Full notes on Charles Cross/Lechmere

[Monty]

Lechmere,

The address would have had to have been known for the correct completion of the summons.

It has to either hold an address, an address the witness is known to frequent (trading address) or state 'no fixed abode'.

Also the summons has to be sealed at court. As the court does not sit on a Sunday the sealing would have to have been on the Saturday. This due to the fact Cross appeared Monday. Ergo his address was known on Saturday.

The serving could have been via post or served in person.

He would not have been 'fitted in' as that is not how Coroners inquests work. The Coroner reads the witness statements and choses who he feel should attend. That is when he produces a list. Any inportant witnesses appearing after the setting of a list can be heard after an adjournement, which could take a period of time.

I have served 4 summons in my time and prepare a fair few for sealing, last one being last Wednesday. Its part of my job.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Chris
It is the same Sion Square.
The baptism took place after Charles Lechmere's mother had married Thomas Cross, and his real father is acknowledged.
His real father was living in Northamptonshire with a new family.

Monty...
"For him to have appeared at court he must have been summond, which would have been served at his address. Therefore his address would have been known prior to the inquest
A fact which has been overlooked."

I hasn't been overlooked at all.
The presumption has been that he gave his address at the police station when he appeared on the Sunday evening and was immediately summoned to the inquest. There would have been no time to poast a summons as he would have been leaving for work at 3.30 in the morning.

Monty you may have overlooked this...

Post 43 of "Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof?"

"Monty
If as seems most probable Lechmere appeared at a police station on the Sunday evening and appears at the inquest Monday morning, then it makes sense that his summons to attend was given to him in Person. I very much doubt it was posted to him.
But what do you think?"


Also Monty it is not a 'fact' that his address was known prior to the inquest. It is a presumption. We know it was known by the 3rd September, the day of the inquest. That is the only fact of which we can be sure.
In my opinion it is likely that he gave his address when he was at the police station - but it isn't a fact.
It is equally possible that he just turned up at the inquest first thing in the morning and they fitted him into the running order as he was clearly an important witness.

On a different note...
I very much doubt that a witness list was printed and available. It is more probale that a hand written running order was made available to the coroner.
The numerous spelling mistakes with personal names and street addresses tells me that no list was available for general use.

Sally
It is a reasonable assumption that Charles Lechmere didn't give his address as only the Star recorded it.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty, All,

Hold on to your hat Monty, you might like this! (might)L OL

As Christer knows, I'm open to his idea. But he also knows I'm not convinced.

Now, I have an idea about this name business.
Bear with me.
Imagine tittle-tattle over the garden fence about the murder, imagine two women tittle tattling-

'Charlie Cross it was that found 'er ya know".

Why would Lechmere use the name Cross?
I think it possible he was nervous, and used Cross because he was known as that around the area.

Its speculation of course. But it's a simple answer that may be THE answer.

Did I ever use my Mum's maiden name? Not that I can remember, but wi do remember correcting people that my name was not Mum's maiden name- at a young age too. Perhaps Lechmere didnt do it.
'There goes Alice 'G's lad..i heard it often.

Im open to this possibility too for Lechmere.

When I was a kid, I often heard neighbours say, in reference to me-
'There goes Alice "G"'s boy (they used Mums maiden name).
They did it because Mum was brought up in the same street, and Dad was the 'interloper" from another town 5miles away. It works the other way around when a father or mother takes the place of the original.
Even when I was of age, I'd get asked if I was "Alice 'G's boy?

Imagine it. Cross, the stepfather, though the interloper. But in his case, takes over as father. Mates, neighbours, workmates, would all admire it, taking on a family.
I wouldn't put it past probability that he was known as ' that Cross boy' "Cross's boy" and didnt hear the whisper afterwards 'course, he ain't the real Dad- some bloke called Lechmere that was".

How would Charles Lechmere react? He was probably nervous- and if it had been pointed out that he actually was near the time of death when he turned up in Buck's Row?

I dont know- but it's possible. Arguments could be made both for and against.

Best wishes

Phil.

[John Bennett]

John Bennet:

"Considering that he must have given his address, place of work and how long he had worked there, plus a surname which has everything to do with his past, I canīt see a particularly convincing attempt at hiding his true identity!"

It is not, John, you are absolutely spot on there. It would be a lousy attempt to hide his identity - from the police.

But it is not the police I think he wanted to keep in the dark. It is his wife, family, aquaintancies ... And since he seemingly avoided giving his address at the inquest, all the seeped out from there was that a Pickfords carman called George or Charlse Cross was a witness in the Nichols case.

Then that failed too, as his address was given in The Star of 3 September.

[Chris Scott]

The background of Thomas Cross.
The man from whom Charles Lechmere took his name in 1861 is only mentioned in one entry.
The 1861 census lists him as a police constable aged 36 and his place of birth is given as Bromton (sic), Herefordshire. The handwriting is very difficult to decipher and this could read Burnton, Bumton or Brounton. The problem is that no place exists corresponding to any of these names.
The only thing that can be said with certainty from the writing is that the placename begins with B and ends in -ton.
Having looked at individuals named Thomas Cross born in or very near to 1825 who came from a place that fitted the B____ton schematic, I could find only one, who was born in Broughton in Huntingdonshire.
The census listings are as follows:
1841:
Broughton, Huntingdonshire.
Head: Jeremiah Cross aged 50 - Agricultural labourer
Wife: Mary Cross aged 50
Children:
John aged 20 - Agricultural labourer
William aged 15
Thomas aged 15
Samuel aged 10
Mary aged 8
All children born in Broughton
1851:
Broughton, Huntingdonshire
Head: Jeremiah Cross aged 63 born Tilbrook, Bedfordshire - Agricultural labourer
Wife: Mary Ann Cross aged 64 born Yorksford, Suffolk
Children:
George aged 27 - Agricultural labourer
Thomas aged 25 - Agricultural labourer
Thomas aged 25 - Agricultural labourer
Samuel aged 22 - Agricultural labourer
Mary Ann aged 18 - At home

In 1861 the aged Jeremiah and Mary are listed with only one of their children still living with them:-
Church lane, Broughton, Huntingdonshire
Head: Jeremiah Cross aged 75 born Tillbrook, Beds. - Agricultural labourer
Wife: Mary Cross aged 72 born Yorford, Suffolk
Son: John aged 41 born Broughton - Brickmaker

[Chris Scott]

Hi Velma
Thanks for your kind comments :-)
I will have a look and see if I can find anything...

On another note, the address in the baptism record - 14 Sion Square - interested me. Is this the same Sion Square where Aaron Kosminski later lived?
Chris

[curious]

Children of Charles and Elizabeth Lechmere (list incomplete)

Elizabeth Emily 19 Oct 1873
Mary Jane 23 Jan 1876
Thomas Allen 2 July 1876
James Alfred 2 Jan 1881
Louisa Annie 30 Jul 1882
Charles Allen 24 Feb 1884
Albert Edward 3 Jan 1886
Harriet Emma 29 Mar 1891

Hi, Chris,
You do amazing work. Thanks for sharing it with the rest of us who don't have access/time at this point in our lives.

Looking at this list, I see that both Mary Jane and Thomas Allen have 1876 birthdays, and less than 6 months apart, which would make Thomas Allen too premature to have lived in that day and age.

I suspect something is wrong there. Perhaps Mary Jane was born in 1875? subtracting her age of 16 in 1891, would make her born in 1875. And Elizabeth having three children under the age of 3 might be why Charles' mother took the middle child to help the parents out.

The 5 year lapse in producing babies following Thomas Allen's birth might indicate something regarding Elizabeth's health or that is where the second child died.

Is there anyway to double check the original records for birth dates?

Also do you have access to hospital/doctor records?

I am particularly interested in the baby who died and any possible records on Elizabeth in 1888, early 1889. I'm wondering about postpartum depression for her or some birth defect for the baby born then.

Thanks,

Velma

[Chris Scott]

Here is the record of Charles's baptism, which took place when he was 9 years old.

Charles Lechmere
Baptism
St Dunstan, Stepney
Baptised: 16 Jan 1859
Born: 5 Oct 1849
Child's Christian name(s): Charles Allen
Parents' Names:
Christian: John Allen and Maria Louisa
Surname: Lechmere
Abode: 14 Sion Square
Trade or Profession: Boot Maker

His sister Emily Charlotte was baptised on the same occasion

[moonbegger]

Fisherman,

This is not to say that it is not a good suggestion that he DID use the name Cross - just a healthy reminder that there is a difference inbetween "rationally suggested" and "proven". Personally, Iīm fine with the suggestion that Charles referred to himself as Cross for a number of years.

See fish , this is where i was going with my dolphin analogy ..

"rationally suggested" and "proven"

ps .. Charles Lechmere did name his son Thomas ! a name that stirred so much hatred within him ?

[Monty]

And I still want us to lay down the weapons!

Done

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"The name Cross HAD been used and on TWO official documents. That is a fact. "

Yes indeed - but what you said was that it was "Hardly an act of guilt, using a name you had used before ..."

So what you are speaking of is not how many times the name has occurred in official documents. You firmly state that Lechmere was doing nothing that pointed to guilt, using a name HE HAD USED BEFORE. What you did NOT write was that he used a name THAT HAD BEEN USED BEFORE:

...after which you concede that Charles is not proven to have used that name before.

And that does not add up.

Let me also say that your picture of things, that I am "pursuing you" is somewhat strange. I was rather under the impression that YOU entered the threads with the aim to shoot ME down. You started out by telling me to go waddle in the pile of **** I had created - and now you say that I provoke...?

That adds up poorly too. I will not take any encouragements to waddle in **** silently, that is true. And the answers I give to such things are perhaps not always as amicable as I would have wanted them to be, had the situation been different.

I have before - and will do so again - said that I respect you as a researcher and a poster out here. What I donīt respect is that you keep claiming that I try to twist conjecture into facts, since this is wrong.

Why not just post whatever it is that nags you about me, and give me a chance to give a straight answer? I will gladly do so.

"I didnt say his address was not known, I was just stating it. "

Fine, fine. And agreed, of course.

"One question you may wish to ask Moonbegger.

Why, if he was fearful for his or his families life, didnt Cross request that his statement be read at court only? In certain cases this is permitted thus removing the 'fearful' witness from the public eye, or rather the press eye?
As stated, this is permissable given the correct circumstance."

I donīt know as much as you do about the processes allowed in court - but this I recognize from the various Schwartz discussions. But to be completely truthful, I donīt think the suggestion on Moonbeggers behalf needs all that much attention anyhow - wanting anonymity and trying to achieve it by using a name you are known by is not the best of suggestions. I think you may agree with that.

And I still want us to lay down the weapons!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Chris,

My apologies.


Christer,

This pursuit of me around the threads is becoming tiresome. Ive tried to ignore the majority of your posts to me simply because of your proven track record. You have the right to post, of course you do. I have the right not to reply, however....

I quote you from your post 13 (unlucky number!):

"Is it proven that He himself used the name? No. However is it proven that he never used the name Cross? Yes, that has been proven. It is in the Inquest records."

This is what you wrote in your former post:

"Hardly an act of guilt, using a name you had used before ..."

Ergo, you then claimed that he HAD used the name Cross BEFORE - which you now concede is NOT a proven point.

The name Cross HAD been used and on TWO official documents. That is a fact.

This is why I brought up your former demands on me about "facts" - you presented something that is not a fact as if it was. And you concluded from it.

Yes, it is a fact. The Cross name was used previously.

And still, just as I have said before, I would much prefer to discuss the case as such, and not our mutual shortcomings in the presenting business. It is a very good proposition that he may have called himself Cross when under the care of Thomas Cross, at any rate.

Now, can we please put these hostilities aside, and try to make sense of the case at hand in a better atmosphere?

Sorry Christer, this wont do.

You follow me on the boards and provoke. And you continue to provoke, then you twist it around and state I am the hostile one.

This passive agressive tactic is just as equally hostile as my open approach.

Pot and kettle.

Monty:

"For him to have appeared at court he must have been summons, which would have been served at his address. Therefore his address would have been known prior to the inquest

A fact which has been overlooked."

There is that f-word again. Just like Lechmere (the poster) pointed out, he may equally have been summoned to the Monday inquest on Sunday evening, in person. And noone, Monty, is saying that his address was NOT known prior to the inquest - it very obvious that it was, since he would have given it to the police when dropping in at the cop shop on Sunday evening.

Yes, obviously it was, as it had to have been placed upon the summons.

I didnt say that others claim his address was not known previously, I was just stating it must have been known.

One question you may wish to ask Moonbegger.

Why, if he was fearful for his or his families life, didnt Cross request that his statement be read at court only? In certain cases this is permitted thus removing the 'fearful' witness from the public eye, or rather the press eye?

As stated, this is permissable given the correct circumstance.

Monty

[Fisherman]

John Bennet:

"Considering that he must have given his address, place of work and how long he had worked there, plus a surname which has everything to do with his past, I canīt see a particularly convincing attempt at hiding his true identity!"

It is not, John, you are absolutely spot on there. It would be a lousy attempt to hide his identity - from the police.

But it is not the police I think he wanted to keep in the dark. It is his wife, family, aquaintancies ... And since he seemingly avoided giving his address at the inquest, all the seeped out from there was that a Pickfords carman called George or Charlse Cross was a witness in the Nichols case.

The police knew who he was, where he lived, where he worked - although they did not know him by his true name. That was something they could easily have established - but they apparently missed out on that opportunity, which tells me that they never suspected him of anything at all. Nor would his family and friends have done. If all they had to go by was the inquest reports in the papers, then they need not have suspected him of having been called to the inquest - at which occasion he appeared in working clothes and a sacking apron. And if he really did not want his wife to find out that he was going to the inquest, what better clothing to wear on that formal occasion?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Ah .. but wait just a second !

Thomas Cross married his mum and took young Chas under his long arm .

Thomas Registered Chas aged 9 in 61 as Cross ..

Not sure how the school system played out back then .. if he would have switched up to a secondary school around age 11 or if you stayed in one school ?

But either way if T Cross was Keen and willing enough to register young Chas as Cross on the census .. then you can bet your house he would have had him registered at school as Chas Cross as well .. That has to be as close to a fact you will ever get without seeing soild proof !

Therefore he would have answered to the name Cross whenever a teacher spoke to him .. He would have written his own name as Cross ,his new friends would only know him as Cross .. his books would have said Cross on the cover .. his report card would say Cross .. His first job his step-dad would have touted him into , he no doubt would have been called Cross . "

Long post, small significance. I will clip out the only thing that has any bearing here, and that is this:

"That has to be as close to a fact you will ever get without seeing soild proof !"

So, it is NOT fact and there is NO proof.

The question as such belongs to a somewhat heated debate between me and Monty, regarding what can be seen as facts or not. And since the possibility is there that Charles resented his new stepfather and loathed his name, he may simply never have referred to himself as Cross at any stage of his life - but for the inquest.

This is not to say that it is not a good suggestion that he DID use the name Cross - just a healthy reminder that there is a difference inbetween "rationally suggested" and "proven". Personally, Iīm fine with the suggestion that Charles referred to himself as Cross for a number of years.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Yes but Fisherman, the whole premise involving Lechmere using Cross to fool his wife is pure invention - not a scrap of evidence for it actually having happened that way. You seem to think that it's an established fact?"

I DO? Wow. Then you need to direct me to the post where I state this, and I will correct it.

The again, there is the distinct possibility that you are wrong on this score.

But we shall see!

Fisherman
in anticipation. Or not.