Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

You are under the assumption Cross murdered Nichols.

I am not.

He spoke with an H division constable, on a potetially serious matter. Believe me, people say some ill thought words when under stress.

Monty

They sometimes do, yes. But I have a number of objections here:

- He spoke to Mizen, who was an H division man, just like you say. He did however NOT give Mizen his name. This is made clear by the Echo of the 3:rd of September, where we can read:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman.

So Mizen apparently had to wait until the inquest day before he was informed about the identity of the man, and before he had his hunch that he was a carman verified. Accordingly, there was never any sequence when a stressed Lechmere identified himself with a false name to the PC. And we can therefore conclude that Lechmere had a couple of days to think about what he should call himself if approached by the police.

- Just like you say, I think Lechmere was the killer of Nichols. And if he was, then he performs that night in a manner that does not portray a person that would loose his nerve.

- The name Charles Allen Cross lends itself very poorly to any deception. If he wanted to dupe anybody, he should have chosen another name altogether, and even if Cross momentarily leads us astray, it needed to be combined with other Christian names to work better.
It does, however, work eminently as the only way in which he could avoid giving his real identity to the police without serving them an outright lie. And that would allow him to lead friends and family astray.

I think you will need at least some sort of substantiation for this rather bold suggestion before it can gain any weight.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

I'm so glad I mentioned it now

The constant defensive tone is telling, and tiresome. I'm off to do, rather than just talk.

Monty

[Monty]

"The name Charles Allen Cross lends itself very poorly to any deception. If he wanted to dupe anybody, he should have chosen another name".

Hold on, before I go...

....Therefore his choice of the name Cross is equally as poor a choice for a recent murderer.

We can therefore strike off the alternate connected name as evidence Cross is a killer.

Monty

[moonbegger]

and then he went to the police on his own initiative a couple of days after that.

Did I miss the bit where this became a certainty ?

What I also find more incredible , is the assumption that No one Knew him as Charles Cross , at either work or play , regardless of what his Official name was .

moonbegger ..

[Harry D]

Why would you give the same first name if you were trying to dupe the authorities?

Constable: "''Scuse me, is there a Charles Cross around here?"
Worker: "No, the only Charles we have here is Charles Lechmere." *points*
Lechmere: "D'oh!"

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

In 1849 a son was born to John and Maria Lechmere. He was christened Charles Lechmere.

Charles Lechmere's father later died.

In 1858 Charles Lechmere's mother got remarried to Thomas Cross.

At nine-years-old Charles Lechmere was encouraged by his mother to start thinking of himself as Charles Cross.

Thirty years later, in 1888, he told Coroner Wynne Baxter his name was Charles Cross.

Where's the deception?

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

"The name Charles Allen Cross lends itself very poorly to any deception. If he wanted to dupe anybody, he should have chosen another name".

Hold on, before I go...

....Therefore his choice of the name Cross is equally as poor a choice for a recent murderer.

We can therefore strike off the alternate connected name as evidence Cross is a killer.

Monty

I was expecting that, Monty. But an absconded T o L man and a serial killer will have diiferent incentives for using different names.

Things are sometimes more complex than we think, Monty. When we try to look away from this we look simple ourselves.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Did I miss the bit where this became a certainty ?

What I also find more incredible , is the assumption that No one Knew him as Charles Cross , at either work or play , regardless of what his Official name was .

moonbegger ..

Incredible? Why? His stepfather had died nineteen years earlier, he was baptized Lechmere, he called himself Lechmere in all his contacts with different authorities, it said "Lechmere" on his postbox - why on earth would it be in any way "incredible" if he did not instead call himself Cross...?

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Simon,

In 1859 Charles and his sister were baptised as Lechmere. That would surely be a little odd if indeed the family were trying to pass themselves off as Cross.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

You have mentioned the 'post box' before. I'm intrigued, did such a thing exist in the Victorian East End?

Regards,

MrB

[Fisherman]

Why would you give the same first name if you were trying to dupe the authorities?

Constable: "''Scuse me, is there a Charles Cross around here?"
Worker: "No, the only Charles we have here is Charles Lechmere." *points*
Lechmere: "D'oh!"

There were many hundred men working at Pickfords, Harry. It will be a reasonable guess that a good deal of them were named Charles. Charles Lechmere will not have been the only Charles around at all.

In the end, it would not have mattered if there only WAS just the one Charles on Pickfords. What we are saying - and have always said - is that he would have taken great care not to give the police any information that could later reveal him as a liar.

Can you accept that? That he would have been wary not to get himself into trouble with the police, since such things can get you in trouble?

Good! Then letīs move on.

As I have said a zillion times, he would probably have been perfectly happy to give the police his right name, his correct address and his correct working place. It would have been the best thing for him to do, since it would guarantee him that he looked a clean enough fellow if they checked.

There was however one problem connected to this: He did NOT want his wife, his family and friends to find out that he was involved with the investigation as the man who found Nichols - if they put two and two together at a later stage, that would have been an unnecessary burden.

Are we good thus far? Do you see the logic in what I am saying?

Fine! On we go!

So, what could he possibly do to conceal his identity from the press, who would print his details, and at the same time stay clear with the police?

Well, he could adopt his boyhood name, that of his stepfather: Cross. It would conceal who he was to the ones who read the papers, and he could explain why he called himself Cross if the police investigated him. He could also take a chance and leave out his address as he witnessed in front of the inquest, and that was exactly what he did.

At that stage, he had taken every precaution he possibly could to A/ ensure that he was good with the police and B/ allow for him to stay undetected by those who knew him on a daily basis.

Returning to your initial question (why did he use the wrong surname but the right christian names), the answer is an obvious one: Because if the police checked his name, they could live with the Cross thing, but if he had called himself Jules Hugo Cross, they would KNOW that he lied to them.

There - that was the eighteenhundred and twelth time I explained how I think it all worked. I hope you managed to stay on the train throughout.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

You have mentioned the 'post box' before. I'm intrigued, did such a thing exist in the Victorian East End?

Regards,

MrB

There were mailmen. Post was delivered, much of then as now from different authorities. The mailmen had to know where to put the mail, so yes, itīs a fair guess that there were mailboxes!

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

So what happened to them all? Most UK houses don't have them today. Just a 'letterbox' which is a bit of a misnomer as all it is is a slot in the door through which the postman shoves the junk mail. No box as such, and certainly no name written on it . A door number is all that is required.

Now if you have evidence that Lech. did indeed have an American style box with CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE written on it that really would be something.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Hi All,

In 1849 a son was born to John and Maria Lechmere. He was christened Charles Lechmere.

Charles Lechmere's father later died.

In 1858 Charles Lechmere's mother got remarried to Thomas Cross.

At nine-years-old Charles Lechmere was encouraged by his mother to start thinking of himself as Charles Cross.

Thirty years later, in 1888, he told Coroner Wynne Baxter his name was Charles Cross.

Where's the deception?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon!

Yes, Charlesī father, John Allen Lechmere, later died - we all do. But he actually left the family and started a new one long before that.
This is why he was not around when Charles was a boy.

Where did you get it from that Charles was "encouraged to call himself Cross"? Thatīs artistic license on your behalf, Simon, is it not?
I think we must avoid to make such assumptions on no grounds at all. Especially if we wish to speak of deceptions and stuff!

Maria Louisa Lechmere married Thomas Cross in 1858.

In 1859, the year AFTER that, Charles and his sister were baptized "Lechmere".
I would be much surprised if that was something Thomas Cross recommended. I think it is a much better guess that Charlesī mother made that call.
Donīt you agree, Simon?

Can you see how this puts things in another light? And thatīs even BEFORE we start speaking of the connection between serialist killers and absent father figures, mind you ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Things are sometimes more complex than we think,

And sometimes we can make a perfectly logical conclusion as complex as we want it to be