Our Charles Cross

[Elamarna]

Steve,

My memory's not what it was (actually I can't remember if it ever was), but I'm sure I found a third report in the Pall Mall Gazette or somewhere. It was much briefer, though, and certainly didn't give Cross's address.

Gary

Wasn't aware of the that Gary, but if its brief, we need a fuller one, which is probably unlikely given its a local traffic accident.

Its a shame because an address would either confirm or not the ID.


I think the uncertainty os the reason its not been pushed much at present.



Steve

[MrBarnett]

Steve,

My memory's not what it was (actually I can't remember if it ever was), but I'm sure I found a third report in the Pall Mall Gazette or somewhere. It was much briefer, though, and certainly didn't give Cross's address.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

Midsummer is also significant to ageing hippies. By rights I should have been dancing naked at Stonehenge as the sun rose this morning.

I'll consider your post carefully and respond honestly.

Gary

[Elamarna]

Hi Gary,
Yes it could be?

The other examples are of course interesting, but the same happens in Bucks Row.

Another account, would have settled if it was withheld or not .

And even if it was, it could have been at the request of the coroner rather than at the request of that Mr Cross.

We have no way of knowing of course.

A great find, but ultimately it tantises and does not fulfill hopes.

If it had confirmed him as the same man, i suggest that the "name issue" would have had considerable more debate over the last 6 or so months than it has.

Cheers


Steve

Hi Steve,

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.



From the Islington Gazette Dec 29th, 1876

FATAL ACCIDENT

An inquiry was held on Wednesday, at the Coroner's Court, touching the death of Walter Williams, aged four years, who was run over by a Pickford's van.

Walter Williams, of 36, Cloudesley-road , a jeweler, and father of the deceased, said on Thursday last he was told that his boy was run over and killed. He made inquiries, and he had reason to blame the driver, believing he had not exercised proper care.

George Porter, a traveler, said on Thursday, at about four o-clock in the afternoon, he was outside his brother's shop, 3, Elizabeth-terrace when he witnessed the accident. He saw a Pickford's van going towards Liverpool-road, and he saw deceased and another child about to cross the road. The driver called out, and the witness then saw deceased reel against the near side shaft of the van about two feet from the pavement. The driver tried to pull up but the wheels went over deceased.

Henrietta Owen, of 100, Aldenham-street she was in Elizabeth-terrace on the day in question, and saw the child run over. The van was going slowly. One child drew back, but deceased was caught by the wheel.

Dr. Hindhaugh, of Barnesbury-road, deposed that deceased was brought to his surgery in a dying state. The cause of death was internal injuries and facture of an arm.

William Warner, of 25, Henry-street, deposed to seeing the accident, and said he heard the driver shout, but the horse was then on the child.

Charles Cross, carman to Pickford and Co., (blank) said he was crossing with his van from Copenhagen-street to Elizabeth-street, when two children seemed to come from behind a trap that was standing on the off-side, all in an instant, running against his horses. He tried to pull up, but found it was impossible.

The jury expressed the opinion that the driver was not to blame, and they returned a verdict of "Accidental death."

[miss marple]

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

[MrBarnett]

Hi Steve,

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.



From the Islington Gazette Dec 29th, 1876

FATAL ACCIDENT

An inquiry was held on Wednesday, at the Coroner's Court, touching the death of Walter Williams, aged four years, who was run over by a Pickford's van.

Walter Williams, of 36, Cloudesley-road , a jeweler, and father of the deceased, said on Thursday last he was told that his boy was run over and killed. He made inquiries, and he had reason to blame the driver, believing he had not exercised proper care.

George Porter, a traveler, said on Thursday, at about four o-clock in the afternoon, he was outside his brother's shop, 3, Elizabeth-terrace when he witnessed the accident. He saw a Pickford's van going towards Liverpool-road, and he saw deceased and another child about to cross the road. The driver called out, and the witness then saw deceased reel against the near side shaft of the van about two feet from the pavement. The driver tried to pull up but the wheels went over deceased.

Henrietta Owen, of 100, Aldenham-street she was in Elizabeth-terrace on the day in question, and saw the child run over. The van was going slowly. One child drew back, but deceased was caught by the wheel.

Dr. Hindhaugh, of Barnesbury-road, deposed that deceased was brought to his surgery in a dying state. The cause of death was internal injuries and facture of an arm.

William Warner, of 25, Henry-street, deposed to seeing the accident, and said he heard the driver shout, but the horse was then on the child.

Charles Cross, carman to Pickford and Co., (blank) said he was crossing with his van from Copenhagen-street to Elizabeth-street, when two children seemed to come from behind a trap that was standing on the off-side, all in an instant, running against his horses. He tried to pull up, but found it was impossible.

The jury expressed the opinion that the driver was not to blame, and they returned a verdict of "Accidental death."

[Elamarna]

This argument was suggested on Facebook some weeks ago, although Fish was not involved in the debate.
What has develped since this information was uncovered last year by Gary i beleive, is the real possibility that Charles Lechmere used the name Charles Cross when working at Pickfords.
Unfortunately it is not possible to be 100% certain that the carman involved in the accident was the same man who was also known as Charles Lechmere.

Lets be clear here, without an address, there is no way to see if it is the same man. And there are no suriving records of employees relating to Lechmere while he worked at Pickfords.

The lack of address in the press report of the incident need not be significant, only two minor papers cover the accident, and just from the Nichols inquest it is clear that addresses are not always recorded by the press in their published reports, such is true of Mulshaw and surpringly enough Llewellyn in some reports.

Now logically we would think if it were the same man it would imply he used the name Cross at work. However what has occurred from some pro Lechmere "researchers" is truly astonishing.

It has been suggested that :

He used the name Cross when he was in trouble (if he used it at work all the time, such of course fails).

That he may have deliberately run over the child, and it was not an accident.

Or that he decided at a very early age to use the alias "Cross" at work to allow him to hide his identity when he wanted.


It needs to be repeated, that there are no records to allow us to check if it is the same Charles Cross, however that has not prevent a full on counter attack, almost peremptory, with regards to the name he used at work, which until now has been strongly of the view that there is no evidence he used "Cross" by the pro Lechmere camp.


It has been suggested in the past that if there was evidence of him using "Cross" at Pickfords it would raise issues on the "False Name" claim.
Of course such was said in the knowledge that apparently there were no records and so that issue of his working Name would never have any actual source evidence to support or suggest that "Cross" may have been used.

And then some source based information turns up, which was never suspected and we see this turn around.

Fish quite rightly says views can and do change as evidence comes to light, but rather than say, "this may need us to reconsider", we see a full 180' turn about saying if he used "Cross" it now actually strengthens the case against Lechmere.


Indeed on Facebook it was claimed to be a very clever approach which could not be disproved, there being no evidence at all.

I see several issues here revolving around intellectual integrity and honesty.

Similar issues were recently seen in the thread on Mizen's Inquest statement, where apparently untruthful claims were made about the contents of two Newspaper reports, not issues of interpretation, but factual untruths.

If arguments such as these need to be made to pursue the Lechmere case, what does it say about the strengths of that case?



Steve



.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There we are, these are two of the posters I was alluding to.

One of them now states as a fact that Lechmere did not arrange for the name to be used, but it if course applies that if he used two names in order to obfuscate - which was what I suggested as a possibility - then we ARE speaking of an arrangement.

The other says that I am now "repositioning myself", since he apparently works from the idea that one is not allowed to weigh in new evidence and see how it possibly alters the case. I of course do not afford such childishness a second thought. The exact same poster is crying his eyes out when I do NOT alter my stance to fit his own, so it´s not even worth spending time on. In conclusion, I am totally free to change my mind as long as it fits his ideas - but when I take a look at how added evidence may change the overall picture and allow for or perhaps even call for a reinterpretation, then I am not allowed to reposition myself.
Argument used: It was fifteen years before Bucks Row, so HOW could he foresee it?
Answer: It would of course have been a measure of universal applicability, and not in any way directed towards Bucks Row.
Conclusion: That anybody can argue something in this manner is an abomination to logical thinking. Then again, Herlock has a nasty habit of taking suggestions of mine and twisting them into something that I have never even hinted at.

I otice that Herlock also says that I have "consistently opposed" that he used the name Cross at work, which is not true. What I have said is that it would be in conflict with his use of the name Lechmere in other authority contexts and that there is no evidence that he did use the name Cross at work. I have in no shape or form denied that he could have done so, for a very simple reason: I don´t know. And I am not stupid enough to claim that I can know what I can´t know.

This is why I need a vacation now. Yikes!

I look forward to your answer, Gary. It will be of a rather different caliber, of that I am sure. Will check it out when I return!

Debating with Fish illustrates why eel wrestling would never take on as a sport

I think that the tactic now is to wriggle so much and insult so much and to constantly accuse others of what he blatantly and repeatedly and egregiously does himself that all of us that dare to disagree might just tire of the effort and leave the field open for the Fish Lectures. To be honest Fish, you are close to succeeding.

All that I’ve ever done is to raise doubts. And I personally, because I have an opinion, conclude that the accumulation of those very reasonable and sensible doubts lead me to conclude that CL is an unlikely Ripper. Every doubt that I’ve raised Fish, as he has a perfect right to do, puts forward his ‘take.’ Unfortunately it’s a constant that when this is done it suggests ignorance, stupidity or bias on the part of the doubter(s).

Would CL have allowed himself only 30 minutes or so to find a victim, kill her, check for blood and clean up and still turn up on time for work no matter where he’d eventually found his victim? - is that an unreasonable doubt?

Would CL have killed on the way to work with all the ensuing risks involved (time, blood etc?) - is that an unreasonable doubt?

Would a guilty CL, with every chance of getting away Scot-free, hang around for Paul when it’s reasonable to expect that it would have been likely that they would end up face to face with the police (with CL in possession of the murder weapon and possibly contaminated with blood?) - is that an unreasonable doubt?

As the evidence shows that CL and Paul were together from when they met in Buck’s Row to when they met Mizen is it not far more likely that they were together when they spoke to Mizen and that CL hadn’t manoeuvred Mizen away? - is that an unreasonable doubt?

As the ‘name-thing’ is being used to show criminal deception on CL’s part doesn’t the fact that he used his correct Christian names, the surname of his stepfather (that had been used on a census) and his correct address suggest otherwise? - is that an unreasonable doubt?

Whilst not conclusive in any way is it not worth pointing out that despite having someone who was alone with the victim around the time of her murder and yet they had absolutely no interest in him as a suspect? - is this an unreasonable doubt?

We have no evidence to place CL at the other crime scenes (mommy’s house doesn’t count I’m afraid).

The timings of the other murders would appear to suggest more someone who was freer with his time. Someone who could be out at all hours without anyone (like family) becoming suspicious. And someone who didn’t have to be at work at 4 am.

Again not conclusive but we have no evidence of violence or criminality on CL’s part.

So why is Fish so certain that this man was Jack The Ripper?

Why?

[Kattrup]

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.

On what grounds do you conclude that the carman omitted to mention his address?

[Sam Flynn]

One of them now states as a fact that Lechmere did not arrange for the name to be used

I did no such thing! I stated, quite correctly, that neither he nor his mother "arranged" to be registered as Cross on the 1861 census and that it was his stepfather's name.

[Fisherman]

There we are, these are two of the posters I was alluding to.

One of them now states as a fact that Lechmere did not arrange for the name to be used, but it if course applies that if he used two names in order to obfuscate - which was what I suggested as a possibility - then we ARE speaking of an arrangement.

The other says that I am now "repositioning myself", since he apparently works from the idea that one is not allowed to weigh in new evidence and see how it possibly alters the case. I of course do not afford such childishness a second thought. The exact same poster is crying his eyes out when I do NOT alter my stance to fit his own, so it´s not even worth spending time on. In conclusion, I am totally free to change my mind as long as it fits his ideas - but when I take a look at how added evidence may change the overall picture and allow for or perhaps even call for a reinterpretation, then I am not allowed to reposition myself.
Argument used: It was fifteen years before Bucks Row, so HOW could he foresee it?
Answer: It would of course have been a measure of universal applicability, and not in any way directed towards Bucks Row.
Conclusion: That anybody can argue something in this manner is an abomination to logical thinking. Then again, Herlock has a nasty habit of taking suggestions of mine and twisting them into something that I have never even hinted at.

I otice that Herlock also says that I have "consistently opposed" that he used the name Cross at work, which is not true. What I have said is that it would be in conflict with his use of the name Lechmere in other authority contexts and that there is no evidence that he did use the name Cross at work. I have in no shape or form denied that he could have done so, for a very simple reason: I don´t know. And I am not stupid enough to claim that I can know what I can´t know.

This is why I need a vacation now. Yikes!

I look forward to your answer, Gary. It will be of a rather different caliber, of that I am sure. Will check it out when I return!

[Herlock Sholmes]

He didn't "arrange an alias" anymore than he arranged for him and his mother to be be registered as "Cross" on the 1861 census. It was his stepfather's name.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Without a smidgeon of evidence of course.

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

Then why didn’t he use an alias that couldn’t be connected to him in any way unlike the name of his stepfather?

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.

A suggestion that you have consistently opposed.

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.

As Gary very reasonable suggested, one the first occasion this may have been due to a fear of reprisals. One the second, when his correct address was published, there is not a smidgeon of evidence that a journalist just got it from a desk clerk. What would have prevented CL giving an incorrect address to the desk clerk?

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.

True. As it stands it doesn’t appear that we can be certain.

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.

True. Maybe ‘Cross’ wasn’t to blame? In such tragic circumstances people usually ‘need’ someone to blame other than the victim?

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.

Who could you mean?

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.

Do you mean in the same way that you always present mine in such a way?

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.

Its good to see that you always have a ‘plan b’ to keep the dream alive.

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.

I don’t mind keeping that in mind at all Fish. As long as you keep in mind that he gained no advantage in doing so as far as events in and surrounding Buck’s Row go.

All along you have been adamant in pointing out that there’s no evidence that CL used the name Cross in everyday life. Now there is a possibility (and only a possibility) that it might be shown that he might have you are already repositioning yourself to say that this could have been a part of CL’s cunning plan from 15 years before Buck’s Row

[Sam Flynn]

He didn't "arrange an alias" anymore than he arranged for him and his mother to be be registered as "Cross" on the 1861 census. It was his stepfather's name.

[Fisherman]

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.