Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

The suspect gave his true name in court, the problem was everybody knew him as Mitchell including two officers and the victim!
Cheers
DRoy

Go back to the Old Bailey proceedings, DRoy, and read again. Is it true that "everybody" knew Hyam Hyamsībrother Solomon as "Mitchell"?

Scroll down and take a look. Is it not true that two persons claim that he was never known as Mitchell to them? That other people in his vicinity were sometimes called Mitchell but never him?

Iīl quote it for you, to facilitate, first Nathan Cohen:

"What name have you known Hyam's by?"

"Nothing but Hyams—I never heard him called by any other name—I never heard him called by the name of Mitchell—when the man came out and ran away Mrs. Hart said it was Hyam's son, and she said, "You have no occasion to run for I know youo:—I am sure she did not say, "There goes Mitchell"—did not know the person..."

... and then Julia Dyas:

"How long have you known Hyams?"

"A great while—I have lived in the same house with him for fourteen months—I have heard his friends called Mitchell, but I always heard of him by the name of Hyams—I never knew him go by any other name than Hyams—I never knew him called Mitchell—he does not go by the name—I cannot tell exactly what friends they were that were called Mitchell, they were different people."

As is often the case with fishmongers, there is something decidedly fishy going on here. Solomon Hyams was convicted of burglary and sentenced to death, so apparently the court did not put much stock in him. Could it be that they were of the view that Solomon used the name Mitchell only selectively, and then for criminal purposes? That he wanted policemen to think he was called Mitchell, and not Hyams? Who knows? For some reason, a number of his friends were apparently called Mitchell, oddly enough. At any rate, I think the implications are rather different than the ones you lead on.

I have said before and I will say again that dabbling with aliases and hiding the truth about names and such matters is common practice among criminals. And it therefore fits the bill precisely that our carman was into this business - even if we cannot prove that he was so for a sinister reason.

But the circumstantial evidence to bolster it is there a plenty.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Incidentally, both Cohen and Dyas are jewish names if I am not much mistaken, and so it seems that we have a case where all the goj think or claim that Solomon was called Mitchell, whereas the jews says he was never called anything but Hyams. It could perhaps be worth reflecting on.

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

We have evidence he was known as Cross because that is what he called himself.
Cheers
DRoy

Sorry, DRoy, but we do not have any evidence at all that he was known as Cross. We only have evidence that he called himself Cross at the inquest, but that is not the same thing.

Iīll show you why:

Rupert Wigginbottom!

There, I just called you Rupert Wigginbottom.

This post is evidence that I called you Rupert Wigginbottom.

Is it therefore also evidence that you are KNOWN as Rupert Wigginbottom?

Maybe you should have thought about that before you posted?

You don't have any evidence he called himself Lechmere, you only have evidence he signed his name Lechmere.

Eh...? That is actually the same thing. You donīt have to verbally pronounce the name to have called yourself by it. If somebody tells you to write your name down, and you write Rupert Higginbottom, then you call yourself Rupert Wigginbottom.
Consequentially, you will also become known as Rupert Wigginbottom if you persist writing yourself thusly and spread the signatures among people.

If you could only call yourself something by pronouncing the name, the dumb people of this world could never call themselves anything. They would be doomed to a nameless existence. And I know a few of them who would not like that. I actually know them by name. I know what they call themselves. Silently.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Do your example testified under his true name but explained he was also known 'in the hood' under a different name.
Lechmere didn't testify under his true name, in fact he did not reveal it at all.
Instead he testified under another name that you believe he would have used and been known as 'in the hood'.
This is indeed a useful example of the use of alternative which I shall make use of!

Now DRoy wonīt bother responding to you either, Edward. We are supposed to accept that Lechmere was in fact calling himself Cross locally, not to use DRoys examples to our advantage...

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Do your example testified under his true name but explained he was also known 'in the hood' under a different name.
Lechmere didn't testify under his true name, in fact he did not reveal it at all.
Instead he testified under another name that you believe he would have used and been known as 'in the hood'.
This is indeed a useful example of the use of alternative which I shall make use of!

[DRoy]

Now, are we done supplying the boards with examples of people who did what we donīt know that Lechmere did? Or is there more?

Fish,

I'm not going to bother responding to everything you wrote. Same old, same old.

I'll try to explain the Old Bailey case one more time for you. Here was my quote from the case...

HYAM HYAMS: The prisoner is my brother—my mother's maiden name was Mitchell—she being a hard-working woman, and a public character, by selling fish in the street, used to be called Mitchell, and as such I and my brothers are called Mitchell at times, but we have no right to the name.

The suspect gave his true name in court, the problem was everybody knew him as Mitchell including two officers and the victim! His brother Hyam Hyams explains why they were known as Mitchell. He could use his name all he wanted, others in the hood knew him as Mitchell. Lech could have signed himself Lech all he wanted but he could have called himself as Cross and everyone from his hoods could have known him as Cross.

You'll throw out the 'no evidence' thing again in which case i'll throw out the fact that based on the evidence he called himself Cross regardless what his true name was. We have evidence he was known as Cross because that is what he called himself. You don't have any evidence he called himself Lechmere, you only have evidence he signed his name Lechmere.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy: Fish,

He went by his real name and gave his real name, but those in the hood (including two police officers) knew him as his mother's maiden name. A name he had no right at all to.

Aha. So a different story then - the guy came clear about his name before the court. Which was exactly what Lechmere did NOT do.
And I take it this was a criminal character too? Because what I have been saying all along is that the propensity to use two alternative names seems to be interconnected with criminal activities to a very large extent.

This was my point. You have evidence he signed his name as Lech but you don't have evidence whether he was known by others as Cross or not. If he was known as Cross in the hood then him giving the name that most know him by doesn't seem so suspicious.

Of course it will alter the picture to a significant extent if he was known as Cross locally. But I keep coming back to the same thing, DRoy: we have no evidence whatsoever, not one single scrap of it, that he actually WAS known as Cross in any context at all!
That is just conjecture, while it is very real and very apparent that he was known as Lechmere to those who had him sign his name.

The examples of how people sometimes use two names keep raining down over me. It is as if I had somehow opposed that people may do this. But I havenīt.

I am quite, quite confident that somebody, somewhere has used fourteen different names. I know that people who call themselves X before a judge are at times actually called Y. Of course people will sometimes have chosen to go by some relatives name instead of the one they are legally listed by.

Itīs not as if I am saying that this never happens.

But where is the evidence that this applies to Lechmere? Where is it, DRoy? Because if we donīt have that evidence, this discussion is a total waste of time.

If Lechmere had called himself Lechmere before the coroner, it would have been fine and dandy.

If he had called himself Cross, and if he had signed himself Cross, we would realize that he was in the habit of using another name than his real one. And that would have been fine and dandy too.

But what do we have? We have a man who habitually signs himself Lechmere on all the occasion we are able to find, who has a wife he has wed by the name of Lechmere, who has kids he has baptized by the name of Lechmere, who signs documents by the name of Lechmere - but who calls himself Cross when speaking to the police.

Unfortunately, this tallies TOTALLY with a wish to keep the ones who knew him in the dark.

Unfortunately, he ALSO ommitts to give his address before the inquest, which ALSO totally goes to hide his identity from the same categories of people.

Unfortunately, he goes to the inquest in his working clothes, which ALSO totally points to a wish to stay undetectable for the exact same category of people.

This means that his calling himself Cross is utterly, totally and undeniably EXACTLY in line with the very suspicious behaviour Edward and I have suggested - a wish to conceal his true identity from his kin and friends.

No Fish, you make it seem that easy but it isn't that simple.

Really? I thought the listing above should be simple and apparent enough. I think you are the one who tries to make things complicated - and that you fail to produce any evidence at all supporting the suggestion.

If you are talking about the population, I'd agree with you... but we are talking about just one man specifically. You've proved he signs his name Lechmere. What you haven't shown is that he was known only as Lechmere and not Cross or any other name for that matter.

But I donīt have to prove that at all, DRoy. Statistically it applies that ninetynine per cent or something like that of the people who witness before a coroner give their real names, and statistically it also applies that they go by the same name in their everyday lives. So what I am saying is that it is far more likely that Lechmere belongs to this statistically overwhelmingly dominant group of people.

The onus of proof is therefore firmly on you. You suggest that Lechmere belonged to a miniscule group of people who sign themselves by their correct names, but who live their everyday lives under another name altogether. And to boot, who selectively choose to alter the habit of signing themselves by their correct name on just the one occasion.

Thatīs a VERY rare beast we are talking about, DRoy!

We can't say what is more likely...

Yes we definitely can.

People who sign themselves by the name X nearly always live by the name X too. So it is incredibly more likely that Lechmere lived by the name Lechmere then by the name Cross. So that issue is easily settled. The one thing we cannot do is to exclude that he signed himself by one name but lived by another. It is statistically absurd, but we cannot disprove it.

That is all you have, Iīm afraid.

Saying most people who sign their name use that name is of course correct but what about the people that don't?

They are examples of something Lechmere is not an example of until we can prove he was.

Does it mean they are guilty of a crime or like my example can it be something as simple as a maiden name?

Donīt be silly. Donīt lead on idiotic conclusions on my behalf.

It is all very simple: We cannot know if such people are criminal or not. But we can prove statistically that the use of aliases is MORE common among the criminal classes than it is among honest people. But each case has to be taken on itīs own.
Incidentally, that is what you claim I am not doing with Lechmere, but the truth of the matter is that YOU donīt take his case on his own. You include him in the extremely small group of people who use aliases for honest reasons - and you have no evidence to support that he belongs there.

I, on the other hand, HAVE evidence in the ommission to mention his address and in the arriving to an inquest in working clothes, evidence that he wanted to obscure his identity from his close ones. It is circumstantial evidence, but quite powerful such evidence nevertheless.

Now, are we done supplying the boards with examples of people who did what we donīt know that Lechmere did? Or is there more?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

How do you know that he had two names then? If it wasnīt mentioned, when and how did you find out?

Did he call himself by his mothers maiden name but sign himself by his true name when addressing authorities?

Did he for some reson at some stage use his mothers maiden name instead when addressing an authority?

Also, was this man a criminal, or at least tried for some sort of fellany?

Fish,

He went by his real name and gave his real name, but those in the hood (including two police officers) knew him as his mother's maiden name. A name he had no right at all to.

If you want to say that Lech was actually Lech because that is what he signed his name as, so far yes you appear correct. However, you can't say with the same certainty that he wasn't known in the hood as Cross.

Nor am I saying that, DRoy. I CAN tell the difference about things I can guarantee and things I canīt.

This was my point. You have evidence he signed his name as Lech but you don't have evidence whether he was known by others as Cross or not. If he was known as Cross in the hood then him giving the name that most know him by doesn't seem so suspicious.

I'm saying it's likely he was known as Cross by at least some of those that knew him in his hood(s).

Just as I said two lines up, neither you nor I can establish what was likely in this particular context.
The only thing we CAN say with certainty is that people who habitually sign themselves by a name normally also use and live by that name. Statistically and logically, it therefore applies that our man went by the name of Lechmere.

No Fish, you make it seem that easy but it isn't that simple. If you are talking about the population, I'd agree with you... but we are talking about just one man specifically. You've proved he signs his name Lechmere. What you haven't shown is that he was known only as Lechmere and not Cross or any other name for that matter.

We can't say what is more likely but in everyone's opinion but a select few (for reasons similar to my example) believe him giving the name of Cross is not that suspicious. Saying most people who sign their name use that name is of course correct but what about the people that don't? Does it mean they are guilty of a crime or like my example can it be something as simple as a maiden name?

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

No this guy didn't divulge both names in my example.

How do you know that he had two names then? If it wasnīt mentioned, when and how did you find out?

Did he call himself by his mothers maiden name but sign himself by his true name when addressing authorities?

Did he for some reson at some stage use his mothers maiden name instead when addressing an authority?

Also, was this man a criminal, or at least tried for some sort of fellany?

If you want to say that Lech was actually Lech because that is what he signed his name as, so far yes you appear correct. However, you can't say with the same certainty that he wasn't known in the hood as Cross.

Nor am I saying that, DRoy. I CAN tell the difference about things I can guarantee and things I canīt.

I'm saying it's likely he was known as Cross by at least some of those that knew him in his hood(s).

Just as I said two lines up, neither you nor I can establish what was likely in this particular context.
The only thing we CAN say with certainty is that people who habitually sign themselves by a name normally also use and live by that name. Statistically and logically, it therefore applies that our man went by the name of Lechmere.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

I didn't actually mean working at broad street since 13 ..

At any rate, he could not have started working at the Broad Street depot until May 1868 - it was not opened until then.

But there would have been at least six years of work before he started at Broad street .. Unless you are suggesting that whilst all his friends were out working at age 13,14,15,16,17,18, he sat at home reading "How to commit the perfect murder" .

Just as a curiosity Fish .. At what point in his life, would you accept him being known as Cross ? baring in mind TeamL thought he had a good legit excuse for the use of the name if the Police came calling.

moonbegger

[DRoy]

It is important when you prove that it applies in Lechmeres case. Not before.

The Old Bailey people you speak of - but not exemplify ...? - divulged BOTH their names to the court. Lechmere did no such thing. He did not say "I am known as Cross, though my real name is Lechmere", did he? No, he gave just the ONE name, as if it was his true one.

Can you see the difference?

And please, DRoy, do keep in mind that 99 per cent of all honest men had just the one name, and were known under just that one name too.

There MAY be an innocent reason, but as it stands, the name swap remains suspicious, not least since we know for a fact that he used the name Lechmere regularly when speaking to authorities. And the police are a... yes...? CORRECT! The police are an authority!

So you fail once again. And to boot, you fail in the exact same fashion as on the last occasion. And the one before that. And the one before that. And the one ...

No that I have any hope at all that it will make you stop trying.

All the best,
Fisherman

Fish,

Fail in what exactly? Was this addressed to you?

The point was exactly as noted, whether he himself called himself Lech 100% of the time, others may call him Cross for the same reason as the example I provided.

No this guy didn't divulge both names in my example. If you read the case you'll see everyone knew him as his mother's maiden name, not his name, and yet he never ever even owned his mother's maiden name. Why did people know him as his mother's maiden name? Because she was in the hood for years selling fish (ironic I know). Is it just as likely a policeman's son in roughly the same situation be known in the hood as Cross? Yes in my opinion.

If you want to say that Lech was actually Lech because that is what he signed his name as, so far yes you appear correct. However, you can't say with the same certainty that he wasn't known in the hood as Cross. Those are two seperate matters that require their own seperate evidence to prove. I'm saying it's likely he was known as Cross by at least some of those that knew him in his hood(s).

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

But especially being the Step son of TC , he would have been working ( like all youngsters ) from the age a 13 .. at a job undoubtedly secured by his stepfather Cross's influence .. So six years of work as Cross the coppers son.
not an easy label to shake even if he wanted to . Especially if he needed a reference for Pickford's .

Nonsense. There is no reason to think he must have been labeled Cross at any stage, and we have his baptism to tell us what choice was made for him namewise.
At any rate, he could not have started working at the Broad Street depot until May 1868 - it was not opened until then. And he married in 1871 as Charles Allen Lechmere. The name he gave the census takers that same year, while staying in Mary Ann Street was Charles A Lechmere.

Born by a Lechmere, baptised Lechmere, married as a Lechmere, filling out his census form as Lechmere - yes, of course he would have called himself Cross!

Charles's Son Thomas was named after ?? I do remember Team Lechmere being adamant it was not PC Thomas Cross . I recall Uncle Thomas was a favorite , was he perhaps a main influence in what name would be best for the children ?

There were many Thomasī amongst the Lechmere relatives. And nobody can be "adamant" about which Thomas it was that gave his name to Charles' boy, since there can be no knowing. We CAN however be adamant that it need not have been his stepfathers name they took. What we can see is that the middle name Allen was added - and that one was a Lechmereian name. Itīs engraved on his gravestone - I know, because Iīve seen it. Charlesī father used the middle name Allen, Charles himself did and his son got it too. To me, that would seem to be a vote clearly in favour for his father and the Lechmereian name and heritage.

So once again, we are getting not an inch further - it remains an anomaly of a suspicious character that he used the name Cross one time and one time only as far as we can tell.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

I think he would have begun working at Broad Street at around the age of 19, years later. He said that he had been working at Pickfords for twenty years, and that takes us back to 1868. Incidentally, the Broad Street depot opened that very year, so it all makes sense this way.

But especially being the Step son of TC , he would have been working ( like all youngsters ) from the age a 13 .. at a job undoubtedly secured by his stepfather Cross's influence .. So six years of work as Cross the coppers son.
not an easy label to shake even if he wanted to . Especially if he needed a reference for Pickford's .

Charles's Son Thomas was named after ?? I do remember Team Lechmere being adamant it was not PC Thomas Cross . I recall Uncle Thomas was a favorite , was he perhaps a main influence in what name would be best for the children ?

PS .. I've not herd much of the Un Neighborly Neighbors conundrum since posting the Stepney 1903 Pic .. highlighting a Neighborly community ?

Cheers , Moonbegger

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

If you can think of a more convincing argument as to why a woman would marry for the second time and shortly afterwards insist her children were baptised in the name of her philandering ex, I'd love to hear of it.

She was a Lechmere before she married Thomas cross, MrBarnett - and she was a Lechmere after that too.
She married Cross bigamously. So in the eyes of the law, she was not a remarried woman, she was Maria Louisa Lechmere, married to John Allen Lechmere.
Consequently, in the eyes of the law, she could not baptize the kids Cross, could she? I mean, yes, she could have the act performed, but it would not be legally acknowledgeable, as far as I can tell.

" ...we have only two instances of Charles's surname around the time he began his career. One is the explicit use of the name Cross in the census, and the other makes most sense as a reaction to the fear that the name Cross might predominate and any hope of a Lechmere inheritance might be lost."

The baptism was in 1859, when he was approaching ten. The name that was given was Lechmere.

The census listing was in 1861, when he was eleven, going on twelve. It was in all probability filled out by his stepfather.

Therefore, in 1861, we still have no examples at all where he signed his name himself.

I think he would have begun working at Broad Street at around the age of 19, years later. He said that he had been working at Pickfords for twenty years, and that takes us back to 1868. Incidentally, the Broad Street depot opened that very year, so it all makes sense this way.

His marriage is thus much closer in time to that occasion, and he was married - at the age of 20 - as Charles Lechmere. He signed the name himself. And indeed, legally and technically, he could not have been a Cross in the first place on account of his mothers marriage to Thomas Cross being bigamous.

I donīt have a problem as such with Maria Louisa having used the name Lechmere with a built-in hope to some day perhaps aquire some of the Lechmere fortune on account of it. On the contrary, to me it dovetails perfectly with the sort of woman I think she would have been - industrious, dominant and strong, with a propensity to plan ahead.

What I would like to see, however, is that the Lechmeres - the wealthy ones, that is - actually did testify or give away money to children by the name of Lechmere and with a family link to themselves.
As for me, I would have thought that such a thing would point to a desire to lift their relatives out of the squalor of the East End and provide them with a life more worthy of their ancestry. But I donīt see this happening. All I can clearly see is how the deprived branch of the family was left to sink after Charlesīgrandfather had squandered his fortune.

This is why I do accept that Maria Louisaīs decision to baptise her children Lechmere could have had partly a legal background as per the bigamous wedding to Thomas Cross, and perhaps also a background rooted in some sort of hope of a future coincidence opening up some sort of prosperous opportunity for her kids.

In opposition to you, however, I donīt for a second think the inheritance bit had any true anchoring in some hitherto unheard of general Lechmereian custom. I need to see proof of that one before I believe in it!

I think it is far more credible to acknowledge that the name of Lechmere was more likely to open doors in the class-levelled Victorian society than the name Cross, and that Maria Louisa would have realized this and acted upon it. A Vanderbilt, an Astor, a Rockefeller would not prefer the names of Smith, Brown and Jones as substitutions. Not primarily because they would loose an inheritance on account of it - if the relatives knew their true ascendance, they were free to pour money over them just the same - but instead because their real names were door-openers for them.

I know quite well that you are not opposing the theory for the hell of it, MrBarnett. But I really do think that you sometimes forget what the nameswop implications would have meant to any lawenforcing person - and for a reason!!

Now I really must tend to other things. Thanks for the debate.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. If the guide on your nightly tour is who I think he is - and it IS the 25:th! - then I wish you a real eye-opener of an experience. Donīt stay home if it rains, mind you...

[MrBarnett]

I tire easily too, Fish, and I need my strength because if the rain stops I will be going on a nice guided tour of the East End this afternoon. All in a good cause and led by a very knowledgable person, I understand.

The reason these discussions go on ad nauseum is that often the point bring made is missed or ignored. What I think a lot of people think is very plausible is that while Charles was living as TC's stepson he may have unofficially adopted the name Cross. There are many on here, myself included, who have provided personal anecdotal evidence of just that kind of scenario. And what is significant about that period in his life is that is when he began his career.

The fact that before his mother married Cross and after Cross had died he used the name Lechmere is irrelevant. You have no more evidence of his using the name Lechmere at that time than you do of his using Cross. One example of each. 50:50. Except that one formal use of Lechmere can be interpreted as confirmation of the general use of Cross, whereas the one use of Cross for the whole family is unequivocal.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

The reason I don't spend as much time questioning some of the other highlights of Lech's case is that I don't have as much trouble believing them. I have said this before, but perhaps it didn't sink in. I don't get the name swap and I have a problem with the confidence regarding the routes to work. Most of the other stuff makes sense to me. Think of me as Doubting Thomas rather than Judas Iscariot.

I am well aware that late baptisms were quite common. Quite often you can figure out the reason. A couple may have a child out of wedlock or be too poor afford the baptismal fee. Then when a subsequent child comes along they have both children baptised. In this case, though, we have the anomaly of the children being baptised Lechmere shortly after she marries Mr Cross. I bet that situation was not very common. And I actually see it as confirmation of the use of the name Cross. She had the children baptised as Lechmere to keep the name alive at a time when it seemed it might fade away. So in my perverse world we have only two instances of Charles's surname around the time he began his career. One is the explicit use of the name Cross in the census, and the other makes most sense as a reaction to the fear that the name Cross might predominate and any hope of a Lechmere inheritance might be lost.

If you can think of a more convincing argument as to why a woman would marry for the second time and shortly afterwards insist her children were baptised in the name of her philandering ex, I'd love to hear of it.

MrB