Why is There Little Interest in the Nichols Murder?

[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?

[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'!

[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?

[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

[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?

[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

[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

[Observer]

Hi Lechmere

A question. Noting the fact that Charles Cross/Lechmere discovered the body of Polly Nichols, conversed with Robert Paul at the scene of the crime, and then PC Mizen, gave his correct address, and a name which in all probability he had used before. How likely was it that 8 days later he murdered Annie Chapman?

Observer

[Observer]

Hi again Colin my mistake Tottenham drew with Sunderland at home, but beat them at Sunderland

O

[Colin Roberts]

Thomas Cross died in 1869

Thanks!

I now seem to recall your mention of his date of death, in an earlier post.

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.

Indeed!

By 1891, Enumerators were able to distribute a Yiddish version of the 'Householder's Schedule'.

I'll post a copy, if anyone would like to see it. But, give me a day, or two.

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.

I am inclined to believe that his initial intention was to mislead, for some seemingly innocuous reason, e.g. keeping his actual family name out of any perceived 'limelight'. But, that upon his realization of the seriousness of the circumstances; he provided the name of his employer, as well as his actual home address, whilst hoping that no one would cry 'foul', with regard to the surname, by which he chose to 'identify' himself.

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?

The completion of fifty consecutive seasons of League Football, without a single League Title.

[Observer]

HaHa. The only downer being the fact that old alkie red nose's odious lot now have more top flight titles than any other team.

Observer

[Observer]

I would concede that it is a strong possibility Cross/Lechmere did mislead the authorities for the very reason you mention.

Observer

[Hunter]

At the time of the Nichols murder there was speculation that gangs could be involved in these murders. Threats of reprisal against any 'informants' were a genuine concern. Some crimes went unreported to authorities for that reason. We can recall that the attack on Emma Smith was not initially known to police until her subsequent death required a coroner's inquest.

People were inclined to mind their own business than get involved in something that could end up as a matter of personal danger. A study of the testimony suggest that this was on the witnesses minds as they pondered what to do after finding the woman lying in a place where such crimes were known to be perpetratred.

The witness in this case was connected with summoning the police, instead of leaving the woman lying there and going on about his business. He had to give his place of employment ( Pickford and Co.), but he did not give his residence where his family was. I suspect the use of his stepfather's surname could have been for the protection of his family from reprisal.

[Lechmere]

“A question. Noting the fact that Charles Cross/Lechmere discovered the body of Polly Nichols, conversed with Robert Paul at the scene of the crime, and then PC Mizen, gave his correct address, and a name which in all probability he had used before. How likely was it that 8 days later he murdered Annie Chapman?”

Observer...

If Cross did it, then he didn’t 'discover' the body of Nichols! It would imply he was interrupted by Paul and didn’t feel he had time to flee before being spotted, and so had no option but to converse with Paul, to brazen it out.
Similarly with Mizen. Once he was with Paul and they both bumped into Mizen then he would have had no option but to tell Mizen. However I would suggest the evidence points to Cross doing the talking, telling Mizen what he wanted to tell him about the incident, rather than Paul telling his side of it.
I would suggest he would have had to give the correct address and place of work as if the police came looking for him and he wasn’t there then they would have searched for him. As he had to walk those streets back and forth to work each day, it wouldn’t have been long before he was found. The line of least resistance was to tell the truth.

You have to remember that he only moved to Doveton Street just before the murders started so few people would have known him by that address. Still fewer in all probability knew he had ever been called Cross. Perhaps his mother, and perhaps not even her. If he did 'it' the person he would most have needed to keep in the dark would have been his wife.

(The gangs would also have been able to find him at his addres or workplace so that rational as to why he didn’t give his real name but did give his real address and workplace doesn’t add up. Paul wasn’t wary of giving a press interview that evening either.)

There is no evidence he had used Cross as a name before. He was 11 years old when it was entered on the census form.

Finally how likely is it that he would have killed gain so soon after?
I think we can find plenty of examples of serial killers behaving in a similar manner. Jack the Ripper certainly did. Would he have been worried about being linked to it? By then he had appeared at the inquest and been sent on his way, unnoticed. If he did 'it' this episode could have made him more confident.
It is possibly noteworthy that Chapman was murdered as few yards from Robert Paul’s workplace. Cross had accompanied Paul to his workplace after they left Mizen. This was out of Cross’s way. Going that way took longer for him to get to work. Even though Cross claimed to be in a hurry and late for work. It is possible that the next murder took place in that vicinity to implicate Paul.

[Phil H]

In the context of Lechmere/Cross killing again so soon -

NOTE: that could be a reason why the backyard of No29 was so suitable - OFF the street this time, where interruption was less likely.

I'm not suggesting he did it, I am just refuting the casual dismissal of the possibility.

Phil