Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Pierre]

Hi,

I turn to Fisherman and to anyone interested with this.

I have no time to go through the sources on Charles Lechmere and so I depend on others - like Fisherman.

Not that Iīm particularly interested in Lechmere but Iīm interested in how people do their research, i.e. research methods within the fields of social science and history. These are my main fields of research.

So I briefly read a bit of Fishermanīs so called research. Well, I guess he wants to call it that, since his aim is to find Jack the Ripper and doing that means doing research.

According to Fisherman, Charles Lechmere used a false name in the inquest (Source:http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9056).

Well, now I found this:

“Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere were indeed one and the same person. And he wasn't deliberately lying or using a false name. Cross was his stepfather's name which was adopted in one census and after he married and set up his own household he reverted to the name Lechmere in the census records.” (Source: http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-6917.html)

Charles was only about nine years old when his mother married Cross. (Ibid).

For research about the killer this means that we have no reason to keep Lechmere-Cross as a suspect.

He did not lie and so there is no reason to believe either that he was the killer or a witness to the killer.

The fact - if it is a fact - that Lechmere-Cross waited until Paul was beside him most probably means that he didnīt know what he was seeing on the ground, just as he indicated, and didnīt think he had any reason for shouting and waking up the neighbourhood for nothing.

What do say about this, Fisherman?

I find that misinterpretation is a big problem within ripperology.

First of all because the substancial siginificance of the subject is so high – while the substancial significance of the sources usually is very low.

If you try to use common and rather meaningless sources as very significant sources, thereby adding to them a meaning they donīt contain, you are doing bad research.

I have this problem as well, we all do, and I therefore work only critically with the sources. And that is why I say I think I have found him and that finding him is one thing – prooving it is another.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi,

I turn to Fisherman and to anyone interested with this.

I have no time to go through the sources on Charles Lechmere and so I depend on others - like Fisherman.

Not that Iīm particularly interested in Lechmere but Iīm interested in how people do their research, i.e. research methods within the fields of social science and history. These are my main fields of research.

So I briefly read a bit of Fishermanīs so called research. Well, I guess he wants to call it that, since his aim is to find Jack the Ripper and doing that means doing research.

According to Fisherman, Charles Lechmere used a false name in the inquest (Source:http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9056).

Well, now I found this:

“Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere were indeed one and the same person. And he wasn't deliberately lying or using a false name. Cross was his stepfather's name which was adopted in one census and after he married and set up his own household he reverted to the name Lechmere in the census records.” (Source: http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-6917.html)

Charles was only about nine years old when his mother married Cross. (Ibid).

For research about the killer this means that we have no reason to keep Lechmere-Cross as a suspect.

He did not lie and so there is no reason to believe either that he was the killer or a witness to the killer.

The fact - if it is a fact - that Lechmere-Cross waited until Paul was beside him most probably means that he didnīt know what he was seeing on the ground, just as he indicated, and didnīt think he had any reason for shouting and waking up the neighbourhood for nothing.

What do say about this, Fisherman?

I find that misinterpretation is a big problem within ripperology.

First of all because the substancial siginificance of the subject is so high – while the substancial significance of the sources usually is very low.

If you try to use common and rather meaningless sources as very significant sources, thereby adding to them a meaning they donīt contain, you are doing bad research.

I have this problem as well, we all do, and I therefore work only critically with the sources. And that is why I say I think I have found him and that finding him is one thing – prooving it is another.

Regards Pierre

One of the drawbacks of having new people arriving on the boards (which is otherwise quite nice) is that they are normally unaquainted with what has been said on the threads before.

I have repeatedly stated that my definition of a false name is any name that is not the name officially registered. And the carman was registered by the name of Lechmere, not Cross.

He was baptized Lechmere the year AFTER his mother wed Thomas Cross, who therefore did not pass on his name to young Charles.

The thing to keep in mind, though, is that there are around 110 examples of Charles interacting with different authorities. Sometimes he signed himself on these occasions, other times he was asked to state his name, and then his name was signed by different officials.

Regardless of what applied, the outcome was always the exact same: the name on the paper was Charles Lechmere.

The police are an authority. But when he went to the police, a number of days after he had been in Bucks Row with Nichols dead body, he signed himself Cross, not Lechmere.

To my mind, it is all good and well if we see ourselves fit to judge other posters when it comes to how they do their research. I think, however, that it is a minimum requirement that we are read up before we do so.
If we fail in this respect, we are at risk to say things that are better left unsaid before we have sufficient knowledge.

A piece of advice: There are many threads where this post of yours could have fit in. Creating new threads is not always necessary and can cause confusion.

[Pierre]

Fisherman,

The method for defining “false name“ is not sceintific. You cannot base your definition on an official registration in the 19th century. Lechmere-Cross obviously percieved of Cross as
a true name and it is his name.

Yes, another thread can be to much but given all posts you make and have made I worry this critique of your methods will get lost otherwise.

Fisherman - do you honestly think that Charles thought his name was false? Because that is what you base your theory on.

Pierre

[caz]

Hi Fish,

You'd have more of a point if there was no reasonable alternative explanation for his use of Cross in this instance if he was a murder witness, and not a murderer.

But of course, there is. More than one. The man can't win. If he is a murderer he is a lying psychopath who uses the name Cross because he is a lying psychopath, who doesn't want his friends and family to see his official surname associated with the murder.

If innocent, he has just found a murdered prostitute on his way to work, and missed confronting the murderer perhaps by seconds. As a family man, with wife and kiddies living nearby, he plucks up courage to do the decent thing and testify at the inquest, calling himself Charles Allen Cross, after his late stepfather, a police officer. He wears his work clothes so he can go straight back to Pickfords if dismissed in time, so he won't lose more pay than necessary.

Added to this, we don't know which surname he used when starting at Pickfords twenty years previously, when his stepfather was still alive. Nor do we know which surname he was known by at Pickfords when Nichols was murdered.

The result of using the name Cross, for whichever of these reasons, was that the surname of his wife and children was effectively kept out of the whole dangerous, unsavoury business.

I'd say that was the decent thing to do, psychopath or no.

But that's just me.

Love,

Caz
X

[kookingpot]

Fisherman,

The method for defining “false name“ is not sceintific. You cannot base your definition on an official registration in the 19th century. Lechmere-Cross obviously percieved of Cross as
a true name and it is his name.

Pierre

With all due respect, I don't think there is any more scientific or objective method of determining a "true" or "false" name other than the name that was legally his. It is in fact the most scientific way of determining someone's true name, and the way that the evidence (records of his birth, legal name, registrations, signatures, and conversations) leads.

As Fisherman has stated, in nearly every other instance of Mr. Lechmere introducing himself or signing anything, it is always as Lechmere. To use your reasoning, Pierre, logically he would think of Lechmere as his true name if that is how he introduces himself and signs everything, except for this one time. If the predominance of "Lechmere" among his own references to himself is any indication, then that is what he would have considered his name.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

The method for defining “false name“ is not sceintific. You cannot base your definition on an official registration in the 19th century. Lechmere-Cross obviously percieved of Cross as
a true name and it is his name.

Yes, another thread can be to much but given all posts you make and have made I worry this critique of your methods will get lost otherwise.

Fisherman - do you honestly think that Charles thought his name was false? Because that is what you base your theory on.

Pierre

My theory is based on a large number of different things, Pierre. On an adjacent thread, I listed more than 30 reasons to look into the carman.

Do I think that Charles regarded Cross as a false name? That is the wrong question. The right question is "Do you think that he used the name Cross with the intention to mislead?"

My answer is a very clear yes on that one.

[Trevor Marriott]

The police are an authority. But when he went to the police, a number of days after he had been in Bucks Row with Nichols dead body, he signed himself Cross, not Lechmere.

Has it not occurred to you or anyone else for that matter that when he went to the police he could have told them he was the stepson of Pc Cross and perhaps by mistake someone automatically put his name down as Cross and that's how the error occurred nothing sinister at all ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Has it not occurred to you or anyone else for that matter that when he went to the police he could have told them he was the stepson of Pc Cross and perhaps by mistake someone automatically put his name down as Cross and that's how the error occurred nothing sinister at all ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Careful, Trevor - you are not supposed to admit that there was an error as such.

PC Cross had been dead for nineteen long years when Lechmere stepped into the cop shop.

The first thing you do when stepping into a police station to make a statement is to state your name: "My name is Charles Lechmere, and I want to report ..."

After that, there is of course the chance that he mentioned that he had once had a PC stepfather, but that would not make the police use his stepfathers name. They would already have been informed about his real name.

Finally, he would arguably have signed the interview himself. If he wrote Lechmere on it, as he should have done, then why would the coppers not use that name?

Since he went down as Cross - and yes, that WAS in error, just as you say - he would also have presented himself as Cross and signed himself as Cross.

Speculation is fine, but it needs to be credible, Trevor.

[Pierre]

With all due respect, I don't think there is any more scientific or objective method of determining a "true" or "false" name other than the name that was legally his. It is in fact the most scientific way of determining someone's true name, and the way that the evidence (records of his birth, legal name, registrations, signatures, and conversations) leads.

As Fisherman has stated, in nearly every other instance of Mr. Lechmere introducing himself or signing anything, it is always as Lechmere. To use your reasoning, Pierre, logically he would think of Lechmere as his true name if that is how he introduces himself and signs everything, except for this one time. If the predominance of "Lechmere" among his own references to himself is any indication, then that is what he would have considered his name.

Hi,

No, it is not a scientific way of defining a "false" name from data produce during this time, i.e. 1888.

You have multiple problems defining a "false" or "true" name in this period. Here are just a few of them:

"Some common errors that can be found in census returns are as follows:

Errors in recording census data

As illiteracy was quite high in the 19th century, many people may have asked their friends, neighbours or even the enumerators to help fill out the forms.

In institutions or on vessels it was the person in charge of the prison or ship who completed the details on behalf of everyone in the institution or on the ship. This led to many errors in note taking and in recording the final information.

Typical mistakes were made when spelling peoples’ names, or noting their occupations, or even when recording their ages.

Census age discrepancies

Whilst enumerators and the officials at institutions made mistakes when recording information, individuals who completed the forms themselves also made some errors.

This is certainly true of some people who were quite inventive about their age, or simply had only a vague notion of when they were born.

Census name changing

Ten years is a long time, and a lot of things happened in our ancestors’ lives between one census and another.

During this time they may have got married and re-married perhaps, resulting in a number of name changes. Alternatively, there may have been cases where they wanted to change their identity, perhaps for personal or political reasons.

You may, for example, have a bigamist in the family who changed his name to flee from a former partner. You may also have ancestors who anglicised their names over a period of time to suit the political environment.

Census occupations

Many people also lied about their occupations when completing census returns.

For example, in the 19th century thousands of women were prostitutes, yet this is certainly not what they recorded on their forms.

Also, whilst most children were noted as ‘scholars’ by their parents, this may have been to disguise the fact that they were breaking the law by sending their underage children out to work.

Census nicknames

If you can’t track down James, he may be a Jim. Eminent family historian, Jeanne Bunting, points out that Aunt Patty might be listed as Martha and your Grandma, who was always called Polly, was probably Mary. Uncle Wag could be listed as Charles or Chas and Aunt Fanny as Frances.

Nicknames and diminutives can derail your family history search – a man can be William to acquaintances, Will to his friends and Billie to his mother – but what is he called in the records?"
(Source: http://www.findmypast.co.uk/content/...arching-census)

Regards Pierre

[Patrick S]

Careful, Trevor - you are not supposed to admit that there was an error as such.

PC Cross had been dead for nineteen long years when Lechmere stepped into the cop shop.

The first thing you do when stepping into a police station to make a statement is to state your name: "My name is Charles Lechmere, and I want to report ..."

After that, there is of course the chance that he mentioned that he had once had a PC stepfather, but that would not make the police use his stepfathers name. They would already have been informed about his real name.

Finally, he would arguably have signed the interview himself. If he wrote Lechmere on it, as he should have done, then why would the coppers not use that name?

Since he went down as Cross - and yes, that WAS in error, just as you say - he would also have presented himself as Cross and signed himself as Cross.

Speculation is fine, but it needs to be credible, Trevor.

He said his name was Cross. Therefore, one can only come to ONE reasonable conclusion: HE WAS JACK THE RIPPER!

[Fisherman]

Hi,

No, it is not a scientific way of defining a "false" name during this time, i.e. 1888.

You have multiple problems defining a "false" or "true" name in this period. Here are just a few of them:

"Don’t believe everything you read

As with any family history records, original census returns are not free from mistakes; you should therefore keep an open mind when using the data and not believe everything you read.


Some common errors that can be found in census returns are as follows:


Errors in recording census data

As illiteracy was quite high in the 19th century, many people may have asked their friends, neighbours or even the enumerators to help fill out the forms.

In institutions or on vessels it was the person in charge of the prison or ship who completed the details on behalf of everyone in the institution or on the ship. This led to many errors in note taking and in recording the final information.

Typical mistakes were made when spelling peoples’ names, or noting their occupations, or even when recording their ages.


Census age discrepancies

Whilst enumerators and the officials at institutions made mistakes when recording information, individuals who completed the forms themselves also made some errors.

This is certainly true of some people who were quite inventive about their age, or simply had only a vague notion of when they were born.




Census name changing

Ten years is a long time, and a lot of things happened in our ancestors’ lives between one census and another.

During this time they may have got married and re-married perhaps, resulting in a number of name changes. Alternatively, there may have been cases where they wanted to change their identity, perhaps for personal or political reasons.

You may, for example, have a bigamist in the family who changed his name to flee from a former partner. You may also have ancestors who anglicised their names over a period of time to suit the political environment.


Census occupations

Many people also lied about their occupations when completing census returns.

For example, in the 19th century thousands of women were prostitutes, yet this is certainly not what they recorded on their forms.

Also, whilst most children were noted as ‘scholars’ by their parents, this may have been to disguise the fact that they were breaking the law by sending their underage children out to work.


Census nicknames

If you can’t track down James, he may be a Jim. Eminent family historian, Jeanne Bunting, points out that Aunt Patty might be listed as Martha and your Grandma, who was always called Polly, was probably Mary. Uncle Wag could be listed as Charles or Chas and Aunt Fanny as Frances.

Nicknames and diminutives can derail your family history search – a man can be William to acquaintances, Will to his friends and Billie to his mother – but what is he called in the records?"
(Source: http://www.findmypast.co.uk/content/...arching-census)

Regards Pierre

He was baptized, listed and registered as Lechmere and he signed himself Lechmere on the 110 examples we have of authority contacts on his behalf. His wife and kids were Lechmeres. Nobody of todays Lechmeres know anything about any Lechmere having used the name Cross.
Apart from the contacts with the police and inquest in combination with the murder of Polly Nichols, there is zero evidence that he ever used the name Cross.

That is what you need to process.

[Pierre]

My theory is based on a large number of different things, Pierre. On an adjacent thread, I listed more than 30 reasons to look into the carman.

Do I think that Charles regarded Cross as a false name? That is the wrong question. The right question is "Do you think that he used the name Cross with the intention to mislead?"

My answer is a very clear yes on that one.

Hi,

So why would he use his own name for a "mislead" and not somebody elses?

You see, youīll have to build your theory of very invalid assumptions if you should try to explain that.

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Pierre: Hi,

So why would he use his own name for a "mislead" and not somebody elses?

Donīt loose track of the important matters here, Pierre: Why did he use the name Cross this time when he on every other known occasion used the name Lechmere? THAT is the important question that arises from the material we know of. THAT is where a total anomaly lies.
Answering the question "Why did he change names?" with "Why did he use Cross?" is, to my mind, disingenuous.

Since you seem not to be read up on what has passed on the boards before, and accordingly not very well read up on the theory (which is understandable but not a good background from which to criticize), I will tell you what has been suggested about the choice of the name Cross.

A/ He must have been aware that there was a risk that he would be investigated by the police. It would therefore be outright stupid to call himself by a name he had no connection to. The police would, when and if realizing the bluff, be very inclined to reason that they had a liar on their hands. A liar, that had been found alone with the victim.

Before I move on, please observe that this exact situation is what we are aware of today: He lied about his name, and he was found alone with the victim.

B/ My guess is that he would want to be as truthful as possible with the police, without having that result in his family and aquaintances getting to know that he was a witness who had been found alone with a Ripper victim. If he planned to murder again, it would be favourable to keep people in his surroundings unknowing.
Just as he wanted to be as truthful as possible with the police, he would be disinclined to reveal who he really was before the press watching the inquest.

Incidentally, it seems that what he did was perfectly in line with this: He gave the police the wrong name (but a name he could claim some sort of connection to if investigated), the roight address, and the right working place. The press got the wrong name, no address (although the Star procured it) and the right workplace - where hundreds of men worked.

It all pans out like this, and when things do, it is rarely a coincidence.

You see, youīll have to build your theory of very invalid assumptions if you should try to explain that.

I have explained it a million times. And the assumptions I make are perfectly valid.
By the way, invalid is an absolute. It is not very invalid or slightly invalid.

How does your valid explanation for why he swopped his name for Cross when witnessing in a murder case where he had been found alone with the victim look?

[Pierre]

Pierre: Hi,

So why would he use his own name for a "mislead" and not somebody elses?

Donīt loose track of the important matters here, Pierre: Why did he use the name Cross this time when he on every other known occasion used the name Lechmere? THAT is the important question that arises from the material we know of. THAT is where a total anomaly lies.
Answering the question "Why did he change names?" with "Why did he use Cross?" is, to my mind, disingenuous.

Since you seem not to be read up on what has passed on the boards before, and accordingly not very well read up on the theory (which is understandable but not a good background from which to criticize), I will tell you what has been suggested about the choice of the name Cross.

A/ He must have been aware that there was a risk that he would be investigated by the police. It would therefore be outright stupid to call himself by a name he had no connection to. The police would, when and if realizing the bluff, be very inclined to reason that they had a liar on their hands. A liar, that had been found alone with the victim.

Before I move on, please observe that this exact situation is what we are aware of today: He lied about his name, and he was found alone with the victim.

B/ My guess is that he would want to be as truthful as possible with the police, without having that result in his family and aquaintances getting to know that he was a witness who had been found alone with a Ripper victim. If he planned to murder again, it would be favourable to keep people in his surroundings unknowing.
Just as he wanted to be as truthful as possible with the police, he would be disinclined to reveal who he really was before the press watching the inquest.

Incidentally, it seems that what he did was perfectly in line with this: He gave the police the wrong name (but a name he could claim some sort of connection to if investigated), the roight address, and the right working place. The press got the wrong name, no address (although the Star procured it) and the right workplace - where hundreds of men worked.

It all pans out like this, and when things do, it is rarely a coincidence.

You see, youīll have to build your theory of very invalid assumptions if you should try to explain that.

I have explained it a million times. And the assumptions I make are perfectly valid.
By the way, invalid is an absolute. It is not very invalid or slightly invalid.

How does your valid explanation for why he swopped his name for Cross when witnessing in a murder case where he had been found alone with the victim look?

Hi Fisherman,

Your theory is based on an assumption that a man must be a killer since he found a murder victim, worked in the area, used his two family names and waited for another man when he found the victim.

Very poor data indeed.

So you invented the idea that this man was a psychopath and had the personality traits of an extremely rare type of serial killer.

You deduce this from your own ideas about serial killers. But all serial killers are not psychopaths. And nobody has a clue about however this man was a serial killer or a psychopath. The concept psychopathy as we know it didnīt even exist in the 19th century.

You have no other evidence. There is nothing to tie this person to any other of the murders. There is no data that proves he has written any letters or made any confessions and no evidence from the rest of the crime scenes.

He has no motive. You know nothing of his mother. You just guess.

Living in the area and choosing to give one of his two family names doesnīt mean a thing. A lot of people could have been the killer if you use these criteria.

And, as Caz pointed out, this man had no blood on him, something he should have had if he had mutilated the victim just seconds before Paul arrived.

Finally, he didnīt run away. And he showed up at the inquest, another thing a serial killer would never have done.

And all these problems remain, whatever passed on these boards before.

No. I leave this subject now and go back to my own. I have seen the difference between our data and theory and I have heard you trying to defend you theory. I have learned a lot from that, so thanks Fisherman.

I wish you all the best with continuing you story.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Pierre: Hi Fisherman,

Your theory is based on an assumption that a man must be a killer since he found a murder victim, worked in the area, used his two family names and waited for another man when he found the victim.

Very poor data indeed.

No, my theory is built on a much larger amount of points. It is outright stupid to suggest that somebody must be a killer for finding a murder victim, Pierre - As I use to say, Howard Carter found Tutanchamon.
So it is not about finding the victim only. It is about being found alone with a very recently killed victim, where the blood is still flowing.

Can you see that there is a difference? If you try really, really hard?

Nor am I saying that working in an area makes you a murderer. But it is not just working in an area, is it? He had reason to pass very close by a number of murder sites at the relevant removes of time.

Can you see that there is a difference, Pierre? Or canīt you?

You are saying that he used "his two family names". But the truth of the matter is that he used only ONE in all of the other 110 cases where we have his signature.

Can you see that it is a different matter than what you suggest?

There is no reason to go into the rest of the mediocre stuff you have produced. It is not worthy of my time. And sadly, that is not because my time is very valuable.


Once you are ready to disclose your suspect, I will be equally ready. If he is a good suspect, I will commend you on your efforts. If he is a bad suspect, I will take your theory apart. Factually and on good, solid grounds.

Til then.