Lawende was silenced

[Fisherman]

But thats pure speculation on your part.

You are missing the point. It matters not when, or how he used the name Lechmere. What matters is that he gave the name Cross to the police, and to the coroner, a name which he was entitled to use. So as far as the murder was concerned he was not giving false information. He was not trying to avoid suspicion if he had committed the murder as you suggest.

So you have simply in the grand scheme of things in trying to prove he was the killer of Nichols created nothing more than a smokescreen. So that nail remains firmly in the coffin

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have neither nail nor coffin, Trevor. To get that, you need to DISPROVE what I say. I know full well that I cant prove it, but thatīs the way theories work. If I could prove it, it would pass from theory to established history.

Have you noticed how I do not go around telling you that the fact that you cannot prove that he ever used the name Cross other than in the Nichols case, means that I have put a nail in the coffin of your thinking?

Itīs not that I do not wish to do so - itīs the fact that it would be utterly stupid and groundless to do it that keeps me back. You howevere, do not care that it is utterly stupid and groundless to claim that the fact that I cannot prove my case is somehow a nail in the coffin of my theory.

We are different in that respect. I think first and speak afterwards, and you speak first, and ... and... well, thatīs about it, really.

[Fisherman]

Hi
I suspect that there were no official sources in this matter. But there is nothing anywhere to suggest he gave the anything other than the name Cross to the police and to the coroner. Fisherman has tried to boost his suspect viability by suggesting a ruse involving the name Lechmere.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thatīs a blatant lie, Trevor, based on your sad inability to read and comprehend. And lying wonīt help your cause.

[Fisherman]

If you donīt mind my asking, Trevor: How on earth would it "boost my suspects viability" if he gave different names to the police and the inquest?

You see, an argument must be coherent, rational and logical to be valid. And this moronic idea you claim I would have come up with is nothing of the sort.

An explanation from your side would be welcome.

[David Orsam]

I was responding to David's post where he said she must have known that he left at 4:30. That's pretty specific.

I didn't say that!!!! I've been careful every time to say "about 4.30". The exact time isn't important. And I don't mean on that specific morning in any case but the time he normally left for work.

My point is that the time and location of the discovery of the body by Charles Cross, carman working at Pickfords in Bishopsgate, living at 22 Doveton Street, was consistent with Cross being Lechmere so that anyone aware of the evidence given by Cross at the inquest who was also familiar with Lechmere could only conclude that Cross was the same person as Lechmere.

[David Orsam]

It wouldn't unless the police thought he would change his appearance. I'm late to this thread so if I'm repeating something I'm sorry, but it's not uncommon, even back then to hold back such testimony to weed out the crazies or to catch a criminal in a lie, etc. The police probably thought JTR might change his appearance. That's all.

You're not repeating something Columbo but you have misunderstood the purpose of my question addressed to Pierre who thinks there was something significant in the evidence of Lawende.

[David Orsam]

He regularly used the name Lechmere when tending to official business. There are a 100 + examples of it.

I think that figure is very dubious and highly misleading. I suspect it includes the electoral register so that if he appeared once as Lechmere in 1880 it is counted as a fresh example when he appears again in 1881 then another one in 1882 and so on. Very misleading figure. The other examples are presumably birth, death and marriage forms and census returns. I would like to know the number of different types of documents involved in this figure of 100.

[David Orsam]

Now, now, Abby - surely thatīs for David to decide...?

Well you were the one who objected to Steve saying it was a weak attempt at deception (although you mischaracterised him as saying "If he wanted to deceive, he made a poor job") so it seems that you set yourself up as the arbiter on the point. Funnily enough, at the end of all this you seem to agree that it was a weak case of deception but that Lechmere only needed to make a weak attempt because his wife was so stupid. Which begs the question as to why he needed to deceive her at all about his finding of the body.

[David Orsam]

The "outcome" is unknown, so I don't see how we can judge any attempt.

I can't agree with you Abby. The outcome is unconnected to the attempt and you don't need to know the outcome to assess the attempt. I gave you an example of this in #179.

I can only assume that Fisherman's case is that when Lechmere gave his name as Cross he believed that this alone would be enough to ensure that his wife never knew anything of his finding the body because she would have had no interest in the testimony of a man called Cross and no-one would have told her anything about it. That being so, it was a weak attempt at deception because it would have been exposed immediately upon his wife learning the details of Cross' testimony. It might, of course, have been successful – his wife, for example, might have been a gibbering idiot - but it was hardly a masterful or optimal attempt at deception and, in my view, was so weak an attempt that the obvious conclusion is that he wasn't trying to deceive anyone.

But the real question here is why Lechmere would have cared about his wife, or indeed anyone else, including the police, knowing of his finding the body of Nichols. I've never understood this part of Fisherman's case. Charles could have been hung just as easily as "Charles Cross" as "Charles Lechmere". But perhaps this is not the right thread for that discussion.

[Fisherman]

Well you were the one who objected to Steve saying it was a weak attempt at deception (although you mischaracterised him as saying "If he wanted to deceive, he made a poor job") so it seems that you set yourself up as the arbiter on the point. Funnily enough, at the end of all this you seem to agree that it was a weak case of deception but that Lechmere only needed to make a weak attempt because his wife was so stupid. Which begs the question as to why he needed to deceive her at all about his finding of the body.

You are a very tedious man, David. You seem to regard yourself as the righteous PC of Ripperology, with a duty to pick on everybody who does not do things the correct way.

And guess who decides which is the correct way?

You mis-spend a profound knowledge of the case in favour of bickering. Why?

I am not interested in your ramblings, but there is one point I would like you to expand on:

If what Lechmere did was such a weak attempt at deception, could you exemplify how he could make a better attempt at deception without taking the risk that he would be exposed as a liar if the police checked him out? You see, I think that what he did was totally optimal in relation to that risk. And I am only suggesting that his wife may have been the person he tried to deceive - it could of course have been somebody else, as I have pointed out before. Or he could have been implicated under the name of Lechmere in some business without getting prosecuted for it, and then he was perhaps unwilling to disclose his name publically for that reason, thinking that the police may recognize his name. Just like in the case with his wife, though, this is a suggestion and no fact. And this too I have proposed as a possibility before.

Now, any examples of how you think a clever deception would have looked, keeping him safe even if the police checked him out?

Otherwise, goodnight.

[David Orsam]

Hi David

Bizarre? Really?
Is there anything in the record where it states that mrs. Lech knew exactly when her husband left for work-at 4:30?

And as I replied to el, it's pretty early in the morning if she's still asleep she may not know exactly when he left for work. Yes she would generally probably know, but to the certainty down to the minute? I think that's a little unreasonable, especially if he may have changed the exact time he left every morning. If he leaves 15 minutes early or so, here and there, and she's asleep, what's the big deal? And any way I don't leave exactly the same time every morning, let alone my wife knowing exactly when I leave every morning.

Not sure why you and el are clinging to the idea she MUST have known he left for work every morning at some exact time.

Frankly, I find it rather bizarre.

I can only repeat Abby that you have misunderstood me if you think I am referring to an "exact time" down to "the minute". What would be bizarre is if Mrs Lechmere didn't know that her husband left early for work every morning at about 4.30am which he must have done to be at work at 5:00am. I mean, if I didn't know you better from this forum I would think you were joking. The simple point is that, together with all the other information revealed about Charles Cross at the inquest, the fact that the body was found at about 4.45am, about 15 minutes after Lechmere normally left for work (although it could have been 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 minutes) means that a person such as Mrs Lechmere who knew Charles Lechmere very well* would realise that Charles Cross could not have been anyone other than Charles Lechmere.

*FAO Pierre: I'm afraid I don't have a source for my claim that Mrs Lechmere knew her husband very well.

[David Orsam]

You are a very tedious man, David. You seem to regard yourself as the righteous PC of Ripperology, with a duty to pick on everybody who does not do things the correct way.

And guess who decides which is the correct way?

You mis-spend a profound knowledge of the case in favour of bickering. Why?

Thanks for your comments about me Fisherman. I don't recall ever making comments about you. That's only partly because it's against the rules of the forum which you might want to read. Or perhaps that is me being tedious to expect you to abide by the rules.

For the record, I don't regard myself as "the righteous PC of Ripperology" nor do I feel a duty to "pick on everybody" etc etc. This is an internet message board Fisherman and I am using it as it is supposed to be used. If you don't like your views and opinions being challenged on an internet message board then write a book or something.

[David Orsam]

I am not interested in your ramblings, but there is one point I would like you to expand on:

If what Lechmere did was such a weak attempt at deception, could you exemplify how he could make a better attempt at deception without taking the risk that he would be exposed as a liar if the police checked him out? You see, I think that what he did was totally optimal in relation to that risk. And I am only suggesting that his wife may have been the person he tried to deceive - it could of course have been somebody else, as I have pointed out before. Or he could have been implicated under the name of Lechmere in some business without getting prosecuted for it, and then he was perhaps unwilling to disclose his name publically for that reason, thinking that the police may recognize his name. Just like in the case with his wife, though, this is a suggestion and no fact. And this too I have proposed as a possibility before.

Now, any examples of how you think a clever deception would have looked, keeping him safe even if the police checked him out?

Love the way you say you are not interested in "my ramblings" then invite me to "ramble" but only on the condition that you will not speak to me about anything else! The man who has never been prepared to provide details of the walk he took between Doveton Street and Bucks Row/Durward Street!!!

Anyway, your question contains within it the inherent flaw of your theory. It assumes that if the police checked out Charles Cross' story they would not have concluded he was a liar. Thus you must accept that he was not lying when he called himself "Charles Cross". Thus there was really no deception there at all! (and that, of course, is what I am basically saying.)

What I would like you to answer is what advantage Lechmere had in calling himself Cross? Why did the police care what his name was? Unless he had a criminal record or they had his name on some kind of watch list, what difference did it make? He could have been hung as easily under the name of Charles Cross as Charles Lechmere couldn't he?

As for his family, what difference would it have made them knowing that he had found the body of Nichols on his way to work?

I suggest there was no advantage to him in calling himself Cross, it made no difference and the whole issue is a red herring that has misled you and actually undermined your case against Lechmere rather than strengthened it.

[Fisherman]

So no answer - the exact thing you enjoy accusing me of, David.

Surely if you are certain that Lechmereīs deception was a bad one, you must be able to exemplify how it should be done to be better?

Not.

Because the deception could not be done better if he wanted to run no risk with the police. It is as simple as that, and I think Iīd better say it myself since you will not do so.

Nice chatting with you. Bye.

No, wait! Just saw this:

"As for his family, what difference would it have made them knowing that he had found the body of Nichols on his way to work?"

If his wife suspected that there was something amiss with her husband, he would arguably be wise not to let her know that he had "found" a murder victim. Thatīs the difference it COULD have made. It also applies that Elizabeth Lechmere was reasonably the person who knew him best, and the people who know you best are also the people who are most likely to notice things. So keeping her out of the loop as much as possible would make eminent sense.

You will probably object to these very obvious things too, but object away - Iīm done discussing with you for today. Nighty-night.

[David Orsam]

So no answer - the exact thing you enjoy accusing me of, David.

Surely if you are certain that Lechmereīs deception was a bad one, you must be able to exemplify how it should be done to be better?

Not.

Because the deception could not be done better if he wanted to run no risk with the police. It is as simple as that, and I think Iīd better say it myself since you will not do so.

Nice chatting with you. Bye.

No, wait! Just saw this:

"As for his family, what difference would it have made them knowing that he had found the body of Nichols on his way to work?"

If his wife suspected that there was something amiss with her husband, he would arguably be wise not to let her know that he had "found" a murder victim. Thatīs the difference it COULD have made. It also applies that Elizabeth Lechmere was reasonably the person who knew him best, and the people who know you best are also the people who are most likely to notice things. So keeping her out of the loop as much as possible would make eminent sense.

You will probably object to these very obvious things too, but object away - Iīm done discussing with you for today. Nighty-night.

I did answer your question, Fisherman, in the only way it could be answered but you didn't like the answer. The problem was that your question did not make any sense. You can't ask me how Lechmere could have done better in deception when there was no deception in the first place! You have admitted that if the police checked out his story everything would have been found to have been true. So who was being deceived? Not the police clearly.

His wife? The one who I thought you were suggesting he dominated completely and was so dumb she didn't know how to get from her house to Spitalfields. The woman who is so dumb and isolated that Lechmere is satisfied that she is never going to learn that one of the witnesses at the inquest was a carman working for Pickfords who lived at 22 Doveton Street!!! A woman so stupid that she doesn't know that her husband's stepfather was Thomas Cross.

Yet, if he gives his name at the inquest as Charles Lechmere he fears she IS going to find THIS out somehow, so she's not THAT dumb. And if she learns he has found a body in the street, then what? Um, in your words, "If his wife suspected that there was something amiss with her husband, he would arguably be wise not to let her know that he had "found" a murder victim." Ah, so now she's a sharp woman who picks up on things and figures that if he found a body of a woman in the street he MUST HAVE MURDERED HER!!!

There is a paradox though:

If he never uses the name "Cross" in his normal life but his wife does find out that he gave evidence at the inquest under that name - something he can't possibly be certain won't happen - this really sharp woman who knows her husband so well is going to have her suspicions going through the roof isn't she?

If, on the other hand, he often uses the name "Cross" in his normal life then there is no deception going on and nothing suspicious for us to even comment on in the first place is there?

[Abby Normal]

I can only repeat Abby that you have misunderstood me if you think I am referring to an "exact time" down to "the minute". What would be bizarre is if Mrs Lechmere didn't know that her husband left early for work every morning at about 4.30am which he must have done to be at work at 5:00am. I mean, if I didn't know you better from this forum I would think you were joking. The simple point is that, together with all the other information revealed about Charles Cross at the inquest, the fact that the body was found at about 4.45am, about 15 minutes after Lechmere normally left for work (although it could have been 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 minutes) means that a person such as Mrs Lechmere who knew Charles Lechmere very well* would realise that Charles Cross could not have been anyone other than Charles Lechmere.

*FAO Pierre: I'm afraid I don't have a source for my claim that Mrs Lechmere knew her husband very well.

Hi David
Thank you for clarifying your point re the time Lechmeres wife knew her husband left for work every morning. I thought you had said she must have known he left every morning at some exact time-4:30. sorry that I misunderstood you.

so yes, then I pretty much agree with you that she would have known ABOUT what time he left for work every morning.

RE-the use of the name Cross/Lech:

I think the point is that if lech wanted to keep the name he was more usually and well known by-Lechmere-out of the press and public(and his wife)-for whatever reason-then he could use the name cross to perhaps do that.
Its not that unreasonable IMHO.

If his wife had any misgivings about his nightly behavior and/or suspicions, then he would obviously want to try and do something to prevent her finding out about his involvement-and the name swap might just do that-in his own mind.

but honestly-I think he probably used cross to the police because that's what he used at pickfords-having started work there when his name was still Cross.

But I don't think Fishs idea he used it if there was anything nefarious going on and he wanted to try to hide/deceive his wife/public/friends he had any involvement in the Nichols murder is so out there-again just my opinion.