Cross The Ripper?

[Monty]

Christer,

The point has been made and laid out. Im sorry, I just do not have the inclination to engage in a circular arguement.

However, a few points.

The naming of the man is no concern to Mizen, he knew him as the man who approached him. Likewise, no concern to Paul, he was the man who drew his attention to Nichos body. Therefore, the name of Cross or Lechmere is irrelevant to either of them.

He was known as to Mizen. He was known as the man who informed him of a woman laying in Bucks Row.

He may have well purposely lied? May? That in itself is telling. It states that you are speculating and recognise there are other valid reasons.

Like I say, circular and repetative. Bottom line is it conjecture and ill considered and endless.

Monty

[Monty]

Just Googled the phrase "giving an incorrect name to the police" ( I refrained from using the term "false name", since it is under contention whether Cross WAs a false name).
Two results only, since the strain is a long one:

"Todaro attempted to conceal his identity by giving an incorrect name to the police, but Officer Marker recognized and identified him, having known Todaro from a ..."

and

"The ex-girlfriend is obviously just as stupid for giving an incorrect name to the police."

This is pretty much how people look upon giving incorrect names to the police; it implicates some sort of foul play. And we havenīt even gone near the phrase "lying to the police" yet, like the evidence suggests that "Cross" did to Mizen about that PC.

Not seeing any guilt in that sort of stunt should get us off the streets permanently.

The best,
Fisherman

Christer,

That's where you and I differ.

I have undertaken training on Evidence, Disclosure and Court procedure whereas you use Google.

Its obvious to me that you do no comprehend what I am stating, which is fine.

Monty

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Thanks for the reply.

A couple of things, one of which I know we have discussed before.

ADOVAKE. I know this is a long established method or practice or rule of thumb or guideline used. The last time we discussed it I asked if you knew when this was formerly introduced into police training, which I believe you were unable to answer? (forgive me if I am misremembering)
If not in use in 1888, then the definition of the accepted name would, I believe, be important. Therefore, if the name given was an 'alias' or 'known as', one could wonder why BOTH names were not stated in a document, i.e. Neil Bell, known as, or alias Monty.
This was done with various others in these investigations, but not in this case. So the point I ask is..
Have the police grounds to question the name IF, in light of subsequent events, a 2nd name is associated with the man?

Just trying to understand a little better.

Best wishes

Phil

Phil,

Whilst ADVOKATE may not have been in use in 1888 it was formed on old tried and tested techinques designed to bring to the fore relevant information during an investigation.

Its late, my head aches and Match of the Day has started. So forgive me if I pick this up tomorrow.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

Whilst ADVOKATE may not have been in use in 1888 it was formed on old tried and tested techinques designed to bring to the fore relevant information during an investigation.

Its late, my head aches and Match of the Day has started. So forgive me if I pick this up tomorrow.

Monty

Hello Monty,

No problem. Enjoy MOTD. (even if the No.1 team in Europe and leaders of the Premier League aren't on the box) lol

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"The naming of the man is no concern to Mizen, he knew him as the man who approached him. Likewise, no concern to Paul, he was the man who drew his attention to Nichos body. Therefore, the name of Cross or Lechmere is irrelevant to either of them."

Yes. And I have never claimed anything else. What I DO claim, and will keep claiming, though, is that the name issue is not something we can settle by asking Mizen and Paul.
Just like I said, Lechmere could have called himself lord Halifax and to Mizen and Paul that would not have made any difference.

The core question is another one altogether: should you and me consider it strange/suspicious that this carman - who we know used the name Lechmere when he signed documents, who we know christianed his kids Lechmere, gave his wife the name Lechmere etcetera - called himself Cross as he interacted with the police in the murder investigation. To me, there can only be one answer to that question: Yes we MUST see this as an anomaly and thus something that should alert us to the possibility that he was not a good guy.

Letīs exemplify what I speak of by using a theoretical angle: Letīs say that it was not found that "Cross" was identical with Charles Lechmere, the carman, but instead with Jim Robinson, the violent rapist (fictional character, by the way). In such a case, I would suggest that the case would now be regarded as solved to most people. It would immediately have been concluded that Jim would have lied in order to put the police off his trail.
But when a carman does the same thing - gives an incorrect name to the police - then we instead get a meta-discussion about how the name was suited to establish an identity visavi the police, and how this carman would probably have used the name Cross colloquially. Double standards apply, although they should not do so.

Using aliases is and remains a dubious thing to do. That is extremely basic, and it should not be confused with any discussion whether Mizen or Paul recognized him as the man from the murder night. Such a thing brings nothing but a thick layer of fog to the issue.

"I have undertaken training on Evidence, Disclosure and Court procedure whereas you use Google."

Good on you, Monty! But has not all that training brought you the insight that Google too has itīs advantages? And has not all that training made you able to see that the point I was making here was something that could only be bolstered by using this kind of a source?
The thing I was saying was that the man on the street, the common man, normally couples using an incorrect name with foul play of some sort. Now, how could I illustrate that UNLESS I used a common manīs source - like Google?
If you enjoy getting on your high horses, then be my guest - but do not loose perspective when doing so. There can be relevance in quoting an inmate from a lunatic asylum, it can in fact be the most relevant source in a case, depending on the circumstances. And this would not depend on whether the inmate had undertaken any training in evidence, disclosure and court procedure. In this case, Google was the exact source needed to establish what I was talking about. And if you want to go into genital-measuring, then please realize that you are discussing source evaluation with a journalist with decades of experience, Monty! You are not the only one who brings merits and experience to the table, and it would be nice if this was respected.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Monty - you are now visibly wriggling.

The naming of the man is no concern to Mizen, he knew him as the man who approached him. Likewise, no concern to Paul, he was the man who drew his attention to Nichos body. Therefore, the name of Cross or Lechmere is irrelevant to either of them.

He was known as to Mizen. He was known as the man who informed him of a woman laying in Bucks Row.

This is irrelevant to the discussion. No one is arguing that anyone other than L/C attended. It is the information he gave that is in question.

Undoubtedly he gave a name other than that by which he usually went. That would be misleading under any circumstances, it is decidedly odd when the recipient is a policeman, and you have apparently just found a body. Indeed, speaking a falsehood is in my book lying (it may be a big or little lie, but it's still a lie).

We cannot know L/C's precise intention or motive in supplying misinformation, but in the circumstances, I'd say it was certainly evidence that he was not being straightforward.

Phil H

[Monty]

Monty - you are now visibly wriggling.

The naming of the man is no concern to Mizen, he knew him as the man who approached him. Likewise, no concern to Paul, he was the man who drew his attention to Nichos body. Therefore, the name of Cross or Lechmere is irrelevant to either of them.

He was known as to Mizen. He was known as the man who informed him of a woman laying in Bucks Row.

This is irrelevant to the discussion. No one is arguing that anyone other than L/C attended. It is the information he gave that is in question.

Undoubtedly he gave a name other than that by which he usually went. That would be misleading under any circumstances, it is decidedly odd when the recipient is a policeman, and you have apparently just found a body. Indeed, speaking a falsehood is in my book lying (it may be a big or little lie, but it's still a lie).

We cannot know L/C's precise intention or motive in supplying misinformation, but in the circumstances, I'd say it was certainly evidence that he was not being straightforward.

Phil H

Phil,

I agree, irrelevant to the discussion. However Christer raised it and I responded. Do keep up.

Also go back and find out when Mizen found out Cross's name, save you looking a bit of a tit.

Given as you are not party to the reasoning why Cross gave his name as such, you therefore cannot draw and ascertained conclusion, you can only speculate. Which is what Christer and Ed are doing, and seemingly you also.

The use of differing names during that period was fairly common, its also common today to be honest. As its a name connected to him since childhood, its misleading to state that because he used a name already connected to him that he is a liar and therefore suspicious.

A completely different name then you have a case.

Visibly wriggling? Very ironic, on all levels.

Monty

[Jon Guy]

Hi Phil

Undoubtedly he gave a name other than that by which he usually went.

We need to know which name he had been using at his place of work to establish which name he usually went by. Filling in forms for legal and religious records is not an every day use of a name.

That would be misleading under any circumstances, it is decidedly odd when the recipient is a policeman, and you have apparently just found a body.

Cross did not give any personal information to Mizen?

[Monty]

Monty:

"The naming of the man is no concern to Mizen, he knew him as the man who approached him. Likewise, no concern to Paul, he was the man who drew his attention to Nichos body. Therefore, the name of Cross or Lechmere is irrelevant to either of them."

Yes. And I have never claimed anything else. What I DO claim, and will keep claiming, though, is that the name issue is not something we can settle by asking Mizen and Paul.
Just like I said, Lechmere could have called himself lord Halifax and to Mizen and Paul that would not have made any difference.

The core question is another one altogether: should you and me consider it strange/suspicious that this carman - who we know used the name Lechmere when he signed documents, who we know christianed his kids Lechmere, gave his wife the name Lechmere etcetera - called himself Cross as he interacted with the police in the murder investigation. To me, there can only be one answer to that question: Yes we MUST see this as an anomaly and thus something that should alert us to the possibility that he was not a good guy.

Only one answer huh?

Letīs exemplify what I speak of by using a theoretical angle: Letīs say that it was not found that "Cross" was identical with Charles Lechmere, the carman, but instead with Jim Robinson, the violent rapist (fictional character, by the way). In such a case, I would suggest that the case would now be regarded as solved to most people. It would immediately have been concluded that Jim would have lied in order to put the police off his trail.
But when a carman does the same thing - gives an incorrect name to the police - then we instead get a meta-discussion about how the name was suited to establish an identity visavi the police, and how this carman would probably have used the name Cross colloquially. Double standards apply, although they should not do so.

Sorry, has Jim done the deed, has he been found guilty? This based on what?

Useless analagy.

Using aliases is and remains a dubious thing to do. That is extremely basic, and it should not be confused with any discussion whether Mizen or Paul recognized him as the man from the murder night. Such a thing brings nothing but a thick layer of fog to the issue.

Incorrect. Using aliases is a sometimes necessary act and not always because someone has something to hide. You do not like that because it casts doubt over your accusation (and undoubtledly I shall get your "Where do I state".... however its clear where your preference lays) of Cross as someone sinister....it actually clears the fog on which you rely on.

"I have undertaken training on Evidence, Disclosure and Court procedure whereas you use Google."

Good on you, Monty! But has not all that training brought you the insight that Google too has itīs advantages? And has not all that training made you able to see that the point I was making here was something that could only be bolstered by using this kind of a source?
The thing I was saying was that the man on the street, the common man, normally couples using an incorrect name with foul play of some sort. Now, how could I illustrate that UNLESS I used a common manīs source - like Google?

Google does have its advantages. When I need an hotel or train tickets it is spot on.

Yes, the common man assumes the use of a different name as suspicious. I dont blame you. However the reality is known as names are rife and not always for sinister reasons. Its a blinkered and flawed conclusion.

If you enjoy getting on your high horses, then be my guest - but do not loose perspective when doing so. There can be relevance in quoting an inmate from a lunatic asylum, it can in fact be the most relevant source in a case, depending on the circumstances. And this would not depend on whether the inmate had undertaken any training in evidence, disclosure and court procedure. In this case, Google was the exact source needed to establish what I was talking about. And if you want to go into genital-measuring, then please realize that you are discussing source evaluation with a journalist with decades of experience, Monty! You are not the only one who brings merits and experience to the table, and it would be nice if this was respected.

The best,
Fisherman

Do you understand the irony of your last paragraph Christer?

Accuse me of being on my high horse then proceed to preach to me.

Im not questioning your 'merits', merely stating that you have no experience of investigation. That is very clear in your approach and execution of method. Its not your fault, however it means you are prejudice in your concluding and do not consider all possibilities.

Again fine, however it misleads those who read your conclusions.

Monty

[Sally]

Monty is correct, in every respect - although I confess I don't personally use Google to book train tickets..

A shame it apparently had to be mentioned again, but intention to mislead the cops on Cross's part is a non-starter. Yes, a very cunning and misleading killer Cross was, to offer his bona fide address and workplace whilst trying to pull the wool over the coppers' eyes with a name that had been his for 20 years. Ho Ho Ho...

If Team Lechmere can't see the problem there, well, never mind; everybody else can, I'm sure.

Yes, he wanted to conceal his 'real' name, no doubt - if his 'real' name was the one he used on official documents. There is, however, not a scrap of evidence that he mislead the police - how do we know that they didn't know who he was - especially considering his background?

No doubt Team Lechmere will say (again) that no serving policeman alive could possibly have known who Thomas Cross was - or by extension his stepson - after so long. Which is of course baseless twaddle. We cannot know - at all - what social networks Charles Cross enaged with. That's the bottom line there, and no amount of hyperbole or posturing blab blah blah, will change that basic fact.

I find it interesting that the one time we can see Charles Lechmere using the name Cross it is in a police matter.

I also find it interesting that respondents to this poll have increased in the last day or so. I have the oddest feeling that the readership of this forum is unconvinced by Cross the Ripper. Can't think why...

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Only one answer huh?"

Yes. Only one answer. But that is not only one answer to whether he called himself Cross colloquially, for neither you nor me know the answer to that one. But it is only one answer to the question whether using a name that is not your true name when testifying in a capital case should be regarded as something potentially suspicious.
You tend to read me the way the devil rads the Bible, Monty. One wonders why. Or not.

"Sorry, has Jim done the deed, has he been found guilty?"

I did not comment on that, as you may have noticed. And for a reason. What I pointed to was a suggestion that if we had had it proven that "Cross" was an alias used by a violent rapist instead of a carman, then Ripperology would have - right OR wrong - have dubbed this man the prime suspect. And in doing so, there would be a recognition that the nameswop would have been led on by a wish to dupe the police. Therefore it needs to be recognized that a nameswop - whoever engineers it - is something that carries negative implications with it. Once again, such a swop MAY be perfectly innocent, but that does not alter the overall implication.

"Using aliases is a sometimes necessary act and not always because someone has something to hide."

And yet, something IS hidden - the real name, as it were. And this can have sinister grounds just as it does not need to have so. Nobody is disputing that, Monty. Absolutely nobody. But that does in no way detract from the potential value of the nameswop as a pointer to foul play. All you have to do is to look statistically at it: count the times persons involved in murder cases have given incorrect names to the police, and count the times persons involved in murder cases have given correct names to the police. Then take a look at which of these groups contain more or less people who have something to hide.
Basic, basic, basic stuff, Monty. You may chatter away as much as you like about "known as" identities and unsinister, good reasons to use an alias, and it will not change a iota of this. Unless you have another opinion?

"Yes, the common man assumes the use of a different name as suspicious."

One wonders why...?

However the reality is known as names are rife and not always for sinister reasons.

No qualms. This is true.

"Its a blinkered and flawed conclusion."

Specifically? You donīt know, Iīm afraid. Generally? Nope - the use of aliases IS tied to the underworld to a great degree. Back in the East End of 1888, aliases would have been more common. Thatīs my guess, though I cannot statistically nail it. But that does not change the fact that giving the wrong name to the police was a common trait for many criminals back then - as it is today.
It could or could not apply to Lechmere. We donīt know specifically whether it did, and therefore, we can only look at it in a more general sense, and in a more general sense, using aliases is and always was used by people who needed to hide something from the authorities. Basic, basic, basic ...

"Accuse me of being on my high horse..."

Sorry. I may have misunderstood when you told me that YOU have all the knowledge whereas I google.

"Im not questioning your 'merits', merely stating that you have no experience of investigation."

That would be correct. Journalist rarely do have any experience of investigation. And the ones who, like me, have worked as combined archivists and researchers (yes that is the title under which I used to work; archivarian/researcher) for fourteen years, will probably know nothing about these things and procedures.

"it means you are prejudice in your concluding and do not consider all possibilities."

Actually, Monty, I HAVE considered all possibilities in this (and many other) errands. Having come to a conclusion does not exclude having looked at other alternatives. If looking at all alternatives would always preclude coming to any conclusion, we would never cross a street, would we?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

But it is only one answer to the question whether using a name that is not your true name when testifying in a capital case should be regarded as something potentially suspicious.

He was hardly testifying in a capital case when he initially gave his name and statement to the police.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"He was hardly testifying in a capital case when he initially gave his name and statement to the police."

I am not speaking about the specific case here - I am saying that "using a name that is not your true name when testifying in a capital case should be regarded as something potentially suspicious." This somehow has given rise to people asserting me that it must not have been the case specifically, but why tell me that? I know that already.

An analogy will serve to show what I mean:

Prostitutes in a red light area walk the streets dressed in very revealing clothing and sport heavy make-up.

Letīs say that we have a woman recorded walking these streets, clad in equally revealing clothing and sporting equally heavy make up. Does that make her a prostitute? No, it does not. She ascribes to a behaviour and a code that tallies with being a prostitute, and thus it must be regarded as a fair suggestion that she in fact IS a prostitute - but as long as we are not certain, the principle of reasonable doubt must apply. She may simply like the street, and she may like to dress herself in a provoking manner and she may own a make-up factory, taking full advantage of this fact.

Same thing with Lechmere. He may like to call himself Cross, and he may feel that this is his real name, or at least the name he prefers to use. Then no guilt applies to this particular detail.
When he gives the technically incorrect name to the police, though, he joins forces with generations of criminals who have applied this very method to avoid getting in trouble with justice.
We ARE, I hope, agreed that this particular scam has been a very popular one among the criminal classes throughout history..?

So what have we achieved, then? A certain pointer to guilt on his behalf? No, but a potential such pointer, an empirically valid one, given given that he employs a tactic we know for certain to be popular amongst people who have no wish to develop their contacts with the authorities.

Should this be denied? Is it inadmissible evidence, since there can be no certainty that he DID do this for nefarious reasons? I donīt think so. Do you? I think it very much belongs to the circumstantial evidence around the man.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Same thing with Lechmere. He may like to call himself Cross, and he may feel that this is his real name, or at least the name he prefers to use. Then no guilt applies to this particular detail.

Agreed

When he gives the technically incorrect name to the police, though, he joins forces with generations of criminals who have applied this very method to avoid getting in trouble with justice.
We ARE, I hope, agreed that this particular scam has been a very popular one among the criminal classes throughout history..?

He was not been charged with an offence, he was a witness. But I don`t think many of the generations of criminals gave their home address at the same time, or gave a false name that was not really a false name ie. traceable.

So what have we achieved, then? A certain pointer to guilt on his behalf? No, but a potential such pointer, an empirically valid one, given given that he employs a tactic we know for certain to be popular amongst people who have no wish to develop their contacts with the authorities.

Like a lot of people in the East End, Robert Paul for one, had no wish to develop his contact with the authorities

Should this be denied? Is it inadmissible evidence, since there can be no certainty that he DID do this for nefarious reasons? I donīt think so. Do you? I think it very much belongs to the circumstantial evidence around the man.

Agreed, but you need to find the name he used at the workplace he`d been at for over 20 years for the use of Cross to become a pointer towards guilt.

Perhaps there are Bethnal Green or St George in the East Infirmary records. He had loads of kids so a visit by one of the clan would have been inevitable.
Has anyone searched The Old Bailey online or newspaper archives searching for Pickfords? If he was a mutilator murderer he may have left a footprint of some other kind.

[curious]

\that they didn't know who he was - especially considering his background?

No doubt Team Lechmere will say (again) that no serving policeman alive could possibly have known who Thomas Cross was - or by extension his stepson - after so long.

I find it interesting that the one time we can see Charles Lechmere using the name Cross it is in a police matter.

Can't think why...

Hi, Sally,
The position no serving policeman alive could possibly have known who Thomas Cross was is of no importance because Charles Cross/Lechmere would not necessarily have recognized that.

Since C/L is the one who gave the name, the question would be if hewould have thought or realized that.

He may have thought his stepfather was much more important and memorable than perhaps he was.

And as you point out, in his daily social life C/L may have still had contact with people, even officers, who continued to know him as Cross.

But since C/L gave the name, it would depend on what he thought and not the supposition that no serving officer would have remembered Thomas Cross.


And your post: I find it interesting that the one time we can see Charles Lechmere using the name Cross it is in a police matter.

very nice and thought provoking.

curious