A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[Ben]

If a senior and very well respected policeman claimed in black and white to have interrogated Lechmere then I would feel bound to accept that and I would have to accept that it diminished the chances of his being the guilty party.

I don't believe you, Lechmere. No offense.

Abberline was bound to use the word "interrogate" when communicating with his superiors for the obvious reason that it creates a favourable impression. That does not, for one moment, mean that he was any less thorough with witnesses with a proven connection to a crime scene, such as unpopular suspect Charles Cross, and nor does it mean that he would not have used the same word in reference to earlier witnesses. "I was really thorough because I said I was", is about as useless as "I'm innocent because I say so".

Any "interrogation" that leads to the formation of an "opinion" before any attempt at verification could be conducted does not sound like a particularly thorough interrogation to me.

So far as we can determine Lechmere did conceal his identity from the police his family and from generations of ‘Ripperologists’.

Not even a remote possibility if he was known socially, and at work, as Lechmere. There is no escaping the reality that a great many friends and colleagues would recognise Lechmere as the true identity of the man calling himself Cross in the papers, and this recognition could not have failed to find its way to the attention of the police.

Should Lechmere’s presumed appearance at a police station to make a statement followed by his testimony at the inquest be regarded as social calls?

It should be regarded as a willingness to provide the name he was known socially and at work by, as he fully expected friends and work colleagues to recognise him in the papers as the man who discovered the body, whatever name he gave. If he stuck with his "rule" of sticking his birth name on all official documents, regardless of whether or not they received a public airing (which all the others would not have done), it was just awkwardness waiting to happen.

Since he was going to be known to the press-reading public as the bloke who works for Pickfords, there was an obvious incentive in using the name he was known by at Pickfords.

Are you claiming that Mizen recognised that he made an error?

Yes.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

If Lechmere wanted to draw upon the advantage of having had a police stepfather, he could just as well have used his real name. "My name is Charles Lechmere. I actually used to have a stepfather called Thomas Cross who served as a policeman, but died nineteen years ago".
If somebody remembered Cross, then fine. If not, it would not help him to use the alias Cross. Any policeman who had served with Cross could potentially also have known that his stepchildren had been baptised and were called Lechmere, incidentally.

Itīs not as if giving his real name would deny him his history. It only denied the police, and the public not least, access to who he truly was.

The best,
Fisherman

[Dane_F]

Dane
What advantage do you think he was trying to obtain from the police by associating himself with his long dead ex policeman stop father?

My father passed away about 8 years ago. He worked at a car dealership. Whenever I go there I still mention his name in hopes it will help. He was well known and liked. People are usually very kind.

There is a saying that is popular, "It's not what you know. It's who you know."

The advantage was in the hopes people would notice the name and assume some credibility to him due to his association. He was found over a body, no matter if he was the killer or not he would want his story to have as much credibility as possible. Its a very logical assumption to make. Certainly more than some sinister plot to try to hide his identity while giving his work information.

Of course, like I said. Other points might very well finger him as a good suspect. I just don't think the Cross name mention is one. People have done this for thousands of years.

[Lechmere]

Dane
What advantage do you think he was trying to obtain from the police by associating himself with his long dead ex policeman stop father?

[Sally]

Hi Dane,

Yep, makes perfect sense - and welcome to the forums.

[Dane_F]

I certainly like the story of Lechmere. There are some interesting parts to it and I feel I could be persuaded to believe he is a likely suspect.

One point I did not see mentioned, and someone with far more knowledge please correct me if I am wrong, but his stepfather was a policeman correct?

Would it not make sense to introduce yourself as a person who has a connection to a police officer if you were found over a dead body? Ignoring whether he was the killer or not, I see a person who wanted to draw a direct connection with someone who might have been known in the police force.

For example, my middle name is my mother's maiden name. My mother's brother, my uncle, owns a paint store in a town near mine. Whenever I need work done at my home, I use my middle name to directly draw a correlation between my uncle and myself in hopes of receiving a better deal.

Does this make me Jack the Ripper?

I also have step cousins who on all of their official documents have their original father's last name. However depending on which side of the family they are around they will use one or the other last name.

Heck, my two nephews from my very own brother both go by their middle names, yet on all official documents (even school work) they have to write their first name.

I simply see Lechmere as trying to gain an advantage by using Cross, because of the connection of the name with the police. This is something many people have done and I don't think can be used as grounds for making him a liar/suspect or anything of the sort. However, the other points might be very valid for him being one.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. No thanks.

Besides, why waste time with games, as you expressed it?

Cheers.
LC

Because itīs seemingly your favourite pastime, Lynn - and because it is ever so nice to offer an opponent the chance to respond to having had his theory dissed. And - if such matters mean anything to you - because people who refuse to explain themselves after having dissed a theory without bolstering it often come across as having no explanation to offer.

Otherwise, I canīt think of any other incentive. And it IS your choice. Itīs just that I would very much like to get an opportunity to clear my (well...) theory from any misconceptions on behalf of those who take a look at it.

Now, what was that again, about a brazen attitude not tallying with my theory...?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

games

Hello Christer. No thanks.

Besides, why waste time with games, as you expressed it?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Very surreal

Yep. One can see quite easily why Lewis Carroll was brought into Ripperology. He would have marvelled ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Good suggestion. But I prefer your earlier one--withdrawal.

My favourite games are chess and Scrabble.

Cheers.
LC

Oh no, Lynn - I insist! Surely you can produce one sensible post, telling us why a brazen character would not fit in with Edwards and my theory! Or was it the Kürten reference that put you off?

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. No, I donīt imagine your favourite games are chess and Scrabble.

[lynn cates]

games

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Good suggestion. But I prefer your earlier one--withdrawal.

My favourite games are chess and Scrabble.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Very surreal

[Fisherman]

There you go, Lynn - you brought up a point of interest:

In my discussion with Edward, I TRIED to adopt your and his theory of "brasening." Unfortunately, it does not lie well with your other arguments.

No? Exactly what arguments does it not lie well with? Inform me, and I will help you out. We may even find ourselves discussing Kürten and his wife on the matter, letīs see!

Fisherman

[lynn cates]

until later

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"If he had run, he COULD have achieved the same, but there were no guarantees."

No guarantees either way. In my discussion with Edward, I TRIED to adopt your and his theory of "brasening." Unfortunately, it does not lie well with your other arguments.

"Just like I suggest Lechmere may have done, it would seem you are playing little games of your own. When I get that feeling, I try to courteously avoid getting any further drawn into things."

Yes, I, too, am sensitive about "games."

"So ask away, if you wish, but please don't get offended if I choose not to answer!"

Never offended. If your suggestion is to break off the conversation, then, with all my heart.

If, however, you should find a truly sinister reason for the alias, I would be glad to hear. So far, I do not find one.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

definitive story

Hello Mr. Holmes. Thanks.

"Who the deuce is this Cross fellow and why the deuce are we making a connection between him and the Ripper?"

He is the chap who found Polly's body--unless another did so and held his peace.

Connection? Well, a researcher a few years back adopted him as a suspect. Why is he a suspect here? He gave an alias--one which his stepfather gave him.

Case closed (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC