The Mizen scam

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger,

I was mulling this over at work this morning.

First of all, does it matter what he was called at work, anyway ? The fact is that we know that he was known as Lechmere everywhere else, and he clearly didn't tell the police this, or else they would have noted it (since they always noted aliases).

A point that convinces me that he was was known generally as Lechmere has to be that his children went to school as Lechmeres. I think that illegitimacy carried a stigma at the time, and it would have been (as Lechmere -the Rottweiler) pointed out, extremely embarrassing for those children to be known as Lechmere at school, if the man that their mother was living with was known as Cross.

I was trying to think of the psychological implications of naming your children for the outside world : on one hand the mother would surely want to give those children her husband's name, for her own honour. On the other hand, even if Crossmere was a tyrant at home and tortured his children, it would be because he felt that he 'owned' them, and so he would surely give them his usual name -to show that 'ownership'. What's more, if he was a dominating sort (and Jack surely was), he wouldn't want any suggestion that he wasn't 'potent' or he'd been cuckolded -he wouldn't want any confusion that those children weren't his. He sent those children to school, and out into adult life afterwards, as 'Lechmeres'. Therefore, we can pretty safely deduce that Lechmere was the name that he was widely known by.

I doubt that he had a great love for his step father. That is speculation -but you obviously like speculation, Moonbegger. I'm basing this on the fact that his real Father buggered off when he was young, quite a long way away, and had a another family (this is no crictism of the Father, since we don't know the circumstances, and he was present at his son's christening -off the top of my head). However, travel wasn't as easy without cars, no telephones existed, e-mails and skype didn't exist, and work laws didn't provide for the holidays that we have now -and so we can see that Lechmere Dad could only have had minimal contact with young Chas.

It would be understandable in the circumstances if Charles had seen his stepfather, Cross, as a father figure, and had taken his name, and had been bitter, hurt, and angry about being abandoned (effectively) by his real father, But obviously he wasn't, since we know that he used the name Lechmere above Cross. Surely that points more to a conflictual relationship with Cross ?

It is virtually impossible (given the lack of contact that he must have had with his real father) that he could have chosen to use the name 'Lechmere' (FACT), because Dad Lechmere did something 'right', but rather that Cross did something 'wrong' (for him).

Otherwise, the point about using 'Cross' because he might have been in 'work mode' has surely been well and truly nailed by both Fish & Lechmere in their respective posts.

[Fisherman]

Seeing as we have at numerous times posted Lechmere´s rap sheet on this and related threads, and keeping in mind that the ones speaking for potential guilt on Lechmere´s behalf have over and over again stated that it is not the singled-out details that do the damage but instead the collected weight of all these details together, I thought that it would only be fair (and enlightening) to list it all again - but from the viewpoint of the deniers. It would look something like this:

EXONERATING CHARLES LECHMERE

-There is no discrepancy inbetween the time Lechmere left home and the fact that he had only managed to reach Buck´s Row at 3.45. In fact, all of the PC:s plus Robert Paul had gotten their time estimations wrong, and Lechmere was actually outside Browns stable Yard at 3.31, having left home at 3.25.

-There was nothing strange with Lechmere not hearing Paul until the latter was a mere 30-40 yards away - Robert Paul wore worn-down shoes and the Lilley train passed, fifteen minutes late due to an accident earlier that morning, obscuring the sounds of Pauls arrival.

-There was never any issue of the dress having been pulled down on Nichols. Her abdomen came to an abrupt end where the ribcage ended, and thus the description of the dress having been slightly below the abdomen actually puts the brim of her ulster over her nipples.

-The fact that Lechmere took Paul over to feel Nichols hands and face was led on by a wish to help her, nothing else.

-The fact that Lechmere denied helping to prop her up was due to a suspicion on his behalf that she could have suffered damage to her spine, something that could be worsened by any propping effort.

-It was not callous to leave a potentially dying woman in the street - a policeman would be very suited to help her instead, and both men were anxious not to loose their jobs on account of arriving late (something that they would do just the same, but why push their respective lucks?)

-The fact that Mizen told the inquest that Lechmere had said that there was a PC waiting in Buck´s Row was a lie, but an innocent one - he wanted to get in time to job, as has already been suggested, and that´s why he concoted a lie that allowed him to pass Mizen.

-The fact that he never mentioned that he himself had found Nichols was due to the same problem - he did not want to get too involved, and he wished to rush to job.

-He chose Hanbury Street, a somewhat slow passage, in spite of being late, but this was because he did not dare to venture into the swifter Old Montague Street, for fear of being mugged.

-When he went to the police, he gave the name Cross because that was what he always called himself when in company of those he knew. And he may well have known the policemen he reported in to, since his stepfather, dead since nineteen years, had been a policeman too. It was only on formal occasions - and when baptizing his kids and marrying his wife - that he called himself Lechmere. And the mailbox is of course just a formal contact with the mail authorities.

-He arrived to the inquest in working clothes because he felt a need not to upset his wife. At any rate, he would have been dirt poor, and would probably not have owned any Sunday best in any case - he had spent all his money baptizing his large swarm of children.

-The murders fell, with the one exception, along routes that represented thoroughfares from his home at Doveton Street to his job on Broad Street. But that was just a coincidence, and many, many men would have used them streets in the early morning hours anyway.

-The same thing goes for the fact that the remaining victim was killed on a thoroughfare to his mothers and daughters lodgings, and on a weekend night, as opposed to the other killings. Coincidence, nothing else - and once again, if the killer was somebody else that had trodden Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street in the mornings, who is to say that he could not equally have frequented Berner Street in the weekends?

Mind you, if anybody should regard this schedule as an irony, it deserves to be considered that all of these things are things - with the possibole exception of an inch or two when it comes to the clothes-pulling; sorry Dave - that have been suggested by the ones who dislike the Lechmere bid.

This is the quality of the criticism, thus.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Caz ,

"if he had just murdered and mutilated Nichols. The vast majority of serial killers don’t hang around their victims waiting to bluff it out with the next person on the scene - unless you have evidence to the contrary. The ripper - whoever he was - would have been caught pretty quickly if he hadn’t been aware of the conditions, and the need to be away on his toes at the first sounds of anyone approaching"

Aint that the truth !

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello Retro

"It would be understandable in the circumstances if Charles had seen his stepfather, Cross, as a father figure, and had taken his name, and had been bitter, hurt, and angry about being abandoned (effectively) by his real father, But obviously he wasn't, since we know that he used the name Lechmere above Cross. Surely that points more to a conflictual relationship with Cross ? "

There is no argument from me that he was born a Lechmere , his bloodline is a lechmere , his DNA is Lechmere .. and he died a Lechmere , So why on earth would he want to start his own family under another man's name , his main objective would be to carry on his own family name. regardless of how much respect he had for his stepfather Thomas !

But the thing is Ruby his adolescent years from 9 up until at least 20 , possibly 22 he was known as Cross .. you cannot just erase those years because you are now making your own way in the world and wish to take back your family name .

For 11 years his Mum was named Cross , his stepfather was named Cross , He himself ( according to the 61 census ) was named Cross .. OFFICIAL documentation !

moonbegger

[Rubyretro]

Moonbegger (I finished work early today , so am still the kitten that I usually am).

There is no argument from me that he was born a Lechmere , his bloodline is a lechmere , his DNA is Lechmere .. and he died a Lechmere , So why on earth would he want to start his own family under another man's name , his main objective would be to carry on his own family name. regardless of how much respect he had for his stepfather Thomas !

Well, that is a moot point (you are choosing genetics above nurture. Are you aware of the implications ? In this case I have to be subjective...if Lechmere had felt a filial loyalty towards Cross, then why would he have chosen to call himself Lechmere in everyday life ? He had no idea of Ancestry.com nor DNA.
I think that he just didn't feel that Cross was his father -in other words he rejected Cross. The alternative was Lechmere -so that's what he chose..).

You know, Moonbegger...I'm just playing your game here -making it up.. No real argument here, as you say.

But the thing is Ruby his adolescent years from 9 up until at least 20 , possibly 22 he was known as Cross .. you cannot just erase those years because you are now making your own way in the world and wish to take back your family name .

Well, having two teenage sons,and two step daughters ,I'd bet that if he'd felt a conflict with his step father, he coud just as easily have given his name as Lechmere -as 'rebellion' (Who are you to represent authority? Nothing to do with me !).
He could perfectly well just have taken back his name for that reason...

but I'm conjecturing...

For 11 years his Mum was named Cross , his stepfather was named Cross , He himself ( according to the 61 census ) was named Cross .. OFFICIAL documentation !

So what ? He was obviously and indisputably known as Lechmere at the time of Polly's death..

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer,

Sorry about the delayed response but I haven't been able to spend as much time here as I would've liked...real life sometimes impinges!

Stomach, most probably. Or tummy. And all three stretch all the way down to the pelvic area. There is nothing inbetween, no matter what we choose to call it, and that is the point I am making. The area between the solar plexus and the pelvic brim is the ... oh, okay: stomach. And if Nichols´clothes were raised up NOT to reach her stomach, but only almost, then why would that specification indicate that the clothes were raised to a level up ON her stomach - between the navel and the pubic area, as you put it?

Would a collar that almost reached the chin cover the nose? Would a temperature that almost reached 100 degrees Celsius make water boil?

I think most of us, even today, if asked to rub our tummy, would rub the area just above, or on the navel, therefore it is not at all unreasonable to posit that clothes raised "almost up to the stomach" would lie somewhere between the navel and the pubis...If Paul had meant the clothing was round her thighs he had only to say so...in fact Victorian delicacy would have made such an answer more acceptable. I'd guess he said what he meant.

The points that are made out here are sometimes very strange, I find. Sure, Paul could have meant that the clothing reached halfways up to her breastbone, and expressed himself poorly. We cannot rule that out totally. But why would we not accept that the wording implicates that the clothing did NOT reach up to the stomach area - when this is what the testimony says?

If I'd said the clothing reached halfway to her breastbone, I'd expect to be ridiculed for it...I haven't. If I'd said the clothing (in contravention of the testimony) reached her stomach I'd expect to be criticised...again I haven't....the point I argue isn't strange or perverse as you seem intent on implying.

It´s all very fine to look for useful criticism and to go digging for material that could overthrow the Lechmere proposition - but is this such a thing?

I'm doing neither Christer...I'm merely pointing out, as I've said before, the doubts that exist.

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Moomin
"But the thing is Ruby his adolescent years from 9 up until at least 20 , possibly 22 he was known as Cross .. you cannot just erase those years because you are now making your own way in the world and wish to take back your family name . "
The trouble is you have absolutely nothing to back that up with apart from a census record when he was 9 and too young to fill the paper work in or speak for himself.

Ruby
I doubt Charles Lechmere's real father was at the baptism - his name was entered, but if the father was dead his name would also be entered. In other words the listing of the father's name does not imply that he was there.
But you made a good point about his non-use of Cross after his real father dumped him.

Caz
I find it very strange that you cannot seem to comprehend that using 'Wigginbottom' would have raised a whole lot more suspicion in the eyes of the police, if discovered, than 'Cross' would have done. He had some ready made excuses for using Cross even if he didn't in fact ever use it in is day to day life.
But who would the police have checked with?
His neighbours perhaps (but they very possibly didn't know him) or his work colleagues? Let's go with his work colleagues then. As you say they may have known that he was involved as he seemingly booked the day off to attend the inquest.
But I would suggest that if the police were nosing around Pickfords then he would probably have been aware of it - or don't you think so?
So the idea that he would have been unaware of renewed police interest doesn't really hold water does it? If they were watching him like a hawk he would have known.
I thought this line of reasoning was somewhat obvious so that is why I assumed you were thinking he would be lynched.

In any case, the course of events would have been as follows:

The murderer (Cross/Lechmere) is semi-caught in the act. He allowed someone to get too close for his personal comfort and made the snap decison to bluff it out. He decided this was the safer bet rather than leg it and possibly blunder into the arms of a beat policeman just as this bystander reached the body and possibly cried out 'murder'. This scenario is quite plausible but I know that for some reason you think the only possible or conceivable action would be to leg it. That I am afraid only demonstrates a very poor understanding of human responses.
Anyway...
Luckily for him the bystander is Paul - a weak willed and easily impressionable character, who is self centred, callous and anti-police. He bamboozles Paul into touching the body and they agree to leave her and go on their way, telling any policeman they may meet.
They bump into Mizen and Cross/Lechmere successfully downplays what has happened and leads Mizen to believe that a policeman is already around the corner and has spoken to them. They get past Mizen without having to give their details.
Unfortunately Paul then goes to the press with a story that 'bigs up' his role but also unfortunately fingers Cross/Lechmere as standing right by the body when spotted.

Cross/Lechmere understandably feels compelled to come forward and give his side of the story. The alternative would be to hide and wait to be found - whoich could easily happen if say Paul or Mizen came across him at a later date on his way to work, or if the police conducted a vigerous search for him. This is Sunday evening.
It is at this moment that he decided to obscure his role in it so opts to call himself Cross rather than Lechmere - the name he used in all other walks of life that are known about. The most likely explanation for chosing Cross is to avoid his wife knowing about it. How would she if she was illiterate? Simple, if it got out on the local grapevine that some local chap called Cross found the body. Why would he want his wife to avoid knowing about it? Wives tend to know more about their husband's character than anyone else and she may have put two and two together and known that he was the culprit.
Using the name Cross has the advantage that if challenged he can come out with an explanation that would pass muster.

After giving Cross as his name, in the course of the police interview he was asked his address and workplace. He realised that if he gave false information and he was checked up on it would be back to square one and they would come looking for him - and when found it would mean a full scale interrogation, rather than him giving a controlled minimal interview.
He felt it necssary to give the minimal interview to get him off the hook and because hiding would have been a more dangerous option. Just as running instead of turning to face Paul was judged to be a more dangerous option.

Then he was compelled to attend the inquest and make his statement again, which he did in whis work clothes because he did not want his wife to know he was not going to work as normal.

Now Caz, none of these acts were the act of a foolish man or someone who was stupid.
One thing led to another.
His choices are all easily understandable. In no case would any of his options have led to the gallows.
When asked if he had told Mizen he was wanted by a policeman he said 'No, because there wasn't a policeman.' Of course there wasn't a policeman. But psychopaths are plausible liars that are used to liying and for their lies to be accepted at face value. At worst it could be explained as a mix up.
His name swap could be explained as wanting to honour the memory of his ex-cop step dad when dealing with the police. He could say that if he eanted to hide he wouldn't have given his work place and address.
He had plausible explanations. He was no idiot.
The key to it is he wanted to avoid having his wife know about his involvement

By the way - the police certainly didn't investigate Cross/Lechmere. If this was a modern investigation and they knew about him what we know now I am absolutely certain that he would have come under severe investigation. If you doubt that then I think you are being utterly unrealistic.

[Cogidubnus]

Seeing as we have at numerous times posted Lechmere´s rap sheet on this and related threads, and keeping in mind that the ones speaking for potential guilt on Lechmere´s behalf have over and over again stated that it is not the singled-out details that do the damage but instead the collected weight of all these details together, I thought that it would only be fair (and enlightening) to list it all again - but from the viewpoint of the deniers. It would look something like this:

EXONERATING CHARLES LECHMERE

-There is no discrepancy inbetween the time Lechmere left home and the fact that he had only managed to reach Buck´s Row at 3.45. In fact, all of the PC:s plus Robert Paul had gotten their time estimations wrong, and Lechmere was actually outside Browns stable Yard at 3.31, having left home at 3.25.

-There was nothing strange with Lechmere not hearing Paul until the latter was a mere 30-40 yards away - Robert Paul wore worn-down shoes and the Lilley train passed, fifteen minutes late due to an accident earlier that morning, obscuring the sounds of Pauls arrival.

-There was never any issue of the dress having been pulled down on Nichols. Her abdomen came to an abrupt end where the ribcage ended, and thus the description of the dress having been slightly below the abdomen actually puts the brim of her ulster over her nipples.

-The fact that Lechmere took Paul over to feel Nichols hands and face was led on by a wish to help her, nothing else.

-The fact that Lechmere denied helping to prop her up was due to a suspicion on his behalf that she could have suffered damage to her spine, something that could be worsened by any propping effort.

-It was not callous to leave a potentially dying woman in the street - a policeman would be very suited to help her instead, and both men were anxious not to loose their jobs on account of arriving late (something that they would do just the same, but why push their respective lucks?)

-The fact that Mizen told the inquest that Lechmere had said that there was a PC waiting in Buck´s Row was a lie, but an innocent one - he wanted to get in time to job, as has already been suggested, and that´s why he concoted a lie that allowed him to pass Mizen.

-The fact that he never mentioned that he himself had found Nichols was due to the same problem - he did not want to get too involved, and he wished to rush to job.

-He chose Hanbury Street, a somewhat slow passage, in spite of being late, but this was because he did not dare to venture into the swifter Old Montague Street, for fear of being mugged.

-When he went to the police, he gave the name Cross because that was what he always called himself when in company of those he knew. And he may well have known the policemen he reported in to, since his stepfather, dead since nineteen years, had been a policeman too. It was only on formal occasions - and when baptizing his kids and marrying his wife - that he called himself Lechmere. And the mailbox is of course just a formal contact with the mail authorities.

-He arrived to the inquest in working clothes because he felt a need not to upset his wife. At any rate, he would have been dirt poor, and would probably not have owned any Sunday best in any case - he had spent all his money baptizing his large swarm of children.

-The murders fell, with the one exception, along routes that represented thoroughfares from his home at Doveton Street to his job on Broad Street. But that was just a coincidence, and many, many men would have used them streets in the early morning hours anyway.

-The same thing goes for the fact that the remaining victim was killed on a thoroughfare to his mothers and daughters lodgings, and on a weekend night, as opposed to the other killings. Coincidence, nothing else - and once again, if the killer was somebody else that had trodden Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street in the mornings, who is to say that he could not equally have frequented Berner Street in the weekends?

Mind you, if anybody should regard this schedule as an irony, it deserves to be considered that all of these things are things - with the possibole exception of an inch or two when it comes to the clothes-pulling; sorry Dave - that have been suggested by the ones who dislike the Lechmere bid.

This is the quality of the criticism, thus.

Frankly Christer, and it pains me to say so, if you're reduced to this kind of sarcasm and ridicule in order to support your case, I'm afraid it doesn't say much for the quality of your evidence. In fact you do yourself an injustice...

Frankly, you've got the use of the name Cross, and the possible doubts over exactly what was said to Mizen - and in my honest opinion, that's all you've got at the moment...interesting, but inconclusive...find something more and for my part I'll happily reconsider...but until then...

All the best

Dave

[moonbegger]

Hello Leech

"The trouble is you have absolutely nothing to back that up with apart from a census record when he was 9 and too young to fill the paper work in or speak for himself"

But that does not deviate from the fact For 11 years his Mum was named Cross , his stepfather was named Cross , He himself ( according to the 61 census ) was named Cross .. OFFICIAL documentation !

Now previous posters have made the claim about the stigma regarding illegitimate children .. so we know for a fact in 61 he was known as Cross , so was mum , so was dad ! and it is safe to say he was Cross for a good number of years after ..

Ok , so is it is safe to say young Thomas Lechmere was handed his first job as an vanguard, carman at the age of 14 due to his fathers contacts ..

Would it also not be safe to assume , that a young Chas Cross was placed into a work position .. due to his stepfathers contacts , nothing to do with the police of course but a job where he could earn a few bob and gain some work experience .

And if that was the case which is more likely than not .. then it stands to reason he would have been working under the name Charles Cross ..

So he would have built up friends , workmates , associates , all who would refer to him as Cross . And when he applied for his job at pickfords at the age of 19 , What better reference could he have possibly had than " My dad is police officer Thomas Cross ,and he's had me working hard since i was a young man , i even have a reference "

And furthermore ,Charles Cross had no idea that his stepfather would die the year after he started at pickfords .. therefore there is really no logical Reason for him to call himself anything other than Cross when he starts there ..

I still maintain the belief that he kept his name as Cross for a good few years at Pickford's .. and many people would have known him as Cross. But i can also understand why he would want his children to carry the name of his forefathers ..

I have No proof that this is how it happened , but then again you have no proof that it didn't . but common sense is most definitely in my corner.

cheers

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Ah sorry Leech , missed this bit .

"There is precisely no evidence that he called himself Cross ever between the 1861 census (when he had no choice in the matter) and when he got married in 1870/71 (can't remember off hand but it was before the 1871 census)"

Indeed Leech .

Which also means you have no proof that he didn't .. but if you do, i would be more than happy to hear it .. off you go .

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Good morning, Moonbegger!

I realize that you addressed your latest opus to Lechmere, but I can step in and take care of one of the questions you (once again) ask, since I think you are once again disregarding posts that have been made before, posts that would have answered the question at hand, namely ...

"how did you come to this realization Leech, that Cross was not in work mode when he was interviewed at the cop shop .. He was after all in full work attire at the inquest ? .. Is there a mention of his dress code in the police records ? "

Lechmere - the poster - has repeatedly stated that the best guess as to when Lechmere - the carman - reported in to the police, would be on the Sunday. That was the day when the Paul interview was published, and after that, our carman would have had a very good reason to contact the police before they came looking for him.

He appeared at the inquest on Monday, and he would have been summoned to be present all of that day. That summoning would have been issued on Sunday too - in combination with his visit to the police station, as it were.

So, Moonbegger, the day on which he went to the police would arguably be Sunday the 2:nd of August. And if there was any day on which you were not in working mode, then this was of course the Sunday, since it was not a working day.

I really think it is that simple. I´ll leave the rest of your post to Lechmere to sort out, should he feel up to it.

The best,
Fisherman

Why .. thank you Much Mr Fisherman ,

Perhaps you would be so good as to shine a little light on this also .

Lechmere :
"I do believe I was the first to raise the prospect that it was slightly possible that Cross may have called himself Cross when he started at Pickfords in 1868, However I then thought that he had given his name to Mizen and was possibly in 'work mode' - but now we know he gave his name at a later date when he wasn't in 'work mode'.

I am failing to see the significance in ( in work mode ) as opposed to ( out of work mode ) When he openly informs them anyway he was in work mode on the morning in question .

cheers

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Moomin

"Ok , so is it is safe to say young Thomas Lechmere was handed his first job as an vanguard, carman at the age of 14 due to his fathers contacts ..
Would it also not be safe to assume , that a young Chas Cross was placed into a work position .. due to his stepfathers contacts , nothing to do with the police of course but a job where he could earn a few bob and gain some work experience.
And if that was the case which is more likely than not .. then it stands to reason he would have been working under the name Charles Cross ."

The trouble with that is that because charles Lechmere may have helped his son get a job in a similar trade, there is precisley zero reason to suppose that Thomas CRoss assisted Charles Lechmere get a job anywhere.

It strikes me that you are very inventive with your theories!

In many ways what Charles Lechmere was commonly known as in the 1860s is not of major significance.
It is a little like the argument about whether he was by the body (e.g. 1 or 2 feet away) or in the middle of the road (5 or 6 feet away from the body) when first seen.
It is also some what similar to the heat generated over whether her dress was left just above or just below her 'private parts'.

But let me explain the concept of 'work mode' as it relates to Mr Lechmere.
If he was on his way to work when he gave his name (eg to Mizen - hypothetically of course as he didn't give his name to Mizen), then he may have been thinking in terms of how he was regarded at work, and if it is true that when he started at Pickfords 20 years before he called himself Cross and had never altered that registration, then it is conceivable that he automatically gave the name Cross. I have mulled over all aspects of what may or may not have been Cross/Lechmere's motivations for some considerable time and that is one possibility that occurred to me. I don't think any of the objections raised against the Cross/Lechmere case are new to me.
Hmmm let me correct that - sensible objections. There have been some very inventive and off the wall objections that I did not consider.

However I don't understand the significance of your last clause:
"...When he openly informs them anyway he was in work mode on the morning in question ."
Informs who? When?
He almost certainly appeared at a police station on Sunday evening and gave his name then. Sunday was not a work day, so he would not have been in 'work mode'. It makes it considerably less likely he would have used the name Cross even if he had been using it at Pickfords. It's usage by him would have been archaic.

When I researched Cross/Lechmere I was expecting to find at least one instance of him using the name Cross - and I found his name listed in a wide variety of sources. The complete lack of usage of the name Cross told me that he almost certainly never used the name. Indeed it seems likely that the listing of him as a Cross in 1861 was due to laziness on the part of the enumerator in copying the parent's easily discerned surnames from the schedule prepared presumably by Thomas Cross and ignoring the more difficult to spell children's surname. Or alternativley Thomas Cross - hardly realising the later significance - lazily gave the children the same name as he and his wife had when they were never in fact know in life by the name Cross.
I repeat they were baptised in the name of Lechmere after Thomas Cross married their mother.

[Rubyretro]

Good morning Moonbegger !

Lechmere's post was very persuasive, I thought...

[moonbegger]

Good morning Moonbegger !

Lechmere's post was very persuasive, I thought...

Morning Ruby ..

Yes it was quite delightful I still don't get this though ..

"they were baptised in the name of Lechmere after Thomas Cross married their mother"

Does this not fly in the face of your post to me ?

" I think that illegitimacy carried a stigma at the time, and it would have been (as Lechmere -the Rottweiler) pointed out, extremely embarrassing for those children to be known as Lechmere at school, if the man that their mother was living with was known as Cross."

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Leech ,

Thank you for clearing up the Work mode malarkey , Although i still dont see how such a small insignificant incident such as explaining who he was a day or so after the event would cause you to derail your whole theory . ..

Surely if he was known as Lechmere at work .. he would not have given his name as Cross ( unless he was just asking to be suspected ) it makes no sense whatsoever

But if he was Known at work as Cross .. then it makes perfect sense ..
whatever mode he was in !!!

And as for ...

"The trouble with that is that because charles Lechmere may have helped his son get a job in a similar trade, there is precisely zero reason to suppose that Thomas Cross assisted Charles Lechmere get a job anywhere"

Oh contraire .. I think the very fact that Thomas Cross was a Bobby on the beat would have meant he could have landed his step son a job in a whole variety of businesses and work opportunities .. not just limited to one trade . In fact Thomas cross would have been in the perfect position to tout his step son to local business traders who he would have conversed with on a daily basis .

moonbegger