Framing Charles

[MrBarnett]

There is generally a reason why people used ‘aliases’. Very few did. The main reasons were:

To avoid criminal detection or to minimise legal sanctions if caught.

To present a facade of ‘respectability’ e.g. women adopting the surname of the men they were living with out of wedlock.

Convenience e.g. a child informally adopting the surname of their stepfather. That was presumably why CAL was recorded as Cross in 1861, but 27 years later it would have made little sense for him to continue the practice.


Kelly is indeed a mystery, but then so was Alice ‘McKenzie’ until recently. She seems to have adopted that name very shortly after her husband (Joseph Kinsey) died and she had made her way to the East End. She spent twenty years in London and attracted numerous surnames but never, as far as I can see, used her married name (Kinsey) or her maiden name (Pitts) while there. I believe she deliberately hid under McKenzie etc because of the stark contrast between her life in the East End and the respectability of her family in Peterborough etc. A similar contrast existed between Maria Louisa and her sisters, and when you add to that the complication of double bigamy, a possible explanation for CAL’s actions becomes comes into view.

Try looking up the combination Charles+Allen+Lechmere on all censuses 1842-1911 across the whole of the country and you’ll find just two - our carman and one of his sons. Using that name in court would have ID’d him as the son of John Allen Lechmere who was very much alive when Maria Louisa ‘married’ Thomas Cross.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just did, Trevor. And even if he WAS called Cross at work - something we cannot conclude at all - it STILL remains strange that he signed himself Lechmere with the police after a case of unlawful death.

Again he was entitled to use either name nothing sinister

As has been pointed out to you, written on your forehead and tattooed on your forgetful behind, he NEVER used the name Cross otherwise in ANY contacts with any authorities.

Again he was entitled to use either name nothing sinister

Gabbing on about your own personal biased beliefs makes little sense when they are in conflict with the evidence, I´m afraid.

There is no conflict he gave the name Cross under oath at the inquest. He stated he had been employed at Pickfords for the past 20 years. This was after he gave his police statement with the same personal details on. He was fully entitled to use any of the two names.

You cannot prove he was not using the name Cross when employed at Pickfords

You cannot prove that he came under suspicion at the time or any time thereafter

You cannot prove that the police did not check out his work details to confirm his name and address

Until you can do all of the above his status as a suspect is poorly deserved

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

What you have is written phonetic interpretations of a name when formal identification isnt available, and often language issues to help confound the spelling and pronunciation. Ive found many cases where the name is given and the spelling is interpreted,.. and also where multiple variations are listed.

This was a time when people could give themselves a fresh start just by moving. They could become whoever they liked. Maybe thats why people like Mary Jane Kelly are so hard to find...maybe that dead woman was never officially named that. Kate used alias surnames twice her last 24 hours, 1 on a receipt and 1 for a profile form at Bishopsgate. Aside from street nicknames or "commonly known as" circumstances, people could essentially just give whatever name and background they chose to.

The point of my contention is that do we really have to make too much of people using aliases during that period?

How much is "too much", Michael?

[Michael W Richards]

I haven’t carried out a survey, but I’ve done enough digging into this stuff to know that most people used just the one surname. And when they used more than one for innocent reasons (such as informally adopting their stepfather’s name) and appeared as witnesses in court they very often felt it was appropriate to disclose both names. The concept of a ‘real’ or ‘proper’ name was firmly fixed in the Victorian psyche.

What you have is written phonetic interpretations of a name when formal identification isnt available, and often language issues to help confound the spelling and pronunciation. Ive found many cases where the name is given and the spelling is interpreted,.. and also where multiple variations are listed.

This was a time when people could give themselves a fresh start just by moving. They could become whoever they liked. Maybe thats why people like Mary Jane Kelly are so hard to find...maybe that dead woman was never officially named that. Kate used alias surnames twice her last 24 hours, 1 on a receipt and 1 for a profile form at Bishopsgate. Aside from street nicknames or "commonly known as" circumstances, people could essentially just give whatever name and background they chose to.

The point of my contention is that do we really have to make too much of people using aliases during that period?

[Fisherman]

The first line of his inquest testimony was recorded as

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years"

Are these the actions of someone who has something to hide?

Have you noticed that he did not give his home address here? How is that for starters?

When he first went to work at Pickfords 20 years previous he was clearly using the name Cross which he was entitled to do so given the family situation at that time. That id how he was known as at Pickfords

"Clearly"? He was clearly baptized in 1859, the year AFTER her mother married Thomas Cross bigamously, and he was baptized Lechmere. Clearly so.

He married in 1870, by the name of Lechmere. Clearly so.

The various authority contacts we have him answering or signing at this stage, he invariably answers or signs Lechmere. Clearly so.

Let´s try and be true to the facts instead of getting carried away by our own hopes and misconceptions, Trevor. Its Lechmere, not Cross.


So ambiguity now clarified, so we can safely say that there was nothing sinister about him using the name Cross-- Christer take note !!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just did, Trevor. And even if he WAS called Cross at work - something we cannot conclude at all - it STILL remains strange that he signed himself Lechmere with the police after a case of unlawful death. As has been pointed out to you, written on your forehead and tattooed on your forgetful behind, he NEVER used the name Cross otherwise in ANY contacts with any authorities.
Gabbing on about your own personal biased beliefs makes little sense when they are in conflict with the evidence, I´m afraid.

[MrBarnett]

Why does a mother who has just bigamously married a younger man have her 10-year-old son Christened and put his living father’s name and occupation on record?

No doubt she received a Christening cert with the name John Allen Lechmere in fancy lettering. Which she then hid in the deepest, darkest drawer in the house so that her son couldn’t see it. ;-)

[MrBarnett]

Bear in mind that CAL had moved from the area where he had lived as Thomas Cross’s son years before he moved again to Doveton Street. By 1888, Maria had been living with Joe Forsdyke for longer than she had with Thomas Cross. TC was a distant memory by then.

[MrBarnett]

The first line of his inquest testimony was recorded as

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years"

Are these the actions of someone who has something to hide?

When he first went to work at Pickfords 20 years previous he was clearly using the name Cross which he was entitled to do so given the family situation at that time. That id how he was known as at Pickfords

So ambiguity now clarified, so we can safely say that there was nothing sinister about him using the name Cross-- Christer take note !!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

When his real name is Charles Allen Lechmere, it appears he is trying to conceal the name Lechmere.

You’ll notice he used his middle name (Andrew is an error) Allen. If he was being so informal, why offer that? It sounds like he was asked for his full name and it didn’t occur to him to give the same full name he had given to his kids’ school a few weeks previously.

If your kids are known as ‘Lechmere’ at school, their friends knock on your door and ask ‘Can Tommy come out to play, Mr/Mrs Lechmere?’ They tell their parents they’re going round see Tommy Lechmere.

He may have been known as Cross at Pickfords, but elsewhere he would have been known as Lechmere.

Have a look at some East End school registers from the time and count the number of times parents used their middle name. Very rarely. CAL was a stickler for providing his full ‘real’ name - except when he appeared before coroners.

It’s an anomaly.

[Trevor Marriott]

He rarely if ever forgot his middle name, though.

When he (or his wife) registered his kids at school, his name was given as Charles Allen Lechmere. Ditto censuses, BMD records, electorals etc, the Allen is almost always there. When he advertised his shop and coffee rooms it was there.

He doesn’t strike me as a man who was casual in the use of his name. He was CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE and he knew it. What name do we imagine he had above his business premises, and what does that tell us about what name he was ‘known by’?

The coffee rooms, incidentally, were at 181, Campbell Road, Bow, and in 1879 a seemingly disturbed young man named George Allen went to the police and confessed to having cut his girlfriend’s throat at either 181 or 191 Campbell Road (he wasn’t sure which). It turned out it was neither. His girlfriend, who had dumped him, was alive and kicking.

The first line of his inquest testimony was recorded as

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years"

Are these the actions of someone who has something to hide?

When he first went to work at Pickfords 20 years previous he was clearly using the name Cross which he was entitled to do so given the family situation at that time. That id how he was known as at Pickfords

So ambiguity now clarified, so we can safely say that there was nothing sinister about him using the name Cross-- Christer take note !!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

There’s previous little evidence for anything. If you want hard evidence, choose another case.

There’s no ‘insistence’ that people use the name Lechmere. People can ignore the name anomaly if they wish - or deny that it exists. I just find covering it up by refusing to acknowledge the name Lechmere is rather unhelpful.

Let’s acknowledge the name his kids’ friends would have used when they called at 22, Doveton Street, let’s acknowledge the name the customers of Charles Allen Lechmere’s coffee and grocery shops would have used, not to mention the vicar, census enumerators etc etc. Let’s acknowledge the fact that Maria Louisa was a bigamist with a financial interest in concealing the Cross name.

My interest in Lechmere isn’t bolted on to his suspect status, although it obviously arose out of that. I just find him and family (especially his old Ma) interesting in their own right. I call him Lechmere because that’s what he consistently called himself, except on two occasions when he had reason to hide his real name.

‘I call him Cross and he’s a crap suspect who doesn’t deserve any attention’ is one possible approach.

’I call him Lechmere, I’m not really concerned about his suspect status, and I’m going to keep digging into his family background’ is mine.

[John Wheat]

This insistance that we should use the name Lechmere AKA Cross,is just a blind to cover the fact there is no incriminating evidence to show that Cross killed Nichols.
Cross found her body,the injuries had already been inflicted.Yes,there is a remote chance that Cross was lying,but there is no EVIDENCE he was.None was or has been produced.One cannot presume or imply a possibility to be evidence of an actual occurance,and that is all there iswhen considering Cross.

I agree Cross is a complete non starter as a suspect.

[harry]

This insistance that we should use the name Lechmere AKA Cross,is just a blind to cover the fact there is no incriminating evidence to show that Cross killed Nichols.
Cross found her body,the injuries had already been inflicted.Yes,there is a remote chance that Cross was lying,but there is no EVIDENCE he was.None was or has been produced.One cannot presume or imply a possibility to be evidence of an actual occurance,and that is all there iswhen considering Cross.

[MrBarnett]

He rarely if ever forgot his middle name, though.

When he (or his wife) registered his kids at school, his name was given as Charles Allen Lechmere. Ditto censuses, BMD records, electorals etc, the Allen is almost always there. When he advertised his shop and coffee rooms it was there.

He doesn’t strike me as a man who was casual in the use of his name. He was CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE and he knew it. What name do we imagine he had above his business premises, and what does that tell us about what name he was ‘known by’?

The coffee rooms, incidentally, were at 181, Campbell Road, Bow, and in 1879 a seemingly disturbed young man named George Allen went to the police and confessed to having cut his girlfriend’s throat at either 181 or 191 Campbell Road (he wasn’t sure which). It turned out it was neither. His girlfriend, who had dumped him, was alive and kicking.

[Fisherman]

On second thoughts, Astatine, there is of course the option that Lechmere could have told the police "My name is Charles Cross. My father was a PC around here by the name of Thomas Cross." Such a phrasing would not make the police realize that he could have been hiding another name. And as such, it may perhaps have worked as at least some sort of leverage for the police not to get too inquisitive.

[Fisherman]

I always thought the motive for him giving the surname Cross to the police and at the inquest to show his ties to PC Thomas Cross, his stepfather.

If you look at how much the police freaked out about the possibility of Cutbush being the Ripper due to mistakenly being thought to be a relative of police the same could go for Lechmere.

It seemed like having any potential suspects with links to the police wasn't allowed. The one time a police officer was accused was instantly swatted away as a vendetta. This would explain why Lechmere might not have been scrutinized more.

Interesting though that take on things is, I think it would predispose that Lechmere told the police about it if they were to react. And if he had told them, they would have secured his correct name and given it in their reports. Consequentially, it would take that the police themselves coupled the common name Cross to Thomas Cross, a lowly PC, dead since 19 years. I find that unlikely.