What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Thanks to David Orsam and John G for their help!

On Davids "I know what the answer is but I don't think it will satisfy you.", I can only say that the truth will do nicely to satisfy me.
I respect your wish to stay out of the Lechmere debate, though.

[John G]

But what made a name legitimate? Surely that is the pertinent question here?

You write that nobody would have cared which name you used at an inquest, as long as it was not a false name. But what was a false name?

Would the name Cross be legitimate to use, on account of the former connection Lechmere had to it? He was baptized Lechmere the year after his mother married Thomas Cross, so there was an apparent choice made, opting for the Lechmere name.

To what - if any - extent would a name require having been formerly used by a carrier to count as legal?

Putting it shorter: When the carman used the name Cross, was it a legal thing to do? Can it be established?

Hi Fisherman,

I don't know what the position would have been in the 19th century, but it does appear that, under current English Law, the use of fake identities in court is not illegal. Or at least that's what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner seems to think! See:http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/o...ake-identities

[David Orsam]

'The Coroner is a public elective office, and the jurors are sworn to the just execution of their office' (3 (3)) ; 'The coroner's inquisition is in no case conclusive, and the inquiry is therefore preliminary only.' (3 (3)) 'Nor can there be any objection to receiving statements not on oath, which though not received in evidence, may assist the inquiry' (4 (1)) - it was a hasty reading of this that persuaded me witnesses were not on oath, in which I was wrong - they were not necessarily on oath as opposed to the jurors (who certainly were). 'The coroner shall examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts.' (4 (1)) - this refers to the viewing of the body and establishment of identity and cause of death. 'The jury shall state their verdict ... who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if by murder ... the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder.' (4 (3)) 'Where a coroner's inquisition charges a person with the offence of murder ... the coroner shall issue his warrant for arresting or detaining such person .. to appear at the next court of oyer and terminer, at which the trial is to be.' (5 (1)).
Coroners Act 1887.

I hope none of that was posted to justify what you said in #477 because none of it does.

[David Orsam]

But what made a name legitimate? Surely that is the pertinent question here?

You write that nobody would have cared which name you used at an inquest, as long as it was not a false name. But what was a false name?

You gave the example of "Donald Duck" earlier so you know what a false name is.

Look at the example of Julia Venturney. That is how she signed her deposition when she gave evidence as a witness at the Kelly inquest. But was her real name Van Teurney? Or was it Vanternie? Both of which seem to have applied to her. Did anyone care? No.

Like I said earlier, I'm not getting sucked into the Lechmere/Cross issue. You'll to apply the principles yourself. I know what the answer is but I don't think it will satisfy you.

[Mirandola]

'The Coroner is a public elective office, and the jurors are sworn to the just execution of their office' (3 (3)) ; 'The coroner's inquisition is in no case conclusive, and the inquiry is therefore preliminary only.' (3 (3)) 'Nor can there be any objection to receiving statements not on oath, which though not received in evidence, may assist the inquiry' (4 (1)) - it was a hasty reading of this that persuaded me witnesses were not on oath, in which I was wrong - they were not necessarily on oath as opposed to the jurors (who certainly were). 'The coroner shall examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts.' (4 (1)) - this refers to the viewing of the body and establishment of identity and cause of death. 'The jury shall state their verdict ... who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if by murder ... the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder.' (4 (3)) 'Where a coroner's inquisition charges a person with the offence of murder ... the coroner shall issue his warrant for arresting or detaining such person .. to appear at the next court of oyer and terminer, at which the trial is to be.' (5 (1)).
Coroners Act 1887.

[Fisherman]

The key is in the word "legitimate". If you have two legitimate names then either one can legitimately be used. At inquests, I don't think anyone actually cared which name a witness used, as long as it was not a false name. A false name is an illegitimate alternative name. There is a difference.

But what made a name legitimate? Surely that is the pertinent question here?

You write that nobody would have cared which name you used at an inquest, as long as it was not a false name. But what was a false name?

Would the name Cross be legitimate to use, on account of the former connection Lechmere had to it? He was baptized Lechmere the year after his mother married Thomas Cross, so there was an apparent choice made, opting for the Lechmere name.

To what - if any - extent would a name require having been formerly used by a carrier to count as legal?

Putting it shorter: When the carman used the name Cross, was it a legal thing to do? Can it be established?

[David Orsam]

What I am after here is what it was that made an alternative name legitimate. And how many such legitimate aliases could you have? Were they all legal to use when under oath? Was there such a thing as illegitimate alternative names?

These are questions that have remained unanswered, for some reason. And the legislation in Britain seems to differ wildly from the one here in Sweden.

The key is in the word "legitimate". If you have two legitimate names then either one can legitimately be used. At inquests, I don't think anyone actually cared which name a witness used, as long as it was not a false name. A false name is an illegitimate alternative name. There is a difference.

[Fisherman]

Apart from Eddowes and Kelly.

Ha - thatīs right.

I would have preferred to have Nichols and Chapman, though...

[Fisherman]

Without wishing to get sucked into the Lechmere/Cross debate, the plain fact, as has been discussed on here many times, is that some people in the 19th century, and beyond, legitimately had more than one name.

What I am after here is what it was that made an alternative name legitimate. And how many such legitimate aliases could you have? Were they all legal to use when under oath? Was there such a thing as illegitimate alternative names?

These are questions that have remained unanswered, for some reason. And the legislation in Britain seems to differ wildly from the one here in Sweden.

[David Orsam]

The actual inquest documents are not available, no - not in any of the Ripper cases.

Apart from Eddowes and Kelly.

[Fisherman]

In post 451, the quote from the Telegraph disproves Fisherman's point 7, in which Cross/Lechmere supposedly refused to prop up the woman he and Paul were examining.

In the Telegraph article, they are quoting Cross/Lechmere as the "witness", and have him suggesting they prop her up, while "the other man" (presumably Paul) refuses to touch her.

I've been told before that other newspaper accounts have it the other way round. Are the actual inquest documents available or not? If not, the newspaper accounts aren't the best source material to figure out what really happened.

The actual inquest documents are not available, no - not in any of the Ripper cases.
However, when it omes to a matter such as the one you are speaking about, I find it useful to look at the papers reporting ad verbatim, like The Morning Advertiser:

Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood.

It appears that my point is anything but "disproven" - it is called into question, but it is easy enough to see which version applies.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I believe County Coroners in England were elected by freeholders until 1888, but then, by virtue of the Local Government Act 1888, the appointment was given to the county council, who could appoint any fit person, not being a county alderman or county councillor, to fill the office.

That makes sense, thanks John.

[Pcdunn]

In post 451, the quote from the Telegraph disproves Fisherman's point 7, in which Cross/Lechmere supposedly refused to prop up the woman he and Paul were examining.

In the Telegraph article, they are quoting Cross/Lechmere as the "witness", and have him suggesting they prop her up, while "the other man" (presumably Paul) refuses to touch her.

I've been told before that other newspaper accounts have it the other way round. Are the actual inquest documents available or not? If not, the newspaper accounts aren't the best source material to figure out what really happened.

[John G]

By way of clarification, prior to the creation of the London County Council in 1889, the process appears to have been slightly different for the Metropolitan area of London and Middlesex. According to the Times, in respect of the appointment of Dr George Danford Thomas as coroner:

"Dr Hardwicke, when Coroner for Central Middlesex, invited him to act as his deputy, and on Dr Hardwicke's death, in 1881, Dr Thomas won a contested election for the Coronership, the appointment of which was at that time in the hands of the freeholders." (Times, 8 August 1910).

Hi David,

I believe County Coroners in England were elected by freeholders until 1888, but then, by virtue of the Local Government Act 1888, the appointment was given to the county council, who could appoint any fit person, not being a county alderman or county councillor, to fill the office.

[David Orsam]

Hm. I only asked because Mirandola wrote:

While we're on this subject, it's worth noting how many people at these Inquests in 1888 were known by two or even more names. Birth Certificates and Official Identification for such things as Bank Loans and Company Registrations required an official name, which was also required in case of arrest; otherwise, you could call yourself what you wanted. In English Law, you still can.

I have been told the same thing - justaboutish - by Monty before. While I was told by Andy Griffiths that Lechmere would have been required to state his real name as he was under oath.

To me, it would seem counterproductive for a legal system to allow people to use aliases and hide their true names when witnessing under oath, but then again, I am sometimes left dumbfounded by many legal finesses...

Without wishing to get sucked into the Lechmere/Cross debate, the plain fact, as has been discussed on here many times, is that some people in the 19th century, and beyond, legitimately had more than one name.