Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Charles Cross

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

  • Our Charles Cross

    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 said 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 Barnsbury-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., 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."

    Click image for larger version

Name:	CC.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	25.7 KB
ID:	671420

    Posted by Gary Barnett
    Sink the Bismark

  • #2
    Now...

    It’s not Lechmere.......
    G U T

    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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”.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            One way or another, Thomas Cross seems to have been a bit of a jinx, doesn't he?
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • #7
              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

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        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
                        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 06-21-2018, 06:23 AM.
                        Regards

                        Herlock






                        "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          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.
                          Regards

                          Herlock






                          "Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell.”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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!
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 06-21-2018, 06:56 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              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.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X