Chas Lechmere/Cross/Crass/Brass/Glass/etc

[caz]

As I've said before, Lechmere's mother (formerly Mrs. Cross) puts a bit of a spanner in the works for those who argued that the purpose of calling himself Charles Cross for the police, the inquest, the press and the reading public, was so that his nearest and dearest would never find out that he had been at the scene of the murder.

I think it's far more likely that he explained to his wife and mother why he had used the name Cross, so he could just do his duty at the inquest and reassure the family Lechmere that they could then get on with their lives without any unwanted or unsavoury attention. He wouldn't have been the only witness in this case who didn't enjoy being associated with it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Hi caz
Yes my instinct tells me his mother knew.
Can you think of another witness in this case who's reluctance to be involved led him to not give his real name to the authorities and who remained cloaked in that name?

[caz]

At risk of being accused of repetition, if I may...

If guilty why did Charles Lechmere tell Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman and that there was a woman down, rather than a woman dead?

What was his priority when faced with Mizen?
To get past him unsearched and ideally unidentified.
This was achieved.

Hi Lechy,

It would also have been achieved, with far less fuss, simply by asking Mizen the time (since Paul is meant to have been out of earshot and taken no part in the conversation) and saying nothing about the woman he had just killed in Buck's Row.

Charles Lechmere was opportunistically confronting each situation as it faced him.
His next problem arose when Paul went to the press, but that had yet to come.

Fishy couldn't see the bigger picture at this point, but I hope you can. With Mizen not even in the picture (he would not have associated the man asking him the time with the murder, and would have learned about the crime from other sources), it would have been down to Paul to discover somehow (how exactly?) that Cross had hoodwinked him and not reported their discovery to the PC (whose name Paul would not have known, and he'd have seen him only briefly in the darkness). His story to the papers would then have been totally unconfirmed - no PC Mizen, no Cross. Paul would have needed to find them both (a task in itself) and somehow prove that Cross had been with him in Buck's Row, even though from Mizen's point of view the man had merely asked him the time, while Paul had said nothing at all!

At that point, neither Paul nor Cross had identified themselves to the police as the witnesses in Paul's newspaper account, and Paul had yet to be tracked down. Yet Cross offered himself up on a plate, when there would have been no need if he hadn't reported his own foul deed to PC Mizen in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I think it's far more likely that he explained to his wife and mother why he had used the name Cross, so he could just do his duty at the inquest and reassure the family Lechmere that they could then get on with their lives without any unwanted or unsavoury attention.
Love,

Caz
X

But just what would that "unwanted" or "even "unsavoury" attention consist of, Caz?
Do you think that people would tease his kids because he found a murder victim?
Or do you think that the rich branch of the family had a long-standing tradition of not being mentioned in contexts where the poorer members of the Lechmereīs showed a propensity to help the authorities?

You see, I donīt see this as a very viable explanation to why somebody who had stood at a murder victimsīside would merrily run the risk of being exposed as a liar in order to secure that his family was not subjected to ... what, exactly?

If he had been a thief, a pimp, a con man, a pedophile, then yes - then he would have good reason to protect his kin by not giving his real name. Then again, if he had been sighted, they would have dug out his true name, so it would not be a realistic thing to do, to hope to get away with it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"It would also have been achieved, with far less fuss, simply by asking Mizen the time (since Paul is meant to have been out of earshot and taken no part in the conversation) and saying nothing about the woman he had just killed in Buck's Row."

Mmmm - and that would have been a great success when Paul went to the newspapers, would it not?
Donīt you see, Caz, that if he wanted to stay unsuspected, he could not afford antics like these! It would take him past mizen on the murder night, yes. But can you see any scenario in which it would NOT make him the prime suspect afterwards?

But maybe you donīt think that would have mattered to him, as long as he adjusted to your shudda-cudda-wuddaīs?

"Fishy couldn't see the bigger picture at this point..."

I could very easily see what you were aiming at - itīs just that I donīt agreee with you. Iīm afraid that is not the same thing as not being able to see something, Caz.

"With Mizen not even in the picture (he would not have associated the man asking him the time with the murder, and would have learned about the crime from other sources), it would have been down to Paul to discover somehow (how exactly?) that Cross had hoodwinked him and not reported their discovery to the PC (whose name Paul would not have known, and he'd have seen him only briefly in the darkness). His story to the papers would then have been totally unconfirmed - no PC Mizen, no Cross."

And the police would never have asked him about a iot or set a split second aside to ask him ...? Yes?

"Paul would have needed to find them both (a task in itself) and somehow prove that Cross had been with him in Buck's Row, even though from Mizen's point of view the man had merely asked him the time, while Paul had said nothing at all!"

Paul would immediately realize, though, that his fellow carman had been lying his teeth out. There could be no doubt about that. And once that came out ... well, you CAN see the implications, I trust?

What Lechmere did, was to take full advantage of all the little details that surfaced, and he MINIMIZED the risks of getting caught, then and there, OR after the event. Your suggested scenario would carry a huge risk with it, Caz.

In retrospect we can see that if he was the killer, then he made an extremely slick and smooth affair of it all. Of course, whenever I suggest anything that starts with "If he was the killer", somebody will reinvent the wheel and speak of a circular argument. Letīs just not forget that what I say is very true nevertheless.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Caz
Imagine Lechmere and Paul walking towards Baker’s Row, talking about what they had seen and Paul moaning that he was late for work and how he hated coppers and Lechmere helpfully saying ‘don’t worry I’ll do the taking if we see one’, when guess what? They run straight into Mizen.
If Paul slowly distanced himself from Mizen while Lechmere initiated the conversation, Lechmere would not have been able to open with ‘Have you got the time?’
He would have had to say something that would approximate with what Paul might expect him to say if he over heard.
In any case they may have mutually decided (but no doubt at Lechmere’s instigation) to blarney the policeman with a tale that he was wanted by another policeman down Buck’s Row, to avoid being detained for too long.
It isn’t difficult to think things up.
But what we do know is that Mizen testified that Lechmere told him he was wanted by a policeman in Buck’s Row – and that was not the case.
We know that Lechmere denied in court saying this to Mizen.
You may chose to think that there is no significance in this – on top of Lechmere giving a false name and being found by Paul very close to the dead body prior to raising the alarm, with the victim’s dress covering her abdominal wounds (unlike the other victims with abdominal wounds).
Etc etc etc
That is your prerogative.

Oh, if a guilty Lechmere had just asked Mizen the time (with Paul out of earshot), then when Paul went to the press what would have happened?
I suggest that the police would have traced Paul (as they did). Then questions would arise as to who the other bloke was. It would soon be established that the policeman was Mizen. He would no doubt re-call that someone had asked him the time. Paul would say ‘no, surely he told you that there was a murdered woman in the street.’
What next?
There would be a man hunt for Lechmere just as there had been for Paul. Lechmere had to walk those streets every day to get to work and back. Did he want that hanging over him?
It is all fairly obvious stuff.

Why on earth do you think that Paul would want to find Lechmere? He gave his interview and tried to disappear, only to be dragged out of bed by the police a while later.

The safest and most sensible course of action, where he controlled events, would be for Lechmere to come forward first and present his version of reality as the standard version.
That is not ‘offering himself up on a plate’.
Paul was offered up on a plate via the Chapman murder 8 days later and 100 yards from Paul’s workplace.

[Fisherman]

Crikey, Caz - it seems that Edward is just as unable as I am to "see the larger picture". We both seem to get hung up on petty little things like hovering alone at a murder site, lying to policemen and giving a false name to the inquest.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hi Fish ,

I am aware that your point was directed towards Caz but ..

hovering alone at a murder site,

Someone had to be first to discover the body fish .

lying to policemen

Are we 100% sure this was the case ? there is a huge difference between deliberately lying , and being misunderstood or misheard . Can we assume that just because the files no longer exist , it is clear that the Police did not follow up on this awkward conundrum , and follow it up to a satisfactory conclusion .

and giving a false name to the inquest.

A name that he was Definitely known as , at one time, and may well still have been known as, by some , at the time of the murders ! We really don't know these major factors . Once again Fish , can we really assume that just because a particular police report no longer exists , it automatically becomes obvious ( to some ) that it never did , and the Police never did investigate the first man at the crime scene .. Especially after the Awkward kerfuffle regarding what he may, or may not have told a PC on the morning of the murder.

It just seems to me Fish, that your whole case is more reliant on information that we don't have , as opposed to information that we do have . There is just as much reason to believe the police actually did their job properly ( albeit undocumented or no longer existing ) and checked him out to a satisfactory conclusion, as there is that they didn't .

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Hi Fish"

Hi Moon!

"I am aware that your point was directed towards Caz but .."

Ah, you are perfectly welcome to drop in on us. We have few secrets inbetween us!

"Someone had to be first to discover the body fish ."

Yes.
And that somebody was Paul, if I am correct. Lechmere did not so much discover as discard, Iīd say.

Anyway the point still stands very much: The evidence is quite clear that Lechmere was found hovering alone at the murder site.

"Are we 100% sure this was the case ? there is a huge difference between deliberately lying , and being misunderstood or misheard . Can we assume that just because the files no longer exist , it is clear that the Police did not follow up on this awkward conundrum , and follow it up to a satisfactory conclusion?"

Thatīs two questions. Letīs just say to begin with that we cannot be totally certain of many things, Moonbegger, least of all in the Ripper case.
But thatīs NOT tantamount to "Well, there you are, then...!"

The anomalies are MANY. And each and every one of them serves very well to form a net of oddities. In the end, that net becomes a very strong one to my mind.

We can suggest that Mizen heard him wrong - but we are still left with the false name.

We can suggest that the false name was an alias he often used - but that still leaves us with his refusal to help prop Nichols up.

We can find some sort of excuse for him not helping to prop Nichols up - but what about his leaving out the address at the inquest?

We may think that the left out address was just an innocent lapse of mind - but why does the territory he walked to job cover the killings?

We can say that many persons had reason to cover that territory - but what about the opther territory, the Berner street ditto? He had his mothersīplace there.

We either choose to help him out on each and every point, Moonbegger, labouring to find functioning excuses, and we declare him totally innocent.

Or we discard some points and keep others - forming a riddle.

Or we choose to acknowledge that each and every anomaly we dig up about Lechmere, lends itself totally to a scenario of guilt.

And if you excuse me, much as I admire the will to furiously and at every cost try and save somebody elseīs behind, I think it is outright naîve not to see the implications and recognize them.

"It just seems to me Fish, that your whole case is more reliant on information that we don't have , as opposed to information that we do have ."

No, Moonbegger. We do NOT lack information about:

1. The false name
2. The Mizen scam
3. The refusal to prop Nichols up
4. The left out address
5. The correlation between the murder palces and his trodden paths AND the realtive times at which he would have employed them

Etcetera. The choice of a longer path, the appearance in working clothes at the inquest. And so on.

These are not things I dreamt up, Moonbegger. They are all things we actually HAVE!!! They are there!

It is CONFIRMATION that all of these things worked together to perform the kill and the flight that we donīt have. But we DO have an awful lot just the same!

All of this murmuring about things we "donīt have" is misleading. We have the evidence, lots and lots of it. Itīs the interpretation of it that makes us differ.
The Mizen scam was something I found at a stage when I had already made my mind up that Lechmere was a very good bid for the killerīs role. Imagine what that did to my stance!

The evidence is extremely clear - Mizen does not wawer for a second. He does not say that Lechmere "spoke about another PC or something" or that he thinks that he said something along them lines. He nails it in a very cool manner - the man he met told him "You are wanted in Buckīs Row" to begin with - and THAT means that Lechmere led on that SOMEBODY wanted Mizen there. Someone was already in place.

And after that, he fills in the blanks, by adding that the person that wanted Lechmere in Buckīs Row was another copper!!

Confirmation, consistency, corroboration - itīs not until we get desperate to help Lechmere out that we fail to see the relevance in these things.
He was the exact type of killer so many of us have been looking for for so many years - a grey Mr Nobody, a carman, traversing the East End back and forth, always with a reason to be in place and a handy explanation to why he was there.

Away, foul naïvety, away!

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

4. The left out address

Hi Fisherman

The Star, 3 September 1888 -

'Carman Cross was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road.'

Clearly Carman Cross had given his address at the inquest. That's why it's there, written down as part of his testimony on the day in question.

[moonbegger]

Hello Fish ,

forgive me if i only address a few of your pointers , mainly the ones we have not rallied back and forth into the realms tedium .. and also forgive me if my common sense alternative approach comes across as a tad naive .. but we really do only have (at the very best) half the story in regards to most of your Lynch CrossMere red flags ..

No, Moonbegger. We do NOT lack information about:
1. The false name
2. The Mizen scam
3. The refusal to prop Nichols up
4. The left out address
5. The correlation between the murder palces and his trodden paths AND the realtive times at which he would have employed them

1. The false name
For me Fish , it is simple as [cause and effect]. If i see a huge cloud of smoke rising in the distance , i dont need confirmation or evidence to tell me that that something did actually occur to put that smoke in the air ..

see how that works .. I am aware of half the story ( the Smoke ) but i am also aware that there is another part of the story that is unknown to me .. I have no proof, but it is there all the same . Now you could argue that there was no cause for the smoke because i had no evidence of it , but common sense will always tell me that something must have occurred .

Likewise , to assume that just because we have no written police document to tell us that CrossMere was checked out thoroughly at the time , it does not mean that it did not happen . in fact it would surely be a greater leap of faith to assume he was not looked at at all .. Especially after the Awkward kerfuffle regarding what he may, or may not have told a PC on the morning of the murder.

If anything , Being first on the scene , and likely disturbing the Gang, or killer, he told the police he was scared for the safety of his family and they allowed him to use his Old name Not a False one ! and even allowing him to keep his address out of the inquest. The left out address ( my baby

The Mizen scam
More like mizunderstanding scam ..

very cool manner - the man he met told him "You are wanted in Buckīs Row" to begin with - and THAT means that Lechmere led on that SOMEBODY wanted Mizen there.

And yes someone did , Polly ! At the time he was not sure if she was drunk or dead . It was only when Mizen finds another PC there , he automatically assumes it was PC Neil that CrossMere was referring to .. A kerfuffle that would have surely been resolved soon after the inquest ( with no real need to document it, or make a film about it ) a tiny insignificant misunderstanding that now forms part of the huge rope you want to hang around Crossmere's neck .

the appearance in working clothes at the inquest.

Is it so far beyond your thinking Fish, that with the Police Knowing full well, that PC Mizen was going to identify the man who spoke to him on the morning of the murder , CrossMere may have beenTold to wear the same clothes he wore on the morning of the murder for the sole purpose of the ID.

These are not things I dreamt up, Moonbegger. They are all things we actually HAVE!!! They are there!

Yes they are Fish , but there were also other things going on that we have no documented proof of, circumstances that we know nothing of , discussions that were never documented , was documented and lost .. But we know there is a strong possibility they happened because of certain reactions to them. [ Cause ans Effect]

We do NOT lack information about:
1. The false name
2. The Mizen scam
3. The refusal to prop Nichols up
4. The left out address

Oh yes we do Fish , We greatly lack information on all of the above , possibly excluding #3

Away, foul naivety, away!

Ditto Fish ,

cheers ,

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello Mr Lucky ,

This was my take on the "Left out address" malarkey..

So the Police agree to him using his lesser known name , and keep his and his family's Address out of the inquest, and out of the papers ..

All is going well until a sleuth reporter working for the Star asks himself the burning question .. Why no address for Carman Cross ? which leads to his own line of inquiry down at bethnal green police station and to a certain Inspector Helston , who for whatever reason gives the star reporter the lowdown on Carman Cross!

How do we know this ? Partly conjecture based in association and print ..

[Print] The Star is the only paper to release CrossMere's home address . [Association] The Star reporter that was writing up Polly's murder inquiry was also working on Annie Chapmans murder story [ fact ] The same reporter went back to Inspector Helson hoping for some more inside information regards Chapman.

[The Star]

"It being almost positively certain that the murderer of Dark Annie is the murderer of Mary Ann Nicholls, a Star reporter went to the Bethnal-green police-station to inquire whether the new murder threw any light on the other. Inspector Helston was "very busy," but Sergeant Godley showed himself. All the information that could be got, however, was that the scene of the new crime "is just out of our district." Our representative suggested that, as a matter of course, the two cases would be investigated together, but the Inspector didn't seem at all sure about this' "

[Conjecture] Inspector Helston got a telling off from his superior for blabbing to the press and was unfortunately unavailable.. " very busy" .

cheers

moonbegger .

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Moon

So the Police agree to him using his lesser known name , and keep his and his family's Address out of the inquest, and out of the papers ..

It's an inquest, the Coroner is in charge of it not the police.

If his identity is to be somekind of secret why use a lesser known name, why not a false one?

All is going well until a sleuth reporter working for the Star asks himself the burning question .. Why no address for Carman Cross ? which leads to his own line of inquiry down at bethnal green police station and to a certain Inspector Helston , who for whatever reason gives the star reporter the lowdown on Carman Cross!

Why doesn't the Star sleuth ask himself 'why no name for carman Cross ?' at the same time and ask Inspector Helson?

The point with his address is that it is equivalent to the 'all swans are white' idea. If there are no reports of his address (as I thought at first for sometime, but initially I had only analysed the daily press reports from the 4th and the weekly newspapers from the following weekend) then this may indicate that Cross hasn't said his address at the inquest.

As soon as one report has Cross down as saying his address then that's it, that's all you need, if it's some sort of fantastical claim then a lone press report may not be enough to convince, but in this case he is suppost to give his address, and the one published in the Star is the correct one. So that should be enough, really.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

The Star, 3 September 1888 -

'Carman Cross was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road.'

Clearly Carman Cross had given his address at the inquest. That's why it's there, written down as part of his testimony on the day in question.

Been there, done that ...

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monbegger:

"forgive me if my common sense alternative approach comes across as a tad naive .. "

Common sense can never be naïvety. Thatīs the nature of the beast.

I am aware of half the story ( the Smoke ) but i am also aware that there is another part of the story that is unknown to me ..

Okay. So you tell ME that I donīt have much fact to hang my hat on, but YOU generously offer yourself the opportunity to opt for a story that is unknown to you - because you think it makes sense to do so.

So I need a lot more, but you only need the unknown - would that be fair to say?

"Likewise , to assume that just because we have no written police document to tell us that CrossMere was checked out thoroughly at the time , it does not mean that it did not happen."

Aha. More of the same. We donīt have any records of a checkout, we know full well that the police did not use his true name, hinting very clearly at no checkout, but you opt for the unknown once again. And there goes the evidence that we DO have in favour of evidence that we donīt have - the great unknown. Again.

"The Mizen scam - More like mizunderstanding scam .. "

Cute. But how do you explain that the two parts add up? He FIRST says that Mizen is wanted in Buckīs Row, THEN adds that it is a PC colleague of his that does the wanting down there.
Why did these elements align?
Because Mizen misheard or misunderstood them BOTH, and by coincidence - or the unknown, letīs not forget the great unknown! - they added up at the inquest, and BOTH lent themselves to bolster my take on things?

If you are to beleived, we must accept that Lechmere was right. If I am to beleived we must accept that Mizen was right.

And of course, we opt to believe the man found alone at the murder site, the man who gave a false name. Not the PC - why would we? Notoriously untrustworthy, PC:s, arenīt they?

"And yes someone did , Polly ! At the time he was not sure if she was drunk or dead ."

And therefore he could not say that she wanted anything. From the inquest: " "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
Why would a dead woman want a PC to help out? The great unknown?

"Is it so far beyond your thinking Fish, that with the Police Knowing full well, that PC Mizen was going to identify the man who spoke to him on the morning of the murder , CrossMere may have beenTold to wear the same clothes he wore on the morning of the murder for the sole purpose of the ID."

Oh yes - miles beyond it. Once you can show me a single example of a witness, called to an inquest, who is told to wear special clothes for identifying purposes, it may creep a little closer.
But not much.

"Yes they are Fish , but there were also other things going on that we have no documented proof of, circumstances that we know nothing of , discussions that were never documented , was documented and lost .."

Ah yes, the great unknown!

The best,
Fisherman