The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[MrBarnett]

It has often been claimed by Lechmere proponents that he misled the Nichols inquest by giving false name, presenting himself as Cross when his "real name" was Lechmere.

Here are some examples from the Old Bailey, 1880-1895. Only one, George Peacock, was actually on trial, the others all appeared as witnesses. I have not included the many, many examples of criminals using aliases and false identities.


Link


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to have a "real name" while using the name of one's stepfather. The authorities will not necessarily use the so-called "real name" when referring to a person.


Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to have a "real name" but be known by another name in certain social situations and contexts.


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to assume another name than one's "real name" to avoid confusion and misspellings and appear more "english". The authorities will not necessarily refer to such a person by his or her "real name".


Link

Link

Preliminary conclusion: It is possible to inform the authorities of one's real name during a trial, but they may continue to use one's alias.


Link

Preliminary conclusion: it is possible to give a false name and address in order to avoid appearing at trial. This does not mean that one is guilty of the crime on trial (though possibly of perjury).


Conclusion:


Using an alias, or secondary name, was not uncommon.

There were many different legitimate reasons why a person might choose to use a name other than the "real name".

Using an alias, or secondary name, was accepted, and the authorities did not necessarily register people by their "real name".


There's no reason to assume that Charles Cross misinformed the inquest, or intended to mislead anyone.


All of this reasoning has, of course, been mentioned many times over the years. It is unlikely to sway Lechmere-supporters, who will most likely attempt to argue that the "name issue" is not (to them) the only thing tying suspicion to Lechmere.

Be that as it may, hopefully these examples of ordinary witnesses using aliases will help counter the argument that Charles Cross gave a "false name".

Hi Kattrup,

We can also see from this exercise that when appearing in a court of law, many people felt it necessary to reveal their alternative names. Surely that would be the obvious thing to do when standing in the witness box and being asked your name (assuming you had no reason to conceal your real or adopted name).

It would be interesting to see whether any of the people above invariably used their adopted names alone when filling out official documents.

Gary

[David Orsam]

David,
You will give examples?

I'll give you three examples.

1. At the Old Bailey trial of Talbot Bridgwater and others for deception and forgery in November 1905, a News of the World journalist, Henry Chanter, was called to give the following evidence to prove what had been said by prosecuting counsel in his opening speech:

"HENRY JAMES PROSSER CHANTER . I am a journalist, and among my other duties I occasionally report at the Westminster Police Court—I took a verbatim note in shorthand of the opening in the case against Bridgwater and others for "The News of the World," which would be published the following day—I cannot find my shorthand note—I transcribed it and saw the paper afterwards—I took Mr. Muir's speech down in the first person and transcribed it in the third person—this is correct (Produced).

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I wrote what appeared in the paper within ten minutes of Mr. Muir's speech."

In case it is not clear, the word "Produced" here means that Chanter's newspaper report of the proceedings at Westminster Police Court was produced as evidence in the case.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?name=19051113

2. From the Western Morning News of 15 June 1899, reporting the trial at the Cornwall Assizes of Richard Henry Berryman for suborning and procuring Annie Bryant to commit perjury for him at the magistrate's court in Cambourne:

"H.B. Geeson, newspaper reporter, Penzance, produced notes of the report of these proceedings before the magistrates."

3. From the Cheshire Observer of 31 August 1878 reporting on a charge of perjury against William Lough, a police constable, at the Cheshire City Police Court:

"William Calder Grant said: I am a professional reporter, and was in the police court, reporting on Saturday, the 17th instant, when a charge was made against Peter Mitchell and others for a breach of the peace in Boughton. I took rough notes of that case sufficient for the purposes of my newspaper report. I heard Constable Lough give his evidence, and I heard him asked in cross-examination whether he had struck anyone. I produce my shorthand notes taken on that occasion, and find from them that Constable Lough said, "I did not use my staff, and did not see a staff used by any other policeman." After a witness named Maddocks had given his evidence Constable Lough was recalled and asked a question by the Mayor, who also called his attention to what Maddocks had said. In reference to that part I only have on my notes, "P.C. Lough denied using the stick."

By Mr. MARSHALL: I am not prepared to swear that the words "P.C. Lough denied using the stick" had reference to anything more than the alleged attack on Mitchell. I am under the impression that it referred to the general use of the stick.

Re-examined by Mr. CHUBTON: I have on my notes of Lough's arrest the words in reference to Mitchell, "I arrested him."

Arthur Smith: I am a reporter for a Chester newspaper, and was in court on Saturday, the 17th instant, when a charge was made against Peter Mitchell and others for a breach of the peace in Boughton. I took notes of that case sufficient for a newspaper report. I produce those notes. From them I find that Constable Lough in his examination in chief said, "I arrested him," meaning Mitchell. In cross-examination by Mr. Churton he said, "I did not use my staff, and I did not see any other policemen use my staffs." After a witness named Maddocks had given his evidence Constable Lough was recalled, and in reply to a question put by the Mayor, he said, "I did not strike anyone. The constable who was with me the whole time is here. I arrested the man. The crowd were trying to crush us into the fire."

Actually, that's four examples, there being two journalists giving evidence in the last case.

[Fisherman]

Like I said Fisherman, you didn't seem to understand. Or didn't want to.

I'm sure that if I really had been wrong you wouldn't have needed to quote me out of context.

This whole discussion with you has definitely been one of the most pointless and unnecessary discussions that I have had on this forum.

Grow up, David. You were not quoted out of context. You very clerly said that it was a fact that Mizen was told about death or drunkenness, and when I pointed it out,m you started to waffle about facts and established facts -as if they were different matters.

You must learn to accept that you do mistakes every now and then. It would be stranger if you didn´t, so there´s nothing much to be ashamed of.

[John G]

I don't agree, John. Feeling her hands and face Lechmere thought she was dead, without being certain or knowing how this had happened. That no injuries were visible and that she looked to have been outraged and gone off in a swoon is in no way contradictory to the idea he had that she was dead.

All the best,
Frank

But he didn't say no injuries were visible. His evidence at the inquest is that he had no idea there were any serious injuries. And "gone off in a swoon", suggests she'd merely fainted, which is not the same as being dead.

What I think his inquest responses indicate is that he was a very poor communicator. Therefore, if he communicated in such a confused way to PC Mizen it would hardly be surprising that a misunderstanding occurred.

[David Orsam]

Have you considered the possibility that I DID understand, but thought you were wrong? No?

Then you should really try it.

Like I said Fisherman, you didn't seem to understand. Or didn't want to.

I'm sure that if I really had been wrong you wouldn't have needed to quote me out of context.

This whole discussion with you has definitely been one of the most pointless and unnecessary discussions that I have had on this forum.

[FrankO]

Similarly, his responses at the inquest indicate that he was highly uncertain about Nichols physical state, with his observations ranging from "dead" to "not seriously injured".

I don't agree, John. Feeling her hands and face Lechmere thought she was dead, without being certain or knowing how this had happened. That no injuries were visible and that she looked to have been outraged and gone off in a swoon is in no way contradictory to the idea he had that she was dead.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

I don´t agree because I think one needs to add elements to make your take work. It predisposes that Mizen surmised that the carmen were alerting him to respond to a fellow policemans call, although they dod not say a word about such a policeman.

In my take, there was no surmising, and no misunderstandings. Mizen was told that another PC awaited him and had called for assistance, and he answered to the call.

Neither version must be right or wrong, but it applies that my version is the one that works from what was said by Mizen, whereas yours adds the element of misunderstanding.

To be able to leave his beat, it would require that Mizen KNEW that he had been alerted by a fellow policeman, so to my mind, if there was any ambiguity at all, he would have asked.

Hi

I agree that is where we disagree, and maybe oneday, something will emerge that allows one of us to cross over.

cheers

Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer, that makes sense certainly, and the same applied if he believed that was what he had been told.

Once again, in my take, he was told you are needed/required, he interpreted this as another officer needed him. When he got to Bucks Row, he saw Neil and assumed Neil was the one who called him.


You don't agree, fair enough


Steve

I don´t agree because I think one needs to add elements to make your take work. It predisposes that Mizen surmised that the carmen were alerting him to respond to a fellow policemans call, although they dod not say a word about such a policeman.

In my take, there was no surmising, and no misunderstandings. Mizen was told that another PC awaited him and had called for assistance, and he answered to the call.

Neither version must be right or wrong, but it applies that my version is the one that works from what was said by Mizen, whereas yours adds the element of misunderstanding.

To be able to leave his beat, it would require that Mizen KNEW that he had been alerted by a fellow policeman, so to my mind, if there was any ambiguity at all, he would have asked.

[Elamarna]

Yes, that is a very fair assumption to make - that a PC approached by two men telling him about how there is a possibly dead or drunk woman lying in Bucks Row, would try to extract as much information as possible from these men, including their names and which role they had played in the drama.

So once this does NOT happen, it may be time to seriously consider that the PC could be correct in stating that he was told that the two men had simply been sent to fetch him by another PC. In that case, Mizens actions would all suddenly make sense.


He would not need to quiry the men - if that was necessary, the other PC would already have done it. He would not need to hasten - the other PC already had the matter in hand. And he WOULD be allowed to leave his beat, since he had been summoned by a colleague.

Perfect sense, therefore.

Christer, that makes sense certainly, and the same applied if he believed that was what he had been told.

Once again, in my take, he was told you are needed/required, he interpreted this as another officer needed him. When he got to Bucks Row, he saw Neil and assumed Neil was the one who called him.


You don't agree, fair enough


Steve

[Elamarna]

David,
You will give examples?
Only time I can think of would be a case of libel,but that is an entirely different circumstance,than reporting an inquest.

Elemana,
I have answered all your questions,whereas you have avoided mine. Can you give examples?

Harry,

you have certainly not replied to all the points I have raised.

You ask for examples, and of course I am happy to oblige, here are a few:

1. The issue of the quote from the A-Z you used.
Which very clearly says that all 3 officers arrived within 5 minutes of Lechmere and Paul leaving,

That is just not physically possible and so the quote cannot be of any use in a debate.

However your response is "its my interpretation", which fails to address the issue of timing and which really is no response at all.


2. The issue of not considering a possible misunderstanding between Mizen and others.

In post 1157:

"I have never considered it a case of misunderstanding on Mizen's part ,simply because I believe he lied."


Yet in post 1211 you said:

"The fact that I do not state in words, misunderstanding to be a possibility,in no way proves I do not accept it as being so.When I state the belief that Mizen lied,it is because I believe that to be the more probable."


That obviously is not inline with the previous post, and this you have not addressed at all.

3. Your claim that we could not make an estimation of Neil's movements as we have no idea of his walking place; when in fact we know the pace he was required to walk at and we know this was checked on by beat sergeants, again you have made no response to this.


4. Of course the issue raised in post 1237, when you gave a quote (post 1211) to back your view on police procedure, which clearly predates a debate between the person whom you quote and others when this view seems to be modified.

The very fact that this later post has been raised with you several times means that you were well aware the quote you used predated this.


5. Related to point 4, despite being given the link to the thread several times about procedure, you have made no response or comments on it, but instead continue to repeat the view you original gave. Interestingly you do not even claim the posts or thread are wrong or inaccurate.

Harry I serious think that is enough examples, or do you really want more.

As for me avoiding your points, that is rather strange, given that my normal way of replying, is to quote a point and reply to it before going onto the next, often producing long posts but ones which are complete.

It would be interesting to see you post which points you believe I have not responded to

So in all the published material it appears that both Cross and Paul were not entirely convinced Nichols was dead.There was doubt when they left to find a policeman? They only thought or believed she was dead?

Yes it is very clear they believed she was either dead or drunk

The least I would expect when the meeting with Mizen occurred,was that Cross and Paul would explain in some detail why they stopped and spoke to him,or that Mizen would seek more details as to why he was wanted.Didn't seem to happen,if one is to believe Mizen.

Maybe he should have done, maybe he believed he had been summoned by another officer, maybe he just did not consider it an emergency, we just do not and cannot know.




Steve

[Fisherman]

The least I would expect when the meeting with Mizen occurred,was that Cross and Paul would explain in some detail why they stopped and spoke to him,or that Mizen would seek more details as to why he was wanted.Didn't seem to happen,if one is to believe Mizen.

Yes, that is a very fair assumption to make - that a PC approached by two men telling him about how there is a possibly dead or drunk woman lying in Bucks Row, would try to extract as much information as possible from these men, including their names and which role they had played in the drama.

So once this does NOT happen, it may be time to seriously consider that the PC could be correct in stating that he was told that the two men had simply been sent to fetch him by another PC. In that case, Mizens actions would all suddenly make sense.
He would not need to quiry the men - if that was necessary, the other PC would already have done it. He would not need to hasten - the other PC already had the matter in hand. And he WOULD be allowed to leave his beat, since he had been summoned by a colleague.

Perfect sense, therefore.

[Fisherman]

Yes, don't worry, I haven't missed the patronising tone of your posts addressed to me.

If I've been repeating myself it's only because I made myself perfectly clear about 100 posts ago yet you didn't seem to understand. Or didn't want to.

Have you considered the possibility that I DID understand, but thought you were wrong? No?

Then you should really try it.

[harry]

David,
You will give examples?
Only time I can think of would be a case of libel,but that is an entirely different circumstance,than reporting an inquest.

Elemana,
I have answered all your questions,whereas you have avoided mine. Can you give examples?

So in all the published material it appears that both Cross and Paul were not entirely convinced Nichols was dead.There was doubt when they left to find a policeman? They only thought or believed she was dead?

The least I would expect when the meeting with Mizen occurred,was that Cross and Paul would explain in some detail why they stopped and spoke to him,or that Mizen would seek more details as to why he was wanted.Didn't seem to happen,if one is to believe Mizen.

[David Orsam]

I used to do the same thing when my children were small, David, so I wouldn´t open the champagne if I were you.

I read the rest of your numerous posts. Repetition, all of it - of things that should not have been repeated at all.

I´m out.

Yes, don't worry, I haven't missed the patronising tone of your posts addressed to me.

If I've been repeating myself it's only because I made myself perfectly clear about 100 posts ago yet you didn't seem to understand. Or didn't want to.

[Fisherman]

yes fish
I think that's most likely how it went down. howver, I think its also almost as possible he was told specifically that he was wanted by a cop.

we over analyze it to death, but at the time it was probably a pretty innocuous exchange.

that being said-I do place weight on Mizens testimony, which is why I give the idea of Lech actually telling him hes wanted by a cop the credence that I do.

I don't think Mizen was lying about it though for any "save his own ass" reasoning because I don't think he did anything wrong. And if he wasn't told your needed in bucks row then I think the most next likely occurrence was that lech told him he was needed specifically by a cop.

You fail to recognize that Mizen would have left his post in conflict with his orders if the scenario you prefer is correct, Abby. For him to have done so in accordance with the regulations, the request from the fellow PC would have been of essence.

But of course, once we look at it logically, Lechmere suddenly becomes the logical killer. And we wouldn´t want that, would we...?