Charles Lechmere: Prototypical Life of a Serial Killer

[FrankO]

He proved himself innocent by not being so mind-numbingly stupid as to murder a woman on his way to work when he was twenty minutes away from clocking in and with walking still to do.

Not only that, but he's supposed to have killed in the ONLY street he just HAD to traverse on his way to work and clearly recognizable as a carman, too.

Perhaps that was the whole reason for sticking around and waiting for Paul: he realized that running away in blind panic (as just calmy walking away and keeping his psychopathic wits about him was out of the question) and looking like a carman would have put the coppers right on his track, so he felt forced to wait for Paul so that he could seem innocent to his fellow-carman first and then right next to him (but not quite) when they met the unfathemable Mizen.

[rjpalmer]

Why do you keep on insisting he gave his address at the inquest? This is a very tenuous assertion - quite frankly, it seems a bit dishonest.
Since you claim to be driven by facts; well, what are the facts here?

Every paper providing descriptions of witness testimony over the 4 separate days of the inquest, routinely starts out with the name and address of the witness - save Lechmere and one or two other people. Every paper!!! Lech had only one paper write down his address, while all the rest for some mysterious reason broke away from their habit and failed to do so. That's more than 30 witnesses. You can say that Lech is also unique in that he furnishes an alias. Huh! that's strange, what is going on here?

Hi Newbie- May I gently suggest that you read the following?

Charles Lechmere and the Curious Case of Henry John Holland - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

What is true of Lechmere is also true of Henry John Holland, a witness at the Chapman inquest: only one paper among many gave his address.

Do you find this equally suspicious? Should Holland be a suspect?

[Fiver]

As to the consistent argument that Lech had blood all over him, and should have been discovered, two points:

Point #1: Lech was not an IBM executive heading to the main office, he was a carman who would be expected to have spots of blood and grime on him.
Below is a website on Victorian washing habits of the working class in Victorian England. It claims that washings were typically done on Mondays,
and I would imagine that having soiled, blood stained clothing for carmen was to be expected by Friday.

Point #2: It was dark outside and there was not much lighting

Point #3: London streets smelled something awful - lot's of horse urine and crap and other delightful things permeating into the street.

Point #4: after the strangulation, and the stoppage of the heart, blood would be pulled by gravitation towards the slashed throat; some have claimed that that was the very reason why he slashed victim's throats. And since JtR didn't really get started on disemboweling his victim, there wasn't sufficient blood to worry about on him.

https://www.museumofcambridge.org.uk...rian-wash-day/

Congrats on again mischaracterizing other people's argument.

1) Lechmere was not a meat cart driver - Pickfords was a general goods service. Even if Lechmere carried meat on a particular day, he would only have gotten blood on him if the meat was improperly packaged. And even a slaughterman would have raised eyebrows if he showed up to work with fresh bloodstains on his clothing.

2) That is one of my points. It was dark outside. Policemen carried lanterns. So talking to a policeman was a lot more dangerous than just slipping off into the darkness.

3) London streets probably did smell awful. What does that have to do with anything?

4) How can you possibly claim to know how much blood the Ripper had on him? How could the Ripper have known how much blood was on him? Why would he assess any amount of fresh bloodstains as not enough to worry about? Why would he ignore the fact that policeman carry lanterns?

If he was the Ripper, Charles Lechmere took multiple actions that would have exposed himself to being detected before he had a chance to clean up.

* He didn't just walk off into the darkness.
* He stopped Robert Paul when Paul tried to just walk by without getting involved.
* He spent time with Paul, discussing the woman.
* He did not pull down Nichols clothing, which would have been an excellent way to provide an innocent excuse for blood on his hands or clothes.
* He walked together with Paul to look for a policeman instead of splitting up and disappearing into the darkness.
* He talked to PC Mizen, who carried a lantern that provided far better lighting than the street lamps.
* He continued to walk and talk with Paul along Hanbury Street nearly to Spitalfield's Market instead of splitting up and disappearing into the darkness.

Any one of those would have been stunningly stupid for a man with blood on his hands, blood on his clothes, and a bloody knife in his pocket.

Either Lechmere was one of the stupidest murderers in all of history or he was innocent.

[Mark J D]

Any one of those would have been stunningly stupid for a man with blood on his hands, blood on his clothes, and a bloody knife in his pocket.

Um, I don't actually read this guy's stuff; but scrolling past this latest posting I saw the quoted line.

Here's my question, for anyone (else) who wants to answer it:

Why would Polly's killer have 'blood on his hands, blood on his clothes'...?

Serious question.

Thanks.

Mark D.

[Darryl Kenyon]

[QUOTE=Newbie;n814058]

Point #1: Lech was not an IBM executive heading to the main office, he was a carman who would be expected to have spots of blood and grime on him.
Below is a website on Victorian washing habits of the working class in Victorian England. It claims that washings were typically done on Mondays,
and I would imagine that having soiled, blood stained clothing for carmen was to be expected by Friday.

]

To be honest Newbie I don't think this point is a strong one. Much was made by the police of Mrs Fiddymont as a potential witness., even though she wasn't at any murder scene whatsoever. Why ? Well she saw a man entering her public house at 7 am on the morning of Annie's murder. And what was the evidence against this man ? His appearance frightened her. his hat was pulled down over his eyes and with his face partly concealed . Mrs. Fiddymont was struck by the fact that there were blood spots on the back of his right hand. She also noticed that his shirt was torn.

Now the blood isn't the only reason Mrs Fiddymont suspicions were aroused but looking at the police reports it is quite clear the main reason the police took upmost importance in this man and Mrs Fiddymont as a witness is because of the blood.

This is a man who entered a pub at the very least an hour after the murder, 400 yards from said murder site, and the police were very keen on him . What would they then make of someone directly at the murder scene not long after the victim was murdered if found with spots of blood on his hands or clothes ?

Regards Darryl

[Herlock Sholmes]

Um, I don't actually read this guy's stuff; but scrolling past this latest posting I saw the quoted line.

Here's my question, for anyone (else) who wants to answer it:

Why would Polly's killer have 'blood on his hands, blood on his clothes'...?

Serious question.

Thanks.

Mark D.

My answer would be that Lechmere, in the dark, couldn’t have been sure that he hadn’t got blood on him and he definitely (if guilty) would have had a knife on him and even if he’d wiped it at the scene how (in the dark) could he have been sure that it didn’t still have blood on it? In waiting for Paul to arrive he would have been taking almost suicidal risk when fleeing would have been massively less risky.

[Fiver]

Why do you keep on insisting he gave his address at the inquest? This is a very tenuous assertion - quite frankly, it seems a bit dishonest.
Since you claim to be driven by facts; well, what are the facts here?

I have already answered this, do try and pay attention.

* His address of 22 Doveton was recorded in the 3 September, 1888 issue of the Star. You ignoring the facts does not make them go away.
* The law required Coroners to get the name and home address from all witnesses.
* While neither gives the full route, both the Star and the 4 September, 1888 Morning Post show that Charles Lechemre's testimony included describing his movements between his home and reaching the body.

Every paper providing descriptions of witness testimony over the 4 separate days of the inquest, routinely starts out with the name and address of the witness - save Lechmere and one or two other people. Every paper!!! Lech had only one paper write down his address, while all the rest for some mysterious reason broke away from their habit and failed to do so. That's more than 30 witnesses.

Charles Lechmere, just like all the other witnesses, had no way of controlling what part of his testimony each newspaper would record.

All you have proven is your own double standard.

And that you haven't actually read all of the newspaper accounts.

Looking just at the The Daily Telegraph

* Dr Llewellyn's address is not given.
* Only a partial address is given for William Nichols.
* Many Ann Monk's address is not given.
* Only a partial address is given for Emma Green.
* Thomas Ede's address is not given.
* Only a partial address is given for Walter Purkiss.
* Alfred Mulshaw's address is not given.

You can say that Lech is also unique in that he furnishes an alias. Huh! that's strange, what is going on here?

I have already covered this, do try and pay attention.

Charles Lechmere was not unique on using an alias. I have mentioned another example before.

* In 1873, this man was married under the name Joseph Lavender.
* In 1876, he was mentioned in trial records under the name Joseph Levender [sic] a friend of the accused.
* In 1891, he gave his name in the Census as Joseph Lavender.

Yet at the Eddowes inquest, he gave his name as Joseph Lawende, never mentioning the surname Lavender.

So, answer me this: why did only one paper put down his address (and correctly I might add), while all the other papers missed it? There were tons of misspellings of names and addresses during the inquest ... using phonetics to guide them.

Why did the 3 September, 1888 issue of the Star give his address? Obviously because Charles Allen Lechmere gave it in court as required by law.

The old 'every one of his neighbors knew that Lech worked at Pickford's' doesn't cut it; he just moved to Doveton street a month beforehand, remember?
Reading about a Charles Cross, who works at Pickford's wouldn't ring a bell.

Congrats on attacking a position no one ever held.

School records show that the Lechmere family had moved to 22 Doveton by 12 June, 1888. That's 7 weeks before the Nichols murder. Electoral resisters show they were still living there in 1894, six years after the murder.

Are you really claiming that in those six plus years Charles Allen Lechmere, his wife, and his numerous children kept his name and occupation secret from all of their neighbors?

Are your really claiming that all of his neighbors were so blindingly stupid as to not suspect that a man who walked to and from work wearing a carman's uniform might be a carman?

Reading about carman Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street would tell everyone in the neighborhood that their neighbor had testified at the Nichols inquest. If they knew him as Lechmere instead of Cross, that would have resulted in more attention, not less.

After all, who would possibly suspect that the Charles Allen Cross who lived at 22 Doveton Street could possibly be their neighbor, Charles Allen Lechmere who lived at 22 Doveton Street?

Of course, I'm not expecting an explanation from you about it. I always seem to be responding to your questions, and you never respond to mine.

Both of your statements are clearly false. People merely have to read the thread to see I have not only answered your questions I have done so multiple times.

Another fun fact: nobody in the Lechmere family knew that Lech was involved in discovering the body. Would you not call that fooling the family?

I have answered this multiple times as well.

What you mean is that none of Charles Allen Lechmere's great great grandchildren, people who were born after he was dead, knew he had discovered a body.

Can you tell me any of the major events of your great great grandfather's life. Can you even tell me his name? If I can find an event you didn't know about, is that proof that your great great grandfather was deceiving you?

I have asked these questions before.

[Fiver]

Um, I don't actually read this guy's stuff...

That's okay, it's pretty obvious Newbie doesn't either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have asked these questions before.

We’ve both experienced this on here Fiver. I consider it nothing more than a tactic. As you know, I’ve recently had a poster claim that he’d answered questions of mine but he couldn’t even post a link to them. I took the time to re-read the whole thread and confirmed that no answers had been given and yet the poster still claimed they they had been answered. What can you do? How can you debate in these circumstances. Too much ducking and weaving goes on from a few.

[Fiver]

Lechmere needed to explain why he was standing in the middle of the street, facing the approaching Paul.

That has already been covered. Do try and pay attention.

Again you prove you have not read the inquest testimony. If you had, you would know that Lechmere was not facing the approaching Paul and that Lechmere did explain why he was standing in the middle of the street.

"About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from." - Charles Allen Lechmere

It was suddenly convenient to hear Paul from 40 yards away, as opposed to 50 yards away.

Frank already gave an excellent answer to this part of your nonsense.

Lechmere had 5 opportunities to prove himself innocent:

1. Paul mentioning having seen Lech or having heard him, before Lech arrived at Polly Nichols body
2. Giving a clear, unambiguous description to PC Mizen of what just had happened: primarily, that he had discovered Polly Nichols body
3. Doing the same thing Paul had done on the Friday afternoon, after Nichol's murder, while on his way home: interacting with a reporter or policeman who were at the murder site seeking witnesses.
4. Furnishing his actual name to the inquest: the one he used in everyday life and on official documents - Charles Lechmere
5. Catherine Eddowes apron not being abandoned right next to a road that Lech likely would use to get back home.

How many suspects had 5 chances to prove themselves innocent and failed each time?

Lechmere does not need to prove himself innocent - you have provided no evidence of his quilt. None of your "points" are evidence against Lechemre and all of them have been answered before.

1) Is still a false statement by you. Paul testified to seeing Lechmere in front of him, which just don't know at what distance.

2) PC Mizen misunderstanding Lechmere is proof that PC Mizen misunderstood him, nothing more. Robert Paul supported what Lechmere said.

3) As already noted, Pickford's shifts lasted 14 to 18 hours. Lechmere wouldn't have been on Buck's row before 6:20pm, possibly as late as 10:20pm. Paul talked to the press, but he avoided the police and had to be tracked down. Lechmere went to the police, which is why he testified at the inquest in 3 September 1888.

4) I've answered this one at least half-a-dozen times. We have evidence of him using both Lechmere and cross surnames. He identified himself as Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, a carman who had worked for Pickford for the last couple decades and started his shift at the Broad Street Station at 4am. He wasn't hiding his identity from the press, the police, his employers, his coworkers, his neighbors, or his family.

5) Catherine Eddowes apron does not point towards Charles Lechmere or any other person.

Things that point towards Lechmere's innocence had already been covered repeatedly.

* Lechmere did multiple things that would have been stupid and unnecessary risks for a man with blood on his hands, blood on his clothes, and a bloody knife in his pocket.
* Lechmere contacted the police, even though neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul knew who he was.
* Chapman was killed after Lechmere had started work.
* To kill Stride and Eddowes, Lechmere would have had to stay up for at least 23 hours straight or get up at least 3 hours early on his day off.

[Newbie]

The discoverer of Martha Tabrum’s body immediately ran to get a cop; the discoverer of Annie Chapman’s body (John Davis, carman) immediately informed neighbors and then went to a police station; the discoverer of Elizabeth Stride’s body went into an establishment to get help…with the lighting of the murder site being worse than on Buck’s row.


Lech? He just hangs out by the body. And then, he fails to be inquisitive when returning in the afternoon.


Unless you believe the nonsense of Lech marching 50 yards in front of Paul for a while, unnoticed - and then, once diverted by a body and half-way across the street, suddenly hears Paul’s footsteps - you have to accept the notion that Lechmere was alone with the body for an indeterminate amount of time: one minute? 5 minutes?


If innocent, why did Lechmere wait for Paul? Polly Nichol’s was almost decapitated … how long does it take to realize she was in trouble? Why not knock on doors, or go across the street to the horse slaughtering operation (was their lighting visible to Buck’s row pedestrians?) Why not go for a cop right after quickly ascertaining that Polly Nichol’s was critically injured?


If it was unlikely that JtR would hang out waiting for Paul, why is it suddenly likely that an innocent Lech would hang out there ….. and needlessly come under suspicion? Why not go get a cop when he hears footsteps at the bottom of Buck’s row?


Failing to hear each other’s footsteps is very much meaningful.

[Newbie]

To be logically consistent, and not have to respond to the opinions of other Lechmerites that conflict with my own, I’m going to write down what I think likely happened the Friday morning of Polly Nichol’s death. My belief is that Lechmere was not trying to hide his identity from the authorities by using Cross; instead, he was trying to hide his participation in the inquest from his wife & neighbors. The reason had to do with when he would habitually leave for work from Doveton street: earlier than he proposed at the inquest.


In this post, I will just outline 6 facts that I will subsequently use to support my argument on what happened. After that, I will focus on one aspect of the case in each message …. when I can. I want to force others towards more detailed defenses than one sentence constructions, always falling back on the old arguments: the worst being that Lechmere is after all innocent, and a family man.


The 6 things we know that everyone avoids

(and makes zero effort in trying to piece together in a consistent theory):

1. Paul did not testify to having heard or seen Lechmere, walking some 50 yards in front, over the few minutes it would have taken. Lechmere, himself, testifies that he could hear all the way up Buck’s row from Brady Street.

2. Modern understanding of how the brain processes sounds is that self generated, repetitive sounds, like footsteps, are unconsciously canceled out by our auditory cortex.

3. According to all but one newspaper account, Lechmere started off his inquest testimony furnishing a former name, his vocation, and his place of work, along with being the only one to describe his length of service.

“Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years.”


Unless they were PCs, doctors, doss house residents or witnesses on the job at the time in which they recount their testimony (night watchman, etc), every witness furnished the inquest with their home address, save Lechmere.

For example:

Edward Walker deposed: I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell, and have no occupation

Henry Tomkins, horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green

Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman

• The Daily Telegraph, Saturday September 1rst/3rd

One newspaper account gave Lechmere’s address: 22 Doveton street.


4. Lechmere attended the proceedings dressed in his work clothes: he was the only one pointed out as doing so:

Charles Cross, carman, who appeared in Court with a rough sack apron on, said that he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years.

• East London Observer, Saturday the 8th September

5. Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, and would not have access to newspaper accounts of things like inquest testimonies directly, but would have to depend on the gossip/hearsay of neighbors.


6. No one among Lechmere’s descendants knew that Lechmere was the first to discover Polly Nichol’s body. None of them corrected the widely held belief that the first to discover the body was a Charles Cross - who evidently they didn’t recognize as Lech.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The discoverer of Martha Tabrum’s body immediately ran to get a cop; the discoverer of Annie Chapman’s body (John Davis, carman) immediately informed neighbors and then went to a police station; the discoverer of Elizabeth Stride’s body went into an establishment to get help…with the lighting of the murder site being worse than on Buck’s row.


Lech? He just hangs out by the body. And then, he fails to be inquisitive when returning in the afternoon.


Unless you believe the nonsense of Lech marching 50 yards in front of Paul for a while, unnoticed - and then, once diverted by a body and half-way across the street, suddenly hears Paul’s footsteps - you have to accept the notion that Lechmere was alone with the body for an indeterminate amount of time: one minute? 5 minutes?


If innocent, why did Lechmere wait for Paul? Polly Nichol’s was almost decapitated … how long does it take to realize she was in trouble? Why not knock on doors, or go across the street to the horse slaughtering operation (was their lighting visible to Buck’s row pedestrians?) Why not go for a cop right after quickly ascertaining that Polly Nichol’s was critically injured?


If it was unlikely that JtR would hang out waiting for Paul, why is it suddenly likely that an innocent Lech would hang out there ….. and needlessly come under suspicion? Why not go get a cop when he hears footsteps at the bottom of Buck’s row?


Failing to hear each other’s footsteps is very much meaningful.

I’ve never heard such twisted logic. Well, that’s not true, I hear it all the time when this man is discussed.

The fact that Lechmere didn’t scarper is proof in itself that he was completely innocent of this murder. This was a killer who avoided capture by escaping the crime scene…..not loitering around for a chat with a passerby.

Name a single serial killer in the entire history of crime that, after killing a victim, simply stood around waiting for someone to turn up.

Name a single serial killer in the entire history of crime that killed a victim on the way to work and just 20 minutes before he was due to click on?

And as we know that Chapman was overwhelmingly likely to have been killed at 5.25/5.30 explain without giggling how he set off on his delivery route, stopped the cart (no doubt with the word PICKFORDS emblazoned on the side and full of highly valuable, easy-to-steal goods) picks up a prostitute, leaves the cart unattended in crime central, kills her, then jumps back on his cart to continue his round (possibly with blood on him) to make more deliveries. And I’m assuming that when he left on his round that his boss didn’t say “just take your time Charlie. You get back when you get back. No hurry!”

The whole case against Lechmere is an embarrassing litany of exaggeration, evidence manipulation, irrelevance, bias and fantasy.

Was he the ripper…..of course he wasn’t.

[Newbie]

With a high degree of certainty, Lech arrived at Polly Nichols body earlier than he stated/implied at the inquest (around 3:38 am). How much earlier might he have arrived and who would know?


Elizabeth Lechmere was a housefrau, and one of her duties would have been to get up and prepare Charles Lechmere his breakfast and his lunch before Lech headed to work. She would have a good sense of the time, for obvious reasons. Lech was leaving well before 3:30 am - he could have invented the boss wants me to check in early - additional job duties - as an excuse. It doesn’t really matter.

If Elizabeth heard Lech testify that he only made it as far as Buck’s row, by 3:38 am, she would have known that it was well off: he should have been much, much farther along by that time.

She would then have entertained suspicions about what he was up to beforehand, if she knew. Maybe a neighbor was also aware of Lech’s departure times around that date.


Elizabeth, being illiterate, would not have access to newspaper stories. She would learn about significant stories (local murders being big items) from neighbors. She most probably knew her husband was formerly Charles Cross, but her new neighbors wouldn’t have had a clue about it. Neighbors, reading that a Charles Cross, who worked at Pickford’s, was the first to discover Polly Nichols' body would not ring a bell. However, information that a Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, was the first to arrive at the body, would likely be told to Elizabeth by some ones’ wife.


Lechmere dressed in his work clothes at the inquest because he was pretending to go to work. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason why a guy with middle class proprietary ambitions, who would not go to work that day (his testimony was at 11 am) wouldn't dress in his best attire for the occasion. He’s not Alfie Doolittle. The idea that he was picked up by the police in a dragnet, the Monday morning of the inquest, heading for work has several problems: first, it seems that the police didn’t buy Robert Pauls story, initially; 2nd, they most probably wouldn’t have fitted him into the inquest schedule on such short notice: there were later dates available.


The result was that Lechmere’s family was kept in the dark about his association with Jack the Ripper. Most East Londoners would have reveled in that fact, exaggerating their participation in the events, like Robert Paul.


The Polly Nichol’s murder was the last JtR murder, that took place on a long open street, at a time when Lech would be heading for work: why?

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be logically consistent, and not have to respond to the opinions of other Lechmerites that conflict with my own, I’m going to write down what I think likely happened the Friday morning of Polly Nichol’s death. My belief is that Lechmere was not trying to hide his identity from the authorities by using Cross; instead, he was trying to hide his participation in the inquest from his wife & neighbors. The reason had to do with when he would habitually leave for work from Doveton street: earlier than he proposed at the inquest.


In this post, I will just outline 6 facts that I will subsequently use to support my argument on what happened. After that, I will focus on one aspect of the case in each message …. when I can. I want to force others towards more detailed defenses than one sentence constructions, always falling back on the old arguments: the worst being that Lechmere is after all innocent, and a family man.


The 6 things we know that everyone avoids

(and makes zero effort in trying to piece together in a consistent theory):

1. Paul did not testify to having heard or seen Lechmere, walking some 50 yards in front, over the few minutes it would have taken. Lechmere, himself, testifies that he could hear all the way up Buck’s row from Brady Street.

2. Modern understanding of how the brain processes sounds is that self generated, repetitive sounds, like footsteps, are unconsciously canceled out by our auditory cortex.

3. According to all but one newspaper account, Lechmere started off his inquest testimony furnishing a former name, his vocation, and his place of work, along with being the only one to describe his length of service.

“Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years.”


Unless they were PCs, doctors, doss house residents or witnesses on the job at the time in which they recount their testimony (night watchman, etc), every witness furnished the inquest with their home address, save Lechmere.

For example:

Edward Walker deposed: I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell, and have no occupation

Henry Tomkins, horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green

Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman

• The Daily Telegraph, Saturday September 1rst/3rd

One newspaper account gave Lechmere’s address: 22 Doveton street.


4. Lechmere attended the proceedings dressed in his work clothes: he was the only one pointed out as doing so:

Charles Cross, carman, who appeared in Court with a rough sack apron on, said that he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years.

• East London Observer, Saturday the 8th September

5. Elizabeth Lechmere was illiterate, and would not have access to newspaper accounts of things like inquest testimonies directly, but would have to depend on the gossip/hearsay of neighbors.


6. No one among Lechmere’s descendants knew that Lechmere was the first to discover Polly Nichol’s body. None of them corrected the widely held belief that the first to discover the body was a Charles Cross - who evidently they didn’t recognize as Lech.

The name thing is a non-issue. Read David Orsam’s article. Roger’s already posted a link to a thread on the subject. It’s a dead duck that Lechmere zealots keep trying to breathe life into.