Charles Lechmere interesting link

[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

[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: 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]

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

[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!

[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

[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]

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.

[moonbegger]

I sense them old goalposts are being shifted once again

But still nothing about Stepney 1903 neighbors

"Perhaps if we ignore it long enough people will forget it , then we can wheel out the false assumptions again" is that the game plan ? I'm seeing that a lot here .

We are supposed to accept that Lechmere was in fact calling himself Cross locally,

Can you prove he was not ? NO ... We have only one example of what he called himself in day to day life revolving around day to day events , and that is Cross ! He was known as Cross .. There are hard Facts that he called himself Cross . He was accepted as Cross , No one questioned he was Cross , his address was public knowledge , his Work place , his neighbors , no one questioned his honesty because he was who he said he was .. Regardless of his respectable family name that he used as a lottery ticket,
as has been well documented throughout history , everyone knew him as Cross .

There is nothing you have to disprove that he was known as Cross at work , in the pub , on the street , in 1888 ..

We can all fantasize ! but lets call it what it is ..

cheers , Moonbegger

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

I sense them old goalposts are being shifted once again

How so, Moonbegger? Just tell me, and we will see. Iīm sure I can straighten it all out for you.

Can you prove he was not ? NO ... We have only one example of what he called himself in day to day life revolving around day to day events , and that is Cross ! He was known as Cross ..

Well, whaddoyouknow? You have my post to DRoy right in front of you, and you still make the exact same mistake.

The fact that you call yourself by a name does not mean that you are known by that name. Is that in any way hard to grasp?

If you are taken by the police, and if you do not wish the police to identify you, you may think up a name and claim that it is yours; Brown, Higgins, von Strutz, Archimboldo, van Brainless ...

Now tell me precisely how using such a name at an inquest guarantees that you are known by that name!

By the way, witnessing at an inquest after a murder is interestingly something you choose to describe as a "day to day event". Are you sure that you donīt want to rephrase that?

There are hard Facts that he called himself Cross .

Yes! At the inquest he did so. But there are no facts whatsoever that anybody else did call him Cross in 1888. If I am wrong, correct me. If I am right, accept it!

He was accepted as Cross , No one questioned he was Cross

To do so, it would require that the inquest suspected that he lied about his name. They accepted ALL the names they were told, did they not? And that, my friend, makes the "point" you are making totally and utterly worthless.

...his address was public knowledge

IF you read the witness list, yes. Otherwise not - and YOU were the one who spotted this, remember, thinking that he was part of a witness protection programme. A programme that kept the names Charles Allen ...!?

his Work place ,

.... which he shared with hundreds of other men.

his neighbors , no one questioned his honesty because he was who he said he was ..

Are you suggesting that his neighbors were at the inquest...? Nobody questioned ANY of the names and addresses presented. Why would they, Moonbegger? Tell me!

Regardless of his respectable family name that he used as a lottery ticket,

That is conjecture and nothing else. You are disqualifying yourself by resorting to it.

as has been well documented throughout history , everyone knew him as Cross .

That is a blatant and obvious untruth, Iīm afraid. We know for a fact that all the authoirities knew him as Lechmere, but we donīt have any recording of any person in the whole wide world knowing him as Cross, apart from his stepfather in 1861 - and that signing of the name Cross is something we donīt even know whether the rest of the family approved of or not.

You are hallucinating, Moonbegger. And badly so.

There is nothing you have to disprove that he was known as Cross at work , in the pub , on the street , in 1888 ..

Oh yes, there is! There are 120 signatures that, in combination with the statistical fact that people who sign themselves by a name also normally call themselves by that same name, tells us that he in all probability was called Lechmere in the pubs and streets too.

We can all fantasize ! but lets call it what it is ..

I donīt mind you doing that at all, Moonbegger. As long as you admit it freely, you just conjecture away. Be my guest!

Myself, I stick with the known facts and the statistical truths.

All the best,
Fisherman

[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?

Haha Fish, try again. He testified at the inquest as Cross. That is in evidence. This is evidence he thought of himself as Cross otherwise he wouldn't have gave evidence as Cross. Show me anyone (including himself) calling him anything but Cross. You have he signed his name as Lech, that's it. I've told you these are two different things.

Cheers
DRoy

[Lechmere]

He testified that his name was Cross.
His name was not Cros.
Every time he gave his name, not necessarily as a signature, but when dealing with any form of authority that we have a record for, he gave Lechmere.
Testifying at an inquest into a brutal murder victim was possibly the most serious incident in his life. It was not a moment to engage in matey nick names.
In his well documented life the only instance we have for this person choosing to use the name Cross was at the inquest.
Thanks to DRoy we know that people tended to 'fess up to any other name when testifying. Lechmere notably did not. He kept his gob shut.

You are welcome to think that there can be nothing in this, if that rocks your boat.

[Scott Nelson]

My boat has been rocked. And I definitely think there's something to this.

[Barnaby]

With respect to the name, I tend to agree with the arguments put forward by the pro-Lechmere camp. To play devil's advocate, however, he didn't exactly pull "Cross" out of thin air. He didn't say his name was Charles Smith, Jones, Cohen (or better yet, Blade, Jackman, Kills, Dononhors, etc.). Of course, the pro-Lechmere camp will respond: If the police check up on it, he needs a reasonable explanation. But it could be argued (more effectively?) that if they checked up on it and Lechmere was known by Lechmere everywhere then he'd have an awful lot of explaining to do regardless. This lends support to the fact that he was known as "Cross" at least to some who could vouch for it.

By the way, if he was known by Cross at work, I don't see that as necessarily problematic with his Ripper candidacy. He's a good suspect regardless.

[Barnaby]

To the powers that be: This debate would make an awesome Rippercast!