Cross The Ripper?

[lynn cates]

been there, done that

Hello Simon. Actually, they did that in 1888. Kate possessed knowledge that he had a false name. He wished to eliminate the danger.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Phil Carter:

"He had no reason I can logically see to NOT give the name Lechmere. Speculation about family reputation is pointless- but if the man WAS involved in a murder, that WOULD be reason to not have his true, family name revealed.

I don't believe he was the murderer- but his actions given his proximity to the body in giving a false name certainly are suspicious, and should be seriously taken into consideration, imho. To dismiss is to ignore the potential importance."

There is a REAL world out there...?

Get your helmet on, Phil - reason and abiding by the rules wonīt help you. But thanks anyway!

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Time for a fact or two.

The following come from three sources. freedictionary.com, audioEnglish,com and Wikipedia.


Definition of 'false name'

Noun. 1. False name- a name that has been assumed temporarily. Alias. Assumed name.

Definition of 'alias'
1. Alias-an assumed name

Definition of 'assumed name'
1. A name that has been assumed temporarily.

Definition of 'pseudonym'
1. A name that a person assumes for a particular purpose which differs from his or her original or true name (orthonym). Includes aliases.
2. Usually adopted to hide a person's real identity.

Right.

A false name has the SAME definition as an assumed name.
An alias is, by definition, an assumed name. Ipso facto an alias has tie SAME definition as both a false name AND an assumed name.

Therefore the name given by Lechmere is an assumed name, an alias AND a false name, as the given name was presented TEMPORARILY, as seen by comparing the amount of times the name Cross has been KNOWN to have been used and WHEN.
From what I understand, 90 times v 2 times. (approx) One of which was as a child- which has no bearing of how many times AS AN ADULT Lechmere himself used the name 'Cross'.

It can be argued, on the basis of known statistics- 90 v 2- that Lechmere MAY have used a psuedonym, depending on his intention. This, however, is unproven at this time.

What is known is that he did NOT give his REAL name- his TRUE name- his ORTHONYM.
The only acceptable alternatives left to us are therefore ALIAS, ASSUMED NAME and FALSE NAME.
By definition, one and the same. So a 'false name' he indeed did give.

We have NO reference from the police that he gave a 'known as' name. We can only deduce therefore that the police believed 'Cross' to be his true name, his real name, his orthonym.
This was NOT the case. He didn't. He gave a name to the police that was false, assumed, an alias.
The point is that it was not his real NAME. Whether it was a psuedonym is another matter entirely. That depends on his intemtion in giving a false name in the first place. One can, today, question why he gave that false name. It is suspicious behaviour as it IS clearly temporary.
Whether it is with intent to hide his real name for a reason CONNECTED to the murder is another matter.
Did he intend to mis-lead? On balance, the answer must be yes, as he is not known to have used the name Cross on any regular basis thereafter, if at all.

He had no reason I can logically see to NOT give the name Lechmere. Speculation about family reputation is pointless- but if the man WAS involved in a murder, that WOULD be reason to not have his true, family name revealed.

I don't believe he was the murderer- but his actions given his proximity to the body in giving a false name certainly are suspicious, and should be seriously taken into consideration, imho. To dismiss is to ignore the potential importance.

Just my thoughts on the above facts.

Best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"You have nothing but conjecture. There we are."

Eh - no. There YOU are, but I would not want to spend time with you there, since it is the wrong place to be. A person has one correct name and the others are false. Thatīs why the police in my former example nailed the two guys for using false names. See, if ALL names can be correct names, there would not BE such a thing as false names. And take it from me, Sally, thatīs not conjecture.

Sally, you are a bright, insightful, gracious girl with deep knowledge about these matters. Now, THAT`S conjecture.

"Catherine Eddowes also called herself Kate Conway - there is documentary proof of this. Now, which was her 'real' name and which was her 'false' name? Does the fact that she used both indicate that she was guilty of a crime? Or had something to hide?"

Oh, in spite of my post to Simon, you find this hard to understand? Then I will sort it out for you:

People may and will sometimes call themselves by more than one name. But only one name can be the correct name, and thatīs the name in the registers.

Does the fact that she used two names indicate that she was guilty of a crime? Not necessarily, no. And if somebody has led on that this must be so, you can tell this somebody from me that this is not true.

However, Sally - however - we know from experience (as do the two cops from the example mentioned) that using a false name may offer advantages to people that ARE criminal. You will be aware of this? Yes?

Have a look at Charles Le Grand - Charles Colnette Grandy - Christian Nelson - Captain Anderson - Christian Briscony, Sally. One and the same fellow. Does HIS abundance of names imply that HE necessarily was a bad boy? No, it does not. It is not until we swop theroetical musings for real life knowledge that we realize that this man DID have a criminal agenda behind his need to use different names.

You see, I managed to stretch this beyond postcard size. That sometimes happens when we look at ALL the bits and pieces that make up a true and balanced judgement.

And thatīs not conjecture either.

The best, Sally!
Fisherman

[Sally]

Now, Sally, go do something useful. And if you wonīt, but instead carry on your campaign to smudge me, then do it in a less ignorant manner. It shows, Sally.

Please don't be absurd, Fisherman. You have nothing but conjecture. There we are.

Hi Sally,

Be of stout heart.

You hit the nail firmly on its head

Hi Simon - thanks. I shall try

So, false names... sigh.

Catherine Eddowes also called herself Kate Conway - there is documentary proof of this. Now, which was her 'real' name and which was her 'false' name? Does the fact that she used both indicate that she was guilty of a crime? Or had something to hide?

Answers on a postcard please - I think that should be sufficient space.

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"In my estimation, no, it would not."

Aha. You spoke of "legal" names earlier, Lynn. Would Beckinridge be sort of a correct, illegal name then ...? And how many names do you reckon a chap can have, all of them being correct names? Just asking.

If you answer anything but innumerable, Iīll be surprised.

Oh, and are we agreed that the authorities will not have as generous an interpretation of this as you have?


The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"For eighteen years Eddowes' husband, Thomas Conway, had been drawing his army pension under the false name of Quinn.

So I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone accuses him of being the Ripper."

What has this to do with anything else, Simon? When did I say that using a false name makes you the Ripper?

Can we be for real here, please? You acknowledge that Quinn was a false name, and you show us all that false names can be used in many a situation. And? Where is this supposed to take us? Is it good evidence that Lechmereīs use of an uncorrect name was probably not tied to any criminal activity? Or are you saying that it was the name under which he upheld a pension?

Really, Simon ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

By the bye, look at this, googled from the net (yes!):

"Joshua Daniel Freeman, 20, and Rene Robinson, 18, initially gave police false names after being arrested about midnight in the 2000 block of Red Oak Drive.
The pair told police their names were Anthony Treviņo, 20, and Johnny Robinson, 19, neither of which were involved in the robbery, police said.
Their true identities were discovered when they were fingerprinted and taken to the Nueces County Jail, police said."

Now, how many names do you think the police would have regarded as "true" names? How many CORRECT names would Freeman and Robinson have listed in the fingerprint registers? One? Two? Five?
They may well have had aliases recorded there, but why did the police settle for naming them Joshua Daniel Freeman and Rene Robinson? Could it be because these were the names they were registered by in the records?

Did the police - does anybody think? - run a check on any stepfathers, long-distance cousins or mental soulmates that could have offered OTHER correct and true names? Apparently not.

Now, this is not to say that these guys did not call themselves Anthony Trevino and Johnny Robinson - they may have done. Likewise, all of their friends and neighbours may have thought they were Anthony Trevino and Johnny Robinson - who can tell?

But nevertheless, the police made the decision that these names were false names, since they were registered by two other names.

This is how I look upon things - one name and one name only is your correct and true name - the others are all false names.

Much of the inflamed discussion here will owe to the fact that people dislike seeing the combination of the two words "Lechmere" and "false" - it makes for unflattering associations. And we canīt have that, can we? But the truth is that when you use an alias - a false name - you immediately open yourself up to these associations. In some cases it is apt,in other cases it is unlucky. Statistically, the former will probably be the more common outfall (perhaps more so today than in 1888), but we are speaking about a specific case here, so letīs keep both doors ajar.

The door that Charles Cross was somehow his correct name, though, needs to be shut, locked and bolted.

Now, who wants to talk about something else...?

the best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

For eighteen years Eddowes' husband, Thomas Conway, had been drawing his army pension under the false name of Quinn.

So I suppose it's only a matter of time before someone accuses him of being the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

What's in a name?

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"You did not answer MY question: would Beckinridge be a false name if his stepfather, dead since nineteen years, had had that name?"

(This one?) In my estimation, no, it would not. Of course, I would want to know WHY that name is used instead of his more usual one. And if it were given on the phone to some bloke with a charitable campaign, I think I would have the reason.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

The one at the bottom of post 118, Lynn.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

question

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Which question was that?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

" I can live with:

1. Cross is a false name.

2. That giving a false name may not be suspicious."

Suspicion must cling to giving a false name, Lynn. But Ignazio/Ignacio is less suspicious - for obvious reasons - than Lechmere/Cross.

And YOU still havent answered MY question..?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

2 points

Hello Christer. Thanks. You answered my question. You seem to regard any name not given at birth to be false. Well and good.

But you also seem to think that my professor's using a false name is not suspicious. Again, I agree.

So I can live with:

1. Cross is a false name.

2. That giving a false name may not be suspicious.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sally,

Be of stout heart.

You hit the nail firmly on its head.

Regards,

Simon