A new critique of the Cross/Lechmere theory from Stewart Evans

[Fisherman]

Come, come Fisherman - read by post properly - I allowed for your scenario!

Ah - so you did! Dunno how I managed to miss that one ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Jeni

‘It is pedantic beyond belief to argue that because he wasnt the head of the household that means it isnt the name he was known by, he was 12 of course he didnt speak to the enumerator himself. I dont get how you can dismiss this as a use of Cross as his name in 1861. Am I being thick?’

You can have no idea what thoughts went on in Thomas Cross’s name when he provide the information to the census enumerator. He may have just called his step children (there was a sister) Cross to avoid having to explain anything. Details in census returns were commonly garbled – places of birth and so forth. It was and is seen as a bureaucratic chore by many people, who do not think at the time that the record will be the cause of speculation 160 years later.
That Charles Lechmere was entered in the census as Charles Cross can be taken as no indication that he was known as Cross by anyone in the real world.
It might be the case that Thomas Cross insisted on calling him Charles Cross.
I prefer to go on what is known rather than what is unknown and the only record we have for him as Cross is in that one census when he could have had no input in how his name was recorded.

Even if that were true that Thomas Cross always called him Chares Cross, it still does not explain why a man who very punctiliously filled out every census, every single electoral registration without missing one despite moving numerous times, had all eleven of his eventual children baptised, who made sure his children didn’t miss a single day’s school when they moved address, who ran at least three businesses besides his day job, and all in the name of Lechmere, chose on this one occasion when dealing with officialdom to call himself Cross.
Anyone who thinks that is not slightly odd needs to take a reality check.

‘Do you think his wife didn't know that he had a step father Cross, i recall you mentioning somewhere before that Mr Cross senior was dead?’
Thomas Cross (the step father) died in 1869, 19 years before the Ripper murders and before Charles Lechmere married (in 1870).
I would guess that Charles Lechmere’s wife would have been aware that he had a previous step father. She may have heard his name before as well. That does not mean she would have connected Charles Cross with Charles Lechmere, if she heard that name spoken of.
His mother remarried for the third time (her second bigamous marriage) within two and a half years of Thomas Cross' death.

‘ps did his wife sign her name on the marriage entry?’
Charles Lechmere’s wife was illiterate if that’s who you mean – she signed with an X.
His mother signed her surname as Lechmere when she married Thomas Cross if that’s who you mean.

‘ok I'll bite, how many people were there at 4am?’
Sorry I was asking a rhetorical question – I have no idea, and I know Robert has no idea. He implied that there would be a lot of people there who could observe a possibly bloody Charles Lechmere turn up for work.
I would suggest that the likely answer is ‘not many’ at that time of day. That’s about as much as can be said I think.

[Jenni Shelden]

Hi again Lechmere,
ok I'll bite, how many people were there at 4am?
Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Apart from the 1861 census and at the time of the murders.
It is pedantic beyond belief to argue that because he wasnt the head of the household that means it isnt the name he was known by, he was 12 of course he didnt speak to the enumerator himself. I dont get how you can dismiss this as a use of Cross as his name in 1861. Am I being thick?

Do you think his wife didn't know that he had a step father Cross, i recall you mentioning somewhere before that Mr Cross senior was dead?
Jenni

ps did his wife sign her name on the marriage entry?

[Graham]

Sorry, but it's this kind of speculative nonsense that makes me feel the 'Diary' is actually worthwhile studying - after all, it exists.

Charles Cross found the body in Bucks Row. End.

Graham

[Lechmere]

No Jeni
It is not evidence that he used it. It is strange that you make such a claim.
You don’t know that he ever used it.
We do know that he is listed as Lechmere over 100 times, including when he was baptised after his mother remarried Thomas Cross.
I presume your ancestor sometimes called themselves one name and sometimes another – some people do this.
Charles Lechmere – so far as can be determined – was not one of those people.
He is never listed under Cross when he made the choice, so thinking he may have used the name Cross is totally unsupported conjecture.

I am currently writing a detailed examination on the likelihood of Lechmere being questioned closely by the police or being followed up by them.

At risk of suggesting a maybe…

If you lie to the police over an important matter (such as that you had killed someone) to mask your identity (perhaps so if referred to in public it is not immediately obvious who you are) then it is sensible to tell a believable lie or one you can remember, or one you can justify if challenged. One with a kernel of truth.
That is actually what good liars do.
If he had been followed up (and I am almost certain he was not) then he could explain it. That would be a better evil than being followed up and having given a totally false name.
That explains why he gave his correct address and workplace.
He had to give the correct workplace and address and hope he wasn’t followed up – and to avoid that he had to seem to be as helpful and insignificant as possible.
If they had checked his given address and it proved to be false then they would have searched for him – just as they searched for and found Robert Paul.
The reason I presume he came forward in the first place (following Robert Paul’s newspaper story published in Lloyds Weekly on Sunday evening – 2nd September) was to avoid being hunted for and found, unexpectedly.
I presume he wanted to have control of the situation.
I also presume he did not want his wife to know that he was involved, if at all possible.

When I engage in speculation I always populate my posts liberally with perhapses, possiblys, maybes, presumes and probablys. I know this is unusual in this field.

I think these boards are overwhelmingly populated by goody-goodies who have never done anything remotely naughty and cannot fathom the strokes that naughty people sometimes get up to.

Regarding the 'facts' I'll deal with Stewart Evans's posts first - and try to ignore other comments until then.

Robert
I don't assume he could pop into Pickfords at any time - it was postulated in connection with the Eddowes apron and kidney in a very minor manner - I think the apron was there and Long missed it.
Do you know how many people were at the Broad Street depot at 4 am? No.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have never commented on the Cross/Lechmere threads, as I find it impossible to merit him a suspect.
We are all guilty of trying to be too clever, and purpose different angles in an attempt to make sense of the intrigue that is Jack The Ripper, and this suspect stands In line with George Hutchinson as pawns in our game.
As a credible suspect Cross In my opinion is way down the batting order, a distance behind even the more popular candidates..that we all know and love to discuss.
I just wanted to air my view, and simply a personal opinion.
Regards Richard.

[Robert]

Lechmere, it's the people not the horses that I'd be worried about if I were Cross.

I have at no time said that any of these objections are fatal to the theory. However, the theory seems to require rather a lot of assumptions - such as that he could nip into Pickfords whenever he wanted.

[Jenni Shelden]

ps what are the facts that you actually think point to his guilt then? Because I am confused and all these threads do not help
Jenni

[Jenni Shelden]

Dear Lechmere,
it is a name he used in the past, there he is called it on the cenus i.e. using it.

I think your argument against this point is strange, how do you know for how long he was known by the name, perhaps that day, perhaps until he left home and could argue? I have an ancestor who used the name of their step parent and then sometimes the name of their birth. You don't know how he gave the name Cross or if the police knew all his names.

Isnt it a safe bet that the police fully questioned Cross and the other witnesses??

No they were the first names I could think of when thinking of a multitude of fake names Charles Cross could have used rather than his actual first name and the name of his stepfather, which frankly is a crap fake name, that was my only point! As I mentioned earlier what other people do is irrelevant, I was merely pointing out the fact that there are lots of names to choose from.

Jenni

[Lechmere]

Robert
I am sure – absolutely certain in fact - that one of Charles Lechmere’s worries wasn’t that one of the hundreds of horses would grass him up.

I’m as gratified to know that you would rather look for a somewhere to have a sly smoke as that you would rather eat cereal for breakfast than kill someone. Phew.

[Lechmere]

Robert raised issues that we cannot possibly know the answer to, but his presumption was that these issues were somehow fatal to Charles Lechmere’s potential as a suspect.
I merely pointed out that none of them were fatal although – yes – we don’t know the answer.
These issues are not ‘problems’ with this theory. It was postulated that they were – but they are not.
Charles Lechmere’s suspect status is not based on these maybe’s.

I haven’t had time to properly compose an answer to Stewart Evans’s objections – patience.

I only mentioned the other suspects to illustrate routine gross suspect hypocrisy where great leaps of faith and conjecture in respect of the supposedly established suspects are routinely glossed over (or passed off as fact) with not so much as a whisper – yet insignificant non issues are raised against Lechmere.

Jenni
The main case against Charles Lechmere isn’t based on his using the name Cross. That is merely (perhaps the word merely isn’t quite appropriate) how he latterly came to notice.

‘he gave a name he was known to have used in the past’
This is incorrect. He was twelve when his step father completed a census return that recorded his name in that way.

We have over 100 instances when this man’s name was recorded - in census returns, birth, baptismal marriage and death certificates, electoral registers, trade directories, school records, rate records and other sources. On either side of the autumn of 1888.
He is never ever listed under the name Cross apart from in the 1861 census and when he appeared after finding the murdered body of Polly Nichols.
You may think that signifies nothing and you may think up all sorts of maybes to excuse his use of Cross in 1888.
I could equally come up with all sorts of guilty maybes as to why he might use Cross, and why it would be a clever and sensible nom de plume to choose, together with his real place of work – but we would then be back to those maybe, maybe, maybes - wouldn’t we.
To me it is a red flag that should demand further investigation – and further investigation leads to number of other interesting areas.

I’m not sure why you mentioned those other names. I presume they are all people who usually go under their real name except when they find a dead body?

[Robert]

Hi Lechmere

Thanks for your suggestion that Cross may have taken the organs to feed to the dog. I hadn't seen that one before. Doubtless the dog welcomed him with a discreet bark.

No, he wouldn't have had an excuse for being on the streets :

PC : 'Ere, what are you doing on the streets at 2.30 AM?

CROSS : I'm on my way to start work at 4 AM.

This place that had as many horses as a cavalry regiment sounds uncomfortably crowded to me. Even Fish seems to worry about it :

"Hundreds? Big problem. Two or three? Much smaller problem. None? No problem."

One thing's for sure, Lechmere had stamina, leaving home miles too early and trudging round looking for someone to kill before starting a hard day's work. Don't get me wrong : if I had a wife and 8 kids I'D want to get out of the house at every opportunity. But I'd be looking for somewhere to have a quiet smoke, not trudging round looking for a suitable victim.

Fish, re your foreman suggestion, I checked his census occupation for 1891 on Find My Past (I Googled "Find My Parts" by mistake!). He doesn't say "Foreman, Pickfords" which is what I'd expect someone as conscious of his position as Cross supposedly was to say. Doesn't prove anything, of course.

[Wickerman]

Possibly, probably, maybe, maybe, maybe. It appears to me from the last two lengthy posts that building a case against Cross calls for a massive amount of imagination. Hopefull make-believe. Just state the unknowns as facts and there may be a few books in the theory a la R Michael Gordon. Sorry guys, you'll have to do better than this for me to find it at all compelling. It is, after all, an accusation of multiple murder.

My opinion.

Thanks

JM

Every so often a glimmer of common sense emerges from the quagmire...

I think the definition of 'suspect' has been hopelessly lost.

[Jenni Shelden]

Dear thread,
here's my problem with what I consider to be your main case against Cross. The idea that he gave a fake name. All well and good, but its not true, he gave a correct forename and he gave a name he was known to have used in the past (albeit perhaps given by his stepfather/mother as his name), that is the surname of his stepfather and hence mother the name of Cross. He also gave the correct details of his place of work. If one was trying to hide their identity, one would expect a much better job of it. How about Ron Davies, Mark Arthurs, James Bean, Billy Taylor, Gilbert Prince, Roger Taylor, Brian May, ? Everything else in this theory requires him to be remarkably quite witted and cool under pressure and yet he couldnt even come up with a proper flase identity? Am I missing something?

Jenni