The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Ben]

By the way, if Spratling and Swanson knew what we know of Lechmere, he would have hung.

A joke, surely?

[Robert]

Me : Do you have Crossmere's police statement, Fish?

You : No, I only have the police reports calling him Cross. If they had "Lechmere" in the carmans police statement, they missed out on the duty to present the real name.

Why should the police call him Lechmere if he wanted to be called Cross? It was a name he was entitled to. Two points :

1. We do not know if Crossmere informed the police of his alternative name when he went to the station. We cannot just assume that he didn't.
2. It is for you, Fish, to discern some sinister motive for his wanting to be called Cross. So far, you haven't. I offered you the 'people coming out of the woodwork' scenario, so you can run with that ball if you wish.


Me : Do you have Paul's police statement, Fish?

You : No. Do you?

I'm afraid not, Fish. Sorry I can't help!


You : By the way, if Spratling and Swanson knew what we know of Lechmere, he would have hung. Theyīll surely tell you that when you meet them.

Fish, the first person who will tell me that will be Crossmere himself, who will doubtless have charmed his way past St Peter.

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

What exactly was unknown by the police at the time?

They knew Paul had found Lechmere close to the body shortly after the murder had taken place.

They knew where Lechmere lived and worked and so could hazard a guess as to his daily routine.

And if they knew where he worked, and it was indeed the case that Pickfords Broad Street mainly handled meat deliveries, then they knew of his involvement with that.

The confusion between Lechmere and Mizen played out in open court, so that was no secret.

All that remains is the possibility that they weren't aware of his real name and the likelihood that they were unaware of his connections to St. Geo. E.

Have I missed anything?

MrB

[pinkmoon]

keystone cops

I'm convinced the police at some stage must have thought what people are suggesting now and checked Mr cross out .

[Varqm]

Most people would do something that will help if confronted with a dying person.My opinion is everything that Cross did was normal. Most people just want to work,survive,get food on the table.He made mistakes in description or action. That was normal.He was not a professional witness or helper,rehearsing
everything he got to do/say. Like a lot people they dont want anything to do with the police and some becomes uneasy when dealing with them.He probably at some point thought about them as a nuisance.
Lechmere is not a suspect.Too desperate. But still the police likely would have checked him out as a routine.

[The Good Michael]

Have I missed anything?

I can help here: You missed that Cross gave his stepfather's surname and to confuse everyone, threw in his real address. This was a criminal mastermind at work.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Robert: Me : Do you have Crossmere's police statement, Fish?

You : No, I only have the police reports calling him Cross. If they had "Lechmere" in the carmans police statement, they missed out on the duty to present the real name.

Why should the police call him Lechmere if he wanted to be called Cross? It was a name he was entitled to. Two points :

1. We do not know if Crossmere informed the police of his alternative name when he went to the station. We cannot just assume that he didn't.
2. It is for you, Fish, to discern some sinister motive for his wanting to be called Cross. So far, you haven't. I offered you the 'people coming out of the woodwork' scenario, so you can run with that ball if you wish.

And a third point: It is for YOU to explain why the police did not write his real name in their reports - if they had it.


Me : Do you have Paul's police statement, Fish?

You : No. Do you?

I'm afraid not, Fish. Sorry I can't help!


You : By the way, if Spratling and Swanson knew what we know of Lechmere, he would have hung. Theyīll surely tell you that when you meet them.

Fish, the first person who will tell me that will be Crossmere himself, who will doubtless have charmed his way past St Peter.

Then how could YOU meet him...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Fish,

What exactly was unknown by the police at the time?

They knew Paul had found Lechmere close to the body shortly after the murder had taken place.

Yes, they did. But they accepted that he had not had the time to killer her. Swanson tells us the official line in his 19:thj of October report, where he says that the body was discovered by TWO carmen on their way to work.

Lechmere was the wrong type, and he went to the police x2 out of his own free will (seemingly). So IF they had said "But hey, wait, how do we know that he is telling the truth...?", the they would have turned him upside down, and he would have been Lechmere, not Cross, in their reports.

Conclusion: They had the knowledge at hand, but did not see the relevance and act upon it.

They knew where Lechmere lived and worked and so could hazard a guess as to his daily routine.

The same answer - they could have seen the correlation, but apparently, they lost interest in Lechmere from day one, and so they never secured this knowledge.
They could have found out where his mother lived and where he grew up too - but did they? In all probability: no.

And if they knew where he worked, and it was indeed the case that Pickfords Broad Street mainly handled meat deliveries, then they knew of his involvement with that.

Thousands of men were involved in the meat business, so that was not a very strange matter. And once again, you have to apply initial suspicion before you make the coupling.

The confusion between Lechmere and Mizen played out in open court, so that was no secret.

Nor was it any secret to the hoards of Ripper authors. How many of then wrote about it, and saw the implication that I have pointed to?

All that remains is the possibility that they weren't aware of his real name and the likelihood that they were unaware of his connections to St. Geo. E.

Have I missed anything?

Yes, you have for example missed the covered-up body. In that case, it was only numer two in the killing score that could be investigated for this detail (Smith staggered home on her own), so the significance would not have been apparent to them. And when the death toll rose, if Lechmere was out of the picture (and he was), it will probably have seemed like an inexplicable anomaly, a freak coincidence.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I'm convinced the police at some stage must have thought what people are suggesting now and checked Mr cross out .

... but sadly, they forgot to check his identity?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Varqm: Most people would do something that will help if confronted with a dying person.My opinion is everything that Cross did was normal.

Like not helping to prop her up and try and revive her, saying "I wonīt touch her"? for example?

Most people just want to work,survive,get food on the table.He made mistakes in description or action. That was normal. He was not a professional witness or helper, rehearsing everything he got to do/say.

Thatīs convenient.

Like a lot people they dont want anything to do with the police and some becomes uneasy when dealing with them.He probably at some point thought about them as a nuisance.

So he took the risk to give the police the wrong name, in spite of the future very dire trouble that could get him into? He gathered that giving them his adress so that he knew that they could come knocking, it was a splendid idea to lie about his identity?

Lechmere is not a suspect.Too desperate. But still the police likely would have checked him out as a routine.

So THAT was when they disclosed his true name?

But why bother with the facts? If we just say "he was checked out", then that should suffice if we all just agree!

By the way, I think that most people would agree that a suspect in a serial murder case would be somebody that could be knit to one or more of the murders. Lechmere can be knit to the Nichols murder by having been found alone standing close by the victim. In addition, we have logical reasons to put him on all the other murder spots too.

If you agree that this is how we should search for suspects, by tying them to one or more of the murder spots, then I take it you also agree that whereas none of the other persons named are suspects, Lechmere actually is?

If not, then you shall have to tell me what YOU think makes a suspect in this case. Being a Jew? Knowing about slaughtery? Having been violent at some stage?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I can help here: You missed that Cross gave his stepfather's surname and to confuse everyone, threw in his real address. This was a criminal mastermind at work.

Mike

Lucky, then, that we have your detective mastermind to see right through it!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Lucky, then, that we have your detective mastermind to see right through it!

I? No. I leave that to the super-sleuths. I could never have seen it. I was more for the mundane and logical, but that never caught a criminal.

Mike

[Robert]

It is for YOU to explain why the police did not write his real name in their reports - if they had it.

Fish, you keep saying 'real' name. He was entitled to call himself Cross if he wanted.

We have two alternative explanations :

1. The police never checked Crossmere out, so as far as they were concerned he was Charles Cross, and if he'd told them he was Charles Holmgren or Charles Stow they'd have accepted that too.
2. Crossmere told the police that he used 'Lechmere' for official business but he was always known as 'Cross.' The police decide they'd better use the name he's known by. This isn't an outlandish suggestion. I don't have to prove that's what happened. I just have to point out the possibility.

Now Fish, it is for YOU to prove that the first possibility is the correct one, AND to prove that the use of the name 'Cross' had sinister implications.

[Fisherman]

I? No. I leave that to the super-sleuths. I could never have seen it. I was more for the mundane and logical, but that never caught a criminal.

Mike

Oh, but it did! Giving the police false names and lying to them, coupled with being found alone with a murder victim is just as mundane, logical and easy to read as it always was. Having had reason to be at murder sites is more of the same; very basic, very mundane, nothing out of the normal for a killer who tries to evade getting caught.

So much as it would be nice, I really donīt think it should award me any title of super-sleuth. Iīm more inclined to award another title altogether to those who cannot see even these simple and commonplace indications...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Robert: It is for YOU to explain why the police did not write his real name in their reports - if they had it.

Fish, you keep saying 'real' name. He was entitled to call himself Cross if he wanted.

Mmmm. Or Swiggins. Or Donut. Or Poppycock - if he felt like it, and claimed that he was called by any of these names, then he was in his full right to call himself that with the police too, right?

Then why is it that Andy Griffiths, a seasoned murder investigator, does not recognize this? Why does he go on about how the carman was dutybound to give his REAL name?

Can you explain that? Was Andy wrong? Is it okay to use any name you feel like?

Incidentally, by "real name" I refer to the name by which he was registered. The name he used to sign papers with, you know?

We have two alternative explanations :

1. The police never checked Crossmere out, so as far as they were concerned he was Charles Cross, and if he'd told them he was Charles Holmgren or Charles Stow they'd have accepted that too.

Works.

2. Crossmere told the police that he used 'Lechmere' for official business but he was always known as 'Cross.' The police decide they'd better use the name he's known by. This isn't an outlandish suggestion. I don't have to prove that's what happened. I just have to point out the possibility.

Does not work. If he said to the police that he used Lechmere for official business and Cross otherwise (), then the police would have asked him a question. Can you guess which one?

Correct!!! They would have asked him "So which name is your real name, Sir? Which one are you registered by?"

And then he would have said "Lechmere" or "Cross".

If he said "Cross", he would have been outlandishly idiotic, because that would mean that he signed his documents with a name that was not his, and which he never used otherwise.

So we need to accept that he would have answered "Lechmere". And then the police would have written "Lechmere" in their reports, so that they did their duty properly and allowed themselves the opportunity to have a searchable name in their papers. They may well have ADDED "Cross" too, but they would have made it clear that this was an alias. There are numerous examples in the records.

So when you claim that yours is not an outlandish suggestion, you are wrong. I strongly disagree - it would have been outlandish if the police had his real name but left it out of their reports. Especially if he admitted to always signing himself "Lechmere" officially!

Now Fish, it is for YOU to prove that the first possibility is the correct one, AND to prove that the use of the name 'Cross' had sinister implications.

Thatīs a good one! No, Robert, I am not the one suggesting a very odd change of police procedures - you are. Therefore YOU need to find me proof of parallel examples, where somebody who used his registered name officially and told this to the police, STILL was allowed to go down in their reports by another name altogether.

Like I said: Poppycock. And to think that you are throwing this very odd suggestion forward without having any knowledge at all that he ever used Cross otherwise! Plus you KNOW that he ALWAYS signed himself Lechmere. Why would he not have begged all other authoritities too to have them sign him as Cross? Why just the police? Why did he feel this urge then and not otherwise when he was asked for his name?

Please tell me that you CAN see the implications, Robert!

The best,
Fisherman