The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Kattrup]

It has often been claimed by Lechmere proponents that he misled the Nichols inquest by giving false name, presenting himself as Cross when his "real name" was Lechmere.

Here are some examples from the Old Bailey, 1880-1895. Only one, George Peacock, was actually on trial, the others all appeared as witnesses. I have not included the many, many examples of criminals using aliases and false identities.

RICHARD SAWYER . My name is Abraham, but I have taken the name of Sawyer—I am a son of the deceased, and the prisoner is my stepfather—I am 26 years old, and I lived with the prisoner and the deceased ever since they were married in 1872 or 1873

Link

WILLIAM BLAESER . I am a baker, of 278, Waterloo Road—I have known the prisoner three or four years—my real name is Klishmidt, but I go in the name of my stepfather, Blaeser

Link

ELIZA SCOTT . My husband is a coach-smith—we live at 33, Cathcart Street, Kentish Town—I am your mother; your proper name is Henry David Reynolds—I have married again, and you took your stepfather's name

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to have a "real name" while using the name of one's stepfather. The authorities will not necessarily use the so-called "real name" when referring to a person.

JOHN MILLER . I am known as John Palmer

Link

ALICE RICHIE . I am known as Alice Sims

Link

JOHN BAHRS . I live at 38, Penny Fields—I am not now an inmate of Poplar Hospital—I was a fireman on the John Bright—I am an Austrian by birth; I am known as Johnson on board the ship

Link

MARY ANN CARPENTER . 1 am single—I am known also by the name of Williams [...] Cross-examined. My real name is Mary Ann Carpenter—I have gone by the name of Williams about four years—I do so when I am with my mother, but when I stay with my friends I go by the name of Carpenter

Link

GWINNETT SMITH [...] My real name is Jane Gwinnett Smith—I got that by marriage—I first married John Gwinnett; he died, and I married a Mr. Smith—my name is Jane Smith [...] I registered Sir C. M. Brown's death—I was present when he died at 42, Chippenham Road—when I registered his death I described myself as J. Gwinnett—I was Jane Smith, but I conducted my business in that name as a dressmaker and outfitter twenty years ago, and I am more known by that name than the other [...] I was one of the attesting witnesses to Sir C. M. Brown's will—I did not describe myself as Jane Gwinnett, of 50, Portland Road, Kensington, but Porten Road—I cannot tell how many addresses I gave at that time; [...] I lived in the name of Gwinnett Smith, at 63, Belsize Road [...] Sir C. M. Brown knew me as Gwinnett Smith—I carried on business in my first husband's name, even after I married Smith—I had no reason for concealing my name—people knew me as Mrs. Gwinnett.

Link

ELIZABETH BEACH [...] sometimes I am called Mrs. Lynch—I have gone down with the keys, and they have said, "Here comes Mrs. Lynch," but my name is Mrs. Beach

Link

FRANCIS LE MAISTRE . I am called Masters

Link

HENRY HOARE [...] when I took the orders to be cashed I signed the first name that came into my head—I am known by the name of Harris at Stanmore Street

Link

VICTOR BEVAN [...] I have been known by the name of Whalley—I was known by that name as a member of the West Southwark Liberal Club [...] my name is Bevan Whalley; one name I was christened in, and the other was my mother's name

Link

LOUISA HARRIS . I am known by the name of Loo Harvey—I am living now in Stamford Street—in October last year I was living at 44, Townshend Road, St. John's Wood, with a young man Charles Harvey, under whose name I passed

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to have a "real name" but be known by another name in certain social situations and contexts.

my name is Norton Coulander—I can write you my real name; you would not be able to pronounce it—it is Schauffenhausen; are you satisfied?

Link

VALLET BROWN (Interpreted) [...] I am not married—I call myself Mrs. Brown, it looks better—I am German—Brown is a nickname, my real name is Minnie Groser

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to assume another name than one's "real name" to avoid confusion and misspellings and appear more "english". The authorities will not necessarily refer to such a person by his or her "real name".

GEORGE PEACOCK [...] I pawned some of the articles in the name of James Smith, which is my real name

Link

WILLIAM SADLER . My real name is Frank Kitto

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to inform the authorities of one's real name during a trial, but they may continue to use one's alias.

ARTHUR DYER [...] Before the Coroner I gave my address as 23, Cromer Street—before the Magistrate as 9, Brunswick Road, Holloway—I never lived at 23, Cromer Street—I never went there—my real name is Arthur Dyer—I have gone by the name of Brown—my real name is Brown—when I gave my evidence before the Magistrate I was living at 9, Brunswick Road, 'Windsor Road, Holloway—and before that—I said, "I have changed my address"—I changed it in my own mind, because I gave a false address at first—I was on my oath when I gave my name and address—I gave the wrong name and address because I did not want to be brought into the case; I did not intend to turn up—when I did turn up I stuck to the name I had given [...] I gave a false name and address because I did not want to lose my work—you do not get paid too much for expenses for coming here, and I did not intend to turn up—I did not want to be mixed up in the matter

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to give a false name and address in order to avoid appearing at trial. This does not mean that one is guilty of the crime on trial (though possibly of perjury).


Conclusion:


Using an alias, or secondary name, was not uncommon.

There were many different legitimate reasons why a person might choose to use a name other than the "real name".

Using an alias, or secondary name, was accepted, and the authorities did not necessarily register people by their "real name".


There's no reason to assume that Charles Cross misinformed the inquest, or intended to mislead anyone.


All of this reasoning has, of course, been mentioned many times over the years. It is unlikely to sway Lechmere-supporters, who will most likely attempt to argue that the "name issue" is not (to them) the only thing tying suspicion to Lechmere.

Be that as it may, hopefully these examples of ordinary witnesses using aliases will help counter the argument that Charles Cross gave a "false name".

[John Wheat]

Hi Kattrup

Very interesting, some great research. So it turns out using the name Cross was not remotely suspicious?

Cheers John

[GUT]

Some nice work Kattrup

[drstrange169]

Contrary to what some have said, it was not illegal to give another name in court related circumstances.

The only requirements were that you would be reasonable recognised by the name you used and that it was not used for deceptive puposes.

[Fisherman]

It has often been claimed by Lechmere proponents that he misled the Nichols inquest by giving false name, presenting himself as Cross when his "real name" was Lechmere.

Here are some examples from the Old Bailey, 1880-1895. Only one, George Peacock, was actually on trial, the others all appeared as witnesses. I have not included the many, many examples of criminals using aliases and false identities.


Link


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to have a "real name" while using the name of one's stepfather. The authorities will not necessarily use the so-called "real name" when referring to a person.


Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to have a "real name" but be known by another name in certain social situations and contexts.


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to assume another name than one's "real name" to avoid confusion and misspellings and appear more "english". The authorities will not necessarily refer to such a person by his or her "real name".


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to inform the authorities of one's real name during a trial, but they may continue to use one's alias.


Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to give a false name and address in order to avoid appearing at trial. This does not mean that one is guilty of the crime on trial (though possibly of perjury).


Conclusion:


Using an alias, or secondary name, was not uncommon.

There were many different legitimate reasons why a person might choose to use a name other than the "real name".

Using an alias, or secondary name, was accepted, and the authorities did not necessarily register people by their "real name".


There's no reason to assume that Charles Cross misinformed the inquest, or intended to mislead anyone.


All of this reasoning has, of course, been mentioned many times over the years. It is unlikely to sway Lechmere-supporters, who will most likely attempt to argue that the "name issue" is not (to them) the only thing tying suspicion to Lechmere.

Be that as it may, hopefully these examples of ordinary witnesses using aliases will help counter the argument that Charles Cross gave a "false name".

This is nothing new at all, Kattrup. It is common knowledge that people used aliases, for different reasons.
The thing is, every example you point to is an example where we hear people say "my name is X, but I go by the name of Y", or something such. And of course, if you did not have that information, you could not have given the examples.

The problem is, as far as we know, the carman did not supply that information, and so he was not ID:d as Charles Lechmere. If he HAD been, it would have been the name he would have gone by in the police reports. And we have police reports from September 19 and October 19, respectively, showing us that the police recorded him by a name by which he was NOT registered and by which he did NOT go when he otherwise dealt with the authorities.

Dr Strange writes that the only requirement for being allowed to use an alias in court would be that you were required to be "reasonably recognised by the name you used and that it was not used for deceptive purposes".

If it could be proven that the carman was "reasonably recognized" by the name of Cross, I would have no case. If it could be proven that he did not use the name Cross for "deceptive purposes", I would have no case.
But neither thing can be proven, which is why we have to look at the surrounding circumstances. And the surrounding circumstances tell us that the carman used the name Lechmere when speaking to different authorities, thereby very clearly recognizing that this was his official identity.
He should therefore have called himself Lechmere with the police too, and there could be no suspicions directed against him in that matter.

He did not, and the inference is therefore that there may well have been "deceptive purposes" involved in using an alias.

As for whether he was known by the name of Cross or not, there is nothing at all to indicate that he was. The ancestors who have spoken about it are all agreed that thy have no knowledge of any usage of the name in connection with the family. And the regular use of the name Lechmere in authority contacts is the only thing we have to weigh in when trying to make a decision - if there had been a counterweight speaking about how the name Cross was ever used, in the shape of letters, working contracts or anything else at all, that would have an impact on the errand.

As it stands, all there is, is people saying that "maybe he used the name Cross too". It takes evidence to make that a useful ground for discussion, and before that evidence arrives, the suggestion certainly can never be on par with a recorded reality of the carman having signed himself Lechmere.

What you have suceeded to do, Kattrup, is to point out that people COULD have two names, and that they sometimes on their own account and out of free will told the police that this was so. It is yesterdays news, I´m afraid.
What you have NOT succeeded to do is to show how the police on such occasions neglected to use the recorded, official name in their reports, thereby depriving themselves of the possibility to make a future ID if the person involved came into contact with them again.
And why on earth would they do that?

Is it perhaps once again time to return to the old suggestion that the carman was given a shielded identity by the police...? If so, one must explain why the police reports avoided his real name.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup!

In the cases of Peacock/Smith and Saddler/Kitto, you preliminarily conclude that "It is possible to inform the authorities of one's real name during a trial, but they may continue to use one's alias."

I would like to know the sources you have used here - Old Bailey recordings? I would also like to know whether you have accessed any police reports adhering to the errands, and checked how the police recorded these people.

Finally, I would like to direct you to the fact that we do not have the carman saying "I go by the name of Cross, but my real name is Lechmere", do we?
That makes a world of difference.

Plus we know that he did NOT go by the name of Cross, at least not when it comes to authority contacts. No matter how much harder the name was to spell and pronounciate, he regularly used the name Lechmere in those cases. Well, all of them but one, that is.

It is only in an unsubstantiated, suggested scenario he may have gone by the name Cross under any circumstances at all. It is a latter-day invention so far, nothing else, which I am sure you agree with.

[Kattrup]

Kattrup!

In the cases of Peacock/Smith and Saddler/Kitto, you preliminarily conclude that "It is possible to inform the authorities of one's real name during a trial, but they may continue to use one's alias."

I would like to know the sources you have used here - Old Bailey recordings?

Yes, the links I provided to the Old Bailey transcripts.

You'll note that both men are listed in the proceedings by their alias, rather than the "real name" they provide, as are others of the examples.

I would also like to know whether you have accessed any police reports adhering to the errands, and checked how the police recorded these people.

I have not, nor have I checked any census records or other details for any of these persons. The purpose of my post was to show some contemporary examples of persons giving an alias or alternative name, and to show that in Victorian times people did not always consider their "real name" their only or indeed most fitting name.

For instance, William Blaeser. He states that his real name is Klishmidt but he "goes by" the name of his stepfather.

It is therefore perfectly possible and inconspicuous that a person would on official forms such as a census use his or her "real name", in this case Klishmidt, but in all other cases, when asked for instance in person and not in writing, use another name, in this case Blaeser.

Finally, I would like to direct you to the fact that we do not have the carman saying "I go by the name of Cross, but my real name is Lechmere", do we?
That makes a world of difference.

Plus we know that he did NOT go by the name of Cross, at least not when it comes to authority contacts. No matter how much harder the name was to spell and pronounciate, he regularly used the name Lechmere in those cases. Well, all of them but one, that is.

It is only in an unsubstantiated, suggested scenario he may have gone by the name Cross under any circumstances at all. It is a latter-day invention so far, nothing else, which I am sure you agree with.

We do not have Cross' statement, no.

The purpose of my post was to give some examples of ordinary people using an alias, and to show that such a practice was not uncommon and was accepted.

The significance of that for the Lechmere/Cross-theory is that nothing sinister or nefarious should be inferred by the fact that Lechmere apparently gave his name as Cross, since using a different name from the "real name" was a not uncommon practice.

As you state, this is old news, and has been pointed out many times. So far, proponents of Lechmere as a suspect have failed to take it in, though.

And I do not agree with your suggestion that Lechmere using the name Cross in some circumstances is a modern theory. He clearly did.


I'll add that authorities made a more extensive examination of Lechmere than of any other person involved in the Ripper-case. It's remarkable.

Just search the Old Bailey site for the phrase "Cross examined""!

[John Wheat]

All things considered Lechmere found a body. Which with the absence of anything else suspicious of which there isn't makes him a witness not a suspect. The weak Lechmere Theory is crumbling.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: Yes, the links I provided to the Old Bailey transcripts.

You'll note that both men are listed in the proceedings by their alias, rather than the "real name" they provide, as are others of the examples.

I would say that they are firmly listed by BOTH names - which is the point I am making.

I have not, nor have I checked any census records or other details for any of these persons. The purpose of my post was to show some contemporary examples of persons giving an alias or alternative name, and to show that in Victorian times people did not always consider their "real name" their only or indeed most fitting name.

Commendable as that is, it is water under the bridge. We knew it before, "My name is Kosminsky but I goes by the name of Abrahams".

For instance, William Blaeser. He states that his real name is Klishmidt but he "goes by" the name of his stepfather.

There will be hundreds of such examples, no doubt - and all of them will be discernable owing to how BOTH names are stated.

It is therefore perfectly possible and inconspicuous that a person would on official forms such as a census use his or her "real name", in this case Klishmidt, but in all other cases, when asked for instance in person and not in writing, use another name, in this case Blaeser.

Yes, indeed. And a police report is an official form. And we have no evidence at all telling us that the carman ever used the name Cross - other than in a murder enquiry where he was found with one of the victims.


We do not have Cross' statement, no.

But we DO have the fact that it seems that when people state two names, it does not go unrecorded. There are plenty of examples of paper articles from inquests where this is evident.

The purpose of my post was to give some examples of ordinary people using an alias, and to show that such a practice was not uncommon and was accepted.

In all honesty, you could have spared yourself that time. It is well known and established, including people involved in the Ripper case, like Long/Durrell/Darrell.

The significance of that for the Lechmere/Cross-theory is that nothing sinister or nefarious should be inferred by the fact that Lechmere apparently gave his name as Cross, since using a different name from the "real name" was a not uncommon practice.

The significance lies in the fact that the police on the 19:th of October did NOT use his registered name in their reports, and it lies in how we are absolutely certain that Lechmere was the name he ordinarly used in contacts with authorities. So we need to disagree here.
Just as you say, it was not an uncommon practice to go by two names - we know this because BOTH names are on record, and the people doing it have freely given that information.
What we DON`T know is how common a practice it was to hide your name from the police with malicious intentions, but I bet we agree that this too would have been anything but very rare. And when we do NOT have the person under inspection freely giving up BOTH names, but instead just the one he is NOT listed under and does normally NOT use in authority contacts, then that is a very, very good reason to suspect foul play.

As you state, this is old news, and has been pointed out many times. So far, proponents of Lechmere as a suspect have failed to take it in, though.

How have I failed to take it in when you yourself quote my pointing it out? How does that work? I´ve pointed it out many times before. So what´s your point?

And I do not agree with your suggestion that Lechmere using the name Cross in some circumstances is a modern theory. He clearly did.

Yes, in combination with a murder inquiry where he can be pointed to as a prime suspect. That is not a point in his favour, I´m afraid.
There are no other examples, since his name on the 1861 census was reasonably given by his stepfather.

I'll add that authorities made a more extensive examination of Lechmere than of any other person involved in the Ripper-case. It's remarkable.

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you can elaborate?

Just search the Old Bailey site for the phrase "Cross examined""!

Oh dear!

You got me there...

...so I will have you know what it says on the inscription of the carman´s grandfathers memorial, erected in 1875:

'Nothing in my hand I bring
Simply to the Cross I cling.'

Nails him, eh?

[Paddy Goose]

Thanks Kattrup,

a murder enquiry where he was found with one of the victims.

No Fisherman, you've got it all backwards. He found the victim.

..just the one he is NOT listed under and does normally NOT use in authority contacts, then that is a very, very good reason to suspect foul play.

A good reason only if you are biased from working on a false premise to begin with.

Paddy

[Fisherman]

Paddy Goose:

No Fisherman, you've got it all backwards. He found the victim.

This is not very helpful, though, is it? The traditional take on things is that he found the victim, but there is equally a chance that he was the killer and bluffed it out.
Either way, he WAS found in close vicinity to the dead body of Polly Nichols by Robert Paul.


A good reason only if you are biased from working on a false premise to begin with.

It would be utter stupidity to call it a good reason if I was working from a false premise. I agree with that every inch of the way.
But what about if I am working from a correct premise?

Maybe - just maybe - that needs to be weighed in?

[Paddy Goose]

Thanks for the reply Fisherman,

No I'll stick with the traditional version of how Charles Lechmere found the body of Polly Nichols, then Paul came along. But again thank you for the reply.

Knowing how common it was for folks then to use another name, it was the perfect time for Lechmere to use Cross in this instance. To try to delfect the media circus away from his family.

It worked! Up till the 1990's when the name discovery was made.

To me i'ts kind of a fun theory, just not one I can sink my teeth into. No hard feelings. And I enjoyed your television show.

Paddy

[Fisherman]

Thanks for the reply Fisherman,

No I'll stick with the traditional version of how Charles Lechmere found the body of Polly Nichols, then Paul came along. But again thank you for the reply.

Knowing how common it was for folks then to use another name, it was the perfect time for Lechmere to use Cross in this instance. To try to delfect the media circus away from his family.

It worked! Up till the 1990's when the name discovery was made.

To me i'ts kind of a fun theory, just not one I can sink my teeth into. No hard feelings. And I enjoyed your television show.

Paddy

Actually, as I first read your post, I wondered if you were having me on. I have seen these kinds of "points" made more times than I care to think of, and I have read you making a lot of sense on many threads.

So why do the "he found the body, he was not found with it" thing again? I mean, if the theory does not appeal to you, fine, but...?

Thanks for your kind words on the docu. Things have moved on since then. Today, I´d still say that I am more or less convinced that the carman killed Nichols.
And I am more or less convinced that the killer of Nichols was also the killer of at least Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, with Stride and Tabram being hot contenders for an inclusion.
And I am more or less convinced that the Ripper and the Torso killer were the same man.

Plus I am anything but surprised that Lechmere fits that bill agewise, whereas just about every other of the more prominent "suspects" fall away.

And none of these convictions are traditionalist thinking, so there´s even more of a reason for you to disagree...

[drstrange169]

>>The thing is, every example you point to is an example where we hear people say "my name is X, but I go by the name of Y", or something such.<<

When it comes to proposing Xmere as a candidate, it would seem, research is an optional extra.

In fact the cases Kattrup cited fall into two categories:

1.Those where an alternate name is of specific relevance to the case, hence the need to tell the court.

2.Those where the witness initially gives only one name to the court, as Xmere did.

Smith, Beach, Hoare, Bevan only reveal their names when asked in cross-examination, otherwise we would not know they had another name.

One is left to wonder if not asked for an alternative name, just how many people have appeared like Xmere under an alias?

[drstrange169]

Abberline and Swanson's reports were précis's of the accumulated investigations.

In Swanson's report, Xmere only appears in one sentence and his middle name is not mentioned.

Abberline also only mentions Xmere in one sentence, he too does not mention his Xmere's middle name. Neither policeman mentions Pickfords, Broad St. Station or when Xmere gave his statement not to mention numerous other details.

Until somebody finds his original statement we have know idea whether he mentioned any other name or not.