as a serial killer? In fact, considering the number of people who alerted the police to people they suspected of being JtR, and on the flimsiest of evidence, I think we can safely conclude this was not the case.

What is it I am failing to get across? What does it take for me to make you understand how I think...?

No, I am not saying that anybody suspected tht he was a serialist - I am saying that he wanted to be proactive and stop any such thinking before it surfaced.

[John G]

What is it I am failing to get across? What does it take for me to make you understand how I think...?

No, I am not saying that anybody suspected tht he was a serialist - I am saying that he wanted to be proactive and stop any such thinking before it surfaced.

Are you being serious? I'm tempted to enquire as to your reasoning, but to be frank, I'm not sure I dare ask!

[harry]

Stop any such thinking before it started? A serialist I presume?
Why,on the knowledge of that one killing,would those who knew Cross,Think that.
Had Cross already decided on becoming a serialist?

[Fisherman]

Are you being serious? I'm tempted to enquire as to your reasoning, but to be frank, I'm not sure I dare ask!

That´s all your own decision, John. I can´t see what it is you find strange at all.

[Fisherman]

Stop any such thinking before it started? A serialist I presume?
Why,on the knowledge of that one killing,would those who knew Cross,Think that.
Had Cross already decided on becoming a serialist?

I think that he had killed at the very least the 1873 torso victim, the 1874 torso torso victim, the Rainham victim and Tabram when he killed Nichols, and that he was a seasoned serialist at that stage.

[Harry D]

Has anybody reading this gem of a thread noticed that nothing at all has changed?

You're right. Lechmere is no more a credible suspect than when we started.