Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by RedBundy13 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by DJA 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 8 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 8 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - by rjpalmer 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (21 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (14 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - (4 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (1 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-20-2018, 02:34 PM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,579
Default 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."

Name:  CC.jpg
Views: 411
Size:  25.7 KB

Posted by Gary Barnett
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-20-2018, 02:59 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,331
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-20-2018, 03:06 PM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
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 at 03:08 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-20-2018, 03:18 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,331
Default

Quote:
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-20-2018, 03:22 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,331
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-20-2018, 11:16 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,025
Default

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)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-21-2018, 01:00 AM
miss marple miss marple is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 756
Default

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
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-21-2018, 03:30 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
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 at 03:41 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-21-2018, 03:40 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lyme Regis, Dorset
Posts: 1,475
Default

Quote:
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-21-2018, 05:38 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.