Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[DVV]

Thanks for your thorough response, Lechmere.

DVV
Serial killers tend to select victims that they can easily dominate - that is why women, children and the elderly massively predominate as victims. They seldom attack able bodied men and seldom would even consider doing so. You will have difficulty finding any examples of a serial killer who’s MO is to attack women for example, turning on an able bodied man either as an alternative victim or if interrupted.

Maybe so, but what is generally true is not systematically so. The Ripper, in my opinion, was bold, self-confident, and physically strong. And possibly drunk, which would make him even more dangerous.

But forget the knife. He could also con Paul, suggesting : "Go fetch a constable that way, I'll try in that direction".
What a risk, for Lechmere-the-Ripper, to stand by the innocent Paul. He even had no time to get rid of his bloody knife...

As for the name swap, we have no idea why he did it or the circumstances that surrounded him actually giving his name.

Agreed. And would you agree it is a serious flaw ?

He was very precise in that he never missed a single registration on the electoral register from 1890 (when registration became more or less universal for males) until his death despite moving five times.
His children left school and started at a new school in June 1888 without missing a single day’s education.
All his many children were formally baptised.
He seems to have held down a steady job at the same place for over 30 years.

Well, my suspect used aliases more than once, and was locked for 28 years. He was also the ex-fiancé of the only victim ever killed indoors.
I'm sure you can sense the difference...

This all makes it somewhat strange that Charles Lechmere chose to call himself Cross when he went to (probably) Bethnal Green police station on the Sunday evening.
To just dismiss this oddity as of no consequence is to my mind ridiculous.

Agreed. That's why I find your theory interesting to some extent. Problem is that the use of "Cross" did serve no purpose, if he was the murderer.

Particularly when this man had been found by another (Paul) by the body of a murdered woman, and he was seen very close to the body before having raised the alarm.

Still, no purpose.

My best guess is that he wanted to keep his involvement from his wife –

But as pointed out by Mr Lucky, "Cross the carman" was mentioned by the Star. We have no evidence that Mrs Lechmere read The Star, but we know how popular it was.

which is backed up by his attending the inquest in his work clothes and by his probable avoidance of giving his address in open court.

Perfect illustration of what I said earlier. For that matter, Abby's posts #54 and #56 are far more convincing, imo.

We can speculate endlessly but to claim that there is nothing odd about this man giving the name Cross instead of Lechmere is unrealistic.

I still agree with that, but the reason why he did so doesn't mean he was the Ripper, far from it, because the use of Cross, as I said, served no purpose to protect the murderer.

Lastly, I just can point out how difficult it seems to build up a married Ripper, especially if the man is a good husband and father - as you've yourself conclusively shown. That marvelous husband, who changed his name at the inquest for the sake of his wife, would spend his nights roaming the streets of Whitechapel ?

[Lechmere]

DVV
I share your view that he was bold – and a risk taker – but also I think confident of his ability to bluff and successfully and blandly lie – from a lifetime of such cold blooded behaviour.
His approach to Paul is consistent with these characteristics.
I don’t think it would have been logical for him to bluff his way away from Paul once he had made his decision to stand and face him.
He would then have wanted to be with Paul long enough to indoctrinate Paul in his version of events.
Also if he left Paul and Paul then discovered the nature of Polly’s injuries then Charles Lechmere once again falls into the frame. By staying with Paul he has a personal alibi. An innocent accomplice.

When you say ‘would you agree it is a serious flaw ?’ do you mean a flaw in the theory? If so no. We can realistically never know. However as I have pointed out giving a false name is prima facie a suspicious thing to do.

If it was known that Charles Lechmere habitually used aliases then his use of an alias in the instance of the Nichols murder would not be remarkable.
The Fleming alias was known to the police – and apparently raised no eyebrow. The Cross alias wasn’t. If it was known, given the circumstances surrounding Charles Lechmere’s involvement, then I would suggest it would have raised an eyebrow.

"Cross the carman" was mentioned by the Star. We have no evidence that Mrs Lechmere read The Star, but we know how popular it was.
We know that Charles Lechmere’s wife was illiterate – so we can discern that she did not read the Star. We don’t know if she was particularly aware what her husband’s long dead step father’s surname was anyway. As Charles Lechmere and his family had only just moved into Doveton Street from a totally different East End district, it is quite possible that no one in his street would have associated him with being Carman Cross.

Incidentally I have gone through all of Pickford’s extant records and while there are no personnel files left, those relating to this period (mostly contracts with railway companies' delivery rates and so forth) are frankly a bit scruffy. They were not meticulously kept up. Amendments are scribbled over the original. They suggest that the company did not keep scrupulous and detailed files. I very much doubt that Charles Lechmere’s change of address would have been noted. I would guess that his name was only registered in a work log at his individual depot at Broad Street.

We have no idea that Charles Lechmere was a marvellous husband. He may have been a tyrant. But in any case some psychopaths have tremendous compassion for their offspring and are very protective and jealous for their advancement and security.
The notion that Charles Lechmere would frivolously give a different name to the police in such a significant manner seems to run counter to all we can discern about the character of the man.

The purpose that Charles Lechmere would have in obscuring his identity would be – I would guess – so that his wife would not suspect him. Maybe she noticed his mood swings, his brooding underlying violence. His resentment against his mother’s husbands, his irregular nocturnal habits – and so on. Maybe she lived in fear of him – maybe he lived in fear that she might twig that he was responsible and dob him in. Maybe he lived in fear that she would see his inner weakness that compelled him to murder to cover his sense of powerlessness. Maybe his outward self – as seen by his friends and family was an act he had to keep up every day and he had no wish for that mask to slip. Maybe he did not want his wife to look on him with suspicion every time he went out the door. There are all sorts of reasons which could underlie his desire to keep his wife in the dark about his potential involvement.

[Fisherman]

David:

"That marvelous husband, who changed his name at the inquest for the sake of his wife, would spend his nights roaming the streets of Whitechapel ?"

You make it sound as if he changed names as a token of love and affection for his wife, David. How about he did so to keep her in the dark?

Edward has already pointed out that we have absolutely no way of knowing what kind of a husband and father he was, caring or tyrant. I second that, but since you seem to believe that guys known as good husbands and family fathers never would be serial killers, I will call that card by naming Peter Kürten, a man who was very affectionate and caring about his wife (he even made sure that she could collect the reward for turning him in!), Gary Ridgway, the best man his wife had ever come across by her own admission, family father and model citizen John Eric Armstrong, and father-of-five, Robert Lee Yates, who caringly drove his kids to school inbetween his hits. Others have lived in dysfunctional marriages, but kept up appearances just the same. Gacy, for one, springs to mind here.
And sure enough, a facade as a common man, tied up in marriage and going to work each day, would be about the best cover a serialist could ask for. Even today, we are amazed when these types of killers are revealed, and back in 1888, it would have been inconceivable to regard a man like Lechmere as a potential killer.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Let's suppose....

Hi Lechmere and Fish,

If I'm allowed some speculation, let's imagine we find evidence that Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords.
Would you still ignore Abby's posts #54 and 56 ?

[Fisherman]

I thought you said that I had NOT ignored anything when it comes to answering questions and proposals...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

So...

We are asked to accept that a married man, in a long term marriage, father to several children, never in trouble with the police, who held down a stable job for all of his working life, who in retirement started and succeeded at his own business, who was a regular voter, and who was able to save and leave a considerable sum for the upkeep of his wife in his will - to all extents and purposes an apparently hardworking, stable family man - could have been the world's most notorious serial killer.

Well ok then, so that being the case, exactly why couldn't Toppy (for those who favour him for Hutchinson) be the very same?

He was married, had children, voted, had a stable profession - so why not?

Its a hypothetical question, since I don't believe that either Crossmere or Toppy were guilty - but a valid one, I think.

[DVV]

I thought you said that I had NOT ignored anything when it comes to answering questions and proposals...?

The best,
Fisherman

Yes Fish, and this is well-known, but the question hasn't been asked within this new context /speculation (which is : IF Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords).
And I still consider Abby's suggestion more likely than Edward-Lechmere's "best guess".

edit : I concede "ignore" was a bad choice.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"We are asked to accept that a married man, in a long term marriage, father to several children, never in trouble with the police, who held down a stable job for all of his working life, who in retirement started and succeeded at his own business, who was a regular voter, and who was able to save and leave a considerable sum for the upkeep of his wife in his will - to all extents and purposes an apparently hardworking, stable family man - could have been the world's most notorious serial killer."

Killers don´t vote...?

" that being the case, exactly why couldn't Toppy (for those who favour him for Hutchinson) be the very same?"

He could.

Fisherman

[DVV]

So...

We are asked to accept that a married man, in a long term marriage, father to several children, never in trouble with the police, who held down a stable job for all of his working life, who in retirement started and succeeded at his own business, who was a regular voter, and who was able to save and leave a considerable sum for the upkeep of his wife in his will - to all extents and purposes an apparently hardworking, stable family man - could have been the world's most notorious serial killer.

Well ok then, so that being the case, exactly why couldn't Toppy (for those who favour him for Hutchinson) be the very same?

He was married, had children, voted, had a stable profession - so why not?

Its a hypothetical question, since I don't believe that either Crossmere or Toppy were guilty - but a valid one, I think.

Indeed, Sally - save that Toppy was even not a witness.

[Fisherman]

David:

" the question hasn't been asked within this new context /speculation (which is : IF Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords)."

Right! Let´s look at what Abby said:

"Given that Thomas Cross was still alive when Lech started work at Pickfords- what do you think of the possibility that Lech was still going by Cross as a last name (as evidinced by him being listed earlier as Cross in the 1861 census)when he started at Pickfords and therefore kept it Cross as a "work" name, eventhough he reverted to Lechmere after his stepfather died??"

...and:

"I am suggesting that perhaps Lech kept using and still went by Cross at work, eventhough officially everywhere else he reverted to his "family" (biological)name Lechmere. It is a common practice still today where people who have been known professionally by one last name keep using that last name for work, eventhough there last name has "officially" changed (through marriage, etc).
Also, prior to this, I could easily imagine a scenario in which young Lech, still living under the auspices of his stepfather Cross, a policeman, would want to use that name for the purposes of finding/maintaining employment as being the son of a policeman would probably help in that regards. Especially, if said father/policeman, was actively helping him find employment."

That would be it, I think? And now you ask "If I'm allowed some speculation, let's imagine we find evidence that Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords.
Would you still ignore Abby's posts #54 and 56 ?"

Of course, you say yourself that "ignore" is a bad choice of terms, but the question as such is an obvious one: If it was found that Lechmere was called Cross at Pickfords, would I still regard him as a viable suspect?

That I would - and to a very large extent. There are many more parameters built into the accusation act against Lechmere than the name swop. Michael Connor knew nothing about it as he launched his theory numerous years ago, nor did he see the potential blasting power of the Mizen scam. He did not pick up on Lechmere´s apparent ommission to state his name in court (which was understandable since Connor was not aware of the name swop either), he did not know that the Stride killing went down in Lechmere´s old quarters and close to where his mother and daughter resided, and he had not in-depth researched Lechmere´s background, which makes for a useful addition to the accusation act if we accept a motive of societal revenge urge.

So the case against Lechmere involves many, many factors, and not just the name. Loosing that point would detract from the accusation strength, but not nearly to an extent where we need to let him walk. It´s just one pointer of many.

All the best,
Fisherman
__________________

[DVV]

David:
Of course, you say yourself that "ignore" is a bad choice of terms, but the question as such is an obvious one: If it was found that Lechmere was called Cross at Pickfords, would I still regard him as a viable suspect?

Fish, I didn't intend to go that far for the time being. It was more about Abby's suggestion versus Edward's "best guess" (ie : the reason why he appeared at the inquest as Cross AND dressed as a carman).

[Sally]

Indeed, Sally - save that Toppy was even not a witness.

I know that David

But there are some who believe that he was - yet I don't see him being touted as a possible suspect by anybody, in spite of the many similarities between his own life and that of Crossmere.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, surely?

[Fisherman]

Aha - well, I´d say that the carman dress is a very useful pointer to what it was all about. Abby (and some other posters) speculated that Lechmere was fetched up by the police at Pickfords (alternatively in Buck´s Row) and taken to the inquest.

I don´t think that holds more water than an ordinary sieve. If Lechmere had not gone to the police himself, the police would have been at a loss to identify him in the very few hours they had at hand before the inquest. Therefore, they could not have gone to Pickfords - for they did not know he worked there until he told them so on Sunday.

Likewise, if they DID stake out Buck´s Row, then why not make certain to land TWO fish instead of just the one? They would, in other words, have bagged Paul too, if they were that interested in the carmen. Which they weren´t.

And IF they DID go to Buck´s Row to look for Lechmere only, then why would they not take him home first and allow him to change? At the very least, he could take his apron off, if - as has been suggested - this relatively well-off man, who could afford to send all his kids to school, had no Sunday best to put on. Why would they submit a man who had benevolently approached Mizen to help out, to not getting a chance to dress up a bit?

It leaks, David - enough to sink an ordinary schooner in no time at all.

The more probable thing - by far - remains that Lechmere HIMSELF approached the police on Sunday, was summoned to go to the inquest on Monday, hid this from his wife and family by dressing for carmanship, and went to the Working Lads Institute. There, he made sure to keep his apron on, making the most of how much of a humble carman, a faithful worker, he was.
But this would not be enough if he wanted to keep his wife in the dark. He needed to obscure who he was, and so he called himself Cross, and when witnessing, he left out his address when speaking in open court. That was about all he COULD do, realizing that the police MAY run a check on him.

And there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I know that David

Hi Sally.
I know you know.
Twas sort of Parthian shot to the Toppy fans.

[Sally]

Conjecture City....

But this would not be enough if he wanted to keep his wife in the dark. He needed to obscure who he was, and so he called himself Cross, and when witnessing, he left out his address when speaking in open court. That was about all he COULD do, realizing that the police MAY run a check on him.

Lovely. Not a scrap of evidence for your conjecture, all the same. But, let's say for the sake of argument that he did want to 'keep his wife in the dark' (but in terms that are less guilt-laden so that we can exercise some objectivity) - So What?

Say that Crossmere didn't want his wife to know. And? Even if you are correct in your presumption ( and who knows the answer to that) it certainly does not indicate, or imply, guilt in any respect.

We might postulate several reasons for his subterfuge; including that he wanted to shield his wife from the horrible experience of finding a murder victim on his way to work.

I'm afraid that after months of repetitive cries of 'Guilty!' from TL, all we have now is what we had to begin with - nothing has changed. And your man could more plausibly be a man who simply didn't want to get involved, nor to involve his family, than a cunning (and yet at times catastrophically stupid) serial killer.