The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[GUT]

I will sign this letter of authorisation for you.

I will sign this delivery receipt for you.

I will sign this book for you.

I will sign this expenses form for you.

I will sign this certificate for you.

All examples of "I will sign it for you" whereby the signature is in the name of the person signing it to enable another person to do something or to have something.

"I will sign it for you" does not automatically mean signing something in the name of another person.

Yep. Exactly what I thought.

[David Orsam]

PPhttp://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/if-someone-gives-me-permission-sign-their-name-have-i#[/url] Is also interesting. It speaks about the legal aspects of somebody signing someone else´s name - not "writing" the name, "signing" it.

Yes, but with the question "If someone gives me permission to sign their name, have I committed forgery?"

By way of example, we are talking here of me signing a document "Fisherman", in which case I'm purporting to be you.

But why would Lechmere have given anyone else permission to sign an official document in his name in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries?

That's why I asked if he suffered from a broken hand.

[GUT]

I think deliberate. I say this because I have engaged with him on this very issue in the past.

He told me in another thread on 30 June 2016:

"the signatures are not always in his own hand, something I have pointed out numerous times before. Son´me are written by himself, but in other cases, his name has been taken down by somebody who has asked him "And your name is...?"

When I queried this, he said:

"Somebody else SIGNED his name for him, David. It was a signature nevertheless, albeit not written in his hand."

I replied:

"I think you must mean that someone else wrote his name. You can't possibly mean that someone else signed Lechmere's name on Lechmere's behalf unless you are suggesting they forged his signature."

This didn't stop him for he replied on 1 July:

"The official documents have the carmans signature on them as well as his name signed by other people".

My reply was:

"his named signed by other people" is just a nonsense statement. There is no such thing unless you mean a forgery or Lechmere was unable to sign his own name.

And yet here we are again with Fisherman still telling us that Lechmere's name was signed on documents by someone other than himself. How does that work?

Could easily be cleared up by Fisherman himself.

To me a bigger issue is how many of these 100 documents are unique.

Or do we have 75 school enrolments and 25 Census entries? Or something else.

[David Orsam]

I was working from the assumption that your name can be signed by somebody else. Like when a hotel porter signs somebody in. At any rate, I have said before that some of the documents were signed by himself, while others had his name upon them, written down by officials, clerks etc.

So you've given a hard example of a hotel porter signing someone in.

Now I dispute that hotel porters sign other people's names in hotel registers but are you saying that you have hotel records of Lechmere being signed into hotels in the name of Lechmere?

If not, why have you given this example?

I thought we were talking about Lechmere's name on official documents?

In this respect, your final sentence is extremely revealing: "At any rate, I have said before that some of the documents were signed by himself, while others had his name upon them, written down by officials, clerks etc"

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying. His name was written down by officials, clerks but NOT "signed" by them!

[David Orsam]

Could easily be cleared up by Fisherman himself.

To me a bigger issue is how many of these 100 documents are unique.

Or do we have 75 school enrolments and 25 Census entries? Or something else.

Yes absolutely GUT this is the key question.

For me, the answer is not revealed because the biggest single category of documents is electoral register entries covering a period of 40 or 50 consecutive years.

As I've mentioned before on this forum, all that happens here is that the name once entered on the first electoral register is repeated every subsequent year without the individual in question being asked to do anything.

As I've also said, my own name has been on the electoral register every year for the past 30+ years but I don't recall ever signing a single thing!

[Sam Flynn]

Could easily be cleared up by Fisherman himself.

To me a bigger issue is how many of these 100 documents are unique.

Or do we have 75 school enrolments and 25 Census entries? Or something else.

Perhaps, Fish, you could do a montage like wot I did with the George (Topping) Hutchinson signatures. Or, if you don't fancy stitching together 100 image snippets, a descriptive list of what these documents are should do just as well - with one or two visual samples, perhaps, to clear up any ambiguities.

[GUT]

Yes absolutely GUT this is the key question.

For me, the answer is not revealed because the biggest single category of documents is electoral register entries covering a period of 40 or 50 consecutive years.

As I've mentioned before on this forum, all that happens here is that the name once entered on the first electoral register is repeated every subsequent year without the individual in question being asked to do anything.

As I've also said, my own name has been on the electoral register every year for the past 30+ years but I don't recall ever signing a single thing!

Yep, and my grandfather's name was taken off because his uncle (same name, but 35 years older died).

My daughter works on elections at polling booths, from time to time the mistakes abound, one fellow has been listed wrongly for at least twenty years, apparently every election they lodge a correction, next election, same problem.

[harry]

Is there any record of Lechmere being used outside of official records?In a social occasion for example.

[drstrange169]

>>Not that I am discussing it any further with you<<

Of course not.

You never do when you’ve been caught out.

That is the problem that dogs the Xmere debate. You don’t have the courage to admit mistakes and simply move on.

Instead, we all have to be subjected to your long winded tangents, seemingly done in the hope that you can muddy the waters enough to move away from you errors.

Sadly, all it does is kill serious debate.

[Pcdunn]

Are you saying there might be signatures on census forms written by people other than those whose names comprise the signatures?

In which case, are you referring to fake signatures?

Nope, you caught me there-- I meant "names", not signatures, of course. My bad.

[drstrange169]

>>No obfuscating takes away from what I stated - if Lechmere had had help from somewhere in any of the instances I named, he would have been off the hook to a smaller or larger degree.<<

Since the only obfuscating is coming from your keyboard and since, as I’ve already noted, many of things you listed are just your interpretation and not facts, your list has little merit unless you can substantiate your claims.


Here is a good example of the quality of Fisherman’s list:

>>If the Eddowes murder had taken place somewhere else but along his old working route.<<

Then adding,

>>It was the logical one. Then again, you and logic...<<

I’ll readers to decide where the logical route might lay, Red or Fisherman’s “logical” green version?

[drstrange169]

>>Asking, for example, "did he start work at Pickfords when Thomas Cross was alive?" is completely irrelevant in this context.<<


Irrelevant to you, maybe, as you are only concerned in fitting up Charles Lechmere for the murders.

It does remain, however, an important point to anyone unbiased.


>>Your post is therefore somewhat irrelevant and grossly disingenuous<<

If proof were found that Xmere was known as Cross at Pickfords, it would negate all the nebulous “100” documents.

If proof were found that Xmere was known as Lechmere at Pickfords, I suspect the port of Gothenburg would be flooded with “seamen” spelt differently.

It is not just relevant, it is crucial to the case.

[caz]

Hi All,

Christer always ignores the fact that nobody knows which name Crossmere went by at home or at work. Because there are no written records of either name being used in a social context, both are equally possible, equally reasonable.

His stepfather put his name down on one census as Cross, and was alive (I understand) when the lad started working at Pickfords. So it's a complete toss-up which name he used on his first day and which name he was using on the morning of the murder.

But if he gave his real home and work addresses to the authorities because he felt it was too risky to give false ones in case they checked and failed to find him at either, what did he imagine they would do if they did check with Pickfords and found nobody by the name of Cross on their books?

How much valuable time might they have wasted in establishing that the man who had discovered the corpse was not near the top among the Cs, as Cross, Charles Allen, but halfway down with the Ls, as Lechmere, Charles Allen? If Christer's argument is: "No problem, he could easily explain his use of Cross to the police's satisfaction, you win some, you lose some", he could have used the identical excuse and been totally innocent. If eyebrows had been raised about his choice of name as a murder witness, and a question mark put over his motives, no problem if he wasn't a killer, eager to get to work again in that tiny area as soon as he got the chance. A catastrophic problem, potentially, if he was.

Love,

Caz
X

[Kattrup]

Christer always ignores the fact that nobody knows which name Crossmere went by at home or at work. Because there are no written records of either name being used in a social context, both are equally possible, equally reasonable.

His stepfather put his name down on one census as Cross, and was alive (I understand) when the lad started working at Pickfords. So it's a complete toss-up which name he used on his first day and which name he was using on the morning of the murder.

But if he gave his real home and work addresses to the authorities because he felt it was too risky to give false ones in case they checked and failed to find him at either, what did he imagine they would do if they did check with Pickfords and found nobody by the name of Cross on their books?

How much valuable time might they have wasted in establishing that the man who had discovered the corpse was not near the top among the Cs, as Cross, Charles Allen, but halfway down with the Ls, as Lechmere, Charles Allen? If Christer's argument is: "No problem, he could easily explain his use of Cross to the police's satisfaction, you win some, you lose some", he could have used the identical excuse and been totally innocent. If eyebrows had been raised about his choice of name as a murder witness, and a question mark put over his motives, no problem if he wasn't a killer, eager to get to work again in that tiny area as soon as he got the chance. A catastrophic problem, potentially, if he was.

Also, if Cross thought about giving a "false" name at the inquest, and attempted to hide his address, how would he even know or be able to assess whether or not it was feasible? Did he go to a lot of inquests? Did he know a lot about how closely witnesses were scrutinised?

The inquests reported in the papers routinely identified witnesses ("professional" or otherwise) by their home address - what would make Cross think he could give a false name and his home address but not have the home address publicised?

Similarly about his place of work. You mentioned the police checking - surely someone at Pickford's read the papers - wouldn't they wonder who this non-existant colleague Charles Allen Cross was?

I can't recall how Cross is supposed to have been summoned to the inquest, according to the theory, but one would think that a "false" name but correct address and place of work would alert the people in his private sphere, i.e. the very people he apparently wanted to remain ignorant, to the fact that he was "found with" the body.

Anyway, it's all to convoluted to entertain. My main point was just that there's no empirical basis for assuming that Cross did anything remotely suspicious by using Cross at the inquest.

[Fisherman]

Sadly, I have run out of batteries in my computer mouse. And I loathe using the built-in device. So I will invest in a fresh battery tomorrow, and then I will answer all the hooh-hah going on here, to little avail (the hooh-hah, not my forthcoming replies...). I may post on the thread about the autopsy information, since it is much better and more interesting than the rather lowly things going on here...

Have a nice evening, all.