The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Varqm]

Let’s say, for example, that Lechmere was known to someone by the name of Lechmere but not by the name of Cross, and that person had no idea where he worked or where he lived. If that person had any reason to suspect the person they knew might have been the ripper, they wouldn’t have made the connection between the ‘finder’ of Nichols and the dodgy person they knew.The name Lechmere was indisputably a part of his ID and it seems he witheld it from the police and the coroner. I don’t buy the idea that it didn’t even enter his head that it might be appropriate to reveal both names in court.

If Lechmere was associated with a criminal record, it could be suspicious. Other than that it's not. This was the first ripper murder, nobody was suspecting Cross or Lechmere as the ripper beforehand.

[John Trent]

It's always a yawn reading pages of argument about Cross's 'real' name. Sadly, nobody ever seems to have actually researched what a 'real' name is. Which is bizarre, given that the whole fatuous 'investigation' resulting in the framing of Charles Allen Cross, was started by the simple discovery of the fact that he used his real name at the inquest and his recorded name on various documents. After all the arguments about this there is a simple fact. It's a fact which is recognised in law in England. As you may, or may not, know it is perfectly legal to call yourself by any name which may, or may not, be the name you were registered with at birth. The law also allows you to change your registered name to another name by a process of 'deed poll'. To quote the UK Goverment department "You do not have to follow a legal process to start using a new name. But you might need a ‘deed poll’ to apply for or to change official documents like your passport or driving licence." Those who promote the Cross/Lechmere fantasy argue that Cross hid his 'legal name" (which they confuse with "registered name") from the police. Sadly for them that is a completely untrue statement. I quote again from the UK Goverment: "Your legal name is the name you’re generally called and known by." Indeed, this is now confirmed in law: Lord Justice Ormrod, in the case of D v B (or^se D) [1979] Fam 38, in the Court of Appeal, held that — "It is common ground that a surname in common law is simply the name by which a person is generally known". UK Gov again: "The important thing is what name you’re called and known by." It is painfully obvious that Cross gave his name, employer and address as the name by which he was known (as a simple check by the police would validate). Therefore, any argument that Cross was being deceitful by using his legal name is simply false.

If you wish to say this is not so let me remind you that the vast majority of married women have never changed their registered birth surnames but have simply adopted their husband's surname. If the wife of John Smith wishes to be called Mrs Smith then that is her legal name. There is no registered change of name on a marriage certificate.