The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John Wheat]

>>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?

Hi Dusty

I don't think you're going far enough. In the case against Lechmere the truth is an optional extra. Proponents of the Lechmere theory in there bizarre quest to finger a clearly innocent man disregard the truth in favour of some fanciful scenario where a man who found a body somehow becomes Jack the Ripper.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

>>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?

Thatīs speculation only, of course. What remains is that the recorded material is entirely consistent with a wish to mislead, and it would take evidence that the carman offered his true name to dissolve that suggestion.

And once again, every time we know of the two names, it is because they were both given by the person looked into.

All very easy, therefore. Basically, you are saying "It could be that you have no case, but I have no evidence whatsoever to strengthen this idea of mine".

You are welcome to that earthshattering insight.

[Fisherman]

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.

These are police reports, compiled a long time after the murder. The real name of the carman is not given, but his chosen alias is.

If we choose to speculate that the police made an active choice of using the alias instead of the real, registered name, we need to find an explanation to that very odd behaviour. Which is your suggestion? Did they find Lechmere too hard to spell...?

Whether Pickfords or the carmans middle name was mentioned or not is neither here nor there. Only what is judged relevant information goes into a report, and the police already had the information you are speaking about.

[Kattrup]

These are police reports, compiled a long time after the murder. The real name of the carman is not given, but his chosen alias is.

If we choose to speculate that the police made an active choice of using the alias instead of the real, registered name, we need to find an explanation to that very odd behaviour. Which is your suggestion? Did they find Lechmere too hard to spell...?

Whether Pickfords or the carmans middle name was mentioned or not is neither here nor there. Only what is judged relevant information goes into a report, and the police already had the information you are speaking about.

So by your own logic, the carman's "real name" was not judged relevant, since it was not included


I think that is actually quite correct, since the police knew who he was, where he lived and where he worked. Whether or not he might be registered in a census with a different name was immaterial to them.


The point of my post is not to show that Cross must have said both names or to try and guess at how the exchange went.

The point is to show that it was not uncommon for witnesses to show up and use a different name from their "real name". I thin the very few examples I pulled forward show that the concept of "real name" was different then - you cling to the idea that people had a "real name", and thusly any other name used would be a false one.

It is plain to see that at the time, people did not think so. Most were aware that they had a particular name (their "real" or "proper" name), but they could liberally use another without it being in any way a falsehood.

This being the case, there is presently no indication that Cross' use of Cross instead of Lechmere was intended to deceive.

The fact that the police echoed the use of the name Cross is not significant, since it was not actually required of Cross to use his "real name" at the inquest. The police therefore refererred to him by the name he went by.

Since it is you who wish to make some sort of extraordinary case for Cross deceiving the inquest, the onus is on you to provide evidence that he did so.

Simply stating that he used another name than on the census forms is not evidence of deception. As seen in the examples I posted (and doubtlessly in countless others in other court archives and newspaper reportings from inquests and trials), people might very well use one name in one official context and another name in a different context - e.g. Lechmere on written census forms, Cross in a verbal exchange.

So, point is, YOU make an extraordinary claim - Lechmere lied about his name - therefore YOU need to substantiate the claim.

At present, you have not, since the behaviour you have pointed out - using a different name than the "real name" - was not uncommon.

[caz]

Hi All,

Assuming Charlie Cross had to explain his absence from work to attend a murder inquest, I should have thought Pickfords would have been alive with the gossip that he had found the body and agog to "read all about it". If they only knew him there as Charles Allen Lechmere, there is not a whiff of a hint or a suggestion of anyone raising an eyebrow and wondering why he had changed his name to Cross just for the duration of the police interest in him.

Ditto with any tradespeople, friends or family who had occasion to call at his home address and only knew him as Lechmere there too.

It seems a bit strange that nobody who knew Charles Lechmere seems to have connected the dots and ever remarked upon his singular use of Cross for his role as a murder witness. He managed to keep his little - very public - secret from everyone who knew him until decades after his death?

As has been pointed out already, he could have called himself Mickey Mouse for the inquest as long as Robert Paul or PC Mizen was able to confirm that this was indeed the man who had found the body and reported it. The two men didn't know his name when that happened, so they wouldn't have known, or needed to know, that his name wasn't really Aloysius Snodgrass, Bert Winterbottom or Charles Allen Cross, if it was in fact Charles Allen Lechmere. It wasn't relevant for the purposes of positively identifying somebody who was - to them - an anonymous witness. The authorities, however, had more than enough information - volunteered by Cross himself - to identify him as Lechmere, if they had any doubts about those identifying details.

But I still think the most likely explanation is that this wasn't a name change as such, but merely the same one Cross had always used in his daily life, at work and at home - when not completing official forms which required Lechmere. Imagine if he had then used the name Lechmere for the inquest, and his mates had "read all about it" after hearing all about his grisly discovery and why he had to lose time at work:

"Lechmere? Lechmere?? What sort of fancy posh name is that?"

They'd have taken the piss rotten.

Much better to be plain old Charlie Cross, all things considered, and keep the Lechmere name well out of it. No ribbing at work, no whispers behind Mrs Lechmere's back as she did the shopping, no playground taunts for all his little Lechmeres.

I know Christer has heard it all before and will have kittens reading it all again, but I wasn't posting this for his benefit.

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

Once again back on the name issue I see.

Kattrup's list, while extensive, of course missed the classic example of Kosminski,who claimed a different name in court, and said he, or it was said for him, went by "Abrahams", that would suggest that "Abrahams" was the name he used on a day to day basis; but he was hospitalized and indeed buried under the name Kosminski.
Indeed but for that revelation in court, and that only because he was accused of giving a force name, and so had to explain the use of both names, there would be no official record of him using anything other than Kosminski.

The point made many times that the authorities knew his employer and address means that any attempt at deliberately misleading obviously failed almost immediately, therefore what was the point of trying to mislead?


His own life story gives a very plausible reason for the use of Cross.
His step father was a policeman and one assumes therefore probably remembered by some in the local force, indeed it is quite probably that Lechmere was known to some of the local police has being the son of a former officer and it would seem likely that if that were the case they would think of him as Cross.
It is therefore entirely plausible that he would adopt and use this name at least when dealing with the police and by extension any police related business such as an inquest.


Pure subjective I am well aware, but look what little we do know


1. It was common at the time to use more than one name.

2. While his given recorded name was Lechmere, he was also perfectly entitled to use the name of his stepfather at anytime.

3. While all found official records show the use of the name Lechmere, that does not preclude that he could either regularly or on certain occasions used Cross unofficially.

4. He certainly did use it at the inquest.


And that is all we know.


Of course that is the problem with much of the case against Lechmere, Just like all the arguments against all the other serious contenders, it is a house built of straw it is all subjective down to personal interpretation.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: So by your own logic, the carman's "real name" was not judged relevant, since it was not included

No, Kattrup, by MY logic, they did not have the name, and so they could not include it.


I think that is actually quite correct, since the police knew who he was, where he lived and where he worked. Whether or not he might be registered in a census with a different name was immaterial to them.

So by YOUR logic, he could not move or change jobs...? Of course the police would have wanted the real, registered name for their reports.


The point of my post is not to show that Cross must have said both names or to try and guess at how the exchange went.

Lucky for you, since you would get nowhere.

The point is to show that it was not uncommon for witnesses to show up and use a different name from their "real name". I thin the very few examples I pulled forward show that the concept of "real name" was different then - you cling to the idea that people had a "real name", and thusly any other name used would be a false one.

I cling to the idea that the police would want to know the registered name, and that when you have 100+ examples, ALL saying Lechmere, the name Cross does not look like something he had ever used before in authority contacts. "Fine, you say, but he did now, and he was entitled to do so". The I ask "WHY did he do it?". Why do we have this anomaly? Why did he deviate from his principles in combination with a murder investigation, but not otherwise?


It is plain to see that at the time, people did not think so. Most were aware that they had a particular name (their "real" or "proper" name), but they could liberally use another without it being in any way a falsehood.

"Most"? Really? Source, please! And they were NOT allow to swop names if the name was not one they used normally or if they intended to mislead. End of story.

This being the case, there is presently no indication that Cross' use of Cross instead of Lechmere was intended to deceive.

Yes, there is. And it is very, very clear: He otherwise did NOT use Cross when in contact with the authoritites, and it seems he withheld his real name. "Presently no indication..."

The fact that the police echoed the use of the name Cross is not significant, since it was not actually required of Cross to use his "real name" at the inquest. The police therefore refererred to him by the name he went by.

Oh, wait! Is that really so? The police used the mane he told them??? Heureka, heīs found it! The circumstances goverend whether he would have been allowed to call himself Cross or not - if he intended to mislead, he could NOT do so.

Since it is you who wish to make some sort of extraordinary case for Cross deceiving the inquest, the onus is on you to provide evidence that he did so.

I am the only one presenting any evidence at all. The rest are presenting free fantasies about what he MAY have done - you, not least.

Simply stating that he used another name than on the census forms is not evidence of deception.

And did I say it was?

As seen in the examples I posted (and doubtlessly in countless others in other court archives and newspaper reportings from inquests and trials), people might very well use one name in one official context and another name in a different context - e.g. Lechmere on written census forms, Cross in a verbal exchange.

You are beginning to repeat yourself. It does not help.

So, point is, YOU make an extraordinary claim - Lechmere lied about his name - therefore YOU need to substantiate the claim.

And the fact that he otherwise used Lechmere in all the 100+ examples we have is of course no such substantiation?

At present, you have not, since the behaviour you have pointed out - using a different name than the "real name" - was not uncommon.

Crime was not uncommon. The fact that people used two names can only tell us just that: they did. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether Lechmere lied to obscure his identity or not. The indication certainly remains. People write clever posts all the time and use good arguments all the time. Itīs not uncommon. That, however, does not mean it must apply to you, does it, Kattrup?

[Fisherman]

caz:

I should have thought...


But you didnīt, did you?


I know Christer has heard it all before ...

Yes. The nicest thing I can say is that I am exactly as impressed now as back then.

[Fisherman]

Steve, I am not doing this all over with you again. Read my answer to Kattrup. One point only:

You: While all found official records show the use of the name Lechmere, that does not preclude that he could either regularly or on certain occasions used Cross unofficially.

The police business was not unofficial business. Therefore, it remains that this one instance - no others, as far as we know - is a total exception to the rule.

Total exceptions are also known as anomalies.

Anomalies are what the police go looking for when hunting a killer.

Just helping out and showing the way here.

Mind you, I am not (God forbid!) saying that the name swop WAS an intentional misleading. I am saying that given the circumstances, it lends itself EMINENTLY to such an interpretation.

[Sam Flynn]

the police knew who he was, where he lived and where he worked.

Quite correct and, furthermore, he turned up at the inquest when required to do so. He obviously wasn't very good at hiding, was he?

[Sam Flynn]

Imagine if he had then used the name Lechmere for the inquest, and his mates had "read all about it" after hearing all about his grisly discovery and why he had to lose time at work:

"Lechmere? Lechmere?? What sort of fancy posh name is that?"

They'd have taken the piss rotten.

Much better to be plain old Charlie Cross

Indeed. Just ask Robin Ingstone-Featherstonehaugh, aka "Robert Paul".

[Fisherman]

Quite correct and, furthermore, he turned up at the inquest when required to do so. He obviously wasn't very good at hiding, was he?

Oh, Iīd say he did pretty well. It took more than a hundred years to find him.

[Kattrup]

Once again back on the name issue I see.

Sorry, I agree it's tiring. I was just looking around the Old Bailey site and thought some examples might help.

Kattrup's list, while extensive, of course missed the classic example of Kosminski

My examples were culled only from the Old Bailey, where Kosminski was not on trial (I believe), and I also deliberately left out criminals, since they for more nefarious reasons often used aliases.

My examples were meant to show that ordinary, lawabiding citizens who appeared as witnesses often used different names.

I only included George Peacock, a criminal, as an example showing that he stated in court his "real name" (James Smith), but was still written up as George Peacock.

It's obvious that the authorities were not terribly concerned about the "real name" of witnesses or indeed the accused.

Pure subjective I am well aware, but look what little we do know


1. It was common at the time to use more than one name.

2. While his given recorded name was Lechmere, he was also perfectly entitled to use the name of his stepfather at anytime.

3. While all found official records show the use of the name Lechmere, that does not preclude that he could either regularly or on certain occasions used Cross unofficially.

4. He certainly did use it at the inquest.


And that is all we know.

Exactly.

There were many legitimate reasons for people to use an alternative name. It is wrong to imply that doing so was deceptive, without further evidence.

[Kattrup]

So by YOUR logic, he could not move or change jobs...? Of course the police would have wanted the real, registered name for their reports.

Biased opinion, not fact.

I cling to the idea that the police would want to know the registered name, and that when you have 100+ examples, ALL saying Lechmere, the name Cross does not look like something he had ever used before in authority contacts. "Fine, you say, but he did now, and he was entitled to do so". The I ask "WHY did he do it?". Why do we have this anomaly? Why did he deviate from his principles in combination with a murder investigation, but not otherwise?

The examples, and any other examples one might find, show that there were many legitimate reasons for using a different name. So speculating "why?" simply means that we can speculate that Cross, for instance, felt his name might be misspelled or that people would take him for a foreigner, or that he simply had a habit of using Lechmere when asked in writing or when asked to write his family's name (e.g. in a census) but when speaking about himself or when speaking (as opposed to writing) he used Cross.

It is all speculation, and all are valid and legitimate reasons for him to use the name Cross. There is therefore absolutely no reason to assume that he attempted to hide his "real name".

"Most"? Really? Source, please! And they were NOT allow to swop names if the name was not one they used normally or if they intended to mislead. End of story.

There are several persons in the examples I posted who refer to their "real name" but then mention the other name they actually use.

And since Cross might have used the name Cross normally, and was not intending to mislead, he certainly could "swap" his name - again, a misleading phrase, since there was no swapping. He simply used another name than the one you believe was his "real name".

[B]Yes, there is. And it is very, very clear: He otherwise did NOT use Cross when in contact with the authoritites, and it seems he withheld his real name. "Presently no indication..."

it does not seem that he withheld his "real name", he merely used another name, which he was entitled to.

Oh, wait! Is that really so? The police used the mane he told them??? Heureka, heīs found it! The circumstances goverend whether he would have been allowed to call himself Cross or not - if he intended to mislead, he could NOT do so.

Again, there is no evidence that he intended to mislead.

I am the only one presenting any evidence at all. The rest are presenting free fantasies about what he MAY have done - you, not least.

You've presented no evidence, but a lot of biased opinion, starting from the assumption that Cross is guilty.

And did I say it was?

While you might not have used that exact word (deception) in this thread, it's fair to say that you claim that using the name Cross is cause for suspicion, e.g. "a very, very good reason to suspect foul play."

You are beginning to repeat yourself. It does not help.

I know, as I mentioned to Elamarna, it's tiring.

And the fact that he otherwise used Lechmere in all the 100+ examples we have is of course no such substantiation?

Correct, it is not.

Crime was not uncommon. The fact that people used two names can only tell us just that: they did. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether Lechmere lied to obscure his identity or not. The indication certainly remains. People write clever posts all the time and use good arguments all the time. Itīs not uncommon. That, however, does not mean it must apply to you, does it, Kattrup?

Thank you for your kind reply.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: Biased opinion, not fact.

True - ift the police could not care less if they were furnished real or alternative names. Otherwise not.
Ca we be for real?

The examples, and any other examples one might find, show that there were many legitimate reasons for using a different name. So speculating "why?" simply means that we can speculate that Cross, for instance, felt his name might be misspelled or that people would take him for a foreigner, or that he simply had a habit of using Lechmere when asked in writing or when asked to write his family's name (e.g. in a census) but when speaking about himself or when speaking (as opposed to writing) he used Cross.

It is all speculation, and all are valid and legitimate reasons for him to use the name Cross. There is therefore absolutely no reason to assume that he attempted to hide his "real name".

It is all speculation, just as you say. Nothing else. Pure conjecture. As always, coing from the anti-Lechmere camp. It seems the lifeblood over there.
The difference when comparing to the suggestion (!) that he lied about it, is that I have 100+ signatures saying Lechmere, from various parts of his official life. That is an almighty indicator (!) that Lechmere was the name he used in contact with authorities.

There are several persons in the examples I posted who refer to their "real name" but then mention the other name they actually use.

Which Lechmere never did - as far as we know. See the difference?

And since Cross might have used the name Cross normally, and was not intending to mislead, he certainly could "swap" his name - again, a misleading phrase, since there was no swapping. He simply used another name than the one you believe was his "real name".

Swapping is not a negatively loaded word, so take it easy. You may swap shirts, drinks etcetera without any harm intended.
You write that since he MIGHT have used the name normally...he certainly COULD swap his name.
But what if he did NOT use the name normally - something of which there is no indication at all? Itīs that lifeblood thing again.
It actually TAKES that he DID use the name normally -or occasionally (Hey guys, I think Iīll call myself Cross today!)for him to make a legit swap at the inquest. Otherwise, he was misleading.

it does not seem that he withheld his "real name", he merely used another name, which he was entitled to.

No, thatīs not what it "seems" like. If there was any indication at all that he ever used the name Cross with the authorities, then you would have a point. Otherwise that point remains where it belongs - with me.


Again, there is no evidence that he intended to mislead.

There is no proof - but there is evidence a plenty.

You've presented no evidence, but a lot of biased opinion, starting from the assumption that Cross is guilty.

You've presented no evidence, but a lot of biased opinion, starting from the assumption that Cross is innocent.


While you might not have used that exact word (deception) in this thread, it's fair to say that you claim that using the name Cross is cause for suspicion, e.g. "a very, very good reason to suspect foul play."

I stand by that - the 100+ names ensure it, together with the total lack of any mentioning of his real name at the inquest or in the reports.


I know, as I mentioned to Elamarna, it's tiring.

Then why persist?

Correct, it is not.

Nope. Sorry.


Thank you for your kind reply.

Thank you for claiming that I am stating as a fact that the carman lied.