So Cross the Ripper got involved in the investigation. Why did he stop?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: I think this whole issue of Cross/Lechmere being a suspect should be put to bed once and for all.

I know.

You can´t.

It won´t happen.

You would do better to try and read up on the case. It would be time better spent.

[Fisherman]

GUT: But you miss the point Fish, it's a fact that his mum used the name cross, if they don't know about that the fact that they never heard about him using it means nothing. Zero, zip, zilch and nada.

Ah, but then there´s MY chance to argue YOUR way:

How do we know that Maria Louisa used the name Cross other than officially? Maybe she called herself Lechmere otherwise? Eh? How´s that?

You missed THAT point, did you not?

What I am saying is that the fact that nobody remembers the name Cross points to it having been used sparsely in the family. If Charles, Elizabeth, his kids and their kids intheir turn had used the Cross name, it would have been in full swing today.

But it is stone dead. For whatever reason.

THAT is the point I am making.

[Trevor Marriott]

Cross presented himself at the inquest on the Monday morning.Whether he approached police before that,is not known,but it is possible.In any case he had much time in which to decide what name he would use,and he must surely have known an inquest was an official occasion,and that telling a lie at that inquest could result in himself suffering punishment.Yet he went ahead and used the name Cross.Seems odd.

I think this whole issue of Cross/Lechmere being a suspect should be put to bed once and for all.

Forgetting all the ifs and buts raised by all those for and against, let’s look at it sensibly and without blinkers, and put all the real facts into perspective.
Firstly, it is accepted that Cross/Lechmere was legally entitled to use either or both of his names.

He did just that in this case, but was it to deliberately mislead the police, and in turn the coroner? Or was there an explanation for his actions? Well there is no mention of anything to suggest the police or the coroner had grounds to suspect they were being misled. Clearly we don’t have the full details of the police investigation or the details of the inquest where this ambiguity would have been raised, but clearly whatever explanation was given by him was accepted by both the police and the coroner. So why is this still being discussed? If they were all happy then why shouldn’t we be, they were there we were not.

As to him being looked upon as a suspect at the time, or anytime thereafter there is no written record to suggest he was ever regarded as a suspect by anyone. When we look at other named suspects, named by police officers of the day, in most cases there is nothing more than those officers opinions as to the naming those suspects, so again if he were suspected I would have expected to see a comment or quote from a police officer appearing somewhere, but there is nothing!

If he ever was ever regarded as a suspect then I would have expected the police to have watched him, and his movements, and again such an operation would have been recorded, or someone would have spoken about it, especially with the double event happening a week later. There is nothing, so what does that tell us?

It tells us that the question of him being the killer of Nicholls and others has been blown up out of all proportion by Christer and Ed. The term being found with a freshly killed body is used to suggest he was the killer; well firstly someone has to find a body. In this case it was Cross/Lechmere and I would guess that anyone finding a body in these circumstances, it would be a traumatic experience and would certainly unnerve most people.

Secondly, the time of death cannot be firmly established, and all the disputed conversations that followed, coupled with the discovery. and the attendance of the police are in my opinion nothing more than a smokescreen in the grand scheme of things, clearly lies were told and it would seem the main culprits were the police at the scene, and we have to ask why? I would suggest that it could have been that one or more of them, was not where they should have been or had deliberately left their beat for a time. If that be the case clearly they are not going to admit to that, and that is why we have these ambiguities regarding the conversations that took place and the evidence given at the inquest. But did any of this cause the coroner concern? No it didn’t.

Finally as to the checking of Cross story by the police if they suspected him, then the likelihood is that they did check his story and his movements with his wife and the timings appertaining to both and seemingly if they did they were happy with it.

The suggestion that a simple carman was able to outfox the police not only on one occasion with the Nicholls murder but he then went onto commit other murders in and around the same location all within a short space of time of each murder, without drawing further attention to himself is incomprehensible.

So I for one now will delete Cross from the suspect list and would urge everyone else to do the same, for to keep arguing with Christer and Ed on this issue is pointless. Neither are going to relent despite all that is put before them, which shatters their theory and they are never going to accept that Cross/Lechmere is an innocent man

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Cross presented himself at the inquest on the Monday morning.Whether he approached police before that,is not known,but it is possible.In any case he had much time in which to decide what name he would use,and he must surely have known an inquest was an official occasion,and that telling a lie at that inquest could result in himself suffering punishment.Yet he went ahead and used the name Cross.Seems odd.

[GUT]

But you miss the point Fish, it's a fact that his mum used the name cross, if they don't know about that the fact that they never heard about him using it means nothing. Zero, zip, zilch and nada.

Now if they said we know granny used it but never heard of Charlie using it, that may help your case.

[Fisherman]

Lechmer's family, living today, have no recollection of the name Cross being tied to their family, if they've told you that they know very little about their family, really that simple, no misunderstanding, if they told you something else well I'll listen.

Let's say it's his Grandkids telling you that, then that means they told you they have no knowledge of their great grandmother being married to a Cross.

They told me absolutely nothing - it was Edward Stow who talked to them. And none of them had any idea about the name Cross being knit to their history.

There are no grandchildren alive, but there are great grandchildren. So far, none of these have provided any knowledge about the name Cross being used.

I know that the argument "he could have called himself Cross" is watertight. That´s why it can only be truly sustained by evidence supporting the view. No such evidence exists.

He could have called himself Flowerpot too, therefore. It is almost an equally good argument.

Give it some afterthought and you will see what I mean. I can be of no further assistance for some time: it is sunny here in Sweden, and that´s a rare treat, so I´m off.

[GUT]

You may have misunderstood (Naaaah - not YOU...?). What I am saying is that the Lechmere´s living today have no recollection of the name Cross being tied to their family.
We all know about the marriage to Thomas Cross.

Subtle points like these are sometimes lost.

Lechmer's family, living today, have no recollection of the name Cross being tied to their family, if they've told you that they know very little about their family, really that simple, no misunderstanding, if they told you something else well I'll listen.

Let's say it's his Grandkids telling you that, then that means they told you they have no knowledge of their great grandmother being married to a Cross.

[Fisherman]

Funny if his family never heard of the use of the name cross among the relatives, since his mum was married to Cross.

You may have misunderstood (Naaaah - not YOU...?). What I am saying is that the Lechmere´s living today have no recollection of the name Cross being tied to their family.
We all know about the marriage to Thomas Cross.

Subtle points like these are sometimes lost.

[GUT]

Edward knows a lot! But there is no way we are ever going to be able to decisively prove that the carman did not call himself Cross occasionally, in non-official surroundings.

All that can be done has been done: We know that he called himself Lechmere whenever contacting the authoritites or being contacted by them (apart from in combination with the inquest...), and we know that none of the Lechmere relatives living today has ever heard of anybody in the family ever having used the name Cross. There are old Lechmeres, with very deep knowledge of the family history, but none of them have ever heard that the name Cross has been used amongst their relatives. There are no existing records of his employment at Pickfords. And there is nothing at all pointing to him having used the name Cross at any remove in time, but for the inquest.

The suggestion that he used the name Cross in unofficial circumstances is completely baseless. It is grounded on an assumption that his work would have been secured for him by Thomas Cross and that Charles was called Cross at work for this reason, something that can be suggested and that can be true. But so much can be true!
The collected facts, however, speak a different language.

Funny if his family never heard of the use of the name cross among the relatives, since his mum was married to Cross.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Again this is a very good point you bring up. We just won't know since we can't question anyone, unless there are relatives of the lechmeres still living and know a great deal about their family history.

I take it Edward might know something?

Columbo

Edward knows a lot! But there is no way we are ever going to be able to decisively prove that the carman did not call himself Cross occasionally, in non-official surroundings.

All that can be done has been done: We know that he called himself Lechmere whenever contacting the authoritites or being contacted by them (apart from in combination with the inquest...), and we know that none of the Lechmere relatives living today has ever heard of anybody in the family ever having used the name Cross. There are old Lechmeres, with very deep knowledge of the family history, but none of them have ever heard that the name Cross has been used amongst their relatives. There are no existing records of his employment at Pickfords. And there is nothing at all pointing to him having used the name Cross at any remove in time, but for the inquest.

The suggestion that he used the name Cross in unofficial circumstances is completely baseless. It is grounded on an assumption that his work would have been secured for him by Thomas Cross and that Charles was called Cross at work for this reason, something that can be suggested and that can be true. But so much can be true!
The collected facts, however, speak a different language.

[Fisherman]

Azarna:

Maybe, just maybe, he actually used the surname of Cross quite often.. just not usually on written documents, which is why we have no record, and it would be hard to know if this were the case.

Just want to highlight this once again, Azarna!

There are a 110, or thereabouts, records with the carmans name on them. In all of the other 109 cases, that name is Lechmere.

This tells us that officially, he regarded himself as Charles Allen Lechmere.

You say that these are written documents, and that is true. You say that he may have called himself Cross outside of the world of written documents, and that too is true.

But the reocurring name on the documents is divided into two categories - they are sometimes the result of the carman writing it himself, but in other instances the signature is a reaction to how a question has been asked: "What is your name, please?", and then the name has been written down by functionaries in the official world after the carman - over and over again - said the same thing: "Charles Allen Lechmere".

So we effectively know that whenever Charles Lechmere dealt with authorities and was asked for his name, he said that his name was Charles Allen Lechmere.

But when the police asked him the exact same question, he suddenly had a change of mind and said that his name was Charles Allen Cross.

So no matter how we look upon things, we can see here that there is a large anomaly involved. And that anomaly requires an explanation!

That is not to say that there could not be an innocent explanation. But the truth of the matter is that when the police have a murder case on their hands and no killer, they will go on the hunt for details that can point them in the direction of the perpetrator. And one such detail is anomalies.

There are a number of anomalies when it comes to the carman. Plus he is in place alone with the victim at what must be a point in time that is extremely close to her death.

Not all people like to hear it, but Charles Lechmere is not only an excellent suspect - going on the case evidence, he is in practicality the only worthy suspect.

And no, that does not automatically turn him into the killer. But it DOES turn him into the PROBABLE killer until a more worthy suspect can be identified.

PS. Varqm! This post is useful for you to read too... DS

[Varqm]

To answer the thread Cross was a normal witness.Why would Cross spend more time with the authorities, away from work and money, for a complete stranger - add to that Cross could not have added more as to who was the killer and the stranger is most likely dead.

[Fisherman]

Pierre:

I do not agree with you on that last sentence; "It is not a fact that Elizabeth Lechmere was acquainted with the Cross name". It is an established fact supported by sources, I think, that Elizabeth Lechmere was acquainted with her husband´s mother.[/B] [B]Are there not sources supporting this, Fisherman?

To elevate what we think is a would have into a must have is not a very intelligent thing to do.

Charles Lechmere married Elizabeth Bostock seven months after the death of Thomas Cross. He married her as Charles Lechmere. To which extent the couple - especially Elizabeth - associated with the rest of the Lechmere family, we don´t know.

It is therefore a very good suggestion that she may have heard about the Cross name, but it is in no way whatsoever any established fact.

Furthermore, if the name was not used, and drifted into oblivion over the nineteen years that passed between the death of the stepfather and the 1888 atrocities, then just how much of a done deal is it that Elizabeth would make the connection?

[Fisherman]

The murders were very big news. Elizabeth Cross surely must have heard about the murder at some point. It only requires part of the story for her to think "oh, a murder in Buck's Row at just the time Charles must have been going by on his way to work, I wonder if he saw anything"... and ask him.

Would not friends or neighbours have also thought of this too? Or his workmates? "Hey, Cross, you walk to work at that time of the morning, did you see anything of this murder that everyone is going on about?"

Or how about the chance that someone at the inquest would recognize him? He must have known a few people in the area, living and working there.

Maybe, just maybe, he actually used the surname of Cross quite often.. just not usually on written documents, which is why we have no record, and it would be hard to know if this were the case.

I personally use two different surnames on a regular basis, because one is very hard to spell and remember. Some people know me as one name, some as another. A few people still refer to me by my married name, although I am now divorced. And to add to the confusion, many of my old work mates know me by a different first name to usual because I used my second name for a while at work when there was five of us with the same first name in the office. Oh yes, and I have a title which some people call me by. Maybe one day my descendants will be tied in knots trying to unravel it all, hehe.

But I am not a murderer. Honest.

Yes , it is reasonable to think that Elizabeth Lechmere would have heard about the killings.

But was she ever told about the witness "Charles Cross"? Did somebody read it out loud to her? Who, in such a case?
That´s another question altogether.

Did she know which route Charles took to Pickfords? Did she know that Bucks Row was called Bucks Row, and where it lay? She had just moved into the area, and she didn´t do the trek with him.

An illiterate housewife in new surroundings, with neighbours she did not know - was she going to poubce on how the caarman Charles Cross must be her husband? Would she even hear the name mentioned?

As for using two names, yes, it does happen. But it is not the norm in any shape or form. That´s about all that can be said.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

Since you've moved into defensive waffle mode and even posters like Columbo can understand the merits of my posts, I'll assume my point proven.



Since you asked, based on examples ... yes.
In fact I KNOW it could happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Brother_the_Serial_Killer

"Priceless" indeed.

Not your week is it?

You KNOW it could happen?

Wow.

Well, I can only disagree. I am very certain that it never happened.

And that´s mainly because Emily Lechmere had been dead for around twenty years in 1888. She died six months earlier than Thomas Cross.

As for whether it is my week or not, I leave that for others to decide. All I can say is that it certainly does not seem to be yours!

Then again, when IS it your week...?

PS. Anybody can understand the merits of your posts. It is not hard at all. DS.