Framing Charles

[MrBarnett]

Considering that he otherwise always answered the question about his name with ”Lechmere” when asked by various authorities, can you explain how it was not an anomaly when he suddenly deviated from that line? I would have thought that this is the very definition of an anomaly - to deviate from a common practice.

It was a double anomaly. He deviated from his normal practice when dealing with the authorities. And he deviated from the norm of witnesses revealing both names.

Look at this piece of ‘Legal Advice’ above given in the Weekly Telegraph on 4th August, 1888.

[Fisherman]

Cross wasn't asked his "proper" name or what name he was baptised with. He was just asked to state his name. Which he did, along with his adress. So, no anomaly, sorry

Considering that he otherwise always answered the question about his name with ”Lechmere” when asked by various authorities, can you explain how it was not an anomaly when he suddenly deviated from that line? I would have thought that this is the very definition of an anomaly - to deviate from a common practice.

[MrBarnett]

Cross wasn't asked his "proper" name or what name he was baptised with. He was just asked to state his name. Which he did, along with his adress. So, no anomaly, sorry

Many other witnesses asked the same question revealed both names. Didn’t you produce a list of them at one time?

Anomaly restored.

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere is an unusual name. And when you add the allen (lower case a) in you have a name that would have been instantly recognised in certain quarters in Herefordshire.

Maria Louisa may still have receiving income from her father’s will which was in the hands of the Clive family lawyers. Her sisters had married well and were very respectable, but she had married a wrong ‘un and had bigamously married Thomas Cross.

Admitting that his ‘proper’ name was CAL but that his ‘stepfather’ was named Cross would not have been a sensible thing to do.

[Kattrup]

The witness who explained the name situation said that Williams was his ‘proper’ name. That concept surfaces again and again.

Cross’s ‘proper’ name was Lechmere. Unless he was out of synch with the rest of society, he knew that.

Cross wasn't asked his "proper" name or what name he was baptised with. He was just asked to state his name. Which he did, along with his adress. So, no anomaly, sorry

[Fisherman]

Plus we are very much a ware that when he spoke to authorities of any kind - save the police and in combination with violent death - he always used the name Lechmere and the name Lechmere only.

Of course, we may imagine that there is somewhere a hidden away treasure trove of unknown papers from the authorities where he signed himself Charles Cross, but as it stands, it is nothing but a wet dream.

It remains a fair ground of suspicion that he did not use his real and registered name on these occasions only.

[MrBarnett]

Ah yes, I got my Williams/Evans’s in a twist.

The witness who explained the name situation said that Williams was his ‘proper’ name. That concept surfaces again and again.

Cross’s ‘proper’ name was Lechmere. Unless he was out of synch with the rest of society, he knew that.

He wasn’t an illiterate labouring man who was unsure of his background. His father came from a prominent Herefordshire family, and his mother was the butler’s daughter. The significance of his ‘proper’ name was known to him. His mother had him and his sister baptised shortly after she ‘married’ Thomas Cross and the Lechmere name was on the baptism record.

This anomaly doesn’t go away.

I think it’s highly likely that he deliberately withheld the Lechmere name, even though he thought he should reveal it. But not necessarily because he was a murderer.

There are two other reasons why he might have wanted to do so.

[MrBarnett]

Probably quite a lot, Mr B. In the example you refer to, it's the victim's name that is being clarified - establishing the identity of the deceased was an essential duty of an inquest, which is why it was "felt" appropriate to mention both names.

(Incidentally, I believe the names were actually the other way round, i.e. he was baptised William Williams but was known as William Evans because he was adopted by John Evans.)

Ah yes, I got my Williams/Evans’s in a twist.

The witness who explained the name situation said that Williams was his ‘proper’ name. That concept surfaces again and again.

Cross’s ‘proper’ name was Lechmere. Unless he was out of synch with the rest of society, he knew that.

He wasn’t an illiterate labouring man who was unsure of his background. His father came from a prominent Herefordshire family, and his mother was the butler’s daughter. The significance of his ‘proper’ name was known to him. His mother had him and his sister baptised shortly after she ‘married’ Thomas Cross and the Lechmere name was on the baptism record.

This anomaly doesn’t go away.

[Kattrup]

Over on JTRForums a new poster has discovered a possible husband of MJK - man who was killed in a colliery explosion in 1881.

The man’s name wasn’t Davis or Davies, it was actually Evans although he used the name of Williams because when his father did a runner a Mr Williams brought him up. It was felt appropriate to mention both names at the inquest.

How many more examples do some people need of ‘proper’ names and assumed names both being revealed in court before they will acknowledge that CAL’s use of just ‘Cross’ is very odd?

Probably quite a lot, Mr B. In the example you refer to, it's the victim's name that is being clarified - establishing the identity of the deceased was an essential duty of an inquest, which is why it was "felt" appropriate to mention both names.

(Incidentally, I believe the names were actually the other way round, i.e. he was baptised William Williams but was known as William Evans because he was adopted by John Evans.)

[MrBarnett]

And if they managed to procure business from him, that would arguably not make Maria Louisa any more charitable about them. And that may well have rubbed off on her son.

It is not hard to imagine such a scenario.

And if some of the younger, prettier ones ragged him, he might have experienced complex, mixed feelings of attraction and loathing.

[Fisherman]

Maria would have had two reasons for disliking the Tigresses of Tiger Bay.

First, she would have worried about her son coming into contact with them. Being ‘corrupted’ by them.

Second, she may have worried that her husband, several years her junior, whose job it was to come into contact with them, might stray off the straight and narrow. I can just imagine the girls winding PC Cross up as he and his wife went for a stroll, ‘Allo Tommy, darlin’! Are you popping round for a quickie tonight?’

And if they managed to procure business from him, that would arguably not make Maria Louisa any more charitable about them. And that may well have rubbed off on her son.

It is not hard to imagine such a scenario.

[MrBarnett]

None - as far as we know.

Maria would have had two reasons for disliking the Tigresses of Tiger Bay.

First, she would have worried about her son coming into contact with them. Being ‘corrupted’ by them.

Second, she may have worried that her husband, several years her junior, whose job it was to come into contact with them, might stray off the straight and narrow. I can just imagine the girls winding PC Cross up as he and his wife went for a stroll, ‘Allo Tommy, darlin’! Are you popping round for a quickie tonight?’

[MrBarnett]

Over on JTRForums a new poster has discovered a possible husband of MJK - man who was killed in a colliery explosion in 1881.

The man’s name wasn’t Davis or Davies, it was actually Evans although he used the name of Williams because when his father did a runner a Mr Williams brought him up. It was felt appropriate to mention both names at the inquest.

How many more examples do some people need of ‘proper’ names and assumed names both being revealed in court before they will acknowledge that CAL’s use of just ‘Cross’ is very odd?

[Fisherman]

There are certain things that really intrigue me about CAL. One is the character of his old Ma. Maybe wrongly, I have her pegged as a very strong character who would have drummed an abhorrence of ‘unfortunates’ into her son. And I’ve just discovered/realised that three close members of her family - two husbands and a daughter - all seem to have died in neighbours’ houses. What does that mean? I’ve no idea, but it’s odd and adds a little more interest to Maria Louisa, the bigamous horse flesh dealer who, as the daughter of a butler to a prominent member of the Hereford gentry, had been brought up in a lodge the grounds of a fine country house and yet was forced by circumstances to bring up her son in Tiger Bay.

It really is a mixture that sounds combustible, although I would not try and establish where such a concoction would lead. Just like you, I have Maria Louisa down as a very resourceful woman. And I know Edward sometimes lean towards her having known that her son was a killer. She has the kind of markers that allow for such a suspicion if you ask me. The fewest do (ask me).

Then there’s the Pinchin Street thing. That case always strikes me as a hybrid Ripper/Torso event. It could be a coincidence, but if it isn’t, if it was the Ripper doffing his cap/sticking two fingers up to the Torso killer (or vice versa) or a combined Ripper/Torso man saying ‘look at me - I’m both’, then the choice of the location where the remains were dropped might well have conveyed a message.

Agreed. You will be aware that I think it was about recognition; Hey you idiots, I am the only killer around here, sort of. Which is why there were no eviscerations. The abdominal incision, running all the way down, was a calling card shoved in the face of the police. And it would be odd in the extreme if the choice of Pinchin Street was just another coincidence, pointing in Lechmeres direction. Like the Goulston Street rag. And the St Phillips Church rag. And the ”misunderstanding” about that other PC in Bucks Row. And the pulled down dress. And the unlucky fact that Nichols went on to bleed for many minutes after Lechmere ”found” her. And how the real killer persisted in killing along Lechmeres logical pathways. And the fact that Stride died close to 1 Maryann Street. And that she necessarily had to do so on a Saturday night. And ..

And that location fits very nicely (I don’t think it could be bettered) as somewhere Lechmere might choose if he was trying to convey such a message.

Pinchin Street is the Ripper Heartland if you ask me.So I wholeheartedly agree.

It was virtually opposite where he had lived as a boy with his old Ma and his PC stepfather, the house they had lived in was still there in sight of the arch; Frederick Street that had run behind where the arch was located had been one of the most notorious of the Tiger Bay streets when he lived there; the torso was dumped a few feet away from the Whitechapel/St Georges boundary. If he, a St Georges boy, was the WM, what other spot in London would have carried anything even close to the significance of that spot?

Answers on a postcard...

None - as far as we know.

[MrBarnett]

There are certain things that really intrigue me about CAL. One is the character of his old Ma. Maybe wrongly, I have her pegged as a very strong character who would have drummed an abhorrence of ‘unfortunates’ into her son. And I’ve just discovered/realised that three close members of her family - two husbands and a daughter - all seem to have died in neighbours’ houses. What does that mean? I’ve no idea, but it’s odd and adds a little more interest to Maria Louisa, the bigamous horse flesh dealer who, as the daughter of a butler to a prominent member of the Herefordshire gentry, had been brought up in a lodge the grounds of a fine country house and yet was forced by circumstances to bring up her son in Tiger Bay.

Then there’s the Pinchin Street thing. That case always strikes me as a hybrid Ripper/Torso event. It could be a coincidence, but if it isn’t, if it was the Ripper doffing his cap/sticking two fingers up to the Torso killer (or vice versa) or a combined Ripper/Torso man saying ‘look at me - I’m both’, then the choice of the location where the remains were dropped might well have conveyed a message.

And that location fits very nicely (I don’t think it could be bettered) as somewhere Lechmere might choose if he was trying to convey such a message.

It was virtually opposite where he had lived as a boy with his old Ma and his PC stepfather, the house they had lived in was still there in sight of the arch; Frederick Street that had run behind where the arch was located had been one of the most notorious of the Tiger Bay streets when he lived there; the torso was dumped a few feet away from the Whitechapel/St Georges boundary. If he, a St Georges boy, was the WM, what other spot in London would have carried anything even close to the significance of that spot?

Answers on a postcard...