Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Lechmere]

Caz
I'm pleased to see that you managed to overcome your unfortunate confusion and find your way to this thread.

Do you think it is possible that when someone lies that they think they will not be found out?

Alternatively...
Do you think it is possible that if someone lies they may do so in such a way that if they are found out then they have thought ahead and have a ready explanation for their lie.

Furthermore...
Are you familiar with the concept that a particular decision can lead to unforseen consequences that can lead you into further unwelcome situations which may take a little trouble to extract oneself from.

So if you will allow me an indulgence let's run wth this...

Charles Lechmere makes the split decision to turn and face the person who is approaching him just as he was mutilating the body of Polly Nichols. He judges that this person is too close for him to safely flee as he is aware that a policeman may approach in his direction of flight just as the interloper reaches her body, and cries 'murder!'.
(I have explained the whys and wherefores as you seem to think that the ony possible human reaction would be to flee immediately - when the observation of known human responses to such scenarios tells us otherwise. Different types of people either 'fight' or 'fly'. )

Charles Lechmere successfully manouvered himself through this crisis and past a policeman - unscathed.
Then the interloper, Paul, goes running to the press, implicating the Charles Lechmere but not by name.
As he has to travel those streets every day to get to work, Charles Lechmere decides he has to hand himself in but wishes to do so in such a way as to safely hide himself as much as possible - from his familiars.

He gives the name Cross and his true address and workplace but gambles that the police would not check up on him as he was a plausible fellow.
But he is immediately summoned to the inquest.
He turns up, uses the name Cross and manages to avoid giving his home address in open court.
It was standard practice for a witness to give his address but amidst the din and bustle and as he gave his evidence so earnestly and dropped in plenty of 'yes sirs' and 'no sirs' (check how he did this), and in his work apron seemed a real grafter, the Coroner let the lack of address pass. The Coroner knew the address had in any event been given in his witness statement.

Charles Lechmere managed to get through his involvement without his real name being mentioned and his address was only printed by one newspaper where the journalist was enterprising enough to ask for it.
If he was the killer, that is pretty good going.
To say it is not in the least suspicious suggests that you would not find it suspicious if he was found with a bloody knife in is hand.

Mizen's embarrassment over what was said to him by Charles Lechmere was overshadowed by Mizen also being quizzed about whewther or not he continued to knock up. His credibility took a 'knock'.
It is clear the police didn't check Charles Lechmere as a result of this discrepancy.
Serial killers take risks, they have confidence to bluster through situations and they often have the ability to appear exactly not as they are. It does not matter what my logic is. The fact is Charles Lechmere was not checked out.

Caz - in the real world things are not so simple and black and white as you seem to think.

The suit issue has been dealt with numerous times - my speculation is based on plenty of evidence, which I have spelt out. Yours is based on nothing more than your negative (and unrealistic) rose coloured spectale view of East End poverty.
But why was he also wearing his apron? To keep warm?

[CitizenX]

Just as an example of how different the same testimony reported across different newspapers can be, the following are three randomly selected reports of the Inquest.

Generally they all say the same, however the details between them can sometimes differ substantially.

Without the original signed depositions from the original inquest, which have been lost. 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.

Morning Advertiser - 4th September 1888

Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - 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. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood.

The Coroner - Did you not see that her throat was cut?

Witness - No; it was very dark at the time. We left together, and went up Baker's row, where we met a constable. I said to him, "There is a woman in Buck's row on the broad of her back. She is dead, or else drunk." The constable said he would go, and I left him and went to work.

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.

Eastern Argus - 8th September 1888

A carman in the employ of Messrs. Pickford & Co., named Charles A. Cross, who found the body said: "I left home about half-past 3 on Friday morning to go to work, and in passing through Buck's Row, saw something lying against a gateway. I could not tell in the dark what it was at first; it looked to me like a tarpaulin sheet, but stepping into the road, I saw that it was the body of a woman. Just then I heard a man - about 40 yards off - approaching from the direction that I myself had come from. I waited for the man, who started on one side as if afraid that I meant to knock him down. I said "Come and look over here, there's a woman." We then went over to the body. I took hold of the hands of the woman, and the other man stooped over her head to look at her. Feeling the hands cold and limp, I said "I believe she's dead;" her face felt warm. The other man put his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if it is." The man suggested that we should move her, but I would not touch her. He then tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice that her throat was cut."

On being further questioned, this witness said the deceased looked then as if she had been outraged, and had gone off in a swoon.


Daily News - 4th September 1888

Charles A. Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years. On Friday morning he left home about half past three to go to work, and passing through Buck's row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come. He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down. The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." They both went across to the body, and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp, and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." Then he touched her face, which felt warm. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her." The woman's legs were uncovered. Her bonnet was off, but close to her head. The witness did not notice that her throat was cut, as the night was very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw the last witness whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row. The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right." The other man left witness soon afterwards. He appeared to be a carman, but the witness had never seen him before.

The Coroner - Did you see Police constable Neil in Buck's row?

The Witness - No, sir. I saw no one after leaving home, except the man that overtook me, the constable in Baker's row, and the deceased. There was nobody in Buck's row when we left. The Coroner - Did the other man tell you who he was?

The Witness - No, sir. He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

A juryman - Did you tell Constable Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Buck's row?

The Witness - No; because I did not see a policeman in Buck's row.

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Equally, my dear Fishmonger, when a witness states no more than he is obliged to state, and has already given the police two locations - home and work - where he can be found if needed again, that is NORMAL behaviour."

It is in fact normal behaviour for a serial killer too, Caz, just like I have told you already. Ridgway, remember?

In fact, it is extremely hard to judge serial killers by their propensity to state their addresses at inquests. The two parameters are not dependant of each other to any measurable degree, or - if you wish for me to make it even clearer - it is extremely silly to think that there IS a connection.

"We have been given examples to prove it."

Eh, no - as I said there is no connection inbetween these two parameters, and therefore you cannot prove that it is "normal" behaviour not to state your address at an inquest, at least not in the respect that you, if you were a serial killer, would necessarily abscond from the "norm" and actually state your name even if you not were asked. Once again, it is beyond silly to even suggest a connection, so don´t do that.

"It is NOT suspicious behaviour"

Ah! But THAT is another thing, Caz, and it all hinges on the context. If we have the knowledge that out of ten men at an inquest after a sexual murder, nine come from the Anglican church choir in Nebraska, whereas one comes from a psychiatric ward, tending sexual deviators, then it WILL be suspicious if the first four people giving their testimony all say that they come from the Anglican church in Nebraska, whereas the fifth guy ommitts to say where HE comes from.
This would be fairly basic and easy to grasp, would it not? If there can be some sort of suspicion tied to a man not giving his address, if it perspires that he could have a reason not to give it, then it IS suspicious if he does not do so. And in the case at hand, it has for the longest time been proposed that Charles Lechmere DID want to hide as much as possible about his person from being spread publically. So you see, Caz, against that background and in that context, there IS suspicion adhering to his ommission. It fits in exactly with the picture that the Lechmereians, if you will, have painted of the man.

It is another thing altogether that taken on it´s own, a circumstance such as this would not have to point to any foul play. And indeed, it does not HAVE to do so in Lechmere´s case either. But the suspicion must be allowed for.

".. it is certainly NOT evidence for him being a killer. !"

It certainly IS evidence, and it DOES belong to the pile of things that potentially points him out as the killer, but on it´s own, it has no legal bearing as some sort of proof, if that is what you´re after. But surely you realize that nobody is awarding it any value as proof, Caz? I would not like to have it said about me that I do so. So don´t do it.

"I expect you could find me a serial killer who had cornflakes for breakfast every day."

Not sure I could, Caz - can´t remember any such creature.

" It would not make Cross look any more suspicious if he did the same, or any less suspicious if he had Weetabix."

Start, perhaps? No?

"And according to you, Cross DID think that since he was a killer, 'he'd better lie' about his name - which still makes no sense, since he didn't feel the same need to lie about where he lived or worked."

Apples and pears, Caz. He gave the police all that information freely, knowing that there was a risk he´d be checked out, but at the inquest he minimized the damage by saying that he was named Cross and he ommitted to state his address. He was playing to different audiences, thus. But surely I have proposed this before...?

He also said that he worked for Pickford´s. And he said he had been working there for more than twenty years. But to be completely honest, he could have been lying about that too - we have him listed as a carman in the 1871 census, but that is only seventeen years back in time, plus it says not WHERE he worked as a carman, does it? What if he worked for somebody else at that stage? How easy would it be for his wife and aquaintances to make him then?

Maybe it is proven that he was always a Pickford´s carman, I don´t know. And it´s a viable suggestion, at any rate. It just hit me that we sometimes take his word for granted in a very casual manner, and that may be risky.

Anyway, Caz, there you are. The identity given to the police was much fuller than the one given in his testimony. Guess whose theory THAT supports?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

"2) He wasn’t asked to state his home address, so he didn’t state it (supplying his work details instead, as we have seen other, entirely innocent witnesses do, apparently without a problem).
Not remotely fishy. Apparently quite normal."

But, Caz, you can´t tell me that I am desperate, only to then speak of how entirely innocent people will give their working addresses. There is no connection between these two phenomena. You can give your work address and be a killer (like Ridgway did - he did not feel that since he was a killer, he´d better lie about where he worked).

Equally, my dear Fishmonger, when a witness states no more than he is obliged to state, and has already given the police two locations - home and work - where he can be found if needed again, that is NORMAL behaviour. We have been given examples to prove it. It is NOT suspicious behaviour, and it is certainly NOT evidence for him being a killer.

I expect you could find me a serial killer who had cornflakes for breakfast every day. It would not make Cross look any more suspicious if he did the same, or any less suspicious if he had Weetabix. And according to you, Cross DID think that since he was a killer, 'he'd better lie' about his name - which still makes no sense, since he didn't feel the same need to lie about where he lived or worked.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I’m sorry"

Really?

"but I’ve never read such desperate straw-clutching to make Cross’s (unconfirmed) behaviour at the inquest look fishy."

I have no need for desperation, Caz - none at all. The case against Lechmere is as sound as any case that can (or can´t) be compiled.

"There are only two alternatives here"

And they are...?

"1) He stated his home address at the inquest, whether asked for it or not.

Not remotely fishy."

Think we can come very close to ruling this alternative out, to be honest. With only one paper having the address of the man that found Nichols, it´s a fairly reasonable bet that he never uttered one word about it. Others will say "Oh no, he MUST have mentioned it, but I think that both you and I realize that he "must" have done no such thing.

"2) He wasn’t asked to state his home address, so he didn’t state it (supplying his work details instead, as we have seen other, entirely innocent witnesses do, apparently without a problem).
Not remotely fishy. Apparently quite normal."

But, Caz, you can´t tell me that I am desperate, only to then speak of how entirely innocent people will give their working addresses. There is no connection between these two phenomena. You can give your work address and be a killer (like Ridgway did - he did not feel that since he was a killer, he´d better lie about where he worked).
An argument like this becomes slightly ludicrous, thus. But I think you can see that yourself? Stating where he worked does not make him "normal", as you seem to think. I have repeatedly said that he was not trying to avoid police interest - he had already awoken that interest and responded to it. But if he was trying to minimize the information he gave about himself, and STILL give the kind of information he could defend if the cops checked him out, then he was doing a first class job. Name: Cross - probably not something that would allow his wife to make the connection. Address: None - same result. Occupation: Carman - they came in tens of thousands. Workplace: Pickford´s (unspecified which depot) - a place where many, many men worked.
Much as there is information to go by, that information is scarce, unexisting or distorted. And that would have been the best he could do, if he wanted to meet the criteria mentioned above.

"If I, or anyone posting here, had just found someone horribly murdered within a short walking distance of our home, our spouse and our kids, and were attending the inquest to make a statement about it, would we gaily give out our full home address if we hadn’t actually been asked for it, or were not formally obliged to state it? I sure as hell wouldn’t!"

Aha? But Tomkins did. Holland did. Paul did. Davies did. Eagle did. Diemschitz did. Marshall did. And a whole heap of other witnesses too, some of them who could have seen the Ripper. It was clear from Lechmere´s testimony that he would run no risk because of such a thing. So your argument falls flat on it´s nose, I´m afraid. There seemed to be no scare about giving any address on behalf of any of the witnesses, on the contrary.

Desperation, Caz?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Lechmere,

You wrote:

We do not know that the police had a policy of 'checking out' routinely witnesses adddresses or places of work. I very much doubt they did so at all.
If they had reason to be suspicious of such a person then they logically would have done - eg if someone gave a statement that was found to be false or if they were in a class of person that the police were prejudiced against.

The point is that if even you are having to guess what routine policy the police may or may not have had, regarding the formal identification of witnesses (and I agree, it would probably have been very much down to the individual concerned, their perceived honesty and the circumstances), then Cross himself certainly could not have known that his little Lechmere secret would remain safe - and that’s assuming he wasn’t known as Cross at Pickfords, despite freely stating his employment details at the inquest.

The funny thing is, a lot has been made of Cross telling PC Mizen a provable and blatant falsehood, within minutes of the murder, then giving a false statement about what he told this policeman, effectively accusing him of lying or at least being incompetent. So by your own logic, that alone would have been sufficient grounds for checking him out. If they didn’t check him out, it rather implies that they had reason to believe Mizen had his wires crossed.

Also, you keep saying that Cross could have afforded more than just his work clothes, and that therefore he must have owned better and would have worn better to the inquest had he nothing to hide. That’s several layers of speculation for the price of one! But even if you knew for a fact, that after feeding and clothing the kids and the missus, paying the rent and all the bills, he had enough spare cash to splash out on leisure wear for himself (with precious little leisure time to wear it in), you can’t possibly know that he would have spent the money that way, as there are always a million and one ways for a man to be parted from his hard-earned dosh, and that's if he didn't save anything going spare for a rainy day - or at least for his daughters’ future wedding days, when he would presumably have wanted everyone, including himself, to be well turned out.

It’s a fool’s errand to guess what a working man with a large family would or would not have chosen to spend any extra income on in 1888. Many a good man (and woman) would give the best cuts of meat they could afford, and the best clothes, to the kids, while making do with scraps and rags for themselves, while the not so good might do the opposite. The even worse would have pissed it all up against the wall or gambled it away.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz:

"All that is irrelevant unless you are suggesting that he was behind the various different versions appearing in the papers or recorded at the inquest."

I am not saying he took care of it himself - but since the names would add to the confusion, there is relevance in it just the same.

"Assuming ... he was the one who informed the police that he was "Charles Allen Cross, carman at Pickfords and living at 22 Doveton", then that was the version he stuck with and would have expected anyone else to use, when describing the man who discovered Nichols."

Yes, Caz. That is correct!

"After that, it was beyond his control how those details might actually appear in print"

No Caz - because he omitted to state his address at the inquest, byt the looks of things. And that tells us that it was NOT beyond his control how it would appear in print. It was actually apparently his very work that ensured that only the Star had his address.

"...and it was hardly his fault if nobody at the inquest insisted on him giving his home address. What was he meant to do to show his innocence - volunteer it without being asked? "

It would have helped immensely, would it not? And what makes you think he was not asked?

"So we are back with what this witness chose to tell the police about himself, to stop his illiterate wife from learning that he - Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton, 20 years a carman at Pickfords - was the man who had found Nichols. All she could have found out from the local gossips, if the papers had printed all the details he had given accurately, was that a Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton, 20 years a carman at Pickfords, had found the body, and naturally being pig thick, she'd have simply assumed this Mr. Cross was a lodger her husband had secreted in the house and forgotten to tell her about. "

But the papers did not print all the details, Caz, did they? Therefore it does not take any assumption that Elizabeth Lechmere was pig thick. To begin with, she could not read, and to carry on, what could be read to her was a garbled mesh, in many a respect thanks to Lechmere not giving his
address at the inquest.
Lucky? Yes. But there you are. It´s much the same as him not being able to count on the police not checking him out. We can´t say that he was pig thick for chancing it would go down that way, can we?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fishy,

I’m sorry, but I’ve never read such desperate straw-clutching to make Cross’s (unconfirmed) behaviour at the inquest look fishy.

There are only two alternatives here:

1) He stated his home address at the inquest, whether asked for it or not.

Not remotely fishy.

2) He wasn’t asked to state his home address, so he didn’t state it (supplying his work details instead, as we have seen other, entirely innocent witnesses do, apparently without a problem).

Not remotely fishy. Apparently quite normal.

If I, or anyone posting here, had just found someone horribly murdered within a short walking distance of our home, our spouse and our kids, and were attending the inquest to make a statement about it, would we gaily give out our full home address if we hadn’t actually been asked for it, or were not formally obliged to state it? I sure as hell wouldn’t! That doesn’t make me remotely fishy, as long as I had disclosed my address to the police and they could find me again, under any of the surnames I have ever used.

Love,

Caz
X
　

[Lechmere]

I don't think it's that much of a mystery where the address came from.
There would have been a running order or agenda for the coroner to follow and the usher would have a copy - very likely it had thd name and address of the civilian witnesses and name and station or occuptional status gor officials (police, doctors etc).
It would be simplicity itself for an enterprising journslist to ask for a missing address.

[Bridewell]

Hello ruby , Bridewell ,

And all other interested parties ! In regards to people bragging about JtR connections ..

I Posted this quite some time ago on another thread , under ( possible new witness connection) and in light of some of the later posts , thought it may be of some interest .
cheers all

moonbegger .

Hi MB,

I think that can fairly be described as an example of someone boasting about a family member's involvement! Thanks for re-posting it.

[moonbegger]

Hello ruby , Bridewell ,

And all other interested parties ! In regards to people bragging about JtR connections ..

I Posted this quite some time ago on another thread , under ( possible new witness connection) and in light of some of the later posts , thought it may be of some interest .

I have a quick tale to pass on , maybe its Nothing , but then again .. at the very most i guess it could be an interesting link to check out . i did have a go myself but came up with nothing ..but i am sure there are alot better detectives on here than Me ..

I was just recently in a London pub chatting with a good friend of my dad . Who, back in the day used to be a young man in a small firm ( gang) around the Hoxton , Murry grove area ( central , East London ) . After chatting about the old East End and the Ripper murders , He told me that on occasions his little firm were Visited by Ronnie Kray , and asked to run errand's across the water ( South London ) to another firm . He told me that on one occasion he and his pals ended up in a pub in bermondsey or somewhere close by, having a few beers with the south London firm . He went on to say that one of the brothers in this firm after a few beers started ranting on about his family having their roots in the East End .. And that their Granddad John was even a Main witness at one of the Jack the Rippers murders .The Name of the Gang was the Richardsons .


I will admit that the conversation we was having was the hanbury street murder and my disbelief of some of the witnesses .. in particular John Richardson . at which point he stopped me in my tracks, and matter of faculty told me " that was Charlie Richardsons Grandad ". And then followed through with how he came to hear it.


Now i know that nearly everyone in the East End (of a certain age) has a Ripper tale to tell .. But for the life of me i cant see my Dad's pal Telling me porky's ( Pork pies =lies ) Maybe the Original teller was expressing a certain amount of creative licence ? to get his point across , i really don't know but i did think it worthy of a mention on here .


And i'm also pretty sure its easy to prove or diprove it in a heartbeat. Especially given the Internet tools and the wise fools ( that was a mistake , but i like it, so i'm leaving it in ) we have at our disposal .

cheers all

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello All ,

"As the star, of course, and only the star (because of their excellent relationship with the police perhaps, ha-ha), have access to special court room documents which list him as ‘carman Cross’ rather than his actual name."

I think the Link to him being called "Carman Cross" Is neither a special document or report , or his own words ! I think that the name stuck as soon as PC Myzen referred to him as "Carman Cross " on the stand , just before Cross gave evidence .

Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there. Witness went to the spot,

However , where the Address came from is still the main mystery ? Seeing as it was clearly not read out during the inquest !

cheers

moonbegger .

[Bridewell]

Colin...grrr..I see that you replied before I edited to correct the spelling of 'Schwartz'. And that's all I see for the mo' (it's late).

Tell a lie..these 'bragging people' are going to be totally anonymous and unknown 'storytellers' aren't they ? Impossible to quote.

I have a day off on Monday, and shall see how many people brag a connection to a modern murderer like the Yorkshire Ripper..
(and don't forget that Charlie was ostensibly only a witness).

In fairness I think I was editing as well because the original post (which you quoted!) seemed a little too caustic, so I amended it. I only posed the original question because Lechmere chided Dave for some examples which he gave. Returning to the subject of the thread, I don't think that Cross / Lechmere can be seen as completely vindicated by what's been posted. He's still a possible, but nothing more than that.

Regards, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Hello Lechmere ,

Apologies for the " other fella " line , it was actually suppose to be fellas .. ( pertaining to TL ) And yes i did note the date indescrepencies .. but as CX was almost stating it as fact i was curious to see if he actually had something in the ways of solid proof !

CX
Sometime around 1864 starts working for Pickfords under the name of Cross (Age 14) presumed still in the Cross family home.

Me.
Although i have for some time assumed he started working at age 14, under the name cross ( but not necessarily for pickfords ), i have never found any hard facts to back it up .. So is what you have here CX a proven fact or have you as you like to say CREATED it

Cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

"No, it not the soundest solution, as it involves special court/police documents where contrary to all expectation and legal precedent, Charles Allen Cross is named as ‘Carman Cross’, documents that only the star journalist has access to, documents that rather than being used to confirm the other witnesses details are then ignored and never accessed again."

It does no such thing - such a list as the one I speak of would only be ONE possibility. It may equally be that the Star journalist spoke to a representative of the police or somebody else who did not have Lechmere´s full name, but knew that he was Cross the carman. Plus there are other possibilities too, as you will realize.

"The soundest solution is the expected and obvious one, and the one that the evidence suggests, that he gave his name and address at Baxter’s inquest.
while the rest of the press men paid more attention to his name, star did the same regarding his address."

But why did all the papers but the Star fail to provide the professional interest they were payed to show - and displayed visavi all the other witnesses?
How many more examples can you dig up - from any contemporary inquest - where one paper gets the address exactly correct, and a dozen others fail to do so, not even saying a word about it? Leaving it out totally, as it were?
And IF you should be able to dig up a parallel - how big a chance do you think it is that the very observant and keen-eared muckracker that got every syllable and number right in the address issue, was the ONLY one to totally miss out on the given names of the person he had displayed such an interest in address-wise?
Incidentally, the evidence does not suggest that he gave his address. It instead suggests that he did not. It´s twenty to one or something like that in favour of Lechmere not having said a iota about the address. So let´s be fair about that.

"Hold on, I’m saying he gave the court his name and address, you’re the one that claimed he had told the court he was called Carmen Cross, and therefore this is why he is being referred too as this in the inquest documentation, as this is your explanation for how the star have his address but not his name."

Like I have shown, there may be many a reason for the Stars calling him Carman Cross (not Carmen - that´s too Bizet´ish).

"As the star, of course, and only the star (because of their excellent relationship with the police perhaps, ha-ha), have access to special court room documents which list him as ‘carman Cross’ rather than his actual name."

If the Star had access, then so had all other papers too. But once again, speaking to a policeman, checking with a colleague ("I didn´t hear what his first name was but he´s a carman called Cross, mate!") would do the trick too. So we may not need to speak of any access, and I really don´t care much for having it implied that I believe that the Star was favoured by the police, as you may understand.

" I’ll go with the obvious, the star have called him ‘carman Cross’ as he is wearing a carman’s apron."

The obvious, Mr Lucky, is that the reporters listen to the witness, and provide information that may sometimes have been misheard to some extent. But they DO provide information. That´s what we see in the other cases. What we don´t see in any other case, though, is one paper being spot on detailwise about an address (and rather an obscure one too), and the others not even presenting any information in that context at all.

"I suppose that with one suspect and two theories, there will be points of disagreement like this"

That´s pretty obvious

"so I'll leave it at that, for now"

Wise move. I´ll join, and the others can choose for themselves.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

"They would have too put something down for his name, they can't just say 'some fellow at the inquest said', his address just isn't the same level of importance."

But nevertheless, whenever a person gives his address at these inquests, we always have each and every paper trying to decipher what was said. And that results in a number of efforts that will differ inbetween them - but the efforts will be there. Always.

So when there was NO effort made in Lechmere´s case, we can safely rely on that meaning that he never said a word about any address. The Star got it from another source, in which "Cross" was listed as "Carman Cross".

That is the soundest solution, I´m afraid.

No, it not the soundest solution, as it involves special court/police documents where contrary to all expectation and legal precedent, Charles Allen Cross is named as ‘Carman Cross’, documents that only the star journalist has access to, documents that rather than being used to confirm the other witnesses details are then ignored and never accessed again.- Perhaps they have self-destructed 5 seconds after the star journalist had found out Cross’s address, !!

The soundest solution is the expected and obvious one, and the one that the evidence suggests, that he gave his name and address at Baxter’s inquest.
while the rest of the press men paid more attention to his name, star did the same regarding his address.

There´s a backside to that argument, Mr Lucky. If he called himself "Carman Cross", then why do all the other papers have his first names in their articles? Did they all go to a witness list - and all read it differently? Or did they all ask the police - who gave them different answers?

Hold on, I’m saying he gave the court his name and address, you’re the one that claimed he had told the court he was called Carmen Cross, and therefore this is why he is being referred too as this in the inquest documentation, as this is your explanation for how the star have his address but not his name. As the star, of course, and only the star (because of their excellent relationship with the police perhaps, ha-ha), have access to special court room documents which list him as ‘carman Cross’ rather than his actual name. I’ll go with the obvious, the star have called him ‘carman Cross’ as he is wearing a carman’s apron.

I suppose that with one suspect and two theories, there will be points of disagreement like this, so I'll leave it at that, for now (I’ll read your reply of course)

Anyway , all the best to you Fisherman