The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

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.

Then it is equally reasonable to asume that Lechmere was the name he was known by in 1888, I take it, since that is what he went down as on the 1871 as well as the 1891 censuses?

[Fisherman]

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.

It demonstrates that he didn´t opt to conceal his identity from the police - who could investigate him. Whether he opted to conceal it from the public is another matter.

[David Orsam]

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.

It´s 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.

There is a complete failure of logic on your part here. I remind you that you said: "it is not as if he was going to call himself Cross with the police and then Lechmere at the inquest."

I countered that this was perfectly possible - so for you to respond by saying that "we know he called himself Cross at the inquest" gets us nowhere.

I know he called himself Cross at the inquest but he could easily have told police that his name was Cross yet, in the more formal surroundings of a court room, stated that his name was Lechmere when sworn in on oath.

If necessary he could have explained that Lechmere was his family name but he grew up with the name Cross. This would have been accepted as perfectly normal.

Kattrup provided examples of witnesses giving two names in the witness box. I don't know why you think such a thing could not have been possible for Cross also known as Lechmere.

[John G]

It demonstrates that he didn´t opt to conceal his identity from the police - who could investigate him. Whether he opted to conceal it from the public is another matter.

But why would he wish to conceal his identity from the public but not the police? And his address and place of work details were publicized, so if his intention was to conceal his identity from the public he didn't do a very good job.

[John G]

There is a complete failure of logic on your part here. I remind you that you said: "it is not as if he was going to call himself Cross with the police and then Lechmere at the inquest."

I countered that this was perfectly possible - so for you to respond by saying that "we know he called himself Cross at the inquest" gets us nowhere.

I know he called himself Cross at the inquest but he could easily have told police that his name was Cross yet, in the more formal surroundings of a court room, stated that his name was Lechmere when sworn in on oath.

If necessary he could have explained that Lechmere was his family name but he grew up with the name Cross. This would have been accepted as perfectly normal.

Kattrup provided examples of witnesses giving two names in the witness box. I don't know why you think such a thing could not have been possible for Cross also known as Lechmere.

Hello David,

Even today some people are known by different names in different contexts. I used to work with someone who's first name was Robert and middle name Allen. However, at work he was always known as Robert, or Bob, whilst his neighbours knew him as Allen.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: There is a complete failure of logic on your part here.

I think we need to be two to settle that question, David. Not lest since I sense YOU suffer from that ailment yourself.

I remind you that you said: "it is not as if he was going to call himself Cross with the police and then Lechmere at the inquest."

Yes, I find that would be utterly odd.

I countered that this was perfectly possible - so for you to respond by saying that "we know he called himself Cross at the inquest" gets us nowhere.

Oh, but it does - if he called himself one thing at the inquest and another with the police (as you suggest), then we at least know that Cross was the variant he used at the inquest. It was duly noted by the press.

I know he called himself Cross at the inquest but he could easily have told police that his name was Cross yet, in the more formal surroundings of a court room, stated that his name was Lechmere when sworn in on oath.

Ah, but that would be another matter. It wg with the police but TWO things with the ould be a matter of him calling himself one thing with the police, but TWO things at the inquest. It would be a case of him calling himself Lechmere or Cross or Lechmere/Cross with the police and definitely Lechmere/Cross with the police.
And that was not what I spoke of. I spoke of how it would be odd if he used just the one name with the police and then just the other name at the inquest.
So you see, far from ME having lost track of logic, this is YOU introducing a different scenario that was never even up for discussion.

What I can say about you new suggestion, is that it would take a good explanationfor why the police recorded him by the name of Cross instead of by his registered name if they had it. Any suggestion along these lines has always been faced with that problem. Can you solve it, David?

If necessary he could have explained that Lechmere was his family name but he grew up with the name Cross. This would have been accepted as perfectly normal.

And all the papers, who seemingly always took down these things, would leave that aside?

No David, the inquest reports very clearly present the carman as a man who gave one name only, and if you want to add any suggestion of any story he could have told them about having and using two names are secondary to that evidence. It becomes a far-fetched thing that cannot be disproven, but that lacks any real substance.
It may be that anybody who wore an apron in the Working Lads Institute on that particular Monday was given a choice between calling themselves Cross, Brown or Higgins, and that this is the explanation for the nameswap. I can´t disprove that either. But I disbelieve it for the same reason - the evidence is extremely clearly against the suggestion.

Kattrup provided examples of witnesses giving two names in the witness box. I don't know why you think such a thing could not have been possible for Cross also known as Lechmere.

It would certainly have been possible. It´s just that the evidence points out that it apparently ever happened.
But why do YOU think that the collected members of the press missed out on it? And why do YOU think that the police opted for using a name they would not be able to find in the records, instead of using either the registered name or both names?
You see, when you open a post by questioning my logic, when it is shown that this is done on muddled grounds and when you sign off (!) with a suggestion that defies all suggestion, your contribution becomes a not very good one.

[Fisherman]

But why would he wish to conceal his identity from the public but not the police? And his address and place of work details were publicized, so if his intention was to conceal his identity from the public he didn't do a very good job.

The police could investigate him.
The public could not.

Is that clear now? You keep asking the same question which makes me fear you cannot see how this works?

As for the address being publicized, it was publicized in one paper only. And if I am correct and it was told the reporter by a clerk, then how does that detract from what the carman did? How much COULD he do?
Should he have asked the reporters if anybody had taken down his address from the inquest protocol? Is that what you are shooting for?

[GUT]

Hello David,

Even today some people are known by different names in different contexts. I used to work with someone who's first name was Robert and middle name Allen. However, at work he was always known as Robert, or Bob, whilst his neighbours knew him as Allen.

My wife's uncle was known as Arnold by work mates, Doug at home, only found out the other day none of his names are Doug.

My mum won't answer to her name, she has never been called by it in her life.

Multiple names are nothing new.

And I still have no idea how giving your correct home address and place of work was meant to hide anything at all.

[David Orsam]

if he called himself one thing at the inquest and another with the police (as you suggest), then we at least know that Cross was the variant he used at the inquest. It was duly noted by the press.

Fisherman, that is not my suggestion so virtually everything you have written in your long post is utterly irrelevant.

Your original statement was a hypothetical one: "it is not as if he was going to call himself Cross with the police and then Lechmere at the inquest".

So I was answering you hypothetically, namely that he could have done. I'm not saying for one second that he did, in fact, call himself Cross with the police and Lechmere at the inquest. So your focus of the factual position was pointless.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, that is not my suggestion so virtually everything you have written in your long post is utterly irrelevant.

Your original statement was a hypothetical one: "it is not as if he was going to call himself Cross with the police and then Lechmere at the inquest".

So I was answering you hypothetically, namely that he could have done. I'm not saying for one second that he did, in fact, call himself Cross with the police and Lechmere at the inquest. So your focus of the factual position was pointless.

Well, then maybe we have different ideas about what is pointless and what is not.

I think, for example that the fact that there are no papers calling him Lechmere at all, and the fact that the police reports only have him as Cross are two VERY good points in favour of him having kept his registered and official name from the police, where you seem to think it is a very good point that he may have given both names at the inquest, but the papers forgot to take it down and the police chose his alias over his official name.

Time to leave this topic now, I think. All you have to offer is more of the age-old "he COULD have used Cross, y´a know".

Yes, I know.

And more of the age-old "there is no evidence that - apart from the murder case proceeding - he EVER used the name Cross, all there is is a reocurring plethora of suggestions about how he may have".

Yes, you know that too.

[Sam Flynn]

Even today some people are known by different names in different contexts. I used to work with someone who's first name was Robert and middle name Allen. However, at work he was always known as Robert, or Bob, whilst his neighbours knew him as Allen.

Throughout his long career, my former boss was always known as "Richard" at work, but as "Clive" by his family; his rationale being that, if he got a phonecall/message referring to "Richard", he'd know instantly that it was work-related. This arrangement worked well for decades - and I mean decades - with the exception of his cousin, who worked with us in another department. She'd quite often have to apologise and correct herself if she referred to "Clive" in a work context.

[Fisherman]

Anybody more who feels it would be of value to tell about how that have known people who have been known under more tha one name?

Maybe we should have a separate thread, and fill it with examples?

How about Archibald Leach/Cary Grant? Why has nobody mentioned him?

And I once had a friend who was approached by people as either "Kent" or "Grandpa", although he was only ten, twelve years old at the time.

Amazing stuff.

[GUT]

Anybody more who feels it would be of value to tell about how that have known people who have been known under more tha one name?

Maybe we should have a separate thread, and fill it with examples?

How about Archibald Leach/Cary Grant? Why has nobody mentioned him?

And I once had a friend who was approached by people as either "Kent" or "Grandpa", although he was only ten, twelve years old at the time.

Amazing stuff.

Yep yet when it comes to cross you just can't see it.

Truly amazing stuff.

[David Orsam]

I think, for example that the fact that there are no papers calling him Lechmere at all, and the fact that the police reports only have him as Cross are two VERY good points in favour of him having kept his registered and official name from the police, where you seem to think it is a very good point that he may have given both names at the inquest, but the papers forgot to take it down and the police chose his alias over his official name.

No, you you seem to be having major problems comprehending.

I am certainly not saying the papers "forgot" to take his name down. I'm not saying he did give the name Lechmere at the inquest in addition to Cross. I'm saying he could have done had he wanted to, despite having told the police his name was Cross.

It was following on from your claim that this was something that he would never have done.

[Fisherman]

No, you you seem to be having major problems comprehending.

I am certainly not saying the papers "forgot" to take his name down. I'm not saying he did give the name Lechmere at the inquest in addition to Cross. I'm saying he could have done had he wanted to, despite having told the police his name was Cross.

It was following on from your claim that this was something that he would never have done.

So, a purely hypothetical suggestion, for the sake of clarification?

Okay.