Books




Face of Winifred May Davies
Latest topics
» Why Jesus Is Not God
Mon 17 Apr 2017 - 0:09 by Karen

» The Fourth Reich
Fri 14 Apr 2017 - 14:14 by Karen

» Allah, The Real Serpent of the Garden
Tue 7 Mar 2017 - 11:45 by Karen

» THE INNOCENCE OF JEWS
Sat 4 Mar 2017 - 12:06 by Karen

» Hillary Clinton (Hillroy Was Here)
Fri 28 Oct 2016 - 17:38 by Karen

» Alien on the Moon
Thu 20 Oct 2016 - 21:57 by Karen

» Martian Nonsense Repeats Itself
Thu 20 Oct 2016 - 18:43 by Karen

» Enlil and Enki
Fri 7 Oct 2016 - 17:11 by Karen

» Israel Shoots Down Drone - Peter Kucznir's Threat
Wed 24 Aug 2016 - 22:55 by Karen

» Rome is Babylon
Sun 24 Jul 2016 - 21:27 by Karen

Links












Gallery



Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Karen on Thu 24 Oct 2013 - 18:03

I would like to officially report at this time that the information on the "Casebook: Jack the Ripper" website as regards Charles Cross is not correct!!
Here is the information on Charles Cross, which can be found on Casebook:

Charles Cross
Witness at Mary Ann Nichols' inquest.
(First name erroneously given as 'George' in newspaper reports and by several authors).

Born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1849, St Anne's, Soho, son of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa (nee Roulson). In 1858, Charles' mother remarried, to Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took his surname.
Married Elizabeth Bostock in 1871, and worked as a carman for Pickford's in Broad Street, living at 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green in 1888.
Cross left home for work at 3.20am on the morning of 31st August 1888; by about 3.40am he was passing along Buck's Row when he saw what he originally believed to be a tarpaulin lying on the ground in front of the gates to a stable yard. On closer inspection, he found that it was the body of a woman and at that moment he called to Robert Paul who was also walking down the street. Cross felt one of the deceased's hands and finding it cold, said "I think she is dead". Paul asked Cross to help move the woman, but Cross refused.
Not wanting to be late for work, the two men walked on and meeting PC Jonas Mizen at the junction of Hanbury Street and Baker's Row, informed him of their find. Cross said that the woman was either dead or drunk, though at the time, he did not think the woman had been murdered.[1]
He died in 1920 and was survived by his wife who eventually passed away on 12 September 1940 in Stratford.
Charles Cross has been mooted (more like discredited) as a potential suspect for the murder of Mary Ann Nichols.[2]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, here is the Charles Cross that I found on the "Find My Past" website. His name is Charles Cross and he is listed as a carman in 1881; he was born in 1855 in Ickworth, Suffolk, and is living at 9 Walcot Square, Lambeth.
This is the Charles Cross, carman for Pickford's as per the 1881 Census:

1881 census transcription details for:  9, Walcot Sq, Lambeth
National Archive Reference:
RG number:     RG11
Piece:     593
Folio:     52
Page:     12    
Reg. District:     Lambeth
Sub District:     Lambeth Church Second
Parish:     Lambeth
Enum. District:    
Ecclesiastical District:    
City/Municipal Borough:    
Address:     9, Walcot Sq, Lambeth
County:     London, Surrey

Name     Relation     Condition     Sex     Age     Birth Year     Occupation , Disability     Where Born

CROSS, Charles     Head     Married      M     26     1855     Carman                 Ickworth, Suffolk

CROSS, Mary Ann     Wife     Married      F     27     1854                            Chevington, Suffolk

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is Charles W. Lechmere, who, as you can see, was only born in 1868 (not 1849 as stated on Casebook,) and is listed as a scholar (so there is no evidence that he even became a carman for Pickford's) and what is more, his middle initial is a "W." - not Allen or Andrew or even an "A." I know that this is the Charles Lechmere that they selected as the carman since he lives at 66 Wardour Street, St. Anne, Soho. As you can also see, his mother is named Elizabeth; not his wife!!Rolling Eyes 

1881 census transcription details for:  66, Wardour St, St Anne Soho
National Archive Reference:
RG number:     RG11
Piece:     130
Folio:     91
Page:     1    
Reg. District:     Westminster
Sub District:     St Anne Soho
Parish:     St Anne Soho
Enum. District:    
Ecclesiastical District:    
City/Municipal Borough:    
Address:     66, Wardour St, St Anne Soho
County:     London, Middlesex

Name     Relation     Condition     Sex     Age     Birth Year     Occupation , Disability     Where Born

LECHMERE, Elizabeth     Head     Widow      F     57     1824     Dressmaker         London, Middlesex

LECHMERE, Charles W     Son     Single      M     13     1868     Scholar               London, Middlesex

LECHMERE, Mary D     Daughter     Single      F     23     1858   Dressmaker        London, Middlesex

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, it would appear that someone, and I am not even going to surmise who, has done some very poor research on Mr. Charles Cross. At this time, I can't help wondering what he really knew about the case for him to be accused as a Ripper suspect. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm......... cheers

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Fri 25 Oct 2013 - 16:21

Actually, Karen, the Lechmere they chose from the 81 Census is this one:http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-3.html

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

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Karen on Fri 25 Oct 2013 - 22:04

Casebook is not an accurate or reliable source for Census information - you would do much better relying on sites that specifically detail all census records for England, Scotland and Wales. Some sites I use are:

- "Find My Past"
- "FreeCEN"
- "Family Search"
- "Ancestry.com/Ancestry.co.uk/Ancestry.ca

Your link just directs me to an archived discussion which took place on the Casebook website in 2008. I will now post all of the Lechmere's from the 1881 Census and I would like you to show me where Charles Allen Lechmere is; as I cannot find him:

[th]Type[/th][th]Name[/th][th]Birth Year [/th][th]Age[/th][th]Sex[/th][th]Registration District/Parish [/th][th]County[/th][th]Record[/th][th][/th][th]Image[/th][th][/th]
HouseholdLECHMERE, Anna S185922FHeadingtonOxfordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Anne Priscilla185328FBuilthBrecknockshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Annie M185922FHerefordHerefordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Arthur185823MHerefordHerefordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Augusta186516FHeadingtonOxfordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Capel Huntercombe18801MBuilthBrecknockshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Caroline182457FHeadingtonOxfordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Catherine M18756FUpton on SevernWorcestershireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Charles W186813MWestminsterLondon, MiddlesexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Charlotte183150FHerefordHerefordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Edith B186219FHerefordHerefordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Edith E18783FSt Andrews & St LeonardsFife VIEW N/A
HouseholdLECHMERE, Edmund Anthony Harley182754MSt George Hanover SquareLondon, MiddlesexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Edmund Henry18792MBuilthBrecknockshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Edmund Sandy185229MBuilthBrecknockshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Elizabeth182457FWestminsterLondon, MiddlesexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Elizabeth185724FHerefordHerefordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Emelia182259FSt Andrews & St LeonardsFife VIEW N/A
HouseholdLECHMERE, Emma185328FKensingtonLondon, MiddlesexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Florence185922FSt Andrews & St LeonardsFife VIEW N/A
HouseholdLECHMERE, George185130MKensingtonLondon, MiddlesexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, George18792MKensingtonLondon, MiddlesexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Georgina Felicia180774FUpton on SevernWorcestershireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Gertrude185526FHerefordHerefordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Jemima J M180576FUpton on SevernWorcestershireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Joceline Alban18729MUpton on SevernWorcestershireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, John182259MPenzanceCornwallVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, John F186318MHeadingtonOxfordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Louisa C183843FSt George Hanover SquareLondon, MiddlesexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Louise C185823FHeadingtonOxfordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Maria180180FElhamKentVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Marie E185625FHeadingtonOxfordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Mary D185823FWestminsterLondon, MiddlesexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Mary Jane185130FHerefordHerefordshireVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Robert H186516MWest HamEssexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Sophia183447FPenzanceCornwallVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Thomas18801MKensingtonLondon, MiddlesexVIEW VIEW
HouseholdLECHMERE, Thomas181962MHerefordHerefordshireVIEW VIEW


Last edited by Karen on Sun 27 Oct 2013 - 13:41; edited 3 times in total

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Karen on Fri 25 Oct 2013 - 22:13

I am very sorry, but I just attempted to find 20 James Street, St. George; and I regret to inform you that that number does not exist. If you look below, you will see that there were only the following numbers on James Street - 3, 5, 12, 14 (no 20.)


***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Karen on Fri 25 Oct 2013 - 22:45

I just found that there was an individual named Charles Allen Lechmere; but where they claim that he was born in Soho, this record states that he was born and christened in StepnEY. This record is only a record of birth and christening, so occupations are not listed - so where is the evidence that Charles Allen Lechmere is a carman? Even more importantly, is the fact that the man at the inquest was named CHARLES CROSS!!! We can never forget this singular fact.

Charles Allen Lechmere, "England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975"
Name:     Charles Allen Lechmere
Gender:     Male
Christening Date:     16 Jan 1859
Christening Place:     SAINT DUNSTAN,STEPNEY,LONDON,ENGLAND
Birth Date:     05 Oct 1849
Birthplace:    
Death Date:    
Name Note:    
Race:    
Father's Name:     John Allen Lechmere
Father's Birthplace:    
Father's Age:    
Mother's Name:     Maria Louisa
Mother's Birthplace:    
Mother's Age:    
Indexing Project (Batch) Number:     C05576-4
System Origin:     England-ODM
GS Film number:     596916, 596917
Reference ID:    
Sources

Citing this Record

"England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/JMV8-ZQ8 : accessed 26 Oct 2013), Charles Allen Lechmere, 05 Oct 1849.

It seems that they are confusing this Charles Allen Lechmere with Charles W. Lechmere (who really was born in Soho). Add to this, the fact that there was no 20 James Street and you have a very fishy situation indeed. Something is very wrong here! No

THESE PEOPLE ARE BUSTED AND CHARLES LECHMERE IS EXONERATED OF THE MURDER OF MARY ANN NICHOLS!!! Basketball

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Karen on Fri 25 Oct 2013 - 23:01

Here is the Mary Ann Nichols inquest, and I would like you to read Charles ANDREW Cross's testimony. So, where do they get off calling this witness Charles ALLEN Lechmere, when his actual name is Charles ANDREW Cross?

Just look at the names again:

CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE
CHARLES ANDREW CROSS

Two of the names are in dispute (the middle names and the last names). Never ever ignore this huge discrepancy. This is crucial to proper research work.

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_nichols.html

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Sun 27 Oct 2013 - 13:17

Buono wrote:Actually, Karen, the Lechmere they chose from the 81 Census is this one:http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-3.html

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
You're right, Karen.

This Census entry for Chas. Allen Lechmere from Casebook forums archives did not appear in the Free 1881 England Census when I searched for it on Ancestry UK. Nothing even close to it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Karen on Sun 27 Oct 2013 - 13:37

Thank you for the validation. It's just that too many family names have been dragged through the mire because of Jack the Ripper. Just look at how Hollywood portrayed Inspector Abberline in the movies "From Hell," and others. This has got to stop, and it will stop!

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Tue 18 Nov 2014 - 6:35

I found an entry for a Chas. Allen Lechmer(e) born Soho, a carman, who was living at 20 James Street, St George in the East RG11/452 Page 1 Folio 39. His wife was Elizabeth, so is this not the one they were referring to?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Wed 19 Nov 2014 - 11:10

Hi Karen

There was a 20 James St in St George in the East (see Ancestry census 1881 Pce 452 folio 39 Page 1) and Charles Allen Lechmer lived here in 1888.

Charles W Lechmere was Charles Allen's son.

Bill

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Wed 19 Nov 2014 - 12:39

What address did 'Charles Cross' give at Polly Nichols' inquest? I beleive it was
22 Doveton St. The same address that Charles Allen Lechmere was living in 1888.

Bill

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Fri 21 Nov 2014 - 11:59

Mygenespool wrote:I found an entry for a Chas. Allen Lechmer(e) born Soho, a carman, who was living at 20 James Street, St George in the East RG11/452 Page 1 Folio 39. His wife was Elizabeth, so is this not the one they were referring to?

Alright M, it is there under Lechmer. A search for Lechmere on Ancestry did not turn up Lechmer so that's where the confusion came in.

I don't know why the Lechmere supporters said he was Lechmere in 1881 and not Lechmer. Some people like to check up on the references.

Regardless, if his step-father's name was Cross, there's an obvious explanation for using the name and sticking to it. It's a legitimate name and not an alias as, it seems to me, they are making it out to be.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Mitre Square may be the key

Post by Guest on Tue 17 Feb 2015 - 5:28

Great find Karen. I abandoned the JTR Casebook some time ago due to its arrogant dependence on the so-called club of experts. You're probably already familiar with them. When I challenged them, explaining that Jack could not possibly be an individual and was indeed more than one, they immediately attacked me, ridiculing me for denouncing these so-called authors. My challenge was the Mitre Square murder of Katherine Eddowes (aka Mary Kelly as given at the police station she had just been released from). In the short space of approx. 5 mins and under the noses of a night watchman and 2 patrolling police officers and in a pitch black unlit Mitre Square, a single killer managed to lure a victim into the Square, render her unconscious, then dissect her body, locate her kidney and finally display her body. It was the fact that both officers passed through the Square during their beat that one of them came across the body. This indicates that the killer either had a lookout man or that the abduction and mutilation took place elsewhere and the body was dumped in Mitre Square. The location being chosen some ritual reason can be supported due to the killer's willingness to risk being caught.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Mr Hyde on Wed 18 Feb 2015 - 5:12

G'day GlennG and welcome.

 Reckon Hutchinson was a lookout for Jack.

 Didn't require one at Mitre Square, if he had a bolt hole at....say 6 Mitre Street.
 
 "Nobody" goes in the front door,out the back door and through the gate in the fence.

 Jack knows the timing.

 Goulston Street is used to draw attention away from the Square.

 Possibly on the advice of the Police. Major Henry Smith knew who he was.

 Jack still has his trophy upstairs. Prolly already in it's jar of ethanol.

 The Case is only difficult....because Ripperologists say it is.

 Some failed cops in that bunch.....lucky they're not being stalked. ROFL

Mr Hyde

Posts : 174

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Wed 18 Feb 2015 - 15:59

These so-called ripperologists are very defensive of the Royals and hate anyone associating them. They have managed to convince everyone to overlook the blatantly most obvious question of all, which is, "Who could be that powerful?" And they want us to believe that Jack was a `Jewish' lunatic, Very Happy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Wed 18 Feb 2015 - 17:32

One of The Three Stooges, I presume! Nyuk, nyuk! I wonder which one? Razz Mad Rolling Eyes

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Mr Hyde on Thu 19 Feb 2015 - 0:47

Jack was two steps from the Royal family and not powerful himself.

His deeds had been previously covered up by the Police and others.

Quite simply,if he was caught, there was going to be a very,very big stink.

Even WE Gladstone had come to his defense in the press.

Jack was not Jewish,however his favorite philosopher was.
Actually,I named two of Jack's favorite philosophers on Casebook several years ago.
If you really want to annoy that mob.....tell them the truth.....Jack the Ripper was actually a brilliant person.

Jack was C of E. Same as Mary Ann Kelly.

Mr Hyde

Posts : 174

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Mon 30 Mar 2015 - 9:20

Charles Cross from Lambeth could not have worked in Pickfords Broad street as it was too far to walk to work
Charles Lechmere is more of a suspect, as the killings would have been on his way to work at 3.30 in the morning

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Tue 31 Mar 2015 - 8:20

I know this forum has vested interest in convincing readers of their long held beliefs, convinced that it must have been the work of the upper class, but lets dismiss coaches, an annoyance for residence in the early hours of the morning, and why would anybody wait until 3.30 in the morning, when they could have committed the dastardly crimes earlier before retiring to bed.
I became interested in this subject recently after seeing the TV program on Charles Lechmere, which is just as well, because I have luckily missed the paronia of this forum, which gave some semblance of normality in suggesting that the murderer took  the same route as the victims found. Instead of deflecting the alias Charles Cross of Lambeth, from a more likely Lechmere, it would be helpful if readers could direct their attention as to why Lechmere is not a suspect

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Mr Hyde on Tue 31 Mar 2015 - 20:49

Jack was accosted by the first two victims on his 2 Km + walk home along Hanbury Street,Spital Square,Primrose St and beyond.

Kate returned to make some money from her friends' deaths and enlisted Liz and BS man.

Mary Ann Kelly,the ring leader,made one last attempt.

Hutch was JTR's lookout for the blackmail payoff that went wrong.

This Lechmere BS just makes me Cross! Smile

Thanks to Karen and Maybea,I finally have a very well credentialed screen writer with a 43 year interest in the case. 

A 7 year 7 month search is over.

Amongst the people approached was an Academy Award nominated screenwriter and the son of one the writing pair of the first James Bond movies.

It remains an interesting journey.

We seek an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay.

There is a lot more to the plot than just the above,as readers of niceboard already know.

My partner in crime requested a working title.

"Jack the Ripper: The True Story".

 Yippee!

 I'm now free to turn my hand to merchandising..........

 A Xmas card with a small picture of JTR and Happy Chistmas!

 Little Kiddies Jack the Ripper Medical Kit. ROFL.

 Work starts on Saturday.....the screenplay that is.
 
 Things will be pretty hush hush from here on,although anything I may leak will be posted here first.

My suggested opening scene is an August 1888 Sunday morning breakfast at City Mission Hall on Thrawl Street.

Ciao!

Mr Hyde

Posts : 174

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Cross - An Inconvenient Truth

Post by Karen on Mon 1 Jun 2015 - 23:36

It never ceases to amaze me how Ripperologists fail to recognize the facts which are found in the contemporary inquest testimony of the victims, particularly that of Mary Ann Nichols. Despite the fact that the carman who testified was named CHARLES ANDREW CROSS, they erroneously state that his name was Charles Allan Lechmere. Here is the link to the inquest testimony and my readers will have a very difficult time finding the witness named Lechmere:

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_nichols.html

Now, here I post up an article found on Papers Past, from New Zealand. I have highlighted the testimony of the witness Charles Andrew Cross.

DETAILS BY THE MAIL.
(Pall Mall Gazette.)

Scarcely has the horror and sensation caused by the discovery of the murdered woman in Whitechapel some time ago had time to abate, when another discovery is made, which, for the brutality exercised on the victim,
is even more shocking, and will no doubt create as great a sensation in the vicinity as its predecessor. What adds so much horror to the mystery is that the murder, in the early hours of Friday morning last, of the woman now
known as Mary Ann Nicholls, has so many points of similarity with the murder of two other women in the same neighbourhood - one Martha Turner, as recently as August 7th, and the other less than twelve months previously - that the
police admit their belief that the three crimes are the work of one individual. All three women were of the class called "unfortunates," each so very poor that robbery could have formed no motive for the crime, and each was murdered in such
a similar fashion that doubt as to the crime being the work of one and the same villain almost vanishes, particularly when it is remembered that all three murders were committed within a distance of three hundred yard from each other. These facts
have led the police to almost abandon the idea of a gang being abroad to wreak vengeance on women of this class for not supplying them with money.

THE DISCOVERY OF THE MUTILATED BODY.

The facts of the latest of the three mysteries are that as Constable John Neil was walking down Buck's row, Thomas street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning, he discovered a woman between thirty-five and forty years of age
lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. As the corpse lies in the mortuary it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between thirty-five
and forty years of age, and measures 5ft 2in in height. The hair is dark - features small. The hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having been engaged in a severe struggle. There is the impression of a ring having been worn on one of deceased's fingers, but there
is nothing to show that it had been wrenched from her in a struggle. Some of the front teeth have also been knocked out, and the face is bruised on both cheeks and very much discolored. Deceased wore a rough brown ulster with large buttons in front, a brown dress, and a petticoat
which bears the name of the Lambeth workhouse.
Dr. Llewellyn has made a statement, in which he says he was called to Buck's-row about five minutes to four on Friday morning by Police-constable Thane, who said a woman had been murdered. He found deceased lying on the ground in front of the stable-yard door. She was lying on her back,
with her legs out straight, as though she had been laid down. Police Constable Neil told him that the body had not been touched. The throat was cut from ear to ear, and the woman was quite dead. The extremities of the body were still warm, showing that death had not long ensued. There was a very
small pool of blood on the pathway, which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way in which the deceased was lying, made him think at the time that it was at least probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed
to Buck's row. At half-past five he was summoned to the mortuary by the police, and was astonished at finding the other wounds. He had seen many horrible cases, but never such a brutal affair as this. There is a gash under the left ear reaching nearly to the centre of the throat, and another cut, apparently starting
from the right ear. The neck is severed back to the vertebra, which is also slightly injured. The abdominal wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted. One cut extends from the base of the abdomen to the breast bone. Deceased's clothes were loose, and the wounds
could have been inflicted while she was dressing.

THE SCENE OF THE MURDER.

Buck's-row, where the body was found, is a narrow passage running out of Thomas street, and contains a dozen houses of a very low class. It would appear as if the murder had been committed in a house, and the body afterwards removed to a place where it was found, the nature of the abdominal wounds being such
that it would be hardly possible for them to be inflicted while the deceased was dressed.
When Police-constable Neil discovered the body he roused the people living in the house immediately opposite where the body was found, but none of them had heard any sounds of a struggle. A general belief prevails that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder, and this belief was supported by the fact
that what appeared to be bloodstains had been traced at irregular distances on the footpath in Brady street, which adjoins Buck's row. Several persons living in Brady street state that early in the morning they heard screams, but this is by no means an uncommon incident in the neighborhood, and, with one exception, nobody seems to have paid
any particular attention to what was probably the death struggle of an unfortunate woman. The exception was a Mrs. Colville, who lives only a short distance from the foot of Buck's-row. She says she was awakened in the morning by a woman screaming "Murder! police!" five or six times. The voice faded away as though the woman was going in the direction
of Buck's-row, and all was quiet. She only heard the steps of one person.
Inspector Helstone has, however, since stated that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither blood stains nor wheel marks found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere.
Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post-mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself
that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed
to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE DECEASED BY HER HUSBAND.

The murdered woman was identified in the course of the day as Mary Ann, or Polly, Nicholls, by several of the women with whom the deceased lived in a common lodging-house at 18 Thrawl street, Spitalfields. Women from that place were fetched, and they identified the deceased as "Polly," who had shared a room with three other women in the place on the usual terms of such houses -
nightly payment 4d each, each woman having a separate bed. The deceased had lodged in the house only for about three weeks. The husband visited the mortuary on Saturday and on viewing the corpse, identified it as that of his wife, from whom he had been separated eight years. He stated that she was nearly forty-four years of age. The husband, who was greatly affected, exclaimed on
recognising the body. "I forgive you, as you are, for what you have been to me."

WHEN SHE WAS LAST SEEN ALIVE.

Nothing more was known of her but that when she presented herself for her lodging on Thursday night she was turned away by the deputy because she had not the money. She was then the worse for drink, but not drunk, and turned away laughing, saying, "I'll soon get my 'doss' money; see what a jolly bonnet I've got now." She was wearing a bonnet which she had not been seen with before, and left
the lodging-house door. A woman of the neighbourhood saw her as late as half-past two the following morning in Whitechapel road, opposite the church, and at the corner of Osborne street. Mary Ann Monk, an inmate of Lambeth Workhouse, was taken to the mortuary, and identified the body as that of "Polly" Nicholls. She knew her, she said, as they were inmates of the Lambeth Workhouse together in April and May, the
deceased having been passed there from another workhouse. On May 12th, according to Monk, Nicholls left the workhouse to take a situation as servant at Ingleside, Wandsworth-common. It afterwards became known that Nicholls betrayed her trust as domestic servant by stealing 3 pounds from her employer and absconding. From that time she had been wandering about. Monk met her, she said, about six weeks ago, when herself
out of the workhouse, and drank with her.

THE INQUEST.

The inquest upon the murdered woman was opened by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the Coroner, on Saturday, continued on Monday, and then adjourned till the 17th inst. The following further evidence, in addition to what has been stated above, was produced.

THE FATHER'S CHARACTER OF HIS DAUGHTER.

Edward Walker, the father of the deceased, living at 16 Maidwood street, Albany road, Camberwell, identified the body lying in the mortuary as being, to the best of his belief, his daughter. He had not seen her for three years. He recognised her from her general appearance, and by a mark on her forehead which she had had since she was a child. His daughter's married name was Mary Ann Nicholls. She had been married twenty-two years. Her
husband's name was William Nicholls, and he was alive. His occupation was a printer's machinist. They had been living apart for seven or eight years. He had not seen her alive since June, 1886. She was leading a respectable life, he believed, then. He saw her at a funeral. He did not speak to her, as they were not friendly. She was not always sober, and that was why they did not agree. He had no idea that she was "fast." He did not turn his daughter
out of doors, but they had a few words one night, and she left him the next morning. He added - She had no business to be like this now, as I had a home for her.

THE EVIDENCE OF A SLAUGHTERER.

Henry Tomkins, of 12 Coventry street, Bethnal Green, a slaughterer in the employ of Mr. Barber, said he was at work all night on Thursday. He started work between eight and nine on Thursday night, and left off at about 4:20 on Friday last. Witness after leaving the slaughterhouse went to Buck's row with Police constable Thain. There were two others besides himself who were at work in the slaughterhouse, namely, James Mumford and Charles Britton. Witness
and Britton left the slaughterhouse at 12:20 and remained away until 1 a.m. None of them left afterwards until 4:20 on Friday morning. They were all quiet in the slaughterhouse until 2 o'clock. The gates were all open. He heard no noise after returned at 1 o'clock. He saw no one pass except the policeman at 4:15 a.m. There were several men and women in Whitechapel road as he passed there at one o'clock on the morning in question.
By the Jury - He heard no vehicles pass the slaughter-house that morning when he returned at one o'clock.

AND OF A CARMAN.

C.H. Cross, a carman, said that he left his home at half-past three on Friday morning, and passed through Brady street and Buck's row. When he got near the gateway of the wool warehouse in Buck's row, at about a quarter to four, he saw the figure of a woman on the opposite side of the road. Just at this time he saw a man coming up the row, and he said to him, "Come and look over here; here is a woman." They left together and met a constable near Hanbury street. Witness said to him, "There is a woman lying down Buck's row on her back, and she looks to me as though she were dead." The other man said, "I believe she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and proceeded to the spot, and witness and the other man walked together to the top of Hanbury street. The other man went down Corbett's court. He did not know him, but he appeared to be a carman.

A FRESH OUTRAGE AND A POSSIBLE CLUE.

The evidence at the inquest did not, it will be seen, throw any light on the mystery. But another desperate assault, which stopped only just short of murder, was committed upon a woman in Whitechapel on Saturday night. The victim was leaving the Foresters' Music Hall, Cambridge Heath road, where she had been spending the evening with a sea captain, when she was accosted by a well dressed man, who requested her to walk a short distance with him, as he wanted to meet a friend. They
had reached a point near to the scene of the murder of the woman Nicholls, when the man violently seized her by the throat and dragged her down a court. He was immediately joined by a gang of women and bullies, who stripped the unfortunate woman of necklace, earrings, and brooch. Her purse was also taken, and she was brutally assaulted. Upon her attempting to shout for aid one of the gang laid a large knife across her throat, remarking, "We will serve you as we did the others." She was, however,
eventually released. The police have been informed, and are prosecuting inquiries into the matter, it being regarded as a probable clue to the previous tragedies.

THE "SHUDDERING DREAD" IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.

"People in the neighbourhood seem very much divided in opinion," continues the same correspondent, "as to the probability of its being the work of one person or several. The women for the most part appear to incline to the belief that it is a gang that has done this and the other murders, and the shuddering dread of being abroad in the streets after nightfall, expressed by the more nervous of them, is pitiable. "Thank God! I needn't be out after dark," ejaculated one woman. "No more needn't I," said another; "but
my two girls have to come home latish, and I'm all of a fidget till they comes." Very rarely has anything occurred even in this quarter of London that has created so profound a sensation, and seldom have the people in this part been so appalled by a sense of insecurity. There seems to be a prevalent confidence that the police are doing all in their power to discover the criminal, but there is at least an equally general conviction that until this mysterious assassin is taken the neighbourhood should have a stronger contingent
of police for its protection. "Life ain't no great things with many on us," said one little woman whose sprightly manner and rosy cherub face rather belied her pessimism, "but we don't all want to be murdered, and if things go on like this it won't be safe for nobody to put their 'eads out o' doors."

Source: Press, Volume XLV, Issue 7183, 19 October 1888, Page 6

Some interesting facts found in the article above are:

- the unknown carman who walked with Charles Cross to speak to a policeman - Who was he? Was he Lechmere or another carman? Obviously there was another carman present! If the unknown carman was Charles Lechmere, then how can Charles Cross (inquest witness) be Charles Lechmere (unknown carman)? Or, was the unknown carman Netley?

- a woman was attacked by a gang of thieves after attending a concert at the Foresters' Music Hall, and interestingly enough, Dr. Alfred William Pearson was in the Order of Foresters.


Last edited by Karen on Tue 2 Jun 2015 - 0:03; edited 1 time in total

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Mr Hyde on Mon 1 Jun 2015 - 23:45

One of those Ripperologists seems to think an octopus did it and that a dog ran off with Catherine's apron (the rest of that idea,I've censored).

Mr Hyde

Posts : 174

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Guest on Wed 11 Nov 2015 - 0:42

Hello all. I do see this is an old post. I wanted to explain the Cross-Lechmere confusion. There is a documentary on JTR that states there was no Charles Cross at the address given at the inquest. The address was however supposedly home to Charles Lechmere. According to the documentary he was linked geographically. He passed the first three murders on his way to work. Apparently the remaining murders happened on his day off. He was supposedly visiting his mother and daughter.

Apparently I can't post the link so if you search for Jack The Ripper on Youtube and click the second one down. The picture should be of a mother and toddler

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Karen on Thu 10 Dec 2015 - 21:22

I just did a thorough check through www.findmypast.co.uk and there is no Charles Lechmere, Charles Lechmer, Charles Cross, any Lechmere, any Cross, or, even any Charles living at 22 Doveton Street throughout the years of 1841-1911.

Lechmere, 22 Doveton Street - 0 Results



Charles Lechmere, 22 Doveton Street - 0 Results




Charles, 22 Doveton Street - 0 Results



Charles Cross, 22 Doveton Street - 0 Results



Charles Lechmer, 22 Doveton Street - 0 Results



It would appear that Charles Andrew Cross lied about his address at the inquest because he saw John Netley, the Royal Coachman on the scene. The article from New Zealand, mentioned in an earlier post, reports that Charles spoke to another car man while walking to get a policeman. The other car man was Netley. No wonder Cross lied about his address; he didn't want the Royals' goons harassing him at home

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Karen on Thu 10 Dec 2015 - 21:34

Billy the Kid wrote:What address did 'Charles Cross' give at Polly Nichols' inquest? I beleive it was
22 Doveton St. The same address that Charles Allen Lechmere was living in 1888.

Bill
Billy the Kid:

You may want to register at Find My Past.co.uk and please show us that Charles Cross or Lechmere lived at 22 Doveton Street in 1888. My readers would find that so fascinating!

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Charles Cross Was Not Charles Lechmere (BUSTED)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum