The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: ... "suddenly used"? For all we know, he might have been using "Cross" on a day-to-day basis for years and years. Our view of his using the name is confined to a few newspaper reports covering a short space of time, so we can't assume/assert that his using "Cross" was a "sudden" decision at all.

I am speaking of the name he used in contacts with the authorities. And we have a long list of examples of it - all of them, before as well as after the Nichols inquest and investigation, displaying the name "Lechmere".
When he therefore SUDDENLY departed from that habit, it was, is and remains an anomaly. The rehashed suggestions, all of them nothing but brain ghosts and conjecture, that he would ever have used the name Cross in any other walk of life, official or unofficial, are simply useless in a discussion about facts.
What you must realize is that when we have 100 plus Lechmeres, a single Cross interjecting that mass IS a sudden and unexpected matter. It should go without saying.


Trouble is, we can't know either way because we lack a detailed biography - not just for Crossmere, but for anyone else who reserved their "birth certificate name" for use on censuses (etc), whilst using a different name in everyday life. Crossmere wouldn't have been the first, nor the only one to have done so.

But we DO have quite a "detailed biography" when it comes to which name he used when dealing with authorities. And as you know...

Can´t you see that suggesting that he MAY have used the name Cross unoficially has nothing to do with the official proceedings of an inquest?

Can´t you see that suggesting that he may have used the name Cross in other dealings with authorities is wildly at odds with the recorded reality?

Can´t you see that you consequentially have nothing that even remotely looks like a substantiable point? You will have to settle for the "what if" thinking no matter how we look at things.

It is the kind of stuff that a lawyer would use in order to get his client off: It COULD have been like that. And much as it works legally, it does nothing at all to dissolve the implications.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Was Lechmere certain that he would not get checked out, John?

I think we can safely say that he could never be.

So, let´s see what would happen if the police checked him out, and let´s suggest two scenarios:

1. He said that he was Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, working at Pickfords in Broad Street.

2. He said that he was Charles Allen Cross of 5 Heneage Street, working as a butcher in Aldgate.

If he was checked, which scenario would serve him best? What´s your thoughts? Would scenario one, where he could easily say that he used his old stepfather´s name at times, be a better option than scenario two, where he would be revealed as a liar? Would scenario one, so filled with honesty and true information work better to disguise his guilt than scenario two?

Any ideas?

Well if i was a killer and had something to hide i would use scenario 2

[Fisherman]

Well if i was a killer and had something to hide i would use scenario 2

Okay. Then the police would double quick dub you a potential killer if investigating you. But maybe you think it would be for the best?

[John G]

Panicked? After having had two days to ponder what to say? Or at least many an hour after the Lloyds interview?

Wasn't his stepfather a police officer? Was he still serving at the time? When did he first give the name Cross to the authorities?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Fish Just an opinion, but if he was Jack and wanted to mislead the police why not give a totally false name, address, workplace. But if he wanted to be totally truthful to divert suspicion away from himself why not say he was called Lechmere, and maybe add that he sometimes used his stepfathers name Cross. Unless i am missing something it doesn't make sense to go halfway - right address and workplace but wrong name

[Fisherman]

Wasn't his stepfather a police officer? Was he still serving at the time? When did he first give the name Cross to the authorities?

At the time of the murders, the name of his stepfather was Joseph Forsdike. He had once had a stepfather called Thomas Cross, who had been a PC. Thomas Cross had, however, been dead for nineteen years as Lechmere witnessed at the inquest.
That, by the way, was the first, last and only time he gave the name Cross to the authorities, as far as we know.

[Fisherman]

Darryl Kenyon: Hi Fish Just an opinion, but if he was Jack and wanted to mislead the police why not give a totally false name, address, workplace.

Because, as I said, that would turn him a proven liar and fraudster in the eyes of the police if they investigated him. And having been found all alone with the victim, such a thing would spell disaster for him. The police would be all over him like a rash.

Contrary to that, if he only gave an alternative name which was actually a name which he could claim a right to use (since it was once his stepfather´s name), he would not necessarily get in trouble. He could point to how all the information he gave the police was truthful, and say that he actually used the Cross name from time to time.

But if he wanted to be totally truthful to divert suspicion away from himself why not say he was called Lechmere, and maybe add that he sometimes used his stepfathers name Cross. Unless i am missing something it doesn't make sense to go halfway - right address and workplace but wrong name.

There are three elements of information involved in it all:

His name
His working place
His address

We know that he gave the name Cross, the working place Pickfords at Broad Street and the address 22 Doveton Street to the police. But what was given to the police was not what went into the papers.

The one truthful thing he seems to have given in testimony at the inquest, and the one thing that therefore ended up in the papers, was that he was a carman working at Pickfords of Broad Street. But many hundreds of carmen worked there, and so it was a very anonymous thing.

Interestingly, one (1) paper only got the address. None of the others papers did. It was just the Star who reported the address, and since we can see from other witnesses, it would seem that all papers always tried to give the addresses of these people, but sometimes the reporters misheard and wrote other names and numbers than the real ones. If you look at Edward Walker, Pollys father, we have papers writing 16 Maidwood street, Albany road, Camberwell, wheras others write for example 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell - or other takes on it. This was extremely common - the reporters misheard and wrote different addresses.
But in Lechmeres case, only one paper got the address, and they got it spot on. None of the others seems even to have made a try, for once. The apparent inference is that Lechmere never mentioned his address to the inquest, and that the reporter of the Star sought out the inquest protocol and wrote it down from there.

As for the name, it is apparent that he used the name Cross, which he otherwise never did with any type of authority.

So, in total, what do we have? We have a man giving the wrong name, no address and a very large working place to the papers. That would totally obfuscate his identity to those who knew him - the Pickfords carman Charles Cross, no address given, would not be likely to be identified as Charles Lechmere, Pickfords carman of 22 Doveton Street.

That is how I weigh it together, and that is why I say he kept his identity, not from the police who would potentially check him out and where he needed to be as truthful as he could, but from all those who knew his movements from a private horizon. Those who could perhaps see that not only was he found by the dead body of Nichols, but he also subsequently passed the other sites at the relevant hours.

I am not sure, but it may well be the one-thousand-threehundred-and-thirtyfirst time I explain this...

[John G]

At the time of the murders, the name of his stepfather was Joseph Forsdike. He had once had a stepfather called Thomas Cross, who had been a PC. Thomas Cross had, however, been dead for nineteen years as Lechmere witnessed at the inquest.
That, by the way, was the first, last and only time he gave the name Cross to the authorities, as far as we know.

Thanks for this Fish. Which inquest are you referring to? Nichols inquest or that of Thomas Cross?

[Kattrup]

Interestingly, one (1) paper only got the address. None of the others papers did. It was just the Star who reported the address, and since we can see from other witnesses, it would seem that all papers always tried to give the addresses of these people, but sometimes the reporters misheard and wrote other names and numbers than the real ones. If you look at Edward Walker, Pollys father, we have papers writing 16 Maidwood street, Albany road, Camberwell, wheras others write for example 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell - or other takes on it. This was extremely common - the reporters misheard and wrote different addresses.
But in Lechmeres case, only one paper got the address, and they got it spot on. None of the others seems even to have made a try, for once. The apparent inference is that Lechmere never mentioned his address to the inquest, and that the reporter of the Star sought out the inquest protocol and wrote it down from there.

So, not bothering to go through all the witnesses, but it's not hard to find counterexamples from the press transcripts here on casebook:

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said:

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said

"Apparent inference": he never mentioned his address during the inquest.

Henry Llewellyn, 152, Whitechapel-road, surgeon

Mr. Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, of 152, Whitechapel-road

Mr. Henry Llewellyn, 152 Whitechapel road, surgeon, said

Thankfully, dilligent reporters probed and burrowed and gained access to inquest protocol.


Is that example different because several newspapers mentioned his address? Answer: no, not in this context, but as said, it's easy to find another example.

From a different trial:

Henry John Holland, a boxmaker, stated

Henry John Holland said

Henry John Holland, called and examined

Henry John Holland - a thin, sickly-looking youth, with straw-coloured hair

Henry John Holland called and examined

"Apparent inference": he never mentioned his name during the inquest. It seems he did not want to say it out loud.

Henry John Holland, 4 Aden-yard, Mile-end-road

Good thing the brilliant reporter of the Times managed to sniff out his address.

So, in total, what do we have? We have a man giving the wrong name, no address and a very large working place to the papers.

No, we have a man giving a secondary or alternative legitimate name, giving his home address and his place of work.

[Kattrup]

"Apparent inference": he never mentioned his name during the inquest. It seems he did not want to say it out loud.

It should of course read: he never mentioned his address. Sorry.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Fish
You say - The one truthful thing he seems to have given in testimony at the inquest, and the one thing that therefore ended up in the papers, was that he was a carman working at Pickfords of Broad Street. But many hundreds of carmen worked there, and so it was a very anonymous thing.

But if the police where suspicious and did want to speak to him again, and didn't find a Charles Cross at Pickfords. Wouldn't it be easy to simply ID him at His workplace. Even check the duty rota on who started around 4 am on that fateful morning. Get his address and keep tabs on him

[drstrange169]

Interesting to read that you took the time and effort respond to post #42but, avoided answering any of the questions raised in it, so let’s try again:

Re: “Official Documents”

Does any of this “official material” Ed has, relate to the police or Pickfords?

Was Xmere put down as “Cross” in the census whilst Thomas Cross was alive?

Is that “official Material”?

Did he start work at Pickfords when Thomas Cross was alive?

Is the notion that he might be called Cross at Pickfords illogical or outlandish to any unbiased observer?




>>If Nichols had not been bleeding as Neil arrived. And Mizen.<<

Which qualified forensic expert, then or now, can dismiss the possibility that Mrs. Nichols was leaking blood because her body was disturbed rather than freshly cut?



>>If Mizen and Lechmere had only agreed about the simple things that were said in an empty, silent street.<<

Did or did not Paul disagree with Mizen’s story?
If he didn’t agree, then he is no different from Xmere.


>>If the clothing had not been pulled down over the abdomen of Nichols when Paul saw her.<<

“Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach” Robert Paul.

Of course Xmere said, “ When I found her, her clothes were above her knees”

Funny how Xmere’s a liar and Paul tells the truth until they say something you don’t like.

The unbiased observer would say, because there are conflicting reports we don’t know.

But you just cherry-pick the quote you prefer, embellish it a bit, and run around telling everyone it’s a fact.



>>If Lechmere had simply agreed to try and prop Nichols up.<<

Once again, despite nobody else corroborating this story, Xmere is suddenly once again, believable and of course his story must have sinister connotations.

Trouble is it doesn’t.

Volunteering such information is point in his favour.



>>If he had claimed to have left home at 3.38.<<

In the absence of synchronization how can this possibly be of value?
How big is a hole in the ground? How long is a piece of string?



>>The geographical implications remain. His work took him through the killing zone.<<

Where did he work in Broad St Station?

What entrance did he use?

The fact that he walked along Hanbury rather than Old Montague implies he went to one of the northern entrances, in which case, he would not have traversed the “killing zone” any more than Paul did. You are stating as fact something you have no evidence of.


RE weekends off:

You claim,
>>It was by far the more common thing. The point stands.<<

Except we are not talking about “common things” we are talking about a very specific thing.

Broad St Station worked Sundays.

I ask again what evidence do you have that Xmere did not work that Sunday?



Re the apron
You wrote,

>>It would have stopped any speculation that Lechmere went to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up.<<

But you just calimed Xmere didn’t work Sunday’s!


>>If Lechmere´s mother had not lived in Mary Ann Street when Stride died.<<

You might be right I’m not sure on the exact dates, but I thought she was in Cable St at that time. Could you show your source?


Re: The route from James St to Broad St going via Mitre Sq.

You said,

>>It was the logical one. Then again, you and logic...<<

True. I try to use it and you don’t.

There is no logic by any sensible person’s reasoning, for Xmere to go from James St to Broad St via Mitre Sq.

I urge everyone to look at a map to conform just how ridiculous this notion is.

That, of course, assumes that he worked at Broad St when he lived in James St. We simply do not know the answer to that.



>>If Paul had clearly stated that he was never out of earshot from Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen.<<

The newspapers report mizzen as saying,“There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness”

Mizen said Paul was with Xmere “when the latter spoke to the witness”.

Mizen does NOT say Paul moved out of “earshot”.

And, apparently, you think Mizen was a reliable witness so how does that work out?

[drstrange169]

>>One of the more infuriating things is when people claim that I have said that X and/or Y are facts when I have actually never said such a thing (see some of the above posts). <<

So you are now claiming you didn't reply to Kattrup by saying,
>>The thing is, every example you point to is an example where we hear people say "my name is X, but I go by the name of Y", or something such.<< ???

[Fisherman]

>>One of the more infuriating things is when people claim that I have said that X and/or Y are facts when I have actually never said such a thing (see some of the above posts). <<

So you are now claiming you didn't reply to Kattrup by saying,
>>The thing is, every example you point to is an example where we hear people say "my name is X, but I go by the name of Y", or something such.<< ???

I am speaking of an entirely different matter, relating to how others answer me. Not how I answer Kattrup - which I did on a general level, adding "or something such", by the way.
Not that I am discussing it any further with you.

[Fisherman]

Interesting to read that you took the time and effort respond to post #42but, avoided answering any of the questions raised in it, so let’s try again:

Re: “Official Documents”

Does any of this “official material” Ed has, relate to the police or Pickfords?

Was Xmere put down as “Cross” in the census whilst Thomas Cross was alive?

Is that “official Material”?

Did he start work at Pickfords when Thomas Cross was alive?

Is the notion that he might be called Cross at Pickfords illogical or outlandish to any unbiased observer?




>>If Nichols had not been bleeding as Neil arrived. And Mizen.<<

Which qualified forensic expert, then or now, can dismiss the possibility that Mrs. Nichols was leaking blood because her body was disturbed rather than freshly cut?



>>If Mizen and Lechmere had only agreed about the simple things that were said in an empty, silent street.<<

Did or did not Paul disagree with Mizen’s story?
If he didn’t agree, then he is no different from Xmere.


>>If the clothing had not been pulled down over the abdomen of Nichols when Paul saw her.<<

“Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach” Robert Paul.

Of course Xmere said, “ When I found her, her clothes were above her knees”

Funny how Xmere’s a liar and Paul tells the truth until they say something you don’t like.

The unbiased observer would say, because there are conflicting reports we don’t know.

But you just cherry-pick the quote you prefer, embellish it a bit, and run around telling everyone it’s a fact.



>>If Lechmere had simply agreed to try and prop Nichols up.<<

Once again, despite nobody else corroborating this story, Xmere is suddenly once again, believable and of course his story must have sinister connotations.

Trouble is it doesn’t.

Volunteering such information is point in his favour.



>>If he had claimed to have left home at 3.38.<<

In the absence of synchronization how can this possibly be of value?
How big is a hole in the ground? How long is a piece of string?



>>The geographical implications remain. His work took him through the killing zone.<<

Where did he work in Broad St Station?

What entrance did he use?

The fact that he walked along Hanbury rather than Old Montague implies he went to one of the northern entrances, in which case, he would not have traversed the “killing zone” any more than Paul did. You are stating as fact something you have no evidence of.


RE weekends off:

You claim,
>>It was by far the more common thing. The point stands.<<

Except we are not talking about “common things” we are talking about a very specific thing.

Broad St Station worked Sundays.

I ask again what evidence do you have that Xmere did not work that Sunday?



Re the apron
You wrote,

>>It would have stopped any speculation that Lechmere went to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up.<<

But you just calimed Xmere didn’t work Sunday’s!


>>If Lechmere´s mother had not lived in Mary Ann Street when Stride died.<<

You might be right I’m not sure on the exact dates, but I thought she was in Cable St at that time. Could you show your source?


Re: The route from James St to Broad St going via Mitre Sq.

You said,

>>It was the logical one. Then again, you and logic...<<

True. I try to use it and you don’t.

There is no logic by any sensible person’s reasoning, for Xmere to go from James St to Broad St via Mitre Sq.

I urge everyone to look at a map to conform just how ridiculous this notion is.

That, of course, assumes that he worked at Broad St when he lived in James St. We simply do not know the answer to that.



>>If Paul had clearly stated that he was never out of earshot from Lechmere as the latter spoke to Mizen.<<

The newspapers report mizzen as saying,“There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness”

Mizen said Paul was with Xmere “when the latter spoke to the witness”.

Mizen does NOT say Paul moved out of “earshot”.

And, apparently, you think Mizen was a reliable witness so how does that work out?

No obfuscating takes away from what I stated - if Lechmere had had help from somewhere in any of the instances I named, he would have been off the hook to a smaller or larger degree.

Asking, for example, "did he start work at Pickfords when Thomas Cross was alive?" is completely irrelevant in this context. It nevertheless remains that if we had had records of the carman using the name Cross, it would have absolved him on that note.

Your post is therefore somewhat irrelevant and grossly disingenuous.