Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Wickerman]

The meeting point of Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul must have been almost exactly at the location where the blood spots where supposedly found!
What a coincidence.
Crikey!

So Paul should have seen Cross carrying something dripping blood?

Question: Why would a murderer approach a witness while carrying something dripping blood?

Jon S.

[Lechmere]

On the subject of the blood spots - it is my opinion that it is essentially urban myth and I don't take it very seriously as a piece of evidence.

But as for the supposed location?
The expression above or below is clearly a reference to further away (above - east) or nearer (below - west). That being the persepctive of the journalist who came from the city direction and of Polly who was presumed to have walked from that direction.
The proximity of houses to the blood clinches the notion that the blood was found supposedly 25-35 feet east of Polly's body and just off the kerb.

However, where did Charles Lechmere meet Robert Paul?
The distance given for them noticing each other is 40 yards - 120 feet.
We know that Charles Lechmere went towards Paul as Paul came towards him and that Paul stepped around Charles Lechmere, off the kerb and into the road to avoid him.
The meeting point of Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul must have been almost exactly at the location where the blood spots where supposedly found!
What a coincidence.
Crikey!

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
I am sure a clever fellow such as yourself understood perfectly well exactly what I said in my much less than perfect way, in relation to the total inadequacy of the theory that Charles Lechmere was allowed to call himself Cross by the police to protect him from anything.

Sometimes I am reduced to posting comments via my I Phone and editing out predictive text mistakes or big-finger-on-wrong-button mistakes is not always easy.

Here's something extra for you to chew over.
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.
However given the FACT that Charles Lechmere registered his family name as Lechmere on every single occasion when it was up to him and indeed on every single occasion when anyone of his bloodline (including his mother) registered his name (that is about 90 instances), then it has to be counted as being extremely unlikely that Thomas Cross would interefere and give him his surname in a public manner - eg when registering for school.
Census returns were not made public. Many people regard the census return, then and now, as an irksome intrusion.
Charles Lechmere was baptised in his Lechmere name after Thomas Cross married his mother as well remember.

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!

[caz]

Caz:

" But he can say "Charles Allen (pick any other surname)", carman at Pickfords for 20 years, living at 22 Doveton, and she won't find out or smell a rat?"

Itīs Chas. Andrew in the Daily Telegraph and George in the Times. No big giveaway for some reason.

Morning Fishypoo,

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.

Assuming you are suggesting no such thing, and 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. After that, it was beyond his control how those details might actually appear in print, 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?

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.

Yes, it's all becoming clearer now why simply changing Lechmere to Cross would have prevented his wife from suspecting him of serial murder and mutilation and shopping him to the cops.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Hi. For what it's worth.

Here is a section of my post #79

The odds are that Polly Nichols and her killer entered Bucks Row from the West, so the blood spots ( if there were any) were in the opposite direction, West of where she lay, farther up Bucks Row towards Brady Street,

Of course the above should read East of where she lay not West.

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Here is something to chew on while you figure it out ..

Thomas Cross married Chas's mum and took young Chas under his long arm .

Thomas Registered Chas aged 9 in 61 as Cross ..

Not sure how the school system played out back then .. if he would have switched up to a secondary school around age 11 or if you stayed in one school ?

But either way if T Cross was Keen and willing enough to register young Chas as Cross on the census .. then you can bet your house he would have had him registered at school as Chas Cross as well .. That has to be as close to a fact you will ever get without seeing solid proof !

Therefore he would have answered to the name Cross whenever a teacher spoke to him .. He would have written his own name as Cross ,his new friends would only know him as Cross .. his books would have said Cross on the cover .. his report card would say Cross .. His first job his step-dad would have touted him into , he no doubt would have been called Cross .

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Shall i give you a minute to put spell check on ..
and maybe tidy it up and make it readable ?

back in 5

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
Well done for noticing the business about the Star being the only paper to print the address details.
But your theory that this was to protect Lechmere is I am afraid ludicrous.
The police report calls him Cross of Doveton Street. They knew his details.
The report gives no hint that he had smother name and we know they recorded other names.
The report gives no hint that he was worried about being attacked by the culprit. This would be a material matter to mention in the report.
The idea that he was given anonymity at the inquest and then a senior policeman at the inquest gave the star his address is ludicrous.
It is clear he didn't provide his address and the star checked at the lunch recess.

Also you have quoted another poster's interpretation of whether he used the name Cross as if it were fact. The evidence suggests he never use. The name Cross himself. We gave now 90 instances Ivor him using Levhmere and never once Cross. That is what the historical record tells us. He was listed as Cross once by his step father when he would have been too young to know.

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

But this is not what you claimed, is it. You claimed that the coroner requested all witnesses to give their names and addresses. Besides, how can George Morris NOT have been an important witness, having had his door ajar to the Eddowes murder? How is Emma Green, who slept through the Nichols murder a MORE important witness? Back to the drawing board ...!

Yes, because that is the evidence we have , but you also have to think that the Coroner may well be a little more lenient on more trustworthy, less prominent witnesses like that of George Morris a security guard who was actually on duty , and was if memory serves me an Ex Copper /Soldier who actually did give his work address .. I'm sure you have gone through all the inquest openers by now , and George Morris is the closest you can get , which kind of underlines my original point Fish .

He was the only major witness in all the JtR inquests , allowed to withhold his address .

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"It may only be a comma but, yes, it is a big deal if it changes the whole meaning of the sentence!"

It is. You are absolutely correct, Colin. And I freely and heartily apologize for being discorteous.

"I accept that you didn't intend the meaning as originally written, but I had no way of knowing that. You didn't mean it as written, so I withdraw the comments based upon that version."

I humbly thank you for doing so. Iīll try to get the commas right fortwith - it would facilitate things. And when I get them wrong, I will try not to hold you responsible ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Now there, Fisherman, I do agree with you. "

There you go then, Sally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Yes you right Fish , but these are non essential witnesses ! if you go through each of victims inquest reports you will find a few non essential witnesses , who have no real significance in regards to the actual murder .. and their address are not deemed important ."

But this is not what you claimed, is it. You claimed that the coroner requested all witnesses to give their names and addresses. Besides, how can George Morris NOT have been an important witness, having had his door ajar to the Eddowes murder? How is Emma Green, who slept through the Nichols murder a MORE important witness? Back to the drawing board ...!

" he was allowed a certain degree of anonymity .."

Iīm sorry, but this is just nonsense. If he was granted anonymity, why provide him with a name by which he was not anonymous to "some people" as you put it? Why not say that the he was Mr Hickersham of Brady Street, a waterside labourer? What possible temptation could a discerning legal system find in letting him use a name under which he was actually known, if they recognized a need of anonymity on his behalf?

Donīt you see that this is just wrong?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger

The two blood spots you mention are up towards the board school,

From Lloyd's Weekly News 2nd Sept. 1888

‘Shortly after noon on Friday some men while searching the pavement in Buck's-row, above the gateway, in a different direction to that from which the woman came, or was brought, found two large spots of blood, and each about the size of a shilling. The first was about 25 feet from the gateway and the second 10 feet beyond. Both were a few inches from the kerb in the roadway and clearly defined. It was at once agreed they came either from the hands or the clothing of the murderer as he went away, and that they resulted from the squeezing out some blood-soaked clothing. Our representative discovered, however, on making inquiries the same night, that at a house near where the blood spots were a man, early on the morning of the tragedy, had made a murderous assault on his wife and cut her throat. She was carried to the London hospital, and it is very probable some blood dripped from her.’

Hello Mr Lucky ,

great find , also makes a lot more sense than the Star .. Do we know if the woman died or how severe the attack was ? Observer must be right in saying the blood was further up/down the row by the houses .. Also i don't get "early on the morning of the tragedy" did he mean the morning before Polly was murdered or a few hours after Polly was murdered or a couple of hours before Polly ? My money's on a couple before .. surely this chap must of been arrested and suspected of doing Polly also ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Observer]

Hi Mr Lucky

Looking at the Lloyds weekly article it seems to me as if the spots lay 30 feet and 40 feet respectively farther up Bucks Row towards Brady Street, near to one of the dwelling houses in Bucks Row.

Stains were found in Broad Street, but proved not to be blood

Also wouldn't an incident as serious as a throat cutting be reported in the newspapers?

I suspect the Lloyds Weekly article is a garbled account of the Bucks Row murder of Polly Nichols.

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hello Retro ,

Firstly those pesky brackets (eg) [Conjecture alert ] That Lechmere was known as Cross for one single time when he was a child and had no say in the matter [clear] all clear, conjecture siren is silent See ruby pure conjecture .. there is no way of proving this .

Born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1849, St Anne's, Soho, son of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa (nee Roulson). In 1858, Charles' mother remarried, to Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took his surname.

Charles took his surname ! just take a wild stab in the dark at this one , what do you suppose ( Charles took his surname) means .. for a day ? for a week ? possibly a month ? a year ? or how about up until he decided to get married and start his own family in 1871 ? we really have no way of knowing exactly how long he was known as Cross .. unless you are keeping back some vital information that predates the 1871 census ?

cheers

moonbegger