A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[Sally]

The point I was previously making was precisely that he was not like the average East Ender who never rose above the mass. The gauge against which he should be measured is the local costermonger, labourer or packing case maker.

Great! Let's do that then.

Whatever comes out of it, we'll be better informed than we are now.

P.S. - Would you also accept porters as a reasonable comparison?

[drstrange169]

Hello Lechmere,


"Indeed you are quite correct that there is no evidence that Lechmere ever left home early."

Thanks.


"... a man who wanted to commit a murder might leave earlier than normal, are permissible in such circumstances in my opinion."

Assuming, it took thirty minutes or there about to get to the Broad Street depot, the would-be murderer didn't exactly leave a lot of time to find and mutilate a victim. How many serial killers pencil in a 10 minute window into there schedule, I wonder?

Certainly, most workers would and do allow 10 minutes leeway on their trip to work.




"... a chunk of the route would have been the same or very similar when he was living at James Street."

I seriously doubt he detoured via Hanbury Street when he lived in James Street as it was in the opposite direction.

And if he was the killer and he had a detailed knowledge of the area as you suggest, why didn't he pick a better place to commit a murder?




"We don’t know that there were bright lights in the Broad Street Goods Depot at 4 am nor that it was busy."

"300 hundred horses a night" sounds reasonably busy to me. And the photographs I've put on another thread show lots of lighting.



"Lechmere was spotted close to the body prior to having raised the alarm."

He went out of his way to stop the first person he saw, sounds normal to me.



"He could have raised the alarm in the immediate neighbourhood. "

So could have Paul, by that piece of logic, Paul was the killer.



" Then he failed to alert that policeman to the seriousness of the situation..."

Not according to the inquest testimony, as reported in the newspapers. Both he and Paul reported the situation as they believed it to be.



"– and if you believe the policeman’s version of events, he didn’t really alert him at all, but lied to him."

When two people give the same story, it's not unbiased objectivity to totally except an uncorroborated third version. Particulary as allegations had already been brought against that third version.



"Saying Paul may have walked past the body and not looked closer is somewhat beside the point. "

Not at all, Paul said he was going to walk on past. Schwartz claims to have walked on past a woman on the ground. It is what some people did in the Victorian East End. That Cross/Lechmere stopped and raised the alarm is to his credit.



"Tommy Cross died 19 years before. Do you think that it’s at all likely that Lechmere came face to face with one of Tommy Cross’s old colleagues ..."

How long was Sgt Thicke there for, 24 years? Did Cross/Lechmere have continued relationships with his fathers friends? Did Cross/Lechmere talk to policemen during the course of his work as a carter?

Yes, I think there might have been policemen who could have remembered Thomas Cross. Yes I think it's possible that policemen who didn't know his father, might have known Cross/Lechmere was the son of a policeman.




"Lechmere’s boss took him to the police station and introduced him? Think it through, when did this happen?"

Saturday, Sunday, Monday, depends on his shift. no problems there. He probably had to ask for time off to attend the inquest, so it's reasonable to think his story was known at Pickfords.



I take it you dismiss Mizen’s account of his conversation with Lechmere out of hand.

I dismiss nothing out of hand, but I do consider it the least likely scenario.

Given the accusations already leveled against Mizen by Paul on the Friday night and Mizen's apparent initial denial of meeting Cross/Lechmere and Paul, PC Mizen's story isn't something I put a lot of faith in, but, I understand why you would prefer it.


Lechmere didn’t join Pickfords around the time that he was known as Cross on any official record. He (and his sister) was entered as Cross in the 1861 census when he was about 11.He joined Pickfords around 1868.His sister died in early 1869 as a Lechmere.His step father died in late 1869.He married in 1870 as Lechmere.The records closest to 1868 all point to Lechmere."

In 1868 (the time he joined Pickfords) his stepfather was Thomas Cross. In 1870 his stepfather was dead. I stand by my contention. He called one of his sons Thomas, so it presumably wasn't an unhappy relationship.



"... he chose to call himself Cross to the police when he always called himself Lechmere when dealing with officialdom. The police are officialdom."

If he Police are officialdom, ergo, it is not true to say he always used Lechmere when dealing with officaldom

[Lechmere]

Mr B
If you check back you may recall I listed four reasons why I discerned that Lechmere was a controlled type of individual.
One of the four reasons was not that he had left over 100 records in the name of Lechmere.
Nor have I claimed to have assembled a complete listing of his records.

I will repeat again.
The 100 plus records were assembled to illustrate that he had never called himself Cross, when dealing with a wide range of authorities.

One of the features I picked out as illustrative of his controlled nature was that he had an unbroken listing on various electoral registers from 1880 until his death in 1920 (actually he is also in the 1921 register).
The reasons I have given for this are:
This was at a time when voting for men of his class was new.
There was no legal obligation (as there is now) to register (contrary to your claims).
Registration forms were not posted annually (as they are now) through people’s doors (contrary to your claims).
The methodology for compiling the registers was not tried and tested, but actually changed through trial and error over this period – as it was a new process and there was little in the way of local governmental organisation to implement out these tasks.
As I have pointed out he moved house six times in this period, sometimes quite briefly, and it is not unusual to drop a year in these circumstances. In the confusion of moving and settling in it would be easy to neglect to re-register to vote, particularly in a non-general election year.

One of the other features which I suggested was possibly illustrative of his character was that despite being a humble carman – which would rank him as below average in the working class hierarchy – he managed to open and run a corner shop on his retirement – which would rank him above average in the working class hierarchy. He actually ran at least two shops while also working as a carman. This enabled him to leave a reasonable sum in his will. Not enough for his children or grandchildren to have any sort of tin spoon in their mouths, let alone silver, but it was certainly more of an achievement than that realised by the average East Ender.

This is why measuring him against someone who achieved a similar unusual degree of success is almost to guarantee a similar set of results.

The point I was previously making was precisely that he was not like the average East Ender who never rose above the mass. The gauge against which he should be measured is the local costermonger, labourer or packing case maker. Not someone who you already known made a relative success of his life.

[Lechmere]

Caz
I wasn’t avoiding the supposed oddness of why Lechmere, as a psychopathic killer, chose the name Cross when he had two days to mull it over.
Because I wasn’t aware that you had asked about this aspect – if you did I missed it.

Firstly I think it is foolish to try and pontificate about what a psychopathic serial killer will be thinking. I am pretty certain that these crimes were committed by a psychopathic serial killer, but I am also certain that this type of culprit would do things that would be beyond my attempts at rationalisation.

However, I suspect that had Paul not given his press interview, then Lechmere would not have come forward at all – guilty or innocent.
Hence I don’t think he did mull it over for two days.

As for the use of the name Cross, I would assume – perhaps incorrectly for the reasons I have given – that he had this up his sleeve all along as a name to throw out.
I would suspect he had used it before in his life when he wanted to create distance between himself and some event or another, quite possibly of a trivial nature.

Your suggestions are getting more and more convoluted.
What’s this? If he was guilty or innocent he was being more sensible calling himself Cross if known by that name at work, and his family knew this as this would raise fewer eyebrows than saying his name was Lechmere?
You have lost me.
If he was innocent the most natural thing to do would have been to give both names, of he truly was known as Cross to some people. But e can be almost 100% certain he didn’t.

If the police had checked at Pickfords for a Charles Cross and no one knew who they were talking about, they would have then checked at Doveton Street (presuming they checked Pickfords first of course). That would have answered who he was.
He would have had to explain why he had used the name Cross, but he had an explanation for that. He would have had no explanation if he had used your chocolate fireguard suggestion of Coco the Clown.
If he had given Pickfords as his workplace and he really worked as a carman somewhere else, then the police would have started searching high and low for him if they checked his workplace. Not good.
If he gave a dodgy hone address and the police came and checked and he wasn’t there, then again the police would have started searching high and low for him. Not good.

I suspect he worked these possibilities out rather more carefully than some people on these forums who express incredulity that he gave a false name (but one he could explain away) but correct workplace and home address.

I’m afraid it doesn’t stand to any sort of reason that Lechmere would have given his alleged irregular work name on this one serious occasion, on the off chance that the police might favour checking him out at his workplace.

Despite no evidence to support your hypothesis that Charles Lechmere was really known as Charles Cross, you seem totally committed to the idea that he was known as Charles Cross at his workplace and seem totally unable to accept the possibility that he was known as Lechmere at work and home.

[GUT]

G'day Moonbegger

I also think its about perspective , and the actions of CrossMere on the morning of the discovery .. Depending on supposition of guilt or innocence the pendulum could swing either way .. For my mind , looking from the "Innocent man" vantage point , I find his actions perfectly reasonable and understandable , even with the well documented name switch and its endless innocent connotations .. But flipping the coin and taking a peek at the opposite "guilty man" perspective , there does seem to be a lot of questionable actions , and could quite easily be portrayed as this quick thinking shady manipulator . Having said that I still cant get past the whole "flight or fight" conundrum that a guilty CrossMere would have found himself in , and his decision to confront a totally unaware Paul . I know all the counter arguments that Fish & Lech put forward for his fronting it out , but for my mind , I honestly think that a guilty CrossMere would have been Offski like Tchaikovsky .

cheers

moonbegger .

Probably the most reasonable post on Crossmere I've ever read. Bravo.

[Lechmere]

Ah Moonbeggar, at least you are honest enough to be able to find the words to accept that there are guilty interpretations.

[moonbegger]

I also think its about perspective , and the actions of CrossMere on the morning of the discovery .. Depending on supposition of guilt or innocence the pendulum could swing either way .. For my mind , looking from the "Innocent man" vantage point , I find his actions perfectly reasonable and understandable , even with the well documented name switch and its endless innocent connotations .. But flipping the coin and taking a peek at the opposite "guilty man" perspective , there does seem to be a lot of questionable actions , and could quite easily be portrayed as this quick thinking shady manipulator . Having said that I still cant get past the whole "flight or fight" conundrum that a guilty CrossMere would have found himself in , and his decision to confront a totally unaware Paul . I know all the counter arguments that Fish & Lech put forward for his fronting it out , but for my mind , I honestly think that a guilty CrossMere would have been Offski like Tchaikovsky .

cheers

moonbegger .

[MrBarnett]

Hi Hatchett,

I think it's very likely that he was known as and/or associated with both names at home and at work. His connection to a police officer would have been a useful recommendation when he obtained his first job, possibly as a van guard, at the age of 13/14. It's what his own son subsequently did and I 'm sure that his father put in a good word for him.

I agree the name does sound a little foreign, but it would also have come across as a bit posh, don't you think? If we are to go along with the character that is being portrayed, he was probably quite proud of that. But I can't see him giving it too much of the ' Burlington Bertie' at work without getting a lot of stick.

So perhaps by day he was 'umble' Charlie Cross, even if everyone knew he had a different 'real' name. But come the hours of darkness, out of sight of the missus, and with a few pints inside him he became Charles Allen Lechmere to any accommodating lady he should meet.

And if he had treated some of these ladies roughly, and they only knew him as Lechmere, the natural thing to do would be to use the name Cross when he found himself in a situation where his name might appear in the papers. It wasn't going to fool his mates or his missus, but the use of the name could be explained easily enough if the police checked him out.

MrB

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think the thing here is that it is not illegal to call yourself what ever you want.

I can think of a good reason wy Lechmere would give his name as Cross to both his Employers and the Police.

It would be because he did not want to be looked on as foreign.

Look around you. This is happening today, as it always does in times of lack of work.

[Hatchett]

Hi,

I think the thing here is that it is not illegal to call yourself what ever you want.

I can think of a good reason wy Lechmere would give his name as Cross to both his Employers and the Police.

It would be because he did not want to be looked on as foreign.

Look around you. This is happening today, as it always does in times of lack of work.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Sally,

The significance of the moves is something Ed has stressed on a number of occasions. I think the point is supposed to be that even though he moved several times he never missed an entry on the electoral register. I don't get it myself, as my understanding of how it worked is that a form came through the letterbox annually and the householder was supposed to complete it to ensure the right to vote for the following year. If you moved from a property in June and the next form was not due until December, you would be registered at your old address until December, at which point you would appear on the roll for the new address.

Now if Ed has evidence of Lechmere proactively chasing the authorities to add him to the list each time he moved, that really would be unusual. However, I don't think it worked that way. The list was compiled at a point in time and then recompiled a year later. So all Lech had to do was to write his name on an official looking form that he received once a year, wherever he lived.

As far as electoral rolls are concerned, the work on T is pretty well complete. There are a few anomalies, in particular a 5 year period he spent in Ireland, which I need to clarify before I put him forward as Mr Average LV Cockney.

MrB

[caz]

When Charles Lechmere went to the police to make a statement it was after being found very close to a freshly slain and mutilated body. This was perhaps the most serious moment in his life so far as giving his name to an authority is concerned.
He was not giving his name to his muckers so they could heartily hail him over a pint of Mrs Fiddymont’s best bitter.
You seem to assume that when innocent Charles Lechmere was asked his name by the policeman who was taking his details, he thought to himself:
‘Just in case they ask after me at work I think I’ll give them my alternative name of Cross, rather than the name I usually use when dealing with these authority figures’.
That in itself would be an odd thing to do.

Hi Ed,

You still avoid how odd it would be if Lechmere the psychopath had two days to work out what to say when (not if) the authorities asked for his details, and decided to use a surname that no bugger knew him by, and therefore would be quite unable to confirm. If he was known as Cross at work and not Lechmere, and if his family knew this, the simplest way forward - innocent or guilty - was to give the name Cross, as it would check out and lead to fewer raised eyebrows than if he used Lechmere, or admitted to using both surnames.

Just imagine if the police had asked at Pickfords for a Charles Cross and they had nobody of that name working for them. Would anyone automatically have made the connection and said "Ah, you must mean Charles Lechmere"? Why would they? The police would then have checked the home address and wanted to know why Pickfords had no record of their witness under the name he had provided. He would then have had to give his real name to prove he did work there, and explain why he had given them a different name - his late stepfather's - just for his role in the Nichols murder.

So even if he was known as Cross at Pickfords (something that I strongly suspect will never be known even if it were true) it would still be an anomaly that he chose to call himself Cross to the Police in this instance.

Not really. He claimed to be on his way to work when he found the body, so it stands to reason that if the police did any checking at all, they would likely pop to Pickfords just to confirm he worked there and had arrived when he said he had. Volunteering both surnames at any point might have given rise to needless questions. If he had been known as Cross ever since he had begun working there, no problem and nothing suspicious if it later transpired that officially he was a Lechmere.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

Sally
Your strange concern over me being embarrassed by the potential discovery another individual with 100 plus records is in drastic and equally strange contrast to your earlier attitude when you refused to believe that there were 100 plus Lechmere records. Now you think it is commonplace. Try and get some constituency or you will give the impression that you make it up as you go along.

What a shame that you've chosen to resort to meaningless bluster Ed. You, as a supporter of a suspect in this case, are obliged to live in the main in a world of 'ifs' and 'maybes' - as are all who push for a suspect.

Here is one strand of your argument which can actually be empirically tested - perhaps to your benefit - and yet you are more interested in using tired distraction techniques than in actually engaging with it.

Baffling.

[Sally]

Hi Mr B,

If we are trying to gauge whether Lech was unusual in respect of his form-filling, we must choose someone with a similar background to compare him with. A truly random choice could produce a woman, a sailor, a catholic priest, an MP, a tramp or anyone of thousands of other people who would be totally useless for our purposes. It has to be narrowed down to a contemporary working man who had a fairly stable career, a large family and a few house moves. T fits that spec. perfectly.

In my opinion what we are trying to assess is whether Lech was unusually diligent for the type of man he was. The idea of an ‘average’ LVP East Ender is ever so slightly absurd.

All good, sensible criteria. I don't know how important the few house moves would have any significant causal relationship with the propensity to vote of any given individual. If they had the motivation to vote at one address, the chances are that it'd be there wherever they lived - in other words, location may be less important than the individual. This may be why, for example, we see one or two residents of Millers Court appear on the electoral register.

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

T did not end up particularly wealthy either. He left approx. £200 in his will in 1924. His immediate descendants remained working class Londoners.

If we are trying to gauge whether Lech was unusual in respect of his form-filling, we must choose someone with a similar background to compare him with. A truly random choice could produce a woman, a sailor, a catholic priest, an MP, a tramp or anyone of thousands of other people who would be totally useless for our purposes. It has to be narrowed down to a contemporary working man who had a fairly stable career, a large family and a few house moves. T fits that spec. perfectly.

In my opinion what we are trying to assess is whether Lech was unusually diligent for the type of man he was. The idea of an ‘average’ LVP East Ender is ever so slightly absurd.

Anyway, I’d keep my powder dry if I were you, I seem to have hit a brick wall with the kids’ school records and there are some other anomalies, so T may end up proving your case rather than challenging it. On second thoughts, perhaps not. Given that he assiduously registered to vote before it was a legal requirement to do so (did I sneak that in without anyone noticing?) and had most, if not all, of his large brood baptised, we can reasonably assume he sent them all to school, can’t we? That was a legal requirement.

Your advice to Boris is sound. Go back to the source and read what team Lechmere really said about the record keeping and then make your own mind up whether there is the slightest hint of there being anything sinister about it.

MrB