Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[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.

[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

[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 Stepney¹, 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"

¹ 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'.

[Observer]

"an American pronunciation"

How do you say tomato?

Tomtatter

O

[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

[Lechmere]

"an American pronunciation"

How do you say tomato?

[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.

[Observer]

Incidently, albeit an American pronunciation

http://rwinters.com/council/notes2006Oct30.htm

[Observer]

Surely Lury Yacht?

No Luury Yacht, there's two u's in Luxury. The Essex (or Esse) branch of his familly pronounce double u as oo, as in boo

[Observer]

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.

If Cross didn’t do it, I would hazard that JtR wasn’t long gone by the time Cross approached the body. It was still warm and two policemen had been down the street within half an hour of Cross.

As I said long gone

O

[The Grave Maurice]

Quite right. And the closer you get to Cheshire, the more often it's pronounced "Cholmondeley". Odd things, British surnames.

[Lechmere]

Surely Lury Yacht?

[Observer]

How do you pronounce Luxury-Yacht? I knew a man with that name and the x in his name was silent, in effect Loory Yacht

[Lechmere]

'but it's pronounced "Luxury-Yacht".'

Ah - that'll be the Monte Carloshire Lechmeres

[Lechmere]

I know Lechmeres in Worcestershire (they are the Baronet Lechmeres) and the East End Lechmeres (who are distantly related to them) and they all pronounce it 'Letchmere' - usually shortened to 'letch'!

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.

If Cross didn’t do it, I would hazard that JtR wasn’t long gone by the time Cross approached the body. It was still warm and two policemen had been down the street within half an hour of Cross.