The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John Wheat]

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.

Yes John you're right but then a clearly innocent man wouldn't need to hide his identity. Cheers John

[drstrange169]

>>A sad piece of con artistry. Again. Cutting away most of the relevant material. Again.
Why did you not mark the FULL route from James Street, via Commercial Road, Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate High Street..?<<

One: Because I don’t know it, nor do you.

Two: There is no evidence that proves he worked at Broad when he lived at James St. It is purely a guess on your part that you are peddling to make Xmere appear guilty.

Three: I was specifically responding to your claim about Mitre Sq being on his “logical” route not anything else.



>>I never said he took his old working route TO GONTO PICKFORDS, did I? <<

Actually you did. Post #44.

"It would have stopped any speculation that Lechmere went to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up."



>>I said he took hos old working route up to the Mitre Square area, and I also said that he may well have had St Botolphs in mind, where there was prostitution to be had.<<

Actaully you didn’t. Post #32

"If the Eddowes murder had taken place somewhere else but along his old working route."

And here is your reply to me in post # 44

"It was the logical one. Then again, you and logic..."

You don’t seem to grasp that this is a written medium, so when you lie, all anyone has to do is go back and check your actual words.



>>How very, very sad that you cannot debate on any other level than this. <<

Sad indeed.

A debate requires two or more people and when one is as blatantly as dishonest in their replies as yours above are, it is very hard to raise the level.

[drstrange169]

>>You cannot know what I do when I am caught out, the reason being you never caught me out. <<

The problem is you are caught so many times (see the previous post as the simply the most recent example) it’s hard to keep a record.

[drstrange169]

>>... you speak of how very relevant it is if Lechmere started work at Pickfords when Thomas Cross was alive. Okay, that´s correct.
But it is an answer to a question that was never asked.<<


So you are telling us in order to believe Xmere was the killer we should not ask questions or look at ALL the available evidence? Certainly explains your approach, but the rest of us have higher standards of research.



>>What I said was that if there had been any evidence that Lechmere was ever called Cross other than at the inquest, it would clear him on the name issue.<<

Those pesky facts again, we HAVE evidence that "Lechmere was ever called Cross other than at the inquest", it's a census report from 1861 and it in your eyes still does not "clear him on the name issue".

[drstrange169]

>>I used to work at a newspaper where we were 450 people. I did not know the names of half of them, and many new people arrived as old people walked away.<<

How did Xmere get paid if nobody knew he worked that day?

Clearly some knew.


>> If he kept that from his wife and family and friends, how would they identify him if he gave no address?<<

Because they knew he went to work at that time.
Because they knew Buck’s Row was a likely route for him to take.
And because they knew the family connection to the name Cross.

Since he had already given his address to the police, how could he guarantee they would not contact the family? Perhaps he told the police only to contact him at his work? But of course that wouldn't work either if he was known as Lechmere at Pickfords.

Oh dear this is not one your best is it;-)

[drstrange169]

>>Nota bene that the papers remarked that the carman was clothed in working gear, sacking apron and all, whereas the rest of the inquest witnesses were apparently clad in their Sunday best.<<

Another of your “alternate facts”. What were you saying about never being caught out?

Your posts are a mess of invented stories.

[drstrange169]

>> ... going by the official records that tell us that the carman should, in order to be in line with the records, have called himself Lechmere. Instead, he swapped names this time - and as far as we can tell, this time only in official circumstances.<<

If he was informally known as Cross, then by definition there would be no written records to check.

The only way of verifying this, it seems, is through Pickfords records, hence the reason Pickfords is the ONLY record that is useful to this debate.

[John G]

Lechmere/Cross' mother married Thomas Cross in 1858, when Charles would have been 9 years old. Now, as he was referred to as Charles Cross on the 1861 electoral register I think it likely that his surname would have been changed, at least for everyday purposes, from the time of his mother's marriage to Thomas. Thomas I believe died on 1869, by which time Charles would have been 20, so at that point he could have been known as Charles Cross for 11 years and well into adulthood.

It would therefore be completely natural for him to retain the name Charles Cross, at least for everyday purposes, considering the alternative would have been to go round all of his friends, family, associates, neighbours, work colleagues, and announce, "I've changed my name. I'm no longer Charles Cross, I'm now Charles Lechmere." And after 11 years it seems to me that would have been an odd thing to do.

[caz]

You are arguing that Lechmere would be more likely to not show up at the inquest if he was the killer.

No I wasn't.

However, his attendance is entirely consistent with him being innocent. It certainly cannot be suspicious or every witness who ever attends an inquest is in trouble.

The circular reasoning seems to be more on your side. People can be innocent even if they use an alternative name - Lechmere used an alternative name - ergo he is innocent.

Except that the last bit is all yours, not mine. A circular argument is one where you start from your desired conclusion - guilty as sin - then move round in a circle to arrive back at exactly the same point via silly observations like he was never suspected so he must have been successful at hiding his guilt!

I would merely observe that from a neutral starting point, the fact he was never suspected cannot possibly be held against him. He may or may not have been guilty, but you don't know he had any nefarious reason to divert suspicion away from himself, nor that he had anything sinister to do with the complete lack of interest in him by the authorities aside from his role as witness.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Good point, GUT.

"Sensational 'orrible murder in Buck's Row! Pickfords carman Charles Cross first at the scene."

The 'bosses' would have been wise to make it their urgent business to know the ins and outs of a cat's arse on reading that!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Lechmere/Cross' mother married Thomas Cross in 1858, when Charles would have been 9 years old. Now, as he was referred to as Charles Cross on the 1861 electoral register I think it likely that his surname would have been changed, at least for everyday purposes, from the time of his mother's marriage to Thomas. Thomas I believe died on 1869, by which time Charles would have been 20, so at that point he could have been known as Charles Cross for 11 years and well into adulthood.

It would therefore be completely natural for him to retain the name Charles Cross, at least for everyday purposes, considering the alternative would have been to go round all of his friends, family, associates, neighbours, work colleagues, and announce, "I've changed my name. I'm no longer Charles Cross, I'm now Charles Lechmere." And after 11 years it seems to me that would have been an odd thing to do.

Hi John,

I agree entirely, but according to David Orsam on a different topic, one can only 'announce' something publicly, not to an individual. Maybe he would allow you to have Cross gathering all the above people together in a local public house before making his announcement over a pint. That might work - except it would be an even odder thing to do.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Fisherman, the internet is not "teeming" with examples of documents being signed on behalf of others.

It is teeming with examples of how the act is suggested - 34 700 hits on "I signed his name", for example.
But that is all uninteresting. All that matters is that the large collection of official papers relating to the carman all have the name Lechmere on them.


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.

Well, we can´t have people thinking I am a pervert, can we?

[Fisherman]

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?

I think we can skip over that question, David.

[Fisherman]

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?

I do not have the documents, Edward has, and I trust him completely. I have discussed them with him on occasion, and I am satisfied that the collection is completely relevant.

[Fisherman]

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.

He must have revealed the address to somebody. Like the police, for example.