Charles Cross?

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: It would check out by the simple expedient of knocking on the door of the address he gave and finding out that he lived where he said he did. Fish, this 'using two surnames' thing is the weakest part of your argument and I really don't know why you cling to it as being of evidential value when it isn't.

Andy Griffiths was of a different opinion. How many murder squads have you led?

Elizabeth Long / Durrell (or Darrell) used two surnames. She can be placed close to a murder scene around the material time but she isn't a suspect, is she. Why not? Because the fact that she used two surnames is completely and utterly irrelevant.

How do you know that she used two surnames? Chapman, by the way, was long dead when Long/Durrell passed by.

Sticking to this argument that Lechmere's use of his stepfather's surname at the inquest points to his guilt doesn't strengthen your argument; it weakens it. Lechmere either was the killer or came as close as anyone to catching him. That's as far as you can take it IMHO.

I can take it a lot further, Colin. It is you who canīt and wonīt. Take for example the fact that the abdominal wounds were hidden. Why would the alternative killer do that? What would be the gain?
Why would Lechmere do it? What would be the gain?

Can you see how that works? which killer is implicated? Your man who soundlessly fled a minute before Lechmere ariived - or Lechmere?

[Fisherman]

Most people, when they say things like, "He can easily explain", mean that the explanation makes sense and can be readily accepted as it is not patently absured on it's face. That's why it doesn't makes sense for someone to say something like, "Oh! I can easily explain to you how I was in Hong Kong at 1PM and in New York at 1:30PM. You see, I'm Superman!"

In your pet theory you have this explanation - prepared by Crossmere in advance for just such an eventuality (nearly caught in the act) - one that, in your words - easily explains why he gave is name as Cross. Yet, it's utterly unbelievable nonsense and the police are complete boobs for believing it. I guess I'll have to wait for the book to sort it all out.

Back to your old habits, I see.

Goodbye.

[Fisherman]

that he just stopped I don't think is one of them. So I don't believe the Charles Cross theory.

Who says he stopped?

Or are you saying that he would only kill by means of evisceration? That the MO was locked?

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: We don't know that they didn't get his name right. That is your surmise.

There are numerous examples of people with double identities in legal proceedings. We know this because the police lists BOTH names, adding which is the correct one.
If you argue that the police could have gotten both names but agreed on lechmeres advice to use just the one in their internal reports, I think you are on very deep water. Why would they give away their chances of identifying the carman in the future? I just donīt see how that would work.
You used to be a policeman yourself. Were you in the habit of allowing people to decide for you under which name they went into the reports? Is any policeman in that habit?

We know only that they didn't cross-reference the two names, but why would they? Why has there got to be an official document in the file saying, "Oh, by the way, that bloke Cross usually goes by the name Lechmere"?

To allow for identification, and because that would be the rule to follow.

You've supported your argument by saying that there was zero police and press interest in this man after the inquest. Perhaps Lechmere was a private man who didn't want the press crawling all over him and successfully used the name Cross at the inquest to ensure that he wouldn't be disturbed.

Why would Cross have him less disturbed than Lechmere...?

The argument that a policeman's step-son used his step-father's surname to prevent the police from knowing who he was is a non-starter.

He was not interested in keeping the police out of the know, Colin. He gave them both address and working place, so we can see that he fed them as correct information as he could. But if he wanted people in his everyday vicinity out of the know, then he could not provide police and press with the name Lechmee. Likewise, he could not give the press information about where he lived. Interestingly, no paper but the Star HAS that information, clearly pointing to how the carman didnīt give it in open court.

[Patrick S]

It would check out by the simple expedient of knocking on the door of the address he gave and finding out that he lived where he said he did. Fish, this 'using two surnames' thing is the weakest part of your argument and I really don't know why you cling to it as being of evidential value when it isn't.

Because it's the basis for entire theory. Without this suspcious name change business, the whole tale collapses. The name issues is the first hoop. And if you don't jump through it, you can't jump through the others.

Elizabeth Long / Durrell (or Darrell) used two surnames. She can be placed close to a murder scene around the material time but she isn't a suspect, is she. Why not? Because the fact that she used two surnames is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Sticking to this argument that Lechmere's use of his stepfather's surname at the inquest points to his guilt doesn't strengthen your argument; it weakens it. Lechmere either was the killer or came as close as anyone to catching him. That's as far as you can take it IMHO.

Agreed with all points. My thoughts on the name issue as it fits into the theory as a whole above bold.

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: Fisherman,

Yes...?

You say, "If he gave the name Lechmere and the police found out that he called himself Cross at work and asked why, he could easily explain it."

Indeed I do!

We agree in that he could "easily explain" this. I ask you this:

1. In your words, how would he have explained it to the police? You concede that he'd have been able to "easily explain" the name inconsistency. How so? Imagine his words. What would he have said?

I could not possibly know, Iīm afraid. I can only put myself in hos place, and say how I would have gone about it myself.
I think I would have said - working from the premise that he was not called Cross at work and guilty - "I was just taken aback by all of this, I mean murder and such matters ... Gee, I guess I was just scared, and so I used my old name. I was once called Cross, you see. I had a stepfather by that name."

If, on the other hand, he was known as Cross at Pickfords, I would have gone "Listen, I know that I should have given you my official name, but I tend not to use that as much as I use Cross. Right, lads?"

2. Why would the police have so easily accepted his explanation? Again, you say it would have been "easily" explained. Therefore, it's understood that police would not necessarily have been incompetent in accepting his explanation. Still, it would help us to know why they'd have accepted it. Were such name aliases common? In other words, why would the police have said simply, "AH! I see now. That makes sense. I've no issues with your explanation."

Ah! I said that he would have easily explained the swop by means of having had a link to the name Cross. I did NOT say that the police would easily have accepted it! I think they would have been quite interested by it and they would have wanted a very good explanation. If it turned out that nobody called him Cross, they would make him the prime suspect. And pronto too!

The competence of the police should be seen against a backdrop of what he said and how true it was. Overall, no matter how and why he explained to them why he had kept his real name hidden, they should - and I believe would - have grown suspicions against him.

3. Why is the same "easy" explanation that was accepted by the authorities 127 years ago now unacceptable to you, after all these years?

After having read my answer to your question number 2, you will see that this question is superfluous. But letīs not forget that I donīt think the police ever got an explanation - they just got a lie. And they swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

Most people, when they say things like, "He can easily explain", mean that the explanation makes sense and can be readily accepted as it is not patently absured on it's face. That's why it doesn't makes sense for someone to say something like, "Oh! I can easily explain to you how I was in Hong Kong at 1PM and in New York at 1:30PM. You see, I'm Superman!"

In your pet theory you have this explanation - prepared by Crossmere in advance for just such an eventuality (nearly caught in the act) - one that, in your words - easily explains why he gave is name as Cross. Yet, it's utterly unbelievable nonsense and the police are complete boobs for believing it. I guess I'll have to wait for the book to sort it all out.

[Bridewell]

If he gave the name Cross, it would not check out with the records, nor would it check out with any other authority.

It would check out by the simple expedient of knocking on the door of the address he gave and finding out that he lived where he said he did. Fish, this 'using two surnames' thing is the weakest part of your argument and I really don't know why you cling to it as being of evidential value when it isn't.

Elizabeth Long / Durrell (or Darrell) used two surnames. She can be placed close to a murder scene around the material time but she isn't a suspect, is she. Why not? Because the fact that she used two surnames is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Sticking to this argument that Lechmere's use of his stepfather's surname at the inquest points to his guilt doesn't strengthen your argument; it weakens it. Lechmere either was the killer or came as close as anyone to catching him. That's as far as you can take it IMHO.

[RivkahChaya]

It's a myth that serial killers cannot stop themselves, but I think it all comes down to the type of killer we're dealing with. A casual killer who only shoots/stabs people, sure. Maybe he loses the thrill and substitutes killing for something else. But I think the Ripper was the kind of guy who couldn't help himself. He's attacking women in dangerous locations, sometimes twice in one night, and wasn't daunted by the increased police presence on the streets. For him, the murder is only a means to an end. It was the violent post-mortem mutilations and organ reaping that drove him, I think we can all agree. It's very hard to believe that the person responsible for the Miller's Court horror show was able to hang up his apron afterwards and call it a day.

This.

Gary Ridgway (the Green River Killer) is an example of a serial killer who simply got bored with the "hobby" (pardon the expression, but it seems like that's what it was to him). Without knowing how old JtR was, and how many victims he had-- did he have a lot more in another location before London, for example-- we can't say whether he was a candidate for stopping on his own, but from witness descriptions, which seem to point to someone a little less than middle age, and the fact that victims were getting somewhat healthier as he went on, and younger in appearance if not in fact, makes me think that he was on the rise, not the decline. That, and the increasing violence of each attack. Ridgway's declining interest showed in ways that the police didn't see until after he was caught, but, for example, he used to pose the bodies, and he gave that up for just dumping them. He also revisited many of the earlier bodies, but he seemed to stop doing that with later bodies.

I've always thought that after JtR discovered what he could do to MJK in the privacy of a room, he couldn't go back to killing on the streets. What that means in terms of looking for future victims, I don't know, but I don't think any women found in the street like the first four canonicals is a Ripper victim. post-MJK victims may be women who disappeared entirely, with a body never found.

Who knows what happened after the MJK murder? Maybe he was moved to take a room of his own with a private entrance some place, no matter what he had to do for it. Maybe he was more motivated to pursue steady employment to secure that room. It's not impossible. Jeffrey Dahmer worked hard, putting in overtime, and sometimes taking a second job, to support his habit. Those 50 gallon drums aren't cheap. And he needed never to be late with the rent, because it wouldn't do for the landlord to come around and find out there were suspect odors, and other odd things about his apartment. He was an alcoholic who could have disappeared into a bottle, but his complicated life as a serial killer (and it was more complicated than most, what with preserving body parts, doing experimental brain surgery on live victims, keeping a freezer full of pieces of victims, and looking for ways to dispose of the parts he didn't need) kept him going.

Or, maybe JtR nicked himself with the knife when he butchered MJK, and died of sepsis a few weeks later.

A lot of things are possible.

But that he just stopped I don't think is one of them. So I don't believe the Charles Cross theory.

[Bridewell]

Can you please tell me why it is that the police never got the carman's name correct if they actually did check him out?

We don't know that they didn't get his name right. That is your surmise. We know only that they didn't cross-reference the two names, but why would they? Why has there got to be an official document in the file saying, "Oh, by the way, that bloke Cross usually goes by the name Lechmere"?

You've supported your argument by saying that there was zero police and press interest in this man after the inquest. Perhaps Lechmere was a private man who didn't want the press crawling all over him and successfully used the name Cross at the inquest to ensure that he wouldn't be disturbed.

The argument that a policeman's step-son used his step-father's surname to prevent the police from knowing who he was is a non-starter.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: Fisherman,

Yes...?

You say, "If he gave the name Lechmere and the police found out that he called himself Cross at work and asked why, he could easily explain it."

Indeed I do!

We agree in that he could "easily explain" this. I ask you this:

1. In your words, how would he have explained it to the police? You concede that he'd have been able to "easily explain" the name inconsistency. How so? Imagine his words. What would he have said?

I could not possibly know, Iīm afraid. I can only put myself in hos place, and say how I would have gone about it myself.
I think I would have said - working from the premise that he was not called Cross at work and guilty - "I was just taken aback by all of this, I mean murder and such matters ... Gee, I guess I was just scared, and so I used my old name. I was once called Cross, you see. I had a stepfather by that name."

If, on the other hand, he was known as Cross at Pickfords, I would have gone "Listen, I know that I should have given you my official name, but I tend not to use that as much as I use Cross. Right, lads?"

2. Why would the police have so easily accepted his explanation? Again, you say it would have been "easily" explained. Therefore, it's understood that police would not necessarily have been incompetent in accepting his explanation. Still, it would help us to know why they'd have accepted it. Were such name aliases common? In other words, why would the police have said simply, "AH! I see now. That makes sense. I've no issues with your explanation."

Ah! I said that he would have easily explained the swop by means of having had a link to the name Cross. I did NOT say that the police would easily have accepted it! I think they would have been quite interested by it and they would have wanted a very good explanation. If it turned out that nobody called him Cross, they would make him the prime suspect. And pronto too!

The competence of the police should be seen against a backdrop of what he said and how true it was. Overall, no matter how and why he explained to them why he had kept his real name hidden, they should - and I believe would - have grown suspicions against him.

3. Why is the same "easy" explanation that was accepted by the authorities 127 years ago now unacceptable to you, after all these years?

After having read my answer to your question number 2, you will see that this question is superfluous. But letīs not forget that I donīt think the police ever got an explanation - they just got a lie. And they swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

[Patrick S]

Fisherman,

You say, "If he gave the name Lechmere and the police found out that he called himself Cross at work and asked why, he could easily explain it."

We agree in that he could "easily explain" this. I ask you this:

1. In your words, how would he have explained it to the police? You concede that he'd have been able to "easily explain" the name inconsistency. How so? Imagine his words. What would he have said?

2. Why would the police have so easily accepted his explanation? Again, you say it would have been "easily" explained. Therefore, it's understood that police would not necessarily have been incompetent in accepting his explanation. Still, it would help us to know why they'd have accepted it. Were such name aliases common? In other words, why would the police have said simply, "AH! I see now. That makes sense. I've no issues with your explanation."

3. Why is the same "easy" explanation that was accepted by the authorities 127 years ago now unacceptable to you, after all these years?

Thanks!

PDS

[Fisherman]

So are you going to look at every one who finds a murder victim as being the killer ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yawn.

Do try and keep up with the posts out here, old man.

[Fisherman]

I think it's disingenuous to state that someone like Crossmere wouldn't have registered on the police radar. All kinds of men were arrested during the investigation.

Speaking about disingenuous: What does the police do when they entertain suspicions against somebody? Do they trust that these suspects are giving them their real names, or do they check it out?

Any thoughts?

[Fisherman]

Not at all, Fisherman. I was not suggesting he was on his way to work when he gave his name to the police. My point is that he was volunteering his story to the police about what had happened on the murder night as he was making his way to work. Common sense tells us that he anticipated the police would treat his account as important evidence and were likely to seek confirmation not only of his identity and employment status, but also his stated movements, including what time he had arrived and whether this was his usual routine. After all, as you say, he had a number of days to think about it. More fool him, then, if he came up with the wizard wheeze of giving a name that wouldn't check out at his given place of work. And more fools the police, if they didn't bother to check a single detail, and believed the word of a total stranger found near the body, over one of their own officers, one PC Mizen.

Love,

Caz
X

If he gave the name Lechmere, it would check out with the records and with all other authorities.

If he gave the name Cross, it would not check out with the records, nor qould it check out with any other authority.

If he gave the name Lechmere and the police found out that he called himself Cross at work and asked why, he could easily explain it.

If he gave the name Cross and the police found out that the records and authorities had him down by another name, he would be in trouble.

I really cannot spell it out much more clearly to you.

He had time to think. Days of time. Why would he not say "My name is Charles Lechmere, but some know me as Charles Cross"?

You have just about the worst argument I have heard.

Keep it, Toots.

[Fisherman]

But that is such a lame and pointless argument, Fisherman. Anyone can offer a backdrop against which everything fits, simply by arguing that 'if x, y or z was the killer, everything fits'. But everything can be made to fit if you start with that little minx of a word 'if'.



Now this is where you keep going wrong. You are trying to make a case against Lechmere, using arguments that begin: 'If he was the killer...'. Well dur.

I am not trying to make a case either way, but simply pointing out that yours depends on Lechmere being known as Lechmere at Pickfords, but using the name Cross to help him get away with murder. Neither of us knows if this is even a possibility, because neither of us knows which name he was known by at work.

Simple as.

Love,

Caz
X

Nope. Does not work. You are every bit as circular in your argument, and you need to realize that.

And I know what name he was known by with the authorities.

Simple as, Toots.