Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[curious]

.One might think that she would show an interest in her husband when he got back from the daily graft, and ask how his day had been and things like that . . . .why would people feel ashamed ?

In those days childbirth was very dangerous, both emotionally and physically. I'll mention it again. We have no idea what her health was like.

and why would people be ashamed?

It was a very different world from what it is today. It was the Victorian Era, for goodness sake.

That time and for many years following, young girls who had out-of-wedlock babies were often turned out by their families, told to not to bother to come home. A couple who eloped had disgraced their families and were often ostracized. Hard to imagine today isn't it.

If an unmarried girl who had a baby was allowed to stay in the home, she would not be allowed out to visit when company came because DECENT people did not associate with such.

There's no wonder Lechmere did not want to touch a prostitute, or prop her up, etc. Decent, hardworking people avoided "that class of people."

Caz keeps trying to tell people it was a class thing and it was. It was what "decent" people did and did not do.

People actually used to feel shame for such actions as the JtR victims engaged in, they were ashamed of a "ruined" life.

Perspectives then and now were in many ways directly opposite.

That is why people would be ashamed in being mixed up in something as sordid and disgusting as these crimes were.

curious

[curious]

I'm very sorry, but I've only just spotted this...in my honest opinion, despite it's speculative nature, it's one of the more intelligent postings on this thread...better than any of mine anyway...

All the best

Dave

Thank you, Dave.

I appreciate the kind words.

Also, I believe I recall reading somewhere that the stepfather died about the same time as the baby.

IF the Lechmeres were caring for two dying family members during that time, (I don't know that they were because I'm not privy to the death certificates) I suspect they were barely aware of what was going on in the world around them.

IF they were not tuned in, they certainly would not be talking about it in their later years.

Just my thinking. No proof of course, but when does that stop anyone.

curious

[Rubyretro]

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).

[Bridewell]

I said the Shine family (google it). It was obviously a story based on Schawtz ( spelling ?).

This is the post I was replying to:

Lechmere: then there is the guy who claimed a connection to do with the stride murder (I forget who)
.
Nathan Shine.

Apologies if I missed another one.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

Bridewell;233876]Hi Dave,

"Do we have many examples of people bragging that their relatives had a ripper connection?"

Apparently not.

Tony Williams, perhaps, for the alleged involvement of 'Uncle Jack'?

Regards, Bridewell

I said the Shine family (google it). It was obviously a story based on Schwartz ( spelling ?). That is one example that Lechmere mean't.

Otherwise, I have read Garry Wroe suggesting the same thing, and so I hope that he may chime in with examples..

People being what they are makes me sure that it's true..

[Rubyretro]

what would a cunning manipulative daring mind like his have to fear from his wife finding out ?

Because, Moonbegger, the people that know you intimately since a very long time are usually the people that know you best ?

They might be the people who have had glimpses into your inner self ?

Whatever bravado you put on for the outer world, those people might have seen you with your guard down..

If you live with them on a daily basis, those people will know when you came in and when you went out..

They might have remembered the day that you had that nosebleed or cut yourself by accident..

Unless you are able to tell them the truth and count on their collusion, they
may give you away unwittingly...

What JTR did was so terrible, he could never have counted on 'not telling', could he ?

[Bridewell]

The List

And her descendants have bragged about the connection ever since?

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

"Do we have many examples of people bragging that their relatives had a ripper connection?"

Violenia was a discredited witness. Toppy & Shine did their own bragging.

Tony Williams, perhaps, for the alleged involvement of 'Uncle Jack'?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Rubyretro]

I'm very sorry, but I've only just spotted this...in my honest opinion, despite it's speculative nature, it's one of the more intelligent postings on this thread...better than any of mine anyway...

All the best

Dave

It is speculative.

It isn't because Curious would (or thinks she would) react like the Madonna (I'm not talking about the old bore), that Mrs Lechmere would.

One might think that she would show an interest in her husband when he got back from the daily graft, and ask how his day had been and things like that
-beyond giving him a load of stress about how hard the kids had been, or
putting a load of worry on him about the sick baby (something that he had no control over). unless she wanted to drive him down the pub that is..poor man.

Finding a dead body and having to attend an inquest might just be the sort of little out of the ordinary event that you would think that he might have mentioned..it would have made a different conversation to moaning about the work colleagues that she'd probably never even met....

Just think ! she had no telly, no radio, no computer, couldn't read and had to converse with tiny tots all day....

..and here was Chas that had found a dead body of a murdered prostitute on his way to work ! Surely, surely, this was more interesting than the weight of the wardrobes he'd had to lug on and off his cart compared to yesterday ?

I think that she'd have been all ears. I think that she'd have remembered it.

Even if most of her thoughts were taken up with the sick baby at the time, I think that she'd have remembered that extraordinary conversation -had it taken place..

..But it most obviously didn't.

I am certain Lechmere is right about people wanting to show off any JTR connection when it became a notorious case...

Dave -my Grandad used to drive a parcel van for the railways around the East End (he was a Carman !), and he used to recount with excitement driving down the roads where the Ripper victims were found.....I'm sure that's what first piqued my interest in JTR...why would people feel ashamed ?

[Cogidubnus]

There was of course Mary Ann Cox and her niece, where the latter obviously had heard her aunt speak of her connection to the Ripper case. It was a famous/infamous case, the talk of the town, on everybody´s lips, I think you will readily admit this. And human nature is what it is - when somebody has been involved in a story like this, the chances are that they will embroider on it on their nights at the local pub. It´s rather like having met a celebrity or something such - people will talk about it. I fail to see why this would be any different with the Ripper case - or why it would be a point of contention on this thread. We have lots of paper reports speaking of how people stood in the streets talking about the murders, and the ones who had a connection to them - no matter how significant it was - would be sitting on a party piece.

And her descendants have bragged about the connection ever since?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Mr lucky pointed out the salient fact that the star would have gone to print in the afternoon - meaning that the star journalist either was the only one to hear the address being given (unlikely) or asked for it during the lunch recess (likely).
Clearly the police gave it to the journalist. Thus as I said totally undermines the theory that Cross was under protection.
Also as I said the official police records make no mention of this.

If this were indeed the case I'd not suspect the police per se ... I'd suspect the Coroners Officer (who was sometimes, but not always, a police officer on secondment)...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Don't we know there was a new baby in a household that already had numerous (what 4 or 5) children?

Don't we also know that that baby died early the next year?

What we don't know is whether the baby was a sick and dying child that the household might have been dealing with. We all know that babies cry in the middle of the night, even well ones. But can you imagine the stress of caring for a sick infant day in and day out as well as taking care of a houseful of other children?

With just one child, I can't. I do know that when a loved one is ill, whatever is happening outside the tiny circle of family and hospital or home almost seems not to exist as my personal focus is on family and caring for the loved one.

In addition, we have no idea what Lechmere's wife's health was like following the birth. Medicine was very different in 1888 from today.

I have no problem at all thinking Lechmere would protect his wife from additional stress anyway he could.

It even makes sense to me that none of his descendants even knew of Lechmere's involvement in the Ripper case -- he had too much going on in his personal life and at home for the case to matter at all to him. It was just an inconvenience that he had to get through -- not something he would brag about for the rest of his life.

I'm very sorry, but I've only just spotted this...in my honest opinion, despite it's speculative nature, it's one of the more intelligent postings on this thread...better than any of mine anyway...

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"Do we have many examples of people bragging that their relatives had a ripper connection?"

There was of course Mary Ann Cox and her niece, where the latter obviously had heard her aunt speak of her connection to the Ripper case. It was a famous/infamous case, the talk of the town, on everybody´s lips, I think you will readily admit this. And human nature is what it is - when somebody has been involved in a story like this, the chances are that they will embroider on it on their nights at the local pub. It´s rather like having met a celebrity or something such - people will talk about it. I fail to see why this would be any different with the Ripper case - or why it would be a point of contention on this thread. We have lots of paper reports speaking of how people stood in the streets talking about the murders, and the ones who had a connection to them - no matter how significant it was - would be sitting on a party piece.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"you want me to start exhaustingly itemising them again or are you satisfied we've been through them?"

What has that got to do with what I am talking about? I am pointing to your post, saying: "So the same sort of reasoning that lends itself towards Lechmere's guilt, cannot be used to point towards his innocence?", as if that was something I have suggested.

It is not, however. It is something you cooked up yourself, out of no true life ingredients. But each to his own, I guess. Discussion over - before it even started.

The best,
Fisherman

[CitizenX]

Is there a requirement to state your home address in an Inquest?

Was there a legal requirement to state your home address whilst giving evidence at an inquest?

An inquest is not a court of law and is not bound by any rules of anonymity. The coroner can run the proceedings however he sees fit as long as the Coroners rules are followed.

Cross stated that he was in the employ of Pickfords which probably satisfied the coroner as to the validity of the witness..its also very likely the Police had already confirmed this as a contact address for him.

To state that not giving his home address when it wasn't even required as some sort of cover up is stretching the "theory" a little to my mind..

[moonbegger]

Hello Dave/Ruby

People who find the fact that he was the ONLY major JtR witness not be pressed for his address by the Coroner , a true sign of his cunning manipulation , equalled only by his ability to con the police into thinking he was someone other than who he was ( and remain completely unchecked throughout the whole murder spree ) Need to ask themselves the question . what would a cunning manipulative daring mind like his have to fear from his wife finding out ?

I personally think that the parameters of coincidence have to be stretched way beyond stretching distance in order to accommodate and allow both of these feats to be accomplished . And that is just the beginning !

cheers

moonbegger