Cross The Ripper?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Christer

'a potential such pointer'..

this is the very reason that comes to mind when I think of the 'after the fact' discovery of Cross actually being Lechmere.
A policeman would, on hearing this news want to know why the name change- in order to reassure himself that Lechmere wasn't pulling a fast one- GIVEN the proximity and timing of the man's statement details. SO close to a murder taking place.
Like Kidney, I can see Lechmere being under suspicion. Because of the name change.
It isnt inconcievable at least.

Best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"I don`t think many of the generations of criminals gave their home address at the same time, or gave a false name that was not really a false name ie."

it WAS really a false name, once again. We have only the one real name. But that aside, you would be right on the statistics here - but we have given a very useful explanation, I think.

"Like a lot of people in the East End, Robert Paul for one, had no wish to develop his contact with the authorities "

... but gave his correct name, apparently. And Lechmere seemingly welcomed any contact with the authorities - he willingly signed any paper that was put in front of him. And he signed them all "Lechmere".

"you need to find the name he used at the workplace he`d been at for over 20 years for the use of Cross to become a pointer towards guilt."

Oh no, Jon! It will not become a pointer towards guilt even if I do - many a poster will STILL tell me that he may have used the name Lechmere in all contacts with authorities, work, the mailman etcetera, whereas he called himself Charlie Cross down at the pub. If I dug up a paycheck from Pickfordīs saying Charles Lechmere, it still wouldnīt be regarded as any clear pointer of guilt.

And indeed, I have not said myself that the nameswop is a pointer to guilt. I have said that is a potential such pointer, and that it needs to be weighed together with all the other potential pointers.

"Perhaps there are Bethnal Green or St George in the East Infirmary records. He had loads of kids so a visit by one of the clan would have been inevitable."

What are you saying here, Jon? That his kids would have been called Cross? They were effectively not - we have them on the school admission papers and the birth certificates etc as Lechmere. We have them dying like Lechmere too - just like their father.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil:

"Like Kidney, I can see Lechmere being under suspicion. Because of the name change."

IF, Phil, the police were aware of the name change. Apparently, though, they were not - since they never called him anything but Cross. Therefore, the better conclusion would be that he was never awarded any police interest at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Curious

The position no serving policeman alive could possibly have known who Thomas Cross was is of no importance because Charles Cross/Lechmere would not necessarily have recognized that.

Yes, and besides which, we cannot possibly demonstrate that no serving policeman knew Thomas Cross or his stepson because we do not know a) who Thomas Cross knew; or b) which (if any) of his stepfather's colleagues/friends Charles knew. It's a non-argument.

And as you point out, in his daily social life C/L may have still had contact with people, even officers, who continued to know him as Cross.

Exactly.

And your post: I find it interesting that the one time we can see Charles Lechmere using the name Cross it is in a police matter.

Me too. There are multiple explanations for that, amongst which is that he did know people in the police force - who knew his as Cross.

very nice and thought provoking.

Thanks Curious, kind of you to say so

[Monty]

Sally

A shame it apparently had to be mentioned again, but intention to mislead the cops on Cross's part is a non-starter. Yes, a very cunning and misleading killer Cross was, to offer his bona fide address and workplace whilst trying to pull the wool over the coppers' eyes with a name that had been his for 20 years. Ho Ho Ho...

Not only that, this devious swine also provided them with his middle name.

Monty

[Fisherman]

And, Monty, he could have given his shoe size, the mark of his favourite beer, his eyecolour, his hairdressers name and the size of his tonsills to the police too - and his wife and aquaintances would have been none the wiser who he was.

But why counter the arguments given, when you can swop them for arguments NOT given and make fun of them instead?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Oh no, Jon! It will not become a pointer towards guilt even if I do - many a poster will STILL tell me that he may have used the name Lechmere in all contacts with authorities, work, the mailman etcetera, whereas he called himself Charlie Cross down at the pub. If I dug up a paycheck from Pickfordīs saying Charles Lechmere, it still wouldnīt be regarded as any clear pointer of guilt.

Well, I can only speak for myself, and I would see it as very significant if he was always known as Lechmere at Pickfords.

What are you saying here, Jon? That his kids would have been called Cross? They were effectively not - we have them on the school admission papers and the birth certificates etc as Lechmere. We have them dying like Lechmere too - just like their father.

Primarily, a search for Charlie in the infirmary or hospital records would be very revealing and should be undertaken as a matter of course anyway.

Of course the kids would be listed formally as Lechmere at school as that would affect their lives, but infirmary records? It wouldn`t matter if he used the name Ossie Ardiles for him and his family every time they visited the infirmary (as long as they used that name for every visit - as the Doctor`s would need to know the medical history).

Still worth checking out the infirmary records.

Not surprisingly, just looked, nothing under Cross, Lechmere, Letchmere or Doveton in the Whitechapel 1888 Infirmary records.

Here`s the link to the Old Bailey "pickfords" search results:

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/search.jsp?form=searchHomePage&_divs_fulltext=pickfords&kwparse=and&_persNames_surname=&_persNames_given=&_persNames_alias=&_offences_offenceCategory_offenceSubcategory=&_verdicts_verdictCategory_verdictSubcategory=&_punishments_punishmentCategory_punishmentSubcategory=&_divs_div0Type_div1Type=&fromMonth=&fromYear=&toMonth=&toYear=&ref=&submit.x=45&submit.y=13&submit=Search

[Sally]

he could have given his shoe size, the mark of his favourite beer, his eyecolour, his hairdressers name and the size of his tonsills to the police too - and his wife and aquaintances would have been none the wiser who he was.

How do you know, Fisherman? How do you know that Lechmere's wife and acquaintances didn't know that he had used the name Cross in his dealings with the police? You don't. Your assumption that this was the case is purely speculative. You and Ed seem to be obsessed with the idea that Lechmere was hiding the truth from his wife for some reason.

But why counter the arguments given, when you can swop them for arguments NOT given and make fun of them instead?

Ah, but Fisherman, I'm afraid that I must once again say au contraire - the arguments put forward by Team Lechmere have been countered - Again and again and again.

By the way, was it you who told the public that Cross was found 'crouching over the body' of Nichols; or was it Poster-Lechmere? Do tell.

[Sally]

Sally



Not only that, this devious swine also provided them with his middle name.

Monty

Monty

I know - it's not surprising he got away with it, the cunning devil.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"I can only speak for myself, and I would see it as very significant if he was always known as Lechmere at Pickfords."

And so would I - it makes very much sense to me. But not all people look for sense. And believe me, finding out that he was Lechmere at Pickfordīs too would NOT quench the colloquial Charlie Cross.

"Of course the kids would be listed formally as Lechmere at school as that would affect their lives, but infirmary records?"

Are you seriously suggesting that the Lechmere kids would have gone under the name Cross when/if treated at the infirmary? Why would they do that? What use would it be? I mean, itīs all fine to check - which you apparently did yourself, thanks for that! - but given his propensity to always call himself Lechmere, I donīt see how he could have called his kids Cross in contacts with medical authorities. I have seen the school registration documents relating to when his kids moved from Essex School up to the school close to Doveton Street in June 88. They went to Essex School as Lechmere, left Essex School as Lechmere and joined the new school as Lechmere. What possible reason could they have to be medically treated as Cross...? Of course, ruling all things out is always useful, but ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Lechmere kids would have gone under the name Cross when/if treated at the infirmary? Why would they do that? What use would it be?

Well, there was no national health in those days so giving the official name at the infirmary would not have been necessary. Therefore, if he did go about his day to day stuff as Cross he may have used that for the family, too.

You do see the difference between the significance of correctly enrolling kids at a school, family and religious documentation compared to a visit to the infirmary?

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"You do see the difference between the significance of correctly enrolling kids at a school, family and religious documentation compared to a visit to the infirmary?"

That I do, Jon - I just donīt see him asking himself: "Hmmm, infirmary, letīs see, are we Cross or Lechmere there?"

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

I voted. Improbable. But a year ago I would have voted who's lechmere?
I just can't see a post mortem mutilator killing on his way to work. But I think the lechmerians have done a good job for the most part making clear and concise arguments. I also think the counter argument for the name change being because he was found at work by the police on the day of the inquest and perhaps was known at work as Cross as a valid explanation. I look forward to any further finds concerning Lech.

[caz]

Hi All,

I still don't see how using the name Cross would have counted as a 'scam', or 'pulling a fast one', as it is still being described on this thread. Even if it was the only occasion he chose to use that surname (which remains a complete unknown), the fact that he gave his correct address, first and middle names and employment details, would have made him instantly traceable by the authorities, and potentially traceable by the world and his wife, since he had no control over what the press would get hold of and which of the details they would publish accurately.

We only know of the one occasion where Cross called himself anything at all, when he wasn't signing official forms and so on, and on that occasion (when talking to the police) he gave his name as Cross. As Sally says, that's interesting. Because of the other accurate personal info he gave in the same connection, that amounts to evidence for it being a name - or the name - he was known by in his everyday working life, and not one he suddenly dredged up from his childhood for the sole purpose of pulling the wool over anyone's eyes: the police, the inquest, his wife, his employers and workmates or the general public.

Guilty or innocent, it would have been a silly risk to take, for no perceptible gain, if everyone at home or at work at the time only knew him as Lechmere.

Love,

Caz
X

[RavenDarkendale]

I am still catching up on new suspects, and read the reasons for suspicion of Charles Cross. In a modern investigation anyone finding a body is suspect, and must be eliminated by evidence. The reason for this is that murderers often return to bodies and if caught there claim to have just found the body. It is simply good policy to suspect anyone who finds a body.

If a husband or wife is killed, the surviving spouse tops the suspect list. A murdered child's parents will certainly suspected. The reasons for Cross' suspicion are very grounded in reality.

That said, proof must still be found before going from suspect to perpetrator. Bottom line: Strong suspect. Guilt still unestablished by known facts.