Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Monty]

Monty:

A name he is known by, as long as he does not commit perjury.

In Sweden, he would be considered to have committed perjury if not admitting his real name before a court of law.

The man known as Cross gave his name as Cross, and acknowledged that name of Cross.

Who says he was known as Cross? Where did that come from, all of a sudden?

As the Cross name was not used to commit an offence, there is no relevance to the use of that, or any other, name.

In Sweden (again), as far as I know, it is an offence to not give your correct name to a court of law.

He chose that name. Therefore at that moment in time, his name was Cross. No matter what was used before or after.

So if he too had gone for Micklewhite, you would have been just as happy? And he would be just as much of a non-starter?

All the best,
Fisherman

As far as you know?

There we go then. I should have gone to you in the first place instead of looking through Howard-Vincent, the Rules and Regs, and my police law books.

Circular. For the sake of those who read this thread, and are now bored with this constant repetitive exchange, I'm done.

Y'all can thank me in flowers.

Monty

[MrBarnett]

Hope this works - and is
not against the rules.




First one to guess what the initials stand for wins.

[Monty]

Good question, where did I get that from?

The prudent thing to do in such cases is to call these men by their correct names when dealing with them in a historical context - not to accept their aliases because they chose to call themselves by those false names. They intended to mislead when doing so, and that should not be commended by accepting their lies.

Michael Caine is the stage name of Maurice Micklewhite, he has not changed it. As is Vic Reeves for Jim Muir. Muir is known to all his family and friends as Jim, including his performing partner Bob Mortimer.

In other words, they are know better by a name they chose than their birth name, however by your logic, that makes both Micklewhite and Muir deceivers and liars.

In 1888 was Cross calling himself Cross or Lechmere?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

A name he is known by, as long as he does not commit perjury.

In Sweden, he would be considered to have committed perjury if not admitting his real name before a court of law.

The man known as Cross gave his name as Cross, and acknowledged that name of Cross.

Who says he was known as Cross? Where did that come from, all of a sudden?

As the Cross name was not used to commit an offence, there is no relevance to the use of that, or any other, name.

In Sweden (again), as far as I know, it is an offence to not give your correct name to a court of law.

He chose that name. Therefore at that moment in time, his name was Cross. No matter what was used before or after.

So if he too had gone for Micklewhite, you would have been just as happy? And he would be just as much of a non-starter?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

To state Cross is a false name is erroneous ad misleading.

No, it is not. To state that it was his true name is, though.

To state he lied about his name, is erroneous and misleading.

No, I would not agree, although this issue is on a slightly different level - if he was known as Cross and called himself Cross on an everyday basis, then it could be reasoned that he did not lie intentionally when giving his name as Cross. It applies however, that it STILL was not his true name. And since all other names than your true name are false names, it would be a lie to say that his name was Cross. It wasnīt.

Maurice Micklewhite decided to call himself Micheal Caine. Is he a liar and a devious serial killer?

Donīt be ridiculous. Nobody says that using an alias makes you a serial killer or even a bad person. Where did you get that from? Caine changed his name, Monty. Different story.
But after having changed his name he was not both Maurice Micklewhite and Michael Caine in the eyes of the law.

I suspect that you use of the word 'false' is down to the fact English is your second language, and not because you wish to influence the readership.

Itīs perhaps more of a cultural difference, actually. It seems the British take more lightly on matters like these.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Cross wasn't his true name.
Under oath what name should he have given?

A name he is known by, as long as he does not commit perjury.

The man known as Cross gave his name as Cross, and acknowledged that name of Cross.

As the Cross name was not used to commit an offence, there is no relevance to the use of that, or any other, name.

He chose that name. Therefore at that moment in time, his name was Cross. No matter what was used before or after.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Cross wasn't his true name.
Under oath what name should he have given?

[Monty]

As for my tone in this debate, I was actually addressing Ed when you decided to wade in.

Yes, I can be to the point at times, however so can you, so I don't think you can seriously take the moral high ground on that point.

Monty

[Monty]

To state Cross is a false name is erroneous ad misleading.

To state he lied about his name, is erroneous and misleading.

Maurice Micklewhite decided to call himself Micheal Caine. Is he a liar and a devious serial killer?

I suspect that you use of the word 'false' is down to the fact English is your second language, and not because you wish to influence the readership.

Monty

[Fisherman]

You haven't, but if it pleases you childish need to think that, I'm happy. The relevance is immaterial. He is known as Cross, and stated as such.

Monty

Many killers have given false names to the authorities in combination with their activities: Peter Tobin, Vincent Tabak, Simon Hennesey, Darrell Crider, Moses Mathias ... heaps of them. The prudent thing to do in such cases is to call these men by their correct names when dealing with them in a historical context - not to accept their aliases because they chose to call themselves by those false names. They intended to mislead when doing so, and that should not be commended by accepting their lies.

The exact same thing must apply in this case. We do not know (well ... ) to what, if any, extent it applies that Charles Lechmere was the killer, but for claritys sake and to conform to the rule, he should be called by his true name, especially since we have it on record that it was the name he chose to go by himself. The only opposition is "Cross" and that suggestion is totally squashed numerically by Lechmere. All other suggestions are conjecture.

If there is any childishness at all involved - and there really ought not be, Monty - then it is on behalf of those who will not accept this. You are a researcher, and you should know this.

You may CHOOSE to call the carman Cross if it pleases you or if you just canīt bring yourself to go along with the evidence, the records, the name registers and the common approach, but what you need to avoid is to call me childish for sticking with the truth and the norm.

On the whole, and as usual when you enter the Lechmere (yes!) debate, what does crop up is antagonism, belittling and bad temper.That in itself is reason enough not to prolong this poor excuse for a debate.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

That leaves us on equal footing in that department, then. But I at least got the name right.

All the best,
Fisherman

You haven't, but if it pleases you childish need to think that, I'm happy. The relevance is immaterial. He is known as Cross, and stated as such.

Monty

[Fisherman]

He gave his name as Cross.

You've disappointed me Christer, but not surprised me.

Monty

That leaves us on equal footing in that department, then. But I at least got the name right.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

He gave his name as Cross.

You've disappointed me Christer, but not surprised me.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty!

As for what you have called me and inferred, I know that very well. And on second thoughts, I would not have had much reason to object to you calling me ignorant, since I am about to do the exact same about your take. The reason being that you have just shown ignorance by claiming that Lechmere (that IS his name) is a non-starter as a valid suspect.

Tar and feathers, Monty - tar and feathers.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

My point, proven.

For clarity. I have not called you ignorant Christer. I suspect it is a language thang, however it needs to be pointed out.

And to answer your persistent question, Cross, as it stands, is a non- starter as a valid suspect. This down to insufficient damning evidence which is reasonably dismissed.

His actions at the scene are consistant with other witnesses, his circumstances cover thousands in the area. There is no reason, at present, to suspect Cross as the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols, nor any other victim associated with the Whitechapel Murders.

The fact we are continuouisly debating the same concerns regarding this theory, nigh on 5 years after they were raised, is testament to the fact that evidence is circumstantial at best, and stretched beyond reason at worst.

That, at present, is where we are.

Now I await your inevitable response with hope you shall provide something new of interest.

Dont disappoint me.

Monty