The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Abby Normal]

Question?

Do we know if his wife, friends (or even work) ever did actually find out if he was a witness?

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

Do you honestly see, in Lechmere's use of the name Charles Allen Cross, in conjunction with two genuine contact addresses, a ruthless killer's attempt to stay 'incognito'?

It is certainly not evidence that he was the killer, and it is certainly not evidence that Cross was his 'less well known' name, while Lechmere was his 'more common' name.

It's worth repeating that we don't know that Cross wasn't his more common name, with Lechmere reserved strictly for records related to his official status as husband to Mrs Lechmere, father to all the little Lechmeres and as head of this Lechmere household. His role as murder witness could not have been less related to family matters, could it? The only link was that he was on his way to work, where they may well have known him as Charlie Cross and his bosses at the very least knew all about his absence to attend the inquest.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, I think Abby has answered this in much the same way that I would - and have, a thousand times.
I would just like to comment on your wording "his bosses at the very least knew all about his absence to attend the inquest".
This, of course, can never be stated as a truth. All his bosses WOULD have known was that he was not present that day - but which reason he would have given for this is not any accessible fact. He may - for instance - have called in sick. In that case, the employers would not inform the family of it, all that would happen would be a detraction from the pay check, if there was one, otherwise from the cash he was payed in hand.

Is there any reason why such an explanation would be less viable than your claim that the bosses on Pickfords knew that their carman attended the inquest?

One may of course reason that Lechmere would not have risked to have this subsequently found out by the police, but

A/ generally speaking, serialists are risktakers, and ...

B/ maybe he said that he needed to tend to a legal matter or something such, or ...

C/ maybe he told his bosses that he was going to an inquest, but that he would appear under the name of his old stepfather, so as not to draw attention to himself, or ...

D/ he used some other ruse.

You see, there were numerous possibilities open to him if he was the killer. He had time to figure out which was the best path to use, and how to play his cards. Therefore, I don´t think that we should present a thing like this as if we had the facts on hand. We woefully don´t, and we need to accept that.

[John G]

Hello JohnG


I was responding to Caz-who was also assuming behavior if he was the killer.



yes, of course. but perhaps he was trying to hide his identity(and involvement) from family and friends. if the killer-hes simply trying to conceal his involvement from them as they know him and his habits best, and if there was any kind of suspicious behavior, like I don't know-his wife is wondering why hes leaving for work earlier sometimes or getting home later, or comes home with blood on his sleeve after one of the murders-who knows? hes just trying to keep people in the dark as to any involvement/connection at all. Its really not that difficult a concept to grasp.


what about her? she was attacked by a gang-so probably not the ripper.

But my point is that he made no significant attempt to hide his identity from anyone. I mean, just how many individuals where there who were a) living at Lechmere's address; b) working at Pickfords; c) on their way to work at that time in the morning; d) had a former stepfather whose surname was Cross?

Emma Smith said she was attacked by a gang, although some writers have questioned her account. In any event, she was the victim of a vicious sexual assault that eventually resulted in her death, like Nichols. And she was attacked on one of Lechmere/Cross' routes to work, like Nichols. Hence my point about coincidence.

[GUT]

Question?

Do we know if his wife, friends (or even work) ever did actually find out if he was a witness?

Would we expect to, ask the same question about ever other lay witness and I suspect the answer is the same "Who knows?"

[drstrange169]

It’s the nature of this subject that it attracts the likes of Pierre and Fisherman and those who will deliberately twist and muddle to get attention. The Robinsons and Williams, the Van Goghs and Lewis Carrols. So it’s important to strip back every now and then to the basics.


Criminals use aliases, so is Xmere a criminal because he used the name Cross?

Why do criminals use aliases? Surely the number one reason, is to avoid and the police.

In this case Xmere went to the police; he gave his correct address and place of work. It wouldn’t matter if he gave the name Queen Victoria, as far as the police were concerned they had the information they needed to confirm the time he left for work, the time he arrived and whether he had a legitimate reason for being in the street at that time.

So we can pretty much put a line through that idea.

Plus on the disadvantage side, if he was the killer and gave a name he was not known by, he would have been inviting potential unwanted scrutiny.


Did he want to hide his identity from his work?

Once again, by giving his work details to police he was inviting scrutiny. He could not be sure whether the police would check.

Far more significant is that, at the inquest, he went out of his way to identify himself.

He didn’t have to name the company he worked for, Robert Paul didn’t. Not only that, he volunteered information that was almost guaranteed to identify him, the fact that he had worked there for 20 years.

Many people worked at Pickfords in Broad Street, but not so many started at 4:00 that particular morning and significantly less of them would have been working there for 20 years. It is entirely possible he was, in fact, the only one.

Add further that, his route to work took him along Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street and it is all but certain that he was the only one that fit the bill.

We should be able to put a line through that theory.


Did he want to hide from his family?

When Elisabeth Bostock married Charles Lechmere her mother in law was using the name Mrs Cross.

She lived in the same house as Maria Cross.

It was the house Thomas Cross died in.

Her next door neighbour's name was on Thomas Cross’s death certificate.

Elizabeth supposedly left her daughter with Maria Cross.

I think we can safely put a line through Xmere trying to hide from his family by using the name “Cross”.

So exactly why is Xmere using the name “Cross” in anyway suspicious?

He had a legal right to use the name, it was common practice to use different names in courtroom settings, it didn’t hinder the police, it didn’t hide his identity from Pickfords or his family.

[Abby Normal]

It’s the nature of this subject that it attracts the likes of Pierre and Fisherman and those who will deliberately twist and muddle to get attention. The Robinsons and Williams, the Van Goghs and Lewis Carrols. So it’s important to strip back every now and then to the basics.


Criminals use aliases, so is Xmere a criminal because he used the name Cross?

Why do criminals use aliases? Surely the number one reason, is to avoid and the police.

In this case Xmere went to the police; he gave his correct address and place of work. It wouldn’t matter if he gave the name Queen Victoria, as far as the police were concerned they had the information they needed to confirm the time he left for work, the time he arrived and whether he had a legitimate reason for being in the street at that time.

So we can pretty much put a line through that idea.

Plus on the disadvantage side, if he was the killer and gave a name he was not known by, he would have been inviting potential unwanted scrutiny.


Did he want to hide his identity from his work?

Once again, by giving his work details to police he was inviting scrutiny. He could not be sure whether the police would check.

Far more significant is that, at the inquest, he went out of his way to identify himself.

He didn’t have to name the company he worked for, Robert Paul didn’t. Not only that, he volunteered information that was almost guaranteed to identify him, the fact that he had worked there for 20 years.

Many people worked at Pickfords in Broad Street, but not so many started at 4:00 that particular morning and significantly less of them would have been working there for 20 years. It is entirely possible he was, in fact, the only one.

Add further that, his route to work took him along Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street and it is all but certain that he was the only one that fit the bill.

We should be able to put a line through that theory.


Did he want to hide from his family?

When Elisabeth Bostock married Charles Lechmere her mother in law was using the name Mrs Cross.

She lived in the same house as Maria Cross.

It was the house Thomas Cross died in.

Her next door neighbour's name was on Thomas Cross’s death certificate.

Elizabeth supposedly left her daughter to live with Maria Cross.

I think we can safely put a line through Xmere trying to hide from his family by using the name “Cross”.

So exactly why is Xmere using the name “Cross” in anyway suspicious?

He had a legal right to use the name, it was common practice to use different names in courtroom settings, it didn’t hinder the police, it didn’t hide his identity from Pickfords or his family.

I stopped reading when you wrote "the likes of fisherman and Pierre".
If you can't tell a real researcher and serious student of the case vs an obvious troll well you have nothing else worth reading.

[drstrange169]

Next, let's look at the 100 or so "official" documents.

Clearly the amount is meant to impress, but in reality only a few are important. Obviously his birth certificate and christening are not relevant, although I'm sure they are included in the number. As we have recently found out, many are simply repeats of the same documents and in many cases not even filed by Charles Lechmere.

The key word here is "official". It is strongly believed that Maria's marriage to Thomas Cross was a bigamist one.

In other words they were not "officially" married.

In light of this fact, is it not expected that all "official" documents should be in the name Lechmere?

Surely it would be a crime otherwise?

[caz]

But again, without knowing for sure what the true circumstances are regarding his name use-if we want to be totally objective and accurate-the records indicate he used the name Lechmere, except in this instance.
its an anomaly --out of the ordinary--for what we do KNOW for sure.

Hi Abby,

And there's the rub, because it may only be an anomaly to us, in the 21st century, because the crucial information we would need in order to know FOR SURE is missing.

Taking advantage of the sheer lack of any record of what Lechmere called himself at work (which is pivotal to any claim that he lied or gave a false name) in order to keep a theory going that he was a vicious prostitute killer, who kept - or attempted to keep - his attendance at the Nichols murder inquest a closely guarded secret from certain individuals is not totally objective, nor can it be said to be accurate without that fuller picture.

It's merely convenient.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz, I think Abby has answered this in much the same way that I would - and have, a thousand times.
I would just like to comment on your wording "his bosses at the very least knew all about his absence to attend the inquest".
This, of course, can never be stated as a truth. All his bosses WOULD have known was that he was not present that day - but which reason he would have given for this is not any accessible fact. He may - for instance - have called in sick. In that case, the employers would not inform the family of it, all that would happen would be a detraction from the pay check, if there was one, otherwise from the cash he was payed in hand.

'Called in' sick, Christer? How did that work in 1888? Did he send a carrier pigeon so nobody else would get wind of what he was up to? A workmate then pops round with some grapes to see how serious it is and how long he is likely to be laid up and his wife says "He's not here, I thought he was at work". Great idea. He gets the sack for his trouble.

maybe he told his bosses that he was going to an inquest, but that he would appear under the name of his old stepfather, so as not to draw attention to himself, or ...

That would work, but it doesn't help put your noose round his neck, does it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: 'Called in' sick, Christer? How did that work in 1888? Did he send a carrier pigeon so nobody else would get wind of what he was up to? A workmate then pops round with some grapes to see how serious it is and how long he is likely to be laid up and his wife says "He's not here, I thought he was at work". Great idea. He gets the sack for his trouble.

Very amusing, Caz! Now, let´s hear it - do you think that everybody who got sick lost his work in 1888? I would not think so.
I wrote "called in sick" without expanding on HOW he got that message to his employer. In some cases, somebody would be sent round the the employer, in others, the worker would return and explain later. Some would send word with a working mate, etcetera.
Can you see how this will have worked now?


That would work, but it doesn't help put your noose round his neck, does it?

Once more - and forever if I have to - if I am correct and he was the killer, then we can be very certain that he was a risktaker. He would have risked coming forward in order to be proactive about the matter that he had been seen at the murder spot, and could be identified.

This is something we MUST accept - if he truly WAS the killer, then he actively chose to come forward. Once he took that step, he needed to have a story to tell that would explain his presence at the site, a story that was of an exconerating character. And if he wanted to keep his identity hidden as much as he possibly could, without demonstrably lying and potentially putting himself in trouble, the best he could do would be to hide his name from the papers, hide his address from the papers and give away where he worked. The latter matter could not be concealed.

The moment he stepped into that inquest room, Caz, he put himself at lethal risk, if he was the killer. We know that a member of the jury latched onto the "extra PC" thing. If any people from the jury or the police had identified the potential meaning of this, I believe he would have been very closely scrutinized from a suspect point of view, I think that his name swap had been revealed, and I think he may have been hanged for murder as a result of the investigation that would have followed.

You, on the other hand, seem to say "There you are - he would NEVER be foolish enough to risk that, so you are wrong about his culpability". Well, Caz, that would be nice enough and we would all live in a safer world if that was true.
We don´t, however.

[Fisherman]

I would like to quote Dusty from a post of his:


You wrote,

“I never said he took his old working route TO GONTO PICKFORDS, did I? “

That sentence wasn't true was it? because, in fact you actually wrote,

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


Dusty likes to call me a liar.

Of course, he is easily revealed as being wrong on most things - and indeed on this one too.

In this case he claims that my stating that I never said that Lechmere would go on to Pickfords when I said that he took his old route from work after the Berner Street deed when heading West, is dismissed and proven a lie by the fact that I also spoke of how any speculation that Lechmere went to Broad Street to deposit innards and clean up could have been stopped.

The general idea is that I would have said that he took his old route from work when seeking out Eddowes, which could only be a lie on my behalf since I also entertain the idea that he would have gone to Pickfords to deposit innards and clean up. Mitre Square is not on the old route, it demands veering off from it to an extent.

However, what Dusty misses out on is that Lechmere could not have taken the old route from Berner Street to Pickfords to deposit innards - because he HAD no innards to deposit when leaving Berner Street! He only picked them up after having walked what seems to have been his old working route from up to Aldgate High Street, and only THEN veering off to St Botolphs - something I have suggested on the boards several times, by the bye - and the surrounding area, where he found the innards, inside Katherine Eddowes.

It is not amusing to be called a liar, least of all by somebody who seems to have unsurpassable difficulties in producing chosen snippets of information, cutting away the parts he does not like.

I therefore am not inclinded to let it pass.

Not am I inclined to debate with such a dubious figure.

My solution is to produce a pre-written answer, which I will use on such occasions, unless Dusty makes an effort to better his ways.

This is the wording:

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.

[Fisherman]

It’s the nature of this subject that it attracts the likes of Pierre and Fisherman and those who will deliberately twist and muddle to get attention. The Robinsons and Williams, the Van Goghs and Lewis Carrols. So it’s important to strip back every now and then to the basics.


Criminals use aliases, so is Xmere a criminal because he used the name Cross?

Why do criminals use aliases? Surely the number one reason, is to avoid and the police.

In this case Xmere went to the police; he gave his correct address and place of work. It wouldn’t matter if he gave the name Queen Victoria, as far as the police were concerned they had the information they needed to confirm the time he left for work, the time he arrived and whether he had a legitimate reason for being in the street at that time.

So we can pretty much put a line through that idea.

Plus on the disadvantage side, if he was the killer and gave a name he was not known by, he would have been inviting potential unwanted scrutiny.


Did he want to hide his identity from his work?

Once again, by giving his work details to police he was inviting scrutiny. He could not be sure whether the police would check.

Far more significant is that, at the inquest, he went out of his way to identify himself.

He didn’t have to name the company he worked for, Robert Paul didn’t. Not only that, he volunteered information that was almost guaranteed to identify him, the fact that he had worked there for 20 years.

Many people worked at Pickfords in Broad Street, but not so many started at 4:00 that particular morning and significantly less of them would have been working there for 20 years. It is entirely possible he was, in fact, the only one.

Add further that, his route to work took him along Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street and it is all but certain that he was the only one that fit the bill.

We should be able to put a line through that theory.


Did he want to hide from his family?

When Elisabeth Bostock married Charles Lechmere her mother in law was using the name Mrs Cross.

She lived in the same house as Maria Cross.

It was the house Thomas Cross died in.

Her next door neighbour's name was on Thomas Cross’s death certificate.

Elizabeth supposedly left her daughter with Maria Cross.

I think we can safely put a line through Xmere trying to hide from his family by using the name “Cross”.

So exactly why is Xmere using the name “Cross” in anyway suspicious?

He had a legal right to use the name, it was common practice to use different names in courtroom settings, it didn’t hinder the police, it didn’t hide his identity from Pickfords or his family.

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.

[Fisherman]

Just a funny diversion:

To be on the electoral register between 1867 and 1918 you had to be a ratepayer and pay the rates yourself. So his identity in paying the rates each year must have been known and matched his entry in the electoral register.
There is a possibility the landlord paid the rates as part of the rent. But as the occupier his name would nevertheless be entered and investigated annually.
He would gave been known as Charles Allen Lechmere for rent payments to his landlord - not sure if weekly, monthly or quarterly - also for poor rate payments (weekly, monthly or quarterly) and for electoral purposes. And keep in mind that Lechmere changed address five times during this period, so different landlords and rating authorities were involved.
By implication this means he called himself Lechmere potentially around 5000 times more during these years, if he paid rates and rent weekly.

If he payed monthly, we are looking at around a thousand times only…

Having called himself Lechmere so many times, it must have made a nice change to swap for the much less worn Cross.

[MysterySinger]

That's interesting Fish. The landlord of number 4, Broadway, London Fields in 1893 was Bostock. The tenant was Charles Lechmere. Bostock was his wife's previous name - so most likely a family connection there. Bostock was also landlord at numbers 6 and 14.

Interestingly, too, next door to number 4 was a pub, the Sir Walter Scott. Landlord was a W. Kelly.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive followed this off and on and I can say with amusement that this seems to be much ado about nothing. A man in the Nichols case uses an alias....and that is used to speculate he is a multiple killer? Ive wasted time here before, but rarely on such a weak premise.