Charles Cross?

[Abby Normal]

I watched the program last night. Wow was it bad. The reasoning and leaps of faith would have made Patricia Cornwell blush.

c.d.

Nahhh. Its not that bad. Its at least as good as the by the book, Kosminsky was the killer, Definitive History. And better than pretty much all the rest.

As Fish Noted the Lech leaning over the body when discovered by paul was unfortunate but really-what does it matter. It really does not reraaly change anything or hurt their theory. Lech is cutting her abdomen, hears/sees paul approaching, and quickly pulls down the skirt(to cover the wound he just made) and takes a step or two back-where paul encounters/sees him.

Lechmere certainly has red flags that need to be explained and their are about 100 worse suspects.

Now I think he was probably was just a witness who found the body, but there theory is plausable, and IMHO deserves more attention and research.

[curious4]

Weak perhaps - but still points :-). And speaking as someone who has a little experience of having their surname changed over their heads, so to speak.

Best wishes
C4

[Fisherman]

But that is my point. You have no idea if Lechmere was a psychopath or an empathetic pussycat. That's what make this aspect entirely circular:

If he was a psychopath he could have been the killer.

If he was the killer he could have been a psychopath.

Big deal.

And in a modern reworking of Ben's immortal words, if my husband had a fanny and wore a frock, he'd be my wife.

Love,

Caz
X

Once again, it must be speculated that the killer was a psychopath. His deeds bear testimony to it.

Once again, it must be pointed out that Lechmere, if the killer, behaved in a manner that is consistent with psychopathy.

That is not to say that Charles Lechmere must have been the killer and that he must have been a psychopath. It is merely offering a backdrop against which everyting fits.

This is a theoretical discussion, where points like these are useful to offer, since they may provide an explanation to what happened.

Moreover, if I cannot say that Lechmdere would have been a psychopath if he was the killer, then I find it odd on the extreme that you are free to speculate that he was Cross at work.

If he was Cross at work, then he would have had a reason to use that name.

If he had a reason to use that name, then he was probably innocent.

The fact is that you conjured it all up, didnīt you?

Funny, is it not, that you should accuse me of circular reasoning?

[Fisherman]

It is possible that he used Lechmere in all official contacts but reverted to Cross with those who had known him as Cross. That can't be proved of course. And there is a possibilty that shock and the circumstances made him revert to Cross, if in his mind he still felt himself to be a Cross.

Best wishes
C4

Yes. Or maybe he said "As I CROSSed the street..." and the police and the jury and the coroner mistook it for a name.

These are -at least to my mind - extremely weak points.

Once more, we KNOW that he was Lechmere with ANY authority. He was therefore most probably Lechmere with everybody else too, since most people do not use two different surnames.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=caz;350920]Not this again, Fisherman.

You don't know he didn't switch between the two, using Lechmere for official matters (in particular where it related to him as a husband, father and household member) and Cross in a work context.

Nope, I only know that there is absloutely no evidence pointing to anyboy at all ever calling him Cross but for his stepfather back in 1861 and the Met in 1888. And that was because he gave the wrong name.

Contrary to this, I am 100 per cent certain that he DID use the name Lechmere. So much so, in fact, that every written record there is about him, but for that 1861 census and the police and inquest recordings relating to the Nichols murder, states "Lechmere".

Can you see that this involves a great anomaly, Toots? If you look real hard?

If they had always known him as Cross at Pickfords, it would have made absolute sense to give the police that name, as a carman witness on his way to work, and he would not have been in any way wrong to do so.

That is slightly pathetic as an argument. There are numerous accounts where he was ASKED his name by differing authorities, and he always gave the name Lechmere.

The only remedy against this is total desperation and laughable arguments, and that is where you come in.

There is zero evidence that he ever used the name Lechmere at work. But he would have been one careless psychopath to give the police a name that wouldn't check out there, while giving them ample information with which to track him down and ask him why not.

And the police would be complete idiots to go to Pickfords only to esatblish his name. Didnīt we just agree on that? I know we should.

Throughout Charles Lechmereīs life, there is proof of himself using one name only, if we discount the murder inquest and police reports. There is zero support for him using an other name at work and with friends. Thereis not a leg, not a toe, not a toenail for you to stand on - and you nevertheless press on, you brave, brave woman! You have a disaster of an argument, and you coudnīt care less!

Now, try to think the other way around. Make the supposition that he consciously avoided giving the police his real name. IF that was so, where does that put us?

And why is it that this suggestion is in accordance with him seemingly presenting other lies, and with him being smack bang in the middle of the blood evidence?

If he always was Cross with friends, then why did Mizen hear him say that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row?

If he always was Cross with friends, then why does he fit the blood evidence like a glove?

If he always was Cross with friends, why do all of these different matters point to him?

[caz]

The person who killed and eviscerated in the streets was in all probability a psychopath. If Lechmere was the killer, then we can see that he took the psychopaths way put of trouble. That is all we can say - and indeed all we DO say also.
If I had said that I know that Lechmere was a psychopath, you would have a point.
But I donīt - and you donīt either.

But that is my point. You have no idea if Lechmere was a psychopath or an empathetic pussycat. That's what make this aspect entirely circular:

If he was a psychopath he could have been the killer.

If he was the killer he could have been a psychopath.

Big deal.

And in a modern reworking of Ben's immortal words, if my husband had a fanny and wore a frock, he'd be my wife.

Love,

Caz
X

[curious4]

It is possible that he used Lechmere in all official contacts but reverted to Cross with those who had known him as Cross. That can't be proved of course. And there is a possibilty that shock and the circumstances made him revert to Cross, if in his mind he still felt himself to be a Cross.

Best wishes
C4

[Fisherman]

See post #46.

Love,

Toots
XX

I did. See post 48.

[caz]

Toots! Long time no see!

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

See post #46.

Love,

Toots
XX

[caz]

But he didnīt switch between the two. That is my point. He consistently used "Lechmere" in each and every contact he had with the authorities. But for the Nichols murder errand.

Surely you can see the anomaly here?

As for the name Cross, there is zero evidence that he ever used that name outside of the murder inquest and in his police contacts.

Not this again, Fisherman.

You don't know he didn't switch between the two, using Lechmere for official matters (in particular where it related to him as a husband, father and household member) and Cross in a work context. If they had always known him as Cross at Pickfords, it would have made absolute sense to give the police that name, as a carman witness on his way to work, and he would not have been in any way wrong to do so.

There is zero evidence that he ever used the name Lechmere at work. But he would have been one careless psychopath to give the police a name that wouldn't check out there, while giving them ample information with which to track him down and ask him why not.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz: Ah, but that story would fall apart if the police made a simple check with Pickfords, who were able to confirm a Charles Allen Cross worked for them and his claimed movements that morning also checked out. How would they then have discovered he was officially a Lechmere, if they satisfied themselves that he was a truthful witness without the need to trouble his wife at home?

You are the one claiming that the police were not complete idots. What makes you think they would seek information from Pickfords only, without turning to his home and the official registers? Since when do they rely solely on people who have a probably friendly connection to their suspect and who may be in on a scam?

I don't understand why he would have called himself Cross and trusted to luck that a) the police would not check with Pickfords, and b) nobody at Pickfords would later query his story, if he wasn't known by that name there, but only as Lechmere.

Of course you donīt understand, Toots! Having been told a thousand times that he may have wanted to keep incognito to his friends and aquaintances, whilst using a name that he could explain IF he was looked into, bears plentyful witness to that.

The psychopath argument doesn't really stand up because it's completely circular. If there was any evidence for him being a psychopath, that would be your best case against him, without the need for straw-clutching to build one from very little else. IMHO of course.

The person who killed and eviscerated in the streets was in all probability a psychopath. If Lechmere was the killer, then we can see that he took the psychopaths way put of trouble. That is all we can say - and indeed all we DO say also.
If I had said that I know that Lechmere was a psychopath, you would have a point.
But I donīt - and you donīt either.

[Fisherman]

Hi C4,

I assume you mean Paul and Lechmere (aka Cross)?

Well there is some evidence that the police were not complete idiots because they made an effort to track Robert Paul down after Chapman's murder, as a result of his press interview in relation to Nichols, and got him up in the middle of the night to question him. That wouldn't really make much sense, as the second man to come across Nichols, if they were not remotely concerned about Lechmere's role in the affair, as the first. They were both carmen, and the police would have wanted to explore the possibility of them being 'in it' together, in the wake of the murders of Smith and Tabram, which were suspected to have been the work of two or more men.

Love,

Caz
X

Toots! Long time no see!

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

[caz]

To me, the failure to find out that the carman was called Lechmere and not Cross tells a story of how they never took any interest in him.

Ah, but that story would fall apart if the police made a simple check with Pickfords, who were able to confirm a Charles Allen Cross worked for them and his claimed movements that morning also checked out. How would they then have discovered he was officially a Lechmere, if they satisfied themselves that he was a truthful witness without the need to trouble his wife at home?

I don't understand why he would have called himself Cross and trusted to luck that a) the police would not check with Pickfords, and b) nobody at Pickfords would later query his story, if he wasn't known by that name there, but only as Lechmere.

The psychopath argument doesn't really stand up because it's completely circular. If there was any evidence for him being a psychopath, that would be your best case against him, without the need for straw-clutching to build one from very little else. IMHO of course.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I'm not sure I would attach too much importance to the name thing, though, my stepfather adopted me and I took his name, but never really accepted it as mine and I was three or four when this happened. Lechmere/Cross was around twelve as I recall, so some would remember him with one name and others with another. Not really surprising that he switched between the two.

Best wishes
C4

But he didnīt switch between the two. That is my point. He consistently used "Lechmere" in each and every contact he had with the authorities. But for the Nichols murder errand.

Surely you can see the anomaly here?

As for the name Cross, there is zero evidence that he ever used that name outside of the murder inquest and in his police contacts.

[curious4]

Names

I'm not sure I would attach too much importance to the name thing, though, my stepfather adopted me and I took his name, but never really accepted it as mine and I was three or four when this happened. Lechmere/Cross was around twelve as I recall, so some would remember him with one name and others with another. Not really surprising that he switched between the two.

Best wishes
C4