Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[CertainSum1]

Yeah like those. What I was pointing out is that unusual names weren't strange to them.

I'd assume not. It's their job.

[CertainSum1]

3. In researching Lechmere I found him reported in the 1861 census as Charles Cross, 11, living with Thomas Cross and his mother Maria Louisa Cross. We may be able to assume that his name was never legally changed. So that he appears in all official documentation as "Lechmere" but is known to everyone as "Cross" and remained "Cross" for the rest of his life. To me, this seems the simplest and most likely explanation.

If there was no problem with someone giving the census taker the name Cross in 1861, it seems unlikely that he wouldn't give it ever again if he usually went by the name Cross. He signed everything Charles Allen Lechmere even when it was likely a document that carried little legal consequence (such as a census).

[Columbo]

What shouldn't she call us, that big $10 word or old cocks?

Old..

[GUT]

It's not libel, if it's true.

That's right! I'm on to all you Lechmere haters! Why can't you just conform!

I'm kidding of course.


I don't think you should be calling them that...

What shouldn't she call us, that big $10 word or old cocks?

[Ausgirl]

I don't think you should be calling them that...

It's not libel, if it's true.

[Columbo]

Guys, I think he's figured out your machiavellian tag-team approach. You've been sprung, old cocks.

That's right! I'm on to all you Lechmere haters! Why can't you just conform!

I'm kidding of course.


I don't think you should be calling them that...

[Columbo]

Except I gave the examples #708 at 1:20

Patrick referred to them #713 at 3:53.

Not sure how that's before I mention them.

I know I'm from down under but time doesn't go backwards here and 1:20 is before 3:53 by about 2 1/2 hours isn't it?

Had to sort that one out. It's been a long day.

[Columbo]

But they spelt it wrong so it's possible that if faced with a choice between Lechmere and Cross they would go with Cross.

Absolutely possible. I have a hard time wrapping my head around why he would mention both and no paper would mention it. Just supposition on my part.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Yes, the thread is here Columbo:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8558

You need to read both #1 and #16 because I did two separate exercises having initially been misled by the TV documentary which said "the street layout is the same now as it was over a century ago". It turns out it isn't!

David,

I just finished your thread and I have to say that was excellent research. I didn't realize you were an author until I clicked on the link on the bottom of the post.

If no one has read this yet, they need to. This is the kind of information that should be posted before arguments ensue.

I appreciate you sharing this with us.

Columbo

[GUT]

Except I gave the examples #708 at 1:20

Patrick referred to them #713 at 3:53.

Not sure how that's before I mention them.

I know I'm from down under but time doesn't go backwards here and 1:20 is before 3:53 by about 2 1/2 hours isn't it?

[Ausgirl]

I think it's interesting that you knew GUT was going to give me these examples 10 minutes before he posted them......

Guys, I think he's figured out your machiavellian tag-team approach. You've been sprung, old cocks.

[GUT]

Yeah like those. What I was pointing out is that unusual names weren't strange to them.

But they spelt it wrong so it's possible that if faced with a choice between Lechmere and Cross they would go with Cross.

[Columbo]

You mean like


Times (London)
Tuesday, 19 March 1889

Diemschitz?

Yeah like those. What I was pointing out is that unusual names weren't strange to them.

[Columbo]

GUT just gave you two examples from THIS case that they DID NOT get right. So, what exactly is your point?

I think it's interesting that you knew GUT was going to give me these examples 10 minutes before he posted them......

I didn't say anyone got the right spelling, all I said was they were used to unusual names.

Why the hostility?

Columbo

[Columbo]

God. This is tedious. The least you could have done was gone back and read the post in question before repeatedly posting "yes you did". I; have saved you the trouble. It's below, in its entirety. Note I say ONLY THE NAME CROSS. That means what it says: ONLY CROSS and NOT Lechmere. OR BOTH NAMES: CROSS and LECHMERE (note: CROSS is still one of the names), or five names THREE of which we haven't learned (that's hyperbole but still, if you do simple math and subtract the three names we may not have learned from FIVE you get......TWO! And what are those two? CROSS and LECHMERE! LECHMERE and CROSS! There is no combination here that does not have him giving the name CROSS!

"I'll say again that we simply do not know if he gave only the name Cross at the inquest, if he gave both names: Cross and Lechmere, or five names, three of which we haven't learned. All we can rely upon are demonstrably inaccurate press reports as the official records no longer exist.

I'll readily admit that I simply do not know. I can only say what I think is likely, plausible, what makes sense with the minimum of assumption and invention.

Initially, l found the name issue suspicious. Even as we understand references like Annie Sivvey and Kate Conway tell us how identification was not then what it is now, I found it interesting. Yet, in researching it, I found it much less so. In fact, I convinced there are 100 more likely scenarios that explain the "name issue" before we suspect the man of being a serial killer."

Forgive me, I'm young and foolish.