Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Rubyretro]

How do you KNOW...note I say KNOW that it's a "slight" chance...you don't know - again you're guessing...

Dave, I think that Lechmere is perfectly able to make that statement;

Let's look at it this way : Mrs Lechmere only died in 1940. It is a short time ago History wise. I knew my own Grandmothers very well and conversed with them often about the past and the Family. In 1940 they would both have been around age 40 (having been born at the end of the century), and they would have had many an adult conversation with a close relative of the same age as Mrs Lechmere.

the Lechmeres were living in the East End. It defies belief that the subject of Jack the Ripper never cropped up. The murders were so famous that they had been reported all over the world, and they must have marked the lives
of the people who lived through them in that tiny area. Why would Mrs Lechmere neglect to tell her Family that her husband had been an 'innocent'
witness ? What sort of shame or shyness could she possibly have about that ? How could it have 'slipped her mind' ?

If she never told them, the most logical explanation is that Lechmere/Cross never told her that he was a witness.

[Fisherman]

Citizen X:

"Witnesses can be added at anytime by the Coroner"

This would seem to be under contention, but if you are correct, then the possibility is that Charles Lechmere only reported in to the inquest on Monday.

"So regardless of whether certain witnesses were not asked the pertinent questions during the inquest or checked out fully before so, does not mean they were not investigated in more detail after the hearing. "

Thatīs absolutely correct. When the inquest proceedings were over, they were over.
Then again, if something had surfaced during the inquest that had attracted police interest, then this would have been made the object of further - non inquest- related - inquiries. The fact that the inquest was over did not mean that the case as such was put on a shelf.

But all in all, you are correct in emphazising that finding the perpetrator was not the object of the inquest.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"There is a slight chance that they checked him out thoroughly and for whatever reason his wife covered for him and said that his name was Cross, and she chose to keep her husband's involvment in the case as a secret from her family until her dying day (in 1940)."

Nope. If the check was thorough, they WOULD find out his name. If they check and did not find out his name, then the check wasnīt thorough. A check that relies only on a person to whom the checked person is married is not a thorough check.

Dave:

"when one expresses such a degree of near-certainty then surely some form of evidence is required?"

When one expresses certainty, proof is required. When one expresses near-ceratinty, then this is always because no conclusive proof is there. Evidence, though, may well be around in abundance, as it is here. The police called him Cross - evidence. He was called Lechmere - evidence. When the police knew the real name of somebody and had no reason to keep it under wraps, they used that name - evidence. Therefore it is a near-certainty that the poice did NOT know Lechmereīs real name.

I hope you can see the relevance.

The best,
Fisherman

[CitizenX]

I still think that people are still confusing an inquest with a through investigation or court of law...it is nothing of the sort.

I posted (#171) a copy of the coroners rules for 1887 which this hearing should have been following.

The inquest hearing is a court of record and not a court of law. The purpose of the hearing is to obtain "sufficient"evidence ,through eye witness or expert testimony, to determine the cause of death.

The testimony is provided by witnesses under oath and the Jury after guidance from the Coroner determines the cause of death. The witness testimony's are provided by the police or the coroners clerks prior to the hearing. During the hearing the witness is sworn in and the clerk reads out the written testimony after which the coroner and jury can ask questions to the witness.

Witnesses can be added at anytime by the Coroner so in some cases there will be no written statement provided by the witness until they take the stand. Generally the court is open to the public...as is the verdict.

Once a verdict of death by Wilful Murder by person/s unknown is determined the sworn affidavits are signed by the witnesses,stored on record and handed to the Police to aid their investigation, which in most cases has already begun.

So regardless of whether certain witnesses were not asked the pertinent questions during the inquest or checked out fully before so, does not mean they were not investigated in more detail after the hearing.

As the records are lost or incomplete we will never know what level of investigation that was.

EDIT: Looking at Charles Cross testimony and how it differs from other witnesses makes me assume that he was a last minute edition to the hearing and his written testimony was taken by a coroners clerk or given directly on the stand. In which case the police hadn't really done much in the way to check him out at that point...but that's just a guess.

[Mr Lucky]

Trace Charles Lechmere's possible routes from Doveton Street to Bucks Row. It is clear he did not list all the streets he travelled down, or pretended he walked down. And where is Parson Street?

Very puzzling so where has this quote come from I wonder, has Cross said this or not?, or is it from the special document that has been mentioned, where he is referred to as 'carman Cross' instead of 'Charles Allen Cross' that is the only source of Cross's address. Or perhaps an enterprising journalist has asked a policeman - "can you tell me how Cross got to the murder scene, but don't tell me where he started from".

[Cogidubnus]

It is clear he did not list all the streets he travelled down, or pretended he walked down. And where is Parson Street?

Mishearing of Barnsley Street perhaps?

However I would say it is almost certain (almost) that the police did not run anything like a thorough check on Charles Lehmere as otherwise they would have discovered that his name was not Cross.

You don't KNOW they didn't...you can't even be "almost certain" because there is NO repeat NO evidence either way...yet you're still saying "it's almost certain"...you're using charged and slanted statements to cover that uncertainty.

There is a slight chance that they checked him out thoroughly and for whatever reason his wife covered for him and said that his name was Cross, and she chose to keep her husband's involvment in the case as a secret from her family until her dying day (in 1940).

How do you KNOW...note I say KNOW that it's a "slight" chance...you don't know - again you're guessing...

There is an alternative slight chance that the police found out or knew that he was really called Lechmere but neglected to enter his alternative name in their internal reports for whatever reason.

Again you use charged and prejudicial language ("alternative slight chance") to cover for the fact that there is NO certainty whatsoever...

I would put both of these chances as being slim - and Slim just left town. As a working proposition I will assume that the police did not check him out.

Honestly Lechmere, I'm sorry to say this, but if this is genuinely how you assess the pros and cons of evidence I hope to God you're never on a jury when (if) I'm in the dock!

All the best

Dave

Edited to add...Sorry Lechmere...theory and conjecture are fine in their place...after all we all do it to some extent or another...but when one expresses such a degree of near-certainty then surely some form of evidence is required? (And yes, I'm sure this'll come back and bite me some day!).

[Lechmere]

Monty
OK you caught me being a little over enthusiastic when I said:
"The fact is Charles Lechmere was not checked out."

However I would say it is almost certain (almost) that the police did not run anything like a thorough check on Charles Lehmere as otherwise they would have discovered that his name was not Cross.
There is a slight chance that they checked him out thoroughly and for whatever reason his wife covered for him and said that his name was Cross, and she chose to keep her husband's involvment in the case as a secret from her family until her dying day (in 1940).
There is an alternative slight chance that the police found out or knew that he was really called Lechmere but neglected to enter his alternative name in their internal reports for whatever reason.

I would put both of these chances as being slim - and Slim just left town.
As a working proposition I will assume that the police did not check him out.

Citizen
Trace Charles Lechmere's possible routes from Doveton Street to Bucks Row. It is clear he did not list all the streets he travelled down, or pretended he walked down. And where is Parson Street?

[Fisherman]

Citizen X:

"Fish, Lechmere, Moonbegger.

The phrase "cherry picking.......dangerous & foolhardy" was NOT aimed at any one of you guys..it was in general.

Apologies if you thought this was the case."

No problems. It gave me a chance to point out a few things I have been wanting to point out for some time.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"No no Christer,

That's not the point.

We have a claim of fact when, quite clearly, it is not a fact. It is an assumption.

This is how myths and falsities are born."

Yes, Monty. I know that. But I would still be interested in a comment on my propostition.

The best,
Fisherman

[CitizenX]

Although I don't agree with the theory that Cross withheld his address at the inquest as some way to avert suspicion upon himself. It is interesting how when he makes the following statements during his deposition and questioning, not once does the Coroner or jury actually ask his address, which is relevant to the deposition being given. He names every street but his own!



"On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse."

"The Coroner - Did you see Police constable Neil about?

Witness - No; I did not see anyone at all around except the constable I spoke to. I don't think I met anybody after I left my house till I got to the body."



It's the responsibility of the Coroner to ask the the relevant questions and record the replies as part of the preliminary investigation, which in this case they didn't. But this cant be seen as some clever plan by Cross. More likely it's because the Coroner is not investigation the crime...they are establishing the cause of death and then handing the records to the police once "Murder by......etc" has been determined.

[Monty]

No no Christer,

That's not the point.

We have a claim of fact when, quite clearly, it is not a fact. It is an assumption.

This is how myths and falsities are born.

Monty

[CitizenX]

Fish, Lechmere, Moonbegger.

The phrase "cherry picking.......dangerous & foolhardy" was NOT aimed at any one of you guys..it was in general.

Apologies if you thought this was the case.

[Fisherman]

Fair point, Monty. How about "If Lechmere WAS checked out, then the police either did not discover his true name or chose not to use it when referring to him."

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

" The fact is Charles Lechmere was not checked out."

And here we go again.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Citizen X:

" To rely on or "cherry pick" information from any of the press reports and offer them up as "facts" to support any theory is dangerous and foolhardy."

Equally, to offer the paper information up as any "facts" that disallow the Lechmere proposition is dangerous and foolhardy.

So itīs anybodys choice, really.

I can easily see why accusations of cherrypicking can be thrown at the Lechmere bid. But I will try to exemplify how I treat the case.

When I published my article on the Mizen scam, there was one thing that was an obstacle. It was said that Lechmere and Paul travelled in company. It was said that as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, there was another man with him. This seemed to mean that Paul would have overheard what Lechmere said to Mizen.
Then I found the Star, in wich Mizen said "the other man, who went up Hanbury Street..." about Paul, implicating that he did so alone as Lechmere spoke to Mizen. This was what I had been looking for, an article that clearly pointed to Lechmere having gotten clear of Paul as he told Mizen his lie.
The other papers that said that there was another man with Lechmere as he spoke to Mizen, could now be put in a different light - being "with" somebody does not have to implicate physical proximity. He could have arrived with Lechmere, pressed on somewhat himself, and still have been "with" Lechmere.
Is this cherry-picking? I donīt think so. I am quite aware that there are other articles that are NOT clear on Paul being separated from Lechmere. But equally, none of them state that the two were physically close. They can therefore be regarded as obstacles that can be overcome in favour of the one article that actually tells them apart. The Star is clear about Paul being alone as he walks the initial steps into Hanbury Street.

And, of course, since I see Lechmere as an extremely good suspect and the probable killer, what I must - and will - do when looking at the newspaper reports is to check whether there is any material that allows for an interpretation of guilt, or if there is any material that means that we must regard Lechmere as proven not guilty. Both sides are weighed in. But when I discuss the case, I do so supporting my theory with chosen material - I do not use the paper that said that Paul was with Lechmere as he spoke to Mizen, since it does not strengthen my case as much as the Star article does. It instead leaves out important material, supporting what Mizen also claimed - that Lechmere and only Lechmere came up to him and spoke to him. Nor do I always list what all the papers say every time I make a point. It would make the boards swell over. But I acknowledge to the full that there are less and more guilt-implicating reports about. But as long as I do not leave out material that effectively prove that I am wrong, I think that is the best way of doing things. Others will - always - bring up the other material and then the ensuing discussion will decide the worth of the points brought up. And thatīs as it should be.
By the way, so far I have found not a iota that disproves the Lechmere bid ...

And as for cherry-picking, it deserves to be pointed out that when ONE out of all the newspapers stated Lechmereīs address, this was taken as a good sign that he must have uttered it. So there are two sides to the coin!

The best,
Fisherman