Full notes on Charles Cross/Lechmere

[caz]

Caz
What I don't understand is why you Posted that on this thread instead of the one where his inquest testimony is being discused

Er, Lechmere, you are losing your grip mate. You started it, here on page 3 of this very thread:

I forgot about the post office/trade directory entries. With them that makes it about 90 times he used Lechmere and 1 time Cross, and the occasion when he was named as Cross the entry would have been made by his step father - the man who was not old enough to be his father, Thomas Cross.

The Essex Street School shows that he moved to Doveton Street on or just before 12th June. There are also entries for Betts Street school (just off Cable Street) where his children went to school before he moved to Doveton Street.

Oh I forgot he also used the name Cross when he reported to a police station after slipping past Mizen and after Paul fingered him in his press interview.
Oh and it seems he avoided giving his address at the inquest as well.
But there is nothing supicious to report.
All's well!

After that, Fisherman, Sally, Monty and John Bennett all responded before I did on that very subject.

What I don't understand is how anyone can read anything remotely suspicious into the fact that Cross stated no more than he was obliged to state at the inquest about where he could be found if needed.

Love,

Caz
X


　
　

[Sally]

I will be very naughty and post up images of the death and marriage certificates later.

Thanks Lechmere, I'm sure we'd all like to see those.

[Bridewell]

Caz
What I don't understand is why you Posted that on this thread instead of the one where his inquest testimony is being discused

I don't understand that either but, in fairness to Caz, there are quite a few Cross/Lechmere threads to choose from!
Thanks for the detail posted about the man and his ancestors. Fascinating stuff. Dropsy and liver disease (Thomas Cross) hint at alcoholism - not a rare affliction in the police service, sadly.

Regards, Bridewell

[Lechmere]

Caz
What I don't understand is why you Posted that on this thread instead of the one where his inquest testimony is being discused

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"What I don't quite understand is why this witness is being accused of suspicious behaviour for allegedly failing to provide his address at the inquest. "

Not quite? But youīre almost there? Yes?

For my part, I am not saying that he refused any request. He could not have done so. Well, technically, he could, but he would have been hauled over the coals by the coroner for it, and we would have had it spelt out in the papers.

I would neither say that an innocent witness would necessarily have volunteered it anyway, even if not asked. Most witnesses would, I think - it was a formal process that people would to some extent be aware of. But we canīt say that Lechmere would have been aware of the process, can we? And so he may quite innocently have forgotten to give his address.

Then again, Caz, you may have noticed that "the Lechmereians" state that what is damning in his case is that he so often adds to the picture of guilt that can be painted, and in many cases where there was a chance that he would not do so.
We have before argued that he seems to have wanted to obscure his identity, at least visavi his wife. A case can be made that he tried to keep her in the dark by not giving his real name. And since this sort of stance builds on Charles Lechmere providing wrong and/or scarce material for the papers to digest, a left out address is of course in keeping with the suggestion.

My own bold guess is that you have managed to understand that this is where the Lechmereians think that the omission to mention the address adds fuel to the suspicions about a desire on his behalf to keep wife and family and aquaintancies in the dark. Perhaps, Caz, that was why you wrote that you donīt quite understand the proposition?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

What I don't quite understand is why this witness is being accused of suspicious behaviour for allegedly failing to provide his address at the inquest.

Is it being claimed that he refused a formal request for it (despite having supplied it to the police at some point)? If so, it would suggest that they understood his refusal and allowed it.

Or is it being argued that an innocent witness would have volunteered it anyway, even if nobody was asking?

Once again, the argument seems to be that Cross was the one in control of what information he had given about himself was or was not made public and when, which surely cannot have been the case. If they'd wanted his address at the inquest, they'd have surely got it.

Confused as usual,

Caz
X

[Chris Scott]

Lechmere
Many thanks for your help - much appreciated

[Lechmere]

I will be very naughty and post up images of the death and marriage certificates later.
I remember he was living at Mary Ann Street ( the address the rest of them were still living at in 1871) and I think the person who reported the death was a neighbour from the same street.
Mary Ann street cut across the bottom end of Berner Street and was I think one street north of Pinchin Street - they lived in Pinchin Street (then called Thomas Street) in 1861 and Thomas Cross's widow moved back to Pinchin Street after she remarried and was there in 1881.

It is pretty clear that this branch of the Lechmeres had strayed too far from the root for the rich ones to exert any control. If you were a younger son born to a large well off family then if you failed to take advantage of the head start you got in life then your offspring could rapidly fall down the social scale. That degree of family ruthlessness was the only way in which large estates could be maintained.
Charles Lechmere's grandfather - Charles Fox Lechmere (named after the famous Whig politician, he was born at the height of his political career) was clearly a waster who married beneath him and in turn his children immediately dropped down the social scale. Charles Fox Lechmere's brother inherited the rolling estates in Fownhope, Charles Fox's son John Lechmere (Charles Lechmere's father) became a boot maker. If I remember rightly another of John Lechmere's brothers ended up as a boot maker in London.

[Sally]

So actually SHE was a liar and a bigamist...interesting...

Well, perhaps. But perhaps not - perhaps John Lechmere divorced her. It was possible, you know, although realistically only by the husband. Very unlikely for the working class - they couldn't afford it - and the only reason I mention it as a possibility here is because of Lechmere's grand connections. I've seem a great many of them, including those paid for by better off members of a family - presumably to avoid any whiff of scandal. Alternatively, I don't think John Lechmere and his wife were the only couple who decided to live apart and start new lives in an age when anonymity was a lot easier - bigamy was more common than we might suppose. I'm not sure it makes Cross's Mum and Dad particularly unusual.

Poster-Lechmere, who was the informant on Thomas Cross' death certificate please?

[Cogidubnus]

I have his marriage and death certificates.
He was 26 in 1861 - the 36 is an error.
I think he died in 1869 and I think they married in 1857.
I will dig them out and check.

So the Broughton connection researched by Chris is a non-starter?

He was based at Leman Street as that is his address on his marriage certificate - presumably a section house.
I seem to think he was actually from Hertfordshire but I may be wrong.
His father's name is obviously on the marriage certificate.

So as you have the marriage certificate, could you tell us what was his fathers name please?

I have looked at his family before and can't remember what I found - I will try and dig out whatever I have.

Thanks...I'm sure I'm not alone in being grateful!

My original assumption was that he knew his much older new wife from Herefordshire but I found out that wasn't the case - he definately wasn't from Herefordshire.

Her first husband (John Lechmere) was still alive and started a new family in Northamptonshire. I think she called described herself as a widow on her marriage certificate to Thomas Cross.

She went through three husbands and I suspect cohabited with a lodger. She also brought up one of Charles Lechmere's daughters.

So actually SHE was a liar and a bigamist...interesting...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

I have his marriage and death certificates.
He was 26 in 1861 - the 36 is an error.
I think he died in 1869 and I think they married in 1857.
I will dig them out and check.

He was based at Leman Street as that is his address on his marriage certificate - presumably a section house.
I seem to think he was actually from Hertfordshire but I may be wrong.
His father's name is obviously on the marriage certificate.

I have looked at his family before and can't remember what I found - I will try and dig out whatever I have.

My original assumption was that he knew his much older new wife from Herefordshire but I found out that wasn't the case - he definately wasn't from Herefordshire.
Her first husband (John Lechmere) was still alive and started a new family in Northamptonshire. I think she called described herself as a widow on her marriage certificate to Thomas Cross.
She went through three husbands and I suspect cohabited with a lodger. She also brought up one of Charles Lechmere's daughters.

[Chris Scott]

I confess I got mixed up here.
But I also have Thomas Cross's death certificate. He did die while still a policeman - he was only in his 30s.
He died of dropsy - and if I remember correctly liver disease.
Dropsy was a term used to describe the swelling of the body due to the excessive retention of fluids.

There has been speculation (that I haven't mentioned before) that his wife poisoned him...

Hi
Would you be kind enough to let me know what year you have for his death as even the lady related to him wrote to me today:
"Thomas had been married to Maria for 2yrs in 1861 census. I don't have a record for him in 1851? do you?
He was 36yrs in 1861 so you have some scope.
Do you have a year of death for Thomas? Maria married again in 1872."
Any help gratefully recived
Chris

[Lechmere]

I confess I got mixed up here.
But I also have Thomas Cross's death certificate. He did die while still a policeman - he was only in his 30s.
He died of dropsy - and if I remember correctly liver disease.
Dropsy was a term used to describe the swelling of the body due to the excessive retention of fluids.

There has been speculation (that I haven't mentioned before) that his wife poisoned him...

[Sally]

Yes it is curious, isn't it? I'd say something was wrong with the figures here..

I'd also like to know what caused P.C. Cross to die, and who the informant was?

No problem, Poster-Lechmere, if you don't fancy supplyng those details, I can always have a look for myself

[Cogidubnus]

I have his death certificate - he didn't die on duty - he was 70 years old anyway.

( I know lots of descendants of his son Thomas Allen Lechmere)

Now I'm puzzled...I thought Chris was referring to Thomas Cross, described in the 1861 Census as a 36 year old Police Constable, and therefore born circa 1825 (which looks to be borne out by the Broughton connection)...

How old at death Lechmere (the poster)?

All the best

Dave