Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere/Cross "name issue" Part 2

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Case Study 14 – Thomas Anderson/Holland

    In response to a speculative allegation that his blindness had miraculously disappeared once he received a sovereign (given to him by a lady by mistake) and went drinking - when the truth was that he had returned the sovereign to the lady - Thomas Anderson, known as "The Blind Beggar", or "The Blind Singer" in Sheffield, wrote a letter to the Sheffield Independent of 4 February 1882 which was published under the heading "BLIND BEGGAR VINDICATED":

    "Will you kindly give me space to reply to the statement which appeared with reference to myself on Thursday last. I am "the blind beggar", Thomas Anderson, better known as Thomas Holland (my stepfather's name). On Saturday evening last, I commenced playing and singing in Broomhall street, at the corner of Fitzwilliam street, as is my usual custom, proceeding as far as Clarence street. [he then tells the story of what had happened with the sovereign]
    …..
    Soon afterwards, the lady found out where Thomas Glaves (my wife's father) lived..

    As a very large number of people know me, being in the habit of attending at Morecombe during the summer months., playing on the steam boats, the beach and other places, as well as other towns besides Sheffield, and having no other means of getting a living for myself, wife and family, and as my character is all I have to rely on, I trust you will do me the justice of inserting this.

    I am yours most respectfully,

    THOMAS ANDERSON

    121 Porter Street, Sheffield"


    Further research:

    Thomas Anderson, son of Donald Anderson, a bootmaker, was born in Lasswade, Midlothian, Scotland in about 1852. He became blind as a teenager.

    Living in Yorkshire in 1874, working as a brushmaker, Thomas Anderson married Ann Kowalski nee Ann Glaves, the daughter of Thomas George Glaves of Sheffield in September of that year.

    He appears in the 1881 Census as Thomas Anderson aged 32, a brushmaker, living at 32 Well Lane, Ecclesall Bierlow, Sheffield, with his wife Ann Anderson and stepchildren, Ann Kowalski and Thomas Kowalski (although these are recorded as his daughter and son respectively). The census records that he is blind.

    From the Sheffield Weekly Telegraph, 26 February 1887

    "SOME SHEFFIELD CHARACTERS by “Jotter”
    THE BLIND SINGER
    We have given our character for this week the title of “The Blind Singer,” for I think he is the only street musician who really deserves that name. His name is Thomas Anderson, he is about 37 years of age, and rather short set. He is totally blind, not able to distinguish between night from day. He has been blind 22 years, and he thinks that trade was the chief cause. He worked at Martin and Hall’s at the silver working, in the stamping department, but at the age of fifteen he became blind and had to give it up. He got into the blind school at York where he learnt brushmaking etc He was seven years in the Blind Schools at York and Sheffield….He has a very fair baritone voice, and he accompanies himself very well on the accordion. He has played in the streets now for 12 years, and many visitors to Morecambe will remember him playing on the boats in the summer holidays. I am sorry to say that several reports have got about that this man is making his fortune and living in a big house etc etc. Let me here take the opportunity of contradicting them, saying what I know all about the man. He lives in a small but respectable house in Oxford Road, of Ecclesall road, and keeps a wife and child on what he earns in the streets… "


    He is the 1891 Census as Thomas Gentle Anderson, aged 43, with his wife Ann Gentle Anderson with his occupation now stated to be a musician, living at 48 Oxford Road, Ecclesall Bierlow, Sheffield. The census again records that he is blind.

    In the 1901 census his name reverts to Thomas Anderson, still a blind musician, said to be aged 49, living with Ann Anderson at 88 Moore Street, Ecclesall Bierlow, Sheffield.

    His wife must have died shortly afterwards for we find a marriage of musician Thomas Gentle Anderson to Esther Proctor in Ecclesall Bierlow on 29 January 1909.

    The 1911 White’s Directory of Sheffield and Rotherham includes an entry for a Thomas Gentle Anderson, a shopkeeper, of 220 Dunlop Street.

    In the 1911 Census, Thomas is entered as Thomas G. Anderson, aged 58, whose occupation is given as musician but this crossed out and replaced by grocer. His wife Esther is said to be assisting him in the shop. He is said to be "Totally blind from 13". He is living at 220 Dunlop Street with his stepchildren, Ethel, Leonard and Doris Proctor.

    A curiosity is that another of Thomas George Glaves' daughters, Mary Ann Glaves, married a man called Arthur De Smedlais who is said on the marriage certificate to have been born in France and was a musician. What is so interesting about De Smedlais is that he is recorded in the 1881 census as being blind. Mary Ann herself was also blind.

    Comment


    • #17
      Case Study 16 – Alfred Stanley a.k.a. Alfred Greenway-Stanley

      Times, Law Report, 8 December 1976 headlined "Returning officer’s inspection of birth certificate invalidates poll"

      [Reports petition by Mr Alfred George Greenway-Stanley whose name on his birth certificate was Alfred George Greenway Stanley but he added a hyphen to his name in the late 1940s or early 1950s "and since then had been known as Greenway-Stanley". In 1962 he was entered on the electoral roll in that name and was elected to office in that name as a member of the Deal local authority and the Mayor of Deal. In 1976 he stood for election for the Dover District Council but on 30 March 1976 the returning officer received an anonymous letter asserting that the nominee’s real name was Stanley, not Greenway-Stanley.]

      "The returning officer knew Mr Greenway-Stanley perfectly well, but he decided to make a check and bespoke a copy of his birth certificate….The next day a garbled conversation took place between him and Mr Greenway-Stanley. One hour before the deadline he had an interview with Mr Greenway-Stanley who told him that there were certain purposes for which he used the name Stanley; for example he had a bank account in that name. The returning officer decided to reject the nomination papers. The question was whether he was right. The court concluded that he was wrong…..Mr Burke-Gaffney [for the returning officer] submitted that on the face of the document the name Greenway-Stanley should be held to be a wrong entry because a man could not have more than one surname at a time. It came to light that Mr Greenway-Stanley had used the name Stanley for various purposes, for example, on his driving licence and passport, and on one of his bank accounts. But for the purpose of standing for office in local government he had been on the electoral roll since 1962 as Greenway-Stanley, and had been elected time and time again. He had also been mayor. There could be no doubt as to his identity as Greenway-Stanley. The returning officer should have been led to the firm conclusion that the papers were valid and should not be rejected. For those reasons the petition should be granted.

      MR JUSTICE WEIN, concurring, said that it was a general principle of law that a man might use a different name without executing a deed….It was submitted for the returning officer that he was right to reject the paper because Mr Greenway-Stanley had never abandoned the surname Stanley. This was patently wrong. He had carried on business [as an antiques dealer] in the name Greenway-Stanley since 1948 and was the mayor of Deal in that name. It was not open to the returning officer to show that he occasionally used the name Stanley. When the surname Stanley was used it was not with the intention of deceiving anyone. There was nothing available to the returning officer to indicate that Greenway-Stanley was other than his only surname…He was not entitled to hold the nomination paper invalid."

      Further Research:

      Alfred George Greenway Stanley was born in Wolverhampton on 28 July 1916. The Civil Registration Birth Index records his name as Alfred G. G. Stanley.

      Entry in the Civil Registration Death Index is for Alfred George Greenway-Stanley

      National Probate Calendar 1991 entry: GREENWAY-STANLEY, Alfred George see STANLEY, Alfred George

      Comment


      • #18
        Case Study 16 - R.A.

        Letter to the Guardian 14 August 1982

        "Can you tell me if it affects my pension, due to the fact my birth certificate only states my mother's name; but since I was born, I've used an adopted name (not legally adopted), all my life, in the Army, at sea, at school and in general? The Social Security asked me some time ago for my birth certificate, but I refused to give it to them as I have never altered my "adopted" name since childhood. They say they do not take any notice of the name, only the date of birth". R.A. London.

        ANSWER

        "To show that you are entitled to your pension you have to prove that you are 65. Your birth certificate shows your age, and you should let the D.H.S.S. see it. If it then wants further evidence to satisfy it that R.A. is the person named otherwise on the certificate, it will probably be sufficient if you sign the forms in the usual way as R.A., which has become your name, and add "otherwise X.Y.Z. (whatever be the name on the certificate)." Put a note in with the form asking that your pension book be in the name you use, R.A. There are thousands of folk in the same boat as yourself, and to D.H.S.S., this is just routine."

        Comment


        • #19
          Miscellany, and the law

          London Evening Standard, 5 October 1878

          "WEST KENT - Mr A.M. Chennell, the Revising Barrister for Kent, held his courts for the western division of the county at Eldenbridge, Lewisham and Forest Hill.... A curious point arose in the case of two voters, each of whom appeared on the lists under two different surnames, and were objected to by the Liberals. Considerable discussion arose as to which in each case was the voter's proper name, but in the end the Barrister retained each voter on the list under one name only."

          South London Press, 8 October 1869

          ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

          "The legality of a marriage cannot, on any account, be called in question because of the husband being illegitimate, and marrying in the name of his stepfather. "

          Sheffield Weekly Telegraph, 13 July 1895

          "USE OF SURNAME - To "Anxious Enquirer". The young man ought to keep the name by which he has generally been known, and that, we understand, is his stepfather's name. If he marries in that name it will be all right.


          Sheffield Weekly Telegraph, 23 November 1895


          "MARRIAGE IN WRONG NAME -To ABC: The husband ought to use the name of his own father, and not his stepfather's name. But if he has long been known by his stepfather's name, there should be no harm in marrying in that name but it is certainly a step which we should not advise be taken.

          Nottingham Evening Post, 26 October 1933

          "WGW - Your son may use his stepfather's name if all three of you are agreed about it. If he is ever required to produce a birth certificate or sign a legal document he would sign with his registered name followed by "known as -" (stepfather's name). This is quite lawful: but a legally registered and advertised change of name although expensive, would possibly save future trouble."

          Information from the Deed Poll Office.com (a private company)

          https://deedpolloffice.com/change-name/law/surname

          "Changing a surname

          As with your first name, there is nothing in the law stopping you from changing your surname at any time, so long as you don’t have any fraudulent (or other criminal) intent.

          You can assume any surname you please in addition to, or substitution for, your existing surname. You can change your name at any time, and as many times as you wish.

          The basis in law for changing surname

          There has never been any doubt that surnames could be changed at pleasure, seeing as —
          • they were assumed or chosen by people in the first place (from the 10th to the end of the 14th century)
          • there was never any law which made it compulsory to have a surname
          • in practice, surnames were commonly and frequently changed by their bearers

          English law has historically always regarded the surname as something much less important than the first name. Sir Edward Coke wrote in 1628 (in the first part of his Institutes of the Lawes of England (also known as “Coke on Littleton”), chapter 3.a.) —
          And regularly it is requisite, that the purchaser be named by the name of baptism and his surname, and that speciall heed bee taken to the name of baptism; for that a man cannot have two names of baptism as he may have divers surnames.

          Of course, this position has now changed. The law now regards surnames with more importance than the first name. (See for example section 13(1) of the Children Act 1989 , which specifically forbids changes to a child’s surname if the child is subject to a Residence Order or a Child Arrangements Order which includes arrangements relating to who the child is to live with (or when the child is to live with any person), but not the first name.)
          But there’s still no law restricting a person’s liberty (in the case of an adult, at least) to change their surname at any time they choose, and it’s of course still a common practice for people to do so.

          Bracton (c. 1235)

          The doctrine that your legal name is the name you are called and known by has a basis in ancient times. Henry de Bracton wrote in his De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ (c. 1235), on folio 188b —

          “And so if a person has two names, whether in his name or in his surname, that name is to be adopted by which he is more frequently accustomed to be called: because they are imposed for that reason, that they may show the intention of the speaker, and we make use of speech as a servant.”

          Barlow v Bateman (1730–1735)

          There is no need to get any kind of permission or authority (such as an Act of Parliament or Royal Licence) to change your surname — as was held by Sir Joseph Jekyll in Barlow v Bateman (1730) —
          I am satisfied the usage of passing acts of Parliament for the taking upon one a surname is but modern; and that any one may take upon him what surname, and as many surnames as he pleases, without an act of Parliament.

          This particular case was successfully appealed in the House of Lords, where Sir Joseph Jekyll’s decree was reversed, but in their judgment the Lords simply ordered —
          … that the Appellant is well entitled to the Legacy of One Thousand Pounds, conditionally bequeathed to him by the said Will: And it is therefore ORDERED and Adjudged, That the said Decree of the 13th of July 1730 be, and the same is hereby, reversed.

          Thus the Lords did not overrule Sir Joseph Jekyll’s dictum about changing surname, but merely held that a voluntary change of surname was not good enough, in this case, to entitle the testator’s daughter (and her husband Mr Bateman) to the inheritance. By “a man who bore the name and arms of Barlow” — as written in the will — the testator intended someone who was born a Barlow, and not someone who had only changed their name to Barlow.

          The same point was made in the case of Pyot v Pyot (1749), where Lord Hardwicke held that —
          This [case, i.e. Pyot v Pyot (1949)] is like that case in the House of Lords, which was a devise on condition of marrying a person of his name (Barlow v Bateman, 3 P.W. 65. and 4 Bro. P.C. 194. octavo edit.). The lady married a person who changed his name to that in the will: the House of Lords held this voluntary change was not within the benefit of the bequest, nor a performance of the condition of the will.

          The King v the Inhabitants of Billingshurst (1814) and similar cases
          In the case of the King v the Inhabitants of Billingshurst (1814), the court considered whether a person’s marriage was valid, whose original surname was Langley, but had been married by banns by the name of George Smith.
          The Marriage Act 1753 directs “a notice in writing of the true Christian and surnames of the parties, to be delivered to the minister,” and the case turned on how the words “true Christian and surnames” should mean in the context of the Act. In resolving this question, Lord Chief Justice Ellenborough pointed out that the said George Smith had been known by that name alone in the parish where he lived, and thus held —
          The object of the statute in the publication of banns was to secure notoriety, to apprize all persons of the intention of the parties to contract marriage; and how can that object be better attained, than by a publication in the name by which the party is known? … Therefore the publication in the real name, instead of being notice to all persons, would have operated as a deception; and it is strictly correct to say, that the original name in this case would not have been the true name within the meaning of the statute. On these grounds I think that the Act only meant to require that the parties should be published by their known and acknowledged names.

          In other words, the court held that the true surname in the context of the Marriage Act was simply the surname by which a person is generally known within the parish where they live.

          The same thing was held by Sullivan v Sullivan (otherwise Oldacre) (1818) 2 Hagg. Con. 238, and much more recently, in Dancer v Dancer [1949] P 147.
          Surnames before the 18th century
          Before the 18th century, it wasn’t so much an issue of whether surnames could be changed (although they could of course), but surnames were thought to be less formal and fixed than first names anyway — and thus a person could validly have two different surnames at different times.
          Surnames were introduced to England in about the 10th or 11th century, but only started to gain ground at about the time of the Norman conquest. The practice was at first limited to the higher orders of society, and wasn’t commonly adopted until the end of the 14th century.

          However, surnames at that time were changed commonly, at the pleasure of the bearer, and didn’t become more-or-less settled (as we use and think of them nowadays) until the Reformation (in the 16th century). Even then, surnames didn’t necessarily have a fixed spelling, and (as with the language in general) the exact spelling wasn’t considered as something important, as it is nowadays. It was possible, and not considered odd, for different members of the same family to spell their surname a different way, for example.
          And so, in the case of Disply v Sprat (1587), for example, when one of the jurors was named as Thomas Barker at the venire facias but as Thomas Carter at the distringas jurat; although Sir Edward Coke alleged the verdict to be void because of this discrepancy, the court held that it wasn’t a problem
          because —
          There is a great difference between a mistake in the name of baptism, and in the sirname; for a man can have but one name of baptism, but may have two sirnames.
          John Popham — in Button v Wrightman (1594) — compared surnames to place names as when included in the names of corporations , such as “Oxford” when referring to the “University of Oxford”, and he held it didn’t matter if it was referred to as “Oxford” or “Oxon” so long as it was clear. He held that —

          Anciently men took most commonly their sur-names from their places of habitation, especially men of estate, and artizans often took their names from their arts, but yet the law is not so precise in the case of sur-names, and therefore a grant made by, or to John, son and heir of I.C. or filio juniori I.S. is good: but for the Christian name, this always ought to be perfect.
          A surname is not a person’s right or property
          There is nothing in the law stopping you from assuming someone else’s surname — a surname isn’t the property of a person.

          This was held by the House of Lords in the case of Cowley (Earl) v Cowley (Countess) (1901) 85 L.T Rep. 354, P. 1900, 118, [1901] A.C. 450, in which the Cowleys had divorced but the ex-Countess Cowley carried on calling herself “Violet, Countess Cowley” — even after subsequently re-marrying, to a “commoner” (Mr Robert Myddleton Biddulph). Thereupon her ex-husband (Earl Cowley), brought an action in the High Court to restrain her from using the style or title of “Countess Cowley”. The case was initially decided in the Earl’s favour (by Mr Justice Barnes) but Countess Cowley appealed to the Court of Appeal, who reversed that decision; but then Earl Cowley appealed again, to the House of Lords, where the appeal was dismissed. In his judgment, Lord Lindley held —
          We are not now sitting as a Committee for Privileges to determine a claim to the dignity created and granted by the letters patent, 1857. The lady calls herself, and is called in society, “Violet, Countess Cowley.” She makes no claim to the peerage or to the dignity which is vested in her late husband, and, if she did, the High Court would not be the proper tribunal to entertain or decide such a claim.

          He then concluded, that the dispute between the parties was reduced to a dispute about the use of a name (i.e. the surname of “Cowley”), as distinguished from a dignity, but he held that —
          Speaking generally the law of this country allows any person to assume and use any name, provided its use is not calculated to deceive and to inflict pecuniary loss.

          The same thing was made clear by Lord Chelmsford in Du Boulay v Du Boulay, where — although in a court in St Lucia — he made clear that under English law —
          In this country [i.e. England] we do not recognize the absolute right of a person to a particular name to the extent of entitling him to prevent the assumption of that name by a Stranger.
          — and —
          The mere assumption of a name, which is the patronymic of a family, by a Stranger who had never before been called by that name, whatever cause of annoyance it may be to the family, is a grievance for which our Law affords no redress."

          Comment


          • #20
            Conclusion

            We have seen a number of examples of men with two surnames.

            Consider William Adams. He was born under the name of William Adams, every known census entry for him is in the name of William Adams, he married in the name of William Adams and his name is recorded as William Adams on the birth certificates of his two children.

            If that was all we knew about him we would surely be extremely confident that his name was William Adams. Yet the report from the Sheffield Evening Telegraph of 16 November 1907 confirms that he "commonly went by the name of Slack". Indeed, when he died at work, in the colliery accident, his name was initially published as William Slack.

            Now, what if William Slack had been on his way to work in, say, September 1907 and found a murdered body in the street? When he appeared at the inquest would there be anything odd if he had stated his name as William Slack? I suggest not.

            He might, as Ralph Dixon (otherwise Armstrong) did at the Morgan inquest, have given both names, along with an explanation of why he used two names, but there was no obligation for him to do so. We have seen that the legal position was that a man may have more than one surname and that it was quite proper for a man to adopt the surname by which he was more commonly known.

            Look at Charles Jones. He was born as Charles Jones, he is called Charles Jones in every known census, he was married in the name of Charles Jones on 7 May 1878 yet the very day before his wedding he appeared as a prosecution witness at the Ryde Petty Sessions in the name of Charles Taylor. We know from the divorce proceedings that Jones had taken the name of Taylor yet he is entered in the 1881 census as Charles Jones and prosecuted in that name for some coach driving offences. When he dies he is called Charles Taylor in the newspaper. It shows clearly that there is no necessary correlation between the name given "to the authorities", as Fisherman would refer to it, and the name by someone was known. It also shows that there is no good reason for suspicion when a man with two surnames chooses to give one over the other at different times.

            I suggest that the reason why so many of these men who have taken their stepfather's name nevertheless get married under the name on their birth certificates is because they have to enter their father's name on the marriage certificate and, that being so, they use their father’s surname under which to get married. Having done so, their children legally get given the same surname. But it doesn’t change the fact that they are not generally known by that name.

            There are exceptions such as in the case of William Hawke who (wrongly) entered his father’s name as John Hawke Lakey, his stepfather, so that he became William Henry Hawke Lakey, with Hawke turning into a middle name cum surname.

            When it comes to marriage it seems that anything goes. Oswald Stoll married once as "Oswald Stoll otherwise Gray" but later as "Oswald Gray Stoll" but even then signing his marriage certificate as "Oswald Stoll". Philip Pallot decided to become Philip Pallot Maine and is sometimes Maine, sometimes Pallot in the records.

            Thomas Leonard was originally stated to be Thomas Wainwright after his death from jumping overboard (because that was the name he sailed under) until it was corrected at the inquest.

            George Thompson preferred the name of George Grey and that was not only the name he was commonly known as but it was the name he was charged under and tried for the murder of Thomas Scott. John Mason was charged with having absented himself from his employment under stepfather’s surname rather than the surname on his birth certificate (Grant).

            Now take Harry George. He was "sometimes" called Harry Cox but on every census and on his children’s birth certificates he is called Harry George. There is no other evidence that he was called Harry Cox other than the single newspaper report published after his death. Likewise, all the known records show that George Plummer bore that name yet the newspaper report of his crime shows that he was more commonly known as George Harding.

            Ronnie Schatt randomly decided to call himself Ronnie Berger for a few years but then became Ronnie Scott. It just happened.

            The "blind beggar" signed his letter to the Sheffield Independent as Thomas Anderson, he is Thomas Anderson in all the known censuses and on his wedding certificates but we know from his own letter that he was "better known" as Thomas Holland.

            Of course, there is no doubt that all of these man with two names knew that they had one surname on their birth certificate, which could be described as his "proper" or "real" name, and another surname (of his stepfather) by which he was commonly known but that name clearly was not a "false" name. It was an alternative name, a name they were otherwise known by, but still a legal name.

            There are no case studies about adopted men, other than "R.A"., but we can see from the Guardian of August 1982 that there were "thousands" of people who used an adopted name all their life which was not the name on their birth certificate.

            If a man with two surnames gave evidence at an inquest in the nineteenth century when there was no issue as to his identity and only gave his name as the surname he was most commonly known by, would there have been anything suspicious about that? No, is the simple answer. Perhaps this would be different today but we live in a very different and far more bureaucratic world where it is unusual for a man to have two different surnames.

            This is just one reason why I say that if you ask whether a modern jury today might find Lechmere's behaviour suspicious, you are asking the wrong question. A modern jury cannot put themselves into the minds of a jury in 1888 who would have been far more familiar with men bearing two surnames.

            In any event, what I think we have clearly seen is the flaw in Fisherman's argument that because Charles Lechmere "signed his name" on numerous official documents as Charles Lechmere (ignoring his appearance on the 1861 census as Charles Cross) this somehow means that he was not commonly known as Charles Cross and/or that there was something suspicious about him calling himself Charles Cross at the inquest. He could well have been commonly known as Charles Cross, regardless of how many times he was recorded as Charles Lechmere in the documents and, that being so, he was perfectly entitled to state his name under oath as Charles Cross, without the need for explanation, during the inquest.

            Comment


            • #21
              Thank you, David, for your time and effort in researching these examples.

              Thoroughly and excellently argued, one would hope this matter of the so-called "name swap" would be lain to rest.

              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              I suggest that the reason why so many of these men who have taken their stepfather's name nevertheless get married under the name on their birth certificates is because they have to enter their father's name on the marriage certificate and, that being so, they use their father’s surname under which to get married. Having done so, their children legally get given the same surname. But it doesn’t change the fact that they are not generally known by that name.
              Very astute thinking.
              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              This is just one reason why I say that if you ask whether a modern jury today might find Lechmere's behaviour suspicious, you are asking the wrong question. A modern jury cannot put themselves into the minds of a jury in 1888 who would have been far more familiar with men bearing two surnames.
              A very important point, which I feel is often ignored in favour of an ahistorical approach.

              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
              In any event, what I think we have clearly seen is the flaw in Fisherman's argument that because Charles Lechmere "signed his name" on numerous official documents as Charles Lechmere (ignoring his appearance on the 1861 census as Charles Cross) this somehow means that he was not commonly known as Charles Cross and/or that there was something suspicious about him calling himself Charles Cross at the inquest. He could well have been commonly known as Charles Cross, regardless of how many times he was recorded as Charles Lechmere in the documents and, that being so, he was perfectly entitled to state his name under oath as Charles Cross, without the need for explanation, during the inquest.
              Completely agree; well done

              Comment


              • #22
                David

                May I follow Kattrup in their appraisal of that piece of work.

                Steve

                Comment


                • #23
                  Bet some still find it suspicious. But hey they've got it in for Cross anyway,
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Thirded. An excellent piece of research, David, and some interesting reads to boot.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GUT View Post
                      Bet some still find it suspicious. But hey they've got it in for Cross anyway.
                      Cross-eyed, you might say
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        Thirded. An excellent piece of research, David, and some interesting reads to boot.
                        I agree some interesting stuff.

                        And David is an excellent researcher.
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Excellent piece of intensive research, David, which- for all intents and purposes- resolves this issue.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Top work, David. Congratulations on uncovering so many previously-unsuspected serial killers.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Fascinating read, great research! Thank you for putting in all that effort, David.
                              Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
                              ---------------
                              Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
                              ---------------

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by John G View Post
                                Excellent piece of intensive research, David, which- for all intents and purposes- resolves this issue.
                                Want to bet?
                                G U T

                                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X