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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[Jenni Shelden]

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

[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.

[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

[Fisherman]

As for the discussion of the names Cross and Lechmere, it deserves mentioning that Lechmeresīmother wed Thomas Cross in 1858. And since the latter presented Charles in the 1861 census as "Charles Cross", one may perhaps speculate that Thomas Cross automatically provided his name to his stepson as he married his mother.

However, Charles was baptized in the year after the wedding of his mother to Thomas Cross. And he was not baptized Cross, but instead Lechmere! And as far as we can tell, whenever he was asked to sign his name, Lechmere was the name he used throughout his life with the one exception. And you know which.

Given that, and given that it is said that the Lechmere theory is one of maybes and possibles, I find it a bit strange that his using the name Cross when communicating with the police over a murder matter in which he was found alone by the body is glossed over with little interest for the implications.

We all do things differently, I guess.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

The simple truth (now there's a title for a book!) in regard to Crossmere (or should that be Lecheross?) is that however alluring the theory maybe (and it is, to me at least) there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it.

The elaborate edifices which Fisherman and Lechmere construct to take their ideas forward are based on sand - there is no substance there.

The circumstantial support for the proposal is intriguing and not implausible, but the theorising is being taken too far.

When we start to discuss what the man might have said to his wife, or his motivation in using a certain name (in the absence of any personal diaries, letters, memoirs or other papers etc that might give us an insight) we should detect at once that we are on impossible ground and pull back.

Too much hot air being expended on something frankly that is not worth it and which will never return interest on the investment.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

The simple truth (now there's a title for a book!) in regard to Crossmere (or should that be Lecheross?) is that however alluring the theory maybe (and it is, to me at least) there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it.

That would depend, Phil.

It is in the evidence that he used the name Cross instead of Lechmere.
It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.
It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.
It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there.

... and so on and so forth. These things are in the evidence. What is NOT evidenced is that Lechmere killed Nichols. But when did such a thing stop speculations about men who cannot even be shown to have been anywhere near any of the murder spots at the relevant hours; Kosminski, Tumblety, Druitt ...?

So what evidence is it you need?

The elaborate edifices which Fisherman and Lechmere construct to take their ideas forward are based on sand - there is no substance there.

If so, then even the sand is lacking in the Kosminski, Tumblety and Druitt cases.

The circumstantial support for the proposal is intriguing and not implausible, but the theorising is being taken too far.

Much of the "theorizing" is coming forth in the shape of responses to claims like "he could not have hidden the innards at Pickfords", "He must have run instead of waiting for Paul to arrive" and "He would never have given the wrong name but the right address". When these claims are made, it is of the essence that it is shown that they are presumptions that may be very wrong. And this you can only show by exemplifying with alternative, equally valid scenarios.

When we start to discuss what the man might have said to his wife, or his motivation in using a certain name (in the absence of any personal diaries, letters, memoirs or other papers etc that might give us an insight) we should detect at once that we are on impossible ground and pull back.

See the above.

Too much hot air being expended on something frankly that is not worth it and which will never return interest on the investment.

"Never" is a long, long time, Phil. Much interest has already been returned on the Lechmere "investment". And my feeling is that there is more to come.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

That would depend, Phil.

It is in the evidence that he used the name Cross instead of Lechmere.
It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.
It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.
It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there.

And therein is the weakness that underlies almost every post you make, Fisherman.

Not one of these things contributes one iota to a case against Lechmere/Cross unless you can produce something much more solid that makes the man a murderer.

There are many reasons why a man might give a false name. Maybe - how can we know - he was always known as "Cross" at work by his mates and colleagues? Maybe he had something else to hide that day. Of itself it does not make him a murderer.

It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.

Nope! We have no solid pattern of how the killer worked.

It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.

Misheard, misreported, misunderstood - equally good explanations.

It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there.

I have often taken longer to reach a destination than I intended, but not because I paused to kill someone en route!!! there are many innocent reasons for delay.

The arguments you set out are a pack of cards made into a house - the slightest wind will knock it all down. The case has no foundation. And I write as someone not unsympathetic to the idea.

What amazes me is that someone as obviously intelligent and knowledgable about the case as you are, should put all your eggs in such a flimsy basket - it is visibly straining already.

These things are in the evidence.

You are not being discriminating as to the kind of evidence, however - whether inquest testimony or newspaper reports - you lump chalk and cheese together.

What is NOT evidenced is that Lechmere killed Nichols.

Precisely!!!

But when did such a thing stop speculations about men who cannot even be shown to have been anywhere near any of the murder spots at the relevant hours; Kosminski, Tumblety, Druitt ...?

The three men you mention are contemporary suspects (Cross is not) mentioned by senior officials by name. THAT is why they are still studied.

Cross is akin to Van Gogh, Barnardo or Dodgson with one exception - he discovered a body.

So what evidence is it you need?

None - because there is none. But ANY evidence of motive, of involvement with any other murder, of contemporary suspicion... anything that ties him to another murder in the series (and not just passing the spot) might help you. None of that would convince me - but it might help to strengthen your case.

If so, then even the sand is lacking in the Kosminski, Tumblety and Druitt cases.

NO. You habitually ignore the vital point that, as I mentioned above, these three men were mentioned by those in a position to have inside information in 1888(ish). Cross is different. Thus, while we are unable to explain excatly why these three were thought of interest - the fact remains they were. Study of them is thus NOT based on the sand but on evidence (albeit indirect) from the time.

"Never" is a long, long time, Phil. Much interest has already been returned on the Lechmere "investment". And my feeling is that there is more to come.

I'm an optimist by nature but I never was a wishful thinker. It's your time and effort you expend on this nonsense. If you want to appear a daft eccentric, far be it from me to stop you.

Phil

[Jon Guy]

Is Lechmere no better as a suspect than the other witnesses who appear in the case (e.g. Richardson or McCarthy) or indeed better than any of a random sample of 10,000 faceless East Enders?

Hi Edward

You have to agree that Richardson is in a different league to McCarthy (not sure what was dodgy about McCarthy) and Lechmere when it comes to possible dodgy witnesses.

[Fisherman]

Phil H:

It is in the evidence that he used the name Cross instead of Lechmere.
It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.
It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.
It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there.

And therein is the weakness that underlies almost every post you make, Fisherman. Not one of these things contributes one iota to a case against Lechmere/Cross unless you can produce something much more solid that makes the man a murderer.

Of course they do. Itīs just that you donīt acknowledge it.

There are many reasons why a man might give a false name. Maybe - how can we know - he was always known as "Cross" at work by his mates and colleagues? Maybe he had something else to hide that day. Of itself it does not make him a murderer.

Of course it doesnīt. All it does is to raise one red flag - of many - urging us to look closer at the man. You may propose that it was something that should not have us taking any interest at all in him, but you would be woefully wrong to do so; giving a false name to the police is by definition suspicious.

It is in the evidence that the clothing was over the abdominal wounds as Paul saw Nichols.

Nope! We have no solid pattern of how the killer worked.

But that was not what I said, was it? I said that the clothing was covering the wounds in Nichols case, which sets it apart from the other murders.

It is in the recorded evidence that Lechmere told Mizen a PC was waiting for hin in Buckīs Row.

Misheard, misreported, misunderstood - equally good explanations.

And it STILL is in the evidence that Mizen claimed that Lechmere said this - which was what I said.

It is in the evidence that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20 and that should have taken him past the murder spot looong before when he was actually there

I have often taken longer to reach a destination than I intended, but not because I paused to kill someone en route!!! there are many innocent reasons for delay.

Yes, absolutely. But how does that delete the information from the evidence?

The arguments you set out are a pack of cards made into a house - the slightest wind will knock it all down. The case has no foundation. And I write as someone not unsympathetic to the idea.

The arguments set out make for a good case - the best we can make, in fact, when it comes to mapping a suspect. It will take something substantial to knock it down, and nothing at all has been presented that has produced the mildest gust. The case stands on a good foundation. And I also write as somebody not unsympathetic to the idea.

See, Phil? Talking wonīt do it. Testing, evidencing, proving - thatīs the stuff you will need to shoot the theory down.

What amazes me is that someone as obviously intelligent and knowledgable about the case as you are, should put all your eggs in such a flimsy basket - it is visibly straining already.

You CLAIM it is straining - but you have absolutely nothing to bolster it with. "He could have called himself Cross colloquially". Thatīs blaha-blaha, not least since not one of the recorded instances of his giving his name has anything else to say than "Lechmere". His kids were called Lechmere, his wife was called Lechmere, his post was delivered to the Lechmere household, so clinging on to the idea that he called himself Cross colloquially has nothing going for it but the pleasure of being able to say that we canīt be a 100 per cent sure that he was always Charles Allen Lechmere. Itīs precious little, but you can have it. What you canīt do, however, is to claim that it in any fashion "strains" the case.

These things are in the evidence.

You are not being discriminating as to the kind of evidence, however - whether inquest testimony or newspaper reports - you lump chalk and cheese together.

All the material belonging to the case should be regarded as evidence material, Phil. We sometimes only have the papers to turn to, and no matter the lacking quality of much of this material, it does belong to the bits and pieces we have to go on when building a case.
We must draw a firm line between evidence and proof, and it would seem not all people are able to do so.

What is NOT evidenced is that Lechmere killed Nichols.

Precisely!!!

Mmm - precisely. There is evidence material involved that can be interpreted as pointing to guilt on his behalf, and the way I read it, it is enough to make for a compelling case. It is not enough to conclude that he must have been the killer, though.

But when did such a thing stop speculations about men who cannot even be shown to have been anywhere near any of the murder spots at the relevant hours; Kosminski, Tumblety, Druitt ...?

The three men you mention are contemporary suspects (Cross is not) mentioned by senior officials by name. THAT is why they are still studied.

I know that. Does not put them one millimeter closer to the murder spots, though.

Cross is akin to Van Gogh, Barnardo or Dodgson with one exception - he discovered a body.

Donīt be bitter, Phil. It leads you ridiculously astray.

So what evidence is it you need?

None - because there is none.

Wrong again.

But ANY evidence of motive, of involvement with any other murder, of contemporary suspicion... anything that ties him to another murder in the series (and not just passing the spot) might help you. None of that would convince me - but it might help to strengthen your case.

U-huh. And how does this apply to, say, Kos?

If so, then even the sand is lacking in the Kosminski, Tumblety and Druitt cases.

NO. You habitually ignore the vital point that, as I mentioned above, these three men were mentioned by those in a position to have inside information in 1888(ish).

I guess they all did it, then.

Cross is different.

You can say that again.

Thus, while we are unable to explain excatly why these three were thought of interest - the fact remains they were. Study of them is thus NOT based on the sand but on evidence (albeit indirect) from the time.

Lost evidence, Phil. It could have been everything from a neighbours hunch to possession of a knife. No matter what it was, that sand has run out of the time glass. Itīs gone. No sand.

"Never" is a long, long time, Phil. Much interest has already been returned on the Lechmere "investment". And my feeling is that there is more to come.

I'm an optimist by nature but I never was a wishful thinker. It's your time and effort you expend on this nonsense. If you want to appear a daft eccentric, far be it from me to stop you.

Letīs just say that I prefer that to being a bitter looser with no point to make.

All the very best,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

There is no point in discussing this further, Fisherman. Your mind is closed, you simply babble the same nonsense ad infinitum without actually reading what other's write or pondering what they mean. Your posts are, as i have said, without discernment or discrimination.

We are ships that pass in the night, I regret.

If you won't accept genuine feedback and comment, I have no more to say.

Phil