Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere???

[Ally]

This is what has been recovered from the thread. This thread is to discuss the article by Michael Connor into the identity of the Witness Charles Cross.


robert has just posted in the Cross, Charles forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere??.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5592
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
It's certainly very interesting. There is at least one relative (I don't know how close a relative) contactable by internet/snailmail, but I should think Mr Connor has already been there.

Robert
robert has just posted in the Cross, Charles forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere??.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5592
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Thinking it over, it seems to me that the giving of a false name would tend to suggest innocence of the murder, rather than guilt. Mr Connor represents Cross/Lechmere as a cool and resourceful man. If he had successfully evaded suspicion, why would he risk drawing attention to himself by giving a FALSE name but a TRUE address?

If he did give a false name, it might suggest that he didn't want his name splashed in the papers. Maybe he was being pursued by an irate creditor, or something like that? I'm not too sure he was the murderer, though.

Robert



Hi all
Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere were indeed person. And he wasn't deliberately lying or using a false name. Cross was his stepfather's name which was adopted in one census and after he married and set up his own household he reverted to the name Lechmere in the census records. he may have used the name in a murder inquiry as his stepfather was actually a police officer.

Cross was born in 1849 in St Anns, Soho. He was the son of John Allen Lechmere and his mother's maiden name was Maria Louisa Roulson. His parents married in 1846 in Hereford. This is listed as follows:
1846 Quarter 2
Hereford
John Allen Lechmere married Maria Louisa Roulson
His family were from Herefordshire. He had one sister named Emily, three years older than him.
In the 1851 census, his father is absent but his mother is listed as married as follows:
1851:
Blue School Lane, Hereford
Head: Maria Lechmere (Married) aged 25 born Hereford - Straw bonnet maker
Children:
Emily aged 4 born St Peters, Hereford
Charles aged 1 born St Anns, London

In 1858, however, his mother had moved to Whitechapel and was remarried to Thomas Cross, a police constable.
1858 Quarter 1
Whitechapel
Maria Louisa Lechmere married Thomas Cross

The family is listed in 1861 as followsm with Charles taking the name Cross:
1861:
13 Thomas Street, St George East
Head: Thomas Cross aged 36 born Burnton, Hereford - Police constable
Wife: Maria Louisa Cross aged 34 born Hereford
Children:
Emily Cross aged 14 born St Peters, Hereford
Charles Cross aged 11 born St Anns, London

The full listings for later census returns are as follows:
1871:
11 Mary Ann Street, St George in the East
Head: Charles A Lechmere aged 21 born Soho - Carman
Wife: Elizabeth Lechmere aged 21 born St George East
1881:
20 James Street, St George Street
Head: Chas. Allen Lechmere aged 31 born Soho - Carman
Wife: Elizabeth Lechmere aged 31 born East London
Children:
Elizabeth Emily aged 7
Thomas Allen aged 4
George William aged 2
James Alfred aged 1
All born in Mile End
1891:
22 Doveton Street, Mile End
Head: Charles A Lechmere aged 41 born Soho - Carman
Wife: Elizabeth Lechmere aged 41 born Wapping
Children:
Elizabeth E aged 17 born Mile End - Purse maker
Thomas A aged 14 - Vanguard (Carman)
George W aged 12
James A aged 11
Louisa A aged 8
Charles A aged 7
Albert E aged 5
Above children born in St Georges
Harriet E aged 12 months born Mile End

Other records:
Death:
1920 Quarter 4
Charles A Lechmere aged 71
Poplar
Marriage:
1871 Quarter 3
St George East
Charles Allen Lechmere married Elizabeth Bostock

Hope this helps!
Chris

[Ally]

robert has just posted in the Cross, Charles forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere??.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5592
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
A splendid tour de force, Chris!

Robert
***************

chris has just posted in the Cross, Charles forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere??.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5592
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Thanks Rob!
After I had done the above I found a full online pedigree for our Charles in the Lechmere line going right back to 1520!
Some surprises here! he included in his ancestors an Archbishop of York!
You can see this at

http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=rossbus&id=I24848

But this makes no mention of the Lechmere/Cross connection so I'm pleased with having worked that one out

robert has just posted in the Cross, Charles forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere??.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5592
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
And so you should be! Brilliant stuff!


chris has just posted in the Cross, Charles forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere??.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5592
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Just one more quick snippet:

Charles's wife Elizabeth survived him and lived until 1940.
She died on 12 September 1940 in Stratford and is buried in Bow Cemetery.
***************

tom_wescott has just posted in the Cross, Charles forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere??.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5592
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
---Quote (Originally by chris)---
Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere were indeed the same person. And he wasn't deliberately lying or using a false name. Cross was his stepfather's name which was adopted in one census and after he married and set up his own household he reverted to the name Lechmere in the census records. He may have used the name Cross in a murder inquiry as his stepfather was actually a police officer.
---End Quote---

Somebody just got permanently removed from Michael Connor's Christmas list. Great work Chris! But seriously, this doesn't negate the hard work that Michael Connor has put in to discovering this information about Cross, which was entirely new to me. Instead, it spurred another researcher to continue on the trail and turn up even more new tidbits. So it's not always a matter of right and wrong, but is instead about different people adding different pieces to the same puzzle in order to form a fuller picture. It's also a cautionary tale as to how something totally innocuous can look very suspicious when not viewed in its proper context. Good stuff!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

chris has just posted in the Cross, Charles forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere??.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5592
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
Hi Tom
I agree entirely - if it had not been for Michael's great work I would not have given this area a look. It was his lead and his groundwork that brought the subject to light and hats off to him! I really enjoyed the article in Rip 87 and it was that which got me going on this.
All the best
Chris
***************

chris has just posted in the Cross, Charles forum of Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums under the title of Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere??.
This thread is located at http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5592
Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
By 1871, Charles's mother, Maria Louisa Cross, was a widow as follows:
11 Mary Ann, St George in the East
Head: Maria L Cross (Widow) aged 45 born Whitfield, Hereford
Boarder:
George Blencowe aged 23 born Bethnal Green - Carman
A Thomas Cross died in St George in the East in 1869 but his age as given at the time of death is 34, which does not fit with that given in the 1861 census
Charles's mother remarried again in 1872 as follows:
1872 Quarter 3
Bethnal Green
Maria Louisa Cross
The others listed under the same reference are:
Joseph Forsdike
Robert Frogley
Elizabeth Nicholson
By looking forward to the 1881 census, we can see that Maria married Joseph Forsdike:
1881
23 Pinchin Street, St George in the East
Head: Joseph Forsdike aged 65 born Suffolk - Shoemaker
Wife: Maria Forsdike aged 55 born Herts (sic) - Dressmaker
Grand daughter:
Mary Lechmere aged 6 born St George East
Who this child is is not clear
Joseph Forsdike died as follows:
1889 Quarter 4
Joseph Forsdike
St George East
Aged 74
Maria Forsdike's death is listed as follows:
1901 Quarter 4
St George in the East
Maria Louisa Forsdike
Aged 77
Maria is listed in 1891 as follows:
18 St George Street, St George in the East
Head: Maria L Forsdike aged 65 born Hereford - Horse flesh dealer (Cat)
Grandchild:
Mary Jane Lechmere aged 16 born St George East
and in 1901 as follows:
18 Old Gravel Lane, St George in the East
Head: Maria L Forsdike aged 76 born Hereford - Corn chandler
Servant:
Jessie Furnell aged 14 born St George East

[Scott Nelson]

It's a pity that Michael Conner didn't once mention the name of Derek Osborne in any of his three Ripperologist articles on Cross/Lechmere (No. 72 Oct. 2006; no. 78 April 2007, or last month's no. 87).

It was Osborne who first posited that Charles Cross was none other than Charles Lechmere (see Ripperana, no. 37, July 2001, p. 12-17)

[Ally]

It's only a pity if Connor knew about it and didn't post it. Otherwise it's merely an event of two researchers coming to information independently. And like myself and several others who thought it was a new find, it's clear the vast majority were unaware of Osbourne's previous article. I do thank you for pointing it out though as I found the Cross-Lechmere connection interesting and would like to read more about it.

[Supe]

Having worked with Michael Connor on all three of his articles for Ripperologist I think I am secure in saying that he was quite unaware of any previous work done on Cross/Lechemere sone by Derek Osbourne. If nothing else, he surely would not have wasted time and money having documents sent from England had he been aware of the work of others. It is a pity Mr. Nelson did not bring this to the attention of Ripperologist when his recent article was being prepared for publication.

Don.

[Dan Norder]

The rationalizations here are getting pretty ridiculous. Blaming Scott Nelson for this is beyond any justification.

When Connor's first piece came out arguing that Cross was the Ripper it had been heavily hyped as an amazing never-before-offered theory. At that point *several people* pointed out that Derek Osborne had already written articles pointing at Cross as a suspect starting at least five years ago in Ripper Notes, Ripperana and even Ripperoo.

I would think at that point that both Connor and his editors would check these earlier articles to make sure another incident of this nature didn't happen again. Having talked to Michael in the past about his first article I am sure that he did not intentionally copy anything, but having a mistake like this happen a second time after being alerted to the prior research is difficult to understand.

Mistakes certainly happen, but to make the exact same mistake after having been alerted to the earlier example is very clumsy. Blaming other people for it when it was not their job to do your research for you is inexcusible.

[Supe]

For those unaware of the siruation, Daniel Norder is editor of a competing publication in the field. As such, he is always quick to criticize others, but rather slow in publishing his own magazine (all of one issue in 2007 I believe).
Them's the facts folks.

Don.

[Septic Blue]

Hi All,

The following post, which I initially made on February 14, 2008, was recovered from a Google cache:



------------



Quote:
Originally Posted by Septic Blue
My JtR project has finally begun to take shape; so, excepting the occasional visit, I will be absent from the message boards, for quite some time.


That, coupled with the fact that I provided Michael Connor some assistance in locating Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town, in the 1891 Census, has made me reluctant to post on this thread. In other words: I'm extremely busy and I try to refrain from tooting my own horn, so to speak; and have chosen therefore, to remain seated. Until Now !!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally
“AKA Charles Cross” continues research into the man who discovered Polly’s body. In this article he is put forth as a suspect based on the idea that Cross was a pseudonym and the Charlie was actually Charles Lechmere based on census information that shows distinct similarities between what is known about Cross and what is documented about Lechmere. Despite an overuse of rhetorical statements and questions and some loose conjecture, an interesting read and possibly worthy of its own thread ...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn L Andersson
By the way, I also found the article about Charles Cross ... quite interesting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ally
I think the author of the Cross piece had an article up somewhere where he discussed the Cross census problem as he might have been listed as "Crass". I was planning to go investigate and find out what if any info there is available that lead to him switching to the ...other name L, something, it slips my mind right now as being his choice for Charles Cross. I don't know if it was contained in the last two articles I didn't read in Rip.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_wescott
I look forward to reading the Charles Cross article.


Nothing else has been said, to the best of my knowledge, regarding Michael Connor's revelation:

That the person who discovered the body of the first generally accepted victim of Jack the Ripper, may have been known by an alias, all these years.

Clearly, a photograph of a witness to the encounter, which may have led to Catherine Eddowes's murder - taken some thirty five years after the sighting -, has stolen the show.

Lawende didn't believe that he would have been able to recognize his suspect, had he seen him again. And, in my opinion, the notion that either he or Aaron Kosminski ever traveled to Hove, is dubious at best.

I don't mean to belittle the value of this photograph: I was delighted to have seen it, myself !!! But, Michael Connor, in case no one has noticed, has made a real discovery !!!

---------

1891 Census of England & Wales
Registration District: Mile End Old Town
Civil Parish: The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town
Registration Sub-District: Mile End Old Town Eastern
Enumeration District: 8
Page: 27
RG12_306_307-0034

22 Doveton Street
Charles A Lechmere
Head
Male
41
Carman
St. Anne Soho

---------

1881 Census of England & Wales
Registration District: St. George in the East
Civil Parish: St. George in the East
Registration Sub-District: St. Mary
Enumeration District: 11
Page: 1
RG11_451_452-0282

20 James Street
Chas Allen Lechmere
Head
Male
31
Carman
St. Anne Soho

---------

1871 Census of England & Wales
Registration District: St. George in the East
Civil Parish: St. George in the East
Registration Sub-District: St. Mary
Enumeration District: 8
Page: 28
RG10_528_532-0373

11 Mary Ann Street
Charles A Lechmere
Head
Male
21
Carman
St. Anne Soho

---------

A birth certificate (daughter) dated 2 March 1888, indicating the same address recorded in the 1881 Census (20 James Street, St. George in the East), and a death certificate (same daughter) dated 8 October 1890, indicating the address seen in the 1891 Census (22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town), shed additional light.

The only shortcoming, at this point, to the idea that Charles A Lechmere was indeed the discoverer of Polly Nichols's body, is the fact that the School Board Visitors, from whom Charles Booth collected data for his earliest surveys of London poverty, recorded the residence of a Carman amongst two families living at 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town, in February 1887.

I will not be at all surprised to see the next round of Ripper publications making reference merely to "Charles Cross of 22 Doveton Street, Bethnal Green": A likely alias; and an incorrect address.


Colin



------------



OK !!!

Again;

"I will not be at all surprised to see the next round of Ripper publications making reference merely to "Charles Cross of 22 Doveton Street, Bethnal Green": A likely alias; and an incorrect address."

Well; it is now a known alias !!!


There have been dozens of Ripper publications since July 2001. How, on Earth, does a known alias associated with the person who discovered the body of the first generally accepted victim of Jack the Ripper, maintain its status as his supposed name for so long ???


Colin

[Dan Norder]

he is always quick to criticize others

That's strange coming from the person trying to blame people not even on your staff for mistakes you made.

but rather slow in publishing his own magazine

Yes, our magazine is behind schedule, and has been for a while. When problems come up I'm of the opinion that being late but ending up with high quality content in a professionally printed format is the way to go. In a few weeks we'll be back in print (which you haven't done for years) and in bookstores (which you've never done), and then you'll have to think up some new excuse to distract people with.

[Pinkerton]

One reason against Cross

I hate to jump into the middle of a disagreement but I thought I would attempt to steer this thread into friendlier territory.

The recent discoveries on Cross are very interesting. However if I were Charles Cross (or "Lechmere"), and I was sighted at one of the first Ripper murders (and mentioned in the newspapers), I don't think I would be stupid enough to go on and murder at least three of four more women. If Cross were seen ANYWHERE in the vicinity of one of the subsequent murders he would have been been either instantly arrested, or lynched by the mob. You would think that if someone like Cross killed Polly Nichols, the fact that he was the first person to find the body would already put too large a cloud of suspicion around him for him to go on killing more women in the area.

Just saying...Not that this completely rules him out, but I think his viability as a suspect would have been much more likely had he discovered say Eddowes or Strides body.

[johnnyerwin]

[QUOTE=Pinkerton;1726Just saying...Not that this completely rules him out, but I think his viability as a suspect would have been much more likely had he discovered say Eddowes or Strides body.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps, however it doesn't look like he was ever a "person of interest"; a guilty person in such a position might have actually been thrilled with "getting away with it" and been motivated to continue. Such has been the case in other serial murder cases.

I'm not convinced he's the killer, however there are aspects of his involvement that trouble me somewhat. The name revelations have not done anything to change that for me, although they certainly add more to the picture.

[Septic Blue]

My understanding (without, I confess, taking the time to go read the article you mention and confirm) is the Lechmere is still the man we know as Cross, correct? This is hardly therefore a glaring error on Mr Norder's part, merely perhaps the habitual use of what was until comparitively recently a known name. Furthermore, if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents - as Mr Evans, of whom you are a strong supporter, would urge us - then Cross is the correct name to use.

"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."

I am in total disagreement !!!

Thanks to the efforts of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, we know:

- That this person appeared as "Lechmere" on his 1849 birth certificate, 1871 marriage certificate and 1920 death certificate; as well as census returns of 1851, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901(?)

- That his wife and eight living children (of 1891) all appeared as "Lechmere" in various census returns

- That a ninth child (1888-1890) appeared as "Lechmere" on her birth and death certificates

- That this person's only known appearances as "Cross", the name of his stepfather from age eight, occurred in the census returns of 1861 (age 11), and during the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder (age 38)

Charles Lechmere (aka "Charles Cross") !!!

"Cross" was an alias !!! An explicable alias; but still an alias !!!

We do not know the reasoning, behind which Charles Lechmere chose to identify himself as "Charles Cross", throughout the course of the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder. But the fact that he chose to do so, is not just cause for him to be known to history by that alias.

His name was Charles Lechmere !!! Period !!!

We don't refer to Catherine Eddowes by her chosen alias: "Mary Ann Kelly". Neither should we refer to Charles Lechmere by his chosen alias: "Charles Cross".

Again; his name was Charles Lechmere !!! We now know that to be the case, and we should act accordingly.

For the time being, however; the reference 'Charles Lechmere, aka "Charles Cross"' should alleviate any possible confusion.

Derek Osborne (Ripperana No. 37, July 2001) discovered a Charles Lechmere in residence at 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town; as recorded in the 1891 census. But he merely hypothesized that Lechmere and "Cross" might have been one and the same. His findings and hypotheses regarding Lechmere then faded into obscurity.

Michael Connor (Ripperologist No. 87, January 2008), in the absence of any knowledge of Osborne's work, delved much more deeply into the background and post-1891 life of Charles Lechmere; and concluded (quite rightly) that Lechmere and "Cross" most probably were one and the same.

Chris Scott put the icing on the cake.

If we do not take the progressive route, and refer to people, places and events in accordance with recent discoveries; then we will remain stagnant and go nowhere in our quest.

Also; if we show blatant disregard for the work of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, and allow it - like Derek Osborne's - to fade into obscurity, then this whole saga will be repeated in seven-or-eight years, when someone else 'discovers' Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town.


Colin

[Jeff Leahy]

"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."

I am in total disagreement !!!

Thanks to the efforts of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, we know:

- That this person appeared as "Lechmere" on his 1849 birth certificate, 1871 marriage certificate and 1920 death certificate; as well as census returns of 1851, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901(?)

- That his wife and eight living children (of 1891) all appeared as "Lechmere" in various census returns

- That a ninth child (1888-1890) appeared as "Lechmere" on her birth and death certificates

- That this person's only known appearances as "Cross", the name of his stepfather from age eight, occurred in the census returns of 1861 (age 11), and during the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder (age 38)

Charles Lechmere (aka "Charles Cross") !!!

"Cross" was an alias !!! An explicable alias; but still an alias !!!

We do not know the reasoning, behind which Charles Lechmere chose to identify himself as "Charles Cross", throughout the course of the investigation of Polly Nichols's murder. But the fact that he chose to do so, is not just cause for him to be known to history by that alias.

His name was Charles Lechmere !!! Period !!!

We don't refer to Catherine Eddowes by her chosen alias: "Mary Ann Kelly". Neither should we refer to Charles Lechmere by his chosen alias: "Charles Cross".

Again; his name was Charles Lechmere !!! We now know that to be the case, and we should act accordingly.

For the time being, however; the reference 'Charles Lechmere, aka "Charles Cross"' should alleviate any possible confusion.

Derek Osborne (Ripperana No. 37, July 2001) discovered a Charles Lechmere in residence at 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town; as recorded in the 1891 census. But he merely hypothesized that Lechmere and "Cross" might have been one and the same. His findings and hypotheses regarding Lechmere then faded into obscurity.

Michael Connor (Ripperologist No. 87, January 2008), in the absence of any knowledge of Osborne's work, delved much more deeply into the background and post-1891 life of Charles Lechmere; and concluded (quite rightly) that Lechmere and "Cross" most probably were one and the same.

Chris Scott put the icing on the cake.

If we do not take the progressive route, and refer to people, places and events in accordance with recent discoveries; then we will remain stagnant and go nowhere in our quest.

Also; if we show blatant disregard for the work of Michael Connor and Chris Scott, and allow it - like Derek Osborne's - to fade into obscurity, then this whole saga will be repeated in seven-or-eight years, when someone else 'discovers' Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town.


Colin [ATTACH]2849[/ATTACH]

A case of the primary sources being incorrect? Well said colin..

and its Severin Klosowski aka George Chapman...people always getting that the wrong way around too..

pirate

[DVV]

[COLOR=DarkRed][I]"... if we are arguing accuracy to the primary documents ... then Cross is the correct name to use."


[
We don't refer to Catherine Eddowes by her chosen alias: "Mary Ann Kelly". Neither should we refer to Charles Lechmere by his chosen alias: "Charles Cross".[/FONT]

Again; his name was Charles Lechmere !!! We now know that to be the case, and we should act accordingly.


Colin [ATTACH]2849[/ATTACH]

Hi Colin,
thanks for these precisions. Though, the documents we are dealing with only name him "Cross", so that makes a difference with Eddowes alias Kelly.
I think we are doomed to talk of a witness "who gave the inquest his name as Cross but was actually one Charles Lechmere".

Amitiés,
David