A new critique of the Cross/Lechmere theory from Stewart Evans

[Jenni Shelden]

But its fine to have a million threads....

[Fisherman]

Ok Fish, so lying carried an equal risk, whether he was innocent or guilty. But what was the advantage to him in lying at all?

Are you seriously saying that you cannot remember any of the hundreds of instances that question has been answered?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Iīm logging off for an hour or two now. Or three.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: No, he just gave the name he was known at work and possibly everyday life that would check out. Plus he`d need time off work to appear at the Inquest.
So his boss would know the name Cross.

Eh - the name would NOT check out. He was named Lechmere, remember? That name would check out if he had been honest with the police. The Cross name would never do so - it would tell the police that the man they dealt with had given them a false name.

Of course, you are saying that he called himself Cross and his boss would confirm it. But what makes you think the police would favour asking his boss over asking his family? And if he was honest, why not just say "My name is Lechmere, but I am known as Cross where I work"?

Heīd need time off to appear at the inquest, yes. But how does that tell us that he would use the name Cross? He did not need time off to present himself to the police on the evening before the inquest, did he? And he would not know whether heīd be summoned to the inquest or not. So what you are suggesting does not hold up, Iīm afraid.

At the police station, he would have been asked what his name was, and he gave it as Cross. In any other instance we have recorded of similar or closely similar situations he gives his real name.


Indeed, he hung around asking for help off anothe passer by and then went looking foer a copper.

Alternatively, he was surprised by the arrival of a newcomer and decided to find out what the man had seen - he could be a lethal threat. And then he walked along with the newcomer, who was the one to suggest finding the copper, remember - and that made it look as they were travelling together, thus making him look less suspicious, plus it provided him with a chance to chekc what Paul said to the PC, plus he could form a ruse of his own.

Perspectives, Jon - it is all about perspectives. You are seemingly stepping into the very trap he set, and reasoning exactly as the coppers did: What an accomodating fellow - and so keen to help out!

It wasn`t a false name. It was his dad`s name and it looks like he used it in regular life, like at work, with the neighbours and down the pub.

I have stated my case hundreds of times on this. You have one real name and one real name only. All the rest of the names are false. Some are more explicable if used, others not. Some are used with good intent, others not. But all but the real name are false names. Otherwise, anybody could have a hundred correct names.

What are the sort of examples of him using Lechmere that you have ?

Thatīs Edwards research, so heīd be better fit to answer. But they come from all walks of life and from both before and after the murders.

... and they ALL say Lechmere.


Ask yourself, Jon, if the police had been told a number of interesting things, what would they have done:

- The man that called himself Cross, Sir - he is really called Lechmere. He lied about his name!

- Weīve found out that his working route seemingly may have taken him past the Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly murder sites!

- Ooops - it seems the murders were all committed in the early mornings, when this guy passed on his way to work!

- Ello, ello - what have we gotīere? The Stride killing was commmitted where he used to live! And the Eddowes slaying was committed along his old work trek from James Street to Pickfords! And you know what? These killings were committed earlier - and on a Saturday; his night off!

- Jesus, Sergeant - he may well have butcher skills; his mother runs a cats meat business.

- Oh-oh - and she lives in 147 Cable Street.

- What? 147 Cable? But thatīs just round the corner from where that torso was found, is it not?

- Holy smokes! Look at what he told Mizen on the murder night: He said that another PC was waiting for him there!

- Yeah, but there was, was there not? PC Neale was there.

- Idiot! How would Lechmere have known that? He testified that there was never any PC in Buckīs Row!

- Oh, my God .. but that means ...!

Any chance that they would have taken an interest in him if they had had this information, Jon? What do you think? Is this something that would alert them or not?

But they never knew. They did not find out. They did not ask. They did not check out his name. They did not even check out how much the Buckīs Row dwellers knew until weeks after the murder - and only after the coroner had reprimanded them of their slackness.

What I am saying here is not conjecture. I am merely stating what we KNOW. These are bits and pieces belonging to the evidence, and from these bits and pieces, itīs everybodys prerogative to draw whatever conclusions they wish to. And these are not all the bits, even.

Maybe he wasnīt the killer. But no matter what, the police faioled to get the information they needed to have, and they acordingly failed to haul in a man that has tons of things going for him as a potential Ripper. Those who deny that are sticking their heads so deep in the sand that they should be able to describe New Zeeland.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Ok Fish, so lying carried an equal risk, whether he was innocent or guilty. But what was the advantage to him in lying at all?

[Fisherman]

"If so, remember that he would have been very well aware that he was the one to find the body - and alone at that.

Iīm sure you can see the implications of giving a false name to the police in a high-profile murder case such as this. If he was innocent, donīt you think that Lechmere would have realized the exact same thing? The risks involved would have been huge."

Wouldn't the risks have been even greater if he had been guilty, Fish?

I see what you mean, Robert. But no, I donīt think so. The risks would have been equally great; he would run the risk of being exposed as a liar.

If he had disposed of the murder weapon and had nothing tying him to the strike, he would therefore be in the exact same position as if he had been innocent. For even as an innocent man, he would have a hard time proving that he could not have done it. He had left home at 3.20 by his own admission, he had found the body around 3.40-3.45, giving him ample time to be the killer.

So in each case, he would be exposed as a liar, but as the killer he would run a well deserved risk of being looked upon as a murderer, whereas as an innocent man he would run the exact same risk undeservedly. In that context, lying as an innocent man carried the same risk but for no good reason.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

I think what you say is highly plausible John.

[Jon Guy]

So what do you suggest? That he would be cautious about giving his real name in connection with a police inquiry?

No, he just gave the name he was known at work and possibly everyday life that would check out. Plus he`d need time off work to appear at the Inquest.
So his boss would know the name Cross.

If so, remember that he would have been very well aware that he was the one to find the body - and alone at that.

Indeed, he hung around asking for help off anothe passer by and then went looking foer a copper.

Iīm sure you can see the implications of giving a false name to the police in a high-profile murder case such as this. If he was innocent, donīt you think that Lechmere would have realized the exact same thing? The risks involved would have been huge..

It wasn`t a false name. It was his dad`s name and it looks like he used it in regular life, like at work, with the neighbours and down the pub.

What are the sort of examples of him using Lechmere that you have ?

[Robert]

"If so, remember that he would have been very well aware that he was the one to find the body - and alone at that.

Iīm sure you can see the implications of giving a false name to the police in a high-profile murder case such as this. If he was innocent, donīt you think that Lechmere would have realized the exact same thing? The risks involved would have been huge."

Wouldn't the risks have been even greater if he had been guilty, Fish?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Yes, I recall discussing this and noting that the examples you have of the name Lechmere been used were official things that involved the kids, census and the church. Sunday best stuff.
Giving a statement to the police in 1888 was a different matter. Yes, it was a very serious and important thing but it wasn`t a baptism record.

So what do you suggest? That he would be cautious about giving his real name in connection with a police inquiry?

If so, remember that he would have been very well aware that he was the one to find the body - and alone at that.

Iīm sure you can see the implications of giving a false name to the police in a high-profile murder case such as this. If he was innocent, donīt you think that Lechmere would have realized the exact same thing? The risks involved would have been huge.

Or is it something else you are saying?
We know that he had been asked by dozens of officials: "And your name, sir?", whereupon he had answered "Lechmere. Charles Allen Lechmere". At the cop shop, somebody would have taken out a form and asked him "And your name, sir?"

Why on earth would he say "Cross" at that stage?

I know, Jon, that we can conjure up any sort of explanation to anything. But surely, just as I can say that he COULD have answered "Cross" for some reason that we donīt know, without being guilty, donīt you think that you need to admit that it is a strange anomaly? He leaves the path he habitually treads in every other instance we have on record, and he does it in combination with a murder inquiry where he had found the body - alone.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

This has been up for discussion before, Jon. But even if we accept that he for some reason called himself Cross at work and Lechmere at home, it still applies that not only when he signed his name himself, but also on all the occasions we have on record when he was ASKED about his name by different representants of the authorities, he answered "Lechmere" - and then the ones who had asked him, wrote Lechmere on the form. There are dozens of examples to prove this.

So tell me why we should accept that he called himself "Cross" when going to the police? He very apparently did not give his name on the murder night, but instead as he approached the police, most probably on the evening before the inquest.

Now, since we have him approaching other authorities and giving his name as Lechmere for them to write down, why would he not do the exact same thing as he approached the police? He was NOT at work - he was at the cop shop.

You see, we have to take this one step further to be able to believe in your proposition - we must believe that he called himself Cross at work, that he gave his name as Lechmere when authorities asked for it - but that he gave it as Cross when the police authorities did the exact same thing.

It does not add up, thus. Not at all, in fact.

Hi Christer

Yes, I recall discussing this and noting that the examples you have of the name Lechmere been used were official things that involved the kids, census and the church. Sunday best stuff.
Giving a statement to the police in 1888 was a different matter. Yes, it was a very serious and important thing but it wasn`t a baptism record.

[Lechmere]

It is known that he didn't give his name to Mizen.

John
what you are saying in effect is that you find people who were mentioned by the police interesting per se and interesting to investigate to flesh out their lives - but what I am trying to do is find a credible culprit - a different task.
having Said that finding extra details about many of the characters' involved lives' is interesting as it adds colour and context to the overall case - that would go for Lechmere whether he is guilty or not.
if Lechmere had been mentioned in the way you suggest in the East London Advertiser I would regard that as a big negative against his likely culprit status.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

Cross has to be the name he was known as at work, because he gave the Coroner the name Cross, and where he worked, for over twenty years.

This has been up for discussion before, Jon. But even if we accept that he for some reason called himself Cross at work and Lechmere at home, it still applies that not only when he signed his name himself, but also on all the occasions we have on record when he was ASKED about his name by different representants of the authorities, he answered "Lechmere" - and then the ones who had asked him, wrote Lechmere on the form. There are dozens of examples to prove this.

So tell me why we should accept that he called himself "Cross" when going to the police? He very apparently did not give his name on the murder night, but instead as he approached the police, most probably on the evening before the inquest.

Now, since we have him approaching other authorities and giving his name as Lechmere for them to write down, why would he not do the exact same thing as he approached the police? He was NOT at work - he was at the cop shop.

You see, we have to take this one step further to be able to believe in your proposition - we must believe that he called himself Cross at work, that he gave his name as Lechmere when authorities asked for it - but that he gave it as Cross when the police authorities did the exact same thing.

It does not add up, thus. Not at all, in fact.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Perhaps Cross sensed that Paul was a bit dubious about him and therefore gave the name "Cross" to the PC in Paul's presence. Natural enough, if Cross thought that Paul suspected he had attacked the woman.

Aha. So maybe Lechmere (for that was the mans name) " sensed that Paul was a bit dubious about him" ? " thought that Paul suspected that he had attacked the woman"........and that would make it "natural" to give a different name ?

If he were innocent ?

?????

curiouser and curiouser, said Alice

[Jon Guy]

John, isn't that contradictory (or am I missing your point?)

Cross has to be the name he used at work.

That`s the missing information we need for the alias thing to work (ie he was known as Lechmere at Pickfords)

Surely Pickford was where he worked?

Do you mean cross was the name he used at work, or at home?

As for the rest - I give up!

Phil

Yes, he worked at Pickfords
Rather than write Pickfords twice, I used the word work in my first sentence, and then elaborated in the second sentence by using the word Pickfords.

Cross has to be the name he was known as at work, because he gave the Coroner the name Cross, and where he worked, for over twenty years.

[Robert]

Perhaps Cross sensed that Paul was a bit dubious about him and therefore gave the name "Cross" to the PC in Paul's presence. Natural enough, if Cross thought that Paul suspected he had attacked the woman.