Cross Theory II

[Phil H]

I won't reply as apparently you'd regard my post as "spam".

There is, of course the authorial "we". the collective "we" (denoting belonging). Even the "royal" we. Take your pick.

Clearly ironic humour isn't your thing.

Phil

[Mr Lucky]

But since it's me that has to put up with that sort of behaviour, I'll carry on calling him Cross.

How very much in character. I'm sure we'd expect nothing less.

Phil

Why do you refer to yourself as 'we'?

perhaps you would also stop spamming up the thread?

[Phil H]

But since it's me that has to put up with that sort of behaviour, I'll carry on calling him Cross.

How very much in character. I'm sure we'd expect nothing less.

Phil

[Mr Lucky]

But, again: Michael Connor is extremely disappointed by the fact that so many of us continue to refer to Lechmere as 'Cross'.

Well perhaps if he was here, and it was him, putting up with people swearing at him on line and snotty one-liners about 'grassy knolls', he'd have a point.

But since it's me that has to put up with that sort of behaviour, I'll carry on calling him Cross.

[Phil H]

I seem to recall that we debated what was going on with the Nichols' killing.

By "we" I meant the wider membership of Casebook, Mr Lucky.

phil

[Colin Roberts]

A note to Michael Conner and Chris Scott

from the last work I sent to rip-

'Previous research by Derek Osborne, Michael Conner, Colin Roberts, Chris Scott and others has revealed that the man who called himself Charles Cross during the investigation of the murder of Mary Ann Nichols in 1888 was generally known as Charles Allen Lechmere. Cross was the name of his step father and the only other known use of the name Charles Cross occurs on census data from 1861. I have used the name Cross as it is the name I had originally associated with him and it’s the name used in the original source material.'

That's all well and good, but I know through personal correspondence of some two or three years ago that Michael Connor - the person that deserves the absolute lion's share of the credit in this instance¹ - is extremely disappointed by the fact that so many of us continue to refer to Lechmere as 'Cross'.

¹ Derek Osborne discovered a carman, Charles Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town in the 1891 census records and stopped dead in his tracks. He merely surmised that perhaps this was 'Cross', and called it a day.

Some years later, - having no knowledge of Osborne's discovery - I alerted Michael Connor to the fact that 22 Doveton Street was to be found in the census records of Mile End Old Town, not those of Bethnal Green.

Michael Connor, - also having no knowledge of Osborne's discovery - went on to rediscover a carman, Charles Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town in the 1891 census records; but then went further to connect that Lechmere to the one that appeared in earlier census records of St. George in the East. He surmised that surely this was 'Cross'.

Chris Scott then put the icing on the cake with some additional discoveries that verified the connection, for which Michael Connor deserves most of the credit.

But, again: Michael Connor is extremely disappointed by the fact that so many of us continue to refer to Lechmere as 'Cross'.

[Mr Lucky]

In a recent thread, I seem to recall that we debated what was going on with the Nichols' killing.

It emerged that, in fact, several people may have had a motive or intent to deceive in connection with the crime - doctors and policemen appear to have treated the case rather dismissively at first, and probably made mistakes/ decisions they later regretted. They then, not surprisingly, attempted to cover-up their deficiencies.

Hi Phil,

I don't remember debating anything with you about Bucks row, can you do a link, or indicate which thread.

Thanks

[Colin Roberts]

People familiar with the details of the case will know exactly who is meant by the word "Cross".

People not familiar with the secondary literature on the case will have a much better chance of knowing who "Cross" is rather than "Lechmere", as he is called Cross in all of the accessible information about the case.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, it is always better to call him Cross.

And so we should continue referring to Ostrog as a suspect.

And if it is discovered that the true identity of 'Mary Jane Kelly' is ... let's say ... Jane Doe, then we should continue to refer to her as 'Kelly'.

As I stated Colin,

He chose that name himself, and as a human being he has that right. No matter how much you disagree, that's the name he wished to be known by at that moment in time.

Cross is his name.

Very well, Neil.

Mary Ann Kelly is her name.

I think you should publish a revised version of the article that you and Jake compiled.

[Mr Lucky]

A note to Michael Conner and Chris Scott

from the last work I sent to rip-

'Previous research by Derek Osborne, Michael Conner, Colin Roberts, Chris Scott and others has revealed that the man who called himself Charles Cross during the investigation of the murder of Mary Ann Nichols in 1888 was generally known as Charles Allen Lechmere. Cross was the name of his step father and the only other known use of the name Charles Cross occurs on census data from 1861. I have used the name Cross as it is the name I had originally associated with him and it’s the name used in the original source material.'

[Monty]

As I stated Colin,

He chose that name himself, and as a human being he has that right. No matter how much you disagree, that's the name he wished to be known by at that moment in time.

Cross is his name.

Monty

[Damaso Marte]

People familiar with the details of the case will know exactly who is meant by the word "Cross".

People not familiar with the secondary literature on the case will have a much better chance of knowing who "Cross" is rather than "Lechmere", as he is called Cross in all of the accessible information about the case.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, it is always better to call him Cross.

[Colin Roberts]

What name did he chose to give at inquest Colin?

If you decide not to respect that then fine.

However its a moot point in the context of this thread, no?

I don't, because it is not the name that he should have given, even if he did - for some inexplicable reason - go by the name of 'Cross' in certain circles.

He had but one true identity; and any inquest that was worth convening should have been made aware of it: Lechmere.

It is not a moot point in the context of this thread, because Mr. Lucky has chosen to use the name 'Cross' - and only the name 'Cross' - in the thread's title.

[Monty]

What name did he chose to give at inquest Colin?

If you decide not to respect that then fine.

However its a moot point in the context of this thread, no?

Monty

[Colin Roberts]

A note to Michael Connor and Chris Scott:

Your discovery regarding the TRUE identity of the man that identified himself as 'Charles Cross' during the course of the Nichols inquest, obviously means diddly fυcking squat to certain people around here.

How sad.

[Phil H]

but only the killer intended to deceive

I see no logic in this comment - among many peculiar statements it stuck out.

In a recent thread, I seem to recall that we debated what was going on with the Nichols' killing.

It emerged that, in fact, several people may have had a motive or intent to deceive in connection with the crime - doctors and policemen appear to have treated the case rather dismissively at first, and probably made mistakes/ decisions they later regretted. They then, not surprisingly, attempted to cover-up their deficiencies.

Against that background it might be difficult to determine who did not have an intent to deceive.

I thought too that we had determined that "Cross/Lechmere" (or some such formulation) was the best way of referring to one of the two men who discovered Nichols' body??

Phil