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

[Bridewell]

I believe her husband stated he did not know her to do that at the inquest but I could be mistaken.

As did most of the men who were close to these women at the time of their demise. Had they admitted to knowing as much they might have left themselves open to allegations of living on immoral earnings.

[Bridewell]

Do you see these crimes as random unplanned attacks?

I see them as having been planned to the extent that the killer left home with murder in mind and armed himself with a knife to that end. I see no reason to conclude that planning was done at any kind of sophisticated level. I think that the victims were selected at random from a class which society didn't much care about. Some of the victims may have known each other and probably did. It would be surprising if they didn't, given that some at least among their number plied the same trade, at the same time, in the same area. They also, as you've pointed out, used the same Common Lodging Houses, some of which were on Flower & Dean Street. I see no reason, though, to conclude from that that the killer knew them all or killed them because they knew each other. That's a leap of logic which I, personally, can't justify, but we're entitled to disagree.

To clarify re Flower & Dean, it was indeed a single street, now the site of a small housing estate which bears the same name.

[Abby Normal]

There seems to be a lot of discussion around the Nichols witness Charles Cross and why he gave that name. Is this suspicious? Is it not?

I thought that it may be a good idea to start a thread to discuss this topic and get much of what’s known on the table.

I am no expert on Cross. I’m sure Fisherman and Lechmere can contribute much more. Here is what I have on hand:

From this site: Born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1849, St Anne's, Soho, son of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa (nee Roulson). In 1858, Charles' mother remarried, to Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took his surname.

The highest level facts of Charles Lechmere’s life are as follow:

o Birth: 1849 - Middlesex, England
o Marriage: 3 Jul 1870 - London, England
o Death: 23 Dec 1920 - London, England
o Parents: John Allen Lechmere, Maria Louisa Roulson
o Spouse: Elizabeth Bostock

Lechmere’s mother, Maria Louisa Roulson married Thomas Cross in 1858. Charles was – at this time – around nine years old. Thomas Cross – as best I can tell - died aged 39 in London, 1860 (?).

The 1881 census shows ‘Chas. Allen Lechmer’, a carman, aged 31, married to ‘Elizth. Lechmer’, living at 20 James St., London. There are four children aged 1 to 7 (“Eliz. Thom. Geo. Jas”).

What else do we have? What do I have wrong? What’s fishy? Where do we go from here?

Hi Patrick
I believe the main reason he gave the name Cross to police is because that is what he went by at work. and he went by cross at work because when he started there 20 years before he was still under the auspices of his stepfather cross and using that name.

[Fisherman]

Hi Patrick
I believe the main reason he gave the name Cross to police is because that is what he went by at work. and he went by cross at work because when he started there 20 years before he was still under the auspices of his stepfather cross and using that name.

... and every OTHER time when he spoke to authoritites of some sort, he used Lechmere instead.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.

The best, Abby!
Fisherman

[RockySullivan]

Interesting theory, but how did the killer, having studied all the police beats, (a) know that the City Police would be working their beats left-handed on the occasion of the Eddowes murder and (b) know that the chosen victims would conveniently appear at the carefully chosen killing location at a time which would fit in with his careful calculation of the location of police patrols?

I've seen no evidence that the killer had intimate knowledge of the police patrol routine and certainly none that he knew the various victims.

I'm not clear what you are trying to say with "All from the exact same intersection" though.

Could the ripper have simply learned the police beats by following the detective on his first round?

[lynn cates]

fair

Hello Christer.

"and every OTHER time when he spoke to authorities of some sort, he used Lechmere instead."

To be fair, how do we know what name he used in discussion? All we know is what he used in documents. Same with my professor, discussed before.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer.

"and every OTHER time when he spoke to authorities of some sort, he used Lechmere instead."

To be fair, how do we know what name he used in discussion? All we know is what he used in documents. Same with my professor, discussed before.

Cheers.
LC

I was not speaking of what he used in "discussion". I was pointing out that as far as we can tell - and we have a hundred plus signatures to back it up - whenever Lechmere was asked by any authority to state his name, he stated "Charles Allen Lechmere". And whenever he signed any document himself, he signed it by the same name.

Apparently, he did not have to think twice about it. But when the police aasked him "Can you state your name, please, Sir?", he suddenly went "Charles Allen Cross" instead. After having had two days to himself to consider the implications.

This is what we KNOW about him, of course, and not what we don´t know about him. For some reason, those who oppose his candidacy regularly concentrate their efforts on that grey area instead.
Can I take it that if we find evidence that somebody who spoke informally to him and was told that he was called Lechmere, then there is always the chance that he called himself Cross when speaking informally to somebody else? Like, for instance, the police in a murder inquiry in which he was tangled up?
When does a bad argument become too bad to be put forward?
He would have used the name Cross informally.
He would not know his way around the East End streets after having worked on them for twenty years plus as a carman.
He would not have had any other clothes than his working clothes.
He would never kill on his way to work.

Apparently, there is no mechanism that stops arguments like these from surfacing. It is peculiar, but there we are.

It´s pointless to discuss the name change from any other angle than one of it being an glaring anomaly, as it stands. Any suggestion that he sometimes went under the name Cross is and remains less viable until any evidence at all can be presented that he did so, other than in relation to the murder and in the 1861 census taking, realistically signed by Thomas Cross.
Up til then, let´s not waste time and space on a forlorn quest, Lynn.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

signed . . .

Hello Christer. Thanks.

All we know--as you prefer to express it--is that he signed his name Lechmere.

But, as I have repeatedly stated, my professor ALWAYS signs documents "Ignazio" whilst ALWAYS being called "Ignacio." The former MUST be used in official documents as it is his birth name.

Bad arguments and wasting time? Perhaps that would be arguing that a name was used from which no real benefit accrued?

There is one solid argument for this chap--he found the body. Consequently, he may have killed her. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

There is one solid argument for this chap--he found the body. Consequently, he may have killed her. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Interesting, but hardly sufficient grounds for suspicion in itself - or should we be looking more closely at those who found the bodies of the other victims in this case? What about Bowyer? He was a shady figure - still a mystery to us, by and large, and known to go by the name of 'Indian Harry' Maybe he was 'hiding' from the police?

As to the rest - yes, I agree, smoke and mirrors. Much is made of Crossmere's use of the name 'Cross' in this instance, yet join up the dots and another answer readily appears.

But not to worry: upon such speculative leaps are suspects born and raised.

[Fisherman]

lynn cates:

Hello Christer. Thanks.

All we know--as you prefer to express it--is that he signed his name Lechmere.

Yes. and that is what we must work from. Lofty suppositions that he enjoyed calling himself Cross under varying circumstances are nothing but - exactly: lofty suppositions.

But, as I have repeatedly stated, my professor ALWAYS signs documents "Ignazio" whilst ALWAYS being called "Ignacio." The former MUST be used in official documents as it is his birth name.

Mmm. My brother-in-law is born Skoog but calls himself Skog. Just as in the Ignazio/Ignazio case, it´s the same name nevertheless. Lechmere and Cross is something else - they are worlds apart.
At the end of the day, people who call themselves X in all official contacts, who name their kids X and who have X written on their mailbox, will only incredibly rarely call themselves Y otherwise. The exceptions to this rule will be very rare - and in Lechmere´s case, nothing at all points to him having used Cross other than in his contacts with the police.

Bad arguments and wasting time?

Yes, absolutely. Not necessarily the first time they are brought up, but definitely the umpteenth time.

Perhaps that would be arguing that a name was used from which no real benefit accrued?

It certainly would, so it´s a good thing I don´t go near that sort of thing. I point out that his wife and friends and aquaintances would have been cut off from the information about Lechmere´s involvement by the use of the name Cross. And then I add that his attendance to the inquest in working clothes, sacking apron included, seems to strengthen the thesis that he left home that day without informing his wife what he was to do.
There´s your benefit for you.

There is one solid argument for this chap--he found the body.

Yes, that is a very solid argument.

All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Or not. Neither of us can prove it either way. So it could be smoke and mirrors.

Equally, it could be a case of murder. And the pointers are there in numbers.

All the best, Lynn!
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sally
As you are well aware the case against Lechmere isn't 'just' that he discovered the body - as rather obviously someone has to discover every body.
And similarly, as you know, it isn't 'just' because he had an alternative name (we are on two 'justs' already) as others had well recorded aliases (oops, is there a clue there).
And it isn't 'just' because Mizen gave a different account of their conversation.
And it isn't 'just' because the timings fit.
And it isn't 'just' because the victim's clothing was covering her wounds.
And it isn't 'just' because he delayed coming forward until Paul's account was published.
And it isn't 'just' so on and so on, layers upon layers of meaningless smoke and mirrors to obscure his evident innocence.

[Ben]

Much is made of Crossmere's use of the name 'Cross' in this instance, yet join up the dots and another answer readily appears

Exactly, Sally.

The problem Cross's supporters have is that if he was known as Lechmere to his friends and colleagues, there was simply no possibility of it not coming to the attention of the police. Far too many people would click that that the man appearing as Cross in the papers is none other their pal Lechmere. This wouldn't be a problem if he was known as Cross to his colleagues (which is far more likely), but then bang goes any reason for considering the "name change" suspicious in the first place, unless anyone fancies arguing that he'd already concocted a plan to dispose of some prostitutes before he even worked for Pickfords!

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Your hypothesis is not supported by any facts - an inconvenience that you regularly skip over I notice.
Such facts as we have - and I much prefer to use these as my way points - tell us that the police were unaware that he had any name except Cross, just as the facts as we have them tell us that his family were unaware of his involvement in the case.

[Ben]

Such facts as we have - and I much prefer to use these as my way points

Right you are, Lechmere.

We rely on existing material, as opposed to claiming that the police "must have" investigated such and such an issue. Just as long as we're consistent in applying that reasoning. I cannot, however, see how it can even be a possibility that Cross's true identity came the fore, unless he was known as Cross at work.

[Sally]

Sally
As you are well aware the case against Lechmere isn't 'just' that he discovered the body - as rather obviously someone has to discover every body.
And similarly, as you know, it isn't 'just' because he had an alternative name (we are on two 'justs' already) as others had well recorded aliases (oops, is there a clue there).
And it isn't 'just' because Mizen gave a different account of their conversation.
And it isn't 'just' because the timings fit.
And it isn't 'just' because the victim's clothing was covering her wounds.
And it isn't 'just' because he delayed coming forward until Paul's account was published.
And it isn't 'just' so on and so on, layers upon layers of meaningless smoke and mirrors to obscure his evident innocence.

Actually, My Dear Ed, what it is 'just' is that Crossmere was the one who discovered the body.

That's a fact. It may - or may not - be suspicious: after all, somebody had to find it. All else that is claimed in respect of Crossmere's guilt requires speculative leaps and bounds - and indeed, defiance of logic in some respects.

On one point I think that you are right - Crossmere didn't want to be identified; but clearly - clearly - not by the police, who could have found him any time they liked, since his address and place of work was readily available. It appears that he didn't want to be associated with the crime - and who can blame him for that? Why should he want his name in the papers? Perhaps he wanted to protect his family. Has it occurred that as the stepson of a former policeman he may have been in a position to use the name Cross in dealings with them?

But of course, you will tell me that nobody would have remembered Thomas Cross by then.