Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

So what happened to them all? They don't exist 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 would really be something.

MrB

What matters, Mr Barnett, is not if it was a slot, a box or a giant cardboard box with whipped cream on it. What matters is that the mailman knew that the envelopes with the name Lechmere on them needed to go there. And thatīs what it said on the envelopes, since that was what he called himself with the authorities.

If you think that he got letters with all sorts of names on them, be my guest! And if you think the letters were only addressed 22 Doveton Street, the same applies.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

You mean the perfectly logical assumption that a man named Lechmere, who calls himself Lechmere every time he is in contact with any authority, would in fact call himself Cross whenever we look away?

Yes, I can see thatīs a VERY logical assumption. Not to mention how much support it has in the evidence!

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

The letters could have been addressed to Mr Lechmere, Mr Cross or Mr Mystery. As long as the address was 22 Doveton Street he would have got them.

I still get post addressed to the previous 2 owners of my house.

As far as I am aware it is not part of a postman's responsibility to ensure that post is delivered to the correct person, just the correct address.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Mr Barnett,

If you think that he got letters with all sorts of names on them, be my guest! And if you think the letters were only addressed 22 Doveton Street, the same applies.

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks, Fish. Could I have a wake up call at 8am, with a nice cup of tea and a couple of slices of lightly buttered toast?

MrB

[Fisherman]

Fish,

The letters could have been addressed to Mr Lechmere, Mr Cross or Mr Mystery. As long as the address was 22 Doveton Street he would have got them.

I still get post addressed to the previous 2 owners of my house.

As far as I am aware it is not part of a postman's responsibility to ensure that post is delivered to the correct person, just the correct address.

MrB

Aha. Well, then you do it differently than we do in Sweden, where we have a long standing tradition of having your name on your mailbox.
In the end, it will not have changed the name on the envelopes arriving from all the different authorities he was in contact with - it would have been Lechmere all the way.
If you want to think all the rest of his post said Mr Cross, Mr Mystery or whatever, then fine. But I think that īs something that lies upon you to prove.

The overall picture we have of honest men in Londons East End tells us that alternative names was not something that was normally used. Nicknames were, but there are only few exceptions to the overall rule that you went by one name and one name only.
The Lechnere family has no connection at all today to the name Cross; they are baffled by the suggestion that one of their kinsmen should supposedly have used it. It apparently died out with him - if it was ever in use. Which we have no reason to think it was, other than the reason that we want to save Lechmereīs behind.

But we can of course never tell, just as I am being told all the time! And yes, George Lusk could have been Lucas Spotwood colloquially, George Bagster Phillips may have been Randolph Cattlecooler and John Richardson may have been Timothy Owlwing. It fills me with a chilling insight that I will never be able to disprove such a suggestion.

On another note, I am happy to have all the statistics on my side - the collection of signatures, the scarcity we have of honest men from that time and age calling themselves two different surnames simultaneously, the fact that it is a common trait among criminals; all of these things speak for my version of the truth.

And if I must choose between that and championing something that is against the common rule and lacks any form of substantiating evidence in this precise case, the choice will be a quick one on my behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

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

So true Mr Begger. I seem to remember a rather complex theory from your own fair hand appearing in a Chapman thread. I believe it concerned Chapman's missing rings.

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Fish. Could I have a wake up call at 8am, with a nice cup of tea and a couple of slices of lightly buttered toast?

MrB

If ever anyone was in need of a wake-up call, that would be you. So who am I to deny it?

Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

We all die? Blimey, there's a shocker.

Charles and his sister being baptized Lechmere may well have been Maria's call, but it's an assumption on your part to say that Thomas Cross might not have recommended it—"especially if we wish to speak of deceptions and stuff!"

Frankly, I can't see how your logic puts things in another light.

In the context of Cross/Lechmere, find me a watertight connection between an absent father and a serial killer and I'll send you a never-ending supply of gummy bears.

Regards,

Simon

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

So who were all these authorities who were in correspondence with Lech?

The records we have of his use of the Lechmere name are:

Census forms - addressed to 'the householder'.

Electoral registration forms - now delivered to ' the householder' but in the past, according to your esteemed colleague, not posted at all.

Birth/marriage/deaths - not posted, filled out at the register office, church whatever and handed over.

School correspondence - Aha! Finally something that may have been addressed to CAL (although prior to the internet, most correspondence between schools and parents would have been hand-delivered via the pupil, so perhaps not such an Aha! after all.)

Fish, there are some fairly rotten apples at the bottom of the Crossmere barrel. Please don't scrape too far down.

Is the tea and toast still on offer?

MrB

[moonbegger]

Baring in mind that we are all assuming various scenarios are unfolding due to our own persuasions or accusations , I think it important to take a step or two back from what we actually know as fact , and what we assume would be a reasonable outcome ( guilty or not )

Lets just assume he never ever used , or was never known by the name Cross ..

But .. he used it that one time at the Police station ( how he got there , albeit , voluntary or pulled in on his way to work , remains a mystery

So he is sat in the hot chair or Luke warm chair if he volunteered his story ..
the first thing he would want to do , is communicate to his inquisitors that his good ole dad ( step Dad ) was in fact one of London's finest himself ..
P.C Thomas Cross . ( that's my personal favorite )

But there are at least 50 perfectly understandable other reasons why he may have wanted to use a less than truthful name , if it was indeed his intention to deceive . All of which do not include him as the murderous jack the Ripper.

So although a 50/1 bet would a fair ole pay day .. I would still want to be sure my horse had all its legs ..

Cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Simon Wood: Hi Fisherman,

We all die? Blimey, there's a shocker.

Well, you were the one who brought John Allen Lechmeres death up, for no reason at all. It seemed to me that you lacked some information about Lechmeres father.

Charles and his sister being baptized Lechmere may well have been Maria's call, but it's an assumption on your part to say that Thomas Cross might not have recommended it—"especially if we wish to speak of deceptions and stuff!"

What I said was "I would be much surprised if that was something Thomas Cross recommended", and so I am not speaking for anybody else than myself - which, I should hope, would be legitimate enough. It is quite another thing to, out of the blue, state as a fact that Lechmereīs mother encouraged him to think of himself as Cross!!

Frankly, I can't see how your logic puts things in another light.

Point taken - but that light should emanate from your realization that there is no way that we can conclude that Lechmereīs mother encouraged him to think of himself as a Cross, nothing else.

In the context of Cross/Lechmere, find me a watertight connection between an absent father and a serial killer and I'll send you a never-ending supply of gummy bears.

I canīt, Iīm afraid. I can only point to statistics, where this is recognized as a very common trait. Pity, that - I so like gummy bears!

All the best, Simon!
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

So true Mr Begger. I seem to remember a rather complex theory from your own fair hand appearing in a Chapman thread. I believe it concerned Chapman's missing rings.

Indeed Sir , but in the light of all the witnesses , and statements made ..
It was Route 1 as far as logical explanation goes ( Albeit , a little uncomfortable for most to pallet )

You know it makes sense Rodney

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Is the tea and toast still on offer?

MrB

No - but the wake-up call is!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Baring in mind that we are all assuming various scenarios are unfolding due to our own persuasions or accusations , I think it important to take a step or two back from what we actually know as fact , and what we assume would be a reasonable outcome ( guilty or not )

Lets just assume he never ever used , or was never known by the name Cross ..

But .. he used it that one time at the Police station ( how he got there , albeit , voluntary or pulled in on his way to work , remains a mystery

So he is sat in the hot chair or Luke warm chair if he volunteered his story ..
the first thing he would want to do , is communicate to his inquisitors that his good ole dad ( step Dad ) was in fact one of London's finest himself ..
P.C Thomas Cross . ( that's my personal favorite )

But there are at least 50 perfectly understandable other reasons why he may have wanted to use a less than truthful name , if it was indeed his intention to deceive . All of which do not include him as the murderous jack the Ripper.

So although a 50/1 bet would a fair ole pay day .. I would still want to be sure my horse had all its legs ..

Cheers

moonbegger

Itīs a good thing, then, that so much more points to guilt on his behalf! I for one have always said that taken one by one, the anomalies may seem common enough. But do the maths, and ...

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

I think it is a reasonable assumption that on at least one level he was known as Cross during his childhood. As a policeman, Thomas Cross would have been a fairly conspicuous character in the neighbourhood. His stepson would surely have been associated with him by people who were not privy to the family history. So we MUST accept that some people would have known him as Charlie, Tom Cross's boy. Unless he wore a badge saying, 'My name is Lechmere. Call me Cross at your peril!'

It is just a short step from accepting this to accepting that the name Cross may have been useful when obtaining his first job at, presumably, 13 or 14 as a van boy at Pickfords. Thefts from vans were rife at the time and van boys were very often implicated. Having a copper as a referee was a major asset, and complicating it by insisting on his 'real' name wouldn't have made sense.

MrB