Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Trevor Marriott]

Careful, Trevor - you are not supposed to admit that there was an error as such.

The first thing you do when stepping into a police station to make a statement is to state your name: "My name is Charles Lechmere, and I want to report ..."

No the first thing you do is to say "I believe you may be looking for me as I was the man who found the body of the woman in Bucks Row" names come later.

After that, there is of course the chance that he mentioned that he had once had a PC stepfather, but that would not make the police use his stepfathers name. They would already have been informed about his real name.

You don't know that, and you don't know what went on when he presented himself at the police station. In fact you don't even know if in fact a written statement was taken from him at that time. It is a known fact that at some inquests the statements were made as a deposition at the inquest and not before.

Finally, he would arguably have signed the interview himself. If he wrote Lechmere on it, as he should have done, then why would the coppers not use that name?

Not if a statement wasn't taken at that time

Since he went down as Cross - and yes, that WAS in error, just as you say - he would also have presented himself as Cross and signed himself as Cross.

Speculation is fine, but it needs to be credible, Trevor.

I would use the term plausible and with regards to this scenario it is quite plausible. Simply because thereafter there was no record of anyone police or coroner, casting doubt about his true identity, or anyone treating it as anything sinister. You do not, and cannot prove that the error was not just that an error and nothing more than that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I would use the term plausible and with regards to this scenario it is quite plausible. Simply because thereafter there was no record of anyone police or coroner, casting doubt about his true identity, or anyone treating it as anything sinister. You do not, and cannot prove that the error was not just that an error and nothing more than that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is a totally moot exercise to point out to each other that we cannot prove things, Trevor. It is timeconsuming and unintelligent. We could go on for days, weeks and months, you saying "You canīt prove that he wanted to mislead" and me saying "You canīt prove he didnīt".

Do you find such things rewarding? Or entertaining? I donīt.

Your scenario is anything but "quite plausible". It is instead implausible. It is an outside possibility that cannot be discarded.

The police will ninehundred and ninety nine times out of a thousand ask for the name.

The police will ninehundred and ninety nine times out of a thousand take down the correct name - if it is on offer.

And thatīs being generous towards your "plausible" suggestion. But I am a generous man - I am not one to claim what my opponents say is impossible, unles it is. It is only you and your likes who go to such lenghts, ignorantly claiming that you have debunked something that you have not even understood from the outset.

It is rewarding swaggering ignorance and incompetence with a discerning attitude, something that is totally and utterly undeserved. Rest assured, though, that I am doing it for my own sake.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is a totally moot exercise to point out to each other that we cannot prove things, Trevor. It is timeconsuming and unintelligent. We could go on for days, weeks and months, you saying "You canīt prove that he wanted to mislead" and me saying "You canīt prove he didnīt".

Do you find such things rewarding? Or entertaining? I donīt.

Your scenario is anything but "quite plausible". It is instead implausible. It is an outside possibility that cannot be discarded.

The police will ninehundred and ninety nine times out of a thousand ask for the name.

The police will ninehundred and ninety nine times out of a thousand take down the correct name - if it is on offer.

And thatīs being generous towards your "plausible" suggestion. But I am a generous man - I am not one to claim what my opponents say is impossible, unles it is. It is only you and your likes who go to such lenghts, ignorantly claiming that you have debunked something that you have not even understood from the outset.

It is rewarding swaggering ignorance and incompetence with a discerning attitude, something that is totally and utterly undeserved. Rest assured, though, that I am doing it for my own sake.

Now you have never worked in police stations. When a member of public comes into report something they give the details of what they are reporting first. As I stated their name comes after and not always instantaneously.

I have never claimed to have totally debunked your theory, but all the flaws have been pointed out to you many times, but you are so blinkered and totally obsessed with it you cant and wont accept that you could be wrong and that there are many more plausible explanations, now who is being ignorant and incompetent?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Now you have never worked in police stations. When a member of public comes into report something they give the details of what they are reporting first. As I stated their name comes after and not always instantaneously.

I have never claimed to have totally debunked your theory, but all the flaws have been pointed out to you many times, but you are so blinkered and totally obsessed with it you cant and wont accept that you could be wrong and that there are many more plausible explanations, now who is being ignorant and incompetent?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are, Trevor.

But letīs take it from the beginning:

No, I have never worked in a police station. But I know that there will be routines aiming to as correctly as possible treat the data offered by those who visit a police station.
It kind of goes with the territory.
If somebody comes in and reports that he has been the finder of a murdered woman in a high-profile case, then those who take down the story had better not tell their superiors afterwards that they forgot to ask about the name!

The mere suggestion is utterly ridiculous.

It is therefore exactly as I say - in ninehundred and ninety nine cases out of a thousand, this works the exact way it is internded and regulated to do, and the names are secured.

It therefore remains that your suggestion that they could have gotten it wrong in the Lechmere case is anything but "plausible" - it is instead extremely, extremely implausible.

As for your last passage it is equally uninformed and ignorant. You state that I wonīt accept that I can be wrong.
Why then do you think that I say that Lechmere is the PROBABLE killer? Why would I not state that he MUST be the killer?
Because, Trevor, I open up for the possibility that I may be wrong.

So you have - once again - gotten things backwards, and you are saying things that are false.

You also state that there are many flaws in my theory.
There is not a single one. What there is, is differences of opinion.
Some say that he would not have stayed put, for example, whereas I say that he may well have done that. And Andy Griffiths says that there was no way he was gonna run.

Things like these are not flaws in my theory, Trevor. That is not what a flaw is.
When you claim that such a thing is a flaw, then the flawed reasoning is on your behalf. THAT is what a flaw is.

[harry]

The assumption,repeated over and over again,is that by using the name Cross,the person was uttering a lie with the intention to deceive.
My assumption,based upon evidence,is that by giving his correct home address and his correct place of work,Cross was not deceiving anyone,nor as events prove,did it mislead.He was then,as he is now,established as a person who on his way to his employment,was found standing by a body,and in company of another person went in search of a police officer,and later voluntarily went to a police station.He gave the name Cross,which was neither illegal nor unconnected with a family name.
Nothing in the above suggests guilt,but then I expect my observations will be compared to that of more illustrious members,and I will be told,as I was in another thread,to raise my cap and bow to their superior knowledge and professionalism.Some hope.

[Monty]

I assume Cross could read and write.

If so, he would have asked to read the statement and correct any errors.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

You are, Trevor.

But letīs take it from the beginning:

No, I have never worked in a police station. But I know that there will be routines aiming to as correctly as possible treat the data offered by those who visit a police station.
It kind of goes with the territory.
If somebody comes in and reports that he has been the finder of a murdered woman in a high-profile case, then those who take down the story had better not tell their superiors afterwards that they forgot to ask about the name!

The mere suggestion is utterly ridiculous.

It is therefore exactly as I say - in ninehundred and ninety nine cases out of a thousand, this works the exact way it is internded and regulated to do, and the names are secured.

It therefore remains that your suggestion that they could have gotten it wrong in the Lechmere case is anything but "plausible" - it is instead extremely, extremely implausible.

As for your last passage it is equally uninformed and ignorant. You state that I wonīt accept that I can be wrong.
Why then do you think that I say that Lechmere is the PROBABLE killer? Why would I not state that he MUST be the killer?
Because, Trevor, I open up for the possibility that I may be wrong.

So you have - once again - gotten things backwards, and you are saying things that are false.

You also state that there are many flaws in my theory.
There is not a single one. What there is, is differences of opinion.
Some say that he would not have stayed put, for example, whereas I say that he may well have done that. And Andy Griffiths says that there was no way he was gonna run.

Things like these are not flaws in my theory, Trevor. That is not what a flaw is.
When you claim that such a thing is a flaw, then the flawed reasoning is on your behalf. THAT is what a flaw is.

Yet again you are ducking and diving with your answers as you always do when issues you raise are challenged with plausible explanations.

I suggest that you have had to back down somewhat from saying he was the killer to now saying he was the probable killer.

Let me now re clarify another issue which you have failed to interpret correctly with regards to his appearance at a police station. I say that when he attended he would not have been first asked his name that would have come later after it had been ascertained the reason for his visit and what he was bringing to the table as evidence.

Do you accept, that we do not know what happened at the police station, what was said, or how the error with his name arose. Or do you suggest that it was a deliberate act by him to impede and mislead the investigation? Yes or no will suffice. Its a plain and simple question requiring a plain and simple answer.

Further more do you accept that whatever the error and however it occurred, was soon clarified to the satisfaction of all parties and that there was nothing sinister behind this? Again Yes or no will suffice. Its another plain and simple question requiring a plain and simple answer.

As to Griffiths making this unusual comment about him not running it is nothing more than that an unusual comment, and just because he is a retired police officer that comment holds no more evidential value from him, than if made by my aunt fanny.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I assume Cross could read and write.

If so, he would have asked to read the statement and correct any errors.

Monty

Its wrong to assume anything in Ripperology is it not ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[paul g]

cross

Hi fisherman, have enjoyed all your posts on cross lechmere and am in awe of the time and effort you have obviously spent on the subject.
Your theory has legs so to say and could be a true account of what happened.
However everything you have forwarded on the subject though believable and plausible sadly does not and has not become fact.

You have put across a very good case for Cross but to this day remains a theory, a possibility a possible scenario and that's it.

Your "scenario " has a lot more credibility than some theory's banded about in books and threads, but my opinion is from what you have forwarded is...

It cant be proven and cant be dis-proven so remains a theory.

[Fisherman]

harry: The assumption,repeated over and over again,is that by using the name Cross,the person was uttering a lie with the intention to deceive.

Yes, Harry, that is the assumption.

My assumption,based upon evidence,is that by giving his correct home address and his correct place of work,Cross was not deceiving anyone,nor as events prove,did it mislead.

Iīm afraid that is not correct - he was named Lechmere, not Cross. It was therefore misleading to call himself Cross.
Of course, since there may be a tiny fraction of the population who drifted inbetween two or more names, he may have considered and called himself by both names. And that is best checked by looking at what signature he used in his dealings with the authorities.
Lo and behold - it seems he EXCLUSIVELY used Lechmere.
Then that means that using Cross was a very clear deviation from this.
One explanation to this could be that he wanted to mislead the authorities about his name. Forget the adrress and working place - I am saying that he seemingly wanted to mislead about his NAME.
By the way, "based on evidence" - good one!

He was then,as he is now,established as a person who on his way to his employment,was found standing by a body,and in company of another person went in search of a police officer,and later voluntarily went to a police station.He gave the name Cross,which was neither illegal nor unconnected with a family name.

... but nevertheless a name he otherwise did not use in authority contacts. There, and there only lies what we need to explain.
I am anything but certain that it is lawful to give a name to the police by which you are not registered. No matter if this is so or not, it nevertheless is an anomaly.
You have tried to wring this inside out for years now, Harry, and you have gotten absolutely nowhere. You had better get used to that, because you are staying there.

Nothing in the above suggests guilt,but then I expect my observations will be compared to that of more illustrious members,and I will be told,as I was in another thread,to raise my cap and bow to their superior knowledge and professionalism.Some hope.

You know the drill then: good!

[Fisherman]

I assume Cross could read and write.

If so, he would have asked to read the statement and correct any errors.

Monty

Yes, well, there goes my theory then: If "Cross" had been the incorrect name, he would have corrected it immediately.

I never thought of that before, Monty. Very clearsighted!

[Fisherman]

Hi fisherman, have enjoyed all your posts on cross lechmere and am in awe of the time and effort you have obviously spent on the subject.
Your theory has legs so to say and could be a true account of what happened.
However everything you have forwarded on the subject though believable and plausible sadly does not and has not become fact.

You have put across a very good case for Cross but to this day remains a theory, a possibility a possible scenario and that's it.

Your "scenario " has a lot more credibility than some theory's banded about in books and threads, but my opinion is from what you have forwarded is...

It cant be proven and cant be dis-proven so remains a theory.

To get the whole picture, we need to ask ourselves an important question:

Can a case be decided on circumstantial evidence only, even if there is no proof to go with it? Does that happen?

Yes, it does. Very often, actually. Many of theose convicted of crimes can say - and often DO say - "I was convicted on loose grounds, there is no proof to make me the culprit".

We are not likely to find any conclusiv proof, not ever. But the Lechmere case goes a long way to produce circumstantial evidence. And it actually also involves physical ditto, in pointing to the bloodflow and coagulation patterns.

Before he knew about this blood evidence, QC James Scobie said that there was a prima faciae case against Lechmere, suggesting that he was the killer.

Some "Ripperologists" will not accept that. They prefer to conclude that Scobie was misled; that is more imprtant to them than to be decent enough to accept what he said was what he believed on reasonable grounds.

That matters little - any barrel of apples will contain the odd rotten one. And in the end, what must be realized here is that we are in Lechmereīs case discussing the possibility that a trial against the man could have been launched if the police knew what we know.

Go through the rest of the candidates and see which other so called suspect would come within a country mile of that.

Kosminski? We know of no connection to the crimes in his case, other than Andersons factually unbolstered accusations.

Bury? Ha!

Druitt, Levy, Puckridge, Carroll, van Gogh...? Give me a break!

I thank you for your kind words.

And I wonder why you point out to me that there is no conclusive proof. It is not as if I have said that there is, is it?

I merely say that Charles Lechmere was probably the killer of Nichols, and that he is most certainly the prime suspect in the whole Ripper case.
If he is NOT, then there is MORE and WORTHIER circumstantial evidence gainst some other suspect, ot absolute proof, even.

Now, who would that be?

Any ideas, anybody?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Yet again you are ducking and diving with your answers as you always do when issues you raise are challenged with plausible explanations.

I suggest that you have had to back down somewhat from saying he was the killer to now saying he was the probable killer.

Present to me where I have said that I am certaint that he was the killer, or suffer the consequnces. It wonīt hurt, I promise. It is a mere matter of laughing you off the boards.

Let me now re clarify another issue which you have failed to interpret correctly with regards to his appearance at a police station. I say that when he attended he would not have been first asked his name that would have come later after it had been ascertained the reason for his visit and what he was bringing to the table as evidence.

Do you accept, that we do not know what happened at the police station, what was said, or how the error with his name arose. Or do you suggest that it was a deliberate act by him to impede and mislead the investigation? Yes or no will suffice. Its a plain and simple question requiring a plain and simple answer.

The suggestion that he gave the name Cross and no other name is incredibly much better that the suggestion of a screw-up in behalf of the police. And I wonīt ask you to verify it, since it is totally unnecessary.

Further more do you accept that whatever the error and however it occurred, was soon clarified to the satisfaction of all parties and that there was nothing sinister behind this? Again Yes or no will suffice. Its another plain and simple question requiring a plain and simple answer.

No. Of course I do not accept that there was nothing sinister behind it. That has to be the strangest question ever asked on these boards. The whole point is that I suspect this man of murder, Trevor. How would I reconcile that with accepting that there were no sinister reasons behind his nameswop? And whatīs this garble about "the satisfaction of all parties"? Of course the polic would not be satisfied by being given the wrong name. But if they donīt discover that this has happened, why would they protest?
Dear me, Trevor - you do say the weirdest things.

Now, whatīs next? A question of whether I accept that he was nothing but a nice guy? A question whether I accept that he would never lie to Mizen? Or what?

As to Griffiths making this unusual comment about him not running it is nothing more than that an unusual comment, and just because he is a retired police officer that comment holds no more evidential value from him, than if made by my aunt fanny.

But were you not the one who tried to pull rank, pretending that I did not have any experience of police stations and their work? Whereas you did? Well, well...!
So let me get this right! Since you are an e-copper, you have the upper hand in understanding all things criminally related? But since Griffiths is also an ex-copper, he does not have the upper hand in understanding all things criminally related?

Thatīs the god thing about debating with you, Trevor - you seem predestined to get yourself into these trousertangling antics. One can always count on a laugh or two.

[paul g]

cross

And I wonder why you point out to me that there is no conclusive proof.

I pointed that out as there is no conclusive proof.

[Fisherman]

And I wonder why you point out to me that there is no conclusive proof.

I pointed that out as there is no conclusive proof.

True, true - I guess I am just getting exhausted by the many people who tell me, over and over again, that there is no conclusive proof, as if I had said that there was.

You are as entitled to do that as anybody else, and I should have shown a bit more patience, so sorry about that.

Nevertheless, I stand by how Lechmere is by far the best suspect and the only one who can be argued as warranting a trial!