Announcement

**SirRobertAnderson** · June 15, 2010, 08:10 PM

You've lost me here, Colin. That's not a knock; I'm getting dense in my dotage. I take it you are referring to Charles Cross ? I missed whatever controversy is brewing here.....

**Colin Roberts** · June 16, 2010, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by SirRobertAnderson

I take it you are referring to Charles Cross ? I missed whatever controversy is brewing here.....

Originally posted by Colin Roberts

But, above all else:

The uncovering of the true identity, of the discoverer of Polly Nichols's body, should be given the praise and recognition that it deserves. It should not be swept aside, in favor of complacent adherence to the stagnation of the most 'recent' edition of the "A - Z", or other similar publications. Lest we go through all of this again, in about five years, when someone other than Derek Osborne, Michael Connor, or Chris Scott, comes along, and 'discovers' that 'Charles Cross, of 22 Doveton Street, Bethnal Green', was really 'Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town'.

--- More to Follow ---

**Jimmy** · June 16, 2010, 06:15 PM

The fact that Charles Cross was born Charles Lechmere is now an accepted fact. In fact, he appeared in certain press reports (and resulting Ripper books) as 'George' Cross, as many are aware. He wasn't alone in being misrepresented. Once the official files were accessed, we could see this clearly (and Robert Paul was another casualty). Another example was slaughterman Charles 'Britten' or 'Brittain', who was actually Charles BRETTON.

That said, we are in a tricky situation when it comes to rewriting the names given in the original documents. 'Rose' Mylett is also a case in point. We may NOW know they were wrong at the time, but they were given in that form. But new work on the case should address these issues without ignoring either the contemporary information, or the new research.

I for one look forward to the new A-Z and would not be at all surprised if it takes on board some of these 'recent' name discoveries.

JB

**Colin Roberts** · June 16, 2010, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Jimmy

The fact that Charles Cross was born Charles Lechmere is now an accepted fact.

But, he wasn't simply born, as 'Lechmere', John.

He lived his entire life, so it would seem, as 'Lechmere'; passing that name along to his bride, as well as their ten children.

And, he died, as 'Lechmere'.

His name was 'Charles Allen Lechmere', from womb, to tomb!

Originally posted by Jimmy

... new work on the case should address these issues without ignoring either the contemporary information, or the new research.

I agree wholeheartedly!

The fact that he identified himself, as 'Charles Cross'*, from the onset of the Nichols inquest; is an integral part of the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper'.

Personally, I believe that Charles Lechmere, aka 'Charles Cross' has a very nice 'ring', about it.

* 'Cross' being the surname of his mother's second husband, who was himself, deceased, by 1871; but, who had, presumably, played the role of 'stepfather', throughout Lechmere's adolescence.

--- More to Follow ---

**Monty** · June 16, 2010, 08:53 PM

Colin,

This aspect has fascinated me also.

Why would Lechmere do this?

I once work with a guy called Williamson. He was bought up by his stepfather, though the surname was maternal.

Once he found his real Dad, who was a Dutchman called Van haag (or something like that) he converted to that name yet did not change his name officially.

He has sonce reverted back to Williamson, due to the fact his real father turned out to be a scoundrel and he no longer wanted to be associated with him.

Whilst this is no certain explanation as to why Lechmere referred to himself as Cross, it does throw up a possibility.

Monty

**Colin Roberts** · June 18, 2010, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Colin Roberts

---------

Index of Marriage Registrations, 1858 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Name: "Cross, Thomas"
Registration District: "Whitechapel"
Quarter: "1", i.e. January, February, March (1858)
Volume: "C"
Page: "600"

---

Index of Marriage Registrations, 1858 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Name: "Lechmere, Maria"
Registration District: "Whitechapel"
Quarter: "1", i.e. January, February, March (1858)
Volume: "C"
Page: "600"

---------

I have made an insertion, by way of the 'Edit' function, as delineated in the above 'quotation'; in order to maintain the appropriate chronology, within the original post of this thread.

But, look very closely at this chronology:

Originally posted by Colin Roberts

---------

Index of Marriage Registrations, 1858 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Name: "Cross, Thomas"
Registration District: "Whitechapel"
Quarter: "1", i.e. January, February, March (1858)
Volume: "C"
Page: "600"

---

Index of Marriage Registrations, 1858 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

Name: "Lechmere, Maria"
Registration District: "Whitechapel"
Quarter: "1", i.e. January, February, March (1858)
Volume: "C"
Page: "600"

---------

Register of Baptisms, Solemnized in the Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney*, County of Middlesex, 1859 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

When Baptized: "January 16" (1859) / "Born (?) 1849"; "January 16" (1859) / "Born October 5 (?) 1849"
Child's Christian Name: "Emily Charlotte"; "Charles Allen"
Parents' Names: "John Allen & Maria Louisa Lechmere"
Abode: "14 Sion Square"; i.e. 14 Sion Square, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney
Quality, Trade, or Profession: "Boot Maker"

How is this possible?

How could Maria Lechmere have married Thomas Cross, in the first quarter of 1858; only to have then baptized her two children, Emily Charlotte and Charles Allen Lechmere, in what would appear to be the 'presence' of her husband, John Allen Lechmere?

Were Mr. & Mrs. John Allen Lechmere perhaps divorced?

Had the practice of 'Divorce' even begun to permeate the lower echelons of English working-class society, by the late 1850's?

If Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Cross were, in fact, married in an Anglican Church, within the Whitechapel Registration District, ...

Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union - 1888 (Populations, in Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2010

Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union (Census of England & Wales, 1891):
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate (Green): 1,449
- The Old Artillery Ground (Aqua): 2,138
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields (Blue): 22,859
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town (Orange): 11,303
- The Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories') (Yellow): 301
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Red): 32,326
----- {Portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; the County of London, 1889-1965: 32,284}
----- {Portion within the City of London, -1900: 42}
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London (Orange): 933
----- {The Liberty of the Tower: n/a}
----- {The Precinct of Old Tower Without: 65}
----- {The Tower: 868}
- The Precinct of St. Katharine (Blue): 182
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (Green): 2,971
----- {Portion within the County of Middlesex, -1889; the County of London, 1889-1965: 2,971}

The portion of the Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (42) that was situated within the Municipality of the City of London, was a component of the Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union; until becoming a part of the Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, City of London, in 1900; and accordingly then becoming a component of the City of London Registration District / Poor Law Union.

- Total Population - Whitechapel Registration District / Poor Law Union (Census of England & Wales, 1891): 74,462

..., then it would have been in one of the following, as delineated within the framework, of 1888's political landscape (Populations, in Accordance with the Census of England & Wales, 1891):

- St. Stephen's Church, Commercial Street, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields (Est. 1859)
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of St. Stephen ('Spitalfields'): 4,903
--- -----{A Portion of the Ancient/Civil Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch: 175}
--- -----{A Portion of the Civil Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields: 4,728}

- St. Mary's Church, Church Passage, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields (Est. 1842)
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of St. Mary ('Spital Square'): 3,587
--- -----{The Civil Parish of the Liberty of Norton Folgate: 1,449}
--- -----{The Civil Parish of the Old Artillery Ground: 2,138}

- Christ Church, Commercial Street, Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields (Est. 1729)
i.e. 'The Parish Church of Christ Church Spitalfields'
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of Christ Church ('Spitalfields'): 18,131
--- -----{A Portion of the Civil Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields: 18,131}

- All Saints' Church, Buxton Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town (Est. 1841)
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of All Saints ('Mile End New Town'): 5,104
--- -----{A Portion of the Civil Parish of the Hamlet of Mile End New Town: 5,104}

- St. Olave's Church, Hanbury Street, Hamlet of Mile End New Town (Est. 1875)
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of St. Olave ('Hanbury Street'): 6,199
--- -----{A Portion of the Civil Parish of the Hamlet of Mile End New Town: 6,199}

- Holy Trinity Church, Church Street, Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories') (Est. ~1730(?))
i.e. 'The Parish Church of Holy Trinity ('Minories')'
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories'): 301
--- -----{The Civil Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories'): 301}

- St. Jude's Church, Commercial Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Est. 1845)
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of St. Jude ('Whitechapel'): 5,854
--- -----{A Portion of the Civil Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel: 5,854}

- St. Mary's Church, Whitechapel High Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Est. ~1329)
i.e. 'The Parish Church of St. Mary Whitechapel'
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of St. Mary ('Whitechapel'): 16,985
--- -----{A Portion of the Civil Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel: 16,985}

- St. Mark's Church, St. Mark's Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Est. 1839)
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of St. Mark ('Whitechapel'): 6,404
--- -----{A Portion of the Civil Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel: 6,404}

- St. Paul's Church, Dock Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (Est. 1864)
--- The Ecclesiastical Parish of St. Paul ('Dock Street'): 6,673
--- -----{A Portion of the Civil Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel: 3,041}
--- -----{The Precinct of Old Tower Without, i.e. a Portion of the Civil Parish of the Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London: 65}
--- -----{The Civil Parish of the Precinct of St. Katharine: 182}
--- -----{A Portion of the Ancient/Civil Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate, i.e. that Portion, which Lay Outside the City of London / Within the County of Middlesex: 2,971}
--- -----{A Portion of the Civil Parish of St. John of Wapping: 414}

..., excepting, of course, St. Stephen ('Spitalfields'), St. Olave ('Hanbury Street'), and St. Paul ('Dock Street'), none of which had been established by 1858.

But, of course, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Cross may have been married in a non-Anglican Church.

In any case; I have begun to look through the registers of those applicable Anglican Churches*, to which I have recently gained access, by way of an upgrade, in my ancestry.co.uk account. That's "begun"!

* At this point, I don't care to spend the 25-to-30 quid that it would cost, to have a hard copy of the registration, delivered to my front door.

--- More to Follow ---

**Colin Roberts** · June 18, 2010, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Monty

Why would Lechmere do this?

It does seem bizarre, to say the least!

Originally posted by Monty

I once work with a guy called Williamson. He was bought up by his stepfather, though the surname was maternal.

Once he found his real Dad, who was a Dutchman called Van haag (or something like that) he converted to that name yet did not change his name officially.

He has sonce reverted back to Williamson, due to the fact his real father turned out to be a scoundrel and he no longer wanted to be associated with him.

Whilst this is no certain explanation as to why Lechmere referred to himself as Cross, it does throw up a possibility.

And, of course, Neil; we must consider the possibility, albeit remote, that Lechmere hastily identified himself by the first surname that crossed his mind, upon perceivably, having been nearly caught in the act of something unthinkable, by Robert Paul.

**Colin Roberts** · May 29, 2011, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Lechmere (Casebook.org)

An argument against Thomas Cross effectively adopting him is that Charles was christened in 1859 in Stepney, as Charles Lechmere, when he would have been 9. This was a year after his mother had married Thomas Cross. They lived at Sion Square at that time – were Kosminski moved some years later.

--- Click Here, to View the Original Post, in Casebook.org ---

Originally posted by Colin Roberts

How is this possible?

How could Maria Lechmere have married Thomas Cross, in the first quarter of 1858; only to have then baptized her two children, Emily Charlotte and Charles Allen Lechmere, in what would appear to be the 'presence' of her husband, John Allen Lechmere?

Were Mr. & Mrs. John Allen Lechmere perhaps divorced?

Had the practice of 'Divorce' even begun to permeate the lower echelons of English working-class society, by the late 1850's?

Register of Baptisms, Solemnized in the Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney¹, County of Middlesex, 1859 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

When Baptized: "January 16" (1859) / "Born (?) 1849"; "January 16" (1859) / "Born October 5 (?) 1849"
Child's Christian Name: "Emily Charlotte"; "Charles Allen"
Parents' Names: "John Allen & Maria Louisa Lechmere"
Abode: "14 Sion Square"; i.e. 14 Sion Square, Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney
Quality, Trade, or Profession: "Boot Maker"

I first mentioned this, nearly a year ago, but the suggestion that there is anything evenly remotely suspicious about the manner, in which Charles Lechmere, aka 'Charles Cross', conducted himself, during the course of the investigation into the death of Mary Ann Nichols, seems to put most 'Ripperologists' to sleep.

I felt most uninspired, to continue with what I had begun, by initiating this thread.

I resolved to try to forget about the whole issue.

I even went so far, as to delete dozens of Ancestry.co.uk 'bookmarks', pertaining to Charles Lechmere.

I'll have to agree with 'Phil H', even though I am sick-and-tired of his perpetual insistence that anyone that believes that Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were murdered by the same hand, is mired in some sort of ancient convention. It is astonishing that 'Ripperology' simply shrugs its shoulders, when faced with the shadow of doubt that should be cast upon Charles Lechmere.

---

I predicted long ago that our complacent continuation of the use of the name 'Cross', as opposed to the more appropriate 'Lechmere', would result in a perpetuity of 'discoveries' that Charles Cross, of 22 Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, was actually Charles Lechmere, of 22 Doveton Street, Mile End Old Town.

Well, it would appear that 'Sally' seems to believe that she has 'discovered' as much.

I'm sure that when the current discussion has abated, and ten or twelve months have passed, the same 'discovery' will be made, yet again.

¹ Until 1867, the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town (i.e. the constituency, in which Sion Square was situated), along with the Hamlets of Mile End New Town and Ratcliff, was a component of the Civil Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney.

**Roy Corduroy** · May 29, 2011, 05:23 PM

Good morning Colin and happy Memorial Day weekend to you and yours.

Again, thank you for your exposition of the municipal divisions as a guide to studying the old murders. On that subject, this zoomable map Registration Districts of the Metropolis in 1843 caught my eye, so I am posting the link here. (click)

Roy

**Colin Roberts** · May 29, 2011, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Roy Corduroy

Good morning Colin and happy Memorial Day weekend to you and yours.

Thanks, Roy!

And, to you, as well!

Originally posted by Roy Corduroy

... Registration Districts of the Metropolis in 1843 caught my eye, so I am posting the link here. (click)

Nice map!

I should make note of the facts ...

... that by 1857, the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town (Stepney Registration District, 1841-1857) had become a Registration District, in itself, and, ...

... that by 1869, the West London and East London Registration Districts had become components of the City of London Registration District.

**Chris Scott** · May 29, 2011, 07:17 PM

For reference (as they were lost in the crash I think) here are the notes I posted to Casebook in Feb 2008 regarding Lechmere:

Charles Allen Lechmere
Birth:
1849 Quarter 4
Strand
Vol 1 Page 385

Marriage:
1871 Quarter 3
St George East
Charles Allen Lechmere married Elizabeth Bostock

Marriage of Charles's parents:
1846 Quarter 2
Hereford
John Allen Lechmere married Maria Louisa Roulson
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
Charles's mother remarried as follows:
1858 Quarter 1
Whitechapel
Maria Louisa Lechmere married Thomas 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
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
Death:
1920 Quarter 4
Charles A Lechmere aged 71
Poplar
Charles's mother in 1841:
Moulton, Northamptonshire
Head: George Roulson aged 4 born Northamptonshire - Plumber
Wife: Alice Roulson aged 35 born Northamptonshire
Daughter:
Maria Roulson aged 15 - not born in Northamptonshire.
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
Marriage of Mary Jane Lechmere:
1899 Stepney
Married Harry Alfred Goodson
In the 1901 census the couple are listed at the same address as her grandmother:
18 Old Gravel Lane
Head: Harry A Goodson aged 25 born St George East - Printer's compositor
Wife: Mary J Goodson aged 26 born St George East
Child:
Alfred F aged 9 months born St George East

**Robert Linford** · May 29, 2011, 08:08 PM

Hi Chris

In 1901 the family are at 24 Doveton St (RG13/331/98/27) but by 1911 Charles has become a shopkeeper (general shop and sweetstuffs) living at 24 Carlton Rd MEOT. Elizabeth, Albert and Harriet are with him. Of 11 children, they list only 2 as dead.

Charles's effects at probate were £262.

**Robert Linford** · May 29, 2011, 08:36 PM

It looks as though Charles's son Thomas Allen was killed in the Bethnal Green tube disaster.

**Chris Scott** · May 29, 2011, 09:53 PM

Hi Robert
many thanks for the additional info
Chris

Announcement

Charles Who?

Charles Who?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment