View Single Post
Old 08-12-2017, 06:34 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407


One could say that we do not know what name he actually gave, the wording of such is not recorded in the press reports, one example of why the original transcript would be useful.
1. We know that the name Lechmere is nowhere in the press. It is a well established fact.

2. Absence of sources is not a reason for imagining a source on which to build an hypothesis.

However one cannot build a case on maybes, well one can but you don't get far.
Or on none existing sources.

So my opinion is that Cross was not a false name, he had been officially recorded under it at one point. indeed if we looked at that census return we could end up asking what happened to young Charles Cross, if not for the Nichols murder.
Otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere. But not in the press from the Nichols inquest and not in the police papers. Cross. Not "Cross, otherwise Lechmere".

And as you are pointing out here, that is the only occurence in the sources of Cross except from the source for young Charles Cross.

So again, why Cross, and not as others did, stating the whole truth, in his case: "Cross, otherwise Lechmere"?

We do not need to ignore this question for fear of supporting the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

It was a name he wished to use at that point,
Obviously, yes. One step forward to a motive...he wished to use it in order to...- what?

the reason for such being unknown,
You mean motive.

but maybe just to keep his family out of the spotlight of the press.
And what people is he trying to make himself and his family invisible to? His wife, kids, mother?

Or "all other people" who did not know the name Cross?

And why?

i see nothing sinister in the use of the name.
Sinister meaning harmful or evil. No. On the contrary. What we have here is sources indicating a rational subject in the past. Rational choice. So Cross did not have a sinister motive.

He had the best motive he could have.

Or do you think he wanted to harm himself or his family? Was Cross not a rational subject wanting to acchieve the best possible outcome? Any sources for that?

Yes, there are sources for that. He was aware of the importance of being sworn when testifying. We know this since he did not call himself Smith. We know this since he gave his true addresses. So Cross was not a false name, just as you say. It was just half the truth. Why? What did he gain from it? Since there is good evidence he was a rational subject.

Indeed most of the rest of his testimony is corroborated by Paul, or even in some places by Mizen. There is no corroboration for Mizen on this particular issue of being wanted by another policeman.
And Paul came to the inquest day 3, after Mizen and after Cross. And he was not asked.

Therefore we can not expect any corroboration. So what we have is the statements of Mizen. And Cross.

Of course there is more which leads me to believe that Mizen told what was for him a white lie, that is it was not aimed to do any harm to any other person.
You now "believe" your own construction the "white lie" on the part of Mizen. And Fisherman believes his own construction the "black lie" on the part of Lechmere.

And here is the theoretical symmetry in itīs perfection. White against black. Steve against Fisherman.

Are you a free thinker, Steve? I do think you are. And you do have integrity, I have seen it here many times. And therefore it will be very interesting to see your results, on which you are working so hard it seems, and when they are published here I do hope, but who am I to hope, they are not just a negative of the so called theory of Fisherman.

As for Mizen, the lie if it was one was purely to protect himself from public ridicule and possible disciplinary action. it in no way had any effect on the outcome of the inquest, or the reputations of others until Lechmere was suggested has a suspect in recent years.
White King against Black King. Mizen against Cross. Steve against Fisherman.

Sources about historical carman Lechmere being the catalyst of social bias in 2017.

And there is the past talking to us from the pages of the press. What does it say?

Cheers, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 08-12-2017 at 06:41 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote