So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Have you ever come across in your research the "fraudulent" other Charles Cross, aged 23 in 1876 and living at 39 Cambridge Rd Mile End ?

I´ve come across more than one man with the same name. Why do you ask about this one?

[Jon Guy]

I´ve come across more than one man with the same name. Why do you ask about this one?

This one has a Bethnal Green association and is very close to Lechmere`s age.

[Fisherman]

This one has a Bethnal Green association and is very close to Lechmere`s age.

Not sure where you are coming from, Jon. If you tell me, I will try and answer you tonight. I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

[Jon Guy]

Not sure where you are coming from, Jon. If you tell me, I will try and answer you tonight. I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

Don`t worry about it, Christer
I was just intrigued as to whether there may have been two Charles Cross`s, of the same age and living in Bethnal Green in 1888, (and one of them did have a police record)

[GUT]

Not sure where you are coming from, Jon. If you tell me, I will try and answer you tonight. I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

What y'all building.

[Robert]

I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

Just don't try to put a square peg into a round hole.

[MrBarnett]

I´m off now, to do some carpentry (!).

Just don't try to put a square peg into a round hole.

If the square peg is small enough it will go in, but then you'll be left with four major gaps and we know how difficult it is to explain those away.

[Fisherman]

I was actually fixing some windows - providing free sight to those who would otherwise live in darkness...

[GUT]

I was actually fixing some windows - providing free sight to those who would otherwise live in darkness...

Good of you.

If I did it I'd hate to think the result.

[MrBarnett]

I was actually fixing some windows - providing free sight to those who would otherwise live in darkness...

Fish,

When you say windows and mention carpentry, I'm guessing you mean framing. Bit of a busman's holiday, then.

Gary

[Ausgirl]

I came in here to post something, and it's taken me a few minutes to stop laughing. You lot are comedic gold, bless.

Anyway. Re the question of the thread title:

I should think, were the Ripper ever caught in the act or too close to it for comfort.. (or was afraid that he had been), his very best bet would be to feign innocence and shock, and pretend to have discovered the body.

If he were a local man, whose face had been regularly seen in the area, there'd be little point in obfuscating his identity.

The fact that the Ripper's method of killing barely allowed blood to fall on the victim's own clothing suggests he might have been extremely concerned about getting blood all over himself. Thus, if Xmere really was the Ripper, there's a definite chance he'd have minimal blood on him. If he flipped the victim's clothing over her lower body (as opposed to leaving her shamefully exposed, as happened with other victims) he could get away with saying he thought she was merely drunk but hey, let's look altruistic to boot and hunt up some help from the potentially highly damaging witness to check she's not dead - what a brilliant move (this is the area where I think Christer's arguments are strongest, but more on that later). So all he'd really need to explain away is why he was at that place, at that time. Being a few minutes late for work seems innocuous enough..

I really can imagine 'Xmeripper' (who in my mind is presently a fictional construct, but I'm gonna roll with it..) being on put on the spot and conniving his way out of it, by removing himself as a potential suspect by making himself a valuable and very obliging witness, a man who (hopefully) would not be blamed for nothing. It's brilliant, really good stuff.

Why'd he "stop" involving himself? Well, the internal logic of my 'Xmeripper' construct would demand that he never again allow himself to be that nearly caught. The end. It's that simple, really - he would strive to never put himself in the position of being happened-upon ever again.. so there'd be no need whatsoever (assuming he's successful..) for any protracted bouts of self-promotion as a gormless witness. A sheer necessity, I think, considering how much heat surrounded these murders.

Which leaves only the question of why he used his "other" name. If this was "my" Xmeripper, I'd probably leave that bit out. Because it makes more sense for an innocent man to do something like that, out of panicked desire to distance himself from the horrible crime perhaps.. than for a killer to do so, while also giving his correct address and place of work -- which would, let's face it, make this 'Xmeripper construct' unfeasibly stupid.

[drstrange169]

Not once does Mizen say that he was told "We found this woman in Bucks Row". On has to wonder why.

That’s because Mizen misled the inquest.

That’s not my spin, that’s not your spin, that’s “Just the facts Ma’am”.

“I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said …”
P.C.Mizen.

He went through the whole process of identifying Xmere and gave the rest of his evidence without ever mentioning the fact that there were two carmen present.

Imagine the confusion Mizen would have left for future researchers, luckily for history, Baxter eventually intervened asked point blank,

“There was another man in company with Cross?”

To which Mizen finally had to present the true events of that night,

“Yes. I think he was also a carman.”

That’s not the only confusing piece of evidence he gave. He also told the inquest he didn’t continue “knocking up” but, then admitted he did.

“A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.”

We also have the pre-inquest mystery of when PC Neil denied the story of two men finding the body first, Mizen is reported as saying he saw,

“no man leaving the spot to attract attention…”

Forget for a moment any discrepancy with Xmere, Mizen was also directly at odds with Paul’s pre-inquest account.

Mizen was an unreliable witness. That isn’t speculation, it is a verifiable fact.

[drstrange169]

So there was a dilemma: How to be as truthful as possible to the police and as evasive as possible towards those who knew him intimately?
The answer was:
... Serve the family and aquaintances (via the press reporting from the inquest) the name Cross (obscuring him)

When you start moving into the realm of pure speculation, things quickly fall apart. Best to stick with the facts.

Elizabeth Lechmere knew her husband’s association with the name “Cross” so it wouldn’t “obscure” anything. Indisputably, his sister also knew the association with the name “Cross” and quite possibly so did everyone else in the family.

Appearing at the inquest in his work apron highlighted attention on him, an odd thing for a man trying to be “obscure” to do, particularly if he was supposed to be lying to his wife.

… the real workplace (where hundreds of men worked) and avoid giving the address in front of the inquest (which seemingly was what he did).

To appear at the inquest Xmere must have notified his employers. The case was the highest profile news in the area at the time. His direct bosses and work mates at Pickfords would have been checking for his appearance at the inquest and alarm bells would having been clanging loudly if any deliberate lies, like fake names came up.

On the other hand, if he was known as “Cross” at Pickfords EVERYTHING falls into place. The name "Lechmere" would have set off alarm bells at Pickfords but, the name "Cross" would have been fully understood by the family.

[Fisherman]

That’s because Mizen misled the inquest.

That’s not my spin, that’s not your spin, that’s “Just the facts Ma’am”.

“I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said …”
P.C.Mizen.

He went through the whole process of identifying Xmere and gave the rest of his evidence without ever mentioning the fact that there were two carmen present.

Imagine the confusion Mizen would have left for future researchers, luckily for history, Baxter eventually intervened asked point blank,

“There was another man in company with Cross?”

To which Mizen finally had to present the true events of that night,

“Yes. I think he was also a carman.”

That’s not the only confusing piece of evidence he gave. He also told the inquest he didn’t continue “knocking up” but, then admitted he did.

“A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.”

We also have the pre-inquest mystery of when PC Neil denied the story of two men finding the body first, Mizen is reported as saying he saw,

“no man leaving the spot to attract attention…”

Forget for a moment any discrepancy with Xmere, Mizen was also directly at odds with Paul’s pre-inquest account.

Mizen was an unreliable witness. That isn’t speculation, it is a verifiable fact.

... and that is of course not true. There is nothing at all to establish Mizen as unreliable as a fact. There is nothing at all to establish that Mizen misled the inquest as a fact.

That´s about 35 words. Your post was not worth it, but I am in a generous mood. To be honest, the one word horseshite would have sufficed.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:
When you start moving into the realm of pure speculation, things quickly fall apart. Best to stick with the facts.

Your last post revealed just how much you know about facts, Dusty: Nothing. Nada. Rien. Keines.

It was one of the worst cases of misinformation that has been spread about the Lechmere errand, and that is saying a lot!!

And now you (of all people) warn against "pure speculation", following it up with this:

To appear at the inquest Xmere must have notified his employers. The case was the highest profile news in the area at the time. His direct bosses and work mates at Pickfords would have been checking for his appearance at the inquest and alarm bells would having been clanging loudly if any deliberate lies, like fake names came up.

... and this:

Elizabeth Lechmere knew her husband’s association with the name “Cross” so it wouldn’t “obscure” anything.


Priceless!

Get a new hobby.