Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Lechmere]

It is of course quite possible that Lechmere was called Cross until he was old enough to decide. If he then, as a young adult, decided to call himself Lechmere out of deference to his real father and no doubt aware of his august lineage, then it strikes me as odd that he would suddenly revert to Cross after finding a woman lying in the street about whom he wasn’t sure what here she was alive or dead – still less that she was the victim of a brutal knife murder.

However I said somewhere on here that it is just possible that he was still calling himself Cross when he started working for Pickfords in 1868, a year before Thomas Cross died (December 1869). Accordingly it is conceivable that Cross could have been his ‘work’ name. This might be why he called himself Cross to Mizen - as he was on his way to work.

That is the only semi-legitimate reason I can think of as to why he called himself Cross in 1888.

I have addressed the address issue before - maybe he got flustered, maybe he had Cross ready in his mind as a false name and didn't have a false address ready. Maybe he rationalised that if he gave a false address and the police checked, there could be a big search, and remember he had to walk those streets every day to go to work.

[Lechmere]

"an American pronunciation"

How do you say tomato?

[Observer]

I have addressed the address issue before - maybe he got flustered, maybe he had Cross ready in his mind as a false name and didn't have a false address ready. Maybe he rationalised that if he gave a false address and the police checked, there could be a big search, and remember he had to walk those streets every day to go to work.

And with respect, maybe pigs will fly some day

O

[Observer]

"an American pronunciation"

How do you say tomato?

Tomtatter

O

[Colin Roberts]

Yes he was listed in the 1861 census as Charles Cross. That was essentially how the connection between Cross and Lechmere was proved, otherwise it could have been a coincidence that the carman Charles Allen Cross gave 22 Doveton Street as his address, where the carman Charles Allen Lechmere lived.

We do not know that he was ever ‘referred to’ as Cross. Perhaps the census enumerator asked the married couple their names – Thomas and Maria Cross - and then automatically put the children down as Cross also.

Not an unnatural thing to do. However, I would suggest that he and the other children were known as Cross until the time came when they could decide for themselves whether they retained the name, or reverted back to their original name. The point is, Lechmere did not grasp an imaginary name out of the ether, and if he had been known as Cross at some time in his life then he did not lie. Also, as has been pointed out, he gave his correct address. Not the sort of information a guilty person would submit in my opinion.

It should be noted that he was baptized 'Charles Allen Lechmere', ...


Register of Baptisms, Solemnized in the Parish of St. Dunstan Stepneyą, County of Middlesex, 1859 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

When Baptized: "January 16" (1859) / "Born (?) 1849"; "January 16" (1859) / "Born October 5 (?) 1849"
Child's Christian Name: "Emily Charlotte"; "Charles Allen"
Parents' Names: "John Allen & Maria Louisa Lechmere"
Abode: "14 Sion Square"; i.e. 14 Sion Square, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney
Quality, Trade, or Profession: "Boot Maker"

ą Until 1867, the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town (i.e. the constituency, in which Sion Square was situated), along with the Hamlets of Mile End New Town and Ratcliff, was a component of the Civil Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney.

... on 16 January, 1859; some nine-to-twelve months after his mother had married Thomas Cross.


Index of Marriage Registrations, 1858 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Name: "Cross, Thomas"
Registration District: "Whitechapel"
Quarter: "1", i.e. January, February, March (1858)
Volume: "C"
Page: "600"

---


Index of Marriage Registrations, 1858 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Name: "Lechmere, Maria"
Registration District: "Whitechapel"
Quarter: "1", i.e. January, February, March (1858)
Volume: "C"
Page: "600"

~~~

How could Maria Lechmere have married Thomas Cross, in the first quarter of 1858; only to have then baptized her two children, Emily Charlotte and Charles Allen Lechmere, in what would appear to have been the 'presence' of her husband, John Allen Lechmere?

Were Mr. & Mrs. John Allen Lechmere perhaps divorced?

Had the practice of 'Divorce' even begun to permeate the lower echelons of English working-class society, by the late 1850's?

~~~

"Perhaps the census enumerator asked the married couple their names – Thomas and Maria Cross - and then automatically put the children down as Cross also."

Census data was not gathered during the nineteenth century, by way of verbal exchange, between 'Heads of Household', and respective 'Enumerators'.

The 'Householder's Schedule' was distributed during the course of the week, prior to 'Enumeration Sunday' (usually, the first Sunday in April, of the respective census year).

The schedule was completed, by the respective 'Head of Household', on the night of 'Enumeration Sunday'; and, then collected by the respective 'Enumerator', on 'Enumeration Monday' (i.e. the following day).

Thomas Cross, in all likelihood, completed the 'Householder's Schedule', in whatever manner he deemed appropriate.

I would venture to guess that Charles Lechmere continued to be known as 'Lechmere', as long as his father was alive; and, that depending upon his father's date of death (?), he may have never been known as 'Cross'.

He very well may have gone to his deathbed, not knowing that he was recorded in the Census of England & Wales, 1861, as 'Cross'.

[Phil H]

I've been here for over a decade,

Monty - the length of time you have been anywhere is a measure of NOTHING! Stop being an elitist and start discussing something sensible.

And WHERE precisely did I prick your ego in that post - I simply reiterated my position and refuted yours.

Observer - it appears to be YOU who do not get it. Lechmere/Cross misled a court - he LIED. That should be grounds at least for some suspicion.

I say again, that I do NOT consider Lechmere/Cross a suspect, as there is no evidence, and i accept alternative views on why he acted as he did. But his actions are at least worth a raised eyebrow IMHO.

Phil

[Sally]

Letchmere..

And with absolute certainty it is pronounced Letchmere

Variant spellings - in the census, for example - such as 'Latchmore', 'Lychmeer', etc. - would seem to corroborate this view.

[Monty]

He lied, Neil. Regardless of the reason, for which he chose to do so; he lied!

You have seen the evidence that strongly suggests that he lived his entire life, - from womb, to tomb - as 'Lechmere'.

Yet, upon finding himself mixed up, in what he apparently perceived as being an awkward set of circumstances, he chose to identify himself as 'Cross'.

I am sorry, Neil. But, that was clearly a lie!

I beg to differ on that Colin. A|s stated, you, I seemingly no one else have the full facts at their disposal. Call me old fashioned but I like to be aware of the full circumstances before labelling someone as a liar.

And, again; there can be no "valid" reason for choosing to identify one's self, by a surname, for which there is no documentation of any connection, to one's actual identity.

There might be a multitude of seemingly 'understandable' reasons. But, there can be no "valid" reason.

Of course there are. They might be drastic or mundane, however they are valid. Protection, fear for family, personal preference.....

Stop the press!

The unfortunate wretch that was murdered in Mitre Square, in the Aldgate Ward of the City of London, on 30 September, 1888, shall henceforth be known to history as 'Mary Anne Kelly'. Any future 'discoveries' that her name was actually Catherine Eddowes shall be ignored.

And they say you do not have a sense of fun Colin.

Actually her name is 'Nothing'.

Nobody, but nobody, but nobody, has asked you to label Charles Lechmere, as 'Jack'.

I know, however the inference is there.

"Cross" did not change his name! He lived his entire life, - from womb, to tomb - as 'Lechmere'.

[/QUOTE]

Well, he did. He game his name as Cross, ergo he changed it.

I would venture to guess that Charles Lechmere continued to be known as 'Lechmere', as long as his father was alive; and, that depending upon his father's date of death (?), he may have never been known as 'Cross'.

He may? So this isnt cast iron fact?

Monty

[Monty]

Prick my ego?

I've been here for over a decade,

Monty - the length of time you have been anywhere is a measure of NOTHING! Stop being an elitist and start discussing something sensible.

And WHERE precisely did I prick your ego in that post - I simply reiterated my position and refuted yours.

Observer - it appears to be YOU who do not get it. Lechmere/Cross misled a court - he LIED. That should be grounds at least for some suspicion.

I say again, that I do NOT consider Lechmere/Cross a suspect, as there is no evidence, and i accept alternative views on why he acted as he did. But his actions are at least worth a raised eyebrow IMHO.

Phil

Hey Phil,

You havent pricked my ego at all. I was merely amused at your attempt to do so.

You seem to misunderstand, again. The length of time was simply to point out that I have seen many personal insults fly around here and not a measure of my perceived worth....for which I do not care.

Stop being Elitiist? Oh dear.

Discuss something sensible? Oh dear oh dear.

The hypocrisy isnt unnoted.

I say again, that I do NOT consider Lechmere/Cross a suspect, as there is no evidence, and i accept alternative views on why he acted as he did. But [sic] his actions are at least worth a raised eyebrow IMHO.

Believe it or not, I agree.

Monty

[Phil H]

Monty - I have no intention of coming down to the level of your fragile ego.

[Monty]

Sure Phil, sure.

Whatever it takes to get you back on topic.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

I find it highly unlikely JtR would strike on his way to work.

[Phil H]

I find it highly unlikely JtR would strike on his way to work.

Fine - if that's your view. but WHY?

Phil

[Abby Normal]

I find it highly unlikely JtR would strike on his way to work.

Fine - if that's your view. but WHY?

Phil

Because showing up with possible blood on your hands/clothes, knife in your pocket etc. might be a bit suspicious.

Also, this man is a hunter, he wants to control the circumstances as much as possible and that would also mean giving himself ample time to search. having a job to get to would put too much of a deadline.


Cross was most probably not the ripper, unless of course he lied about being on his way to work.
I think the days of the murder indicate the possibility that the killer did not actually work at all, or at least have regular working hours/days.

[Observer]

"Perhaps the census enumerator asked the married couple their names – Thomas and Maria Cross - and then automatically put the children down as Cross also."

Census data was not gathered during the nineteenth century, by way of verbal exchange, between 'Heads of Household', and respective 'Enumerators'.

Eh? Perhaps I'm missing something here, but isn't the above a contradiction in terms? What happened in households where the occupants coul not read or write? Wouldn't the enumerator then have to verbaly enquire about the occupants of illiterate households?

I would venture to guess that Charles Lechmere continued to be known as 'Lechmere', as long as his father was alive; and, that depending upon his father's date of death (?), he may have never been known as 'Cross'.

He very well may have gone to his deathbed, not knowing that he was recorded in the Census of England & Wales, 1861, as 'Cross'.

But he was fully aware that his mother had been married to a man named Cross, otherwise he would not have used that name on the morning of the 31st August 1888. It's my contention that he was known as Cross in his formative years certainly during his school years. I can't see Charles mother registering him at school as Charles Lechmere, when she was in fact married to Thomas Cross.