The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John G]

Just to return to an earlier point. In English law a criminal offence has two elements: the Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Actus Reus is the action or omission whilst Mens Rea is the mental element of a crime, i.e. the state of mind of the defendant, usually equated with intent or gross negligence.

Thus, the Crown Prosecution Service document, Public Justice Offences incorporating the Charging Standard, gives guidance concerning the preferred charge. For instance, the offence of perverting the course of justice would apply in respect of, "Providing false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution." (The emphasis is mine, see: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p..._standard/#a07)

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fish. I still think Lechmere is a witness and I still think Bury is the best suspect by a country mile. He is also logically the best suspect. Frankly it doesn't matter to me what you or anyone else think about that.

And what makes you think that it matters to ME what YOU think...?

[Fisherman]

Just to return to an earlier point. In English law a criminal offence has two elements: the Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Actus Reus is the action or omission whilst Mens Rea is the mental element of a crime, i.e. the state of mind of the defendant, usually equated with intent or gross negligence.

Thus, the Crown Prosecution Service document, Public Justice Offences incorporating the Charging Standard, gives guidance concerning the preferred charge. For instance, the offence of perverting the course of justice would apply in respect of, "Providing false details of identity to the police or courts with a view to avoiding the consequences of a police investigation or prosecution." (The emphasis is mine, see: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p..._standard/#a07)

...which is what I am saying, basically.

[Fisherman]

Aha, but Fish will point out that Bury cannot be definitively placed at a murder site, which puts him at a staggering disadvantage to Lechmere – who can. Of course, before the advent of DNA testing, how were the police able to link a suspect to a crime scene if the murder was random, there were no witnesses, and the perpetrator wasn't smart enough to flee the scene of the crime?

...or smart enough NOT to flee the scene of the crime.

I notice you seem in doubt whether being found alone with a murdered body within a time frame that allows you to be the killer is something the police regards as vital to the investigation.
Rest assured, they do.

[Kattrup]

I cannot be expected to dissolve anything you may feel at ease to conjure up. It is instead the conjurers who need to prove their argument.

I am glad you agree with this basic principle (Karl Popper), but I think in practice you've not taken it onboard.

You're arguing against the grain of what we know. Therefore, it's up to you to provide some sort of factual basis for your claim.

We know it was common, accepted and legitimate to use a different name from one's "real name".

Therefore, if you want to show that Cross used a name "swap" to conceal his identity, you need to provide some source for this. Just stating that he used one name (Lechmere) in one context (census records apparently, taken down or copied from earlier records by bureaucrats, written), and another (Cross) in another (inquest, being asked in person, verbally), is not enough to imply anything out of the ordinary.

The records are very much against your idea. Charles Lechmere married as Lechmere about seven months after Thomas Cross died. If he had taken the name Cross as his, and if he was hired as Cross by Pickfords, then why on earth would he not marry as Cross?

That you're still clinging to the idea that people had one "real name" and one "real name" only is amply demonstrated by your bewilderment that Cross might have used the name Cross but be married using another. Again, people could have and could use different names.

Maybe that is my duty to answer that too?

It is not your duty to answer why he would do that, but it is your duty to provide evidence of a claim that seeks to establish factually something which we do not presently know.

That is, if you want to claim that Cross never used Cross - fine, then provide evidence to support this claim.
For instance:
Argument: the evidence is 100 official records where his name is recorded as Lechmere
Counterargument: fine, but that was common practice, people could be registered by one name but use another in daily life.
Countercounterargument: Yes but 100 official records!
Counterx3argument: Yeah, so? Censustakers and bureaucrats might put him down as Lechmere, but when asked in person he'd reply "Cross". It was not uncommon.
Counterx4argument: Yes but 100 official records!
Counterx5argument: Yeah so?
etc.

When I looked for the examples I originally posted, it was just to provide some background for the use of names. Nothing new, and nothing astonishing, I just thought it relevant to bring them up, since they so clearly and easily demonstrate, that Cross could use a different name without being in any way suspected of anything.

Obviously, I found it amusing to find Klishmidt, who stated directly that his "real name" was Klishmidt but he actually went by his stepfather's name.

It was therefore nothing out of the ordinary for Lechmere to use Cross.

If you want to argue that it was, you're arguing against what we know, and need to provide a source for it.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: I am glad you agree with this basic principle (Karl Popper), but I think in practice you've not taken it onboard.

Do you now? I just didnīt know that you were the one to make the call about which principles we should discuss things. Karl Popper or not.

You're arguing against the grain of what we know. Therefore, it's up to you to provide some sort of factual basis for your claim.

The grain of what we know is that the carman always signed himself - or had his name taken down - as Lechmere. We also know that he made an exception at the inquest.

We know it was common, accepted and legitimate to use a different name from one's "real name".

It was not legitimate to use a name to deceive and corrupt the legal procedures, though. And the fact that it was "common" cannot be applied as any indicator that this was what Lechmere did.

Therefore, if you want to show that Cross used a name "swap" to conceal his identity, you need to provide some source for this.

The collection of Lechmere names on a variation of authority papers is that source. He otherways always used the name Lechmere when dealing with authorities, as far as we know. The police is an authority. When Lechmere dealt with them he...wait for it...SWAPPED names.
It is not rocket science, is it?

Just stating that he used one name (Lechmere) in one context (census records apparently, taken down or copied from earlier records by bureaucrats, written), and another (Cross) in another (inquest, being asked in person, verbally), is not enough to imply anything out of the ordinary.

There are more than census records. You should not expect 100 plus census records with a ten year regularity. There are many types of documents, including census records, baptizing record, school records, election records, marriage record, death record... Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere.
Of course he could have been allergic to the police, but only if calling himself Lechmere. We will never know. But we WILL know that in relation to the records we have he swapped names at the inquest, only to return to his old ways afterwards.
It is nothing out of the ordinary to you, so I suggest that when you and I distribute roles, I will take the role of crime investigator, and you can take the role of defense lawyer.


That you're still clinging to the idea that people had one "real name" and one "real name" only is amply demonstrated by your bewilderment that Cross might have used the name Cross but be married using another. Again, people could have and could use different names.

I have defined the principles I work to: The registered name is the real name, the rest of the names are aliases. Aliases can be lawful and innocent and they can be unlawful and criminal.
Hope I donīt have to enlighten you on that point again! Itīs a purely practical distinction that makes it easier to see my argument. Or so I would have thought.

It is not your duty to answer why he would do that, but it is your duty to provide evidence of a claim that seeks to establish factually something which we do not presently know.

The-100-plus-examples-DO-belong-to-the-evidence.

That is, if you want to claim that Cross never used Cross - fine, then provide evidence to support this claim.

The claim is that it cannot be proven that Lechmere ever used the name Cross, whereas it is amply proven that he used the name Lechmere, the name he was baptized by a year after his mother married Thomas Cross. Only an idiot would claim that there can be a certainty that he never did. A bright man, however, can suggest that the matter adds to the idea that he was not kosher.

For instance:
Argument: the evidence is 100 official records where his name is recorded as Lechmere
Counterargument: fine, but that was common practice, people could be registered by one name but use another in daily life.
Countercounterargument: Yes but 100 official records!
Counterx3argument: Yeah, so? Censustakers and bureaucrats might put him down as Lechmere, but when asked in person he'd reply "Cross". It was not uncommon.
Counterx4argument: Yes but 100 official records!
Counterx5argument: Yeah so?
etc.

Somebody is getting frustrated, methinks. Of course, Kattrup, what I SHOULD have done was to bow to your friend Popper and immediately state that what the carman did was absolutely innocent. Of course!
However, I would lie if I did. I can stretch to saying that it MAY have been innocent - but then again, that would not change what I have said a thousand times. It MAY be innocent, and it MAY be nefarious. The 100 plus names in combination with my knowledge about how the carman was Lechmere with authorities, lead me to accept that the better guess - not necessarily the correct, but the better one - is that it was nefarious.
So, so sorry. And you can tell Popper that too.

When I looked for the examples I originally posted, it was just to provide some background for the use of names. Nothing new, and nothing astonishing, I just thought it relevant to bring them up, since they so clearly and easily demonstrate, that Cross could use a different name without being in any way suspected of anything.

There we go: Nothing new and nothing astonishing. Exactly my take. The only thing new was that you were the poster this time over. Otherwise: old hat.

Obviously, I found it amusing to find Klishmidt, who stated directly that his "real name" was Klishmidt but he actually went by his stepfather's name.

Yes, and how amusing that I offered Kosminski, who said that his name was Abrahams for the moment being, but that it was really Kosminski.

Old hat, Kattrup - VERY old hat.

It was therefore nothing out of the ordinary for Lechmere to use Cross.

Because Klishmidt used his stepfatherīs name? How odd.
Let me tell you, my fine friend, that you do not have an inkling whether it was out of the ordinary for the carman to use the name Cross. It may well have been totally out of the ordinary. It may well have been the one and only time he did so. Unless you disagree? Maybe you actually think it PROVEN that is was not out of the ordinary for Lechmere to call himself Cross? In such a case, let me assure you that you would be totally wrong.

You see, this is precisely why I am telling you and Popper to go find YOUR evidence that he DID use the name Cross in any context at all, official or not. You make the claim, no me.


If you want to argue that it was, you're arguing against what we know, and need to provide a source for it.

We know that criminals have a habit of using aliases to escape justice. I am not arguing against that.
We know that compared to all his other 100 plus official records, he swapped names at the inquest. Iīm not arguing against that either.
What we DON`T know is that it "was nothing out of the ordinary" for him to make the swap. That is your delusion only.

What it takes for you to prove that it was nothing out of the ordinary to do so for him, is a record of where he used the name in other contacts with the police too. Then and only then does it become ordinary.

Say hello to Karl Popper from me.

[John G]

...which is what I am saying, basically.

But, of course, your argument presupposes that was guilty of an offence, and therefore had something to hide, when there could be a perfectly innocent explanation why Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest, i.e. he had adopted his former stepfather's surname, and that was the name by which he was generally known by.

[Harry D]

...or smart enough NOT to flee the scene of the crime.

I notice you seem in doubt whether being found alone with a murdered body within a time frame that allows you to be the killer is something the police regards as vital to the investigation.
Rest assured, they do.

Not at all, but there was no reason to believe that Lechmere committed the murder and didn't merely discover the body on his route to work. Lechmere was exactly the kind of person who should've found a murder victim along Buck's Row at that time in the morning, as there was another carman not far behind him.

It's not enough to say that Lechmere's route took him past the murder sites, either. First of all, did Lechmere actually pass the murder sites or did he happen to travel through the main roads that connected them? You can prove that he was in close proximity to the first murder but what about the others? And second of all, the murders only took place within a square mile, so this statement could be made about a lot of locals who plied their trade at that time.

[Fisherman]

But, of course, your argument presupposes that was guilty of an offence, and therefore had something to hide, when there could be a perfectly innocent explanation why Lechmere used the name Cross at the inquest, i.e. he had adopted his former stepfather's surname, and that was the name by which he was generally known by.

My theory suggests it. I am presupposing nothing though, merely fitting the pieces together in numerous ways. They fit best in the guilty scenario, the way I see things.

[Fisherman]

Not at all, but there was no reason to believe that Lechmere committed the murder and didn't merely discover the body on his route to work. Lechmere was exactly the kind of person who should've found a murder victim along Buck's Row at that time in the morning, as there was another carman not far behind him.

It's not enough to say that Lechmere's route took him past the murder sites, either. First of all, did Lechmere actually pass the murder sites or did he happen to travel through the main roads that connected them? You can prove that he was in close proximity to the first murder but what about the others? And second of all, the murders only took place within a square mile, so this statement could be made about a lot of locals who plied their trade at that time.

Old hat. Rehashing. Try again, try something new and fresh. Or original. Or something, just not the old blaha-blaha.

[Harry D]

Old hat. Rehashing. Try again, try something new and fresh. Or original. Or something, just not the old blaha-blaha.

When you don't bring anything new to the table, what do you expect?

[Fisherman]

I am reproducing my answer to Kattrup, since I missed out on making a passage bold. This is how it should read:

Kattrup: I am glad you agree with this basic principle (Karl Popper), but I think in practice you've not taken it onboard.

Do you now? I just didnīt know that you were the one to make the call about which principles we should discuss things. Karl Popper or not.

You're arguing against the grain of what we know. Therefore, it's up to you to provide some sort of factual basis for your claim.

The grain of what we know is that the carman always signed himself - or had his name taken down - as Lechmere. We also know that he made an exception at the inquest.

We know it was common, accepted and legitimate to use a different name from one's "real name".

It was not legitimate to use a name to deceive and corrupt the legal procedures, though. And the fact that it was "common" cannot be applied as any indicator that this was what Lechmere did.

Therefore, if you want to show that Cross used a name "swap" to conceal his identity, you need to provide some source for this.

The collection of Lechmere names on a variation of authority papers is that source. He otherways always used the name Lechmere when dealing with authorities, as far as we know. The police is an authority. When Lechmere dealt with them he...wait for it...SWAPPED names.
It is not rocket science, is it?

Just stating that he used one name (Lechmere) in one context (census records apparently, taken down or copied from earlier records by bureaucrats, written), and another (Cross) in another (inquest, being asked in person, verbally), is not enough to imply anything out of the ordinary.

There are more than census records. You should not expect 100 plus census records with a ten year regularity. There are many types of documents, including census records, baptizing record, school records, election records, marriage record, death record... Lechmere, Lechmere, Lechmere.
Of course he could have been allergic to the police, but only if calling himself Lechmere. We will never know. But we WILL know that in relation to the records we have he swapped names at the inquest, only to return to his old ways afterwards.
It is nothing out of the ordinary to you, so I suggest that when you and I distribute roles, I will take the role of crime investigator, and you can take the role of defense lawyer.


That you're still clinging to the idea that people had one "real name" and one "real name" only is amply demonstrated by your bewilderment that Cross might have used the name Cross but be married using another. Again, people could have and could use different names.

I have defined the principles I work to: The registered name is the real name, the rest of the names are aliases. Aliases can be lawful and innocent and they can be unlawful and criminal.
Hope I donīt have to enlighten you on that point again! Itīs a purely practical distinction that makes it easier to see my argument. Or so I would have thought.

It is not your duty to answer why he would do that, but it is your duty to provide evidence of a claim that seeks to establish factually something which we do not presently know.

The-100-plus-examples-DO-belong-to-the-evidence.

That is, if you want to claim that Cross never used Cross - fine, then provide evidence to support this claim.

The claim is that it cannot be proven that Lechmere ever used the name Cross, whereas it is amply proven that he used the name Lechmere, the name he was baptized by a year after his mother married Thomas Cross. Only an idiot would claim that there can be a certainty that he never did. A bright man, however, can suggest that the matter adds to the idea that he was not kosher.

For instance:
Argument: the evidence is 100 official records where his name is recorded as Lechmere
Counterargument: fine, but that was common practice, people could be registered by one name but use another in daily life.
Countercounterargument: Yes but 100 official records!
Counterx3argument: Yeah, so? Censustakers and bureaucrats might put him down as Lechmere, but when asked in person he'd reply "Cross". It was not uncommon.
Counterx4argument: Yes but 100 official records!
Counterx5argument: Yeah so?
etc.

Somebody is getting frustrated, methinks. Of course, Kattrup, what I SHOULD have done was to bow to your friend Popper and immediately state that what the carman did was absolutely innocent. Of course!
However, I would lie if I did. I can stretch to saying that it MAY have been innocent - but then again, that would not change what I have said a thousand times. It MAY be innocent, and it MAY be nefarious. The 100 plus names in combination with my knowledge about how the carman was Lechmere with authorities, lead me to accept that the better guess - not necessarily the correct, but the better one - is that it was nefarious.
So, so sorry. And you can tell Popper that too.

When I looked for the examples I originally posted, it was just to provide some background for the use of names. Nothing new, and nothing astonishing, I just thought it relevant to bring them up, since they so clearly and easily demonstrate, that Cross could use a different name without being in any way suspected of anything.

There we go: Nothing new and nothing astonishing. Exactly my take. The only thing new was that you were the poster this time over. Otherwise: old hat.

Obviously, I found it amusing to find Klishmidt, who stated directly that his "real name" was Klishmidt but he actually went by his stepfather's name.

Yes, and how amusing that I offered Kosminski, who said that his name was Abrahams for the moment being, but that it was really Kosminski.

Old hat, Kattrup - VERY old hat.

It was therefore nothing out of the ordinary for Lechmere to use Cross.

Because Klishmidt used his stepfatherīs name? How odd.
Let me tell you, my fine friend, that you do not have an inkling whether it was out of the ordinary for the carman to use the name Cross. It may well have been totally out of the ordinary. It may well have been the one and only time he did so. Unless you disagree? Maybe you actually think it PROVEN that is was not out of the ordinary for Lechmere to call himself Cross? In such a case, let me assure you that you would be totally wrong.

You see, this is precisely why I am telling you and Popper to go find YOUR evidence that he DID use the name Cross in any context at all, official or not. You make the claim, not me.


If you want to argue that it was, you're arguing against what we know, and need to provide a source for it.

We know that criminals have a habit of using aliases to escape justice. I am not arguing against that.
We know that compared to all his other 100 plus official records, he swapped names at the inquest. Iīm not arguing against that either.
What we DON`T know is that it "was nothing out of the ordinary" for him to make the swap. That is your delusion only.

What it takes for you to prove that it was nothing out of the ordinary to do so for him, is a record of where he used the name in other contacts with the police too. Then and only then does it become ordinary.

Say hello to Karl Popper from me.

[David Orsam]

The gabbing about what is a signature and what is not, and if you can sign on somebody elseīs behalf is not very entertaining.

Entertaining or not, the fact is that this 'gabbing' is irrelevant because we are not dealing with any cases of people signing on Lechmere's behalf. We are simply dealing with cases of officials recording his name. It's not the same thing at all so why have you repeatedly been referring to Lechmere's name being "signed" by others?

His name has been reocrded on 100 plus occasions. Sometimes by himself, sometimes by others.

That name is always Lechmere.

That, and nothing else, is what matters.

Yes, thank you, the correct word is "recorded" so perhaps you should be using the correct word in future.

But then we come to the issue of "100 plus occasions". If this includes the electoral register for, say, 1888 and 1889, and this counts as two separate occasions, then it involves double counting. And if "100 plus occasions" actually translates to, say, a mere five different categories of documents, or some similarly small number, then your 100+ figure is both misleading and meaningless.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Entertaining or not, the fact is that this 'gabbing' is irrelevant because we are not dealing with any cases of people signing on Lechmere's behalf. We are simply dealing with cases of officials recording his name. It's not the same thing at all so why have you repeatedly been referring to Lechmere's name being "signed" by others?

Because, as I have pointed out, I genuinely believed that you can sign on behalf of others. As I said, the interenet is teeming with examples of where this is mentioned as a reality. But I could not care less if it IS possible to say so or not, since the remaining truth is that the 100 plus examples all carry the name LECHMERE. That tells us that not only did he sign his name thusly, he also directed others to put that name on the papers.

No hullaballo about whether I am allowed to think that that others can sign for me or not changes that. Which is why I am through discussing that totally improductive sidetrack.


Yes, thank you, the correct word is "recorded" so perhaps you should be using the correct word in future.

I may well be mischiveous enough to do the exact opposite. Weīll see.

But then we come to the issue of "100 plus occasions". If this includes the electoral register for, say, 1888 and 1889, and this counts as two separate occasions, then it involves double counting. And if "100 plus occasions" actually translates to, say, a mere five different categories of documents, or some similarly small number, then your 100+ figure is both misleading and meaningless.[/QUOTE]

Double counting is when you count the exact same thing twice. Not when you count two separate electoral registers as separate signings, showing that he did the same year after year.

You REALLY should try and word yourself more correctly in the future.

[David Orsam]

Because, as I have pointed out, I genuinely believed that you can sign on behalf of others. As I said, the interenet is teeming with examples of where this is mentioned as a reality. But I could not care less if it IS possible to say so or not, since the remaining truth is that the 100 plus examples all carry the name LECHMERE.

Fisherman, the internet is not "teeming" with examples of documents being signed on behalf of others. You have provided a single example of a webpage where the question raised is whether this would be considered a forgery. I even gave you an example myself of someone having a broken hand requiring someone to sign on their behalf. But it is very rare. And you simply misunderstood references to the phrase "I can sign it for you" which you found in google, as I explained earlier.

Fine, so you made a mistake in thinking that people had been signing documents on behalf of Lechmere. It happens. But I'd be more generous in accepting this had I not previously told you in more than one post that you were wrong about this (see post #119 above). But now that you do understand it I would have thought it would be perverse to repeat the error.