The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[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.

[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.

[Harry D]

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.

But there wasn’t even a Ripper at this point? Who is this mystery person that knew nothing about Lechmere other than his full name and that he could be a serial killer, when the serial killings hadn’t even been established?

And if Lechmere was that worried about this mystery person suspecting him, surely he would’ve dodged the inquest entirely? I know some might argue he would look guiltier if he did that but I fail to see how. First of all, Mizen or Paul would need to recognise him again, which given the darkness at the time might not be an easy task, and Lechmere could simply change his route to work. Secondly, if they did find him, his defence could be that he didn’t believe he had anything to contribute to the inquest. He found the body and notified a copper. As far as he was concerned, his job was done. I don’t think the police would start surveilling him 24/7 based on that.

[MrBarnett]

Explain how?

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.

[Harry D]

Because the disclosure of the name might have lead to his being identified as the killer.

Explain how?

[MrBarnett]

There has never been a credible reason presented for how the surname 'Cross' benefited Lechmere if he was the killer, notwithstanding the fact he volunteered his home address and place of business. It is an innocuous detail that has been pounced upon to embellish the case against him.

Because the disclosure of the name might have lead to his being identified as the killer.

[Harry D]

There has never been a credible reason presented for how the surname 'Cross' benefited Lechmere if he was the killer, notwithstanding the fact he volunteered his home address and place of business. It is an innocuous detail that has been pounced upon to embellish the case against him.

[MrBarnett]

Did David unearth more than one case? There was the Taylor/Jones one which was about as far away from the Lechmere/Cross situation as you could get - what was the other one?

[MrBarnett]

Well, gents, would you be happier if I said ‘ ‘many’ people felt it incumbent on them to to reveal their real names in a court of law?’ And that between them Kattrup and DB had provided sufficient examples to show that it was a common belief that to do so was appropriate?

I’m sure you didn’t imagine I was claiming that every single person who had two names and who had ever given evidence throughout history thought it was necessary to reveal both names, did you? Whatever answer you give to that question will disappoint me.

[Kattrup]

My rebuttal is that your conclusion may well be misleading, because it appears to be based on what statisticians call a "sampling bias."

The examples Kattrup posted from the Old Bailey archives do indeed reveal people who gave two names in a court of law, ie., their birth name along with their adopted name.

But there's a catch: that is precisely how he found them. Either they were explicitly asked, or they explicitly said so. But this doesn't prove what the average bloke in the street would have felt 'incumbent' to state, particularly since it wasn't a law, and a great many people are ignorant of court room procedures, and what is, and what is not, expected of them.

What we do not know in looking at this study--because it is far, far, more difficult to discover--are the people who didn't feel incumbent to reveal their birth name in court.

To do that would require the very difficult & time consuming task of going through the archives once again and doing genealogical research on each witness who gave only one name, in an attempt to locate people that did not conform with your conclusion.

In fact, David B. has already unearthed one or two such cases. They are difficult to find--not necessarily because they are uncommon, but simply because of the nature of the task involved in discovering them.

In short, your conclusion is based on accepting that the 'low hanging fruit' gives us the full picture--the cases that are easy to locate supposedly 'prove' the rule. But might it be argued that in doing so we are ignoring an unavoidable bias in the method of fact gathering?

Political polls can be wildly inaccurate because they are based on a similar sampling bias--the sort of people who take polls tend to be residential owners, ie., the people who answer their doors, or who are easily located by poll takers, or who own and answer telephones. The polls leave out a wide swath of the population that is more difficult to reach. Similarly, by necessity, the study of the Old Bailey cases only consider those who DID give two names.

Yes, and as I mentioned some time ago, one might add that MrBarnett’s conclusion is incorrect because in several of the cases, the persons themselves do not feel it is incumbent on them to reveal their other name. Because they do so only because they’re asked about it. Not out of any inner sense of propriety.

[rjpalmer]

My Conclusion: People who use a ‘secondary’ name feel it is incumbent upon them to reveal their ‘real’ name in a court of law.

My rebuttal is that your conclusion may well be misleading, because it appears to be based on what statisticians call a "sampling bias."

The examples Kattrup posted from the Old Bailey archives do indeed reveal people who gave two names in a court of law, ie., their birth name along with their adopted name.

But there's a catch: that is precisely how he found them. Either they were explicitly asked, or they explicitly said so. But this doesn't prove what the average bloke in the street would have felt 'incumbent' to state, particularly since it wasn't a law, and a great many people are ignorant of court room procedures, and what is, and what is not, expected of them.

What we do not know in looking at this study--because it is far, far, more difficult to discover--are the people who didn't feel incumbent to reveal their birth name in court.

To do that would require the very difficult & time consuming task of going through the archives once again and doing genealogical research on each witness who gave only one name, in an attempt to locate people that did not conform with your conclusion.

In fact, David B. has already unearthed one or two such cases. They are difficult to find--not necessarily because they are uncommon, but simply because of the nature of the task involved in discovering them.

In short, your conclusion is based on accepting that the 'low hanging fruit' gives us the full picture--the cases that are easy to locate supposedly 'prove' the rule. But might it be argued that in doing so we are ignoring an unavoidable bias in the method of fact gathering?

Political polls can be wildly inaccurate because they are based on a similar sampling bias--the sort of people who take polls tend to be residential owners, ie., the people who answer their doors, or who are easily located by poll takers, or who own and answer telephones. The polls leave out a wide swath of the population that is more difficult to reach. Similarly, by necessity, the study of the Old Bailey cases only consider those who DID give two names.

[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".

My Conclusion: People who use a ‘secondary’ name feel it is incumbent upon them to reveal their ‘real’ name in a court of law.

[Harry D]

What an elaborate farce.

[Rainbow]

THAT is valid reasoning in my world! Yes, he COULD have called himself Cross on Sundays, yes he COULD want to facilitate for the police clerk and yes he COULD have wanted to keep the family out of things.

But just like Abby recognizes, it is one of many bits that fit the overall puzzle. And the more bits there are, the likelier a culprit he becomes.

What needs to be recognized is how this whole thread - and a lot of other threads - seem to be devoted to think up possible alternative explanations to the many anomalies surrounding the carman. And that´s fine by me. But when it is suggested that there is no case against Lechmere, things have gone pretty heftily astray. Anybody can come up with alternative innocent explanations in any case. It is the easiest thing in the world.

But to have so many anomalies clinging to himself as Lechmere has, without any evidence clearing him on any point at all, is not equally trivial.

If he had only signed the rest of the official material "Cross".
If Paul had seen him stop in his stride and step out into the street.
If Nichols had not been bleeding as Neil arrived. And Mizen.
If Mizen and Lechmere had only agreed about the simple things that were said in an empty, silent street.
If the clothing had not been pulled down over the abdomen of Nichols when Paul saw her.
If Lechmere had simply agreed to try and prop Nichols up.
If he had claimed to have left home at 3.38.
If his working trek had not seemed to take him past the murder sites.
If Stride and Eddowes had been killed on a weekday.
If any of the others had been killed on weekends.
If the apron piece had been found at 2.20.
If Lechmere´s mother had not lived in Mary Ann Street when Stride died.
If the Eddowes murder had taken place somewhere else but along his old working route.
If Paul had clearly stated that he was never out of earshot from Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen.
If he had not been old enough to be able to be both the Ripper and the torso killer.

There were so many, many instances where fate could have reached out a helping hand to Lechmere. Alas, no. It NEVER happed. Not once.

And now, all he has is a hoard of people who think themselves righteous and clever on account of being able to conjure up alternative explanations.

To be fair, that ain´t much.

And add to them:

If the policemen only saw a soul around the time of the affair!

and If Nichols just hadn't done the last of her brearhing movements in front of Paul!!!!


Rainbow°

[drstrange169]

Wow! Gary, you posted on topic!?!

Thanks.


If you read those cases that Kattrup cited, you will note that witnesses only revealed other names if:

1: The other name was specifically relevant to the case at hand.

2: The other name was only revealed when the witness was specifically asked if they had another name.

In Xmere's case, Point One was not relevant and Point Two never happened.

Ergo ....