Originally posted by Monty
View Post
- He spoke to Mizen, who was an H division man, just like you say. He did however NOT give Mizen his name. This is made clear by the Echo of the 3:rd of September, where we can read:
Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman.
So Mizen apparently had to wait until the inquest day before he was informed about the identity of the man, and before he had his hunch that he was a carman verified. Accordingly, there was never any sequence when a stressed Lechmere identified himself with a false name to the PC. And we can therefore conclude that Lechmere had a couple of days to think about what he should call himself if approached by the police.
- Just like you say, I think Lechmere was the killer of Nichols. And if he was, then he performs that night in a manner that does not portray a person that would loose his nerve.
- The name Charles Allen Cross lends itself very poorly to any deception. If he wanted to dupe anybody, he should have chosen another name altogether, and even if Cross momentarily leads us astray, it needed to be combined with other Christian names to work better.
It does, however, work eminently as the only way in which he could avoid giving his real identity to the police without serving them an outright lie. And that would allow him to lead friends and family astray.
I think you will need at least some sort of substantiation for this rather bold suggestion before it can gain any weight.
All the best,
Fisherman
Comment