Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;377648]

The Broad Street depot opened in May of 1868. Lechmere worked there worked there at the time of the inquest. He said that he had worked for Pickfords for more than twenty years. If he was hired when the depot opened, when he was nineteen and quite probably making his own decisions, then he would have been a Broad Street employee for twenty years and four months when he testified at the inquest.
Of course he may have worked in another depot before, but there is no evidence at all to prove it and the Broad Street depot fits neatly timewise.
Are you suggesting that he worked in Haydon Square when the murders took place, and moved to Broad Street on September 1:st of 1888...?

If in 1888 he said he'd worked for Pickfords for 20 years then he may have begun his work at Pickfords when the depot opened, or thereabouts, in 1868, as you say. This was a mere, seven years removed from his name appearing as Charles Cross in the 1861 census. It is not somewhat likely that he simply went by 'Cross' and gave that name rather than assuming that the man constructed and executed elaborate pseudo-name change switcheroo using an "alias" that was actually a name he was - at least at some point - known by, yet giving his genuine employer, employment history, occupation, and showing up voluntarily at the inquest to do it?

[Columbo]

When he married Elizabeth Bostock in on March 7, 1870 she became - legally - Elizabeth Lechmere and this may have coincided with an attempt to use both names socially and/or informally while continuing to use Lechmere in all legal circumstances.

If I'm guessing he was known as 'CROSS' not Charles, Chuck, Chas, or "George" to most people throughout his adult life.

Would not being in court at a murder inquest fall under legal circumstances?

It's been postulated he used Cross so as not to be involved, hide his family from publicity etc, but I'm assuming that showing up at the inquest is becoming involved, so I would've guessed he would be forthright and use the name for which he was known.

Maybe not, maybe he used them interchangeably.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

I have gladly answered each and every question you have asked. The problem throughout has been that you have wanted to postulate what answers I was permitted to give.
I answer as I see fit.

By the way, we HAVE come to the bottom of the affair: you misrepresented what I have said about the timings, and when you realized this, you tried to obscure it by pretending that I did not understand you and refused to answer your questions.

And about that, there is nothing you can do. As I said, the errand has come to an end until such time that you provide proof that I have ever said that the time gap is a proven thing. Without that proof, the issue remains a non-issue.

Fisherman, you can't answer a question which requires a yes or no answer in any way you "see fit". That's the whole point of such a question. And you certainly haven't even attempted to answer the question I asked you earlier this evening in post #644.

I insist that I have never claimed that you have ever said that the time gap is "a proven thing". I already made this point but you completely ignored it.

I am totally baffled as to why you require me to provide proof for something that I am not even saying is true. I don't follow all your pronouncements but I'm quite prepared to accept that you have never said that the time gap is a proven thing. Therefore how can I possibly provide proof that you have said it? You are setting me an impossible and irrational task.

Given that you are setting me an impossible and irrational task before you are prepared to continue this discussion I can only conclude that you realize that if you answer my questions honestly your entire argument on this issue will be exposed as misguided and plain wrong.

[Columbo]

Returning to the "name change" business; if he was known as Lechmere at work, there was literally no possibility of this detail failing to come to the attention of the police and arousing their suspicions. The only possibilities, therefore, are that a) he was known as Cross at work, or b) he was known as Lechmere at work, but made as much clear to the police, who were happy for him to use the name Cross for the purpose of the investigation.

Hi Ben,

But since he wasn't a suspect, why would what he called himself at work come to the attention of the police?

Columbo

[Patrick S]

Ben: But that's obviously a very circular argument, isn't it?

I disagree - it is grounded on how the police worked and how they wrote teir reports.

You can't use the assumption that he was known as Lechmere at work as the basis for your conclusion that the police never bothered to ascertain as much.
How do you know the police didn't "check at the depot", find out that he was known there as Cross, and accordingly wrote that name in the report?

But no matter if he WAS known as Cross at the depot, he nevertheless habitually used the name Lechmere when in contact with the authorities. He therefore actuyally knew that he was registered by that name, and he used it accordingly.
Not so when he contacted the police in combination with the inquest, after having been found alone with the victim.

I'm not even suggesting that a physical "check" would have been necessary. I'm saying that if he became known to the country's newspaper-reading public under a different name to the one he was known by at work, it would unquestionably have come to the attention of the police sooner or later. I can't believe that anyone would seriously insist otherwise.

You and I have a long history of disagreeing on things like this, when you speak of "near certainties".

It seems it is prolonged now.

Saying "authorities" is somewhat misleading. He his legal name legal situations. We know that. In all likelihood he was born Lechmere and remained Lechmere - legally - until he died. Yet, his mother married Thomas Cross when he was a boy. Thus, he became the son of Thomas Cross and was clearly known as such (as his name is given as Charles Cross in the 1861 census). When he married Elizabeth Bostock in on March 7, 1870 she became - legally - Elizabeth Lechmere and this may have coincided with an attempt to use both names socially and/or informally while continuing to use Lechmere in all legal circumstances.

If I'm guessing he was known as 'CROSS' not Charles, Chuck, Chas, or "George" to most people throughout his adult life.

[Patrick S]

Returning to the "name change" business; if he was known as Lechmere at work, there was literally no possibility of this detail failing to come to the attention of the police and arousing their suspicions. The only possibilities, therefore, are that a) he was known as Cross at work, or b) he was known as Lechmere at work, but made as much clear to the police, who were happy for him to use the name Cross for the purpose of the investigation.

I agree with your points and I'd like to add a few possibilities to them, if I might.

1. Lechmere's stepfather Thomas Cross was a police officer. Thus, Lechmere may have simply identified himself as Thomas Cross' son/stepson. We know that Lechmere thought enough of his Thomas Cross to name his second born son (1877) after him. So, this was not a relationship he valued.

2. As the no official documents have survived, we don't know that Lechmere used the name Cross while excluding Lechmere. He could well have given both names only to have the court choose to call him "Cross", thus this what goes to print in the press. (Note also that we know that the press was not particularly accurate in their reporting. Staying with just name inaccuracy in the Nichols murder we have him called Chas. Andrew (not Charles Allen), and "George" Cross. We have Paul as "Baul" and Thain as "Thail".)

3. In researching Lechmere I found him reported in the 1861 census as Charles Cross, 11, living with Thomas Cross and his mother Maria Louisa Cross. We may be able to assume that his name was never legally changed. So that he appears in all official documentation as "Lechmere" but is known to everyone as "Cross" and remained "Cross" for the rest of his life. To me, this seems the simplest and most likely explanation.

There are many other possibilities that don't have him being Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Ben: But that's obviously a very circular argument, isn't it?

I disagree - it is grounded on how the police worked and how they wrote teir reports.

You can't use the assumption that he was known as Lechmere at work as the basis for your conclusion that the police never bothered to ascertain as much.
How do you know the police didn't "check at the depot", find out that he was known there as Cross, and accordingly wrote that name in the report?

But no matter if he WAS known as Cross at the depot, he nevertheless habitually used the name Lechmere when in contact with the authorities. He therefore actuyally knew that he was registered by that name, and he used it accordingly.
Not so when he contacted the police in combination with the inquest, after having been found alone with the victim.

I'm not even suggesting that a physical "check" would have been necessary. I'm saying that if he became known to the country's newspaper-reading public under a different name to the one he was known by at work, it would unquestionably have come to the attention of the police sooner or later. I can't believe that anyone would seriously insist otherwise.

You and I have a long history of disagreeing on things like this, when you speak of "near certainties".

It seems it is prolonged now.

[Ben]

If they checked at the depot, they would have found out.

If they had found out, he would have been called Lechmere in the reports.

He was called Cross in the reports.

Ergo, they did not find out.

But that's obviously a very circular argument, isn't it?

You can't use the assumption that he was known as Lechmere at work as the basis for your conclusion that the police never bothered to ascertain as much. How do you know the police didn't "check at the depot", find out that he was known there as Cross, and accordingly wrote that name in the report? I'm not even suggesting that a physical "check" would have been necessary. I'm saying that if he became known to the country's newspaper-reading public under a different name to the one he was known by at work, it would unquestionably have come to the attention of the police sooner or later. I can't believe that anyone would seriously insist otherwise.

[Fisherman]

Returning to the "name change" business; if he was known as Lechmere at work, there was literally no possibility of this detail failing to come to the attention of the police and arousing their suspicions. The only possibilities, therefore, are that a) he was known as Cross at work, or b) he was known as Lechmere at work, but made as much clear to the police, who were happy for him to use the name Cross for the purpose of the investigation.

If they checked at the depot, they would have found out if he was known as Lechmere there.

If they had found out, he would have been called Lechmere in the reports.

He was called Cross in the reports.

Ergo, they did not find out.

If they did NOT check at the depot, then he could have called himself Lechmere there but chose to use Cross to evade his real name going public.

Whether you are convinced that they checked at his work or not, the issue should be seen against the backdrop of how they only checked a handful of the Bucks Row dwellers until reprimanded by the coroner.

[Fisherman]

So you've ducked the question again, no surprise there Fisherman.

I have no idea why I need to "conclusively prove" that you have claimed as "a proven fact" that there is a time gap. I've never said that you have claimed as a proven fact that there is a time gap. That is why I ignored your previous statement.

But I will say that you have certainly challenged my claim that the "9 minute gap" is a gap of fiction which should not be repeated. And you have now said in this thread that it seems that "there is a major gap in Lechmere's timings". That is what I'm challenging.

Furthermore, to try and clarify what you are saying, in my previous question I expressly asked whether you agreed or disagreed with the statement that there is a major time gap and you decided not to respond.

What more can I do?

But if you don't want to answer questions from me designed to try to get to the bottom of this matter there is nothing I can do.

I have gladly answered each and every question you have asked. The problem throughout has been that you have wanted to postulate what answers I was permitted to give.
I answer as I see fit.

By the way, we HAVE come to the bottom of the affair: you misrepresented what I have said about the timings, and when you realized this, you tried to obscure it by pretending that I did not understand you and refused to answer your questions.

And about that, there is nothing you can do. As I said, the errand has come to an end until such time that you provide proof that I have ever said that the time gap is a proven thing. Without that proof, the issue remains a non-issue.

Adieu.

[Fisherman]

This will have me studying the maps tonight! I appreciate the info.

Another, possibly dumb question that may have already been addressed. Do any of Pickfords records survive from that time? I was thinking that the carmans obviously have schedules and delivery receipts that, if existed, may help us understand Lechmere's movements.

Columbo

Sadly no - we were generously granted access to the Pickfords registers and files a year or two back, but they do not stretch that far back in time!

[Columbo]

I'm not sure there was anything complex about the job. Drive the cart. Depending on what was being carried probably didn't even handle the goods (in spite of claims if blood from meat etc) that was the offsiders job the Carman was the driver and would watch, care for and control the horses while loading and unloading was going on.

I imagine it was quite a challenge to maneuver a horse and cart through victorian busy streets.

If I'm understanding correctly, a cart man, for numerous reasons, would most likely not be able to leave his horse and cart UN-attended. Would that be a fair statement?

Columbo

[GUT]

It seems that the goods station was open seven days a week, and that a regular Scotch Meat train arrived on a Sunday. So Lechmere may well have worked on a Sunday.

Not out of the question at all.

[Ben]

Returning to the "name change" business; if he was known as Lechmere at work, there was literally no possibility of this detail failing to come to the attention of the police and arousing their suspicions. The only possibilities, therefore, are that a) he was known as Cross at work, or b) he was known as Lechmere at work, but made as much clear to the police, who were happy for him to use the name Cross for the purpose of the investigation.

[Columbo]

AH! Honest mistake. Trying to understand your grammar and sentence structure is - I must confess - sometimes beyond me. Please continue advocating for and defending "Fisherman's" Crossmere theory! I'm sure he's very appreciative, having someone of your intellectual heft in his corner.

I'll pass on the PM invitation. No offense. I don't think we have much in common. I appreciate the invitation, though.

I see you can be witty as well! Good show old boy!