Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[Observer]

Hi Colin

Reread the Enumerators instructions. Methinks the Enumerators who took the 1861 census in the poorer areas of the country had their work cut out for themselves.

Regarding Cross, I remain unconvinced he set out to decieve the authorities, over his name. The fact that he gave his correct address would suggest otherwise.

The footie question

What did Tottenham manage to accomplish, this season, that Chelsea have never managed to accomplish, themselves?

Beat lowly Sunderland at home ?

Chelsea had a mare at home against Sunderland did they not?

Regards

Observer

[Lechmere]

“the mantra seems to be if he lied about his name then what else is he hiding? Then his route to work is questioned, then his position near the body (worth investigating granted) and so forth.”

Surely, if there is a question mark as to why he gave Cross as his name, and I would suggest there has to be a question mark over that issue, then it is sensible to look at other aspects of his story to see if they add up and to take a closer look at the individual overall, in as much as we are able at this remove.
The alternative is to briskly say, ‘not worth discussing’. Other ‘suspects’ are fully discussed with a much flimsier connection.

Thomas Cross died in 1869

[Colin Roberts]

Regarding Cross you posted

"Surely, he would have been capable of completing the 'Householder's Schedule', at his own convenience, without the assistance of the respective 'Enumerator'."

I'd agree, Charles Cross was quite capable of filling in his census form, that is not in dispute, and if this is the case why did he give young Charles the surname Cross? I'd suggest that regardless of his mother christening him with the surname Lechmere, he was known as Charles Cross in his formative years. It's obvious his adoptive father considered him thus.

That is entirely possible!

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that Thomas Cross perished just one week after the enumeration of the Census of England & Wales, 1861.

Of course, he died, when he died! But, as yet, we don't know when that occurred.

It is also entirely possible that Thomas Cross told young Charles that in the event that he was ever confronted by the local constabulary, he should mention his name, i.e. that of 'PC Thomas Cross'.

I am not at odds with your perspective, regarding the Lechmere/Cross 'identity crisis'.

I am at odds with what I perceive as being a complacent shrug of the shoulders, on the part of so many, in this, our field of interest, with regard to this issue of identity, and the questions that it inherently raises, regarding deceit!

I am of no inclination, whatsoever, to believe that Charles Lechmere was 'Jack the Ripper'.

But, I am extremely befuddled, by the sense of apathy that I happen to perceive.

The following did confuse me however, you stated

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

What about illiterate households?

Please note the highlighted paragraphs, on the second page, of the Instructions to the Enumerator, depicted above.

Perhaps, I should have qualified my assertion, accordingly:

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

PS

I have a riddle for you:

What did Tottenham manage to accomplish, this season, that Chelsea have never managed to accomplish, themselves?

[Monty]

No need to be sorry Colin, you are entitled to your view.

However I'm afraid there is, the mantra seems to be if he lied about his name then what else is he hiding? Then his route to work is questioned, then his position near the body (worth investigating granted) and so forth.

I must stress, this line has not been adopted by yourself.

Its not about shooting down in flames, its about presenting a balanced view.

Surely I'm allowed my view, even in the company of adults.

Monty

[Observer]

Regarding Cross you posted

"Surely, he would have been capable of completing the 'Householder's Schedule', at his own convenience, without the assistance of the respective 'Enumerator'."

I'd agree, Charles Cross was quite capable of filling in his census form, that is not in dispute, and if this is the case why did he give young Charles the surname Cross? I'd suggest that regardless of his mother christening him with the surname Lechmere, he was known as Charles Cross in his formative years. It's obvious his adoptive father considered him thus.

The following did confuse me however, you stated

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

What about illiterate households?

[Colin Roberts]

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

I know, however the inference is there.

I am sorry Neil, but it is not!

Have we become this 'defensive'?

Is every suggestion that further scrutiny is warranted, an outright accusation of guilt?

Have we reached the point that no one else can be proposed, as being a 'Person of Interest', without the suggestion being immediately shot down, in flames?

Charles Lechmere wasn't incarcerated in France, on holiday in Scotland, or confined to the Whitechapel Union Infirmary, during the so-called 'Autumn of Terror'!

[Colin Roberts]

"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?

Census of England & Wales, 1861: Instructions to the Enumerator, as to his Duties in Taking the Census, Page 1 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)


Census of England & Wales, 1861: Instructions to the Enumerator, as to his Duties in Taking the Census, Page 2 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Thomas Cross was a self-proclaimed 'Police Constable'.

Surely, he would have been capable of completing the 'Householder's Schedule', at his own convenience, without the assistance of the respective 'Enumerator'.

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.

Even though she baptized him as 'Charles Allen Lechmere', some nine-to-twelve months after she had married Thomas Cross?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Monty]

Sure Phil, sure.

Whatever it takes to get you back on topic.

Monty

[Phil H]

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

[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

[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