Thanks to all for the kind comments and, Joshua, yes, exactly.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lechmere/Cross "name issue" Part 2
Collapse
X
-
Thanks to David for proving the blindingly obvious: that people sometimes use alternative names.
I didn’t trawl through every example provided, but those I did read were cases where both names were disclosed. How is that at all relevant to the Cross/Lechmere case?
Comment
-
Just a few of DO’s examples:
deceased commonly went by the name of Slack
or as he is more commonly known, George Harding
or Cox, as he was sometimes called
Phillip Maine, alias Pallot
her husband had gone by the name of Maine, that being the name of his stepfather
he had taken the name of his step-father, which was Taylor
We are sorry to record the death of Charles Taylor (whose real name is, however, Jones)
John Mason, a putter at Cassop pit, charged with having absented himself from his employment
Grandfather; I bought up and christened him. His name is John Grant. Mr Hays: How has he acquired the name of Mason? Is that the name of his stepfather? Grandfather: Yes sir
but he was known by the name of Grey - the name of his stepfather
a young man named Henry Hawke, but familiarly known by the name of his stepfather, Lakey
he was known in Hull as Thomas Newton (which is the name of his step-father)
In every example above it was thought appropriate to mention both names. Lechmere didn’t mention the name he used in all his other dealings with officaldom. Did it not occur to him that it was appropriate to do so? I very much doubt it, so he must have chosen not to for some reason.
Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-12-2019, 04:48 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostJust a few of DO’s examples:
deceased commonly went by the name of Slack
or as he is more commonly known, George Harding
or Cox, as he was sometimes called
Phillip Maine, alias Pallot
her husband had gone by the name of Maine, that being the name of his stepfather
he had taken the name of his step-father, which was Taylor
We are sorry to record the death of Charles Taylor (whose real name is, however, Jones)
John Mason, a putter at Cassop pit, charged with having absented himself from his employment
Grandfather; I bought up and christened him. His name is John Grant. Mr Hays: How has he acquired the name of Mason? Is that the name of his stepfather? Grandfather: Yes sir
but he was known by the name of Grey - the name of his stepfather
a young man named Henry Hawke, but familiarly known by the name of his stepfather, Lakey
he was known in Hull as Thomas Newton (which is the name of his step-father)
In every example above it was thought appropriate to mention both names. Lechmere didn’t mention the name he used in all his other dealings with officaldom. Did it not occur to him that it was appropriate to do so? I very much doubt it, so he must have chosen not to for some reason.
yes stellar work from David as usual and thanks for the follow up.
For me though its not a question of if lech could have had/gone by two different names, which obviously he did, and theres nothing amiss there. Its that on one hand, everything we have documented on record he went by Lechmere, and yet here in the murder case he chose to use the cross name. (and also, apparently not to inform anyone he had another name).
Personally I think theres probably an innocent explanation-namely when he started work at Pickfords he was still under the auspices of his step father Cross, so went by that name at work and continued to do so. later reverting back to his birth name for everything else but Cross at work. And with the Nichols case, everything related to him as a witness-a carman on his way to work, he chose to use that name. and or he chose to use cross to keep him/his family (and what everyone else knew him by)Lechmere name out of the press. this reason also has an innocent explanation of course-he simply didn't want to get involved or be harassed by the press as much as possible.
but of course the suspicious explanation, is he used cross, because he was the killer and didn't want anyone(friends, family etc) to know he was remotely involved in a murder case, perhaps lest they put two and two together, if they had known of any other suspicious activity by him and come forward.
now of course, I lean toward my former innocent explanation, but nevertheless it is yet another discrepancy with Lech that does need an explanation.
Last edited by Abby Normal; 08-12-2019, 05:55 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Postbut of course the suspicious explanation, is he used cross, because he was the killer and didn't want anyone(friends, family etc) to know he was remotely involved in a murder case, perhaps lest they put two and two together, if they had known of any other suspicious activity by him and come forward.
Comment
-
If you research a little further you will find that the name in which a person was registered at birth, and which revealed their paternal ancestry, was commonly considered their ‘real’ or ‘proper’ name. That’s why you find so many examples of people who had gone by an assumed name for decades deeming it appropriate to reveal their birth name in a court of law or in some other dealing with authority (example above).
In one case I found, a hampshire lodger voter was refused the vote, and believing it was because he had given his assumed name (his stepfather’s) he tried again with what he considered was his ‘right’ name (his birth father’s). He was refused again, the problem having nothing to do with the names but with the man’s residence qualification. However, the barrister overseeing the process commented that ‘it was queer, and he did not approve of a man having two names’.
The point I’m making is that whatever the legality of using an alternative name may have been, it was not the norm, and it was expected that when dealing with the authorities a person should either use their ‘real’ name or disclose that the name they were using was an assumed one. Charles Lechmere chose not to.Last edited by MrBarnett; 08-13-2019, 09:50 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry D View Post
Even though the home address & place of work could be used to identify him?
You either tell the whole truth, name address and workplace and hope to get away with it or you simply try and disappear by giving them all the wrong personal info, [probably the latter].
Regards DarrylLast edited by Darryl Kenyon; 08-13-2019, 09:56 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
hi harry
the thinking on this is that hes not trying to evade police or not be Ided-but hes just trying to keep his more commonly used name out of the picture.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
And this is the crux as you rightly point out Harry. Why not give a different home and work address?
Regards Darryl
It would check out if investigated - he DID have a Cross stepfather.
But what if he said that he lived in Rotten Row and worked for the tax ministry and THAT was checked out?
This is why I say that it all can be interpreted as if he took an evasion as far as he possibly could without being totally reckless: He gave a name that may well have kept him hidden, it seems he may have abstained from supplying his work address (one paper only got it, possibly by way of a clerk) and that would have been as far as he could take things without gambling dangerously hard.
Just like Abby points out, the police was given his real address, but it seems he may have tried to keep it from press and public.
Comment
Comment