Originally posted by GBinOz
View Post
This incident happened, *while he was at work* and there is every likelihood that his work would have been *involved* in the inquest to some degree or another, even just to find out if he's going to be held liable and what that would mean for them, his work would have known about the incident. It was in the press. It was being investigated. If he runs over a boy, while at work, and he knows his work is going to be involved, which name is he most likely, beyond the balance of probabilities, to give the police? The one he's known by at work.
There was an investigation. The incident involved his work. If he'd given the name Cross to the police, and he didn't use it at work, someone at Pickfords could have easily claimed, truthfully, "Wait we don't have a Charles Cross working here," when the investigation and press came calling and what kind of mess would that have put him in? He would have been far more likely than not, to use the name he was known by at work, when testifying about a work incident.
Is it a definite fact that he was known by Cross at work? No. However...It is more reasonable than not to assume he went by Cross at work.
Leave a comment: