Our Charles Cross

[Fisherman]

Good morning Christer,

I posted up the transcription of Gary's find here to demonstrate that yes, Charles Cross is the name the carman used in his capacity as a driver. Surely everyone at Pickford's, plus his customers instantly know who that is. It's Charles Cross.

Recall that the finding of the name Lechmere happened a decade or so before you and Ed turned it into anything suspicious. Your "aha" moment was him using the name Cross at the Nichols inquest this one and only time to the exclusion of all other times ever in recorded history.

Turns out that's not so. The 'aha' moment becomes a nothing burger. Sorry.

And no him not giving his address in this instance is not suspicious in the least bit. He gave his address in the Nichols inquest because he was a pedestrian on the way to work when he discovered her body. By contrast, for the accident inquest, his home address is not asked for nor given. He is identified as the Pickfords driver. The other addresses are given because they are germane to the story. Those people live/work there in the immediate vicinity of the accident. Likewise the father's address. Poor dad, he is upset, rightly and initially wants to blame the driver. But note the verdict, an accident.

Roy

1. The witnesses´addresses are not germane at all to the event, I´m afraid. Anybody who had witnessed the event and had relevant information to offer was asked to do so - not on account of where they lived but on account of what they had seen.

That was why the addresses were given, and that was why Cross´ address was equally interesting.

2. We do not know that the Charles Cross that run over the boy was Charles Lechmere.

3. If he WAS, then it still applies that he on a regular basis said his name was Lechmere - not Cross - when speaking to all sorts of authorities, and it applies that it is an anomaly that he suddenly opts for Cross when violent death is involved.

4. I - or Edward - can´t turn a name change into "something suspicious". It either is or it is not, and that is not on account of what I think about it. It is an anomaly, and that fact remains. Whether that anomaly points to guilt or not is not establishable.Certainly, the MORE anomalies involved, the LESS the chance that a suspect is innocent. That is a generalized but neverthless universal truth.

5. It is not established that Lechmere gave his address to the inquest - one paper only had the address, and they could have gotten it from a clerk. Compare the person most similar to Lechmere, Robert Paul, and check how many papers made an effort to publish his Foster Street address.

6. I had already noted the verdict. Just as I have noted how all verdicts are not justified verdicts. Nota bene that I am not saying that it seems not to have been an accident, and I for one have never suggested that it was a wilful thing. But I am not daft enough to accept a verdict as representing anything else but a legally reached stance, a stance that can have been reached on correct, wrongful, insufficient, good, bad, biased, brilliant and/or thick grounds.

7. No, I don´t think you are sorry at all. That lies in the future, if you ask me.

8. Now I have got a football match to watch, so you must forgive me for not participating any further in this. Maybe it´s just as well, going by the mistakes you made in your post.

Sor.... No, I´m not

[Fisherman]

No misrepresentation at all.

The thread on Mizen's inquest testimony #6 contains several historical untruths. Not a question of interpretation, basic untruths.


Steve

I was not pointing you out as the single source of misrepresentations. But when you speak of self deception on my behalf when I describe how I do my work on Lechmere, you are overstepping the line. For example. And the same goes for being "astonished" by how I check whether Lechmere can be guilty or not - and then whining about how I picked you up on that particular word.

It won´t do, quite simply.

Now, instead of hinting at things, go ahead and produce the EXACT things where you claim I am lying about Mizen, more or less. Surely, that cannot be asking too much from a poster who claims that I avoid issues?

[Fisherman]

My Alternatives are for the most part backed by historical sources, they are not the product of imagination. Those that are not backed are clearly signposted as conjecture.


Steve

Which "historical sources" back up a single one of the alternative innocent explanations that you have suggested over the years, Steve?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Christer,

I posted up the transcription of Gary's find here to demonstrate that yes, Charles Cross is the name the carman used in his capacity as a driver. Surely everyone at Pickford's, plus his customers instantly know who that is. It's Charles Cross.

Recall that the finding of the name Lechmere happened a decade or so before you and Ed turned it into anything suspicious. Your "aha" moment was him using the name Cross at the Nichols inquest this one and only time to the exclusion of all other times ever in recorded history.

Turns out that's not so. The 'aha' moment becomes a nothing burger. Sorry.

And no him not giving his address in this instance is not suspicious in the least bit. He gave his address in the Nichols inquest because he was a pedestrian on the way to work when he discovered her body. By contrast, for the accident inquest, his home address is not asked for nor given. He is identified as the Pickfords driver. The other addresses are given because they are germane to the story. Those people live/work there in the immediate vicinity of the accident. Likewise the father's address. Poor dad, he is upset, rightly and initially wants to blame the driver. But note the verdict, an accident.

Roy

[Elamarna]

"Factually untruly"?

I have no problems at all with people having a hard time handling language - it happens, and noone is to blame. But I cannot answer what I don´t understand.

If you have any question, please specify and I will answer it.

If you feel that my suggesting things as possible is equal to presenting them as facts, then either I have misworded myself or you have misunderstood it.

But I find the fact that there is an onslaught whenever I say something or suggest something intensely interesting.

Once again: I look at whether Lechmere is a possible killer or not, if there are unsurmountable obstacles to that idea or not. I do not say or claim that he WAS the killer, I say that I PERSONALLY am convinced he was.

I am allowed to do that, you know. And I should be allowed to do that without being attacked. Most of all, I should be able to do it without being misrepresented.

Any thoughts on how we reach that point?

No misrepresentation at all.

The thread on Mizen's inquest testimony #6 contains several historical untruths. Not a question of interpretation, basic untruths.


Steve

[Elamarna]

... and when Gary said that there WAS a third source, you decided it was still not enough.

In Gary's own words it was a very brief account. In that case it was unlikely to clarify the situation.

That "three source evidence" thinking of yours is really... really... nope, I can´t find the word for it.

I do not "wish" that I am correct in thinking Lechmere was the killer. So far, that has totally eluded you.

No it has not eluded me. The posts, the vast weight of pro Lechmere posts argue that is indeed Your "wish".

As for "possible" alternatives, may I remind you that such "possible innocent alternatives" has been the bread and butter for all of your own posting for many years now?

There´s a name for it, you know.

My Alternatives are for the most part backed by historical sources, they are not the product of imagination. Those that are not backed are clearly signposted as conjecture.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Not actually addressing the post, not for the first time.
Here you decided to debate my use of "astonishing", and to return to "possibilities"( that is anything you care to invent), par for the course

Now on to facts. And part of the post ignored.
Why were posts made that were factually untruly , in the thread on Mizen's inquest statement?


Steve

"Factually untruly"?

I have no problems at all with people having a hard time handling language - it happens, and noone is to blame. But I cannot answer what I don´t understand.

If you have any question, please specify and I will answer it.

If you feel that my suggesting things as possible is equal to presenting them as facts, then either I have misworded myself or you have misunderstood it.

But I find the fact that there is an onslaught whenever I say something or suggest something intensely interesting.

Once again: I look at whether Lechmere is a possible killer or not, if there are unsurmountable obstacles to that idea or not. I do not say or claim that he WAS the killer, I say that I PERSONALLY am convinced he was.

I am allowed to do that, you know. And I should be allowed to do that without being attacked. Most of all, I should be able to do it without being misrepresented.

Any thoughts on how we reach that point?

[Fisherman]

Not at all, it indicates either a failure to record it by the press or a request from either him or the coroner not to include it. Which it is, we have no idea of and any suggestion that we do or can reach a decsion on it fantasy.

To suggest it was not supplied (withheld) meam we must pressume the coroner did not ask for it? Why not
If that is the thinking, what is that based on other than wishful thinking.

This continuing invention of "possible" alternatives, as serious suggestions has reached a point where all pretence of historical integrity as vanished. Truly great for a novel, not for history.


Steve

... and when Gary said that there WAS a third source, you decided it was still not enough.

That "three source evidence" thinking of yours is really... really... nope, I can´t find the word for it.

I do not "wish" that I am correct in thinking Lechmere was the killer. So far, that has totally eluded you.

As for "possible" alternatives, may I remind you that such "possible innocent alternatives" has been the bread and butter for all of your own posting for many years now?

There´s a name for it, you know.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

You ask:

Gary, what do you think about the possibility - could he have used an alias throughout, to keep an escape route open? If he was the killer?


Well, yes, of course he could have conceived the idea of using an alias as soon as his murderous urges started to surface (assuming they ever did), but I question the value of an alias that is given alongside other information that would identify him, such as his home address and place of work. Aliases are normally used to prevent a person being tracked down by the authorities or to conceal previous criminal convictions. In the two examples we have -1876 and 1888- the name Cross wasn't being used in either of those ways, was it? But perhaps he saw the name Cross as a sort of psychological shield, or a pair of psychological rubber gloves so to speak, used to distance himself - the hard working family man - from the predator. And as you say, should the use of the name Cross be questioned he could always demonstrate that it was not entirely fictitious.

It did occur to me at one time that perhaps there were some who might have had reason to suspect a man named Lechmere of dubious activity and his use of Cross was to prevent them making the connection between the man they suspected and the one they might read about in their newspaper. But having done a bit of research into Lechmere's mother's* background I'm increasingly of the opinion that it was the name Lechmere itself that was being protected from bad publicity.

Whatever, there's no getting away from the fact that it's odd that the Lechmere name does not appear in the records of the Nichols case or (if it was indeed him) the 1876 incident.

Gary



*I can't let this opportunity pass without quoting (not for the first time) these wonderful lines from the classic movie Kind Hearts and Coronets:

'Did poor Mama's silly dreaming plant in my brain some seed, which was afterwards to grow into the most sensational criminal endeavour of the century?'

I have in the past suggested that the name Lechmere could perhaps have been tied to something that would ring a bell with the police, and that this could have been the reason for his using the name Cross instead. If I remember correctly, I suggested that he could have been accused by a woman of some sort of indecent attack against her, and if this was the case and the police was involved, then it may be that there was never any evidence grounds to push the case - but the name Lechmere could have stuck with the police anyway, if he gave that name, or was called it by the woman.

I am fully aware that he gave his real address and working place to the police and that he therefore could be ID:d by them, should the need arise. But the possibility that he did NOT give the address to the inquest is a very real one, and taken together with the fact that the article about the run over boy did not involve Charles Cross´ address either is a red flag to me - if we are dealing with the same Pickfords carman.

Your idea about psychological rubber gloves is interesting - it may be that he wanted to distance himself from the Mr Hyde part of himself, if he was indeed split in two. Personally, I think the simpler explanation is that he tried to keep his identity hidden - not from the police, but from the public.

Thanks for your answer!

[Elamarna]

Happy Grounghog Day Steve

In the words of the War Doctor "No More!".


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Happy Grounghog Day Steve

[Elamarna]

Let me echo Gary´s post:

It goes without saying that the absence of an address for the Pickfords man need not be significant. But it could be. And I find the fact that every other person mentioned in the report has an address quoted intriguing. No more than that.


The point of interest here is that it "could be" significant that the address was not present.

In your post, you say that you are "astonished" by how a couple of different scenarios are suggested.

If they hafd been put forward as more probale than other or even as factual, you would be correct to be astonished.

But I think that it has by now been said a suffiient number of times that when a person is researched as a murder suspect, different scenarios will be looked into to see if the suspicions MAY (meanig that it is possible, not certain) hold water.

Look at it, if you will, as a never ending river of innocent alternative explanations provided by you and a number of other posters out here, a river that must be bridged by guilty possibilities.

The examples you were "astonished" by, were different examples of this kind of engineering - bridge building over your river of innocence.

Nothing more than that. Evidence that the suspicions have not drowmed in that river. If no bridge can be built, the carman is proven innocent. But no such failure to provide good, sound bridge material has occured.

To claim otherwise would be - you guessed it - astonishing.

Not actually addressing the post, not for the first time.
Here you decided to debate my use of "astonishing", and to return to "possibilities"( that is anything you care to invent), par for the course

Now on to facts. And part of the post ignored.
Why were posts made that were factually untruly , in the thread on Mizen's inquest statement?


Steve

[Elamarna]

Welcome back to the Lechmere threads, Kattrup! It´s good to see that you have reconsidered your unwillingness to participate in them. Again.

I think thar the fact that the carmans address does not figure in an article where the other witnesses´addresses do, is indicative of him not having supplied it.

Not at all, it indicates either a failure to record it by the press or a request from either him or the coroner not to include it. Which it is, we have no idea of and any suggestion that we do or can reach a decsion on it fantasy.

To suggest it was not supplied (withheld) meam we must pressume the coroner did not ask for it? Why not
If that is the thinking, what is that based on other than wishful thinking.

This continuing invention of "possible" alternatives, as serious suggestions has reached a point where all pretence of historical integrity as vanished. Truly great for a novel, not for history.


Steve

[Fisherman]

There is nothing in the account of the accident to suggest it was 'deliberate' the driver Cross was driving slowly he called out but the poor child had already made contact with the wheel. It sounds like a tragic accident. A toddler would not have road awareness, which begs the question, where was the adult keeping an eye on him. Pedestrians were always at risk on Victorian roads, there were many accidents involving cabs and carts. These accidents can be very traumatic for the drivers.
Even If Cross / Lechmere was a noted humanitarian who helped the poor and needy, that would still be twisted to be used against him. He is in a no win situation.
I think the accident shows he was concerned, called out but could not change the outcome, it was too quick, and he was also concerned when he found a dead or dying woman in street.
The address of Cross was not mentioned because it was not relevant to the case, the fact he was a Pickford's van driver was. George Porter 's address is not mentioned but his brother' shop is because that is where he was.

miss marple

No, there is nothing to suggest that it was anything but an accident.

No, humanitarian people are not always innocent people - Ted Bundy managed a phone line that helped suicide candidated.

No, looking at Lechmere as a possible suspect is no less legitimate than lokking at any other person as a possible suspect. Indeed, it is MORE legitimate given that there ARE things pointing in his direction.

Question: How was it relevant to the case to mention the other addresses but not the one Cross lived at?

[Herlock Sholmes]

An unneccessarily long post. All it would have taken was for you to say "Yes, I misrepresented you again - sorry".

There’s only one person on here that constantly misrepresents. The same person that will go to any lengths to shoehorn CL into the ripper’s shoes. Ill take no ‘high-horse’ lectures from you Fish!