Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Roy Corduroy]

... he sometimes used the alias Cross, ...
it was the perfect alibi ...

'Alias' 'alibi,' - you've been watching too many old reruns of Dragnet I'm afraid.

One more time. Of course he was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords because that is the name he gave as being on the way to work at Pickfords in the wee hours of the morning. Of course the police checked with Pickfords and confirmed that.

For the police to check anything else and find out he was Charles Lechmere at home on Doveton Street would mean absolutely nothing to them, as it means nothing to me. It's a moot point.

If it means something to you, Fisherman, that's fine. May the Force be with you Charlie Chan.

Roy

[Fisherman]

'Alias' 'alibi,' - you've been watching too many old reruns of Dragnet I'm afraid.

One more time. Of course he was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords because that is the name he gave as being on the way to work at Pickfords in the wee hours of the morning. Of course the police checked with Pickfords and confirmed that.

For the police to check anything else and find out he was Charles Lechmere at home on Doveton Street would mean absolutely nothing to them, as it means nothing to me. It's a moot point.

If it means something to you, Fisherman, that's fine. May the Force be with you Charlie Chan.

Roy

Havent you already said this, Roy?

Did you just want to say it again; nothing new, no bolstering?

Aha.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Roy feels that as Charles Lechmere gave the name Charles Cross it is obvious that this is the name he must have been known by at Pickfords, and that the police must have checked this detail.

I would agree that the police should have checked him out at his work and for that matter his home.

If they had checked him at his home it is inconceivable that they would not have discovered his true name – Lechmere.
In the internal police files alternative names were invariably recorded, no doubt so that if the person reappeared in a subsequent report under their other name a connection could be made.
Lechmere is always referred to as Cross, so it is not unrealistic to suggest that his true identity was never discovered and accordingly that his house as never visited. By extension it is not unrealistic to suggest that his workplace was not checked out either.

Is it unrealistic to suggest that the police could have made such a mistake?
At the inquest the coroner highlighted the fact that the police had failed to question most of the residents in Bucks Row. This was clearly an error, which led to the press turning up Harriet Lilley who made various claims about what she said she heard on the night of the Nichols murder.
Whatever the nature of the Mizen-Lechmere conversation, Mizen really should have taken Paul and Lechmere’s details but he failed to do so.
Polly Nichols’ body was left unattended in the mortuary and she was striped and washed unsupervised. The coroner also drew attention to this.
Mistakes were made at the outset of the investigation.

The police initially thought the crime was committed by a gang, then very quickly started to focus on ‘Leather Apron’ (probably from 1st September – before they even knew about Lechmere’s involvement). We know the names of various people they suspected in the first few weeks: Pizer, Piggott, Isenschmid, the horse butchers of Wilmott Street to name just a few. They had no shortage of what they thought were very good leads.
And the case quickly got more complex, with more victims and more lines of enquiry.

The police thought that of the murderer was likely to be mad or foreign or homosexual, or if not would be of the criminal class. A householder with a steady job and family did not match their criminal profiling.
I think it is easy to make a case that the police would not waste their time (by their estimation) on someone like Lechmere. That he would be forgotten and passed over.

Macnaghten thought that Druitt was the son of a doctor and that he had disappeared soon after the Kelly murder. He was mistaken about Druitt.
Macnaghten thought that Kosminski was committed to an asylum in March 1889 – he was wrong.
Swanson thought Kosminski died soon after being committed – he was wrong.
Macnaghten thought that Ostrog was a good suspect – he was in jail in France at the time – he was wrong.
Littlechild thought that Tumblety died soon after his flight – he was wrong.
Basic mistakes – basic errors.

The modern Tumblety theory is based on the notion that the police arrested him on various charges of gross indecency as a subterfuge to keep him in custody as a Ripper suspect.
But according to this theory he was released on bail, unsupervised to the extent that he then killed Kelly.
The police – who supposedly suspected him even prior to the Kelly murder remember - got Tumblety back in custody when he re-presented himself. Is that likely after killing Kelly and after being held already as a Ripper suspect?
But in any case the police once more failed to have Tumblety held on bail and he was released. Yet again he was unsupervised and managed to flee to France.
I personally don’t believe Tumblety was suspected by the police while he was being held on charges of gross indecency. But if you want to believe it then you must make the police utter incompetents in allowing him to slip through their hands.
Failing to check out an insignificant looking character like Lechmere is nothing.

So in summary – when taking an overview of the investigation into the Whitechapel Murders, suggesting that the police may have erred in failing to check Lechmere out is small beer indeed, and it has some factual evidence to back up that contention.
By comparison most other suspect theories (although I realise this isn’t a competition) rely on massive police oversights or blithely ignore alibis and records of interrogations.

[Roy Corduroy]

Thank you for your response Ed. And firstly I would like to say something to you and Fisherman, (Christer). I have 'known' Fish on the boards now for 8 years and I really like him. I started out as a wet noodle on a Stride thread with some heavy hitters, not least of, Fish's colleague Glenn, Sam, Ben, Tom, the inimitable Perry Mason, Jon Simons, just a bunch of folks. And I learned a lot and sort of got hooked on this whole Ripper message board thing. And I like you too, Ed. You are a cracker jack researcher. Very sharp. So what I say is nothing personal at all.

Look at the other murders where a civilian found the victim. A resident of George Yard, and Hanbury St, Deimshits the steward, Bowyer. In each case it makes sense. I honestly think the police checked with Pickfords. And found yes there was a carman Charles Cross employed there. So his story adds up. What he was doing there when he found the body. Having said that, with the police secure in that knowledge, if they had also found he went by Lechmere otherwise, I don't think it would bother them. It doesn't bother me. Because the name he gave them was the name he went by in his workday life.

I'm not saying this to aggravate you fellas. It is my studied opinion the police did ask. Oh yes I'm sure the police made mistakes in their investigation. But I don't think this was one of them. But thanks again for the reply.

And as far as your take on the various suspect opinions held by police, well, honestly Ed, one thing I've learned in 8 years is that Ripperology, in its pure essence, is the de-constructing of suspect theories. I do it, we all do it. And I kind of feel bad sometimes, because I hate to step on peoples toes. But when you name a suspect, the inevitable follows.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Oops. 6 years, not 8. Time flies.

My dad was a truck driver his whole adult life. His name was Fred. After he had retired I worked on the loading dock at the truck line some. When I was younger. Just filling in. No one there ever called me my real name. They called me Fred. Or little Freddie. Whatever.

And back 125 years ago, people didn't have to use their real name at all. They could have different names for work and home. Who is to check. Who cared. Charles Cross lined up at the window every payday and got his pay envelope and went on his merry way. Back home to a house full of little Lechmeres and the missus. It just doesn't bother me at all.

Roy

[Lechmere]

Fair enough Roy

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

Is this a regular tour that you conduct or was it a one off?

MrB

[Patrick S]

Oops. 6 years, not 8. Time flies.

My dad was a truck driver his whole adult life. His name was Fred. After he had retired I worked on the loading dock at the truck line some. When I was younger. Just filling in. No one there ever called me my real name. They called me Fred. Or little Freddie. Whatever.

And back 125 years ago, people didn't have to use their real name at all. They could have different names for work and home. Who is to check. Who cared. Charles Cross lined up at the window every payday and got his pay envelope and went on his merry way. Back home to a house full of little Lechmeres and the missus. It just doesn't bother me at all.

Roy

Hi, Roy. You make a point here that I think bears some driving home. This whole name issue is very likely quite irrelevant. Yet, it's what began some down a rabbit hole that's led them to Lechmere the Ripper. 1888, as you imply, is not 2014, or even 1950. Aliases, nicknames, outright alternate identities were much easier to assume and maintain. From what we know of hosts of individuals around that time (and place), it often was. Look at the myriad names the victims were known by.

[Lechmere]

If the case was just based on the name swap you might have something - but it isn't. The name swap, when eventually discovered, was merely (ok not entirely merely, but it has to be seen in conjunction with everything else) the catalyst for further investigation.

Mr Barnett
It was for charidy - but there may be more this year.

[MrBarnett]

Mr Barnett
It was for charidy - but there may be more this year.

Will you announce the dates here? I wouldn't mind coming along.

[Lechmere]

Of course

[caz]

If the case was just based on the name swap you might have something - but it isn't. The name swap, when eventually discovered, was merely (ok not entirely merely, but it has to be seen in conjunction with everything else) the catalyst for further investigation.

Mr Barnett
It was for charidy - but there may be more this year.

Hi Lech,

While you wisely played down the name issue here, it would be a shame if Fisherman continued to make so much of it, arguing that Lechmere only called himself Cross after the murder of Nichols, therefore appearing dishonest and suspicious to a handful of modern observers.

I very much echo Roy C's comments on this thread. If the police wanted to check that the witness was who he said he was, and doing what he said he was doing when he came across the body, the easiest, most obvious way to do this was a quick visit to Pickfords. They'd have had no good reason to lie or cover up for an employee, so we are expected to believe that if Lechmere was a cunning serial killer he was also a pretty stupid one, who relied on the police not even bothering to go there. Had they done so, according to the case against him, they would have been told there was nobody employed by Pickfords called Charles Cross. That by itself would have rung exactly the kind of alarm bells that a guilty Lechmere would have been desperate to avoid. At best they'd have worked out the witness did work there but had given the police a false name.

But turn this round for a moment and imagine the police did do that small thing, and checked with Pickfords, who said: "Oh yes, Charlie Cross has been with the company these last 20 years - here's the documentation - a most reliable fellow" (as workers generally had to be in those days to hold down a job for that long). As he was just the finder of the body as far as the police were concerned, a quick confirmation of his identity and movements from his place of work would surely have done the trick, resulting in the name Lechmere not seeing the light of day, nor needing to, in connection with the murder.

Guilty or innocent, Charles Lechmere knew what the police could find out about him from Pickfords. Would he really have given them an identity that would be proved false with a single question to his employers?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Lech,

While you wisely played down the name issue here, it would be a shame if Fisherman continued to make so much of it, arguing that Lechmere only called himself Cross after the murder of Nichols, therefore appearing dishonest and suspicious to a handful of modern observers.


Love,

Caz
X

Get the facts right, Caz. I have never argued that he only did so after the murder - I have said that we have no record of any other occasion when he called himself Cross.
Whether there were such occasions or not we cannot tell.

The distinction is not a very subtle one, actually.

The best,
Fisherman

[Patrick S]

Let's stick to the topic of names. Let's look at a few of Mr. Lechmere's contemporaries:

Martha Tabram
aka Martha White
aka Martha Turner
aka Martha Tabran

Mary Ann Nichols
aka Mary Ann Walker
aka Polly Nichols

Annie Chapman
aka Annie Smith
aka Annie Sivvey
aka Annie Siffey
aka Annie Sievey

Elizabeth Stride
aka Elisabeth Gustafsdotter
aka Long Liz

Katherine Eddowes
aka Kate Kelly
aka Katherine Conway

Mary Jane Kelly
aka Marie Jeanette Kelly
aka Mary Ann Kelly
aka Ginger
aka Emma

Frances Coles
aka Frances Coleman
aka Frances Hawkins

Alice McKenzie
aka Alice Bryant

Rose Mylett
aka Catherine Millett
aka Catherine Mellett,
aka Lizze Davis
aka Alice Downey

This is all very supicious! I'm working on an a new theory, based on the Crossmere theory. Mine's a bit different, but it's the same basic principal: The more aliases had by a victim, the more likely they are to have killed themselves.

[DVV]

Oh dear !