Framing Charles

[Fisherman]

It should of course also be pointed out that there was no general wish for testifying people to present themselves by any name, since the very ground for the request was always going to be that the authorities wanted the testifyer to be identifiable fortwith.
That would go lost if people were allowed to use any name they felt like using on the day, and so the grounds behind the process would be compromised. I believe we may conclude that such a thing was never on the authorities wishlist.
It is another matter that people were allowed to assume and use aliases; they were, but the generosity of the authorities would not stretch to allowing for people to fly under the radar. If this was allowed, then there would be no purpose in establishing any names in the first place.

[Fisherman]

It was a double anomaly. He deviated from his normal practice when dealing with the authorities. And he deviated from the norm of witnesses revealing both names.

Look at this piece of ‘Legal Advice’ above given in the Weekly Telegraph on 4th August, 1888.

Yes, I am aware of this. And curious to see how our Danish friend will go about defending a stance that cannot be defended. It promises to be an interesting afternoon.

[MrBarnett]

Considering that he otherwise always answered the question about his name with ”Lechmere” when asked by various authorities, can you explain how it was not an anomaly when he suddenly deviated from that line? I would have thought that this is the very definition of an anomaly - to deviate from a common practice.

It was a double anomaly. He deviated from his normal practice when dealing with the authorities. And he deviated from the norm of witnesses revealing both names.

Look at this piece of ‘Legal Advice’ above given in the Weekly Telegraph on 4th August, 1888.

[Fisherman]

Cross wasn't asked his "proper" name or what name he was baptised with. He was just asked to state his name. Which he did, along with his adress. So, no anomaly, sorry

Considering that he otherwise always answered the question about his name with ”Lechmere” when asked by various authorities, can you explain how it was not an anomaly when he suddenly deviated from that line? I would have thought that this is the very definition of an anomaly - to deviate from a common practice.

[MrBarnett]

Cross wasn't asked his "proper" name or what name he was baptised with. He was just asked to state his name. Which he did, along with his adress. So, no anomaly, sorry

Many other witnesses asked the same question revealed both names. Didn’t you produce a list of them at one time?

Anomaly restored.

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere is an unusual name. And when you add the allen (lower case a) in you have a name that would have been instantly recognised in certain quarters in Herefordshire.

Maria Louisa may still have receiving income from her father’s will which was in the hands of the Clive family lawyers. Her sisters had married well and were very respectable, but she had married a wrong ‘un and had bigamously married Thomas Cross.

Admitting that his ‘proper’ name was CAL but that his ‘stepfather’ was named Cross would not have been a sensible thing to do.

[Kattrup]

The witness who explained the name situation said that Williams was his ‘proper’ name. That concept surfaces again and again.

Cross’s ‘proper’ name was Lechmere. Unless he was out of synch with the rest of society, he knew that.

Cross wasn't asked his "proper" name or what name he was baptised with. He was just asked to state his name. Which he did, along with his adress. So, no anomaly, sorry

[Fisherman]

Plus we are very much a ware that when he spoke to authorities of any kind - save the police and in combination with violent death - he always used the name Lechmere and the name Lechmere only.

Of course, we may imagine that there is somewhere a hidden away treasure trove of unknown papers from the authorities where he signed himself Charles Cross, but as it stands, it is nothing but a wet dream.

It remains a fair ground of suspicion that he did not use his real and registered name on these occasions only.

[MrBarnett]

Ah yes, I got my Williams/Evans’s in a twist.

The witness who explained the name situation said that Williams was his ‘proper’ name. That concept surfaces again and again.

Cross’s ‘proper’ name was Lechmere. Unless he was out of synch with the rest of society, he knew that.

He wasn’t an illiterate labouring man who was unsure of his background. His father came from a prominent Herefordshire family, and his mother was the butler’s daughter. The significance of his ‘proper’ name was known to him. His mother had him and his sister baptised shortly after she ‘married’ Thomas Cross and the Lechmere name was on the baptism record.

This anomaly doesn’t go away.

I think it’s highly likely that he deliberately withheld the Lechmere name, even though he thought he should reveal it. But not necessarily because he was a murderer.

There are two other reasons why he might have wanted to do so.

[MrBarnett]

Probably quite a lot, Mr B. In the example you refer to, it's the victim's name that is being clarified - establishing the identity of the deceased was an essential duty of an inquest, which is why it was "felt" appropriate to mention both names.

(Incidentally, I believe the names were actually the other way round, i.e. he was baptised William Williams but was known as William Evans because he was adopted by John Evans.)

Ah yes, I got my Williams/Evans’s in a twist.

The witness who explained the name situation said that Williams was his ‘proper’ name. That concept surfaces again and again.

Cross’s ‘proper’ name was Lechmere. Unless he was out of synch with the rest of society, he knew that.

He wasn’t an illiterate labouring man who was unsure of his background. His father came from a prominent Herefordshire family, and his mother was the butler’s daughter. The significance of his ‘proper’ name was known to him. His mother had him and his sister baptised shortly after she ‘married’ Thomas Cross and the Lechmere name was on the baptism record.

This anomaly doesn’t go away.

[Kattrup]

Over on JTRForums a new poster has discovered a possible husband of MJK - man who was killed in a colliery explosion in 1881.

The man’s name wasn’t Davis or Davies, it was actually Evans although he used the name of Williams because when his father did a runner a Mr Williams brought him up. It was felt appropriate to mention both names at the inquest.

How many more examples do some people need of ‘proper’ names and assumed names both being revealed in court before they will acknowledge that CAL’s use of just ‘Cross’ is very odd?

Probably quite a lot, Mr B. In the example you refer to, it's the victim's name that is being clarified - establishing the identity of the deceased was an essential duty of an inquest, which is why it was "felt" appropriate to mention both names.

(Incidentally, I believe the names were actually the other way round, i.e. he was baptised William Williams but was known as William Evans because he was adopted by John Evans.)

[MrBarnett]

And if they managed to procure business from him, that would arguably not make Maria Louisa any more charitable about them. And that may well have rubbed off on her son.

It is not hard to imagine such a scenario.

And if some of the younger, prettier ones ragged him, he might have experienced complex, mixed feelings of attraction and loathing.

[Fisherman]

Maria would have had two reasons for disliking the Tigresses of Tiger Bay.

First, she would have worried about her son coming into contact with them. Being ‘corrupted’ by them.

Second, she may have worried that her husband, several years her junior, whose job it was to come into contact with them, might stray off the straight and narrow. I can just imagine the girls winding PC Cross up as he and his wife went for a stroll, ‘Allo Tommy, darlin’! Are you popping round for a quickie tonight?’

And if they managed to procure business from him, that would arguably not make Maria Louisa any more charitable about them. And that may well have rubbed off on her son.

It is not hard to imagine such a scenario.

[MrBarnett]

None - as far as we know.

Maria would have had two reasons for disliking the Tigresses of Tiger Bay.

First, she would have worried about her son coming into contact with them. Being ‘corrupted’ by them.

Second, she may have worried that her husband, several years her junior, whose job it was to come into contact with them, might stray off the straight and narrow. I can just imagine the girls winding PC Cross up as he and his wife went for a stroll, ‘Allo Tommy, darlin’! Are you popping round for a quickie tonight?’

[MrBarnett]

Over on JTRForums a new poster has discovered a possible husband of MJK - man who was killed in a colliery explosion in 1881.

The man’s name wasn’t Davis or Davies, it was actually Evans although he used the name of Williams because when his father did a runner a Mr Williams brought him up. It was felt appropriate to mention both names at the inquest.

How many more examples do some people need of ‘proper’ names and assumed names both being revealed in court before they will acknowledge that CAL’s use of just ‘Cross’ is very odd?