Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    Very possible. I didn't consider his job did keep him out in the public during the day. Good Point.

    Columbo
    It should be added here that at the inquest, Mizen identified Lechmere as the man he had spoken to on the murder night. So if there was any fear on behalf of Lechmere that he could be identified, then that fear was clearly justified.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-14-2016, 11:25 PM.

    Comment


    • Could he keep his identiy a secret?Very unlikely.When he gave his evidence at the inquest,he was thereafter known as Cross the carman who found the body of Nichols,who lived at a certain address,and worked at Pickfords.Wouldn't the numerous friends,neighbours, and work mates Know him.Mizen,at the inquest,recognised him,and not from name,as the person telling him(Mizen) of his finding the body.The police would have a description to compare with future suspects.It would have been difficutl to merge back into the unknown.

      Comment


      • harry: Could he keep his identiy a secret?Very unlikely.
        When he gave his evidence at the inquest,he was thereafter known as Cross the carman who found the body of Nichols,who lived at a certain address,and worked at Pickfords.

        He was all of that to the police. To the press, he was not all of that - he never gave his address in open court, if I am correct.

        Wouldn't the numerous friends,neighbours, and work mates Know him.

        Would they know Charles Cross of Pickfords if he normally called himself Lechmere? And if he did not give the address to the inquest?

        I think you are forgetting that there are levels in all of this. As I said before, he would be wary to be as honest as possible with the police, in case he was investigated. If he gave false infomation on all counts, an investigation would in all probability hang him.

        Can we agree on that?

        After that, if he wanted to stay as unidentified as possible to those who lived close to him, he would need to ditch not one, but two of the parameters: The name and the address. And strangely enough, the material implies that he did just that.

        So, if he decided to try and obscure his participation in the murder and itīs aftermath from his close ones, he would need to do exactly what is seems he did. He did NOT however, try to hide hiself from the police, since it would have carried great danger with itself. He gave the wrong name, yes, but he did not give a name to which he had no connection.

        Mizen,at the inquest,recognised him,and not from name,as the person telling him(Mizen) of his finding the body.

        Which goes to show that he had little alternative but to go to the inquest, even if he was the killer. Otherwise, he could be in great trouble.

        The police would have a description to compare with future suspects.It would have been difficutl to merge back into the unknown.

        Yes - so any more murders would need to be done in a fashion that left the police clueless. He had used up the bluff card after Nichols.

        Comment


        • Fisherman,
          He surely would have told his employers as to where he was going and why,and the later publicity of the murders,irrespective of the press,would have revealed a discrepancy,if there was one.
          Still we come back to the was he or wasn't he known as Cross outside of official sources,and we do not have the answer to that.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by harry View Post
            Fisherman,
            He surely would have told his employers as to where he was going and why,and the later publicity of the murders,irrespective of the press,would have revealed a discrepancy,if there was one.
            Still we come back to the was he or wasn't he known as Cross outside of official sources,and we do not have the answer to that.
            "Surely" is a word we may need to avoid. He may and he may not have. If he did, he may or he may not have told his colleagues afterwards that he had decided to call himself Cross.

            As for the name, plentiful evidence has been provided to prove that he called himself Lechmere when speaking to different authorities. If we are to accept that he called himself Cross when at work, that too is going to take evidence. And I have seen no such evidence.

            If it ever surfaces, mind you, we will STILL be faced with the fact that an inquest is is not the same as being at work - it is a very official proceeding, involving authority contacts.

            Either way, you loose. But it is nevertheless interesting to see how the defence is putting all their eggs in a basket that is made up of thin air.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              It should be added here that at the inquest, Mizen identified Lechmere as the man he had spoken to on the murder night. So if there was any fear on behalf of Lechmere that he could be identified, then that fear was clearly justified.
              Learned something new. Thanks.

              Comment

              Working...
              X