Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Lechmere]

With the name issue of course all sorts of inventive reasons can be thought of for an innocent use of Cross based on information that we don't have. In other words not actually based on any information or evidence. Therefore as an exercise in 'breaking' a guilty reason for the name swap, it fails and has to fail.
This does not mean that the guilty reason for the name swap is proven, but when assessing a suspect's 'suspect status' a vigorous attempt must be made to 'break' the elements that go towards suggesting guilt or find something that proves innocence.
When dealing with a suspect this is the natural way to proceed (and is I believe the way police forces proceed) and a suspect cannot be dismissed unless the case against him is in some way broken.

[FrankO]

... and the name Lechmere was chosen to baptize him by, since ...??? By the way, his sister lived and died a Lechmere too. Maybe she also called herself Cross?

Don’t get all agitated, Christer. The notion that the family went or was known by the name of Cross during Maria's marriage to Thomas has no effect on Charles’ or his sister’s official surname. There’s nothing far-fetched about the notion. In fact, as MrB’s example and the 1861 census entry support, it’s very feasible indeed that this family and, therefore, Charles and his sister, were known by or called the name of Cross in that period, even though their official name remained Lechmere.

Possible? Yes, anything is.

Nope, not anything. Just Cross or Lechmere.

You need proof, not speculation, Frank. 120 signatures are waiting for that proof before they will go away.

What do your 120 signatures prove exactly? That this family in that period of time wasn’t known by the name of Cross? That it couldn’t have been? And that, therefore, Charles can't have used the name Cross in that period of his life? Or that, at least, people at Pickfords could never have come to know him by that name? If so, YOU need proof, Christer.

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

FrankO:

Don’t get all agitated, Christer.

Don´t presume I do when I don´t, Frank - that was a tongue in cheek remark, made with a smile on my lips.

The notion that the family went or was known by the name of Cross during Maria's marriage to Thomas has no effect on Charles’ or his sister’s official surname. There’s nothing far-fetched about the notion. In fact, as MrB’s example and the 1861 census entry support, it’s very feasible indeed that this family and, therefore, Charles and his sister, were known by or called the name of Cross in that period, even though their official name remained Lechmere.

Very feasible ineed? Or possible? Or a slight possibility? Or a good chance? Semantics are interesting things, are they not, Frank?
Nobody has said that the Lechmere children could not have been called Cross. What HAS been said is that there is no evidence at all supporting such a suggestion, and that it therefore lacks true leverage. It has nothing at all supporting it, whereas the baptism of Charles as a Lechmere together with the hundred plus signatures speaks a very clear language.

Nope, not anything. Just Cross or Lechmere.

Those are the chamipon and challenger bids, yes. But it applies that if we can suggest that the carman could have called himself Cross, he could equally have called himself Roulson - or any other name he had taken a liking to.

What do your 120 signatures prove exactly?

They are 110, apparently. But let´s find out!

That this family in that period of time wasn’t known by the name of Cross?

No.

That it couldn’t have been?

No.

And that, therefore, Charles can't have used the name Cross in that period of his life?

No.

Or that, at least, people at Pickfords could never have come to know him by that name?

No.

What the signatures prove is that Charles used the name Lechmere and not Cross in all contacts we know of with different authorities and had done so for at least nigh on twenty years when the Nichols murder took place - and quite probably, he had never used any other name.
By extension, it also proves that he should be expected to use the name Lechmere when speaking to the police in combination with the inquest, since the police represented an authority.
Furthermore, it proves that it was an anomaly when he used the name Cross instead, since as far as we know he habitually approached all authoritites as being Charles Allen Lechmere.

This is - beyond reasonable doubt - what it proves. And that firmly places the burden of proof on you. You are the one who - with zero substantiation - suggests that the carman in 1888 was perhaps in the habit of calling himself Charles Cross, in spite of and in direct conflict with all the evidence we have. You need to bolster that with something else than the out-of-the-blue suggestion that he MAY have called himself Cross.

It is in conflict with what we statistically know of the habits of honest men in the East End of the time. Aliases were not a common thing - on the contrary, they were apparently quite rare.

It is also in conflict with the collection of signatures that has been painstakingly gathered.

If I had said that he could not have used the name Cross, I would have understood what all the commotion is about. But I have not done so. I have pointed out that it is an unsubstatiated suggestion, and that - as such - it HAS to stand back to the substantiated fact that he DID call himself Lechmere in every recorded instance we have, apart from the 1861 census listing and the inquest proceedings.

If you disagree with this, then say so. If not, you have taken your point as far as it is gonna go.

All the best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

You are the one who - with zero substantiation - suggests that the carman in 1888 was perhaps in the habit of calling himself Charles Cross, ...

Huh?? Where did I say that?

[moonbegger]

So the crux of the matter is thus ( and I think everyone agrees on this )
Sometimes he referred to himself as Cross , and sometimes as Lechmere , he has a history with both names , so nothing unusual so far ..

We know at the time of the Murders , he was responding to the name Cross , we do not know his reasoning for this , we can only guess and make wild accusations , there are hundreds of perfectly innocent and reasonable explanations that could account for this .

As Fish & Lech have correctly pointed out , he would have had his back up name ( Cross) and all the explanations for using it , ready to go at any time ..

Maybe even at a time when he was first on the scene at a murder , maybe even disturbing it , interrupting the infamous Nichol street or high rip gang who were well known for there retribution , and who were suspects number 1at the time for a spate of brutal murders ..

Would that not be a perfect time for him to protect his family by keeping his and his family's name out of the headlines by using his good ole step dads Surname .. I know as sure as I have a hole in my ass it would be for me .

Cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Huh?? Where did I say that?

Your whole argument builds on it, Frank - hadn´t you noticed? Or are you saying that he did NOT call himself Cross, but had the right to do so whenever he wished just the same?

Please explain to me, Frank - what ARE you saying?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

So the crux of the matter is thus ( and I think everyone agrees on this )

You will be surprised, I think!

Sometimes he referred to himself as Cross , and sometimes as Lechmere , he has a history with both names , so nothing unusual so far ..

Wrong.

We know at the time of the Murders , he was responding to the name Cross...

Wrong.

... we do not know his reasoning for this , we can only guess and make wild accusations , there are hundreds of perfectly innocent and reasonable explanations that could account for this .

And a sinister one - you forgot that!

As Fish & Lech have correctly pointed out , he would have had his back up name ( Cross) and all the explanations for using it , ready to go at any time ..

He MAY have had that, and it seems he did so at the inquest.

Maybe even at a time when he was first on the scene at a murder , maybe even disturbing it , interrupting the infamous Nichol street or high rip gang who were well known for there retribution , and who were suspects number 1at the time for a spate of brutal murders ..

I can see where this is going ... sigh!

Would that not be a perfect time for him to protect his family by keeping his and his family's name out of the headlines by using his good ole step dads Surname .. I know as sure as I have a hole in my ass it would be for me .

Yes, Moonbegger, but you have other parts to employ too when assessing this business. He gave his working place, and it was known that he passed through Buck´s Row at approximately 3.25-3.40 in the mornings. He would have been an easy enough prey to find, had they wanted to.

Plus, of course, you end up in the out-of-the-blue-suggesting crowd too. Substantiate, and you´re fine. Don´t, and you´re not.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

And on another point regarding " Presenting himself at the station " a term that has drifted into the fact tin for some bazar reason ..

A guilty CrossMere presenting himself anywhere , suits and fits in so well with the cool, calm, calculating murderer theory , that has him in charge and holing all the aces .. Unfortunately there is Zero evidence for him doing so ..

In fact , quite the opposite is more likely .. Especially following Paul's press report the day before that positioned CrossMere "Up where the body was"

It is a lot more likely that the police fished him out, either on his way to work , or at work and interrogated him and most definitely Checked out his story and background ..

Only then .. could he plea with them and ask due to his , and his family's fear of retribution , could he go under his other name "Cross"

You know it makes sense Rodney ,,

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Sometimes he referred to himself as Cross , and sometimes as Lechmere , he has a history with both names , so nothing unusual so far ..

Wrong.

Really Fish .. He didn't stand at the Inquest as Cross ????

We know at the time of the Murders , he was responding to the name Cross...

Wrong.

As above ????

moonbeggersbelief

[Fisherman]

And on another point regarding " Presenting himself at the station " a term that has drifted into the fact tin for some bazar reason ..

A guilty CrossMere presenting himself anywhere , suits and fits in so well with the cool, calm, calculating murderer theory , that has him in charge and holing all the aces .. Unfortunately there is Zero evidence for him doing so ..

In fact , quite the opposite is more likely .. Especially following Paul's press report the day before that positioned CrossMere "Up where the body was"

It is a lot more likely that the police fished him out, either on his way to work , or at work and interrogated him and most definitely Checked out his story and background ..

Only then .. could he plea with them and ask due to his , and his family's fear of retribution , could he go under his other name "Cross"

You know it makes sense Rodney ,,

moonbegger

This has been discussed many timed before. Let´s just say that it is anything but "a lot more likely" that the police secured him. They effectively denied Paul´s story, so why would they try and find a man they thought was a figment of Pauls mind in the first place? There are also the time issues to consider.

But I will not go over it all again. You are welcome to any misconception you like.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

Really Fish .. He didn't stand at the Inquest as Cross ????

What was wrong was your claim that there was nothing unusual about a man with two identities. It was, is and remains decidedly unusual.

As above ????

We do NOT know that he was responding to the name Cross "at the time of the murders" - we only know that he claimed at the inquest that he was called Cross.
Which name he actually responded to on a daily basis at that time, we have no certain knowledge of - but the gathered material and evidence tells us that "Lechmere" is by far the best bid.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Probably just another "mailbox" on my behalf, then, Gut - English is my second language and England is my second cultural sphere, so I´m bound to get it wrong at times. I take comfort in the English-speaking peoples shortcomings when it comes to the Swedish language ...

The best,
Fisherman

Or in my case English-speaking peoples shortcomings when it comes to the English language ..

[Fisherman]

Or in my case English-speaking peoples shortcomings when it comes to the English language ..

Swedes do that too - with Swedish, of course. All the time, sadly.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Swedes do that too - with Swedish, of course. All the time, sadly.

The best,
Fisherman

I get paid to talk, and have done n one form or another most of my workng lfe, but I listen to some people and think gosh they talk puuurty.

[moonbegger]

We do NOT know that he was responding to the name Cross "at the time of the murders" - we only know that he claimed at the inquest that he was called Cross.
Which name he actually responded to on a daily basis at that time, we have no certain knowledge of - but the gathered material and evidence tells us that "Lechmere" is by far the best bid.

When exactly was the Inquest Fish ? was it not at the time of the murders ? The only official instance we have of this witness answering to any name at the time of the murders is when he went by the name Cross , At the time of the murders

Albeit , it may not have been his regular name at that time .. it is however a name he was used to , had a history with , and chose to use !

Which name he actually responded to on a daily basis at that time, we have no certain knowledge of

When he was marched into the inquest that morning , you can bet your bottom dollar he was answering to the name of Cross ..

cheers

moonbegger