Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Charles Cross

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    I agree that it sounds like an accident. But it seems the child's father wasn't totally convinced. Pickfords' drivers had a particularly bad rep for reckless driving. Little wonder the boy's father believed the driver was at fault.

    It's interesting that no address is given for the driver, unlike the witnesses etc. An attempt to hide his identity from a vengeful parent perhaps? And if the address was deliberately concealed, why not the name? Using a name that he had once been known by as opposed to the one he was currently known by to his workmates and neighbours might have been an acceptable compromise between using a completely false one and providing evidence that could be used to track him down.
    I´ll butt in here if you don´t mind much, Gary. And of course, I am trying the guilty angle on the carman, in all probability to the dismay of other posters, but since that is what I do...

    I was thinking, if Charles Lechmere is our man, then I am personally convinced that his murderous carreer stretches back to (at least) 1873, when the torso with the face cut away was found.

    Could it be that he arranged for an alias from the outset, knowing that it could come in handy in the future?

    If he entered his job at Pickfords, not as Lechmere but as Cross, is it possible that he was Charles Cross there - and nowhere else? That would enable him to fly under the radar as regards the public side of the show if something happened, just as I am suggesting that he did at the inquest.

    It is of course a coincidence to take interest in when all the other witnesses supply their addresses but the carman ommits to mention where he lives. If - as I have been suggesting - he never gave his address at the inquest either (but had it published by a journalist who got it from a desk clerk), then we have a pretty parallel here.

    This of course predisposes that the man who ran over the child was the same man who passed through Bucks Row on the morning of the 31:st of August.

    What one would like to know is what information the father of the child had that made him point an accusing finger to the carman.

    And now, before going on a weekend vacation (midsummer is BIG here in Sweden) I leave the stage to those who cannot help but to step in and say that I always opt for the worst scenario and that I am hellbent on accusing Lechmere for the murders, presenting weird ideas as facts and all that.

    None of it is true, of course - but it helps to peddle such a version if the aim is to render my ideas and thoughts as biased and unworthy pondering as possible.

    That´s why I am mainly asking you, Gary, what you think about the possibility - could he have used an alias throughout, to keep an escape route open? If he was the killer?
    When and if it was found ot that he otherwise always was Lechmere in authority contacts could be served an alternative truth - that would be confirmed by his workmates.

    Ideas, thoughts? Am I missing something? Of course, with a bit of bad luck, he could run into a workmate who disclosed to whomever he was in company with that he at work went under the name of Cross - but as long as that didn´t happen, he´d have two identities to hop between and noone would be any the wiser.

    As a send-off, let´s just keep in mind, everybody, that regardless of this discussion, the basic facts remain a tad odd: he DID use Lechmere with authorities normally and it DOES appear he avoided mentioning that name to the police and inquest.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by miss marple View Post
    It sounds like an accident, there were thousands of accidents involving cabs, horses and carts on London streets, many fatal,crossing the road was a risky business, no rear mirrors, horses could be unpredictable,no traffic lights, and children often played in the road.
    If it was Lechmere then it confirms that he was known as Cross at Pickford's. A significant fact.
    If it was Lechmere all it tells us is that he had some bad luck involved in fatal accident, it doe's not make him a serial killer,anymore that all the cab drivers involved in fatal accidents on the streets of London were serial killers.

    miss marple
    I agree that it sounds like an accident. But it seems the child's father wasn't totally convinced. Pickfords' drivers had a particularly bad rep for reckless driving. Little wonder the boy's father believed the driver was at fault.

    It's interesting that no address is given for the driver, unlike the witnesses etc. An attempt to hide his identity from a vengeful parent perhaps? And if the address was deliberately concealed, why not the name? Using a name that he had once been known by as opposed to the one he was currently known by to his workmates and neighbours might have been an acceptable compromise between using a completely false one and providing evidence that could be used to track him down.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Or...

    It is and it's a precedent that somehow supports the theory...
    My suggestion was based on a conversation I recently had with a Lechmerian who thought the discovery could be seen as supporting the theory.

    There has been some research to see if there might be an alternative Charles Cross who might have worked for Pickfords in the 1870s and (from memory) there seemed to be just one who was a carman but whose employer was unknown and who was based south of the River (Lambeth, I think).

    I think there's a fair chance the man in the press report was Charles Lechmere, and the fact could be interpreted to support the Lechmere theory and doesn't necessarily mean he was on Pickfords' books as Cross.

    As for Charles Lechmere of Doveton Street not being one and the same as Charles Cross the witness at Nichols' inquest, I think that's highly unlikely.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-21-2018, 03:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • miss marple
    replied
    It sounds like an accident, there were thousands of accidents involving cabs, horses and carts on London streets, many fatal,crossing the road was a risky business, no rear mirrors, horses could be unpredictable,no traffic lights, and children often played in the road.
    If it was Lechmere then it confirms that he was known as Cross at Pickford's. A significant fact.
    If it was Lechmere all it tells us is that he had some bad luck involved in fatal accident, it doe's not make him a serial killer,anymore that all the cab drivers involved in fatal accidents on the streets of London were serial killers.

    miss marple

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    One way or another, Thomas Cross seems to have been a bit of a jinx, doesn't he?

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    I’ve even looking at the Cross family for sometime.

    Unfortunately I’m not as good a family researcher as some here are.

    But..

    I’ve found another Charles Cross, a nephew I think of Thomas, same age as Lechmere, haven’t found where he worked but looks like he came to Australia 1890s and became a ......




    Delivery man.


    See my point is I am not 100% convinced that Cross and Lechmere were one and the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Or...

    It is and it's a precedent that somehow supports the theory...
    Sorry my post should have said “if it’s not our Lechmere”.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    Now...

    It’s not Lechmere.......
    Or...

    It is and it's a precedent that somehow supports the theory...
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 06-20-2018, 03:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    Now...

    It’s not Lechmere.......

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X