Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[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]

"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:

"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

[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.

[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?

[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 it´s 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 don´t 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 that´s 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 Lechmere´s 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

[Monty]

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

And here we go again.

Monty

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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!).