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

[bolo]

Hello MrB,

thanks for your work so far, this puts some points raised in this thread into perspective in my opinion.

Keep us posted, I find this control person method very interesting.

Best wishes,

Boris

[lynn cates]

sympathy

Hello Jason. Thanks.

"I have been married for nearly 25 years. . . "

You have mt deepest sympathies. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;299569]There were only two instances where organs were taken and Lechmere would have conceivably had somewhere other than his home to secrete them - his work.
It is assumed that he wanted the parts as long term trophies.
The
removal may have been his kick.[/QUOTE
I think the possession of the organs was very important to our killer on Nichols and stride he didn't have time to do this Kelly may have had her heart taken by our killer.I can't see our killer not having somewhere very safe to keep these organs that's why I have always believed our killer lived alone you have got to admit being caught in possession of human organs would be very hard to explain and would be enough to get you hung.

[MrBarnett]

Update on the (self-imposed) Charles Lechmere 100+ records challenge:

My research is going reasonably well, though it is far from complete.

The chosen subject (let’s call him T) was born in 1853 in Wolverhampton, and moved to London as a boy. His father and paternal grandfather, born and bred in the East End, had been slaughtermen/butchers in Whitechapel. At one stage his parents and maternal grandfather had lived in Little North Street (later to become Winthrop Street).

After returning to London, T spent most of his working life in Islington where he and other family members worked in the slaughterhouses attached to the Metropolitan Cattle Market.

He had 11 children, 8 of whom survived to adulthood. He appears to have moved home 7 times in his adult life. By the age of 58, he had accumulated sufficient capital to open a general provision store in Hackney.

He died in 1924 and left some £200.00 in his will.

In many respects T’s life story mirrors Charles Lechmere’s, which is why I thought he would make a good subject for this exercise. One difference worth mentioning, though, is that it seems T was illiterate.


So far I have found 70% of T’s potential maximum electoral roll entries. Some of the missing records seem to be also missing for other residents of the same streets, so possibly my resource (Ancestry) is incomplete. The remainder appear either to relate to a house move(s) that I have not yet identified, or are early in T’s adult life when he may not have been eligible to vote. The known house moves did not affect his appearance on the electoral register. (35 records so far)

I have all 6 census returns. (6 records)

I have T’s birth, baptism, marriage, death and probate records. (5 records)

I also have birth records for his 11 children and one death certificate (still looking for death certs for 2 of the 3 children listed as deceased on the 1911 census, T may be recorded there as informant). I also have baptismal records for 5 of the children, still chasing the rest. (17 records so far)

School records for the children are still being researched, but the number should be at least 16, possibly more.

It seems clear from what I have found so far (63 records) that the total no. of records available for T is unlikely to be far short of 100, and may well exceed that number.

This was a mid- 19th/early- 20th century London labouring man who worked hard to take care of his large family and who was sufficiently prudent, or lucky, to be able to start his own small business in later life (Charles Lechmere’s story in a nutshell). That he left such a record, despite the handicap of his illiteracy, suggests to me there is nothing extraordinary about the number of Charles Lechmere’s available records. As evidence of his use of the Lechmere name they have some value, but I don’t believe their quantity is in any way indicative of a controlling or even a particularly over-zealous nature. (Just in case anyone was tempted to make such a claim.) As for their completeness, I have more work to do on T before I can offer an opinion.


Apologies for the secret squirrel approach to the subject’s identity, but there are some aspects of T’s life that are rather mysterious. I would like to get to the bottom of these before I reveal him as either a benchmark against which to measure Charles Lechmere’s form filling or, dare I say it, a competitor for the JTR title itself.

Only kidding – but just for a laugh, let’s summarise T with a suspect slant:

Aged 35 in 1888

Father and grandfather were slaughtermen/butchers from Whitechapel.

Father and maternal grandfather had lived in Winthrop Street.

Lived in Wolverhampton Road, Bilston at the same time that Kate Eddowes lived in Bilston Road, Wolverhampton. The two roads connect.

Moved to Islington and worked in a slaughterhouse owned by the same person who owned the abattoir in Winthrop Street.

A family tragedy occurred in early 1888.

From the early 1890’s his eldest son took over as head of the household for a number of years.

In the 1911 census he was described as an ‘invalid, no particular infirmity.’

Not a lot, I know, but not far short of some other candidates who are taken quite seriously. (If I were to add that he was obsessive about form filling and that his probable route from Islington to the Whitechapel abattoir would take him past Mitre Square and along the Whitechapel Road or, as a reasonable alternative, via Hanbury Street, would that help do you think?)


There’s still some research to be done to complete the record toll - and maybe to add to the suspect side of the ledger, who knows? I will report back.

Cheers,

MrB

[Lechmere]

There were only two instances where organs were taken and Lechmere would have conceivably had somewhere other than his home to secrete them - his work.
It is assumed that he wanted the parts as long term trophies.
The removal may have been his kick.

[pinkmoon]

Caz

The drama I scripted for him was an occupational hazard.
In Act One, Scene One he was careless and allowed Paul to approach too close before he noticed him. He judged it expedient to turn and face the intruder, to bluff it out rather than skedaddle into the possible arms of a policeman.
This is known as the ‘should I stay or should I go’ dilemma.
If I stay there will be trouble, if I go there will be double (I’m sure that’s how it goes, it should anyways).

You think it is obvious that the culprit would have skedaddled. I would suggest the choice was nowhere near as clear cut as that and you refuse to take notice of the possible (double) dangers to the culprit if he took that course of action.

It is sometimes claimed that Nichols was almost decapitated. Whether that was the case or not, there wasn’t much blood. The equivalent of half a wine glass left her throat so they say. Probably because the culprit was careful to strangle her first to minimise the blood flow. Which seems sensible. That being the case he probably anticipated that he was not smothered in the red stuff.

Given the nature of Chapman’s injuries the culprit had considerably greater chance of having blood visible on his person than after the Nichols murder. If we go with the later time of death for Chapman, he would have emerged from no 29 in daylight and in no fit condition to pass muster when passing the assorted cart minders, milkmen, Carmen, porters and packing case makers who populated the streets at that hour.
At least that would be the case if we extrapolate from your position regarding Lechmere with Nichols.

Was the killer trusting to luck?
Probably. He certainly seems to have got lucky.
I can’t see that it scarcely makes any difference to his security or luck whether he went home or to his work place.

Whoever dunnit I think he trusted to luck in finding a victim and sometimes I would assume he didn’t find a suitable one on a night when he was ‘in the mood’.

In the case of Lechmere I would assume that he left a little early in order to shoehorn in his extra activity. But after 20 years of plodding those streets he would probably be very conversant with the possibilities and best locations.
There were ablution facilities in Board Street according to the plans I have. So his ability to clean himself up would be probably less compromised than if he had to do it in a lodging house, hotel or a private house as a lodger.

Do killers of this sort carefully weigh up the chances of being caught? I think they plan to an extent. But I think they have self-confidence and almost arrogance which often gets the better of them which results in them being apprehended. I think they also often rely on reflexive decisions.
An example is Peter Sutcliffe hiding his hammer while supposedly going to relieve himself after he had been stopped in his car (with false number plates) with a prostitute. That hammer could easily have been missed and he may have got off as a result. He had been questioned four times by that stage but carried on killing.

The ones that never get caught probably have enough self-awareness to manage to stop themselves doing it any more or they change their tactics completely and seem to be a different unsolved killer.

If Lechmere was found to have sometimes called himself Cross when dealing with authority then one would have to say that this would diminish his suspect status (in your eyes of course it is impossible to diminish his suspect status further).
Before I opened my mouth about Lechmere – before I joined this forum under the slightly stupid name of Lechmere – I checked all the records I could find (then about 90) to see if I could find any in the name of Cross and I failed in that endeavour. Although I did initially expect to find some. The number has since risen to about 110. Still none.

This is nothing like your brother calling himself by his middle name. That is not like with like. My mother also calls herself by her middle name.

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.

Of course we don’t have the faintest scintilla of evidence to back up your repeated suggestion that Charles Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords. We have a mass of evidence that he called himself Lechmere when dealing with any sort of authority.
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.

Pickfords wasn’t so much a removal firm in 1888 as a delivery and haulage firm.
I would equally say that given the ‘stress’ of moving he would want his children’s hands helping out. I think you are seeing an 1888 move through late twentieth century and early twenty first century suburban eyes.
Typical of a minimalist.

Pinkmoon
I agree that turning up home with some fresh human organs would be difficult to explain to the wife, and happily I don’t know of anyone suggesting that Lechmere may have done this.

If lechmere was our killer than we have to except that he was taking organs away with him if he is taking the time to do this then he is hardly going to throw them away is he.

[Lechmere]

Caz

The drama I scripted for him was an occupational hazard.
In Act One, Scene One he was careless and allowed Paul to approach too close before he noticed him. He judged it expedient to turn and face the intruder, to bluff it out rather than skedaddle into the possible arms of a policeman.
This is known as the ‘should I stay or should I go’ dilemma.
If I stay there will be trouble, if I go there will be double (I’m sure that’s how it goes, it should anyways).

You think it is obvious that the culprit would have skedaddled. I would suggest the choice was nowhere near as clear cut as that and you refuse to take notice of the possible (double) dangers to the culprit if he took that course of action.

It is sometimes claimed that Nichols was almost decapitated. Whether that was the case or not, there wasn’t much blood. The equivalent of half a wine glass left her throat so they say. Probably because the culprit was careful to strangle her first to minimise the blood flow. Which seems sensible. That being the case he probably anticipated that he was not smothered in the red stuff.

Given the nature of Chapman’s injuries the culprit had considerably greater chance of having blood visible on his person than after the Nichols murder. If we go with the later time of death for Chapman, he would have emerged from no 29 in daylight and in no fit condition to pass muster when passing the assorted cart minders, milkmen, Carmen, porters and packing case makers who populated the streets at that hour.
At least that would be the case if we extrapolate from your position regarding Lechmere with Nichols.

Was the killer trusting to luck?
Probably. He certainly seems to have got lucky.
I can’t see that it scarcely makes any difference to his security or luck whether he went home or to his work place.

Whoever dunnit I think he trusted to luck in finding a victim and sometimes I would assume he didn’t find a suitable one on a night when he was ‘in the mood’.

In the case of Lechmere I would assume that he left a little early in order to shoehorn in his extra activity. But after 20 years of plodding those streets he would probably be very conversant with the possibilities and best locations.
There were ablution facilities in Board Street according to the plans I have. So his ability to clean himself up would be probably less compromised than if he had to do it in a lodging house, hotel or a private house as a lodger.

Do killers of this sort carefully weigh up the chances of being caught? I think they plan to an extent. But I think they have self-confidence and almost arrogance which often gets the better of them which results in them being apprehended. I think they also often rely on reflexive decisions.
An example is Peter Sutcliffe hiding his hammer while supposedly going to relieve himself after he had been stopped in his car (with false number plates) with a prostitute. That hammer could easily have been missed and he may have got off as a result. He had been questioned four times by that stage but carried on killing.

The ones that never get caught probably have enough self-awareness to manage to stop themselves doing it any more or they change their tactics completely and seem to be a different unsolved killer.

If Lechmere was found to have sometimes called himself Cross when dealing with authority then one would have to say that this would diminish his suspect status (in your eyes of course it is impossible to diminish his suspect status further).
Before I opened my mouth about Lechmere – before I joined this forum under the slightly stupid name of Lechmere – I checked all the records I could find (then about 90) to see if I could find any in the name of Cross and I failed in that endeavour. Although I did initially expect to find some. The number has since risen to about 110. Still none.

This is nothing like your brother calling himself by his middle name. That is not like with like. My mother also calls herself by her middle name.

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.

Of course we don’t have the faintest scintilla of evidence to back up your repeated suggestion that Charles Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords. We have a mass of evidence that he called himself Lechmere when dealing with any sort of authority.
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.

Pickfords wasn’t so much a removal firm in 1888 as a delivery and haulage firm.
I would equally say that given the ‘stress’ of moving he would want his children’s hands helping out. I think you are seeing an 1888 move through late twentieth century and early twenty first century suburban eyes.
Typical of a minimalist.

Pinkmoon
I agree that turning up home with some fresh human organs would be difficult to explain to the wife, and happily I don’t know of anyone suggesting that Lechmere may have done this.

[caz]

It shows that he always called himself Lechmere and never Cross.

If he had chopped and changed, using Cross for some official forms and Lechmere for others, would that not have put him in a worse light? Only when my brother deals with officialdom does he give his first name. At home, at work and to all his friends he has been known since his schooldays by his middle name, even his masters used it. In fact I'm the exception because I have always called him by his first name, and when we are in company people invariably turn to me and say "Who?" It's entirely possible that everyone at Pickfords would have said "Who?" to the police had they asked for Charles Lechmere, in which case it would have been eminently sensible to identify himself to the authorities on this occasion as Charles Cross, loyal and long-serving employee that he was.

Also note that I have not said that it was remarkable that Lechmere sent his children to school. I suggested that it was illustrative of his character that he registered his children for school without a single day’s break when he moved house.

I just don't see what it says about his character. Given a brood that size, and long experience with a removal firm no less, who in his position would not have wanted all the little darlings at school while in the stressful process of moving home?

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Well quite, in which case one would think the culprit, whoever he was, would have avoided like the plague the little drama you have scripted for him after nearly decapitating Nichols. So I suggest whoever it was did exactly that.



Fine, and in Lechmere's case that luck would begin with finding a suitably vulnerable victim on his journey into work. He presumably left home in good time in case luck threw him a bone and he had to spend some time with it before plodding on to Pickfords. He would have made it tough on himself by risking all that blood splatter, and having to allow extra time to remove it, either by scrubbing or changing his clothes, before he could safely start working in daylight.

I realise that as a fully employed husband and father he'd have had fewer options if he wanted to murder street prostitutes than anyone living alone. But if he chose to do it anyway, he did it knowing how much luck he would need to pull it off and keep pulling it off.

In short, it would have been a conscious decision to trust to luck.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz,I have been married for nearly 25 years so I do know a little bit about blagging the wife could possibly get away with blood stains but turning up at home at a silly time with some fresh human organs I don't think anyone would get away with that.

[caz]

Whoever the culprit was, we must guess that he did not go equipped with a mirror, soap, bucket of water and a bullseye lantern.

Well quite, in which case one would think the culprit, whoever he was, would have avoided like the plague the little drama you have scripted for him after nearly decapitating Nichols. So I suggest whoever it was did exactly that.

After the Chapman and Eddowes murders, where there was considerably more risk of blood splatter on the culprit than after the Nichols, one must wonder what precautions he took in the event – quite possible – that he might be stopped by a passing policeman. Maybe he trusted to luck. That seems to me to be the most likely answer.

Fine, and in Lechmere's case that luck would begin with finding a suitably vulnerable victim on his journey into work. He presumably left home in good time in case luck threw him a bone and he had to spend some time with it before plodding on to Pickfords. He would have made it tough on himself by risking all that blood splatter, and having to allow extra time to remove it, either by scrubbing or changing his clothes, before he could safely start working in daylight.

I realise that as a fully employed husband and father he'd have had fewer options if he wanted to murder street prostitutes than anyone living alone. But if he chose to do it anyway, he did it knowing how much luck he would need to pull it off and keep pulling it off.

In short, it would have been a conscious decision to trust to luck.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Booth used the school inspectors as for the first time ever there was any sort of local bureaucracy that took any sort of interest in the local population.
The ‘bureaucratisation’ of the country was in its infancy in the 1880s – certainly compared to the 1950s and 1960s.

Sally
The records in the name of Lechmere doesn’t ‘not matter a jot’ to my ‘cherished theory’ – if you will permit me that double negative.
It plays a small contributing part for two reasons.
It shows that he always called himself Lechmere and never Cross. That was why I looked into it in the first place, to see if he ever called himself Cross.
Also, as much as it seems to irritate some people, it can be deducted from the way he christened all eleven of his children and didn’t skip any despite clearly not being very well of and despite two dying young, and the way he never skipped an entry in the electoral register despite moving six times, and the way he registered his children for school when moving, and the way he successfully open shops despite having a below average working class job, that he was a precise and controlled individual.

Note that I have not suggested that this in itself was in anyway sinister, weird or obsessive – or that he was a control freak (my, how some people are so suggestible and prone to getting over exited). But he clearly wasn’t a slap dash type.
Also note that I have not said that it was remarkable that Lechmere sent his children to school. I suggested that it was illustrative of his character that he registered his children for school without a single day’s break when he moved house.
An observer may choose to regard this as being neither here nor there.
For myself I would suggest that it is illustrative, just as if they had had a week off would have been illustrative of his character.

[MrBarnett]

Money where my mouth is time.

I suspect the 100+ records debate is a bit of a waste of time,
but the claim that it was abnormal does seem to be one of the minor pillars of Lech's candidacy, so it might be interesting to put it to the test. A little while ago on one of the Crossmere threads it was suggested that it might be useful to identify a control subject for comparison purposes. I think that is an excellent suggestion and one that I would like to take up.

I have chosen my subject, not randomly, but because it is someone I am already aware of whose life in many respects mirrors Lech's. Although I have already done some research on this person, I have no idea at this stage how many records he will provide. I will be even handed in my research and report back with my findings whatever they are.

In the mean time I will cease my sniping on this issue.

I'm the words of Captain Oates, ' I may be some time.'

MrB

[Sally]

Like Sally, I was initially surprised at the 100+ claim. But the more I think it about the more unremarkable it becomes. If you have 11 children then every form you fill out relating to a child has to be multiplied by 11:

11 birth registrations
11 baptisms
11 school registrations x 2 for move from infants to juniors x no. of house moves
11 marriage certs

Add to that his own birth, baptism, marriage, death, probate records, census returns, electoral register appearances and (possibly) trade journal entries and you've got a very high number without breaking into a sweat.

Yep Mr. B.

Exactly so.

[Sally]

Sally, no it’s not really a very smart post, with all due respect to Mr B.

Ah, Dear Ed - when will you learn? Spouting nonsense with authority only carries weight with the unversed and with those who struggle with joined up thinking.

But by all means, carry on - I simply adore reading your posts, as you know

Not so long ago Sally disbelieved that there were over 100 Lechmere records – now she thinks it was the norm for someone like Lechmere
It wasn’t the norm.

I did? I doubt that, Ed. I do recall asking you to list them for us [which I seem to recall you refused] but I'm afraid it matters little to me whether history has preserved 100, 200 or a thousand 'Lechmere' records since I remain unconvinced that it matters a jot in terms of your cherished theory.

You see evidence in what you claim is an unusually large number of records that your pet suspect was a control freak. Yeah - and if it transpired that Crossmere had been a regular church goer that could be evidence that he was a religious extremist who wanted to punish 'bad women'; and if it turned out that his favourite colour was red.... well - I can only imagine.

Most people with the ability to think and to look at it objectively would struggle to see an indication of abnormality in Crossmere's diligent record keeping.

Similarly universal education was new. The role and wok of school inspectors had not had time to bed down. The East End was a place where – particularly in the 1960s and dare I say even today – many people did not put a very heavy premium on education.

Ed, the very great majority of children in London - whether East or West, went to school between the ages of 5 and 13 in the LVP - that was the law. Many people may not have 'put a very heavy premium' on education; but that isn't the point. Schooling wasn't optional.

The historic record demonstrates that even the very poorest of people sent their children to school, on the whole. Hell, even orphans went to school.

Crossmere dutifully sending his children to school is neither here nor there.

[MrBarnett]

Mr B
I didn't say school board inspectors dud not exist.
And we are more prosperous now than in the 1950s and 60s.

No, you said they hadn't had time to bed down. If that were the case, why would Booth have used them?

Yes, crime rates are higher now, and so is form filling. My descendent will have no trouble digging up 100+ records of my life.

Like Sally, I was initially surprised at the 100+ claim. But the more I think it about the more unremarkable it becomes. If you have 11 children then every form you fill out relating to a child has to be multiplied by 11:

11 birth registrations
11 baptisms
11 school registrations x 2 for move from infants to juniors x no. of house moves
11 marriage certs

Add to that his own birth, baptism, marriage, death, probate records, census returns, electoral register appearances and (possibly) trade journal entries and you've got a very high number without breaking into a sweat.

MrB