Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"What we do have is some indication that people had difficulty understanding him. We have not just Mizen, but perhaps also reporters in the courtroom. . ."

But where is the indication that Mizen had any trouble att understanding him? It is only when we work from the assumption that he could not have said what Mizen adamantly claimed that he said, that we can start speaking of any indication that mizen had had any difficulties in understanding him.

The same goes for the inquest. It is only when we assume that he MUST have given his address on the stand, that we can speak of any shortcomings in Lechmereīs manner of expressing himself.

If things were what they were recorded to be, then the problem never surfaces, does it? And why would NOT things be the way they were recorded? Because, perhaps, they would in such a case potentially point to guilt?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Not necessarily. He could have been very soft spoken, therefore it was difficult for the reporters to hear in the noise and distance of the courtroom.
And his being soft spoken can also account for the Mizen misunderstanding."

Since the rest of his testimony is one long, logically connected story, it would seem that his soft-spoken period was restricted only to when he gave his address. The rest was picked up on by the many journalists reporting from the inquest.

I would not say that it is impossible that they reporters all failed to hear it - but for the Star reporter - I am only saying that the very nefarious interpretators belonging to the dreaded Lechmere accusers seem always to be the ones who do not need to change anything in the evidence in order for the story to fit their suggestion.

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.
You see, you have to ADD an element before you get it right. I donīt.

The Mizen scam - I say that Jonas Mizen claimed that Lechmere had told him that a PC awaited him in Buckīs Row, and that he never led on that he himself had found Nichols, instead opting for a passive version.
You say that Lechmere was probably so soft-spoken that Mizen only THOUGHT he heard him saying that a PC awaited him in Buckīs Row, whereas he in fact said something else.
You ADD an element, that of a misheard statement, whereas I change not a iota, and go with the evidence as it is, because - as ususal - I donīt have to make any changes to have the story fit a malicious intent.

Same thing for the passive version. No mishearing, I say.

And after all, you may be right here. It may be that you propositions all are correct, and that Lechmere not only was misheard, misunderstood or not heard at all due to noise. If so, he had the very bad luck of getting the evidence recorded in a manner that lends itself eminently to an interpretation of guilt. Still, this could be so.

If we add the element of the geographical correlation between his road to work and the murder sites, we can be looking at more of the same. It could be that the murder site just happened to drop in at addresses that fit his working route and the route to his motherīs house.
Myself, I think that if a guy has all that bad luck with the mishearings and all - then why could not destiny have granted him at least ONE murder site that did NOT correlate with his own routes and timings? Why could not one of the murders have happened on, say, Newgate Street, thus clearing him in this respect? But no, they ALL had to happen along his routes.

Meaning, of course, that I donīt have to change one single thing there either, whereas others need to find another alternative explanation. Which should not bother them too much, since they can be dug up and presented by the thousands ...

The collected weigth, Curious - that is what matters here. Says I.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

We do not know that Polly entered Bucks Row with anyone,or from which direction she entered,or at what time she arrived there.What information we do have is that Holland,about 2.30 am that morning,offered Nicholls a place to sleep.Therefor from that time on,she did not need to prostitute herself to find the money for accomodation,which had been her stated reason for being on the streets.The fact that she at that time turned down the opportunity,did not mean it was not available at a later hour,and lack of information to the contrary,appears to suggest she did not pursue her previous intentions.The odd factor,in Polly's case,is that of the suspected ripper victims,she is the only victim not seen with a prospective customer the morning of her death.

[curious]

Yes he could have been diberately softly spoken as well.
In the dark with Paul distracted by the body Charles Lechmere could have touched her with his spare hand and while Paul tried to pull the dress down maybe he secured it more safely. Maybe the knife was one reason he refused to prop her up.

some people are very soft spoken and difficult to understand. They don't project at all. We have no idea what Lechmere's voice was like. What we do have is some indication that people had difficulty understanding him. We have not just Mizen, but perhaps also reporters in the courtroom. . .

[curious]

Perhaps he just simply never wanted to prop someone up that was not alert since they tend to fall over and crack their head open.

that's one reason.

Another is that this was a prostitute. Maybe he really just didn't want to touch her. In that day and age, women of Polly's class were shunned.

and thirdly, moving someone around can create more damage if you don't don't what the problem is in the first place. Frankly, if I came upon anyone lying down and I have no idea what the problem is, I would not prop them up or twist them around for fear of perhaps doing further damage.

curious

[sleekviper]

Perhaps he just simply never wanted to prop someone up that was not alert since they tend to fall over and crack their head open.

[Lechmere]

Yes he could have been diberately softly spoken as well.
In the dark with Paul distracted by the body Charles Lechmere could have touched her with his spare hand and while Paul tried to pull the dress down maybe he secured it more safely. Maybe the knife was one reason he refused to prop her up.

[curious]

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.

Not necessarily. He could have been very soft spoken, therefore it was difficult for the reporters to hear in the noise and distance of the courtroom.

And his being soft spoken can also account for the Mizen misunderstanding.

curious

[curious]

Jon
Maybe he held it out of sight, behind the hand of the arm that he did not use to tap Paul on the shoulder. Maybe he had it at the ready in that manner in case he needed to use it.
Either way it is easy to see how it could have dripped blood.
He wouldn't have had time to wrap it up.

So, how did he manage to hide it when they approached the body and were touching Polly? If he didn't have time to hide the knife before Paul arrived, how could he manage to hide it with Paul right there with him?

curious

[Fisherman]

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. Itīs much the same as him not being able to count on the police not checking him out. We canīt say that he was pig thick for chancing it would go down that way, can we?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Now this is a game changer thanks to Chris Scott

[QUOTE]Here is the record of Charles's baptism, which took place when he was 9 years old.

Charles Lechmere
Baptism
St Dunstan, Stepney
Baptised: 16 Jan 1859
Born: 5 Oct 1849
Child's Christian name(s): Charles Allen
Parents' Names:
Christian: John Allen and Maria Louisa
Surname: Lechmere

If his mum married Thomas Cross in 1858 ..and this 1859 baptism is correct then quite possibly there can be no doubt Thomas cross was happy enough to bring up a child under another man's name .. but how would we explain the 61 census ? ARE THESE DATES 100% ?

But i also think it , it not only raises the steaks, but also adds a lot more weight to his anonymity plea ..

cheers

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

Jon
As I said I think the blood story is urban myth.
But...
If it were true...
The place where the blood is described as being must have been almost exactly the same spot where Charles Lechmere tapped Robert Paul on his shoulder.
If Charles Lechmere did it (and in my humble opinion he is head and shoulders above any other suspect so far identified as possibly being the culprit) then he would have secreted the knife about his person. Inside his coat, under his apron, or somewhere similar. Maybe he held it out of sight, behind the hand of the arm that he did not use to tap Paul on the shoulder. Maybe he had it at the ready in that manner in case he needed to use it.
Paul seems to have been spooked by the way he was approached.
Either way it is easy to see how it could have dripped blood.
He wouldn't have had time to wrap it up.

[moonbegger]

Unless of course .. The Star knew they was going against the wishes of a witness , but still wanted the kudos of actually getting some information before anyone else ?

Perhaps said reporter had jotted down his report already, leading with carman cross, and the only thing missing was the address, so he asks the register who may well have well had it written down on the top of his original statement before hand, and just maybe that register didn't know it wasn't suppose to be withheld from the press ?

you really think that all them other press men would have missed it ?

Not even made an attempt to jot what they thought they heard ?

i'm afraid it is there in print what he said .. no more no less !

cheers

moonbegger

[Mr Lucky]

Cross gave his name and address in court.

The Star called him 'carman Cross', if they had access to police/coroners notes they would use his full name. Therefore they didn't get his address from those notes, therefore he said his name and address in court.

There are a least 9 different versions of Cross's name in print.

The court was packed and noisy, this is why most of the witnesses are misnamed somewhere ( Henry Llewellyn, Jane Oram/Hodden, Alfred Mulshaw etc) , or have the wrong address in some press reports

They are not all under police protection.

[moonbegger]

Hello Lechmere ,

There was no universal education system when Charles Lechmere was at school. Universal Education started to be brought in with the 1870 Elementary Education Act.
Before that there were a number of local voluntary church schools that catered for most people's educational needs.
I have however searched the records for all schools within reasonable distance of the addresses Charles Lechmere is known to have lived at as a child and I have come up with nothing. There are in fact hardly any such records to check.

Cheers's Lech , good information , its a shame we dont have any school records for his education .. Although we can still assume he was educated somewhere ( his Police dad Thomas would have made sure of that ) is that safe to assume ? And in the circumstance he was , His stepdad Thomas would still have him registered as Chas Cross none the less ..

However Moonbeggar, as I said, well done for establishing the likelihood that Charles Lechmere avoided giving his address in public at the inquest.
Another sign of his guilt!

You may find this surprising Lech , but i am not actually on here to vilify or vindicate anyone , my only concern is that every reasonable alternative is looked into before guilt or innocence can be laid at the door of any suspect .The unbiased truth is the goal . Now if find something suspicious i will do my best to question it ( in the words of a Druid high priest , Let the stones lay where they fall) the rest is open to interpretation !

Now if you 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 ) Then that is your prerogative , and i am ok with it .. it is your interpretation of how you see things ..

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 . but again, that is only my humble opinion!

And as far as your I phone comments go ( was pulling your leg about spellcheck by the way )

The police report calls him Cross of Doveton Street. They knew his details

Well of course they did ? and yes someone must have leaked it to the press ..
someone who was privy to that information ?

It is clear he didn't provide his address and the star checked at the lunch recess.

Most probable ! But like i said even if he was afforded the barest of benefits,
[ not having to confirm his address in open court, as well as using his less familiar name] that would still be anonymity .. The Police and the Coroner made an effort on his behalf . It is there in Black and white !

We really should let them stones lay where they fell , without moving them about too much ..

cheers

moonbegger .