Originally posted by MrBarnett
View Post
As for testifying in court, again, an inquest and a trial, while both legal situations are not the same thing. Moreover, not being a specialist in the formalities of those legal environment, my guess as to how the hypothetical witness would respond is pretty much meaningless.
Regardless, we both agree that Cross did not testify under his legal name, similar to when he testified at an inquest years ago (in which case he was much more directly involved as he was at risk for being held responsible for the fatal accident). Given that history, and from a situation where he would have been considered directly involved in the situation as more than just a bystander, I'm not entirely sure what the point is. He didn't testify under his legal name, we both know that and agree upon that. Neither of us knows why he testifies under the name Cross. We both know he testified under the name Cross at an inquest previously, where he was directly involved, and where his legal name was not listed then (provided, of course, that previous case is him), and so we have a historical precedent for him to have done so.
If we are to speculate as to why he used the name Cross again, perhaps that last point suggests an idea. He may be using the name Cross now because it eases the link between himself and the previous accident. The authorities may have indicated he use the name Cross to provide a consistency with his prior testimony, and perhaps the name Cross was the one he went by at that time, etc.
Do I think that must be the case? Of course not, it's just speculation because, as we both recognize, we don't know why he testifies under the name Cross, we only know he did.
But, regardless of his reason for doing so, does it follow that he was attempting to interfere with the police's ability to investigate him should they choose to? And clearly the answer to that is no. They know where to find him. Moreover, whether he was summoned to the inquest or simply appeared out of nowhere, the idea that the police would not have interviewed him is, I think, untenable. They had to if he was summoned, and I can't accept they wouldn't have if he surprised them by showing up out of the blue. Moreover, there is no evidence that the police considered him a surprise witness, nor that they received any negative press in response to a key witness having gone undiscovered.
So, given the above, that I can see no merit in speculating that he did not at some point undergo questioning by the police, I think the odds are pretty low that his legal name was never disclosed to the police. The fact they do not refer to him by that name would be consistent with Cross being the name he commonly used, but also consistent with just ensuring their files maintain consistency with the name he testified under (meaning it doesn't prove Cross was his commonly used name). While the details of the police interviews for a few people are mentioned at times, they clearly must have interviewed more than a half dozen or so people, so the fact that we do not have a record of his interview can hardly be considered surprising despite how unfortunate it may be.
It's a shame the suspect file has gone missing. It would be interesting to know if, for example, he was listed in that document, particularly if it listed him as Cross/Lechmere. If that file should ever resurface, that would be the sort of new information that could potentially provide us with definitive answers rather than leaving us to speculate stories between what evidence we have and what destination we decide we want to get to with our story.
- Jeff
Comment