The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[MysterySinger]

Yes you are correct Fish with regard to the 1891 address as 22 Doveton Street.

My instinct is then that Cross would have had no sinister reason for providing only an alternative name to the Police (and it's not proved conclusively that he did) whilst at the same time providing his correct address.

Question - what exactly is the connection between Charles Lechmere and houses owned by Bostock by the "Sir Walter Scott" pub on Broadway at London Fields (numbers 4, 6 and 14 at least)? Is this the cat meat shop? Maybe one for another thread.

[Fisherman]

Yes you are correct Fish with regard to the 1891 address as 22 Doveton Street.

My instinct is then that Cross would have had no sinister reason for providing only an alternative name to the Police (and it's not proved conclusively that he did) whilst at the same time providing his correct address.

Question - what exactly is the connection between Charles Lechmere and houses owned by Bostock by the "Sir Walter Scott" pub on Broadway at London Fields (numbers 4, 6 and 14 at least)? Is this the cat meat shop? Maybe one for another thread.

Then our instincts must differ. It´s that simple. When somebody uses a name X, with no exceptions, when approaching authorities, and then suddenly changes to the name Y when caught up in a murder inquiry, we must A/ accept that there must have been a reason for his doing so, and B/ acknowledge that no matter if it was innocent for some unidentified reason, it is nevertheless totally in line with a wish to deceive.

Lechmere had a stand at Broadway market for a number of years, passing it on to his children who managed a cat´s meat business from the same stand. If, that is, I remember correctly.

[Abby Normal]

I disagree.

There is nothing that requires being explained away, since nothing has been produced to show an anomaly.

Using another name than the "real name" happened all the time. It was not uncommon, and it was accepted. Since Cross did not do anything out of the ordinary, there is nothing to explain away.

Hi
Yes there is. He didn't use lechmere which he used every other time his name comes up in any kind of record. So why didn't he use it in this case?

You see de facto, it needs explaining why.

I would also add that there are also just as many, if not more, of examples of people not using there real name to deceive as there are innocent explanations. And since lech apparently didn't offer his lechmere name when giving his cross name.....it makes me wonder what's going on at least.

[John G]

Okay, I understand the name issue, which I agree needs some explaining. However, if he had something serious to hide, such as in respect of Nichols' murder, why bother turning up at the inquest, where he was faced with the prospect of cross (no pun intended!) examination? And whilst from a modern viewpoint not giving his real name might seem suspicious, what exactly did he hope to gain?

[Fisherman]

John G: Okay, I understand the name issue, which I agree needs some explaining.

Heureka!! You have seen the light!

... but WHY do so many people say "Okay, nothing to see here, move on..."?

However, if he had something serious to hide, such as in respect of Nichols' murder, why bother turning up at the inquest, where he was faced with the prospect of cross (no pun intended!) examination?

Assume that he was the killer. Further assume that he was certain that he could be ID:d by both the other carman (Paul) and the PC they´d met.
It transpired that this was so, at least in Mizens case - he unhesitatingly ID:d Lechmere as the man he had spoken to.

Now, ponder the Paul interview: He said that as he came down Bucks Row, there was a man standing where the woman was.
Possible implications?
Exactly - this other man may well have been the killer.

What could strengthen such a suggestion? Perhaps if Lechmere made himself VERY scarce, and refused to come forward.

What could make him look innocent? Perhaps if he came forward on his own account and delivered a story that seemingly cleared him.

My conviction is that he felt that if he did NOT come forward, he ran a very great risk of being seen and recognized by either Paul or Mizen, and then he would have a whole lot to explain.

What were his options? To run, and move from London?

What if the police decided that he was the probable killer, and the papers were full of it? Would not his neighbours and his employer contact the police and say that this man, who normally walked Bucks Row on his way to work, had suddenly disappeared after the murder?

I think what he did if he was the killer, was a very logical thing to do for a man with a psychopathic disposition. And PLEASE don´t say that we don´t know that he was a psychopath, John - we should be well past that now. I KNOW it is not proven - I am suggesting it fits the bill.

And whilst from a modern viewpoint not giving his real name might seem suspicious, what exactly did he hope to gain?

Staying incognito with his employer, his neighbours, his family, his friends - with all of the people who he expected were people who could keep track of his paths and timings, and who would pose a risk for him. The fact that he managed to stay under the radar for more than a hundred years in spite of all the ripperologists looking for information, is testimony to how efficient it was.

[John G]

John G: Okay, I understand the name issue, which I agree needs some explaining.

Heureka!! You have seen the light!

... but WHY do so many people say "Okay, nothing to see here, move on..."?

However, if he had something serious to hide, such as in respect of Nichols' murder, why bother turning up at the inquest, where he was faced with the prospect of cross (no pun intended!) examination?

Assume that he was the killer. Further assume that he was certain that he could be ID:d by both the other carman (Paul) and the PC they´d met.
It transpired that this was so, at least in Mizens case - he unhesitatingly ID:d Lechmere as the man he had spoken to.

Now, ponder the Paul interview: He said that as he came down Bucks Row, there was a man standing where the woman was.
Possible implications?
Exactly - this other man may well have been the killer.

What could strengthen such a suggestion? Perhaps that he made himself VERY scarce, and refused to come forward.

What could make him look innocent? Perhaps if he came forward on his own account and delivered a story that seemingly cleared him.

My conviction is that he felt that if he did NOT come forward, he ran a very great risk of being seen and recognized by either Paul or Mizen, and then he would have a whole lot to explain.

What were his options? To run, and move from London?

What if the police decided that he was the probable killer, and the papers were full of it? Would not his neighbours and his employer contact the police and say that this man, who normally walked Bucks Row on his way to work, had suddenly disappeared after the murder?

I think what he did if he was the killer, was a very logical thing to do for a man with a psychopathic disposition. And PLEASE don´t say that we don´t know that he was a psychopath, John - we should be well past that now. I KNOW it is not proven - I am suggesting it fits the bill.

And whilst from a modern viewpoint not giving his real name might seem suspicious, what exactly did he hope to gain?

Staying incognito with his employer, his neighbours, his family, his friends - with all of the people who he expected were people who could keep track of his paths and timings, and who would pose a risk for him. The fact that he managed to stay under the radar for more than a hundred years in spite of all the ripperologists looking for information, is testimony to how efficient it was.

Yes, I realize that disappearing might not have been a viable option. Which brings me to my initial question, what did he hope to gain by giving a false name? Moreover, given the publicity that the case attracted, wouldn't his friends, family, etc have known or at least suspected that he was the man who found the body?

And why would he need to keep incognito from his friends, family, neighbours etc?

[Harry D]

Okay, I understand the name issue, which I agree needs some explaining. However, if he had something serious to hide, such as in respect of Nichols' murder, why bother turning up at the inquest, where he was faced with the prospect of cross (no pun intended!) examination? And whilst from a modern viewpoint not giving his real name might seem suspicious, what exactly did he hope to gain?

"He gave a fake name" is one of those key phrases that proponents of the Lechmere theory like to use, and to the uninitiated it must sound pretty compelling. Here was a man who found a murder victim and lied to the police about his identity. Obviously, he must have something to hide! However, the fact of the matter is that Lechmere attended the inquest and volunteered his real first name and his place of employment. Once this is taken into account, Lechmere's perceived guilt begins to fizzle out. Not only that, but the "fake" surname that he did give was one that could be traced to him via his stepfather. Could it not be that Lechmere simply wanted to keep his family out of the media? As a steadily employed family man, would that not be more in keeping with his character than quantum-leaping to the conclusion that he was a notorious serial killer trying to (clumsily) baffle the authorities?

[Fisherman]

Yes, I realize that disappearing might not have been a viable option. Which brings me to my initial question, what did he hope to gain by giving a false name? Moreover, given the publicity that the case attracted, wouldn't his friends, family, etc have known or at least suspected that he was the man who found the body?

And why would he need to keep incognito from his friends, family, neighbours etc?

What did he hope to gain by giving a false name? I thought I answered that in my former post - staying incognito with those who knew him.

Imagine that his neighbours knew him well (they probably did not, since he had just moved in, but let´s forget that for now). Imagine that they know which way he waked to work and when he did it.
If they were informed that their neighbour had found with the first body, what would they think when Chapman died a few days later? Along his working route?

That is what I assume was the reason. As long as he was not directly tied to the series, most people will have reasoned that lots of people walked these streets on a daily basis. But once you WERE tied to murder number one that changed.

I don´t know if you have seen it, but I have suggested another possible reason. What if Lechmere had been pointed out and looked at by the police in combination with some sort of lewd behaviour or an attack against a woman - but was cleared because of lack of evidence?
In such a case, we would have no court case to identify, but it may still be that he was aware that there were policemen who would raise an eyebrow when reading that mr Lechmere had been found with a dead and assaulted woman.

So these are my suggestions. As an aside, I can say that Edward Stow actually found a parallel case where a culprit gave the wrong name but the right address and other circumstances in combination with a crime. I cannot remember the rest of the circumstances, though, so I may need to go looking for it. And I am anything but certain that I can find it. So it may all boil down to you having to choose whether you believe me or not.

[Fisherman]

"He gave a fake name" is one of those key phrases that proponents of the Lechmere theory like to use, and to the uninitiated it must sound pretty compelling. Here was a man who found a murder victim and lied to the police about his identity. Obviously, he must have something to hide! However, the fact of the matter is that Lechmere attended the inquest and volunteered his real first name and his place of employment. Once this is taken into account, Lechmere's perceived guilt begins to fizzle out. Not only that, but the "fake" surname that he did give was one that could be traced to him via his stepfather. Could it not be that Lechmere simply wanted to keep his family out of the media? As a steadily employed family man, would that not be more in keeping with his character than quantum-leaping to the conclusion that he was a notorious serial killer trying to (clumsily) baffle the authorities?

I think you can find my answers to these topics in my posts lately. You seem to conveniently forget how we know that Lechmere signed himself thusly when in contact with all other authoritites we know of.

Would he lie to "protect his family"? It would involve a risk that he was found out. Guess where that would get him?

[Fisherman]

John!

It´s good to be an old researcher - it took me all of a minute to find the case:

In January 1881 Swanson was given charge in another frustrating case.
A number of people reported to the police that they had been given fake promissory notes by a man calling himself Egerton Playdell Bonverie Tempest, and claiming to be a captain in the Royal Navy. One might think that a more straight forward fake name might have been more suitable, but for a professional confidence trickster it was a question of double bluff.
‘Tempest’ (for short) was accepted in Australia as a man of breeding and means. He mixed as such in the high society of Melbourne – or what passed for high society in Melbourne. He borrowed money on the basis that it could be reclaimed from his relatives from a fashionable address in the West End of London – no 2 Hyde Park Pace (coincidentally the Earl of Dysart, whose Countesses jewels were not stolen, once owned no 1 Hyde Park Place). He was taken at face value and he took ship home. On the journey he borrowed more sums on the same basis from people on the vessel.
Of course once he arrived in London he absconded and ‘Tempest’ was unknown at Hyde Park Place. Dr Cheadle, the residnet at Hydge Park Place, recognised the handwriting on the promissory notes as being that of his long lost brother – John Cheadle!
So John Cheadle (aka Tempest) had given a fake name but a genuine address! Who would do such a thing? Tempest incidentally was the name of a family that lived near the Cheadles when they had previously lived in Yorkshire.
Swanson was called to investigate and it was found that ‘Tempest’ was staying at the Holborn Viaduct Hotel. Swanson went there incognito and arranged to bump into ‘Tempest’, to win his confidence and find out what he was up to. Swanson gave his name as Mr Sutherland from Brighton.
‘What’s that?’ I hear you say, ‘Swanson gave a fake name, all he could think of using was one of his family names?’


All other comparisons aside, it is refreshing reading...!

[John G]

"He gave a fake name" is one of those key phrases that proponents of the Lechmere theory like to use, and to the uninitiated it must sound pretty compelling. Here was a man who found a murder victim and lied to the police about his identity. Obviously, he must have something to hide! However, the fact of the matter is that Lechmere attended the inquest and volunteered his real first name and his place of employment. Once this is taken into account, Lechmere's perceived guilt begins to fizzle out. Not only that, but the "fake" surname that he did give was one that could be traced to him via his stepfather. Could it not be that Lechmere simply wanted to keep his family out of the media? As a steadily employed family man, would that not be more in keeping with his character than quantum-leaping to the conclusion that he was a notorious serial killer trying to (clumsily) baffle the authorities?

Yes, these are very good points, particularly regarding him giving his place of employment,which strongly indicates that there was no serious attempt to disguise his identity.

[John G]

John!

It´s good to be an old researcher - it took me all of a minute to find the case:

In January 1881 Swanson was given charge in another frustrating case.
A number of people reported to the police that they had been given fake promissory notes by a man calling himself Egerton Playdell Bonverie Tempest, and claiming to be a captain in the Royal Navy. One might think that a more straight forward fake name might have been more suitable, but for a professional confidence trickster it was a question of double bluff.
‘Tempest’ (for short) was accepted in Australia as a man of breeding and means. He mixed as such in the high society of Melbourne – or what passed for high society in Melbourne. He borrowed money on the basis that it could be reclaimed from his relatives from a fashionable address in the West End of London – no 2 Hyde Park Pace (coincidentally the Earl of Dysart, whose Countesses jewels were not stolen, once owned no 1 Hyde Park Place). He was taken at face value and he took ship home. On the journey he borrowed more sums on the same basis from people on the vessel.
Of course once he arrived in London he absconded and ‘Tempest’ was unknown at Hyde Park Place. Dr Cheadle, the residnet at Hydge Park Place, recognised the handwriting on the promissory notes as being that of his long lost brother – John Cheadle!
So John Cheadle (aka Tempest) had given a fake name but a genuine address! Who would do such a thing? Tempest incidentally was the name of a family that lived near the Cheadles when they had previously lived in Yorkshire.
Swanson was called to investigate and it was found that ‘Tempest’ was staying at the Holborn Viaduct Hotel. Swanson went there incognito and arranged to bump into ‘Tempest’, to win his confidence and find out what he was up to. Swanson gave his name as Mr Sutherland from Brighton.
‘What’s that?’ I hear you say, ‘Swanson gave a fake name, all he could think of using was one of his family names?’


All other comparisons aside, it is refreshing reading...!

Okay, this is certainly an interesting case, although the address that he gave wasn't his own but his brothers, where presumably he wasn't resident.

Lechmere, of course, may have panicked if he was the killer, although that still doesn't explain why he would give a correct employment address. And, of course, there could be other reasons as to why, in panic, he may have given a false name.

[Fisherman]

Yes, these are very good points, particularly regarding him giving his place of employment,which strongly indicates that there was no serious attempt to disguise his identity.

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?

[Fisherman]

Okay, this is certainly an interesting case, although the address that he gave wasn't his own but his brothers, where presumably he wasn't resident.

Lechmere, of course, may have panicked if he was the killer, although that still doesn't explain why he would give a correct employment address. And, of course, there could be other reasons as to why, in panic, he may have given a false name.

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

[Sam Flynn]

Are there any examples at all of somebody who always called himself X in authority contacts, suddenly used Y in combination with dealings with the police or in any other official capacity?

... "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.

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.