Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Cogidubnus]

Who put pressure on him to use Cross in preference to Lechmere? Do you have anything at all to back such an outlandish claim up?
Was it the Lechmere family secret police? Tell me how the rich Lechmere's found out before the inquest appearance that Charles Lechmere was going to be a witness? The next suggestion will no doubt be that the Russian Seccret Police told them - or were they secret Fenians?

It was no more than a bit of speculation...which I'd remind you is, essentially, all you've got...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

This is reinforced by charles Lechmere turning up at the inquest in his workclothes - so his wife will have thought he was going to work. He was not that poor and would have had other clothes and in any case he was also wearing his apron.

How are you so SURE he wasn't that poor? He was a carman with a fair-sized family for christs sake, not a stockbroker...it was common practice to pawn the Sunday-best first thing Monday and redeem it Saturday...anecdotally it certainly happened in my mother's family...he may not even have HAD a Sunday-best...and as has previously been pointed out, he may've anyway been anticipating going in to do at least a part days work...I honestly don't see how you can read more into it than that...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

We can deduce his wife didn't know (for the umpteenth time) because Sge died in 1940 and her great grand children some of whom are still alive would have known her and none knew anything about the case

And from this we can deduce only that his wife passed nothing on to his grandchildren...

Look, Jack the Ripper was a bogey man...a source of great shame to a good many Eastenders...as recently as the 50s and 60s my mother used JtR as a bogeyman threat against myself and my brother...when I (much later) asked her about it, she said JtR was regarded the same during HER childhood...Can you be surprised Lechmere's wife wasn't proud of the connection?

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"So the same sort of reasoning that lends itself towards Lechmere's guilt, cannot be used to point towards his innocence? Now THAT is interesting logic..."

It would be very helpful if you can point out where I said this, Dave. I very much dislike being made responsible for things I have not said, you see.

If you take the time to once again read through what I posted, you will find that I say that I am of the meaning that the more potential pointers to guilt we find, the more we need to be wary of the possibility that he was the killer. It is very simple and basic - people who are not guilty of something, normally wont collect potential pointers to guilt by the dozens.

I hope you read me correct this time, and that you thus save me the trouble of having to defend myself against claims that I have said something that I have not said. Itīs becoming increasingly tiresome.

If you donīt see what Iīm saying, then please ask me before spreading strange accusations on the boards. Could you do that for me? Please?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"The address is recorded, it's recorded in the Star. Obviously its been mention at the inquest. Clearly, there is something wrong with your logic, if you think that the fact his address appears in print directly after he has given his testimony proves that he didn't say it."

There is only something wrong with my logic if I rule out any possibility that may apply, Mr Lucky. And I donīt do that. Maybe the Star reporter WAS the only one who managed to hear what Lechmere said.
But it equally applies that this reporter - as the only in the reporter crowd - could either have asked about the adress (which the police would have) or found it in a witness list compiled by the coroner.

There is nothing illogical about suggesting that when all but one of the inquest reports in the papers fail to mention something, this could very well be due to that something not being mentioned.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Cog
There is no volte face - to suggest it is a little silly.
A beat copper not doing his job right or failing to get evidence properly is one thing. Giving immunity over an address at an inquest and telling a journalist that address at the same Inquest is quite another.
Or am I being unreasonable here?

We can deduce his wife didn't know (for the umpteenth time) because Sge died in 1940 and her great grand children some of whom are still alive would have known her and none knew anything about the case - there is no passed down family tradition and most East End families relish Ripper connections - if they have one (see Toppy).
This is reinforced by charles Lechmere turning up at the inquest in his workclothes - so his wife will have thought he was going to work. He was not that poor and would have had other clothes and in any case he was also wearing his apron.
It is also reinforced as he used the name Cross and seems to have avoided giving his address in open court.

Who put pressure on him to use Cross in preference to Lechmere? Do you have anything at all to back such an outlandish claim up?
Was it the Lechmere family secret police? Tell me how the rich Lechmere's found out before the inquest appearance that Charles Lechmere was going to be a witness? The next suggestion will no doubt be that the Russian Seccret Police told them - or were they secret Fenians?

[Lechmere]

Why not just extend it to an hour and also claim that Neil wasn't walking his beat properly.
That is in line with the sort of reasoning expressed in the above posts.

Mr lucky - it is not at all obvious that Charles Lechmere gave his address in open court as only the Star reported it. They could easily have obtained it by asking a policeman in the lunch recess.

[Cogidubnus]

As Caz said, he gave his place of residence and place of work so if he really had something to hide it was hidden in plain sight and could have been easily rumbled. Might I suggest that the reason that he gave the name Cross was for some personal reason that we don't yet know, but probably not to save the family name? And if it was to save him being treated as a suspect it was a very transparent subterfuge, i.e., no real protection, IMHO.

Just as plausible as anything else I've read Chris!

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

It is slightly laughable how the 'nay sayers' have jumped on the remote and convoluted possibility that he opted for Cross to save the old family name from the dishonour of his reduced circumstances.

So suddenly those arguing that Lechmere/Cross might well be perfectly innocent, and that the case against him is far from conclusive, are presented as "nay sayers"...what kind of balanced logic does this represent?

All the best

Dave

[harry]

I would suggest that because we only have press reports to guide us,that a little latitude be given.The estimated time of death, what Cross and Paul are reported to have said to Mizen.The fact appears to have been that information was given to Mizen that a body had been found in Bucks Row,and he responded by going there.The time of death being up to Half an hour prior to the first medical examination,which appears so casual,that the greatest extent of the injuries were missed.Could that half an hour be extended to45 minutes?

[Cogidubnus]

"Now if that ain't a blatantly obvious reason, right there, why Charlie Boy the Whitechapel carman might not particularly want the posh side of the family knowing about his lowly stature and his recent connection with a foully murdered street walker, or alternatively - if he looked up to his Lechmere 'betters' - not want the good family name all over the papers in such a connection, then I don't know what would be".

Now that, Caz, is quite a good thought...possibly pressure was brought to bear? Perhaps both ways?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

If he was granted anonymity it is pretty inconceivable that a policeman who knew the details would blurt them out to a reporter - even given the level of incompetence shown by the police in this case.

What an interesting volte-face...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

So once again, we have a detail that lends itself very much to an interpretation of fould play on Lechmereīs behalf - just as we can find alternative explanations. No matter how we look upon it, I think it applies that the more of these things that keep cropping up, the more we need to be wary of Charles Lechmere.

So the same sort of reasoning that lends itself towards Lechmere's guilt, cannot be used to point towards his innocence? Now THAT is interesting logic...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

And if he had been genuinly scared for his family don't you think that he would have warned his wife to try and be on her guard ? He didn't, because his family never knew.

His descendants didn't know...fair enough...Pray how do you know about what his wife knew or didn't know? Went back and asked her did you?

All the best

Dave

[Mr Lucky]

The address is not recorded in the inquest reports given by the papers. The logical thing to guess is that this was because he never mentioned it. Thatīs our stance.
The stance of the opposite camp would seem to be that he DID mention his address, but he was so soft-spoken or the crowd so noisy that none of the papers managed to hear it, and the coroner did not ask him to raise his voice and repeat it.

The address is recorded, it's recorded in the Star. Obviously its been mention at the inquest. Clearly, there is something wrong with your logic, if you think that the fact his address appears in print directly after he has given his testimony proves that he didn't say it.

He describes when he left home and the route he took to Bucks Row.

The press are interested in the story of the men who find the body, they're not interested in his address.