Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

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.

Have you asked yourself how it is that you know of these names - all spelling variants of them even?

If not, it is time to do so.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Caz

I wouldn’t minimize the name issue – it is of importance.
On its own, if there was nothing else at all to go on, it could be shrugged off as you do.
However it is not the only thing to go on. When the crime scene, his actions on the night in question and at the inquest are deconstructed a host of other issues emerge.
When his background, life patterns and probable movements are examined more issues come to light.
That in turns brings us back to his choice of name on that night, which at the very least looks odd.

Every single other time he interacted with any kind of authority he called himself Charles Lechmere.
This time he didn’t.
Did he choose to call himself Charles Cross because he was known as Charles Cross at work? This is total conjecture but let’s work through it.

He went to the police station and gave a statement. He did this at least two and a half days after the murder. He either came forward as a result of Robert Paul’s newspaper story that put him in the street by the body, or if you want to be generous he came forward coincidently soon after this story appeared.
There is another theory that the police put up a dragnet and hauled him off the street while he was on his way to work on Monday morning – but this seems unlikely as the police rubbished Paul’s story after it appeared, so it doesn’t seem credible that they would also take action on the basis of it.
Whatever way you look at it he came forward late and gave the name Cross.

Why?

Because he was known by that name at work?
Because he knew that they would check him out at work and not at home? Guilty or innocent do you think he would know that?
Because he wanted to gain extra credit (for some innocent reason) on the basis that his long dead step father was a policeman?
Because he wanted to protect his family from a reprisal gang attack (even though changing his name wouldn’t facilitate that).
Because he fancied a change after all those times he called himself Lechmere?

The fact is we know he gave a name that he is never known to have used himself despite his surname being recorded well over 100 times in a wide variety of sources.
So far as can be determined his true name was never discovered by the police investigating the Whitechapel Murders.

I am quite capable of using my imagination to come up with multiple scenarios where a guilty Lechmere might have given this name and the reasons why he would have chosen that name, and evaluate the risks he ran in doing so, and similarly explain why he gave his address and workplace along with the risks involved, and the measures he could have taken to minimize these risks. Just as I am sure you could if you put your mind to it.
This has all been covered before and I won’t bore anyone by regurgitating it now.

Innocent or guilty there is no concrete reason for the name change that stands up to total scrutiny. From our stand point 125 or more years later it is a bit odd.

We are not talking about someone who was observed littering the street or was caught red handed swearing in public.
We are talking about someone who was seen by the first official Jack the Ripper victim, prior to his having raised the alarm, with the dead body showing signs that can be interpreted as indicating that the culprit had been disturbed and had hidden the abdominal wounds. The man who gave this alternative name then ended up in a dispute with the policeman he met soon afterwards as to what was said. I could go on, this is just a précis of the case.
You can make a series of innocent defences for all these things, but I would suggest that there comes a time when you say – fair enough – he has a case to answer. Instead of just continuing to come out with ingenious and generous excuses.

[Lechmere]

Does Patrick actually think that is something that has never been discussed before with respect to Lechmere?

[Patrick S]

Does Patrick actually think that is something that has never been discussed before with respect to Lechmere?

Hasn't everything?

Anyway, this is a real theory and it's got the same number of hits on the 'Suspects' page of this site and Charles Lechmere.......

[MrBarnett]

Why do we think these women used their aliases?

Was it to conceal their identities in situations where they were involved in criminal or morally reprehensible activity?

MrB

[Lechmere]

Err probably Mr B

[MrBarnett]

Ah, so that's why Lech did it!

Now I get it.

I was thinking it was just a colourful East End tradition and not at all suspicious.

MrB

[Lechmere]

No, didn't you know that all East Enders had multiple names. It was a requirement.

[DVV]

No, didn't you know that all East Enders had multiple names. It was a requirement.

True. And at night, Inspector Abberline was known as Freddy-the-clockmaker.

[MrBarnett]

So old Charlie must have been a bit slow on the uptake. The spotlight shines on him, it's his X factor moment, and the best he can come up with is his stepfather's surname?

I'd like to think I would have come up with something a bit edgier, like Charlie the Chivver, or Chas Carver.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Oh I don't know - it was easy to remember, bland and he had an explanation for using it if discovered - and the first alternative names people tend to think of are those with a family connection.

[MrBarnett]

Do you think he had time to consider his response before he presented himself at the police station, or had he already let slip his name and/or workplace to Paul and/or Mizen?

MrB

[Lechmere]

There is no indication that he gave any of his details to Paul, nor of Paul to him.
In the absence of any such indication I have to presume that neither told the other their name or address or workplace.
Paul and Cross had the opportunity to say something - in Paul's newspaper interview or in Cross's testimony.

Mizen stated at the inquest that he only now knew Cross's name - so he can't have asked when they met in the street.

He must have decided on the name to use when he presented himself at a police station (I am 99% sure he must have presented himself rather than being found in a dragnet).
If he was indeed the killer my guess is that he would have already have that name up his sleeve to use if required.

[MrBarnett]

I agree that a dragnet is a non-starter. But if he wasn't identified on the night of Nichols' discovery, why would he volunteer himself at the cop shop?

Surely he must have given something away that he feared might result in the police turning up at either Doveton Street or Pickfords.

I can't believe that he an Paul walked towards Hanbury Street in total silence. At the very least, I think Lech. would have let slip where he worked.

MrB

[Fisherman]

I agree that a dragnet is a non-starter. But if he wasn't identified on the night of Nichols' discovery, why would he volunteer himself at the cop shop?

Surely he must have given something away that he feared might result in the police turning up at either Doveton Street or Pickfords.

I can't believe that he an Paul walked towards Hanbury Street in total silence. At the very least, I think Lech. would have let slip where he worked.

MrB

If he did not call in, he would run the risk of becoming the main suspect. And he would not be hard to pin anyway, I think. He said that the streets were totally empty, Paul said that the streets were totally empty and Neil said that the streets were totally empty.
The number of carmen or any other workers that walked through Buck´s Row in a westernly direction at that time of the day seems to have been two (2).

It would be hard to keep out of sight, and it would involve immense risks.

That being said, I don´t think that the carmen walked in silence to Corbetts Court. Not at all, in fact - I think that much was said during the trek and maybe Lechmeres working place was amongst it. No such thing is mentioned by Paul himself, though, so it remains an uncertainty.

The best,
Fisherman