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

[moonbegger]

His mother is recorded as being a horse flesh dealer for cat's meat purposes in the 1891 census and in trade directories into the mid 1890s.
She was the based just around the corner from where the Pinchin Street torso was found (they had all lived in Pinchin Street at various times in the past).
In the early 1890s Charles Lechmere ran a shop from a street where at least from 1928 his son ran a cat's meat stall.

His mother had a cat's meat production business.
His son had a cat's meat business from almost the same location as he had a shop at the same time his mother had a cat's meat production business.

It is conjecture - conjecture only, but not without some foundation - that Charles Lechmere had some connection to the cat's meat business as a side line - which helped him to set up his own shop when he fully retired from being a carman.

The front of 29 Hanbury street , also ran some kind of cat's meat business The plot thickens .

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

A post mortem registration on the Electoral Roll seems to occasion mirth on this thread, but it would not be that unusual if the person concerned died at the end of the year. And if his registration was not promptly cancelled.
Charles Lechmere died in late December 1920.
The registration for 1921 took place between October and December 1920.

I have seen many Funeral Cards that included the deceased person's nickname or 'otherwise known as' name.

[GUT]

A post mortem registration on the Electoral Roll seems to occasion mirth on this thread, but it would not be that unusual if the person concerned died at the end of the year. And if his registration was not promptly cancelled.
Charles Lechmere died in late December 1920.
The registration for 1921 took place between October and December 1920.

I have seen many Funeral Cards that included the deceased person's nickname or 'otherwise known as' name.

I'm almost certain Druitt was still on the Law Lists for '89 for just that reason t was too late to take him off by the time he was found.

[caz]

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.

You did miss it, Ed. I've asked at least twice.

Firstly I think it is foolish to try and pontificate about what a psychopathic serial killer will be thinking.

So do I. But then you have a theory to sell, which relies on doing just that, so you seem to be stuck with it.

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.

Always a convenient, if completely circular argument. If Lechmere was a psychopathic serial killer, he is bound to have done things that defy rationalisation, but he got away with it all, so no problem. Unfortunately, without evidence it's entirely meaningless. So yes problem.

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.

Equally, if you are right, he did not need more than thirty seconds to work out what would happen if he called himself by a surname nobody knew him by, and the police then asked for a home or work address or - worse - something in writing to confirm his identity. Big whoops. Unless of course everyone at Pickfords knew him as Charles Allen Cross, in which case it was a no-brainer to use that name in the context of what he saw on his way to work.

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.

Wow, that's a concession I haven't seen before. I thought you previously argued that the evidence suggested he only used the name - very suspiciously - when found over a murder victim. Are we making progress at last?

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.

It really couldn't be simpler, Ed. You just have to think through the implications for him (guilty or innocent) of giving the wrong surname, two different surnames or the right surname.

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.

Yes, but you once tried to argue that Lechmere wouldn't have expected to be checked out at either location, and the evidence was that he was right and wasn't checked out at either location. It was effectively your argument that he could have called himself whatever he liked. I didn't buy it for a moment. His 'explanation' for - according to you - sending the police on a wild goose chase, having given them a name he only ever used when trying to 'create distance' between himself and some event or other, would surely have gone down like a cup of cold sick.

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.

Irrelevant, since he did work for Pickfords and didn't try to distance himself from that fact. Yes 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.

Ditto - the man did good again. Two out of three checked out - or would have done assuming the police did the basics. That is what we have to go on. If the name had not checked out, the police would have been caused extra work as a result, putting them in no mood to be further trifled with. Now that would have done Charlie Boy no good at all.

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.

There you go again, presuming that after asking for his full name (Coco Allen Clown), work and home addresses, the police were unlikely to have paid a visit to his workplace to confirm his movements on that fateful morning.

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.

Not at all, you are still missing the point. You seem totally unable to consider the implications of giving the name Cross to the authorities if no bugger at work or home would have recognised the name upon enquiry.

Last week someone called at my brother's house and he was out. They saw a neighbour and asked for my brother by his first name and surname. He has lived in the same house for nearly twenty years and the neighbour had also been there for years. But the neighbour shook his head and said he had never heard of this person at that address. The name meant nothing at all because my brother is only known to his near neighbours by his middle name. You said this was totally different from the Crossmere situation, but it does illustrate the extra work Lechmere would have given the authorities had he given them a name by which nobody knew him at work or home.

It's the middle name - Allen - that smacks of honesty and openness to me. I can't see Lechmere volunteering his real middle name, while giving a false surname. But no doubt that can be put down to him being an irrational psychopath.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Caz
I only offer rationalisations to people who ask for them – but even while offering these rationalisations I always think to myself (no longer secretly now) –
'this is ludicrous as the other person should be able to think of these alternatives by themselves without my assistance, and also coming out with pseudo rational explanations are not realistic anyway.'
Whether or not you regard this as a circular argument is irrelevant. It goes with the territory in this case.
The ‘name swap’ is a red flag.
It is odd.
They is no obvious reason for it.
That is enough so far as I am concerned.

But as you insist.
Why the name swap?
I presume because he did not want his true name – Lechmere – to be associated with the crimes.
What was the audience that he wanted to keep in the dark?
My guess is his wife.
Was his plan fool proof?
No, but it couldn’t be.
But if he used an ‘explainable’ name it would be far less damaging than a Coco the Clown chocolate fireguard one.
Although the police may be cross with him (ho ho) for using Cross – if found out, he would have been confident of being able to talk his way out of any suspicion.
But he would have expected not to have to do that. He would have hoped and anticipated that his performance would be such that the police would not bother to ‘check him out’. And I am confident in saying that his confidence in this respect was not misplaced.
The use of Cross, rather than Coco the Clown, was an insurance policy.
This is what I have always said.

The evidence does suggest that the only time he used the name Cross was in the context of the murder. But if he used it as his ‘baddie name’, then it is likely he used it before in his life when compromised in a baddie situation. That isn’t a concession to your unsupported theory that he habitually called himself Cross at Pickfords.

I’m not sure whether you got it or not but when I said:

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.
and
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 was giving explanations for why he gave his real work and home addresses.
The name – if push came to shove – he could explain away. It was an insurance policy remember. The addresses he could not.

So yes Caz, all along I have been fully aware of the implications of him using the name Cross. All the ramifications.
Including the implications of his use of the name Allen.

The extant internal police reports just gave his name as Charles Cross.

At the inquest his name was reported as follows:

Daily News - Charles A. Cross
Daily Telegraph - Chas. Andrew Cross
East London Observer - Charles A. Cross
Eastern Argus Charles & Borough of Hackney Times – Charles A. Cross
The Echo - Charles A. Cross
The Evening Standard – confusingly called him both George Cross and Charles Allen Cross
Illustrated Police News - Charles A. Cross
Lloyds Weekly Newspaper - Charles Andrew Cross
Morning Advertiser – also confusingly called him both George Cross and Charles Allen Cross
Penny Illustrated Paper (a weekly) - Charles Allen Cross
The Star - Cross
The Times – George Cross
Walthamstow and Leyton Guardian – George Cross
Woodford Times – Charles Cross

It is odd that the correct – unusual – spelling of Allen was reported by the Evening Standard. I would suggest that the Morning Advertiser (generally a trade paper) and the weekly Penny Illustrated took their information from the Evening Standard.
No newspaper spelt his middle name as Alan.
George seems to have been a common mishearing - and Andrew.
Most newspapers simplified it as A.

My explanation is that he mumbled his Christian names.
I think the Evening Standard reporter must have got his middle name from the court witness list.
Just as the Star must have got his home address from the witness list (the Star were the only newspaper to report his home address).

My guess is that after having given his statement in the name simply as Chares Cross to the police (upon which the later police reports were compiled) – he entered his name formally as Charles Allen Cross when he was given his summons.
Is this a sign of innocence?
I would suggest it doesn’t suggest one thing or another.
As an intentional fake name the insertion of Allen would have helped him if he was checked out (which he would have hoped and expected not to be – but the use of Cross rather than Coco the Clown was an insurance policy against the eventuality of his being checked out – remember.)
Or he may have not been able to resist using the name Allen for his own perverse reasons.

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

Please indulge me with a rationalisation of how using the 'false' ID of Charles Allen Cross of 72, Doveton Street was the best way to conceal his identity from his wife.

I know she was illiterate so wouldn't have read anything in the papers, and you have explained before that East End neighbourliness didn't exist before 1918, so she wouldn't have caught wind of it on the school run or in the corner shop.

But why bother to change the surname if the missus wasn't going to hear of it anyway?

Seems like a big risk with no return.

MrB

[Lechmere]

I am pretty certain he didn't give his address in open court. Only The Star reported the address and did so exactly right - which implies to me that they got the detail from a clerk in the court.

The return is that no one knew of his involvement until about ten years ago.

[MrBarnett]

His name was misreported too, which suggests to me mumbling rather than withholding the address.

How is it possible to know whether his wife or his workmates knew at the time . Ripperplogy has only made the connection in recent years, and perhaps his living descendants have no idea, but that doesn't prove anything.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Except not a single paper even got an approximation of his address.

You are right it doesn't 'prove' anything.
All we can go on is what we can find out now.
What we find out now is that he called himself Lechmere in 100 plus records and never Cross.
Some people are determined to proceed with the untenable position that this can only have been for a legitimate and purely innocent reason.
We are not dealing with someone plucked out of nowhere at random.
We are dealing with someone who was found by a dead body that had only just been killed.
We are dealing with someone who then got into a disagreement with a policeman over who said what to who.

[Monty]

Can I ask,

Did Cross/Lechmere have a criminal record?

Monty

[Lechmere]

Not so far as anyone knows.

[Monty]

Ok, thanks

Monty