Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by RockySullivan 3 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 7 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Abby Normal 27 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by jerryd 5 hours ago.
Witnesses: The mysterious Mrs Kennedy... - by rjpalmer 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (30 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (13 posts)
Witnesses: The mysterious Mrs Kennedy... - (3 posts)
Visual Media: A new BBC One documentary about one of the most infamous serial killers of all time. - (2 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: If Mrs. Maxwell Didn't See Mary Who Did She See? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-20-2017, 05:32 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,217
Default

Once again back on the name issue I see.

Kattrup's list, while extensive, of course missed the classic example of Kosminski,who claimed a different name in court, and said he, or it was said for him, went by "Abrahams", that would suggest that "Abrahams" was the name he used on a day to day basis; but he was hospitalized and indeed buried under the name Kosminski.
Indeed but for that revelation in court, and that only because he was accused of giving a force name, and so had to explain the use of both names, there would be no official record of him using anything other than Kosminski.

The point made many times that the authorities knew his employer and address means that any attempt at deliberately misleading obviously failed almost immediately, therefore what was the point of trying to mislead?


His own life story gives a very plausible reason for the use of Cross.
His step father was a policeman and one assumes therefore probably remembered by some in the local force, indeed it is quite probably that Lechmere was known to some of the local police has being the son of a former officer and it would seem likely that if that were the case they would think of him as Cross.
It is therefore entirely plausible that he would adopt and use this name at least when dealing with the police and by extension any police related business such as an inquest.


Pure subjective I am well aware, but look what little we do know


1. It was common at the time to use more than one name.

2. While his given recorded name was Lechmere, he was also perfectly entitled to use the name of his stepfather at anytime.

3. While all found official records show the use of the name Lechmere, that does not preclude that he could either regularly or on certain occasions used Cross unofficially.

4. He certainly did use it at the inquest.


And that is all we know.


Of course that is the problem with much of the case against Lechmere, Just like all the arguments against all the other serious contenders, it is a house built of straw it is all subjective down to personal interpretation.



Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 01-20-2017 at 06:00 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-20-2017, 06:17 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Kattrup: So by your own logic, the carman's "real name" was not judged relevant, since it was not included

No, Kattrup, by MY logic, they did not have the name, and so they could not include it.


I think that is actually quite correct, since the police knew who he was, where he lived and where he worked. Whether or not he might be registered in a census with a different name was immaterial to them.

So by YOUR logic, he could not move or change jobs...? Of course the police would have wanted the real, registered name for their reports.


The point of my post is not to show that Cross must have said both names or to try and guess at how the exchange went.

Lucky for you, since you would get nowhere.

The point is to show that it was not uncommon for witnesses to show up and use a different name from their "real name". I thin the very few examples I pulled forward show that the concept of "real name" was different then - you cling to the idea that people had a "real name", and thusly any other name used would be a false one.

I cling to the idea that the police would want to know the registered name, and that when you have 100+ examples, ALL saying Lechmere, the name Cross does not look like something he had ever used before in authority contacts. "Fine, you say, but he did now, and he was entitled to do so". The I ask "WHY did he do it?". Why do we have this anomaly? Why did he deviate from his principles in combination with a murder investigation, but not otherwise?


It is plain to see that at the time, people did not think so. Most were aware that they had a particular name (their "real" or "proper" name), but they could liberally use another without it being in any way a falsehood.

"Most"? Really? Source, please! And they were NOT allow to swop names if the name was not one they used normally or if they intended to mislead. End of story.

This being the case, there is presently no indication that Cross' use of Cross instead of Lechmere was intended to deceive.

Yes, there is. And it is very, very clear: He otherwise did NOT use Cross when in contact with the authoritites, and it seems he withheld his real name. "Presently no indication..."

The fact that the police echoed the use of the name Cross is not significant, since it was not actually required of Cross to use his "real name" at the inquest. The police therefore refererred to him by the name he went by.

Oh, wait! Is that really so? The police used the mane he told them??? Heureka, he´s found it! The circumstances goverend whether he would have been allowed to call himself Cross or not - if he intended to mislead, he could NOT do so.

Since it is you who wish to make some sort of extraordinary case for Cross deceiving the inquest, the onus is on you to provide evidence that he did so.

I am the only one presenting any evidence at all. The rest are presenting free fantasies about what he MAY have done - you, not least.

Simply stating that he used another name than on the census forms is not evidence of deception.

And did I say it was?

As seen in the examples I posted (and doubtlessly in countless others in other court archives and newspaper reportings from inquests and trials), people might very well use one name in one official context and another name in a different context - e.g. Lechmere on written census forms, Cross in a verbal exchange.

You are beginning to repeat yourself. It does not help.

So, point is, YOU make an extraordinary claim - Lechmere lied about his name - therefore YOU need to substantiate the claim.

And the fact that he otherwise used Lechmere in all the 100+ examples we have is of course no such substantiation?

At present, you have not, since the behaviour you have pointed out - using a different name than the "real name" - was not uncommon.

Crime was not uncommon. The fact that people used two names can only tell us just that: they did. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether Lechmere lied to obscure his identity or not. The indication certainly remains. People write clever posts all the time and use good arguments all the time. It´s not uncommon. That, however, does not mean it must apply to you, does it, Kattrup?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-20-2017, 06:20 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

caz:

I should have thought...


But you didn´t, did you?


I know Christer has heard it all before ...

Yes. The nicest thing I can say is that I am exactly as impressed now as back then.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-20-2017, 06:22 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Steve, I am not doing this all over with you again. Read my answer to Kattrup. One point only:

You: While all found official records show the use of the name Lechmere, that does not preclude that he could either regularly or on certain occasions used Cross unofficially.

The police business was not unofficial business. Therefore, it remains that this one instance - no others, as far as we know - is a total exception to the rule.

Total exceptions are also known as anomalies.

Anomalies are what the police go looking for when hunting a killer.

Just helping out and showing the way here.

Mind you, I am not (God forbid!) saying that the name swop WAS an intentional misleading. I am saying that given the circumstances, it lends itself EMINENTLY to such an interpretation.

Last edited by Fisherman : 01-20-2017 at 06:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-20-2017, 06:31 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kattrup View Post
the police knew who he was, where he lived and where he worked.
Quite correct and, furthermore, he turned up at the inquest when required to do so. He obviously wasn't very good at hiding, was he?
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-20-2017, 06:33 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by caz View Post
Imagine if he had then used the name Lechmere for the inquest, and his mates had "read all about it" after hearing all about his grisly discovery and why he had to lose time at work:

"Lechmere? Lechmere?? What sort of fancy posh name is that?"

They'd have taken the piss rotten.

Much better to be plain old Charlie Cross
Indeed. Just ask Robin Ingstone-Featherstonehaugh, aka "Robert Paul".
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-20-2017, 06:40 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Quite correct and, furthermore, he turned up at the inquest when required to do so. He obviously wasn't very good at hiding, was he?
Oh, I´d say he did pretty well. It took more than a hundred years to find him.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-20-2017, 07:13 AM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Once again back on the name issue I see.
Sorry, I agree it's tiring. I was just looking around the Old Bailey site and thought some examples might help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Kattrup's list, while extensive, of course missed the classic example of Kosminski
My examples were culled only from the Old Bailey, where Kosminski was not on trial (I believe), and I also deliberately left out criminals, since they for more nefarious reasons often used aliases.

My examples were meant to show that ordinary, lawabiding citizens who appeared as witnesses often used different names.

I only included George Peacock, a criminal, as an example showing that he stated in court his "real name" (James Smith), but was still written up as George Peacock.

It's obvious that the authorities were not terribly concerned about the "real name" of witnesses or indeed the accused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Pure subjective I am well aware, but look what little we do know


1. It was common at the time to use more than one name.

2. While his given recorded name was Lechmere, he was also perfectly entitled to use the name of his stepfather at anytime.

3. While all found official records show the use of the name Lechmere, that does not preclude that he could either regularly or on certain occasions used Cross unofficially.

4. He certainly did use it at the inquest.


And that is all we know.
Exactly.

There were many legitimate reasons for people to use an alternative name. It is wrong to imply that doing so was deceptive, without further evidence.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-20-2017, 07:37 AM
Kattrup Kattrup is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Denmark
Posts: 192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

So by YOUR logic, he could not move or change jobs...? Of course the police would have wanted the real, registered name for their reports.
Biased opinion, not fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I cling to the idea that the police would want to know the registered name, and that when you have 100+ examples, ALL saying Lechmere, the name Cross does not look like something he had ever used before in authority contacts. "Fine, you say, but he did now, and he was entitled to do so". The I ask "WHY did he do it?". Why do we have this anomaly? Why did he deviate from his principles in combination with a murder investigation, but not otherwise?

The examples, and any other examples one might find, show that there were many legitimate reasons for using a different name. So speculating "why?" simply means that we can speculate that Cross, for instance, felt his name might be misspelled or that people would take him for a foreigner, or that he simply had a habit of using Lechmere when asked in writing or when asked to write his family's name (e.g. in a census) but when speaking about himself or when speaking (as opposed to writing) he used Cross.

It is all speculation, and all are valid and legitimate reasons for him to use the name Cross. There is therefore absolutely no reason to assume that he attempted to hide his "real name".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

"Most"? Really? Source, please! And they were NOT allow to swop names if the name was not one they used normally or if they intended to mislead. End of story.

There are several persons in the examples I posted who refer to their "real name" but then mention the other name they actually use.

And since Cross might have used the name Cross normally, and was not intending to mislead, he certainly could "swap" his name - again, a misleading phrase, since there was no swapping. He simply used another name than the one you believe was his "real name".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

[b]Yes, there is. And it is very, very clear: He otherwise did NOT use Cross when in contact with the authoritites, and it seems he withheld his real name. "Presently no indication..."
it does not seem that he withheld his "real name", he merely used another name, which he was entitled to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

Oh, wait! Is that really so? The police used the mane he told them??? Heureka, he´s found it! The circumstances goverend whether he would have been allowed to call himself Cross or not - if he intended to mislead, he could NOT do so.
Again, there is no evidence that he intended to mislead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I am the only one presenting any evidence at all. The rest are presenting free fantasies about what he MAY have done - you, not least.
You've presented no evidence, but a lot of biased opinion, starting from the assumption that Cross is guilty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post

And did I say it was?
While you might not have used that exact word (deception) in this thread, it's fair to say that you claim that using the name Cross is cause for suspicion, e.g. "a very, very good reason to suspect foul play."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
You are beginning to repeat yourself. It does not help.
I know, as I mentioned to Elamarna, it's tiring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
And the fact that he otherwise used Lechmere in all the 100+ examples we have is of course no such substantiation?
Correct, it is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Crime was not uncommon. The fact that people used two names can only tell us just that: they did. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether Lechmere lied to obscure his identity or not. The indication certainly remains. People write clever posts all the time and use good arguments all the time. It´s not uncommon. That, however, does not mean it must apply to you, does it, Kattrup?
Thank you for your kind reply.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-20-2017, 08:05 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,179
Default

Kattrup: Biased opinion, not fact.

True - ift the police could not care less if they were furnished real or alternative names. Otherwise not.
Ca we be for real?

The examples, and any other examples one might find, show that there were many legitimate reasons for using a different name. So speculating "why?" simply means that we can speculate that Cross, for instance, felt his name might be misspelled or that people would take him for a foreigner, or that he simply had a habit of using Lechmere when asked in writing or when asked to write his family's name (e.g. in a census) but when speaking about himself or when speaking (as opposed to writing) he used Cross.

It is all speculation, and all are valid and legitimate reasons for him to use the name Cross. There is therefore absolutely no reason to assume that he attempted to hide his "real name".

It is all speculation, just as you say. Nothing else. Pure conjecture. As always, coing from the anti-Lechmere camp. It seems the lifeblood over there.
The difference when comparing to the suggestion (!) that he lied about it, is that I have 100+ signatures saying Lechmere, from various parts of his official life. That is an almighty indicator (!) that Lechmere was the name he used in contact with authorities.

There are several persons in the examples I posted who refer to their "real name" but then mention the other name they actually use.

Which Lechmere never did - as far as we know. See the difference?

And since Cross might have used the name Cross normally, and was not intending to mislead, he certainly could "swap" his name - again, a misleading phrase, since there was no swapping. He simply used another name than the one you believe was his "real name".

Swapping is not a negatively loaded word, so take it easy. You may swap shirts, drinks etcetera without any harm intended.
You write that since he MIGHT have used the name normally...he certainly COULD swap his name.
But what if he did NOT use the name normally - something of which there is no indication at all? It´s that lifeblood thing again.
It actually TAKES that he DID use the name normally -or occasionally (Hey guys, I think I´ll call myself Cross today!)for him to make a legit swap at the inquest. Otherwise, he was misleading.

it does not seem that he withheld his "real name", he merely used another name, which he was entitled to.

No, that´s not what it "seems" like. If there was any indication at all that he ever used the name Cross with the authorities, then you would have a point. Otherwise that point remains where it belongs - with me.


Again, there is no evidence that he intended to mislead.

There is no proof - but there is evidence a plenty.

You've presented no evidence, but a lot of biased opinion, starting from the assumption that Cross is guilty.

You've presented no evidence, but a lot of biased opinion, starting from the assumption that Cross is innocent.


While you might not have used that exact word (deception) in this thread, it's fair to say that you claim that using the name Cross is cause for suspicion, e.g. "a very, very good reason to suspect foul play."

I stand by that - the 100+ names ensure it, together with the total lack of any mentioning of his real name at the inquest or in the reports.


I know, as I mentioned to Elamarna, it's tiring.

Then why persist?

Correct, it is not.

Nope. Sorry.


Thank you for your kind reply.

Thank you for claiming that I am stating as a fact that the carman lied.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.