The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

>>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?

A sad piece of con artistry. Again. Cutting away most of the relevant material. Again.

Why did you not mark the FULL route from James Street, via Commercial Road, Whitechapel High Street, Aldgate High Street..?

Beacuse, of course, that would have shown that I am correct. I never said he took his old working route TO GONTO PICKFORDS, did I? I said he took hos old working route up to the Mitre Square area, and I also said that he may well have had St Botolphs in mind, where there was prostitution to be had.

How very, very sad that you cannot debate on any other level than this.

[Fisherman]

>>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.

You cannot know what I do when I am caught out, the reason being you never caught me out.

Other than in your dreams, that is. I´m sure you catch me out on a regular basis there.

[Fisherman]

>>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.

And here you speak of how very relevant it is if Lechmere started work at Pickfords when Thomas Cross was alive. Okay, that´s correct.

But it is an answer to a question that was never asked. What I said was that if there had been any evidence that Lechmere was ever called Cross other than at the inquest, it would clear him on the name issue.

THAT is what we are discussing. Nothing else.

So tell me, how does asking when he started to work at Pickfords answer that point?

What bearing does it have on the point?

How does it belong to the specific question at all?

It points out that there MAY be reason for him to have called himself Cross. And the reoccurring ideas and inventive suggestions about how he could have done so was the very reason that I said that there is no evidence at all of it, and that such evidence was one of the things that could help to clear him.

But there is no such evidence. And asking when he started to work at Pickfords is no such evidence.

So my point stands.

And you are making points that are worthless.

[John G]

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.

It deserves saying that every time an official or clerk used the name Lechmere, it would have been on account of the carman giving that name, so the implications are the exact same - that was his official name.

PS. A quick search for the string "I will sign it for you" on the net, gave 57 500 hits...

PPS. The link http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...r-name-have-i# Is also interesting. It speaks about the legal aspects of somebody signing someone else´s name - not "writing" the name, "signing" it.

But the link you've provided is to an American site, hence "defence" is spelt the American way, "defense". And surely you're aware that American law differs from English law. In fact, you may also be aware that there have been some developments in English law since the nineteenth century!

On another point, has Lechmere's signed witness statement from the Nichols case survived?

[Fisherman]

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.

I would say that it is more reasonable to suggest that the name Lechmere is more likely to be the one he used, since we know that was his official identity, and an identity he actively used throughout the years. What is the evidence that he used Cross on any other occasion than at the inquest? Where is THAT evidence?

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.

If we only kinew that he was registered by the name Lechmere, and that his stepfather had him as Cross in 1861, it would have been a toss-up. Once we have all the material that says he used Lechmere throughout his life, whereas there is not a iot to bolster that he used Cross other than at the inquest, we should accept that Lechmere is by far the better suggestion. The fact that his only known use of Cross was in combination with an authority contact strengthens the idea.

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?

I think he would imagine that they would want an answer to why this was so. And if he could say "I use the registered name Lechmere officially, but most people call me Cross, my stepfathers old name", he would be in a much better place than if he needed to say "Okay, I lied about my working place". If you are saying he took a risk, I would say yes, he took a risk. And?

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.

So what are you saying? That there was a way to avoid risk? How? By not coming forward, leaving it to the police to dub him the probable killer? After he had been seen and could be identified by both Paul and Mizen?
If so, that is YOUR contention, but I disagree. Not least since we can clearly see that what he did, did NOT end up with him becoming a suspect at all. He could not have known that - but it may well have seemed the much better option to him anyway.

[John G]

According to the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police concealing your identity in court is not an offence: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/...ake-identities

It therefore appears that this is the current position under English law and I doubt it was any different in the nineteenth century.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: 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?

He could never know that such a thing would work. But the chance was always there. If you read my post to Caz, you will see the options.

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 used to work at a newspaper where we were 450 people. I did not know the names of half of them, and many new people arrived as old people walked away.

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.

He probaly was not summoned, but came forward on his own account. If he kept that from his wife and family and friends, how would they identify him if he gave no address? Nota bene that the papers remarked that the carman was clothed in working gear, sacking apron and all, whereas the rest of the inquest witnesses were apparently clad in their Sunday best. That sits well with how he could have given the impression back home that he was heading for work and NOT for the inquest.

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.

Which is the empirical basis denying that he DID something suspicious by using the Cross name? That people normally don´t lie?

Aha.

[Fisherman]

But the link you've provided is to an American site, hence "defence" is spelt the American way, "defense". And surely you're aware that American law differs from English law. In fact, you may also be aware that there have been some developments in English law since the nineteenth century!

The site is not eighteenth century. And you are welcome to provide any evidence that this is not the same in Britain.

[Fisherman]

According to the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police concealing your identity in court is not an offence: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/...ake-identities

It therefore appears that this is the current position under English law and I doubt it was any different in the nineteenth century.

This is about the practice of undercover officers using fake identities in court. In other words, it served the aim of justice.

It is not allowed to use a fake name with the intention to deceive, though. And that is what I am suggesting happened.

[Fisherman]

The gabbing about what is a signature and what is not, and if you can sign on somebody else´s behalf is not very entertaining.

His name has been reocrded on 100 plus occasions. Sometimes by himself, sometimes by others.

That name is always Lechmere.

That, and nothing else, is what matters.

[John G]

This is about the practice of undercover officers using fake identities in court. In other words, it served the aim of justice.

It is not allowed to use a fake name with the intention to deceive, though. And that is what I am suggesting happened.

Yes it refers to undercover officers but the basic principle still stands. I would agree that it would be an offence, i e perjury, to conceal your identity in order to cover up a crime, but that's putting the cart before the horse again as it assumes that's what Lechmere/Cross was intending to do.

[John G]

The gabbing about what is a signature and what is not, and if you can sign on somebody else´s behalf is not very entertaining.

His name has been reocrded on 100 plus occasions. Sometimes by himself, sometimes by others.

That name is always Lechmere.

That, and nothing else, is what matters.

But, in respect of the Nichols case, is there any record of him signing the name "Cross", or anything else for that matter?

[Fisherman]

Yes it refers to undercover officers but the basic principle still stands. I would agree that it would be an offence, i e perjury, to conceal your identity in order to cover up a crime, but that's putting the cart before the horse again as it assumes that's what Lechmere/Cross was intending to do.

I am not concluding that he did. I am saying that there are very many pointers to the carman being the killer, and the name swap certainly does nothing at all to help him out. I am presenting a theory, and theories will inevitably involve speculation.

[Fisherman]

But, in respect of the Nichols case, is there any record of him signing the name "Cross", or anything else for that matter?

Not that I am aware, no.

[caz]

And here you speak of how very relevant it is if Lechmere started work at Pickfords when Thomas Cross was alive. Okay, that´s correct.

But it is an answer to a question that was never asked. What I said was that if there had been any evidence that Lechmere was ever called Cross other than at the inquest, it would clear him on the name issue.

THAT is what we are discussing. Nothing else.

So tell me, how does asking when he started to work at Pickfords answer that point?

What bearing does it have on the point?

How does it belong to the specific question at all?

It points out that there MAY be reason for him to have called himself Cross. And the reoccurring ideas and inventive suggestions about how he could have done so was the very reason that I said that there is no evidence at all of it, and that such evidence was one of the things that could help to clear him.

But there is no such evidence. And asking when he started to work at Pickfords is no such evidence.

So my point stands.

And you are making points that are worthless.

Hello Christer,

And your evidence that he was on the books as Lechmere at work and when Nichols was murdered he suddenly changed it to Cross just for the inquest is.... what?

Anything at all?

No, didn't think so.

And that is the point.

We don't need to show he was known as Cross at Pickfords.

You have to show he wasn't.

That's the way these things work.

Love,

Caz
X