The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish
You say - The one truthful thing he seems to have given in testimony at the inquest, and the one thing that therefore ended up in the papers, was that he was a carman working at Pickfords of Broad Street. But many hundreds of carmen worked there, and so it was a very anonymous thing.

But if the police where suspicious and did want to speak to him again, and didn't find a Charles Cross at Pickfords. Wouldn't it be easy to simply ID him at His workplace. Even check the duty rota on who started around 4 am on that fateful morning. Get his address and keep tabs on him

But he DID work at Pickfords, and he COULD provide a reason for calling himself Cross.

What the police would find out was whether he did so at work or not. If not, he could still say that he wanted to have his real name officially, but that people called him Cross on an everyday basis.

He would have hoped not to be checked out, and it seems that worked out.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for this Fish. Which inquest are you referring to? Nichols inquest or that of Thomas Cross?

When Lechmere witnesssed at the inquest, Thomas Cross had been dean nineteen years, John. He died of natural causes, and so there was no inquest. Even if there had been, it would not have dragged out nineteen years.

So it was the Nichols inquest I spoke of.

[Fisherman]

So, not bothering to go through all the witnesses, but it's not hard to find counterexamples from the press transcripts here on casebook:






"Apparent inference": he never mentioned his address during the inquest.




Thankfully, dilligent reporters probed and burrowed and gained access to inquest protocol.


Is that example different because several newspapers mentioned his address? Answer: no, not in this context, but as said, it's easy to find another example.

From a different trial:





"Apparent inference": he never mentioned his name during the inquest. It seems he did not want to say it out loud.


Good thing the brilliant reporter of the Times managed to sniff out his address.




No, we have a man giving a secondary or alternative legitimate name, giving his home address and his place of work.

I think you will find that professional witnessesī addresses were not required and therefore skipped over by many papers.

As for the last example, I am saying the exact same thing as I do about Lechmere - it seems that if only one paper got the address, it got it not by listening to the witness.

Have you checked all the papers on this case? If so, my suggestiuon remains.

We should also try and compare with the same reporters at the same day and inquest - the Nichols inquest. It is their diligence we are looking at primarily. And the Doveton Street address matter stands out totally here.

[John G]

It seems to me that if he thought he might be suspected by the police then giving a name that he wasn't known by, and a correct work address, would be a dangerous thing to do. I mean, if the police turn up at his place of work they're sure to discover the deception and that would potentially cause him serious problems.

And if he didn't think the police suspected him, why bother with the subterfuge?

[Fisherman]

It seems to me that if he thought he might be suspected by the police then giving a name that he wasn't known by, and a correct work address, would be a dangerous thing to do. I mean, if the police turn up at his place of work they're sure to discover the deception and that would potentially cause him serious problems.

And if he didn't think the police suspected him, why bother with the subterfuge?

If he had decided to try and hide his identity from those who knew him privately, then swapping names and keeping silent about the address was the best he could do.
He could not do that with the police, though - he HAD to state an address there, and if that was not correct, he was in trouble if checked out. So it WAS correct.
He could not possibly know if the police would look into him. It was either or, and given that, he did as best as he could - and got away with it.

[John G]

If he had decided to try and hide his identity from those who knew him privately, then swapping names and keeping silent about the address was the best he could do.
He could not do that with the police, though - he HAD to state an address there, and if that was not correct, he was in trouble if checked out. So it WAS correct.
He could not possibly know if the police would look into him. It was either or, and given that, he did as best as he could - and got away with it.

But why hide his identity, or involvement in the case, from people who knew him? Apart from the possibility that he was a private person, who had a natural inclination to avoid publicity. Or that he was trying to protect his family from any unwarranted publicity. And might some of these people turn up at the inquest? Am I correct in assuming it was held in public?

[Fisherman]

But why hide his identity, or involvement in the case, from people who knew him? Apart from the possibility that he was a private person, who had a natural inclination to avoid publicity. Or that he was trying to protect his family from any unwarranted publicity. And might some of these people turn up at the inquest? Am I correct in assuming it was held in public?

If those who knew him were aware that he had been found alone with the first victim, only to find out that the next victim was killed along his routes too, they could have started to put two and two together. As long as he stayed unidentified in this respect, he could hope that it was reasoned that thousands of people walked the same way.

[harry]

How would Cross know,at that time,where the next victim would be?Or whether he would kill again even.So hiding a name,for the above reason makes no sense.

[Fisherman]

How would Cross know,at that time,where the next victim would be?Or whether he would kill again even.So hiding a name,for the above reason makes no sense.

That is a VERY original post, I have to say. So you are saying that since Lechmere could not know where or if he would meet his next victim, he had no need to take precautions?

Donīt you realize that no matter where he would kill, it would be an advantage no to be pinpointed as the person found with a victim?

[Kattrup]

Donīt you realize that no matter where he would kill, it would be an advantage no to be pinpointed as the person found with a victim?

But....wasn't it...Cross himself who came forward?

[Kattrup]

- it seems that if only one paper got the address, it got it not by listening to the witness.

.

The paper that writes the address of a witness did not listen to the witness, the papers that do not write it did. Got it, thanks.

[Fisherman]

But....wasn't it...Cross himself who came forward?

Yes, it ... was. Please....tell me what it is you donīt...understand, and I will try to...help out.

[Fisherman]

The paper that writes the address of a witness did not listen to the witness, the papers that do not write it did. Got it, thanks.

The witness spoke his address so inaudibly as to leave it impossible to hear by any of the papers but one - but this paper had no difficulty at all to hear and spell the rather mishearable name Doveton Street correctly. Got it, thanks.

If you have an explanation for why all the reporters who did NOT make the slightest effort to reproduce the address of the carman, reporters who did their best in all other cases, although they had clear difficulties making out what was said, simply stayed away from trying to give the carmanīs address, it would probably be very interesting to hear it.
Come on, Kattrup, why donīt we have Doughton Street, Doulton Street, Dufftown Street etcetera - the exact kind of mistakes the reporters made in all the other witnesses cases, more or less. Why were they at a loss here? And, not least, if it was inaudible, how come the Star reporter got it spot on?
What are your thoughts? That whatever happens, MY suggestion will be inferior to any take on that YOU can think up?

Semantic twists can be fun. But they need to be relevant.

[Kattrup]

If you have an explanation for why all the reporters who did NOT make the slightest effort to reproduce the address of the carman, reporters who did their best in all other cases, although they had clear difficulties making out what was said, simply stayed away from trying to give the carmanīs address, it would probably be very interesting to hear it.
Come on, Kattrup, why donīt we have Doughton Street, Doulton Street, Dufftown Street etcetera - the exact kind of mistakes the reporters made in all the other witnesses cases, more or less. Why were they at a loss here? And, not least, if it was inaudible, how come the Star reporter got it spot on?
What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that it is useless to speculate about why information was left out. It is useless to construct elaborate hypothetical explanations about why something was or was not done, when we have no empirical basis.

Why did the Star reporter include it and others not? We don't know, there are hundreds of scenarios we can dream up that are equally valid as explanations. Why did some reporters include Dr. Llewellyn's address, and others not? We don't know.

There are many many possible explanations that do not need to include any kind of attempt at deception or falsehood. And there are many many examples of witnesses mentioned without addresses. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that Cross did not state his address.

How many papers mentioned his middle name? If only one, why? Is that important? No.

That whatever happens, MY suggestion will be inferior to any take on that YOU can think up?

Of course not, just that ideas without empirical basis are inferior to ideas with such a basis. Your elaborate theories about Cross' name and address have no basis in evidence, only in a lack of information. Such a lack of information is not evidence.
The fact that we do not have it attested that Cross used Cross at other times, is not evidence, because it was not uncommon at the time to use a secondary name. Such use could depend on the context, for instance being at an inquest instead of having some landlord fill out a family name or whatever.

There is therefore no reason to assume that Cross used Cross for any particular purpose.

I started this thread simply to give some more examples of people's use of aliases, because it shows clearly that there is no basis for speculating that Cross using Cross was out of the ordinary.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: My thoughts are that it is useless to speculate about why information was left out. It is useless to construct elaborate hypothetical explanations about why something was or was not done, when we have no empirical basis.

Much is useless from that point of view, Kattrup. Contrary to what you think - and what would put an end to any suggestion of any suspect - I think what we should do is to try and make sense of things, as best as we can. I am researching Lechmere and have done so for years now. And it has turned up lots and lots of anomalies that fit together very nicely. If somebody says it is constructing elaborate hypothetical explanations, I care very little. As for the elaborate matter, I think it equally elaborate to suggest that just the none man heard something and wrote it down perfectly, as it is to sugget that this perfection came from copying from a clerk. And of course it is hypothetical - thatīs the thing about theories, see.
I have spent all the time I care for in the company of naysayers and inventors of TRULY elaborate alternative innocent explanations for the carman. They rarely move anything forward, since it would be in conflict with their nature of thinking, as far as I can tell.

Why did the Star reporter include it and others not? We don't know, there are hundreds of scenarios we can dream up that are equally valid as explanations. Why did some reporters include Dr. Llewellyn's address, and others not? We don't know.

Because the adresses of professional witnesses were oftentimes left out, even by the witnesses themselves. So we do know, Kattrup. Why do Neil, Thain, Mizen and Spratling, for example, not state where they lived? Because professional witnesses are not required to do so. In Llewellyns case, it was a slightly different story, since his quaters had a bearing on the testimony. It stands to reason that this is why ne stated it, and it equally stands to reason that a number of reporters did not realize why he did so, and consequently left the address out.
The only fair comparison to make is that of other unprofessional witnesses at the same inquest. Have a look and see what happens. To me, it is interesting and revealing, to you, it is just another thing where we cannot be certain and so we should stay away from useless speculation.
Useful speculation, though, is another matter.

There are many many possible explanations that do not need to include any kind of attempt at deception or falsehood. And there are many many examples of witnesses mentioned without addresses. Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that Cross did not state his address.

All papers but one missed out on it, whereas all papers regularly had a go at all of the other unprofessional witnessesīaddresses. To you, that equals no reason to suppose that Lechmere ommitted to mention his address. Thatīs great work...
Which are the "many possible explanations" you identify? Or is it useless to name them?

How many papers mentioned his middle name? If only one, why? Is that important? No.

Is it another matter? Yes.


Of course not, just that ideas without empirical basis are inferior to ideas with such a basis. Your elaborate theories about Cross' name and address have no basis in evidence, only in a lack of information. Such a lack of information is not evidence.
The fact that we do not have it attested that Cross used Cross at other times, is not evidence, because it was not uncommon at the time to use a secondary name. Such use could depend on the context, for instance being at an inquest instead of having some landlord fill out a family name or whatever.

There is therefore no reason to assume that Cross used Cross for any particular purpose.

Once you add the fact that he otherwise never used Cross with any authority we know of, there IS a fair ground for entertaining that suspicion, Iīm afraid. You fervently deny it, but it changes very little. I have seen the reaction of an ex-murder squad leader to it, and I can tell you that hen was anything but uninterested. History is littered with people who have kept their names from the police for unsavoury reasons, and once we find an example of somebody who did just that, it serves as an indicator of possible guilt, like it or not.

I started this thread simply to give some more examples of people's use of aliases, because it shows clearly that there is no basis for speculating that Cross using Cross was out of the ordinary.

Then you failed, for the reason of deliberately looking away from the official records. It is stupendeously easy to realize that people will have used aliases in all ages, some of them sinister people, some not. Picking a few examples from Old Bailey where it is obvious that the informant behind out knowledge that a person X used two names, is X himself, is never going to carry any relevance. In that respect, you have done nothing but to waste your time.
Find me an example of somebody who used the name X in all official matters, but Y when being a highly potential culprit of a very serious crime, and you will see where that generally leads us when it comes to the veracity and innocence of the person at hand. Please observe that I said generally!

Furthermore, proudly exhibiting your Old Bailey examples as proof of how Lechmere MAY have done the same, somehow clashes with all your speaking about how useless it is to suggest that something MAY have happened if you cannot prove it in the relevant case.

Maybe you just overlooked that.