The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

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.

Well no, without knowing what types of documents you are referring to, it doesn't tell us that at all.

I mean, are you saying that Lechmere directed the 1861 census taker to put his name as Cross on the 1861 census?

[David Orsam]

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.

There you go again! Talking about two electoral register entries as "separate signings".

Do you have any evidence that he or anyone else signed the electoral register every year?

What if the information from 1888 was simply carried over to 1889 because there had been no change of address or circumstances?

[John G]

Considering that not only is Charles Cross/Lechmere's place of work given in The Star, 3 September, 1888, but also his correct address, which he must have revealed, I'm not sure exactly how he was supposed to prevent his friends, family, neighbours and work colleagues from finding out that he was the person who discovered Nichols' body. At the very least, he hardly made strenuous efforts to hide his identity.

[GUT]

Considering that not only is Charles Cross/Lechmere's place of work given in The Star, 3 September, 1888, but also his correct address, which he must have revealed, I'm not sure exactly how he was supposed to prevent his friends, family, neighbours and work colleagues from finding out that he was the person who discovered Nichols' body. At the very least, he hardly made strenuous efforts to hide his identity.

I'd suggest precisely the opposite.

At work:

"hey who's this Charlie Cross that found that body" not just from his workmates who may or may not have known everyone who worked there, but from the bosses who had themeans to check the name of everyone who worked there and who had been off work that day.

At home, neighbors to his wife:

"so who is this Charlie Cross you've got living with you, taken in a border have ya? Or just getting a bit on the side? Why ain't we met him?"

[MrBarnett]

The 1888 census would have been compiled in late 1887, the 1889 one in late 1888. Lechmere moved to Doveton Street in the middle of 1888. He appears on the 1889 census in his new address as Lechmere.

[David Orsam]

The 1888 census would have been compiled in late 1887, the 1889 one in late 1888. Lechmere moved to Doveton Street in the middle of 1888. He appears on the 1889 census in his new address as Lechmere.

Do you mean 'census' or are you referring to the electoral register?

So then let's take the 1889 and 1890 electoral registers. If Lechmere's address is the same in both would it not be double counting to count these as 'separate signings' or whatever formulation Fisherman is using today?

[MrBarnett]

I meant electoral register. In 1889 he was recorded as Charles Lechmere, in 1890 as Charles Allen Lechmere. He was living at the same address in both years, which suggests to me that he provided fresh information even though he hadn't moved. And of course, he lived at other addresses and the surname was always recorded as Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

And because he moved house and his children changed schools, 1888 was a gala year for his record-keeping. I doubt there was another year in which he supplied the name Lechmere as frequently.

[David Orsam]

I think my point is simply this: If there are two consecutive years of electoral register when the details don't change, it is double counting to count them as 'separate signings' bearing in mind that the details might simply have been transferred from one year to another without any involvement by Lechmere.

But the wider point is that if you include 40-50 electoral register entries into the total of 100 'signatures' it makes the 100+ total pretty meaningless because if he gives his surname as Lechmere the first time he is entered onto the electoral register he's not very likely to change it at any subsequent point in the future.

Equally if he gives his surname on Lechmere on one of his children's birth certificates he's likely to do so on all the rest and all of the other birth, marriage and death certificates.

So, if it was me, the way I would argue the point is to say that Cross/Lechmere is recorded under the name of Lechmere (or, if you prefer, uses the name Lechmere) on every known form of official document. That's it. The numbers don't help advance the issue any further. 100, 1,000, 10,000, what does it matter if they are all official documents?

If we don't have information as to what he called himself at work, or to his friends or in various other circumstances it just doesn't add anything.

[John Wheat]

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

I know it doesn't. But I don't care about that either.

[John Wheat]

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?

Yes Fish's approach to The Ripper murders is illogical and stupid.

[John Wheat]

Pot calling the kettle black again.

[John Wheat]

...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.

I'll give you one thing Fish you're certainly persistant. Persistant in the way you go on about Lechmere being found alone with a body it's pure semantics. You're theory has nothing else other than semantics. Sad how someone has wasted a great deal of time falsifying a theory against a clearly innocent man.

[John Wheat]

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.

I know and that's ridiculous.

[John Wheat]

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

He can't bring anything new to the table is his theory consists of bullshit.