Cross The Ripper?

[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]

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

[Phil Carter]

I'd expect a proper name however, No 3 Phil, known as would suffice.

This was the point I was trying to make weeks ago. Paul made a visual, Mizen too. Once Cross appeared at Inquest the visual would have been established.

It is the K in ADOVAKE. Known as or seen before.

However from Ed and Christers point of view, its a false name therefore Cross is a liar and so its an implication of guilt. This based on no knowledge of what argement may have occured between Cross and the authorities.

Either way, if no agreement occured, the fact is Cross was known as the man who discovered Nichols body, and identified as such.

The legalities are as such that the change of name is irrelevant in that perspective. However, as stated, the change of name to some in an implication of guilt. To me there are numerous other valid reasons which I've stated and which are conviniently overlooked or candidly explained away and which hold no substance to me.

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

[Fisherman]

Myself, Iīm off the net for now. See you all tomorrow!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"No 3 Phil, known as.

This was the point I was trying to make weeks ago. Paul made a visual, Mizen too. One Cross appeared at Inquest the visual would have been established.

However from Ed and Christers point of view, its a false name therefore Cross is a liar and so its an implication of guilt."

Arenīt you leaving something out here, Monty? I clearly agreed with you last time over that Mizen ID:d "Cross", and in THAT respect, he was a "known as".

But we risk a fair bit of sliding and skidding here, since I think you are answering another question than the ones Phil put to you:

"when requesting name and address which name you would expect to be given in a murder investigation?
Also, what catagory (ies) does 'Cross' come under?"

...and those questions do not relate to the ID Mizen confirmed. If our carman had called himself Lord Halifax and Mizen had recognized him, this would not make Lechmere Lord Halifax, would it? And THEREFORE it would have been a false name. Incidentally, Mizen would not have been able to pin any name at all on our boy, only a face. Therefore, he never confirmed anything else but the appearance of the man.

So, where does that lead us? It leads us to Mizen pointing out a man with whose name he was unfamiliar before the inquest, and identifying him by means of recognition of his looks. To Mizen, though, he was not a "known as" person, other in the respect that Mizen had learnt on the inquest day that the man he recognized called himself Cross. Therefore, there was never any "Thatīs Cross" moment - there was only a "thereīs that man again" moment. Which is why we may comfortably leave aside the question whether Mizen made any name confirmation - he never knew the name in the first place.

The second question - do I say that Cross is a liar and that this implicates guilt? Well, I DO say that if a coroner tells you to state your name and you state a name that is not yours, then you serve the coroner a lie. If Charles was colloquially called Cross, then that changes things, though. The name still wonīt be what the coroner asked for, but it would be understandable to give the name Cross if you were called Cross. The crux is that we have not a single indication that he WAS called Cross - whereas we have a mountain of proof that he called himself Lechmere whenever asked about this detail by the authorities. Conclusion? He may well have purposefully lied about his name to the inquest. Does this implicate guilt? Yes, to some extent it must do so, given the surrounding circumstances. And letīs not be too shocked by this claim - the police have very long traditions of suspecting people who do not come clean about their identities when talking to them. Most of us would recognize this.

That does not detract from the possibility that he MAY have done his best to serve justice as best as he could, and that he MAY have been called Cross down at the pub but not on his mailbox, that he may have told his mates "Iīm Charlie Cross but my kids are all Lechmeres" and so on.
But realistically, Monty, if we donīt look at things like these with some sort of suspicion, then we should not be allowed on the streets after 5 PM.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Hi

no 12 year old CHarles Cross wouldnt know what his stepfather put on the census, but he would know his stepfathers name .

that is all
JEnni

Hello Jenn,

Yes, I agree. A grown up man would know their name, whether it be a given name or an inherited one. A man gave a name. He gave that name to the police. How many times would that same man, in the course of his life to that point, tell someone his name?
Would he present the name he was known as or his real name?
I am not just referring to OFFICIAL documents, but day to day introducing himself?

The point is, that if as been stated there are 90 examples of one name and only a couple of the other, one would think the preferred name the man himself used was that in the overwhelming majority, no?

Like I said. No agenda. Just asking.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

To me there are numerous other valid reasons which I've sated and which are conviniently overlooked or candidly explained away and which hold no substance to me.

In other words it is just your subjective opinion, as against those of others, including me.

Phil H

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

1. Real or proper name
2. Given name
3. Alias (known as)
4. Legal name
5. Assumed name
6. Adopted name
7. Married name
8. False name
9. Known identity
10. None of the above

I ask you as an ex-policeman, when requesting name and address which name you would exxpect to be given in a murder investigation?
A murder investigation. A witness who could be, by dint of timing, considered a suspect. The name by DEFINITION is important. Because 'Cross' isnt an alias, otherwise like the victims it would have stated such, no?
Also, what catagory (ies) does 'Cross' come under?
Just asking. No agenda.

Best wishes

Phil

,

I'd expect a proper name however, No 3 Phil, known as would suffice.

This was the point I was trying to make weeks ago. Paul made a visual, Mizen too. Once Cross appeared at Inquest the visual would have been established.

It is the K in ADOVAKE. Known as or seen before.

However from Ed and Christers point of view, its a false name therefore Cross is a liar and so its an implication of guilt. This based on no knowledge of what argement may have occured between Cross and the authorities.

Either way, if no agreement occured, the fact is Cross was known as the man who discovered Nichols body, and identified as such.

The legalities are as such that the change of name is irrelevant in that perspective. However, as stated, the change of name to some in an implication of guilt. To me there are numerous other valid reasons which I've stated and which are conviniently overlooked or candidly explained away and which hold no substance to me.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Jenni Shelden:

"12 year old CHarles Cross wouldnt know what his stepfather put on the census, but he would know his stepfathers name."

A sound enough reflection. But would knowing this somehow explain why he called himself Cross nineteen years after that stepfather had passed away - and in connection with a murder investigation?

Incidentally, the Cross connection seems to have been nullified from the outset, in a sense; Charlesīmother wed Thomas Cross in 1858, but that deal seemingly did not involve her kids. Charles and his sister were baptized the year after, in 1859. Guess under what name?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi

no 12 year old CHarles Cross wouldnt know what his stepfather put on the census, but he would know his stepfathers name .

that is all
JEnni

[sleekviper]

[Phil Carter]

Not at all.

It was a name used in connection with him perviously. Now if he used Smith, Jones, Mandela you'd have a point.

The name is neither false or a sign of guilt. Its only those things to they who try to promote Cross as a suspect and is pure speculation.

Monty

Hello Monty,

1. Real or proper name
2. Given name
3. Alias (known as)
4. Legal name
5. Assumed name
6. Adopted name
7. Married name
8. False name
9. Known identity
10. None of the above

I ask you as an ex-policeman, when requesting name and address which name you would expect to be given in a murder investigation?
A murder investigation. A witness who could be, by dint of timing, considered a suspect. The name by DEFINITION is important. Because 'Cross' isnt an alias, otherwise like the victims it would have stated such, no?
Also, what catagory (ies) does 'Cross' come under?
Just asking. No agenda.

Best wishes

Phil

,

[Lechmere]

Here's a picture I borrowed and put some splodges on to represent Polly's body and Lechmere in the middle of the road.
This picture is taken roughly from Paul's vantage point when he saw Charles Lechmere.
It can be seen that it is quite permissible to describe Charles Lechmere as being by the body.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

" ...he chose Cross, the name of his stepfather."

That is completely correct, of course. The question is, however, why he had to choose anything at all but Lechmere, since that was the name he always used in connection with his contacts with the authorities.
Why would anybody resort to "choosing" a name in combination with a murder case? And why not choose the name you went by baptismwise, marriagewise, censuswise etcetera?

It cannot be proven - as has been stated a thousand times - that he did NOT call himself Cross colloquially. That is the nature of the beast - colloquial names are not the ones you use for signing documents. But is remains an anomaly that he used this name, plus a very good case can be made as to WHY he did not use Brownlow or Snodgrass instead - just like you do, Monty, Lechmere could also have served any policeman who checked him out the "I-am-entitled-to-this-name-sort-of" story.

Bridewell!

As for the distance inbetween Nichols and Lechmere as Paul saw them, I remain where I have always been - Lechmere would have been in relatively close proximity to the body whichever way we cut it, and that in itself is completely enough to allow for an earlier interaction. It does not incriminate the man more if he was one foot away or if he was five feet off. The more interesting part here is that he claimed not to have heard Paul until he was 30-40 yards away, and Paul says nothing about noticing Lechmere walking in front of him. That seems to point to Lechmere not producing any sound of footfalls as Paul came into the street. Keep in mind that Neil heard Thain from 130 yards, and Lechmere said that he would have heard anybody leaving the street from the moment he turned into Brady Street.
Those were the accoustic conditions - any steps in that street would have bounced off the walls in the night silence.
Apparently Lechmere was not making any such sounds, and Paul only noticed him as he came to the stable door. And a man that does not produce any sounds of steps is normally a man that is not walking.
Was he standing silently in the middle of the street for a full minute - not being able to hear Paul until he trod on his own feet more or less? No he did not - he says himself that as he stepped out into he street, he heard Paul arriving.
Tough nut, Iīd say ...!

The best,
Fisherman