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

[MrBarnett]

Hi Ed,

I may have slipped up and said he moved 6 times in 3 years - he has 35 or more electoral register entries despite moving six times and never missed a year.
They are the biggest single type of record not the school records - two of his kids died young and one lived with his mother and I haven't traced her records.
I haven't got a complete set for Lechmere but over a wide range.
I have conducted similar searches for many other people and invariably end up with big gaps.
I don't believe I suggested that his record keeping was a sign of guilt.
I have suggested it is an indication of his character - a man who is precise. In control - liking control. It complements my interpretation of his character.
It is also of course an indication that whenever he gave his family name he always used Lechmere and never Cross.

This is the kind of thing I am challenging. Tell me, what are we to make of 'In control- liking control'? I'm sure there are more statements of a similar kind here and on the other place.

And only 35 electoral roll entries in the 50-odd years(?) he was enfranchised - what a slouch!

MrB

[Lechmere]

I would suggest that he liked to be in control of his life - that is what I would suggest you should make of what I have said. And that he was precise.

Actually I have found 42 electoral register entries - the earliest from 1880 and it is continuous from then. I suspect he wasn't eligible to vote before that. The franchise was quite restrictive under the Representation of the People Act 1867.

[Lechmere]

Pinkmoon
I don't put much faith in the canonical five as being the limit to the number killed by whoever the culprit was.
There are other murders - or unexplained/unsolved cases up to the late 1890s.

[MrBarnett]

Thank you , Boris.

I hope to be able to fill in some of the gaps, and prove to my own satisfaction at least that, as far as record keeping goes, Charles Lechmere was typical of his age and class.

As to whether my researches bump 'T' up in the pantheon of JTR suspects, it remains to be seen.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

I would suggest that he liked to be in control of his life - that is what I would suggest you should make of what I have said

Ed,

You'll be telling us he liked to breathe next.

Don't tell me...'every few seconds, which was was exceptional for the 1880's - in fact it didn't become the norm until after the Second Breathing Reform Act of 1918.'


MrB

[Lechmere]

Mr B you are the one who keeps putting a special spin on what I say.

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

Must be my upbringing. When I read, 'a man who is precise, in control - who likes control', I hear the voice of Vincent Price and it sends shivers down my spine.

MrB

[drstrange169]

Hello Lechmere,


"In the case of Lechmere I would assume that he left a little early in order to shoehorn in his extra activity. "

"Assume" being the operative word, as there is no evidence that he actually did leave earlier than usual.



"But after 20 years of plodding those streets he would probably be very conversant with the possibilities and best locations."

He just moved to Doveton Street, had he even clocked up 20 days?



"There were ablution facilities in Board Street according to the plans I have."

There were also bright lights and scores of people to see him at the Broad Street depot.


"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. "

After Cross/Lechmere found the body he did what most of us, i suspect, would have done. He sought help from the first passer-by and found a policeman. According to both men, they were uncertain that Mrs. Nichols was even dead, let alone mutilated. Even with the benefit of Bullseye lanterns, none of the police, passers-by or even the a doctor knew she was mutilated until after she was moved. Looking at it from this perspective, there is no guarantee Paul would not have simply passed by the body without a second thought. Looking back with ALL the knowledge we have accumulated in 126 years, it's easy to ascribe sinister actions to innocent reactions.


"... 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’."

Or he gave his name as Lechmere and the police said, "Hey, aren't you Tommy Cross's son?

Or maybe his boss took him to the police station and said this is Charles Cross he has something to tell you".

Or ... etc. etc.

In the end, this is the only unusual thing about Cross/Lechmere that has ever been discovered. And if he was a serial killer, it's lack of distance from his "official" identity put him at serious risk.



"... if he was known as Cross at Pickfords (something that I strongly suspect will never be known even if it were true) "

According to a Board of Trade inquiry in 1889 (Times November 1889), Pickfords did not keep proper records so you're probably right.

Cross/Lechmere joined Pickfords around the only known time he was called Cross on an official document, so the notion that he may have been known as Cross at Pickfords is not an entirely unreasonable one.

[Sally]

I would suggest that he liked to be in control of his life - that is what I would suggest you should make of what I have said. And that he was precise..

I dunno, Ed - perhaps the number of records you've found for Crossmere simply indicates that he was diligent. Other known facts of his life tend to support the premise - after all, he was able to save sufficient money from his long-term, stable job at Pickfords to open a grocer's shop in later years; and was also successful in amassing a decent capital to leave in his will.

I can't see how that makes him either controlling or, if you prefer, a man who liked to be in control [small difference] - rather it tells us that he was prudent and that he followed due process.

I see nothing contradictory in his behaviour when he came across the body of Nichols.

[Lechmere]

Mr B
I think I have identified the problem – you have an overactive imagination!

Dr Strange

Indeed you are quite correct that there is no evidence that Lechmere ever left home early. But this is ‘Ripperology’ (actually this is a Ripper based forum) and we are trying to work out of someone 126 years ago could have committed these murders. A lot of evidence is lacking.
There is no specific evidence that any single person ever left his dwelling place to carry out any of these attacks.
Some simple assumptions, such as that a man who wanted to commit a murder might leave earlier than normal, are permissible in such circumstances in my opinion.

On his plodding to work – a chunk of the route would have been the same or very similar when he was living at James Street. I think his move to Doveton Street in mid June is very significant but also allowed time for him to become familiar with the new stretches at that hour. I have no doubt that he would have been familiar with those roads in general before that.

We don’t know that there were bright lights in the Broad Street Goods Depot at 4 am nor that it was busy. Given the nature of gas lighting it would probably not have been very well lit and from court reports we know that people started at Broad Street at different times – many up to 8 am or later.

Lechmere was spotted close to the body prior to having raised the alarm. Saying he would have raised the alarm anyway is an assumption.
He then left the body. He could have raised the alarm in the immediate neighbourhood. I hope I would not abandon a woman who was apparently comatose.
Saying he found a policeman is also being rather kind to Lechmere. He bumped into a policeman while continuing to work. Then he failed to alert that policeman to the seriousness of the situation – and if you believe the policeman’s version of events, he didn’t really alert him at all, but lied to him.

Saying Paul may have walked past the body and not looked closer is somewhat beside the point. Lechmere – if he as the killer – would have had a justifiable concern that a passer-by would not just walk on by.

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, and then this old colleague decided to enter Lechmere’s name as Cross in memoriam to his long dead buddy?
I don’t.

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

As I have pointed out, had Lechmere used a more distant name, it would have put him at considerably greater risk if it had been discovered.
As you think he ‘name swap’ is all there is I take it you dismiss Mizen’s account of his conversation with Lechmere out of hand.

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.

Of course there is a possibility he was known as Cross at Pickfords. I like to take all possibilities into account (unlike those who decry Lechmere’s ‘suspect status’ who intransigently refuse to accept any possibility other than an innocent one, and won’t even admit the possibility of other interpretations of the various events).
But I he was called Cross at Pickfords it still doesn’t explain why he chose to call himself Cross to the police when he always called himself Lechmere when dealing with officialdom. The police are officialdom. They are not cuddly mates.

[Sally]

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.

Thanks very much, Mr. B, for demonstrating that the 100 records for Crossmere is not remarkable. It has been pointed out before of course, but the facts and figures which you have presented are of course more effective in illustrating the point than mere assertion.

Thanks also for letting us know about your test subject - he sounds interesting and I, like others, hope to hear more of him in due course.

[Lechmere]

Mr B's man T may indeed be an interesting study in Victorian London, but isn't it illustrative that it is being seized on already when we know nothing about T yet, whether he is a valid comparison, whether he was picked at random, and whether his records are actually comparable.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Ed,

That could be it. All those Hammer Horror films I watched in my youth were probably comedies, only in my fevered imagination did they become sinister.

And when you describe Lechmere as 'liking control' or 'anal' in respect of his form filling, you are probably saying he was a very nice man, a very, very nice man. Now I get it.

I promise to curb my imagination from now on. (Unless, of course T needs a bit of a kick-start)

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Mr B's man T may indeed be an interesting study in Victorian London, but isn't it illustrative that it is being seized on already when we know nothing about T yet, whether he is a valid comparison, whether he was picked at random, and whether his records are actually comparable.

Ed,

As I think I mentioned previously, he wasn't picked at random. He is an ancestor of mine and I already had the broad outline of his story and saw the resemblance to Lechmere's. When I read the 100+ claim, I was at first incredulous, but then it dawned on me that if you include the electoral roll and school records, it would be hard not to come up with a very large number.

T has a fairly common surname, and it was often easier to search for ER records using one of his neighbours with an unusual name. These neighbours also seem to crop up with monotonous regularity on the ER, as one would expect - it was, and is, a criminal offence not to register.

But since we have established that Lech's assiduous form-filling can not in any way be considered sinister, it's all rather academic. I will plod on extracting T's records and reveal his name (in case anyone might be interested) at a later stage.

MrB

[bolo]

Hello Lechmere,

Mr B's man T may indeed be an interesting study in Victorian London, but isn't it illustrative that it is being seized on already when we know nothing about T yet, whether he is a valid comparison, whether he was picked at random, and whether his records are actually comparable.

even if we just compare sheer numbers, I think it's fair to say that a more or less complete set of records of a LVP working class person does not necessarily point to him/her having been a control freak. Maybe it couldn't hurt to rethink this particular part of your Crossmere theory.

Best wishes,

Boris