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

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

If we had it on record that Lechmere had been interrogated

Except in cases where the only assurance that an "interrogation" took place comes from the person responsible for conducting it, when speaking to his bosses. It doesn't have quite the same resonance if he's writing his own reviews. Maybe I should try it: "I have scrutinised your Crossmere theory this evening, and I am of the opinion that it is extremely unconvincing". You must accept my judgement, because I said "scrutise", and not "gave a half-arsed once over".

If his involvement was widely discussed by the press, if he had given press interviews, if his statement had resulted in urgent police memos

Or if he gave a different name that stood an absolutely zero chance of not being discovered, especially if his address and workplace were also well-known. No possibility of identity concealment there, which tells everyone but Crossmere supporters that he wasn't trying to conceal his identity.

Writing on documents and being known socially are two very obviously different things.

Nothing suspicious at all about his "disagreement" with Mizen, as everyone but the Crossmere supporters recognise that Mizen made the error, including Mizen himself.

Regards,
Ben

[lynn cates]

conversion

Hello (again) Christer. Thanks.

"There are more coming. . ."

Not to worry--you and Edward can change them about. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

then . . .

Hello Christer. Thanks.

But supposing she HAD found out that Lechmere had found a body? So what?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Sally. Right.

I think I saw a non-Lechmere thread somewhere. Now, where was that? Maybe not. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Get used. There´s more coming

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I think you missed my point. Let's try this. Is there a single case where he used one name or the other which was not:

1. An official document

2. a contact with police?

Perhaps his mailbox? (heh-heh)

Out of curiosity, what, precisely, would any of this mean to his wife, given his cover story of finding a body?

Cheers.
LC

His wife would have been none the wiser. To begin with, she would not even read it in the papers, to go on, if she WAS informed, then she was informed that a carman named Cross (a name that the Lechmere´s of today have no relation to or memory of) and who worked at Pickfords (as did hundreds and thousands of men) had witnessed in the Nichols case.

All the best, Lynn!
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

suspect

Hello Edward. Thanks.

"Call me old fashioned but usually giving a false name after being found next to a dead body would be thought of as potentially a sign of guilt."

Well, Mrs. Long passed within a few feet of one, and she had an alias. Same with Jane Oram. I might be suspicious had he actually relied on that name to accomplish something. So far as we know, he did not. (And I think you are the chap who suggested going with what we know.)

"Similarly when, immediately after leaving that dead body, you end up in a disagreement with a policeman over the fundamental details of that conversation, then that might, just might, be normally regarded as a potential sign of guilt."

But, again, what was accomplished by this? Did he avoid inquest? Was his name unlinked from the case? You and I have disagreements about details in the killings. But I never once suspected you. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Call me old fashioned but usually giving a false name after being found next to a dead body would be thought of as potentially a sign of guilt.
Similarly when, immediately after leaving that dead body, you end up in a disagreement with a policeman over the fundamental details of that conversation, then that might, just might, be normally regarded as a potential sign of guilt.

PS Lynn - the suggestion is that his wife never learnt of his involvement in the case which is why he gave a false name and went to the inquest as if he was going to work. And which is why the Lechmere family remained in the dark about his involvement.

[lynn cates]

spin cycle

Hello Edward.

"You may wish to put innocent spins on these. . ."

Why "spin" since they don't look guilty in the first place?

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Yes Ben - I do rely on what we know, and of course extrapolate without ever ignoring the facts.
If we had it on record that Lechmere had been interrogated, for example, then I would clearly be far less comfortable in suggesting that his true identity remained unknown.
If his involvement was widely discussed by the press, if he had given press interviews, if his statement had resulted in urgent police memos - then I would sensibly expect his background to have been looked into.

But we don't so I go on what we have. And what we have is Lechmere slipping into the case and slipping out, without his true name ever being mentioned and with generations of 'Ripperologists' misreporting this semi anonymous man's involvement.

Sally
Do you think that stepsons of long dead policemen are permitted to use their long dead stepfather's name when involved in a murder investigation?

It is also a fact that Mizen and Lechmere fundamentally disagreed about the nature of their conversation, isn't it?
It is also a fact that we have no other recorded instance of Lechmere using the name Cross - while we have over 100 instances of the use of Lechmere.
It is also a fact that Nichols' abdominal wounds were covered and that this is the only instance (among the Whitechapel Murders) where the abdominal wounds were covered.
It is also a fact that Lechmere delayed in coming forward.
It is also a fact that Paul spotted Lechmere by the body before he raised the alarm.
And so on and so on.
You may wish to put innocent spins of these put it simply isn't true to say that that it was 'just' that he discovered the body

[lynn cates]

threads

Hello Sally. Right.

I think I saw a non-Lechmere thread somewhere. Now, where was that? Maybe not. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

wife

Hello Christer. Thanks.

I think you missed my point. Let's try this. Is there a single case where he used one name or the other which was not:

1. An official document

2. a contact with police?

Perhaps his mailbox? (heh-heh)

Out of curiosity, what, precisely, would any of this mean to his wife, given his cover story of finding a body?

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Oh No!!! I've been drawn into a Crossmere thread! Aargh!

I must leave at once.

[Sally]

Sally
As you are well aware the case against Lechmere isn't 'just' that he discovered the body - as rather obviously someone has to discover every body.
And similarly, as you know, it isn't 'just' because he had an alternative name (we are on two 'justs' already) as others had well recorded aliases (oops, is there a clue there).
And it isn't 'just' because Mizen gave a different account of their conversation.
And it isn't 'just' because the timings fit.
And it isn't 'just' because the victim's clothing was covering her wounds.
And it isn't 'just' because he delayed coming forward until Paul's account was published.
And it isn't 'just' so on and so on, layers upon layers of meaningless smoke and mirrors to obscure his evident innocence.

Actually, My Dear Ed, what it is 'just' is that Crossmere was the one who discovered the body.

That's a fact. It may - or may not - be suspicious: after all, somebody had to find it. All else that is claimed in respect of Crossmere's guilt requires speculative leaps and bounds - and indeed, defiance of logic in some respects.

On one point I think that you are right - Crossmere didn't want to be identified; but clearly - clearly - not by the police, who could have found him any time they liked, since his address and place of work was readily available. It appears that he didn't want to be associated with the crime - and who can blame him for that? Why should he want his name in the papers? Perhaps he wanted to protect his family. Has it occurred that as the stepson of a former policeman he may have been in a position to use the name Cross in dealings with them?

But of course, you will tell me that nobody would have remembered Thomas Cross by then.

[Ben]

Such facts as we have - and I much prefer to use these as my way points

Right you are, Lechmere.

We rely on existing material, as opposed to claiming that the police "must have" investigated such and such an issue. Just as long as we're consistent in applying that reasoning. I cannot, however, see how it can even be a possibility that Cross's true identity came the fore, unless he was known as Cross at work.

[Lechmere]

Your hypothesis is not supported by any facts - an inconvenience that you regularly skip over I notice.
Such facts as we have - and I much prefer to use these as my way points - tell us that the police were unaware that he had any name except Cross, just as the facts as we have them tell us that his family were unaware of his involvement in the case.