The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

harry: Llewellyn,at the inquest,does not state the order in which the injuries were committed.
Baxter in his summing up.
Dr Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first ,and caused instantaneous death.Surely it may well be, that as in the case of Chapman,the dreadfull wounds to the throat were inflicted first,and the others afterwards.
So Llewellyn did not say the throat wounds were first,and Baxter,from what he said(Baxter)is of opinion the throat wounds were first.
So no confirmation of your claim Fisherman,that Cross cut Nichols throat after Paul departed.

Eh? I never made such a claim, I´m afraid. I said that the Echo opens up for the possibility, but I very specifically also said that I do not think that it is the better suggestion. I think Nichols´ neck was cut as Paul arrived.

I'll go with Baxter that surely the throat was cut before the other injuries were made.
Yes I know Fisherman,there is talk of a downward motion.

Yes, that seems the sound thing to do - why go with the examining medico who saw and handled the body and the blood when there is a coroner with ambitions to solve the case himself to choose?
I congratulate you on your wise choice.

[harry]

Llewellyn,at the inquest,does not state the order in which the injuries were committed.
Baxter in his summing up.
Dr Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first ,and caused instantaneous death.Surely it may well be, that as in the case of Chapman,the dreadfull wounds to the throat were inflicted first,and the others afterwards.
So Llewellyn did not say the throat wounds were first,and Baxter,from what he said(Baxter)is of opinion the throat wounds were first.
So no confirmation of your claim Fisherman,that Cross cut Nichols throat after Paul departed.
I'll go with Baxter that surely the throat was cut before the other injuries were made.
Yes I know Fisherman,there is talk of a downward motion.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169: A few of points confused me though.

“… we walked at a very moderate speed, and I think the trek was slightly shorter back then, new buildings having swallowed up the old route. Yet when you walked it in the TV show it specifically said. “The street layout is the same now as it was over a century ago.”

Buck´s Row is the same. But the overall route that was walked by Lechmere back then is not the exact same. A large Sainsbury´s has been built over where Foster Street once was. To stand on the spot where Paul lived, you need to stand by the cash registers in there.
At any rate, we could have shaved a lot of time off the 7.07 we recorded if we had hastened.

No disagreement David walked and timed the distances, I’m sure Ed did the same; people walk at different speeds and take different routes. All I’m interested in is, was it possible for Xmere to hit the targets within the time frame, David proved he could.

And Edward says that it would have been impossible, even if running. So there IS a disagreement.

“Only one of them said "exactly 3.45" and that was Paul.”

A classic example of cherry-picking.

Actually, no - he DID say this, and he WAS the only one who gave a timing claimed to be exact. No cherrypicking there.

Even in this thread, you’ve admitted Paul’s Lloyds interview contains contradictions.

It absolutely does. But we can also see that it involves truths. So we have a mixture, which does not change that he gave an exact time that would have been uncontroversial.

You dismiss his claims that Mrs.Nichols was dead long before Xmere got there because it suits your theory.

It is the other way around - it is obvious that Nichols was NOT long dead from the bloodflow, from the coagulation and from Llewellyns saying that she was warm. So it is beyond question that her death appeared close in time to Lechmere´s presence.

This indeed suits my theory - but I am not doing it backwards.

However when Paul said something you like in the interview, you push it as gospel over the evidence of three different policemen.

"Push it as gospel"? Nope. But I do point out how Llewellyns timings point to Paul being on the money. Besides, why would I be to blame for favuouring this view, when you favour the PC:s just as much? Why am I wrong to make my choice and you right to make yours? Do you have an explanation to offer on that score?

Including Mizen, who you cite as a paragon of virtue on all other occasions when he said something you like.

No, I do not. I know very little of his virtues. But I DO know that he had an excellent service record, that he was a deeply religious man and that he went on to take over and manage his father´s farm with great success. How much can be concluded from it, I can´t say - but the implications cannot possibly be those of a dunce, can they?

“You say that Neil called upon Thain at 3.45.

No I didn’t, 100 Aussie dollars to your favourite charity if you can cite where in my post I claimed that.

I can´t. I meant that you work from the presumtion that Neil found the body at 3.45. So he would have wawed down Thain a minute or so afterwards.

“Now, let´s try the suit on with my timings. I say that Paul entered Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 - as he put it in the newspaper article."

And managed to do it without being seen by Thain despite the very bright lights of the brewery.

Thain was not anywhere near the crossing in my schedule. He was five minutes away. I just explained this to you in my former post.

“He then arrived at Browns at around 3.46. He examined the body together with Lechmere, and his estimation that this process together with the walk to Bakers Row took no more than four minutes, speaks to me of an examination time of around a minute and a half. We therefore now arrive at circa 3.47.30. Then Paul leaves together with Lechmere”

And managed to do it without passing Neil.

See the last answer. We both KNOW that they missed Neil, and we both KNOW that this means that the timings are wrong to some extent.

“We therefore now arrive at circa 3.47.30. Then Paul leaves together with Lechmere”

And Mizen along with Neil and Thain got it all wrong, as your Mr Scobie would say, “a jury would not like that”.

That depends on how Neil, Mizen and Thain would substantiate their timings. If they said "we all went by the clock we could hear chiming", and it was shown that this clock was not reliable, then the jury would just love it.

No jury would like the proposition that it took Thain 13 minutes to get to 152 Whitechapel Road, though...

“But it seems you did not consider this part at all - you settled for the timings that suited your suggestion, you ditched Paul in favour of the PC:s”

Of course I did, that’s the whole point.

Yes it is rather.

Paul’s interview was a joke and by aligning with it …

I have Harry barking about how the interview is reliable. But I think you are closer to the truth - the interview was Pauls claim to fame, as I see things. He exagerrates his own role in a ridiculous manner.

But that does not mean that we must discard the given time. If he wanted to be believed, he needed to show that he was there at the correct remove in time.

You can brag about a number of things. But saying it happened at 3.45 is no more bragging than 3.40.

“and you avoided Llewellyn."

Yes I did. If I get time I’ll explain why in another post.

You seem to have had a lot of time so far....? But fine!

I’d also like to talk about the way Andy Griffiths was misled or misunderstood what you told him.

If you claim that I misled Andy Griffiths, I´m done talking to you. We already have Trevor Marriott making a complete fool of himself, and that is quite enough.
If you can substantiate that Griffiths misunderstood something, I am quite prepared to listen and comment.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

If Mizen’s story was true, he was not obliged to take Xmere and Paul’s names. If Paul and Xmere’s story was true, he was.

So the implications are...?

The strange part is, two days after the murder. Mizen is reported in the newspapers as denying he saw anyone in Baker Street.
“These officers (Mizen and Thain) had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention …”

Nobody did. There were two carmen who did NOT leave the spot to attract attention - they instead acted very responsibly.
That is the only explanation I can offer.

Equally bizarre, Mizen never mentioned the two men to Neil.

That too speaks in favour of Mizen having been told that another PC waited for him in Bucks Row. He would naturally have assumed, arriving there, that Neil was the PC spoken of.
It would therefore be odd if he asked questions to have something confirmed that he could bank on the other man already knowing:

"Was it you who sent those carmen?"
Of course it was. Why ask?

If I am correct, and if the Mizen scam went down the way I suggest, then these exact seconds would have been where the case really hung in the balance. If Lechmere had asked Neil about the carmen, he would get the answer that Neil had not seen any carmen. And that should have had Mizen and the police getting highly suspicious.

But if Mizen never asked - for the obvious reason that Neil in his eyes must have been the other PC spoken about - then all the pieces would fall in place for Lechmere. It all involved a large amount of luck, that goes without saying.
Saying that Lechmere would never have taken such a risk, though, is improductive. In the situation he was, if being the killer, his primary goal would have been to get away from the police and get the time to rid himself of the weapon and clean up, if needed.

Please note that Mizens silence when meeting Neil has a perfect parallel later: When Neil spoke to the papers and subsequently to the inquest, he said that he was the finder of the body and that he had not been directed to it by two men.
Of course, this would have been perfectly in line with what Mizen believed: Neil would have found the body, then the carmen would have surfaced and Neil would have sent them on to fetch him, Mizen. Therefoe, Mizen would have seen no need to go to his superiors and say that Neil had gotten it wrong.

If Lechmere had NOT told him that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row - if there had been no scam, that is - then Mizen would have been baffled to read how Neil took the honour of having found the body, when he himself knew that the carmen had found it first.
Rationally resoning, he would in such a case have gone to his superiors and told them about the carmen. But that never happened.

So in both of these instances, Mizens silence is explained by the character of the lie Lechmere had told him. That is how the scam would have worked. It was ingenuous, but it would have been revealed anyway if it had not been for a large slice of luck.

Being an H division copper off his patch he would have had to explain himself to the J division officers and some would have returned on the 15 to 20 minute back to the murder site with them, yet it appears he never mentioned the two men at any stage.

And the Mizen scam offers an explanation to why!

You are now asking all the right questions. Whether you agree with my answers to them or not is another matter, and you have a free choice to believe what you want to in this context. But it won´t change how the questions you ask are absolutely crucial for an understanding of the case.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I want nothing.I wish to change nothing as far as Paul's evidence is concerned.What I think ha s been done is show that Paul was not the liar you claimed he was.Why commit perjury when there was no need to ?What was the gain.

You cannot committ perjury by speaking to a newspaper. You can when speaking t an inquest. It therefore applies that the inquest version is the one that is much more likely to be true.

Do I give Cross the leeway to dwell and cut the victim's throat.Not necessarily,but you have raised an interesting and new claim.

It is not a claim. Dear me, Harry! It is pointing to what could apply if we read the Echo with a twist.

Her throat was cut AFTER the body wounds were made.Interesting.I'm sure posters will e agerly await your reasons for claiming so.

You may or may not be aware that the serving medico, Llewellyn said that this was what had happened. And the blood evidence is perfectly in line with the suggestion.

You may be amused at my predicament...

I am, rather. You have to admit it is pretty funny.

I am laughing my head off at yours.

So that´s how you lost your head? But exactly what is my predicament??

[GUT]

I just watched the video on Youtube. It certainly is interesting for the Nichols' murder. He might be her murderer, or a very strong suspect.

This said, the Swedish reporter falls for confirmation bias for the others. So does the other specialists.

The ending is the most annoying. Why would Lechmere stop? We know he lived until 1912 at least.
The reporter will try to find other crimes around him.
And there it is, an upcoming book deal...

This tv episode is a bit premature, in my opinion.

G'day Sir John.

You do know that the reporter is Fisherman??

[drstrange169]

Re Fish’s post 382


You seem to have a genuine problem understanding facts. What I wrote was based on sworn testimony and detailed police reports.



Your reply offered personal opinions and conspiracy theories. Therefore my original post stands as you failed to meaningfully contradict anything in it.


A few of points confused me though.


“… we walked at a very moderate speed, and I think the trek was slightly shorter back then, new buildings having swallowed up the old route.”

Yet when you walked it in the TV show it specifically said,
“The street layout is the same now as it was over a century ago.”


“Fellow poster Edward Stow has other timings, so there is a disagreement.”

No disagreement David walked and timed the distances, I’m sure Ed did the same; people walk at different speeds and take different routes. All I’m interested in is, was it possible for Xmere to hit the targets within the time frame, David proved he could.




“Only one of them said "exactly 3.45" and that was Paul.”


A classic example of cherry-picking. Even in this thread, you’ve admitted Paul’s Lloyds interview contains contradictions. You dismiss his claims that Mrs.Nichols was dead long before Xmere got there because it suits your theory.



However when Paul said something you like in the interview, you push it as gospel over the evidence of three different policemen. Including Mizen, who you cite as a paragon of virtue on all other occasions when he said something you like.


“You say that Neil called upon Thain at 3.45.”


No I didn’t, 100 Aussie dollars to your favourite charity if you can cite where in my post I claimed that.


Here is what I actually wrote.


“Fact: Thain said he was in Brady Street at 3:45. If Paul was entering Buck's row at that time, Thain should have seen him.
Fact: Neil said he found the body at 3:45.”


Can you see the difference? You tend to get a bit carried away when your challenged, like that Ulster coat business.



“Now, let´s try the suit on with my timings. I say that Paul entered Bucks Row at exactly 3.45 - as he put it in the newspaper article.”


And managed to do it without being seen by Thain despite the very bright lights of the brewery.




“He then arrived at Browns at around 3.46. He examined the body together with Lechmere, and his estimation that this process together with the walk to Bakers Row took no more than four minutes, speaks to me of an examination time of around a minute and a half. We therefore now arrive at circa 3.47.30. Then Paul leaves together with Lechmere”


And managed to do it without passing Neil.




“We therefore now arrive at circa 3.47.30. Then Paul leaves together with Lechmere”



And Mizen along with Neil and Thain got it all wrong, as your Mr Scobie would say, “a jury would not like that”.





“But it seems you did not consider this part at all - you settled for the timings that suited your suggestion, you ditched Paul in favour of the PC:s”



Of course I did, that’s the whole point. Paul’s interview was a joke and by aligning with it …

“and you avoided Llewellyn.”

Yes I did. If I get time I’ll explain why in another post.


I’d also like to talk about the way Andy Griffiths was misled or misunderstood what you told him.

[drstrange169]

Hello Patrick,


If Mizen’s story was true, he was not obliged to take Xmere and Paul’s names. If Paul and Xmere’s story was true, he was. Either way he was obliged to write the incident down in his log. The Strange part is, two days after the murder. Mizen is reported in the newspapers as denying he saw anyone in Baker Street.
“These officers (Mizen and Thain) had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention …”

Equally bizarre, Mizen never mentioned the two men to Neil. Even stranger he was sent to Bethnal Green Police Station not only to get the ambulance but also reinforcements.



Being an H division copper off his patch he would have had to explain himself to the J division officers and some would have returned on the 15 to 20 minute back to the murder site with them, yet it appears he never mentioned the two men at any stage.



It gets worse, he went to the mortuary with the others (it was situated on his beat) and still he didn’t mention Xmere and Paul.

Re the timing of Xmere approach to the police;



At the end of the Saturday’s inquest, Abberline requested a meeting with Baxter asking for a delay as new evidence had come to light that he would like to present at the next inquest. Was that evidence Xmere? If it was then Xmere approached the police prior to Paul’s interview being published. And Xmere DID appear the next time the inquest convened.



Of course I’m moving into Fish’s area here, there is no proof, I’m just wondering.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

That will in all probability have been the documentary Blink Films made on the subject: "The Missing Evidence - Jack the Ripper". It was supposed to air in Australia too.

You may be interested in reading the above list, since it adds a number of matters to the docu presentation!

I just watched the video on Youtube. It certainly is interesting for the Nichols' murder. He might be her murderer, or a very strong suspect.

This said, the Swedish reporter falls for confirmation bias for the others. So does the other specialists.

The ending is the most annoying. Why would Lechmere stop? We know he lived until 1912 at least.
The reporter will try to find other crimes around him.
And there it is, an upcoming book deal...

This tv episode is a bit premature, in my opinion.

[drstrange169]

Hello Harry,


Mrs. Nichols throat being cut after the stomach isn’t a new claim; it’s always been there in Baxter’s summation.
“Dr. Llewellyn seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first …”

[Hercule Poirot]

You are gradually self alienating yourself by reason of the fact that you are not prepared to accept that your theory has been shown by many on here to be littered with flaws, which you cant, and wont accept.

You have dug yourself a big hole with the content of the documentary, which was provided by you and you other partner in "Super Sleuths Inc" Inspector Gadget, which may have pleased the documentary makers by reason of the fact that they were able to edit it a way that when it went out to the public it was made to look as if you had solved the biggest and most well known murder case in the history of British crime, with all the experts provided by Blink films supporting your claim. well you havent and that is where it must rest for the time being.

I personally have nothing further to say on this thread. It has now become boring and tiresome, with the same old points being argued day after day. I hope posters will refrain form continuing to argue with you because it is clear you are not going to back down and accept one, some, or all of the points you seek to rely on to prove Lechmere killed Nicholls are not proven.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm not trying to defend Fish something he can easily do by himself but when I hear someone question the whole of a theory because it may contain certain flaws, it's as if a theory has to be perfect before recieving a certain degree of acceptance. Even Einstein's theories still contain flaws depending on the dimensional level you exam it.

I believe we are in the presence of contradictions, ambiguities, partial evidence, lack of desirable documentation in the Lechmere case and Fish has probably been one of the very few riperologists trying to come up with a logical understanding of the puzzle.

As I said before, I don't share his conclusion but many are currently using a different set of evidence presentation rules and of course come with a different conclusion. It's as if everyone is picking up a different series of bed crumbs and try to define exactly the nature of the loaf of bread. Now what really pisses me is when some can't or won't admit serving their own agenda when 'offering' us their presumed expert feedback. As far as I'm concerned, they only manage to introduce a slice of their own loaf obviuosly ignoring what a real loaf of bread looks like.

Respectfully yours.
Hercule Poirot

[harry]

Fisherman,
I want nothing.I wish to change nothing as far as Paul's evidence is concerned.What I think ha s been done is show that Paul was not the liar you claimed he was.Why commit perjury when there was no need to ?What was the gain.
Do I give Cross the leeway to dwell and cut the victim's throat.Not necessarily,but you have raised an interesting and new claim.Her throat was cut AFTER the body wounds were made.Interesting.I'm sure posters will e agerly await your reasons for claiming so.
You may be amused at my predicament,I am laughing my head off at yours.

[Patrick S]

Just to update the tally here:

We now have TWO rather huge omissions to the traditional telling the Mizen Scam fairy tale. First must disregard Paul's comments in Lloyds that demonstrate that he states flatly that he TOLD MIZEN that the woman in Bucks Row was LIKELY DEAD. Its stated in "missing evidence" and repeated by the detective walking around in the dark with Christer that Cross minimized the situation in Bucks Row by saying that she was merely lying on her back, likely drunk. If we are made aware of Paul's statement, then this cornerstone of the Mizen Scam falls apart. Thus, its left out. Christer can ask us to rewind the video take so to speak and check the archives....sorting through is 10k posts. Alas, what cannot be argued is that its not in "Missing Evidence".

Second we that fact that we finally have Christer admitting that Mizen didn't have Cross' name after Bakers Row. There was no description beyond him being a man. Yet, he comes forward. Ready to help out in any way he can....just because?

Missing Evidence, indeed. There's plenty of MISSING EVIDENCE here, Christer. Oh. I forgot. You're not talking to me.

[Patrick S]

Pcdunn:
I suppose Cross came in after reading the paper's account of the inquest, in which Neil is identified as the finder of the body.

I believe that he came in after having read how Paul said that he had found Lechmere standing where the woman was.
As it happens, the police chose not to believe Paul, but that was not something that Lechmere could have foreseen.
If you take the time to check the wordings between what Lechmere says at the inquest and what Paul said in the interview, you will see that there are a great many very close likenesses and formulations. For example, Paul said "as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot." Lechmere said "He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down."
For example. There is a number of other similar things.

If his name had not been taken by Mizen (apparently another breach of police protocol), then it was unlikely they could track him to his home.

It was not a breach of protocol, or so I have been told by Monty. He supposedly knows. If he was scammed by Lechmere, it furthermore applies that his colleagu (the one Lechmere would have invented) should have made the decision to take the names down or not.
Whether they could track him or not is not a very difficult question. If they searched for a man, looking like a carman, who passed trough Bucks Row at around 3.45 in the mornings, there would not be very many to choose from. And Paul could identify him, just as Mizen could - Mizen and his colleagues would arguably have met him on the streets before.

But did Mizen get the names of the carmen?

No. Here is the Echo of the 3:rd:
"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 he did not know it before, he just assumed the man was a carman, going by his appearance. As he attended the inquest, though, Mizen had been informed about the name and occupation of the man he had soken to on the murder morning.

Much is made of this in the Lechmere theory, but it seems he only said his name was "Cross" at his inquest testimony.

There is no recording of him ever using the name Cross on any other occasion. There are a hundred plus authority records where Lechmere has either signed himself or been signeed by officials as Lechmere. Never as Cross.

As his stepfather was a policeman, maybe that was part of the reason for using that name here-- or maybe not.

Thomas Cross had been dead 19 years as the carman stepped into the police station. And even if he wanted to impress upon the coppers that he had had a police stepfather, why would he not say "My name is Charles Lechmere, but it was once Cross. You see, I had a stepfather who was a policeman when growing up.

If he just said that his name was Charles Cross, who would make the connection, nineteen years after Thomas Cross died? For the policeman to understand that his stepfather had been a policeman, he would need to say that.

And if he told the story, then why masquerade as Cross, when he could say that his real name was Lechmere, but...?

I think the use of the term "a false name" in the documentary film is misleading to viewers, perhaps an overstatement.

I have on many occasions said that my take on things is that the registered name is the real name, and all other names are false. I am perfectly happy to call it the wrong name, an alternative name etc. The core of it all is that the carman used a name he never used otherwise with the authorities = BIG anomaly.

Oh, dear. Well. I have to say that it was a good decision to not present this in your television program. The poor, gullible, uninitiated viewer is left to assume this 'bombshell' (as its called) drove Cross from hiding, forcing him to appear at the inquest. Yet, again, we see your killer taking the most illogical path to freedom, the one that takes him back, always back, to the police. And of course, this is more look over here, not over there stuff, right? I mean, let's talk about the name issue again. HOW ODD, right, folks? Yes. How odd. And....how irrelevant to the THIS discussion. So, we have established WITHOUT challenge from brave Christer, that Charles Cross was asked for no name, was NOT described to any degree beyond being 'a man' by Robert Paul. His actions were marginalized by Paul in his comments in Lloyds. Again, its totally irrelevant that Cross didn't know the police did not believe Paul. Its totally irrelevant that Cross used the term 'knocked down' just as Paul had in the paper. Let's pretend that Cross said, verbatim, what Paul said in Lloyds. Again, totally irrelevant as it goes to Cross being the Ripper. The only thing to ask is this: Why on Gods green earth would he be there in the first place? To help corroborate his good buddy Paul?

Dear God, Christer. I'm hoping you don't get sued for misleading the filmmakers! I'm also laughing. But....I'm also hoping you don't get sued. Well.....I lied. No I'm not. But I am laughing at you. Hard.

[Fisherman]

Pcdunn:
I suppose Cross came in after reading the paper's account of the inquest, in which Neil is identified as the finder of the body.

I believe that he came in after having read how Paul said that he had found Lechmere standing where the woman was.
As it happens, the police chose not to believe Paul, but that was not something that Lechmere could have foreseen.
If you take the time to check the wordings between what Lechmere says at the inquest and what Paul said in the interview, you will see that there are a great many very close likenesses and formulations. For example, Paul said "as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot." Lechmere said "He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down."
For example. There is a number of other similar things.

If his name had not been taken by Mizen (apparently another breach of police protocol), then it was unlikely they could track him to his home.

It was not a breach of protocol, or so I have been told by Monty. He supposedly knows. If he was scammed by Lechmere, it furthermore applies that his colleagu (the one Lechmere would have invented) should have made the decision to take the names down or not.
Whether they could track him or not is not a very difficult question. If they searched for a man, looking like a carman, who passed trough Bucks Row at around 3.45 in the mornings, there would not be very many to choose from. And Paul could identify him, just as Mizen could - Mizen and his colleagues would arguably have met him on the streets before.

But did Mizen get the names of the carmen?

No. Here is the Echo of the 3:rd:
"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 he did not know it before, he just assumed the man was a carman, going by his appearance. As he attended the inquest, though, Mizen had been informed about the name and occupation of the man he had soken to on the murder morning.

Much is made of this in the Lechmere theory, but it seems he only said his name was "Cross" at his inquest testimony.

There is no recording of him ever using the name Cross on any other occasion. There are a hundred plus authority records where Lechmere has either signed himself or been signeed by officials as Lechmere. Never as Cross.

As his stepfather was a policeman, maybe that was part of the reason for using that name here-- or maybe not.

Thomas Cross had been dead 19 years as the carman stepped into the police station. And even if he wanted to impress upon the coppers that he had had a police stepfather, why would he not say "My name is Charles Lechmere, but it was once Cross. You see, I had a stepfather who was a policeman when growing up.

If he just said that his name was Charles Cross, who would make the connection, nineteen years after Thomas Cross died? For the policeman to understand that his stepfather had been a policeman, he would need to say that.

And if he told the story, then why masquerade as Cross, when he could say that his real name was Lechmere, but...?

I think the use of the term "a false name" in the documentary film is misleading to viewers, perhaps an overstatement.

I have on many occasions said that my take on things is that the registered name is the real name, and all other names are false. I am perfectly happy to call it the wrong name, an alternative name etc. The core of it all is that the carman used a name he never used otherwise with the authorities = BIG anomaly.