The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

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.

If you think that the name issue is the only reason for entertaining suspicion against Charles Lechmere, they you are not wasting your time.

You are wasting mine.

[John Wheat]

If you think that the name issue is the only reason for entertaining suspicion against Charles Lechmere, they you are not wasting your time.

You are wasting mine.

No Michael isn't. You are however wasting everyone's time.

[Sam Flynn]

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

The Sir Walter Scott was actually an undercover brothel, leasing out its rooms for any pimp who knew the secret password: "I've an hoe".

I'll get me coat...

[Abby Normal]

The Sir Walter Scott was actually an undercover brothel, leasing out its rooms for any pimp who knew the secret password: "I've an hoe".

I'll get me coat...

Lol. Now that's funny.

The other one was : there's a fat man, in the bathtub.

[drstrange169]

>> … 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.<<

Wrong again, I’m afraid.


Xmere was under no obligation to give his employers name to the inquest. William Nichols didn’t and Robert Paul didn’t.


All this has already been pointed out.


Out of interest, I checked all the Old Bailey cases Kattrup posted in post #1. Except where the employer was specifically relevant to the case at hand, no witness gave their employers name.


He didn’t appear to be hiding from the police, he didn’t appear to be hiding from his employer and he didn’t appear to be hiding from his family. So where is the problem?

[drstrange169]

>>Dusty likes to call me a liar. Of course, he is easily revealed as being wrong on most things …<<

Excellent so you are going to prove me wrong and I will have to pay a charity $100 dollars?


… waiting …


… sound of crickets chirping …


Guess my money is safe.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<


Of course, you run from everyone who actually challenges you to stick to the evidence.

[drstrange169]

Thanks, MysterySinger,

Interesting info.

[drstrange169]

>>The Sir Walter Scott was actually an undercover brothel, leasing out its rooms for any pimp who knew the secret password: "I've an hoe".<<

I heard they tried to rob Roy when he went there.

[Rainbow]

If you think that the name issue is the only reason for entertaining suspicion against Charles Lechmere, they you are not wasting your time.

You are wasting mine.

MMUA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


Rainbow°

[Fisherman]

>>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.<<


Of course, you run from everyone who actually challenges you to stick to the evidence.

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]

>> … 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.<<

Wrong again, I’m afraid.


Xmere was under no obligation to give his employers name to the inquest. William Nichols didn’t and Robert Paul didn’t.


All this has already been pointed out.


Out of interest, I checked all the Old Bailey cases Kattrup posted in post #1. Except where the employer was specifically relevant to the case at hand, no witness gave their employers name.


He didn’t appear to be hiding from the police, he didn’t appear to be hiding from his employer and he didn’t appear to be hiding from his family. So where is the problem?

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]

>>Dusty likes to call me a liar. Of course, he is easily revealed as being wrong on most things …<<

Excellent so you are going to prove me wrong and I will have to pay a charity $100 dollars?


… waiting …


… sound of crickets chirping …


Guess my money is safe.

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.

[John G]

Hi Caz



Yes. its a possible explanation. he gives the police just enough truth so hes not seen to be flat out lying, but perhaps not enough for family and friends to find out. Now it may seem like it wouldn't work, but perhaps he thought it would.



as far as we know he only used Lechmere name. except this time he used Cross. that's a fact. and why? could be nefarious, could be innocent.
But on record we know he used Lechmere-so lets put that argument to bed.


Pretty much agree. IMHO he gave the name Cross because that's what he was known at at work, since he started there when his name was still commonly Cross(probably-but even this we don't know for sure). and his witness involvement was mainly in the context of a carman on his way to work.
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,

We know it was fairly common for people of this period to refer to themselves by more than one first name, but I wonder how common it was for people to innocently use more than one surname.

[John G]

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.

What do you mean "investigated annually"? How does this argument undermine the view that Cross was the name he used in his everyday day life, whereas for official documents he continued to use the name Lechmere for consistency.