Charles Cross AKA Charles Lechmere???

[Uncle Jack]

Call me brainless but still, how does this disprove the theory that Charles is the Ripper??

Kind regards,

Adam

[Ally]

It's always a pleasant surprise when someone concedes defeat with grace.

__________________

Yaaawwwn !!!


Colin

[Ally]

If the true identity of Mary Jane Kelly were discovered, and her name just happened to be Mary Jane Smith; would ongoing references to Mary Jane Kelly be "logical rather than needlessly pedantical" ???

Yes. Just like it would be needlessly pendantical to refer to Norma Jeane Baker or Archibald Alexander Leach when no one would know who you were talking about, when simply saying Marilyn Monroe or Cary Grant would suffice. A person's identity is more than their technically legal name and if the vast majority of people refer to someone by one name, only the pedants sit there and say Archibald Leach because it is more "accurate".

You are attempting to equate an unimportant and largely irrelevant fact of address with a person's identity. In the inquest, he is named as Cross. His testimony was given as Cross. Therefore, for clarity's sake, he should be referred to as Cross.

Referring to him as Cross is not "remaining stagnant". It is identifying him by the name he testified under and is known by historically and being logical rather than needlessly pedantical.

That "unimportant and largely irrelevant fact of address" is the reason that Lechmere has been so elusive, all these years.

If the true identity of Mary Jane Kelly were discovered, and her name just happened to be Mary Jane Smith; would ongoing references to Mary Jane Kelly be "logical rather than needlessly pedantical" ??? I don't think so !!!


Colin

[Ally]

You are attempting to equate an unimportant and largely irrelevant fact of address with a person's identity. In the inquest, he is named as Cross. His testimony was given as Cross. Therefore, for clarity's sake, he should be referred to as Cross.

Referring to him as Cross is not "remaining stagnant". It is identifying him by the name he testified under and is known by historically and being logical rather than needlessly pedantical.

I disagree with the Cross vs. Lechmere argument above. He is known in the books and the reference materials as Cross. Yes his real name is Lechmere. But saying Cross who was really known as Lechmere every time you want to refer to him is ridiculously unwieldy, and if you refer to him as Lechmere, hardly anyone will know what you are talking about. He is known as Cross in the documents that relate to the case. That is the name he should be referred to for clarity's sake. If Polly Nichols or Mary or Eddowes was referred to in the inquest testimony as Susan B. Smith, that would be the name she would be known by.

"He is known in the books and the reference materials as Cross."

"He is known as Cross in the documents that relate to the case. That is the name he should be referred to for clarity's sake."

He is also known in the books, reference materials and documents that relate to the case; to have lived in Bethnal Green, when in fact he lived in Mile End Old Town. Should we stick with Bethnal Green for "clarity's sake" ???

Better yet: If it were somehow proven that Charles Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town actually murdered Polly Nichols; should his place in history remain as Charles Cross of 22 Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, the discoverer of Polly Nichols's body ??? ... for "clarity's sake" ???

Either we take the progressive route; or we remain stagnant !!!


Colin

[Ally]

I disagree with the Cross vs. Lechmere argument above. He is known in the books and the reference materials as Cross. Yes his real name is Lechmere. But saying Cross who was really known as Lechmere every time you want to refer to him is ridiculously unwieldy, and if you refer to him as Lechmere, hardly anyone will know what you are talking about. He is known as Cross in the documents that relate to the case. That is the name he should be referred to for clarity's sake. If Polly Nichols or Mary or Eddowes was referred to in the inquest testimony as Susan B. Smith, that would be the name she would be known by.

[Uncle Jack]

Depite all this name buisness, does it actually prove that he wasn't the Ripper??

Kind Regards,

Adam

[Jeff Leahy]

And you have expounded rather deftly !!!
Many Thanks !!! Colin [ATTACH]2852[/ATTACH]

Its excellent for the first time since I can remember I actually agree with Colin on something..not on football I might add..

2nd part A to Z states: At 3:45 am saw the body lying opposite Essex wharf Bucks Row, and went to examine it, thinking at first it was an abandoned tarpaulin. Joined by Robert Paul, cross concluded the woman was dead, and the two went on to Hanbur STREET, Where they found Police constabe Mizen and told him there was a women lying lifeless in the gutter in Bucks Row.

Seems like they need an update!

Pirate

Well, I've replied to this post and agreed with Colin in the original thread, so I'll leave that there, ...

And you have expounded rather deftly !!!

... using "Cross" would prevent people having to scurry away and look up Lechmere to figure out who we were talking about. From the argument you make, I guess this would in fact be a good thing - perhaps we would all do well to continue to update our references to keep up with discoveries.

Many Thanks !!!


Colin

[Bailey]

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

[COLOR=Black]I am in total disagreement !!!

Well, I've replied to this post and agreed with Colin in the original thread, so I'll leave that there, other than to agree that as David says above, we seem to now be stuck with a rather lengthy new appellation when referring to this particlar person.

Cheers,
B.

[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

[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

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