Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
I certainly haven't used anything like that argument with respect to anything whatsoever.
Using an alternative name would have been no protection from the legendary High Rips. I would presume they didn't know his name anyway. That false argument has been done to death several times already.

[moonbegger]

There is plain evidence that the police discounted Paul's story but what you quoted isn't the main portion.

Do me a lemon Ed , throw me a bone here , the old dick emery's obviously fried . Donde sta ?

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

No. Not at all, actually.

don't you mean yes , exactly like that !

It would not have been criminal to call himself Cross. But if the police found out, then no matter if he WAS the killer or not, suspicion would attach to him.

So he would Not be charged for any illegal , law-breaking , criminal act ? And if he was confident that he himself was not the killer , he would have nothing to hide, or indeed anything to fear from Police suspicion ?

Lech,

Why does appearing as an innocent inquest witness equate to dragging the family name in the mire?

His wife would have been very fearful of the very realistic threat of murderous street gang retribution ( lot's of local folk were genuinely worried ). Having her family name, and her husband splashed across the tabloids as the man who may have disturbed the killers would have surely added to her fear.

And remember this , the killer(s) of Polly may not have known exactly how much an intruding Lechmere may have witnessed .. even more reason to hide behind his stepfathers name !

I know you cant dispute that fact , because its the same argument you put forward for a guilty Lechmere confronting Paul

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
There is plain evidence that the police discounted Paul's story but what you quoted isn't the main portion.

Why does appearing as an innocent inquest witness equate to dragging the family name in the mire?
Do you know of any other witness who gave an (I was going to say 'false') alternative name as a witness to avoid dragging the family name into the mire?
Particularly where the real or true name remained undisclosed?

[Fisherman]

So , your answer as I understand it Fish .. There would have been nothing criminal or illegal regarding his explanation , in fact it would have been accepted by investigating officers .. But he may have bought suspicion upon himself and put his ripping days in jeopardy IF he was the killer .

Am I close ?

moonbegger

No. Not at all, actually.

It would not have been criminal to call himself Cross. But if the police found out, then no matter if he WAS the killer or not, suspicion would attach to him.

Surely, Moonbegger, you can see this? When somebody named Joseph Jones says Donald Duck, Ernest Hemingway, Joe Black, John Jacob Astor or William McSwiggin when asked by the police for his name, the police will not lightheartedly look away from that. And the more serious the crime is, the more trouble the nameswopper will be. It will inevitably have the police looking into the person, unless they have a very good reason not to do so - lika an alibi or something such.

Excuse me for asking, but since I am getting more and more confused by the questions put out here: Is this not as evident as Mount Fuji on a clear day...?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

In answer to your last post - not really.

But he wanted to avoid his wife finding out hence the name swap.
That is the hypothesis anyway.

So there is no evidence that Police discounted Pauls statement ?

But he wanted to avoid his wife finding out hence the name swap.

Here's another hypothesis . His wife told him to use his stepfathers name in order not to drag her and her children's name through the mire ..

Both Hypothesis have sod all evidence to support them , but wouldn't you agree they are equally feasible .

cheers

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

In answer to your last post - not really.

In answer to the one before - if the police had visited his house his ripper days might have been in jeopardy as his wife would have realised that he was involved in some way, although legally or criminally (with respect to police suspicion for the murder) he would have been able to wriggle out of trouble.

But he wanted to avoid his wife finding out hence the name swap.
That is the hypothesis anyway.

[moonbegger]

Also , is this the damning evidence that concludes the Police did not believe Pauls Lloyd statement ?

Up till midnight there was no arrest, but the police state they have various informations which possibly may give a clue, but which are barely to be relied on.

cheers

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

So , your answer as I understand it Fish .. There would have been nothing criminal or illegal regarding his explanation , in fact it would have been accepted by investigating officers .. But he may have bought suspicion upon himself and put his ripping days in jeopardy IF he was the killer .

Am I close ?

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

What would his explanation be ? and would the Police have arrested him for supplying a false name regardless of his explanation ?

And if the answer is NO arrest , then surly we must conclude that there was indeed a legitimate foundation for his use of the name Cross .

cheers

moonbegger

People are rarely arrested for having used a name that is not their own, Moonbegger. It would not have happened here either, Iīm sure.

What it could - and in an ideal world would - have brought about, would have been an interest in Lechmere on behalf of the police as the possible killer of Nichols. And so, they could - and in an ideal world would - have dug away and looked into Charles Lechmere, his routes, his timings, his performance at the inquest - and THEN they would have arrested him.

To counter your rather rash point, it would not by any means mean that the police would have considered there to have been "a legal foundation" for the name Cross if they did not arrest him. You can only have a legal foundation as such for your true name.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hence the use of the Cross name - he could come up with an explanation for its use if the name swap was exposed as it would have been if the police had visited his house.

What would his explanation be ? and would the Police have arrested him for supplying a false name regardless of his explanation ?

And if the answer is NO arrest , then surly we must conclude that there was indeed a legitimate foundation for his use of the name Cross .

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

In 1888 we have the birth certificate for his daughter, her baptism, his electoral register entry and his children's registration at Essex Street School - all under Lechmere.

The notion that he called himself Cross or was known as Cross is unsupported.
He also clearly did not mention that his real name was Lechmere, and only gave Cross.
Bearing in mind the circumstance where he used the name Cross, I would suggest that it is of interest and would have been at the time had they discovered it.

The weight of evidence suggests that he used Cross for this one and only event. There is of course a chance that he was known as Cross at his workplace for example, but there is no evidence that can be produced to support that hypothesis.
If he did just use Cross for the purposes of his involvement in this case, and never before or after, then this does not mean that he was necessarily guilty of the murder.
But it is nevertheless as sign that he should be looked at with a degree of suspicion.

It is a given thing that suspicion must adher to his giving the name Cross instead of Lechmere, once we know that Lechmere was the name he otherwise signed or gave in all the recorded instances, 1888 included.

There is a lot of quibbling over whether the name Cross was a false name or not. To me, it is evident that only one name can be your true name - and the rest are false names, legally speaking.
Not everybody will agree with this, and it has been suggested that one man can have two or more names. Sadly, the rows about this question have been allowed to cloud the real issue at hand - is it suspicious that Lechmere used the name Cross in relation to the murder inquest and his contacts with the police?

In that case, it applies that regardless if we consider Cross - or any other name Lechmere could potentially have chosen - a false name or a perfectly "legal" one, we still do not have any recorded instance other than the inquest and his police contacts in relation to the murder when he called himself Cross. The 1861 census does not belong here witn any certainty, since he was probably signed as Cross by his stepfather back then.

So what do we have when the smoke clears?

-We have the fact that the records speak of Charles Lechmere as having signed himself or answered to the name Lechmere in all the 120 cases we have knowledge of, before, during and after 1888.

-We have not one single instance apart from the 1861 census and the murder-related events when we have himself answering to or signing his name Cross.

And in that context, all the quibbling over whether Cross was a true or a false name becomes immaterial to the real issue at hand - on the existing evidence, we have to deduct that suspicion must cling to his calling himself Cross in relation to the Polly Nichols murder inquiry and the inquest.

In reality, there is no need to use the term "false name" if it produces so much bad blood. We could just as well say that he on his own accord chose not to use his real name, the name he was listed by, when he spoke to the police and the inquest. The implications remain the exact same nevertheless, and we may perhaps discuss the issue with less animosity and more realism.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

In 1888 we have the birth certificate for his daughter, her baptism, his electoral register entry and his children's registration at Essex Street School - all under Lechmere.

The notion that he called himself Cross or was known as Cross is unsupported.
He also clearly did not mention that his real name was Lechmere, and only gave Cross.
Bearing in mind the circumstance where he used the name Cross, I would suggest that it is of interest and would have been at the time had they discovered it.

The weight of evidence suggests that he used Cross for this one and only event. There is of course a chance that he was known as Cross at his workplace for example, but there is no evidence that can be produced to support that hypothesis.
If he did just use Cross for the purposes of his involvement in this case, and never before or after, then this does not mean that he was necessarily guilty of the murder.
But it is nevertheless as sign that he should be looked at with a degree of suspicion.

[Fisherman]

As far as you know?

There we go then. I should have gone to you in the first place instead of looking through Howard-Vincent, the Rules and Regs, and my police law books.

Circular. For the sake of those who read this thread, and are now bored with this constant repetitive exchange, I'm done.

Y'all can thank me in flowers.

Monty

Law books and rules and regulations and all are of no consequence in this case, if he did not call himself Cross normally. And the signs are very clear - he probably did not.

That, and only that, is what matters in this case.

I donīt for a second believe that Lechmere used a stage name as he killed away. That is your take, Monty, not mine. It happens when you compare apples to pears.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

Michael Caine is the stage name of Maurice Micklewhite, he has not changed it. As is Vic Reeves for Jim Muir. Muir is known to all his family and friends as Jim, including his performing partner Bob Mortimer.

In other words, they are know better by a name they chose than their birth name, however by your logic, that makes both Micklewhite and Muir deceivers and liars.

No, it does not. Thatīs only in your fantasy. They are as far as I know neither, so why would I think they were...?

If they were placed before a court of law, under oath, and asked to state their names, then if Micklewhite said "Caine", he would not lie intentionally - as per my fomer post - but he would nevertheless not state the truth.

Of course, it all becomes a bit ridiculous in this example as Maurice Micklewhite is known to the world as Michael Caine, but if it is not his true name, it is a false name instead - that everybody uses and knows him by.

In 1888 was Cross calling himself Cross or Lechmere?

Lechmere. We know that. Cross? We donīt know that, other than from one single occasion - relating to the murder of Nichols. Which is the one and only exact reason that it is suspicious in the first place.

IF Michael Caine HAD been a killer (weird thought, but...), and put before a coroner, and stated that his name was Wiggins, it would also be suspicious. Not that it would prove that he did not think of himself as Wiggins or that somebody else perhaps did.

All the best,
Fisherman