Originally posted by Columbo
View Post
The discovery of Cross/Lechmere name inconsistency was and is a major contribution to our knowledge of the Nichols' murder and those associated with the case. It's an interesting bit of information that has helped us all to understand more about who this man was, what his life was like (as previous attempts to research "Cross" proved less than fruitful).
But, what did the research turn up? Evidence of mental illness? No. Evidence of criminal activity? No. Arrest record? Violent behavior? No. Nothing. Okay. So he was an exceptionally talented psychopath. He was never caught. Doing....ANYHTING. But was did we FIND OUT? What do we KNOW?
Well, we found out that he had exceptionally stable employment (no mean feat considering his time and place earth), 25 years as an employee at Pickfords. We learned he was married to one woman for 50+ years and had more than 10 children. After his retirement he opened a business, a small shop. Upon his death (of natural causes as at an advanced age) he left his wife a respectable sum. All but one of his children survived infancy. Most became professionals of some sort or another, clerks and the like. I can draw many conclusions from this information. Lifelong serial killer is not - sadly - among them.
Ah. But what of this name issue. It's what drew all of our interest after all. It's suspicious, isn't it? Here is how I addressed that in an early post:
The fact that Lechmere’s name is reported in both “The Times” and “The Telegraph” as “Cross” has recently been scrutinize, causing some to view Lechmere with suspicion. It should be noted that Cross was not a name Charles Lechmere invented. Lechmere’s father died when he was boy and his mother subsequently married a policeman called Thomas Cross. It has been reported that research into Lechmere has shown no other instances of him using the name “Cross” in official or legal circumstances.
Again, the official records of the Nichols’ inquest have been lost. Consequently, there is no evidence that Lechmere provided the name “Cross” to the exclusion of “Lechmere”. We are left to rely upon the published reports of the inquest, primarily in “The Times” and “The Telegraph”. Reporting of the inquest’s testimony was – AS A RULE – less than accurate. There are several examples of names incorrectly reported. Lechmere’s middle name is given as “Andrew” in “The Telegraph”. His first name was reported as “George” in “The Times”. Robert Paul is called ‘Baul’ (Telegraph). PC John Thain is called “Thail” (Telegraph). Mizen’s first initial is given as ‘G” (Times).
It’s quite possible that that Lechmere was asked if he was known by any other names. He may have simply cited “Cross” and the reporters present chose to report this name rather than attempt an accurate spelling of “Lechmere”. The Telegraph also reports that Lechmere stated that he was a carman, “employed by Messrs. Pickford and Co”. This was Lechmere’s actual employer. Other reports have him providing his genuine address. It is apparent that Lechmere was not making an effort to conceal his identity.
It should be noted, also, that Lechmere came forward of his own accord, appearing at the inquest voluntarily. He was not summoned in that PC Mizen did not ask he and Paul to provide him with their names when they met in Baker’s Row on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. It’s also clear that the police were not looking for Lechmere when he appeared to offer testimony. It seems likely that Lechmere had either read or been made aware of Robert Paul’s statement published the previous day in Lloyd’s Weekly. As has been discussed, Paul overstated his own role and marginalized Lechmere’s to a great extent. If he had killed Nichols, why not let Paul do just that? Why not remain hidden, unnamed?
To put it simply this is my OPINION: "Fisherman" and his companion Eddie found something quite interesting: this Cross/Lechmere name business. Suspicious, no doubt. So, one must look further. And look "Fisherman" and Eddie did. And they found....what? Nothing. Nothing at all to put WITH this one suspicious element in ALL of our exposure to Lechmere as an actor in Buck's Row/Baker's Row and as a witness at the inquest. Again, they found no arrest records. They found no spouses claiming violence. No sisters saying he whacked them about and killed animals while visiting the neighborhood brothel. No evidence that he was a lifelong bachelor, unable to form relationships. No evidence he was sexually inadequate or mentally ill or impaired. As we see from the information posted above. What we found was quite the opposite.
So where did that leave the theory? Well, it leaves it to rely upon INVENTION and EXCEPTIONS. That is to say that since there is NOTHING in the information we have to suggest that this man was a killer. In fact, what we KNOW tell us that he was very likely a simply law abiding citizen. Thus, We must invent 'Mizen Scams' by interpreting news reports in ways that require - to be kind - more than modest leaps in logic. We take news reports from 1888 and call them "blood evidence". We imbue PC Mizen with the best character a man can have. He's always honest. Always true, steadfast, heroic....accurate in all he says. You see, he must be ALL that, if we are to move forward with this theory.
And then we have the EXCEPTIONS. Ah, yes. We hear about the seeming "normal" serial killers who had wives and lives and careers. All those serial killers who were model citizens, productive, stable, long marriages, careers, ambitious, upwardly mobile, successful (and prolific) parents. And we are told - essentially - that these exceptions are actually the rule. And that what we actually KNOW about Lechmere is actually damning! Alas, we are not bright enough - as "Fisherman" tells it - to understand what is obvious to him: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper (and the Torso Killer and, like, a bunch of other serial killers over his long life).
And so it goes.
Leave a comment: