Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Lechmere]

Hi Observer
Check my post 196 above - I think that explains it.

[Observer]

I meant Emma Green of course not Emma Smith - but she gave her full address - New Cottage - anyway.

Yes Charles Lechmere did avoid giving his correct name and address in open court. Whether a court often was satisfied with just a workplace is frankly irrelevant.

Now I really am confused. That's the problem of taking part in a thread when you've only really read half of the posts. Can you explain to me why it's irrelevant, given that you believe Charles Cross to have been the murderer?

[Monty]

Not sure how it stood in 1888 but presently in England you do not have give a policeman your name or address unless under arrest or in charge of a motor vehicle. Many police do not understand the rights of individuals or on purposely misrepresent them. In most cases people do give their details as they don't know any better or to save all the bother....I suppose it was no different in 1888.

This is cut from the following website

http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2011/03/23/march-26th-do-i-have-to-give-the-cops-my-name-and-address/

You do not have to give your name and address unless under a specific legal obligation (Rice v Connolly 1966). Refusal to give your name and address cannot amount to obstructing the police in the course of their duty under s89(2) Police Act 1996 but giving a false name and address can (Ledger v DPP 1991). Note this is pre-Human Rights Act. In general you can use any name you like unless it is for an illegal purpose. There are however a number of laws which make refusal or giving a false name and address to a constable a crime (in 1800s this was peddling or poaching). All have a maximum penalty of a fine.

Yes, you are absolutely correct Citizen X, I should have been clear. Perils of posting at 5am.

Please find attached the relevant pages in relation to circumstances of a Policeman who can arrest without a warrant. This from the City of London Police, Orders & Regulations and Acts of Parliment 1839 - 1894. Pages 32 to 34.

Monty

[Lechmere]

The motto of the Worshipful Company of Carmen is
'skilfully, swiftly, surely'
I've always thought that was quite apt

[Lechmere]

The whole significance of Charles Lechmere's address possibly being given is that it has been suggested that as he gave his workplace and address in open court he could not have been trying to hide his true identity by using the name Cross.
This does not necessarily follow, but in any case if he did not in fact give his address in open court (but the star established it through checking with the officials during the lunch recess) then it serves to strengthen the case that he was indeed acting in a way to obscure his identity.
Whether the court would often turn a blind eye to a witness not giving his address is irrelevant.

[CitizenX]

From memory the Worshipful Company of Carmen regulated licences for carmen...
But that did not apply to carmen emoted by haulage firms such as Pickfords. It was for self employed carmen who operated in a similar manner to handsome cab or taxi operators.

Cheers for that..
I did find this online

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=59910

but its much earlier than 1800s

Thanks

[Lechmere]

From memory the Worshipful Company of Carmen regulated licences for carmen...
But that did not apply to carmen emoted by haulage firms such as Pickfords. It was for self employed carmen who operated in a similar manner to handsome cab or taxi operators.

[CitizenX]

I meant Emma Green of course not Emma Smith - but she gave her full address - New Cottage - anyway.

Yes Charles Lechmere did avoid giving his correct name and address in open court. Whether a court often was satisfied with just a workplace is frankly irrelevant.

Sorry I cant see your logic in this at all...

[Observer]

the hmmmmmmm was directed at the inconsistency of Lechmere's quote accepting on one side that there was nothing unusual in supplying only his place of work at the inquest only to contradict himself by saying "he avoided having his true name and address read out in open court"

Ok sorry I missed that. But I'm still confused.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Actually Emma smith, cottage next to murder scene is clearly more accurate and precise than the details ascribed to Charles Lechmere.

How about Thomas Ede a signalman in the employ of the East London Railway Company? Or Alfred Mulshaw a nightwatchman in Winthorpe Street?

[CitizenX]

Hi Citizen x

I also noted the various ways in which the witnesses revealed their identities. Doesn't seem to be a set procedure does there?

As I stated earlier, what's the difference between, Emma Green cottage next to murder scene, and Chas Andrew Cross carman in employ of Messrs Pickford and co ?

The premise I am disputing here is the notion that the police gave Cross anonymity, wheres the anonymity in the above?

Anyone could trace him given the information he revealed at the inquest. Even if he was known as Lechmere at work, his workmates would have twigged on that it was he who had found the body of Polly Nichols, he gave his proper first name Charles, he stated he'd worked at Pickfords for more than 20 years, he stated he was a carman, and it was obvious that he lived within walking distance of Bucks Row.

Looking at the various ways in which witnesses revealed their identities, isn't it more than likely, that the coroner was satisfied with, Chas Alexander Cross carman in the employ of Messrs Pickfords and co, just as he was satisfied with Emma Green, cottage next to murder scene?

Regards

Observer

Maybe a reason he continued to be know as Cross at work was that he needed to be liceneced to be a carman and those licences were under the name Cross. Carman were supposed to be licenced at that time to reduce congestion and peddeling.

[Lechmere]

I meant Emma Green of course not Emma Smith - but she gave her full address - New Cottage - anyway.

Yes Charles Lechmere did avoid giving his correct name and address in open court. Whether a court often was satisfied with just a workplace is frankly irrelevant.

[CitizenX]

Hi again Citizen x

I'm a little confused, you seem to contradict yourself, one moment you're going along with coroners being satisfied with witnesses being vague about their identities, you quote Patrick Mulshaw who didn't give an address either just the area he was working. Now we have a hmmmmmm when Lechmere suggests there is nothing unusual with Cross supplying only his place of work. What about Mulshaw, does he warrant a hmmmmmm also, after all he didn't supply an address?

Regards

Observer

the hmmmmmmm was directed at the inconsistency of Lechmere's quote accepting on one side that there was nothing unusual in supplying only his place of work at the inquest only to contradict himself by saying "he avoided having his true name and address read out in open court"

[Observer]

So you are saying that Cross/Lechmere was treated no differently from any other witness at the time? He gave only his employers name in the inquest which as you say "does not appear to be unusual"

Buts still "he avoided having his true name and address read out in open court"

hmmmmmm

Hi again Citizen x

I'm a little confused, you seem to contradict yourself, one moment you're going along with coroners being satisfied with witnesses being vague about their identities, you quote Patrick Mulshaw who didn't give an address either just the area he was working. Now we have a hmmmmmm when Lechmere suggests there is nothing unusual with Cross supplying only his place of work. What about Mulshaw, does he warrant a hmmmmmm also, after all he didn't supply an address?

Regards

Observer

[Lechmere]

Actually Emma smith, cottage next to murder scene is clearly more accurate and precise than the details ascribed to Charles Lechmere.