Charles Lechmere interesting link

[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

[Lechmere]

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

[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

[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 wasn´t.

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

Don´t 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.

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

All the best,
Fisherman

[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

[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

[MrBarnett]

Hope this works - and is
not against the rules.




First one to guess what the initials stand for wins.

[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

[Fisherman]

Monty:

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.

No, it does not. That´s only in your fantasy. They are as far as I know neither, so why would I think they were...?

If they were placed before a court of law, under oath, and asked to state their names, then if Micklewhite said "Caine", he would not lie intentionally - as per my fomer post - but he would nevertheless not state the truth.

Of course, it all becomes a bit ridiculous in this example as Maurice Micklewhite is known to the world as Michael Caine, but if it is not his true name, it is a false name instead - that everybody uses and knows him by.

In 1888 was Cross calling himself Cross or Lechmere?

Lechmere. We know that. Cross? We don´t know that, other than from one single occasion - relating to the murder of Nichols. Which is the one and only exact reason that it is suspicious in the first place.

IF Michael Caine HAD been a killer (weird thought, but...), and put before a coroner, and stated that his name was Wiggins, it would also be suspicious. Not that it would prove that he did not think of himself as Wiggins or that somebody else perhaps did.

All the best,
Fisherman

[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

Law books and rules and regulations and all are of no consequence in this case, if he did not call himself Cross normally. And the signs are very clear - he probably did not.

That, and only that, is what matters in this case.

I don´t for a second believe that Lechmere used a stage name as he killed away. That is your take, Monty, not mine. It happens when you compare apples to pears.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

In 1888 we have the birth certificate for his daughter, her baptism, his electoral register entry and his children's registration at Essex Street School - all under Lechmere.

The notion that he called himself Cross or was known as Cross is unsupported.
He also clearly did not mention that his real name was Lechmere, and only gave Cross.
Bearing in mind the circumstance where he used the name Cross, I would suggest that it is of interest and would have been at the time had they discovered it.

The weight of evidence suggests that he used Cross for this one and only event. There is of course a chance that he was known as Cross at his workplace for example, but there is no evidence that can be produced to support that hypothesis.
If he did just use Cross for the purposes of his involvement in this case, and never before or after, then this does not mean that he was necessarily guilty of the murder.
But it is nevertheless as sign that he should be looked at with a degree of suspicion.

[Fisherman]

In 1888 we have the birth certificate for his daughter, her baptism, his electoral register entry and his children's registration at Essex Street School - all under Lechmere.

The notion that he called himself Cross or was known as Cross is unsupported.
He also clearly did not mention that his real name was Lechmere, and only gave Cross.
Bearing in mind the circumstance where he used the name Cross, I would suggest that it is of interest and would have been at the time had they discovered it.

The weight of evidence suggests that he used Cross for this one and only event. There is of course a chance that he was known as Cross at his workplace for example, but there is no evidence that can be produced to support that hypothesis.
If he did just use Cross for the purposes of his involvement in this case, and never before or after, then this does not mean that he was necessarily guilty of the murder.
But it is nevertheless as sign that he should be looked at with a degree of suspicion.

It is a given thing that suspicion must adher to his giving the name Cross instead of Lechmere, once we know that Lechmere was the name he otherwise signed or gave in all the recorded instances, 1888 included.

There is a lot of quibbling over whether the name Cross was a false name or not. To me, it is evident that only one name can be your true name - and the rest are false names, legally speaking.
Not everybody will agree with this, and it has been suggested that one man can have two or more names. Sadly, the rows about this question have been allowed to cloud the real issue at hand - is it suspicious that Lechmere used the name Cross in relation to the murder inquest and his contacts with the police?

In that case, it applies that regardless if we consider Cross - or any other name Lechmere could potentially have chosen - a false name or a perfectly "legal" one, we still do not have any recorded instance other than the inquest and his police contacts in relation to the murder when he called himself Cross. The 1861 census does not belong here witn any certainty, since he was probably signed as Cross by his stepfather back then.

So what do we have when the smoke clears?

-We have the fact that the records speak of Charles Lechmere as having signed himself or answered to the name Lechmere in all the 120 cases we have knowledge of, before, during and after 1888.

-We have not one single instance apart from the 1861 census and the murder-related events when we have himself answering to or signing his name Cross.

And in that context, all the quibbling over whether Cross was a true or a false name becomes immaterial to the real issue at hand - on the existing evidence, we have to deduct that suspicion must cling to his calling himself Cross in relation to the Polly Nichols murder inquiry and the inquest.

In reality, there is no need to use the term "false name" if it produces so much bad blood. We could just as well say that he on his own accord chose not to use his real name, the name he was listed by, when he spoke to the police and the inquest. The implications remain the exact same nevertheless, and we may perhaps discuss the issue with less animosity and more realism.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hence the use of the Cross name - he could come up with an explanation for its use if the name swap was exposed as it would have been if the police had visited his house.

What would his explanation be ? and would the Police have arrested him for supplying a false name regardless of his explanation ?

And if the answer is NO arrest , then surly we must conclude that there was indeed a legitimate foundation for his use of the name Cross .

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

What would his explanation be ? and would the Police have arrested him for supplying a false name regardless of his explanation ?

And if the answer is NO arrest , then surly we must conclude that there was indeed a legitimate foundation for his use of the name Cross .

cheers

moonbegger

People are rarely arrested for having used a name that is not their own, Moonbegger. It would not have happened here either, I´m sure.

What it could - and in an ideal world would - have brought about, would have been an interest in Lechmere on behalf of the police as the possible killer of Nichols. And so, they could - and in an ideal world would - have dug away and looked into Charles Lechmere, his routes, his timings, his performance at the inquest - and THEN they would have arrested him.

To counter your rather rash point, it would not by any means mean that the police would have considered there to have been "a legal foundation" for the name Cross if they did not arrest him. You can only have a legal foundation as such for your true name.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

So , your answer as I understand it Fish .. There would have been nothing criminal or illegal regarding his explanation , in fact it would have been accepted by investigating officers .. But he may have bought suspicion upon himself and put his ripping days in jeopardy IF he was the killer .

Am I close ?

moonbegger