Orsam Books

Lord Orsam Says...Part 18


The Clanger displayed his total lack of intelligence on The Day After Orsam Day, 19 September 2021, by posting in #1840 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread about Charles Taylor a.k.a. Charles Jones. that Taylor's father was:

'very much alive and a prominent local businessman.  The stepson worked in his stepfather's business, driving his carts I think, probably with his stepfather's name emblazoned across them.  How does that compare to CAL?'

Even if we accept the factual claims underlying this post (which I'll deal with in a moment), the Clanger seems to have forgotten that his own argument is that individuals with an alternative surname were required and expected to state both their real name and their alternative surname when giving evidence in court.

Now he seems to have changed the rules entirely whereby there were certain circumstances whereby they had an exemption!!!  From reading the Clanger's post, those exemptions appear to involve working in one's stepfather's business and/or driving a cart with their stepfather's name on the cart.

The logic of this escapes me - and it seems have been pulled from the Clanger's imagination, if not his arse - but, if he's right, then we can surely assume that there was an equal exemption if someone was recorded on the books of their employer under their stepfather's name.  There doesn't seem to be any essential difference between the two.

Either you are supposed to give both names in court or you're not.  If you are not, as the Clanger seems to suggest was the case for Charles Taylor, then the same would have applied to Charles Lechmere/Cross.  He didn't need to state both names!  It's a Clanger own goal!!

As for the factual matters underlying the Clanger's post, Charles Taylor stated that his stepfather was a postmaster and that his own occupation was foreman to the postmaster, albeit that we know he drove his stepfather's coaches.  What happened in this case is that there must have been some arrangement whereby the postmaster lent his cart or coach to individuals willing to pay for the hire.  Charles Taylor arranged the hire but the person who hired the cart drove the horse too hard and was prosecuted for animal cruelty.

There was literally no evidence that the name of 'Taylor' was emblazoned on the cart.  For the Clanger to say it 'probably' was on the cart is absurd.  The cart was recognized by one witness in the locality as belonging to Taylor but there is no reason to assume Taylor's name was on the cart.  Frankly, however, it wouldn't matter if it had been because, as I said last Orsam Day, the cart wouldn't have been in the courtroom. For that reason, the issue of whether the name was on the cart is completely irrelevant as to what name Taylor gave the magistrate.

Sure, we can say that Charles Taylor decided to state his name as Charles Taylor because he was employed by his stepfather, James Taylor, at the time he witnessed the effects of the horse cruelty, hence it was entirely appropriate for him to state his name as Taylor (not Jones), but exactly the same consideration applies to Charles Cross who was on his way to his employment at Pickfords when he discovered the body of Nichols in the street hence, on the basis that he was recorded at Pickfords as Charles Cross, it was entirely appropriate for him to state his name his name as Cross (not Lechmere).

Furthermore, although Charles Taylor was recorded in official documents (marriage certificate, census etc.) as Charles Jones, it's a fact that he was commonly known as Charles Taylor, to the extent that when he died in 1893 he was referred to in the local newspaper on the Isle of Wight under this name.  This is exactly what is being argued about Lechmere, namely that he could have used Lechmere in official documents while still being commonly known as Cross. 

If the Clanger can't see this, he is being wilfully blind or he is utterly stupid.


Let me just make this very clear one more time what I am saying about Charles Lechmere/Cross.

We know that he was born as Charles Lechmere in 1849 but, by the time he was 11, in the 1861 census, he was living with his stepfather, Thomas Cross.  He is thus recorded in the census as Charles Cross. We also know that he was employed at Pickfords by no later than 1868, when he was about 18, so that he would almost certainly have been known at this time as Charles Cross.  His stepfather was still alive at this time (dying in 1869) so that we can say that he was known at Cross at the time he joined Pickfords with a high degree of confidence.

Now, when Charles got married in 1871 he was faced with the problem that all such men brought up by stepfathers faced as to whether he should marry under the name he was then known by or the name he was born under.    We can't possibly know what was in his head.  He might have disliked his stepfather or he might have had fond thoughts about his real father.  But he might also have felt that for legal reasons, to be on the safe side, he should marry under the name on his birth certificate.

Once he decided to marry under the name of Lechmere, this surname would obviously be used for all future official documents, such as birth certificates of his children and the electoral register.  But the important thing is that this did not mean that his colleagues and Pickfords and other acquaintances stopped calling him Charles Cross.

This was the crucial finding from the research I carried out which demonstrated that men could have one surname in the official records while still being commonly known under a different surname (i.e. the surname of their stepfather).

This research was critical and cannot be ignored.  The Clanger has always tried to pooh pooh it as if it somehow misses the point, but it was BANG on the point, because if Charles Lechmere was commonly known as Charles Cross, despite his name being 'Lechmere' in the official records, it explains perfectly why he was entitled to state his name as Cross when giving evidence at an inquest.

There isn't anything more to say.  The Clanger has been shown the example of Charles Taylor and wants to move the goalposts so that there is some kind of exemption for certain people who WERE allowed to state their stepfather's surname in court as if it was their own!   But he is too dense to appreciate that, once he allows such an exemption, it applies equally to Lechmere due to him being known as Cross by his employers.  It's really very simple.  There is no mystery.  There is no reason to suspect that Charles was concealing anything from the inquest or from the press.  


The Clanger is surely losing it, if he hasn't lost it already.

Back in May, in #710 of the 'Framing Charles' thread, the Clanger pretended not to understand the significance of the case of William Slack/Adams and commented that it seemed to him that 'it was felt appropriate that the name issue should be clarified in court'.  In response, in  #719 of the same thread, RJ Palmer pointed out to him that William Slack wasn't a witness, he was the subject of the inquest.  RJ continued:

'If we want to discuss...whether such men would feel obliged to give both names in court - we might want to turn to "Charles Taylor" of Ryde, who evidently felt no such compulsion'.

Beneath this comment, RJ reproduced a newspaper cutting of Charles Taylor, a witness in an animal cruelty case (as discussed above) which I had referred to in my Name/Issue thread, giving his name as "Charles Taylor" even though official documents recorded his name as Charles Jones. 

The Clanger replied to RJ in #720 by saying, 'Why offer that example?'.

How mental was it, therefore, for the Clanger to reproduce my entire case study of Charles Taylor/Jones in #1867 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread on 20 September with the comment to RJ:

'Here's the Lord Orsam example you seem chary of sharing'

Chary of sharing!!!! 

It was the very example RJ had directed the Clanger's attention to four months earlier.

The Clanger is simply an idiot. There is no other explanation. 


The Clanger keeps jumping around so much, it's hard to keep up.

When confronted with the example of Charles Taylor, he tells us that there could have been a very good reason why Taylor didn't inform the magistrate that his name was also Jones.

But then, in the very next breath (#1869), he says:

''My argument is that where people were known by two names they generally thought it appropriate to reveal both names when giving evidence in court.'

Well we've seen that Charles Taylor didn't appear to do this.  So what evidence has the Clanger ever presented to support his argument?

Answer: NONE

He keeps saying it, but never proves it or comes near to proving it.

Where are all the examples of it happening?  Surely he needs to point to something other than his imagination.

He has claimed in the past that the examples I provided in my name/issue thread support him but that's not the case.

As far as I know, he accepts that a witness wasn't legally required to state both names (or at least he's never claimed that was the case).

Frankly, in the absence of any kind of legal basis, I have no idea what standard the Clanger is following. As far as I can tell, it's his own twenty-first century prejudice being applied to the nineteenth century. But he's never explicitly explained why he keeps saying that people with two names 'generally' thought it appropriate to reveal both names when giving evidence in court.  You'd think he must have loads of examples of this happening but he's never produced them.

The reason is that he is doing the very worst type of history in stating his own opinion or belief as fact.  But the belief is based on absolutely nothing.


The Clanger followed up his unsupported statement by saying to RJ:

'Is it your belief that only unintelligent people might agree with me'.

Well, any intelligent person would want to know WHY the Clanger keeps saying that he thinks witnesses generally thought it appropriate to reveal both names when giving evidence in court.

Unless the Clanger provides it, then surely only unintelligent people, otherwise known as idiots, can actually agree with him.


Very sad to see the usually sharp Abby Normal (now a fellow asterisk!) falling under the Clanger's spell and writing in #1877 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread:

'I think most intelligent people would appreciate that its a little odd that Lechmere didn't give his more commonly used name in court, or at least give both'.

But the whole point is that we simply do not know whether 'his more commonly used name' was Cross or Lechmere.

I can only assume that Abby has been suckered by the mythical and totally unproven claim of 100 examples of him using 'Lechmere' as if this demonstrates that Lechmere was his 'more commonly used' name.  But that's not necessarily the case and the examples I provided in the 'Lechmere/Cross Name Issue' thread demonstrate that men could be generally known by a name NOT recorded in the official documents.

If we go back to 12 August 2019, we find Abby's response to my 'Name/Issue' thread, at #34 was:

'yes stellar work from Lord Orsam as usual..'

He then added:

'Personally I think there's an innocent explanation - namely when he started work at Pickfords he was still under the auspices of his step father Cross, so went by that name at work and continued to do so.'

Yes, indeed!  Abby understood it perfectly in August 2019.  He went by the name Cross at work so it entirely explains why he would have given the name of Cross at the inquest.

Abby's other point is that he thinks it 'a little odd'  that Lechmere didn't state both names at the inquest - but really I have to ask him WHY?   Was there any kind of law or rule that men with two names had to state them both?  Answer: No.   Would it have assisted the coroner for Lechmere to have said his name was Cross but that he also went under the name Lechmere because his father died when he was very young and his stepfather looked after him but then his stepfather died and he married under the name of Lechmere but used the name Cross at work?  Truly, it would not.  The coroner wasn't interested in this.  It would have wasted his time.

For that reason, I would suggest that there is nothing odd about a witness stating the name they were generally known by and getting on with giving their relevant evidence.

Any other belief is odd. 


The character known as "Ed Stow" should know a thing or two about having two names but, sadly, he gets it as badly wrong as the Clanger.

Going off-topic in #130 of the 'Maria Louisa Roulson' thread on JTR Forums, he asked the Clanger for a link to my piece on Victorians 'who supposedly habitually used their step father's name while always registering officially under their true, real, proper, legal name.'  Of this, he commented:

'The obvious draw back of such 'research' is that necessarily it finds people who declared both their assumed name and their true name...'

The obvious draw back of such 'research' is that necessarily it finds people who declared both their assumed name and their true name...

He was, of course, wrong about this. It was just wishful thinking on his part.  As I already mentioned in 'Lord Orsam Says...Part 18', almost all the examples I provided involved individuals who did NOT declare both their assumed name and their true name.   They were mainly cases where someone else, usually either a relative or a newspaper, revealed that they had two names.

It's very similar to how I know Ed Stow has two names himself. Not from anything HE has ever declared but from what others have told me. 

When the Clanger gave him the link, and he read the case studies I posted in 2017, he must have had a massive shock to the system bearing in mind that they proved that the name a man used in official documents during the Victorian period wasn't necessarily the name by which they were commonly known and entitled to state in court.

Even worse.  One of the examples actually showed a man stating his alternative name in court, but not his 'real' name found in the official documents! 

Thus his entire life philosophy was destroyed in one fell swoop!!!

He tried to put a brave face on it by mumbling that the piece had missed the point - ha ha! - but of course it had not missed the point.  It proved what it set out to prove, as stated at the start of the thread, that Christer Holmgren was wrong to say that a false name is one that is not officially registered.  It thus also proved that Charles Cross did NOT give a false name when he testified at the inquest.  


In a follow up post, Mr S (or more accurately in this context, Mr B), stated at #133:

'When both Kattrup and your sparring partner O (or more accurately in this context B) researched multiple cases where both names would be given where two were in use, and they amazingly drew the opposite conclusion to what their own research blatantly illustrated.'

This is false, and wilfully so.  I've already set out in detail in the previous update that neither my research nor Kattrup's research involved multiple cases 'where both names would be given where two were in use'.  My own research only found one such case and, in Kattrup's research, on the few occasions when the alternative name was given unprompted by the individual in question,  it was relevant to criminal proceedings, because that individual was related to the prisoner or the victim.

But the purpose of the research was not actually about what names people were required give in court.  It was about whether an alternative name was regarded as a false name or not.  The research showed conclusively that an alternative name was NOT regarded as a false name.  Furthermore, it showed that the name in official documents was not always the name a person was generally known by.

As a bonus, a case was found where an individual - Charles Jones/Taylor - stated his name as Charles Taylor in court, which was his alternative name.

But individual examples of this nature were not even required.  My research established that the name a person commonly known as was a LEGAL name and thus there was absolutely no reason not to state that name when giving evidence in court.

Neither Stow nor his clanging partner in crime have provided even a jot of evidence to support their claim that a man with a birth name and an alternative name was expected to state both names in court or to state their birth name as opposed to their alternative name.  They are both applying misconceived 21st century prejudices and bias to a nineteenth century question, and going badly wrong as a result.  Even worse, in the case of Stow, he assumes Lechmere was a murderer and his thinking on the matter is, therefore, badly twisted.


In #1921 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread, the Clanger posted an irrelevant directory entry from the 1900s showing 'Lechmere Charles, Allen' as a grocer and coffee room owner in the East End.  His ridiculous point about this was that there was a dentist called Edward Lechmere in the same directory of whom the Clanger said (underlining added):

'I can't be arsed to check it out, but I bet the only other Lechmere in the directory, the Chelsea dental surgeon, had a middle name or more than one. Yet he didn't feel the need to use it when advertising his upmarket business'

By contrast said the Clanger, Charles Lechmere 'rarely omitted his ALLEN'.

Christ alone knows what the Clanger thinks he is proving by this, considering that Charles stated his name as Charles Allen Cross during the Nichols inquest but, despite claiming that he wasn't going to check out Edward Lechmere's family history, he obviously did so because he then scored a HUGE own goal by showing that Edward Lechmere had, in 1889, changed his name from Edward Latchmore and had no middle name.


Not only would the change of name notice have stated Latchmore's middle name if he had one (but did not) but the below is the only Edward Latchmore found in the registry of births in the entire set of registers of birth in England and Wales from the 1830s onwards:


So no middle name!

What a clanger.

Bet lost! 

The new point by the Clanger - who didn't mention his embarrassing mistake - is that "Lechmere" was such an amazing name that people were literally changing their name to adopt it!!  Well, one person! In the Clanger's mind, but no-one else's, this means that Charles Lechmere would never have publicly stated his surname as Cross.

Except if he was generally known as Charles Cross of course, especially at Pickfords, making the Clanger's silly point a pile of clanging poop.


Here's a funny thing.

Those two clowns who keep saying that I've missed the point in my research both also keep saying that 'the point' is that witnesses brought up by stepfathers were expected to give both their surnames in court.

Yet, in their posts they NEVER seem to support this with any evidence. Instead, they jibber-jabber about all other kinds of things - about how Charles loved the name of Lechmere, about his children, about his grocery business long after 1888, about the census, about his middle name - but the supposedly critical point is ignored.

Where are the examples of witnesses with two names stating both names in court proceedings?  If they don't have them, what is the basis of their belief that witnesses were required to do this?  

To me it's very clear.  Both men are genealogists with zero knowledge of court procedure but obsessed with the history of family names.  If they did have any knowledge of court procedure they would appreciate that judges, magistrates and coroners - none of whom were usually genealogists - had no interest in the names of witnesses unless there was some reason why their names were important.  In the case of Charles Cross it was totally unimportant.  But 'Cross' was a name he was perfectly entitled to use and it's entirely understandable why he would have given that name in court proceedings.  The Clanger's blather that giving evidence at an inquest was 'one of the most formal situations possible' is neither here nor there in circumstances where the inquest wasn't about Charles Lechmere or any member of his family. 

The world waits for either Stow or the Clanger to provide just one teeny weeny reason why they keep saying with astonishingly misplaced confidence that witnesses with stepfathers, and thus two surnames, were supposed to inform the coroner of both their surnames.  


The Clanger shows his ignorance of both legal procedure and the law by posting in #1998 of the 'Evidence of innocence' thread:

'Just imagine a barrister asking him, ‘Is Cross your real name?’ And following that question up with, ‘Did you not feel it was appropriate to disclose your real name to the court?

Not a good start.'

The first problem here is that there were no barristers involved at either inquest in 1876 and 1888 so that the Clanger's hypothetical scenario is absolutely absurd and bears no relation to reality.

The second problem is that the correct answer to "Is Cross your real name?" was "Yes".

While we, during online discussions, have been distinguishing between "real" and "alternative" names, it's an artificial distinction.  "Real" always needs to be in inverted commas.  For "Cross" WAS the man's real name!  It was legally real.  He was legally entitled to use the name Cross.  It was not a false name.  It was a real name.

To the extent that the Clanger wants to change the question to "Is Cross the name on your birth certificate", (an utterly stupid question bearing in mind that not everyone 1888 had a birth certificate and people could legally change their name, just as they can today) then the answer would be "No" but then the correct answer to the question, "Did you not feel it was appropriate to disclose the name on your birth certificate to the court?" would be "No, I did not". It's that simple! 
For there was truly no need for him to have said his name was also Lechmere when asked to state or confirm his name and address.
Once he explained the position about his stepfather and Pickfords, should it have ever got to that point, there would have been no criticism of him for giving his name as Cross.  But the question would never have been asked at the inquest in the first place because his name was totally irrelevant to the matters the inquest needed to decide.  Furthermore, the barrister who asked it would be the one who ended up looking stupid because the only reason for asking a question like that would be to attack the integrity of the witness but once the witness gave the answer about his stepfather, the attack would have rebounded on both the barrister and his client to the extent that it would never have been asked in the first place for that reason alone.

Making the hole deeper for himself, the Clanger said in #2033 that if Lechmere had been asked why he used two different names:

'the honest answer may have included something along the lines of 'I only use the name Lechmere in formal situations'.

Clanging fail! 

We don't have any evidence of the man using the name Lechmere in 'formal situations' at any time prior to September 1888 other than, perhaps, at his wedding, if you can call that a 'formal situation' instead of a family occasion.

The two real 'formal situations' involving him of which we are aware (assuming he was the Charles Cross referred to in 1876) both involved him calling himself Cross! We don't have evidence of other formal situations that he was involved in.  So it cannot possibly be said that this would have been an 'honest answer'.

In #2139 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread, the Clanger stated:

'Why didn't [Cross] conform to the pattern painstakingly identified by Kattrup and Lord Orsam and disclose both names.'

He was finally challenged by Kattrup who told him in #2146:
'Allow me to correct this as a misunderstanding, the examples did not show such a pattern.
Some of the witnesses did not disclose their 'real' name until asked/pressed about it.'

The Clanger's response in #2156 was:

'But many did, and the concept of a 'real' name that it was appropriate to bring out in court was amply demonstrated by your and Lord Orsam's research.'

The problem here is that, as I demonstrated in A Look Under the Barnett, Kattrup only actually identified eight (male) witnesses in criminal cases at the Old Bailey with an alternative surname and, as I stated in the conclusion to my article:

'not a single individual with an alternative name revealed that alternative name without good reason (i.e. it being relevant to the proceedings and/or it had already been mentioned) or at all, until it was extracted from them in cross-examination'.

As I also said:

'Of the surviving examples given by Kattrup of men using supposed alternative names, at least half did not volunteer their alternative name while the remainder evidently only mentioned it because it was relevant.  It’s certainly not evidence of men with alternative names generally stating both their names when ‘presenting themselves to the authorities’.'

What Kattrup's research did not show, therefore, was witnesses with adopted or alternative names volunteering their 'real' name as a matter of course.  The Clanger cannot rely on it in support of his claim that it would have been natural for Cross, as a witness at an inquest, to have stated his name was also Lechmere.

Regarding my own research, I already demonstrated in the last update that, of the 17 examples I provided in the Forum thread, 'The Lechmere/Cross Name Issue Part 2', only one was an example of a witness volunteering their real name during court proceedings.  Not that one would have expected the Clanger to know that.  Who can forget his post #32 in that thread:
'I didn't trawl through every example provided...'

The clever Clanger took it upon himself not to read all the examples!

Thankfully, RJ Palmer was on hand to notify the Clanger in #2172 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread that, in 16 of the 17 cases I studied, there is no evidence that the individuals ever felt the need to disclose their real names to a court despite the Clanger repeatedly citing my research as evidence of this happening.   He even gave him a link to Lord Orsam Says...Part 17 in which I had explained the position.

Crucially, RJ asked the Clanger to provide examples demonstrating that it was understood in Victorian times that such individuals would disclose their real names and that they often, in fact, did so.

The Clanger's response?


Utter silence.

He ignored RJ's post just as he has ignored all the times I have demonstrated him in the past to be badly wrong when he tried to challenge my articles.

It's typical Clanger behaviour.  He loves starting fights but when the going gets tough he just runs away and disengages.

He can never admit to error or acknowledge his mistakes.

But this is another mistake of his.

The fact of the matter is that there was no requirement or expectation for witnesses at nineteenth century inquests who were known by two surnames to state both of those surnames.

And, yes, it really is that simple.


New poster Greenway asked a very pertinent question of Christer Holmgren in #2099 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread:

'What information did Scobie look at in making his 'authoritative' assessment'.

Christer replied with this ridiculous answer in #2100:

'Read the thread, and you will know what there is about it.'

This was a false answer.  You can't find the contents of Scobie's brief anywhere in the thread.

The true answer from Christer would have been that he doesn't know what information Scobie looked at.  He's admitted in the past that he's never seen the brief provided to Scobie.

When I spotted from the TV documentary that Scobie had been told in his written brief that Cross left his house "at 3.30am", which was inaccurate, Christer speculated that maybe elsewhere in the brief Scobie was told that Cross actually said that he left his house at "about" 3.30am.  This proved that Christer hadn't read the brief.

The fact of the matter is that if you tell ANY barrister that a witness left his house at 3.30am and was next spotted at the murder scene at 3.45am, although that murder scene was only seven minutes away from his house, it's obvious that there is a missing eight minutes.

But if you correctly tell them that the evidence is that the individual left his house at about 3.30am, that the walk from the house to the murder scene would have been about seven or eight minutes and that the individual was next seen at the scene of the murder at some point around 3.40 to 3.45am, the conclusion would be very different because suddenly the missing eight minutes disappears.

Christer added to his answer: 'Basically, he decided from the points of accusation against Lechmere'.    That is ridiculous.  A barrister needs to know the points in favour of the accused in order to properly conclude whether there is a prima facie case against them. 

If Scobie was given a misleading summary of the evidence he would have given a misleading answer.  Garbage in produces garbage out.
Without seeing Scobie's full brief - especially in light of the snippet that we HAVE seen on TV - Scobie's conclusions mean nothing.

By way of reminder, what we glimpsed from the television screen in Scobie's briefing note was this:

'Charles Lechmere (as we now know him to be called) is reported as saying he left home for work at 3:30am, although in other respects he appears to initially say he left home even earlier, at 3:20'.

That is, of course, inaccurate because Cross was reported as saying that he left for work at "about" 3.30am. The word "about" is missing from Scobie's briefing note. Further, it is pure speculation to claim that he initially said he left home at 3:20.

That's just the issue of timing.  I really dread to think what Scobie was told about the name issue and about the supposed mythical 100 examples of Cross using the name Lechmere.  Even in the part of the briefing note quote above, we can see the pejorative statement that Charles Lechmere was what "we now know him to be called" which implies that he wasn't really called Charles Cross at the time.  It just prejudices the mind of a barrister who is being manipulated to produce an answer that Christer can then repeat until the day he dies even though it's utterly meaningless. 


It's fair to say that Andy Griffiths is no better.

Look at what he actually said in the documentary at 17/18 minutes (which I'll put into context):

Voiceover: According to Paul's evidence, Lechmere found the body some sixteen minutes (sic) after he left home.
Christer Holmgren (looking at stopwatch): And it says seven minutes, seven seconds.  That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3:30 he would have been there at 3:37.
Andy Griffiths: Well that's very interesting because Paul said he came into the street at 3.:45.
Voiceover: Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere's timings.  
Lechmere said that he was never alone with the body.
Caption of Lechmere kneeling over the body of Mary Ann Nichols.
Voiceover: Lechmere would have reached the murder site at 3:37, long before Paul turned into the street at 3:45.
Andy Griffiths: We know that he was late for work, as he said at the inquest and I think it's reasonable to assume he was keeping an eye on the time. 
Christer Holmgren: Then we've got a discrepancy of about 9 minutes or something like that.
Andy Griffiths: Which was a big difference in that time.
Yes, Andy Griffiths really did say that 9 minutes was a big difference "in that time".  Does he, I wonder, really think that 9 minutes in 1888 was different to 9 minutes today?

But just look at how Andy Griffiths was misled directly by Christer Holmgren.  We can see that Christer falsely told Griffiths that Lechmere said he left his home "at 3:30".  Lechmere didn't, of course say that.  What we know is that it was reported that he said at the inquest that he left his home at ABOUT 3:30.
So Andy Griffiths' entire opinion was based on a falsehood.  
But we can see that he has been told directly by Christer Holmgren that there is a "discrepancy" of 9 minutes!  I doubt if the former detective knew what rubbish Holmgren was capable of spewing.
And we also see that Andy Griffiths himself was confused about the evidence.  He claimed that Paul said he came into the street at 3:45.  Well that isn't what Paul said at the inquest. It's something taken from a newspaper report. 
But, whatever the source, it's astonishing that a reputable former detective felt able to rely on an estimate of time from a member of the public in circumstances where that man wouldn't have been wearing a watch and in circumstances where there is contradictory evidence from a police officer (Mizen) who said that, when Lechmere and Paul contacted him a few minutes after finding the body, it was then 3:45.  Mizen was engaged in waking people up so is just as likely to have known the correct time, if not more so, than Paul.
Griffiths was also under the impression that "we know" that Lechmere was late for work when he left his house.  We know no such thing.  All we know is that he was running late for work AFTER having stopped to examine the body in the road. 
It's also unlikely that Andy Griffiths was aware that the investigating officer (Inspector Abberline) stated in an official report that the body of Nichols was found by Cross and Paul at about 3:40am.

So, if we look at the actual evidence, Cross could easily have left his house just a few minutes after 3:30 and arrived at around 3:40 with no "major gap" in timings. 
Andy Griffiths was misled.

He also placed reliance on the fact that Paul didn't see any blood when he was at the body but it's unclear if he knew that Paul also said in his evidence that it was very dark.

It's also worth noting that the documentary claimed that when Lechmere appeared at the inquest he gave "a false name".   This is one of Christer Holmgren's misunderstandings and why I posted research in the Casebook Forum showing that an alternative name was not a false name.  If Griffiths, who was not a historian and probably knew very little about life in the nineteenth century, was led to believe that Lechmere gave 'a false name' at the inquest, it would further explain why he was impressed with the case against him.


More and more I wonder if the Clanger should be allowed to post unsupervised.  In #2115 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread he claimed that:

'The Ultimate has an index of the papers contained in the Nichols police file'.


The Clanger hasn't even read what The Ultimate says properly because what is written is this:

'There is an index to the papers on the Nichols murder in the Home Office files'.
Nowhere is it stated that this is an index of the papers in the Nichols police file.   The reference given to this document in the book is a Home Office file with reference HO 144/221/A49301C.
As it happens, the esteemed authors of The Ultimate misunderstood what the document they were looking at was.  Here is the document in question:
What this document actually is, is an index to a single six page report of Chief Inspector Swanson dated 19th October 1888.  The page numbers in the second column relate to page numbers in the report.  

What Swanson said in his report was that 'enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character and surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police'.

Swanson then goes on to say that 'Amongst such are...' and he goes on to list the three slaughtermen employed by Harrison Barber.  But he doesn't say that these were the ONLY persons of whom such enquiries were made.

The Clanger is entirely wrong to refer to this index and then say: 

'So almost two months after the murder of Polly Nichols, no papers evidencing any investigation into Lechmere's background were in the police  file.'

We do not know what papers were in the police file at the time.  All we know is that Swanson didn't refer to any investigation of Lechmere in his report of 19 October 1888 but, at the same time, he makes clear that he doesn't list all the people who were investigated.

The Clanger really should stick to looking at census returns and birth certificates or whatever it is he normally does.  He doesn't seem to understand anything else. 


Towards the end of Lord Orsam Says...Part 17, I mentioned that the Major had stated in #6950:

'I am 99% certain that Eddie is listed at Christine's house in February 1992 but I've misplaced my source.  I'll post it when I recall it'.

He never did post his source.  Instead, Miss Information chipped in to help him out (as usual).  It was in a post she made on 14 September 2021, shortly before the last Orsam Day (but I didn't spot it beforehand).  In #6953 she wrote:

'Looking for something completely different just now in my files, by a strange coincidence the very first document facing me is a printed list of Fountains Road residents in both February 1992 and February 1993, on both lists Eddie Lyons appears with his then girlfriend at No. 44A'.

Miss Information then said to RJ:

 'I've shown you mine, so perhaps you would now show me yours...'.
But, of course, she hadn't shown us ANYTHING.  All she's told us, without posting an image of it, is that she is in possession of a 'printed list of Fountains Road residents' from February 1992.  But who created that list?   What is it? 
Why doesn't she reveal what the list is?

Either she doesn't know, in which case how can we trust it?  Or she does know and is deliberately withholding that information?

Why would she withhold that information?  Perhaps because she doesn't want anyone else to be able to find it.

It's a strange type of document isn't it?  A printed list of Fountains Road residents as at February 1992.   The only document I can think of which would contain such information would be an extract from the electoral register.  Is that what she has?
The importance of this is that we are always told that it would have been virtually impossible for Mike to have discovered the address of Eddie Lyons in March 1993.  We are told that Lyons wasn't in the telephone book at the Fountains Road address. But if he was listed in the electoral register perhaps Mike could have found out this way.  Or, of course, Feldman simply could have told him.

Once again, though, by withholding information, and refusing to reveal her source, she makes it difficult as possible for other researchers.
What she did not do for RJ is show him her source.
I've read some weak responses to my articles but the Major's response to 'It's a Lottery!' must go down as one of the weakest ever.

Let's go through it together. 

He starts off with a distracting irrelevance.  

'will he ever fix that ridiculous formatting issue which vaingloriously makes his articles seem longer than they really are??? - like a marketeer assuming that the price of a product will be understood by consumers as its underlying value, he seems to equate the apparent length of his articles with erudition'.
Needless to say, there is no 'formatting issue' on this website, let alone one which 'vaingloriously' makes my articles seem longer than they really are.  As if I would need to do that for one second!

The format of this website has nothing to do with me.  It uses standard settings created by webs.com (which strikes me as being standard settings across all websites).

I can't say I really understand what the Major is talking about when he says that my articles seem longer than they really are but I think he is referring to something he's mentioned a couple of times in the past to which I responded each time.
I think he is referring to the width of the articles.  But as I have told him in the past (see e.g. Send in the Clowns) he just needs to use the zoom function on his browser:
After all, it's exactly the same on the Casebook Forum.  Look. This is how his post appears on my screen at 50%
Just imagine a barrister asking him, ‘Is Cross your real name?’ And following that question up with, ‘Did you not feel it was appropriate to disclose your real name to the court?’
This is the screen at  100%:

This is at 150%:

The screen is the same size in each image but you can see that the width of the text part of the page is different.  I have no idea what setting the Major uses on his device and I have no control over it.

The idea that I am somehow using settings which makes my articles look longer than they actually are because I equate length with erudition is nothing more than the demented rantings of an unhinged mind.

Not much better is his attempt to summarize my article as being:

'It doesn't matter what subject at all I am talking about, I am right and the rest of the world is wrong'.

If that was my belief, I wonder why he thinks I take so much trouble to explain all my arguments in great detail.

Furthermore, what we see from his comment that 'the rest of the world is wrong' is that he seems to think he speaks for the rest of the world!  He doesn't, of course, he speaks only for himself.

In fact, the irony of the situation is that what we both said on the subject of probability was superseded by the involvement of Jeff Hamm, an expert on the topic, who was invited into the thread for the specific purpose of resolving the dispute about probability between the Major and others and RJ Palmer and others.  Not only did Jeff patiently explain at some length to the Major where he was going badly wrong but, even more hilariously, he independently stated that the correct formula to calculate probability regarding Mike's telephone call was the very one I had set out in my 2017 article on the subject!!!  You really couldn't make it up. 

What of the Major's substantive reply to my article?

Well he deliberately ignored most of it.  Readers of my article will recall I set him a number of challenges which he has ducked.  

He hasn't engaged with any of my points about his  calculation, such as the critical fact that 9 March 1992 wasn't the first time that the floorboards in Battlecrease has been lifted, a fatal flaw to his entire calculation which renders everything else redundant.  

Unknowingly, he revealed exactly where he had gone wrong by writing:

'we are not attempting to state the probability of any given unknown event occurring (for example, the likelihood that the Queen will sneeze this afternoon) but rather the likelihood of something which we know for a fact happened after some other event had happened happening on a specific day'.

Both Jeff and myself attempted to explain to him that this is precisely what you cannot do.  You cannot take two events which are known to have happened on the same day and back-calculate the likelihood of them both happening on that day.

I dealt with this specifically with the example I gave of  the resignation of MP Alan Amos on 9 March 1992.  Two events are known to have happened on 9 March 1992.  The resignation of Alan Amos and the (assumed) lifting of the floorboards.  But you can't back-calculate the odds of these two events happening on the same day and say that they couldn't possibly have happened by chance alone, which is precisely what the Major's strictly numerical formula does by logical extension.

The Major has ignored this.

Within the context of the Major's own example of two men visiting a cinema on the same day, I demonstrated the difference between predicting in advance the odds of both men visiting the cinema on the same day and back-calculating the odds after they did so.  He doesn't seem to have understood it. 

What the Major is focussing on is the examples I gave of the lottery, of being born and of tossing a coin a thousand times.  I'm fully aware that these are not examples of two different things happening on the same day but they were examples provided to show why you cannot back-calculate probability from a known event, full stop.

As I stated with the example of a thousand coin tosses, the odds of predicting the correct sequence of tosses are greater than any known number, greater than a trillion trillion to one, yet, if you do a thousand coin tosses, you will have created a sequence which is seemingly impossible to create by chance alone.  But it's only impossible if you back-calculate the odds from the sequence you've created.

It's an example of the problems of back-calculating probability which the Major has obviously not understood.

If we return to the specific issue of two events happening on the same day, the Major has simply ignored the point that in connecting the lifting of the floorboards with Mike's telephone call, he's made a human decision to connect two events which may have no connection whatsoever.  I  mean, what if I had a theory that the resignation of Alan Amos was connected with the lifting of the floorboards?   Why would I not be entitled to say that the odds of both events happening on the same day are 1/37,557 and thus (on the Major's definition of what those odds mean) virtually impossible to have happened on the same day by chance?

That's the mathematics. But it requires human intervention to connect the two events.  The Major has connected the lifting of the floorboards with Mike's telephone call about a Jack the Ripper diary because he has a theory that the diary came out from under the floorboards.  But that's just a theory.  There's no mathematics involved.  Which is why the Major was NOT performing a strictly mathematical calculation, he was introducing human bias.

The one question of mine the Major purported to answer was this (under the heading "ONE FOR THE MAJOR"): 

If the odds or probability (or whatever he wants to describe it) of the 'two events' happening on the same day are circa 1 in 37,000, how does he calculate the odds of the two events happening 24 hours apart? 

I mean, what if the electricians had been working in the house on Sunday 8 March 1992 and had lifted floorboards of Maybrick's room for the very first time on THAT day and Mike then telephoned Doreen the next day?  I'd be very interested to know from the Major if a statistician would tell us that such an occurrence was also almost impossible to have happened by chance.  While he's at it, perhaps he could also explain how one goes about mathematically calculating the odds of those two things occurring with a 24  hour gap between them. 

What the Major babbled in response was some more voodoo mathematics.  I'll reproduce it for you in its entirety:

So, the question being asked is essentially this: if the two events definitely occurred at all, what was the probability that one would occur on March 9, 1992, followed by the other on March 10, 1992? Well, it's definitely not 1/37,557 (nor indeed 1/37,558). Why not? Because the first event has now definitely occurred so the odds get reset from the day that the first event occurred. It has occurred, it is known, so now we are asking what were the odds that the second event - if it was definitely known to have occurred at least 24 hours after the first event occurred - would occur on March 10, 1992? Well, on March 10, 1992 that's a certainty - it's 1 over 1 which is 1 - only if we know the second event definitely followed the first event by at least 24 hours. On March 11, 1992, the odds that the second event would have occurred on March 10, 1992 was 1/2 (it was one event which by then could have occurred on either of two days). On March 12, 1992, the odds that the second event would have occurred on March 10, 1992 was 1/3. Et cetera. As time passes, the likelihood that the second event occurred on March 10, 1992 if the first event occurred on March 9, 1992 gets longer and longer (note, this is not to say the second event becomes less likely to have occurred as time passes because one of our critical premises is that we know it occurred so that bit is not in debate - it is certain - it is simply that the likelihood that it occurred on the day after the first event gets less likely if it occurred purely by chance alone). 

So it's all a matter of perspective: when are we asking the question? September 25, 2021? Well, if we know the second event definitely happened (but we don't know when it happened) then the odds of it having happened on the day after the first event are clearly 1 (the number of times it happened) over X (the number of days which have passed since the first event happened). So by today that's about 1/10,000 that it would have happened on March 10, 1992.

So it's all a matter of perspective: when are we asking the question? September 25, 2021? Well, if we know the second event definitely happened (but we don't know when it happened) then the odds of it having happened on the day after the first event are clearly 1 (the number of times it happened) over X (the number of days which have passed since the first event happened). So by today that's about 1/10,000 that it would have happened on March 10, 1992.

If anyone in the entire world has read and understood that, they will know it is mathematical garbage which conflicts with his own claim about what happened on  9th March.

For, if one were to ask the question whether the floorboards could have been lifted in the morning to be followed by Mike's telephone call in the afternoon, one could simply say that the first event of the lifting of the floorboards is known to have occurred as a certainty in the morning therefore the probability of telephone call by Mike in the afternoon is 1 over 1 which is one.  What he is saying is basically THAT mathematically illiterate.

Essentially, he's ducked my question because you will see that I expressly stated in respect of a lifting of the floorboards on 8 March 1992 and a telephone call to Doreen the next day, 'I'd be very interested to know from the Major if a statistician would tell us that such an occurrence was also almost impossible to have happened by chance'.  Where was the response to that?

All he's produced is gobbledigook. 

And he must have read me saying:

'I want to know the odds/probability for the floorboards being lifted one day before a literary agent was contacted about Jack the Ripper's diary on 9 March 1992, one week before, one month before, six months before and one year before...Is it almost impossible statistically speaking for the two events to have occurred by chance a full year apart?  If not, why not?'

We just don't find the answers to these questions in the Major's post.

I mean, say the floorboards had been lifted on 9 March 1991 and Mike telephoned an agent on 9 March 1992.  The same day exactly a year apart.  What are the odds?  But the Major, who supposedly finds it easy to calculate these things, doesn't tell us?

Following the entry of 'ONE FOR THE MAJOR' was 'ONE MORE FOR THE MAJOR' in which I asked the Major to tell us the odds regarding the connection between the two events if the diary wasn't physically completed (and thus didn't exist in physical form) until 11 April 1992.

No answer to that one from the Major, yet, as I pointed out, the way he's explained it, the odds must be exactly the same.  No correction or contradiction from the Major.

This example alone demonstrates why the Major's calculation of probability must be wrong yet he's ducked it.

Nor did the Major challenge my calculation that the odds of the floorboards being lifted on 13 May 1889 and someone contacting a literary agent with Maybrick's diary on that same day would only have been 1 in 2, and thus likely to have happened by chance, even though it would have been exactly the same coincidence of events as happened on 9 March 1992.  It basically showed that the Major's calculation must be wrong but he had nothing to say about it. 

And how could the Major have missed 'A NUMBER CHALLENGE' in which I set a simple challenge for the diary defenders as to the probability if it turned out that electricians had been working in Battlecrease every day of 1992.  In response from the Major, only silence.  

I also posed a number of other challenges under this heading but the Major has ducked them all. 

In fact, the Major now has NOTHING to say about my statement of the odds from my 2017 article, despite him having previously claimed it was all wrong.  

Above all, the Major gives no real impression that he has actually read the entirety of my article.  All he's really done is double down on claims he originally made, about which Jeff Hamm told him in no uncertain terms that they was a misuse of statistics.

Naturally, despite having been taken apart and proved wrong by Jeff Hamm, the Major says 'I could be wrong, but I'm almost certainly not'.  This is the person who accuses ME of saying 'I am right and the rest of the world is wrong'.  You really couldn't make it up. 

To be honest, I expected nothing more from the Major but his response was pathetic even by his own standards.

Incidentally, if anyone is puzzled as to why the Major continually refers to me living in Chigwell, so am I.  I've never even been to Chigwell and live nowhere near it.  It's possible he is confusing me with my fellow peer Lord Sugar who owns a small and rather cramped property in that area but the much grander Orsam Towers is located elsewhere.  Nevertheless, if he wants to believe I am from Chigwell, just like he believes the diary was written by James Maybrick, nothing can be done to stop him.   


In #2153 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread Christer Holmgren asks:

'And historically, would you agree that a large part of those who have not "felt it necessary" to give their original and registered names have been criminals of all kinds?'

So we see that despite my research proving that an alternative name was not a false name, Christer still has it in his head that an alternative name was the equivalent of a false name because it was not 'the original and registered' name.  Not only does he continually demonstrate his failure to understand that not everyone had a registered name in 1888 and, further, that not everyone was known by their original and registered name for perfectly legitimate reasons, but we can see why he chose to refer to the name of Cross as an 'alias' in his book.  An 'alias' is what criminals use and Christer likes to associate Cross with a criminal.

It's how you do a frame up. 


Bombastically, the Clanger stated in #2259:

'There is absolutely no question that Lechmere concealed a major aspect of his identity (i.e. his real name)'.

This is false.  If Lechmere was generally known as Cross, either just at work or more widely, it would show that there was no concealment. That's what the entire debate is about.

The Clanger consistently uses the expression "real name"  without putting it in inverted commas, thus misleadingly suggesting that Charles Cross was somehow a false name, not real.

Cross was a name that was potentially just a real as Lechmere.  That was the whole point of my research in the Lechmere/Cross name issue which I thought the Clanger said was blindingly obvious.  An alternative name was not a false name.  It was a real name.  Yet the Clanger keeps on saying these things about concealment as if he hasn't understood this.

I thought the Clanger's whole point was that using an alternative name was entirely acceptable and NOT concealment, just that a person was supposed to state his birth name when giving evidence in court.

If that's his position then fine but where is the evidence to support that claim?  So far, he's produced none.  All he's done is claim that my research and Kattrup's research demonstrates this when it does no such thing.

Without evidence, it's nothing more than his own personal twenty-first century prejudice which is worthless. 


The Clanger, in #2264 of the 'Evidence of Innocence' thread, said:

'When Charles Lechmere first walked into a police station to give his statement, was asked 'What's your full name' and responded 'Charles Allen Cross' he'd already made the decision to conceal a significant aspect of his ID.  Then, when he took an oath to tell the 'whole truth' and again omitted to reveal his real name, he compounded the deception.'

The only deception going on here is the Clanger deceiving the Forum members into thinking he knows what he's talking about.

In making this statement he is showing profound ignorance of the law and of actual practice in the nineteenth century.

On the one hand, he keeps saying how everyone knows that men could quite properly and understandably have two surnames in the nineteenth century - one name given to them at birth and one which they adopted as children - yet everything he posts contradicts this concession.

We can see he's now moved from the courtroom to a police station.  Previously, the concealment, according to the Clanger, took place in the courtroom.  It was in the courtroom where an innocent witness who had been adopted or brought up by a stepfather was supposed to break down and tearfully reveal their entire life story whereby they had two different fathers, even if this fact was kept a secret from their friends!

Now the same applies, he tells us, to witnesses speaking to the police!!  So it's not just courtrooms is it?

Why stop there?  Presumably if Charles was known to his employers as Charles Cross he was deceiving them too, and his workmates.  Anyone who knew him as 'Charles Cross' was being deceived.

Yet it's a case of mental doublethink because when I posted research showing men who were generally known by a different name on their birth certificate and other official documents, the Clanger said dismissively that he knew all this.  It was indeed, he said, blindingly obvious.

So why is it 'concealment' and 'deception' when speaking to the police, as opposed to anyone else in Victorian society?  Or is the Clanger saying that all the examples I gave of men with two different surnames were examples of deception?

This guy really does clang. 


In #2266 the Clanger asks:

'Do you think his mates at Pickfords knew him as Charles ALLEN Cross?'

It's a strange question.  They might have done.  It all depends if they knew his middle name or not.  His employers might well have known him by his full name.

But I've never understood the Clanger's strange obsession with the guy's middle name.  Presumably he thinks Cross concealed it in the 1876 inquest when his name was only reported as 'Charles Cross', assuming it's the same guy.

The Clanger concludes his post by saying in respect of the name 'Lechmere':

'All we do know is that he omitted it and that many other people in a similar situation thought it appropriate to reveal both their names.'

This is, of course, false.

He's been challenged directly on this point but refused to respond, yet continues to repeat a falsehood.  We do not have examples of 'many other people' in a similar situation revealing both their names.  We only have one example of this, against which we have the example of Charles Taylor who didn't think it was appropriate. 

The more important point is that the Clanger cannot point to any rule, tradition or law whereby witnesses with two surnames were supposed to state both of them when giving evidence in court.  It should be obvious that no purpose would have been served by such witnesses stating both names when one name was perfectly sufficient.  The Clanger has yet to explain why it was necessary for a witness to state both their names when their name wasn't relevant in any way to the proceedings.  Until he does, he should be ignored.


The Clanger was caught out by Kattrup.

As we've seen, the Clanger claimed in #2259 that there was 'absolutely no question' that Cross concealed part of his identity.

But when challenged about this by Kattrup, the Clanger switched in #2313 to it merely being 'a reasonable assumption' that it crossed the mind of Charles Lechmere that it was appropriate to disclose both names, a massive climb down from 'absolutely no question'.

And I love how the Clanger refers to Lechmere as 'a descendant of the Lechmeres of Fownhope' as if that makes any difference to anything.


In #2314 the Clanger is back to his nonsensical claim that Charles Cross 'mislead the coroner by not stating the 'whole truth' in respect of his name'.

I debunked this false claim in the last 'Lord Orsam Says'.  The oath taken was that the witness would tell the whole truth in respect of events relating to the death of Mary Ann Nichols.  It had nothing to do with the entire family history of the witness.

Perhaps the Clanger thinks that if a witness didn't state his or her middle name he or she was committing perjury!

Of course they weren't.  Their middle name was irrelevant to the inquest and thus irrelevant to the oath. 

Exactly the same was true of any alternative name by which they might have been known, even if this was not their birth name.


The Clanger asked in #2377 how I was able to highlight a number of people who used alternate names, to which he said, answering his own question:

'Because there were records of both names being divulged'.

What he deliberately and disingenuously omits to make clear is that both names were not in most cases divulged by the person with those two names.

That's the critical point.  

Consequently, the records of both names being divulged is barely different to the the names of Cross and Lechmere being divulged in the records.  One just needed to search for them.

In the same post, the Clanger once again disparages my research by saying dismissively:

'What Lord Orsam highlighted was a number of people who used alternate names. Something most of us where completely unaware until his Lordship educated us.'

Well, who knows what the state of the Clanger's knowledge was prior to my research (probably not great, in truth) but the purpose of my research was to respond to Christer Holmgren's claim that an alternate name, if not the name someone was registered under at birth, was 'a false name'.

At the time, the Clanger did not challenge Christer's incorrect statement. 

What my research actually showed was not simply that people could have alternate names but that an alternate name was a perfectly legitimate name, when not used for nefarious purposes, or for disguise, and not a false name. 

I've already mentioned this in a previous update or two and we know the Clanger reads these articles so perhaps it is time for the Clanger to clarify whether someone who used an alternate name was always using a false name. 

And perhaps Christer Holmgren also needs to withdraw his false statement which was based on a misunderstanding of how alternate names were used in the nineteenth century, as my research clearly demonstrated. 


The Clanger once again demonstrated his lack of understanding by saying of Charles Cross in #2377 that the more he looks into his background, 'the more of an anomaly his omission [to state his name Lechmere] seems.'

This is typically ridiculous.  You can't glean anything from his 'background', by which the Clanger seems to mean nothing more than a history of the Lechmere family, prior to the guy's birth.

The only issue of relevance here is what name Charles was known as during his teenage years while his stepfather was alive and when he started being employed by Pickfords.   

The examples I gave of individuals in similar situations showed that they frequently continued to be known by their stepfather's surname even after they married under their birth father's surname.  Why should Cross have been any different?  


RJ Palmer in #2380 challenged the Clanger on his claim about names being 'divulged' and whether it was the subjects themselves who divulged their names or the testimony of others and other records which divulged those names.

Even though RJ had earlier in the thread noted that 16 out of the 17 examples involved the latter type of divulging, the Clanger responded disingenuously by asking (#2382):

'Were there no examples where the individuals or their family members voluntarily divulged both names?'

It's disingenuous because RJ had already distinguished between the subjects themselves divulging both surnames and the testimony of others divulging it.  The testimony of others includes testimony of family members.

Why does the Clanger think that the testimony of family members assists him here?  None of Cross' family testified at the inquest.  

There was only one example in my 17 where the individual in question voluntarily (or at all) divulged their real or alternate surname.  That was a case where he had been convicted under his other name.

So then the Clanger pivoted quickly to Kattrup's Old Bailey research but that didn't help him either because, in the few cases identified where a male witness volunteered that they had two names, this was because their other name was relevant to the criminal proceedings, usually because the witness was related to the prisoner or victim.  That's the massive difference compared to Charles Cross giving his name at an inquest where he wasn't related to the victim nor to any other witness and thus his name and family history was of no relevance or interest to the inquiry.

I've said this about a million times now but the Clanger hasn't even acknowledged the point let alone refuted it. 

28 September 2021
Published on Orsam Day: 20 November 2021 

So it's all a matter of perspective: when are we asking the question? September 25, 2021? Well, if we know the second event definitely happened (but we don't know when it happened) then the odds of it having happened on the day after the first event are clearly 1 (the number of times it happened) over X (the number of days which have passed since the first event happened). So by today that's about 1/10,000 that it would have happened on March 10, 1992.
So, the question being asked is essentially this: if the two events definitely occurred at all, what was the probability that one would occur on March 9, 1992, followed by the other on March 10, 1992? Well, it's definitely not 1/37,557 (nor indeed 1/37,558). Why not? Because the first event has now definitely occurred so the odds get reset from the day that the first event occurred. It has occurred, it is known, so now we are asking what were the odds that the second event - if it was definitely known to have occurred at least 24 hours after the first event occurred - would occur on March 10, 1992? Well, on March 10, 1992 that's a certainty - it's 1 over 1 which is 1 - only if we know the second event definitely followed the first event by at least 24 hours. On March 11, 1992, the odds that the second event would have occurred on March 10, 1992 was 1/2 (it was one event which by then could have occurred on either of two days). On March 12, 1992, the odds that the second event would have occurred on March 10, 1992 was 1/3. Et cetera. As time passes, the likelihood that the second event occurred on March 10, 1992 if the first event occurred on March 9, 1992 gets longer and longer (note, this is not to say the second event becomes less likely to have occurred as time passes because one of our critical premises is that we know it occurred so that bit is not in debate - it is certain - it is simply that the likelihood that it occurred on the day after the first event gets less likely if it occurred purely by chance alone).

So it's all a matter of perspective: when are we asking the question? September 25, 2021? Well, if we know the second event definitely happened (but we don't know when it happened) then the odds of it having happened on the day after the first event are clearly 1 (the number of times it happened) over X (the number of days which have passed since the first event happened). So by today that's about 1/10,000 that it would have happened on March 10, 1992.