The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

I have to assume (in fairness to you) that you never looked at a single one of those hits.

Let's look at the first page of hits on google together shall we?

The first hit comes from evidence in a forgery case where someone has been illegally signing other peoples' names.

The second and third hits (from an English to Polish translation site) say "I signed his name, and I let you think it was from him." So a case of forgery/fraud.

The fourth hit is evidence from a criminal trial at the Old Bailey where a witness who had been renting out a house is saying that he signed a rent book in his father-in-law's name, his father-in-law having put him in possession of the house (the implication in the questioning being there was something odd about it).

The fifth hit is a poem entitled "He Sits Down on the Floor of a School for the Retarded". The relevant lines say:

"I've been telling lies
to a boy who cried because his favorite detective
hadn't come with us; I said he had sent his love
and, no, I didn't think he'd mind if I signed his name" .

A mild case of forgery in other words.

The sixth hit is a criminal law website asking the question "My ex-boyfriend is saying I signed his name on a school loan that took place over 6 years ago". An allegation of fraud in other words.

The seventh hit is another poem and another case of dodgy signing with reference to a 'crime':

"I trawl the bookshops searching for his name,
gold embossed letters lighting up a spine,
five hundred pages full of guilt and shame.
But naught in there comes equal to my crime:
I signed his name, betrayed, in black and white,
my son, the writer. No, pet, he’ll not write."

The eighth hit is the wording of a certification for someone who has signed a legal document before a notary public on behalf of "An Individual Who Cannot Write His or Her Name."

The ninth hit is from an internet forum post entitled "Can you forge someone's signature with their permission?". I don't need to say any more about that one.

The tenth hit is an example of a grantors' signature on a legal document: the example being: "Grant Ore, being unable to write, made his mark in my presence, and I signed his name at his request and in his presence.”

That takes us to the end of the first page of google results. Looking at the second page from the view function they all seem to be exactly the same type of things. From this, it should now be crystal clear to you that one does not normally sign someone else's name unless they are incapable of doing so themselves or you are forging their signature or committing the crime of fraud.

The first one on the second side is about a mother, who "signed" her babies name on things.
Apparently, she did not know that she was only writing it, not signing it. Poor her if you ever sink your teeth into her ignorance! Wait - maybe she posts out here...?

How long are you goiong to go on nitpicking about this, instead of accepting that there is a collections of 100 plus documents (NONE of them duplicates!) with the name Lechmere on them?

Why is it so very important to sidetrack the REAL issue?

I think I can answer both of those questions:

-In eternity or until I say that you are always right.
-Because the real issue is less flattering to your reasoning about the names.

The problem is that I wonīt be about for eternity. But I WILL be about long enough to elucidate the eager sidetracing efforts on your behalf.

PS. Interesting, this one, from page two. Or was it three?
I shouldn't say this. When I was with the Cavs, I had to sign personal letters to all the season-ticket holders. The director wasn't going to sign his name to 1,200 letters, so I signed his name.

You see, David, what I am saying is that the internet is teeming with examples of people who are as ignorant as I am, and who genuinely believe that you CAN sign another persons name. I understand your take on things, and I agree with it, furthermore. So basically, I made a mistake. But it was an understandable one, Iīd say, and I never made a secret of the cthat other people also ... wait for it ... "signed" Lechmeres name.

So, and this is the core issue, the main course of the day - can we leave the topic? I am not embarrased by it, but I think it distinctly counterproductive and misleading. It is not what we should discuss, quite simply, but when debating with you, it is sometimes very hard to get you to understand such things.

So please?

[David Orsam]

Yes, letīs throw it away. How would such a collection have any impact at all on the issue of what he called himself? Basically, it is nothing but a compilation of what he called himself. So how could it help?

It took me a while to work out that this was sarcasm.

But if you want evidence of what he called himself when asked in person (as opposed to writing on a document) you can also look at the name he gave, when asked, to the police in September 1888 and then again at the Nichols inquest.

But perhaps you think that doesn't help either?

[David Orsam]

To think, there is not a scrap of evidence at all suggesting that he ever used the name Cross

I'm going to be generous and say you didn't mean to write it exactly like that, without qualification.

[David Orsam]

I saw your answers - measured and wise - to David Orsam.

I must admit, I missed the "measured and wise" answers of MrBarnett to me. I saw a bit of nitpicking but if he was truly being measured and wise why did he not mention those electoral registers where the information about Lechmere is unchanged from one year to the next?

You've forced me to sign into Ancestry, where I find that the 1900 electoral register has the entry: "Lechmere, Charles Allen, 24 Doveton-street" which is identical to the entry in the 1901 electoral register.

Further, the entry for 1903 of "Lechmere, Charles Allen, 24 Carlton Road" appears to remain unchanged all the way to 1915. That's 13 years.

I could give other examples but the point is that if the above two examples have been counted as 15 instances of Cross 'signing' as Lechmere then that can only be misleading.

[Fisherman]

I'm going to be generous and say you didn't mean to write it exactly like that, without qualification.

THANK YOU! I missed out once after having said a million times "apart from in combination with the murder", and I reaslize that it is unforgivable and that it is only your kind nature that saved me from the eternal fires of hell.

A REALLY close call, that one.

On the other hand, we could work from our shared knowledge about things and not necessarily repeat ourselves every time. No?

[Fisherman]

I must admit, I missed the "measured and wise" answers of MrBarnett to me. I saw a bit of nitpicking but if he was truly being measured and wise why did he not mention those electoral registers where the information about Lechmere is unchanged from one year to the next?

You've forced me to sign into Ancestry, where I find that the 1900 electoral register has the entry: "Lechmere, Charles Allen, 24 Doveton-street" which is identical to the entry in the 1901 electoral register.

Further, the entry for 1903 of "Lechmere, Charles Allen, 24 Carlton Road" appears to remain unchanged all the way to 1915. That's 13 years.

I could give other examples but the point is that if the above two examples have been counted as 15 instances of Cross 'signing' as Lechmere then that can only be misleading.

I FORCED DAVID ORSAM! I FORCED DAVID ORSAM! I FORCED DAVID ORSAM!!!


Goodnight.

[Fisherman]

It took me a while to work out that this was sarcasm.

But if you want evidence of what he called himself when asked in person (as opposed to writing on a document) you can also look at the name he gave, when asked, to the police in September 1888 and then again at the Nichols inquest.

But perhaps you think that doesn't help either?

Well, to begin with, it is not as if he was going to call himself Cross with the police and then Lechmere at the inquest.

It all becomes very much simpler and clearer if we refer to the whole issue as the Nichols murder case. He called himself Cross there and then - and as far as history has recorded ONLY there and then.

You speak of whether I would want to know what he called himself in person, and then you present the Cross variant as his choice.

Charles Cross is under suspicion (from me and a few other deluded people) of being the Whitechapel killer. One of the points of accusation is the name swap. Therefore, I donīt accept that we should work from the presumption that he called himself Cross in person every time he was asked - on the contrary, I am asking for any evidence at all that he ever did so OUTSIDE murder investigation, where he had himself been found in close proximity to the victim, all alone.

Accepting that Cross was the name he gave in person on account of the murder case proceedings is very premature, not least since we have it on record that when otherwise asked by authorities, he had an uncanny habit of abandoning his cherished Cross name.

You are correct on the sarcasm note, though - it was a hilarious post of yours.

Now I really cannot be arsed to engage in any further debate with you. I strongly suspect that it will be end up in everlasting bickering to little or no avail (the latter being the more probable thing).

Lifeīs too short, quite simply. I bid you the best of nights, David!

PS. Thereīs always Caz, on the diary thread. She is just as durable as you, and the thread has the distinctive advantage of never being visited by me.

[John Wheat]

Self-declaration time again.

Well actually no.

[John Wheat]

...and again! Know thyself!

I do know myself thanks.

[David Orsam]

I FORCED DAVID ORSAM! I FORCED DAVID ORSAM! I FORCED DAVID ORSAM!!!

Always good to see a measured and wise response from Fisherman himself.

[David Orsam]

Well, to begin with, it is not as if he was going to call himself Cross with the police and then Lechmere at the inquest.

I'm gong to restrict myself to this comment and say that I don't think it is true at all. We have seen from Kattrup's well researched OP that witnesses sometimes gave different names within the witness box. He could quite easily have called himself Cross when he spoke to the police but given the name Lechmere to the inquest and, if necessary, explained why he had two legitimate surnames.

[John G]

And now, all you have to do is to prove it.

But is there any evidence that he actually used the name Lechmere in adulthood, apart from on official forms? And as he appeared as Charles Cross on the 1861 register it is reasonable to assume that- at that time at least- was the name he was known by.

[John G]

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

Hi Caz,

Perhaps he contemplated making an announcement in The Times: "Charles Allen Cross Esq wishes it to be known that, henceforth, he is to be addressed as Charles Allen Lechmere and will answer to no other name."

[John G]

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

But this simply demonstrates that he wasn't trying to conceal his identity. And he could hardly be the master criminal you make him out to be by giving a false surname, but his correct forename, his correct home address, and his correct place of work.

[Fisherman]

I'm gong to restrict myself to this comment and say that I don't think it is true at all. We have seen from Kattrup's well researched OP that witnesses sometimes gave different names within the witness box. He could quite easily have called himself Cross when he spoke to the police but given the name Lechmere to the inquest and, if necessary, explained why he had two legitimate surnames.

Quite easily? I see. But then he would have called himself Lechmere with the police, since we know he called himself Cross at the inquest.

And in such a case, the police reports would have had him by his real name, Lechmere. Instead, they have him down as Cross. Which he apparently therefore told bth police and inquest was his name.

Itīs a case of either I win or you loose, David.

Unless you have a bright idea about how it could have gone down, and why the police would actively have chosen to call him Cross in their reports.

Goodnight again.