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

[Patrick S]

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?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Patrick S.
I love this game its full of magical coincidences, a couple could actually point to Lechmere's guilt.
He was 39 years old.
His Stepfather Thomas Cross died aged 39[ a policeman]
The above will mean nothing to you Patrick, but 39 is significant once again..
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

conundrum

Hello Patrick. Thanks for starting this thread.

In my humble opinion, there are only two issues of concern with the name conundrum.

1. Was he known as Cross or Lechmere to his friends?

If the former, #2 does not really begin. But, if the latter:

2. What was gained by giving Cross as his name rather than Lechmere?

If nothing, then:

2'. What did he INTEND to gain in giving that name?

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick. Thanks for starting this thread.

In my humble opinion, there are only two issues of concern with the name conundrum.

1. Was he known as Cross or Lechmere to his friends?

If the former, #2 does not really begin. But, if the latter:

2. What was gained by giving Cross as his name rather than Lechmere?

If nothing, then:

2'. What did he INTEND to gain in giving that name?

Cheers.
LC

I agree on all points, Lynn. I found three census records for the family (61, 71 and 81, I think) and all names are listed as Lechmere (or Lechmere).

It's an interesting facet of the case, to be certain. But there are many, many miles to go before I find it a reason to suspect him a serial killer.

Remember, Barack Obama called himself Barry Sotero after his mother remarried. Now, I am no great fan of the US president. But, if I found that, years after he began going by his birth name, he gave the name Barry Sotero insead of Barack Obama, I would not be overly surprised, alarmed, or suspicous.

[Harry D]

Many Ripperologists aren't convinced that whoever butchered MJK would suddenly stop unless forced to. What was Lechmere's reason?

[Patrick S]

Many Ripperologists aren't convinced that whoever butchered MJK would suddenly stop unless forced to. What was Lechmere's reason?

That's part of my reasoning in never really considering Cross/Lechmere a realistic JtR. As we are likely to hear from those who have fallen for Lechmere, there are exceptions to every rule, and they'll name serial killers who held down jobs and maintained relationships, even stopped killing for no apparent reason (i.e. they weren't caught or died). Lechmere did all of these things, lived a seemingly normal life, dying in his bed as an old (for the time) man. Never suspected by police. Never mentioned as a suspect in similar crimes or - so far as we know - ANY crimes.

[GUT]

G'day Richard

Hi Patrick S.
I love this game its full of magical coincidences, a couple could actually point to Lechmere's guilt.
He was 39 years old.
His Stepfather Thomas Cross died aged 39[ a policeman]
The above will mean nothing to you Patrick, but 39 is significant once again..
Regards Richard.

I knew Richard would spot the 39.

BTW Richard were you 39 when the idea struck you.

[GUT]

G'day Patrick

That's part of my reasoning in never really considering Cross/Lechmere a realistic JtR. As we are likely to hear from those who have fallen for Lechmere, there are exceptions to every rule, and they'll name serial killers who held down jobs and maintained relationships, even stopped killing for no apparent reason (i.e. they weren't caught or died). Lechmere did all of these things, lived a seemingly normal life, dying in his bed as an old (for the time) man. Never suspected by police. Never mentioned as a suspect in similar crimes or - so far as we know - ANY crimes.

At least one Had relationships a job and stopped killing for a long period of time, I just don't believe Jack did due to the extremely violent and escalating nature of his crimes.

[pinkmoon]

Many Ripperologists aren't convinced that whoever butchered MJK would suddenly stop unless forced to. What was Lechmere's reason?

Hi Harry,I totally agree with you harry people always seem to forget this important point when they offer us a suspect to simply expect a suspect to get better and stop killing is not good enough give me a suspect who dies soon after Mary's appalling murder or is imprisoned and I'm all ears.

[lynn cates]

reason

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

Well, it would depend on why it was done. If Lechmere were known as Lechmere to family and friends (and not just on official documents) his use of Cross would be decidedly odd.

So, in that case, I'd want to find a good (sinister) reason to use it. If he had disappeared afterwards, it would be easy to see why he did it.

Cheers.
LC

[RockySullivan]

At least one Had relationships a job and stopped killing for a long period of time, I just don't believe Jack did due to the extremely violent and escalating nature of his crimes.

hi gut....that's exaxtly why i think the ripper was the torso murderer. the only way he could know whitechapel so well and plan the murders he had to live there. it seems the ripper as torso is the obvious explanation. It explains how Jack knew how to remove organs...he had plenty of practice cutting up bodies.

Lechmere is surely the right type of suspect. Someone who would insert themselves into investigation. I think the Ripper was calculated enough that he wouldn't let himself be found with a body but would likely insert himself in another way.

[Damaso Marte]

I do not believe that we can rule out a particular suspect just because they lived past 1888 with no obvious reason to stop killing.

[GUT]

I do not believe that we can rule out a particular suspect just because they lived past 1888 with no obvious reason to stop killing.

Maybe not but then you need a good hypothesis as to why he stopped.

[Lechmere]

Why stop after Kelly?
I personally have no faith no the C5 as representing the realistic tally of the killer – whoever he was. My belief is there was probably more before and after.
So I don‘t think he did stop after Kelly.
I have identified upwards of 17 or so unsolved murders (or deaths at least) of women in London over a twenty year period of a similar age and class.
I doubt 'Jack the Ripper' killed them all but could well be in the frame for a significant number.
Without having the suspect in front of us and without being able to go into the minutiae and subtleties of his life it is not realistic to expect to know why a serial killer may stop. I often see the query, ‘why did so and so stop?’ with the demand for an explanation. This is unrealistic. Having a sudden death or incarceration in much more final and satisfying on a human level – but not particularly more realistic as a solution.
Just as an example, family bereavement (eg the death of Lechmere’s baby daughter Harriet in 1890) or the removal of an irritant (eg the death of his second step father in December 1889) or being fully occupied in business. Psychopaths are often good businessmen, and conducting a business (around 1893) may have given him the feeling of control that he was lacking and which is a common motivating factor behind serial murders. Or he may have picked up a strain or injury that impaired his ability to carry on. Or something else entirely.

Why use the name Cross?
We don’t know the circumstances that led to this.
He could have given his name and thought that would be that, only to then be asked his address and workplace.
Given that he would (if guilty) have come forward to prevent himself from being found and questioned where he was not in control of events – where he did not in any way dictate the terms of his questioning – if he had not given his real workplace and address, then if the police had come back to find him and he wasn’t there, then he would be back to square one and they would come to search for him and suspicion of guilt would attach to him. This was all caused by Paul going to the press.
So he had to give his real address.
But at the inquest we have good reason to believe that he managed to avoid giving his address in open court, and just gave his workplace. Only one newspaper recorded his address – an evening paper - the Star. They got his address exactly right – no other newspaper even got an approximation. It is my best guess that they obtained the address from a court official during the lunch recess before their copy was sent in.
He may well have not appreciated before-hand that he would be asked to state his address and workplace in open court at the inquest.
But why use Cross?
I would suggest it because it was easy to remember and commonplace. Also if he did come under scrutiny he could claim a family connection. It was a perfect name to use.

Was he ever known as Cross?
We have over 100 instances in his life of his surname being recorded as Lechmere in a very wide range of sources and never as Cross - except in the 1861 census when he was 11 and the information will almost certainly have been supplied by his step father to the door to door compiler, quite possibly by giving the quickest information to get rid of him.
Oh, he personally gave the name Cross to the authorities when he was found next to a dead body.
After his step father and his mother bigamously married in 1858, Charles Lechmere and his sister was baptised as Charles and Emily Lechmere, in 1859.
When his sister died in early 1869 it was as Emily Lechmere. (Thomas Cross died later that year).
Charles Lechmere’s children were named after his Lechmere relatives (or his in laws).
His descendants do not have the slightest knowledge about the name Cross (nor of his involvement as a witness).
The police incidentally are an ‘authority’. So not giving the name he had always used when dealing with ‘authority’, but choosing instead to break the pattern of his lifetime by giving his long dead step-father's name (even if say he was known by it to some of his mates) requires explaining. If exposed it would needlessly put the shadow of guilt on him as after all he was found by a dead body.
If he was indeed guilty then it was a risk he took to emerge unscathed.

What was gained by calling himself Cross?
My presumption is that he wanted to mask his involvement from his wife, who was incidentally illiterate. They had only just (mid June 1888) moved into Doveton Street so may have been quite unknown to their neighbours.
Wives usually know their husbands better than anyone else. If his wife knew he was involved she may have started to put two and two together with respect to various aspects of his domestic behaviour.
I don’t know that much about Obama – but did he use Sotero in official records? Or was he just known by that name to his mates?
Was Obama known as Obama in all official records yet chose to call himself Sotero (as known to his mates) when he was found by a dead body?

[lynn cates]

name

Hello Edward. Thanks for clarifying.

"Why use the name Cross?"

"He could have given his name and thought that would be that, only to then be asked his address and workplace."

Actually, I am good with this. In fact, that was always my opinion. This would make eminent sense if he were an innocent passerby who wished not to get too deeply involved.

"Was he ever known as Cross?"

"We have over 100 instances in his life of his surname being recorded as Lechmere in a very wide range of sources and never as Cross. . ."

Yes, and ALL official documents.

"What was gained by calling himself Cross?"

"My presumption is that he wanted to mask his involvement from his wife, who was incidentally illiterate."

So, given his presence at inquest, NOTHING was gained. But he did HOPE to gain.

Cheers.
LC