Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere???

[Bailey]

[COLOR=DarkRed]"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."

[COLOR=Black]I am in total disagreement !!!

Well, I've replied to this post and agreed with Colin in the original thread, so I'll leave that there, other than to agree that as David says above, we seem to now be stuck with a rather lengthy new appellation when referring to this particlar person.

Cheers,
B.

[Septic Blue]

Well, I've replied to this post and agreed with Colin in the original thread, so I'll leave that there, ...

And you have expounded rather deftly !!!

... using "Cross" would prevent people having to scurry away and look up Lechmere to figure out who we were talking about. From the argument you make, I guess this would in fact be a good thing - perhaps we would all do well to continue to update our references to keep up with discoveries.

Many Thanks !!!


Colin

[Jeff Leahy]

And you have expounded rather deftly !!!
Many Thanks !!! Colin [ATTACH]2852[/ATTACH]

Its excellent for the first time since I can remember I actually agree with Colin on something..not on football I might add..

2nd part A to Z states: At 3:45 am saw the body lying opposite Essex wharf Bucks Row, and went to examine it, thinking at first it was an abandoned tarpaulin. Joined by Robert Paul, cross concluded the woman was dead, and the two went on to Hanbur STREET, Where they found Police constabe Mizen and told him there was a women lying lifeless in the gutter in Bucks Row.

Seems like they need an update!

Pirate

[Uncle Jack]

Depite all this name buisness, does it actually prove that he wasn't the Ripper??

Kind Regards,

Adam

[Ally]

I disagree with the Cross vs. Lechmere argument above. He is known in the books and the reference materials as Cross. Yes his real name is Lechmere. But saying Cross who was really known as Lechmere every time you want to refer to him is ridiculously unwieldy, and if you refer to him as Lechmere, hardly anyone will know what you are talking about. He is known as Cross in the documents that relate to the case. That is the name he should be referred to for clarity's sake. If Polly Nichols or Mary or Eddowes was referred to in the inquest testimony as Susan B. Smith, that would be the name she would be known by.

[Septic Blue]

I disagree with the Cross vs. Lechmere argument above. He is known in the books and the reference materials as Cross. Yes his real name is Lechmere. But saying Cross who was really known as Lechmere every time you want to refer to him is ridiculously unwieldy, and if you refer to him as Lechmere, hardly anyone will know what you are talking about. He is known as Cross in the documents that relate to the case. That is the name he should be referred to for clarity's sake. If Polly Nichols or Mary or Eddowes was referred to in the inquest testimony as Susan B. Smith, that would be the name she would be known by.

"He is known in the books and the reference materials as Cross."

"He is known as Cross in the documents that relate to the case. That is the name he should be referred to for clarity's sake."

He is also known in the books, reference materials and documents that relate to the case; to have lived in Bethnal Green, when in fact he lived in Mile End Old Town. Should we stick with Bethnal Green for "clarity's sake" ???

Better yet: If it were somehow proven that Charles Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town actually murdered Polly Nichols; should his place in history remain as Charles Cross of 22 Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, the discoverer of Polly Nichols's body ??? ... for "clarity's sake" ???

Either we take the progressive route; or we remain stagnant !!!


Colin

[Ally]

You are attempting to equate an unimportant and largely irrelevant fact of address with a person's identity. In the inquest, he is named as Cross. His testimony was given as Cross. Therefore, for clarity's sake, he should be referred to as Cross.

Referring to him as Cross is not "remaining stagnant". It is identifying him by the name he testified under and is known by historically and being logical rather than needlessly pedantical.

[Septic Blue]

You are attempting to equate an unimportant and largely irrelevant fact of address with a person's identity. In the inquest, he is named as Cross. His testimony was given as Cross. Therefore, for clarity's sake, he should be referred to as Cross.

Referring to him as Cross is not "remaining stagnant". It is identifying him by the name he testified under and is known by historically and being logical rather than needlessly pedantical.

That "unimportant and largely irrelevant fact of address" is the reason that Lechmere has been so elusive, all these years.

If the true identity of Mary Jane Kelly were discovered, and her name just happened to be Mary Jane Smith; would ongoing references to Mary Jane Kelly be "logical rather than needlessly pedantical" ??? I don't think so !!!


Colin

[Ally]

If the true identity of Mary Jane Kelly were discovered, and her name just happened to be Mary Jane Smith; would ongoing references to Mary Jane Kelly be "logical rather than needlessly pedantical" ???

Yes. Just like it would be needlessly pendantical to refer to Norma Jeane Baker or Archibald Alexander Leach when no one would know who you were talking about, when simply saying Marilyn Monroe or Cary Grant would suffice. A person's identity is more than their technically legal name and if the vast majority of people refer to someone by one name, only the pedants sit there and say Archibald Leach because it is more "accurate".

[Septic Blue]

__________________

Yaaawwwn !!!


Colin

[Ally]

It's always a pleasant surprise when someone concedes defeat with grace.

[Uncle Jack]

Call me brainless but still, how does this disprove the theory that Charles is the Ripper??

Kind regards,

Adam