Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

I think the point is that if lech wanted to keep the name he was more usually and well known by-Lechmere-out of the press and public(and his wife)-for whatever reason-then he could use the name cross to perhaps do that.
Its not that unreasonable IMHO.

If his wife had any misgivings about his nightly behavior and/or suspicions, then he would obviously want to try and do something to prevent her finding out about his involvement-and the name swap might just do that-in his own mind.

but honestly-I think he probably used cross to the police because that's what he used at pickfords-having started work there when his name was still Cross.

But I don't think Fishs idea he used it if there was anything nefarious going on and he wanted to try to hide/deceive his wife/public/friends he had any involvement in the Nichols murder is so out there-again just my opinion.

I don't disagree with what you say in the first paragraph but it still means we are talking about a weak attempt at deception and, indeed, if he simply wanted to keep the name Lechmere out of the papers there was not necessarily any deception going on there at all.

I can't agree with the way you have phrased it about hiding from his wife or friends "any involvement in the Nichols murder" because his finding of the body in the street did not involve him in the Nichols murder, it only involved him in the finding of the body. But if he was trying to deceive his wife or friends I can only repeat it was a very weak attempt at deception because of all the information at the inquest, including his actual address, which identified him clearly as Charles Lechmere.

Finally, just to add that I would not want to say that he was "usually" known as Lechmere. For all we know most of his friends called him Cross.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;385299]Oh dear, oh dear....

He regularly used the name Lechmere when tending to official business. There are a 100 + examples of it.

He used the name Cross in combination with official police business. It is the only example we have where the carman called himself Cross, in any walk of life. (The 1861 census would have been his stepfathers work)

It is therefore not controversial to suggest that he may have given the name Cross in order to mislead.

As I have stated before, he would NOT want to mislead the police, in case they checked him out.

So the choice of the name Cross att the inquest would arguably have had the aim to mislead somebody else than the police.

How interesting.

Regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

Well since this thread has been officially hijacked, I'm gonna throw something out there I haven't seen yet.

Are we sure Liz Lechmere was even home on the nights of the murders? Since the murders were committed on about the same dates. Maybe this were the times Mrs. Lechmere was visiting family with the children, and Lechmere, with a large family, couldn't afford to take off but could come and go as he pleased and was able to wash up without any trouble.

Any thoughts on that?

Columbo

[Fisherman]

I think that figure is very dubious and highly misleading. I suspect it includes the electoral register so that if he appeared once as Lechmere in 1880 it is counted as a fresh example when he appears again in 1881 then another one in 1882 and so on. Very misleading figure. The other examples are presumably birth, death and marriage forms and census returns. I would like to know the number of different types of documents involved in this figure of 100.

Todays David dose - hooraah!

This is the first bit I am commenting. Thah has to do with how you very clearly state that you do not know what kind of entries are collected in the 100+ signatures - but you nevertheless say that you think that the figure is "highly misleading".

Tell me, David - how do you manage to decide that the figure is "highly misleading" if yu have no idea what it comprises?

[Fisherman]

Next up, this gem:

Anyway, your question contains within it the inherent flaw of your theory. It assumes that if the police checked out Charles Cross' story they would not have concluded he was a liar. Thus you must accept that he was not lying when he called himself "Charles Cross". Thus there was really no deception there at all! (and that, of course, is what I am basically saying.)

To begin with, my theory does not assume "that if the police checked out Charles Crossīstory they would not have concluded he was a liar". It only works from the assumption that the carman may have swopped names in order to keep somebody else than the police out of the loop. As I have said before, I think that if he felt he could call himself Lechmere with the police, then he would probably have done so. But since he could not call himself one name woth the police and another at the inquest (sorry, Trevor), he had to go for Cross as he spoke to the police.
If the police had checked him out, I think that
A/ Finding out that he normally used the name Lechmere with the authorities would have them taking a significant interest in the carman, and
B/ A checkout by the police would have comprised more than his name only.

Consequentially, I do not assume that the police would not have suspected him after a check. And further to that, the whole premise for your idea crumbles and falls.

We are therefore left with the possibility that his swopping names involved an attempt to deceive one or more persons. And we are also left with the fact that you have so far not been able to suggest any better deception the carman could have used, without taking any risks with the police. You have cinfidently claimed that if it was an attempt at deception, then it was a poor attempt. Therefore, you must have an idea about how a better attempt would look. It would be nice if you came clear and admitted that you were wrong on that point, and then we can move on.

Of course, if you think you are right on the point, and if you have something to show for it, I am listening!

There, I think that dosis will be enough for today. Iīll try and work up the will to answer you tomorrow, should you have somthing useful to offer.

Oh, one more thing before I go:

"For all we know, most of his friends called him Cross."

For all we know, most of his friends called him Orsam. And the rest of them called him Monkeybutt.
Because the thing is, David, that we DO NOT know what his friends called him. We only know that all the 100+ imprints we have of him, where he himself have offered a name, all have that name recorded as "Lechmere". And we know that apart from in combination with the Nichols murder case, there is not one shred of evidence or one single example of the carman ever using the name Cross in any context.
So in the face-off between the names Lechmere and Cross, the result is 110-1 in favour of Lechmere. And the one point for Cross represents the name he gave to police and inquest after having been found alone with a murder victim.

Whatīs your stance on that, David - do you regard it as a red flag if a person who is only known to have used the name A officially, suddenly goes for the name B instead when speaking to the police in relation to a criminal deed where this person has been found alone at the crime site at a time that suggests that he could have been the perpetrator.

I know I do, but how do you - with your often very inventive thinking - look at such a matter. You can add that answer to your answer about how a better decpetion on Lechmereīs account could have looked.

[wigngown]

Hi Columbo,

There is a Miriad of possibilities about everyone and everything. Information is generally scant, or disputed, so we are left to speculate about most things.

Best regards,

[David Orsam]

Well since this thread has been officially hijacked, I'm gonna throw something out there I haven't seen yet.

Nothing has "officially" happened Columbo. You don't get yourself a free pass for an off-topic post by blaming other people and claiming that a thread has been "officially" turned into another thread. You are now as guilty as everyone else who has posted off-topic in this thread!

[David Orsam]

Fisherman,

I answered the question you asked me, having concentrated on what that question said.

The question you asked me was:

"If what Lechmere did was such a weak attempt at deception, could you exemplify how he could make a better attempt at deception without taking the risk that he would be exposed as a liar if the police checked him out?"

That question assumes that if the police checked him out, after he gave the name "Cross", he would not be exposed as a liar doesn't it?

It can't exist both ways. Either he took a risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself "Cross" or he didn't and there was no risk.

If there was a risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself Cross I can certainly suggest a much better way of him disguising his identity with the same risk of being exposed as a liar.

If there was no risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself Cross it must mean he wasn't lying and there was no deception so that it is not possible to suggest a "better attempt" at deception given that there was no deception in the first place.

Consequently, there is nothing further for me to say in respect of the question you asked me.

But perhaps you want to rephrase your question?

[David Orsam]

you very clearly state that you do not know what kind of entries are collected in the 100+ signatures - but you nevertheless say that you think that the figure is "highly misleading".

Tell me, David - how do you manage to decide that the figure is "highly misleading" if yu have no idea what it comprises?

Tell me Fisherman, where do I say that I have "no idea" what the 100+ figure comprises or that "I do not know" what entries are collected within the 100+ figure?

On the contrary, I provided examples of the types of documents which I said that I suspect are included. Those suspicions are based on (a) having watched the TV documentary (b) reading of online posts on the subject and (c) my knowledge of the types of nineteenth century documents that are available.

What I was wanting you to do was to tell me the number of different types of documents involved in this figure of 100+ examples. I see you have failed to do so. Do you want to do it now or is this more information that you are going to withhold from the forum?

[David Orsam]

Fisherman (again),

What you seem to be saying is that by using the name Cross, Lechmere was wanting to prevent his wife from finding out that he discovered the body of Nichols, presumably because he believed that no-one would ever subsequently bother to mention to her that a witness called "Cross" gave evidence at the inquest. This is not deception, in the same way that you calling yourself "Fisherman" rather than your real name is not deceiving anyone about your identity (and the same for me having a user name).

Lechmere might just as easily have not wanted to use the name Lechmere because he felt guilty about failing to take the murder of a woman seriously, having left a dead body in the street so that he could get to work. There's no deception, just a desire to protect his family name.

Alternatively, if his wife DID get to hear about a witness called Cross giving evidence at the inquest (in circumstances where Lechmere always believed she would) then we go back to the point that it was a weak attempt at deception because there were so many other details which would have identified him to his wife, including the address of 22 Doveton Street, thus leading to the inevitable conclusion that there was no deception going on at all.

I have already answered the new question you ask me in an earlier post by saying that "it seems to me that even if Lechmere was the killer, the fact that he called himself Cross at the inquest has nothing to do with an attempt at deception because it really was such a weak attempt that it was pointless. Rather more likely, as many have already pointed out, is that he was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords due to having worked there since the time he was living with his stepfather and that it's as simple as that."

I can certainly say nothing further about the supposed "100+ imprints" until you clarify what these 100+ imprints are.

[Pierre]

Fisherman,

I answered the question you asked me, having concentrated on what that question said.

The question you asked me was:

"If what Lechmere did was such a weak attempt at deception, could you exemplify how he could make a better attempt at deception without taking the risk that he would be exposed as a liar if the police checked him out?"

That question assumes that if the police checked him out, after he gave the name "Cross", he would not be exposed as a liar doesn't it?

It can't exist both ways. Either he took a risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself "Cross" or he didn't and there was no risk.

If there was a risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself Cross I can certainly suggest a much better way of him disguising his identity with the same risk of being exposed as a liar.

If there was no risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself Cross it must mean he wasn't lying and there was no deception so that it is not possible to suggest a "better attempt" at deception given that there was no deception in the first place.

Consequently, there is nothing further for me to say in respect of the question you asked me.

But perhaps you want to rephrase your question?

Hi David,

Do you know how common it was for people to lie about their name at inquests in the 1880s?

And how common was it for them to use a secondary name?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=David Orsam: Fisherman,

I answered the question you asked me, having concentrated on what that question said.

The question you asked me was:

[I]"If what Lechmere did was such a weak attempt at deception, could you exemplify how he could make a better attempt at deception without taking the risk that he would be exposed as a liar if the police checked him out?"[/I]

That question assumes that if the police checked him out, after he gave the name "Cross", he would not be exposed as a liar doesn't it?

No, it does not - as I took care to point out. Just look away from it, and tell me how a better deception could have looked. How hard can it be?

If there was a risk of being exposed as a liar by calling himself Cross I can certainly suggest a much better way of him disguising his identity with the same risk of being exposed as a liar.

Letīs hear it!


But perhaps you want to rephrase your question?

Nope. it is an easy enough question to answer as it is - if you want to.

[David Orsam]

Do you know how common it was for people to lie about their name at inquests in the 1880s?

And how common was it for them to use a secondary name?

I don't seem to have the statistics for this to hand Pierre.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Tell me Fisherman, where do I say that I have "no idea" what the 100+ figure comprises or that "I do not know" what entries are collected within the 100+ figure?

You said that you want to see the entries or something to that effect. I know that you have not done so. And the only deduction must be that you do not know which entries are there. Guesswork is what you can offer.

Am I wrong?

[David Orsam]

No, it does not - as I took care to point out.

But you only pointed this out after I responded to your original question. I'm not psychic so couldn't give you an answer based on your original question could I?

You have still not clarified for me if Lechmere was telling a lie when giving the name "Cross" which would have been exposed as a lie by police investigation. Your question is badly phrased and it's obvious to me that you don't know how to phrase the question correctly so that it can be answered.