Lord Orsam's Blog

[Admin]

Just for the record, what is acceptable for discussion on this thread? His Lordship’s errors? His nastiness? His divinity?

If you are unclear about what is acceptable we would suggest you refer to the site rules.

Admin.

[Gary Barnett]

Just for the record, what is acceptable for discussion on this thread? His Lordship’s errors? His nastiness? His divinity?

[Admin]

All recent posts have been moved to the above thread.

Admin.

[R. J. Palmer]

For the 4 or 5 sad souls that might be interested, I've just responded to Caz's recent posts on a more appropriate thread:

25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

[Caroline Brown]

We are straying dangerously close to this becoming a Maybrick discussion thread rather than it's original subject matter.


If you wish to discuss the wider aspects of the diary please do so on the correct forum area.


Admin.

Apologies, I've only just reached the above post. I have a habit of reading and responding to posts in order, and I'm always playing catch-up as I don't have as much time as others evidently do to keep right up to date.

Love,

Caz
X

[R. J. Palmer]

I notice that 'Orsam' has updated his blog with a new example pertaining to Cross/Lechmere name controversy.

The man in question was George Spence Clarke aka 'George Gregory' and the careful reader will soon understand the obvious relevancy.

[R. J. Palmer]

So what is the point of producing endless examples of people who didn’t do what Lechmere did?

You admitted you didn't actually read the full blog.

Both Kattrup and Barrat have given examples of people who did do what Lechmere did: gave the name of their stepfather in court without identifying any other alternative name.

[R. J. Palmer]

RJ,

One last question on this, what in your opinion is the value of the Bark example? What does it prove?

Prove? What do you mean prove?

I don't think the intention was to prove anything. Bark was not meant to be analogous to Charles Allen Cross/Charles Allen Lechmere referring to himself as Charles Allen Cross at the inquest.

Instead, we have an example of a man who entered the work force using his stepfather's name and was known by that name at his place of employment for 35 years, even though he was elsewhere known as Bark.

It thought it was fairly self-explanatory.

"What we have here then is a situation where a man who was known while a child and young man as Richard Collier, and who evidently obtained employment with R. Hornsby & Sons under that name, continued to be known by his employer as Richard Collier even though he married as Richard Bark and even though he appeared in all known official records thereafter as Richard Bark, including census, marriage and birth and court records. Clearly, the fact that his children were all known as 'Bark' didn't stop him being known at work as 'Collier'."

I have no idea why you find the mention of the arrest of Richard Bark in Harrowby relevant.

The whole point of the example, as I understood it, was to show that he was known as Collier at work and Bark/Barke elsewhere. Harrowby was elsewhere.

How does the Harrowby example 'discredit' that observation?

.

[Harry Mann]

Hello Gary,
As you mentioned my name,i'll reply.In my line of work I was given names by literally hundreds of persons.It didn't worry me that some of them might be false,or an alterate name they were allowed to use,Like Cross,The important thing would be whether the name did or did not lead me to a false conclusion.

[Gary Barnett]

I’m assuming that Lord O’s inflated reputation stems from his Diary efforts, something I know little or nothing about. Whenever he extends beyond that, though, he seems to fail miserably.

When I say ‘fail’, I mean that either his research is obviously flawed, or that his attempts at unsupported subterfuge are laughably transparent.

His recent Richard Bark nonsense must surely have destroyed any credibility he may have had. If he was attempting to compare Bark to Lechmere, why didn’t he reveal that when Bark was first reported as Collier in the press he was unlikely to have been conscious?

Research flaw or subterfuge ?

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[Gary Barnett]

RJ,

One last question on this, what in your opinion is the value of the Bark example? What does it prove?

[Gary Barnett]

If, instead of finding a dead body, Charles Lechmere* had had an accident at work that involved the virtual severing of one of his arms and he had been rushed to the nearest hospital for life-saving treatment, I would not expect him to have given any consideration as to what name he was registered under. In fact, I would imagine that information to have been supplied by those who rushed him there.

*I was encouraged to see David referring to his subject as Bark aka Collier rather than simply Collier. Harry Mann (and others) would no doubt object to that.

[Gary Barnett]

Hi Gary.

Yes, you've been making this same point for months, but you don't seem to appreciate that your 'point' relies on confirmation bias.

An appropriate analogy would be testing a new drug and then announcing the drug was effective based solely on those who self-reported that it was beneficial. What about those who didn't report back? What about the necessary blind studies with a placebo that are always required when testing a drug?

Kattrup and Barrat found these cases because the person 'considered it appropriate' to reveal both names.

But that doesn't give us any idea of how many people didn't report alternative names, or how widespread this practice might have been. Surely you can appreciate that?

To prove your point, one would have to look at hundreds of random witness statements where no alternative name was given by the witness and then go through the painful task of tracing the family trees or other documentation relating to those witnesses to determine (if it is even possible) whether they had used an alternative name during their life but failed to report it in court. In point of fact, Barrat did find one case where this happened.

Unless such a monumental study is undertaken--and who on earth would want to do it?---the fact that we are dealing with the tricky issue of confirmation bias is inescapable.

RP

So what is the point of producing endless examples of people who didn’t do what Lechmere did? As you say, I have repeatedly expressed my view that his not revealing his ‘real’ name is, in my view, odd. And in response I receive numerous examples of those who acted differently. And that is what I’m responding to at the moment.

I suspect the report below may concern David’s Richard Bark. An all round lowlife it would seem, and yet he knew what name to use when dealing with authority - his ‘real’ name.

A question for you, when you read David’s account of the use of the Collier name in the reports of the accident, did you assume that he had given that name to the press?

All that this and so many of the other examples come down to is that people were occasionally known by their stepfather’s surname. We really didn’t need David to drain a lake of ink to discover that, did we?

[R. J. Palmer]

Thanks for that example, Kattrup/David, it proves my point perfectly. Bark’s lowly antecedents couldn’t have been more different from those of CAL and yet even he seemingly considered it inappropriate to use his assumed surname when dealing with authority. Lechmere seemingly didn’t.

Hi Gary.

Yes, you've been making this same point for months, but you don't seem to appreciate that your 'point' relies on confirmation bias.

An appropriate analogy would be testing a new drug and then announcing the drug was effective based solely on those who self-reported that it was beneficial. What about those who didn't report back? What about the necessary blind studies with a placebo that are always required when testing a drug?

Kattrup and Barrat found these cases because the person 'considered it appropriate' to reveal both names.

But that doesn't give us any idea of how many people didn't report alternative names, or how widespread this practice might have been. Surely you can appreciate that?

To prove your point, one would have to look at hundreds of random witness statements where no alternative name was given by the witness and then go through the painful task of tracing the family trees or other documentation relating to those witnesses to determine (if it is even possible) whether they had used an alternative name during their life but failed to report it in court. In point of fact, Barrat did find one case where this happened.

Unless such a monumental study is undertaken--and who on earth would want to do it?---the fact that we are dealing with the tricky issue of confirmation bias is inescapable.

RP

[Gary Barnett]

Re: the original subject matter, Orsam’s blog was just updated with part 3 of the “Lechmere/Cross Name Issue”, in which it is, once again, shown that it was not uncommon or illegal to use different names and that there is no point in thinking there was anything strange about Charles Cross giving his name as Cross.

Case study 3 in the post is about Henry David Reynolds, who Gary Barnett asked about in August.

https://www.orsam.co.uk/post/lechmer...e-issue-part-3

So, the illegitimate, illiterate, wife-beating drunk Richard Bark who may never have known who his real father was, who had probably been registered at school as Collier and who was still providing for his mother and his stepfather Mr Collier when the accident occurred, nevertheless thought it appropriate to use the name Bark when making the claim against his employers who seemingly only knew him as Collier?

Why might that have been?

And every time he was tossed in the drunk tank he called himself Bark?

Why might that have been?

When he viciously beat his wife there was no mention of the name Collier?

Why might that have been?

As for the sole disclosure of the name Collier at time of the accident, do you imagine Bark was personally interviewed by the press and deliberately chose not to reveal his ‘real’ name? Isn’t it more likely that the press got wind of the incident via the hospital and obtained their info from there and from Bark’s workplace? If so, how is that in any way comparable to the Cross/Lechmere scenario, where he did deliberately conceal his real name from the police and the coroner?*

Thanks for that example, Kattrup/David, it proves my point perfectly. Bark’s lowly antecedents couldn’t have been more different from those of CAL and yet even he seemingly considered it inappropriate to use his assumed surname when dealing with authority. Lechmere seemingly didn’t.

Why might that have been?

You’ll forgive me if I don’t wade through the other examples.


*For some reason, David chose to show press reports from a week after the accident. It had occurred on Saturday 25th, January and as early as the following Monday (27th) the Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer reported on the incident, named the victim Collier and described him as remaining in a ‘precarious condition’. The poor chap was probably barely conscious (if at all) when the press identified him. So, as far I can tell, there is not a single example of Bark himself using the name Collier when dealing with authority.