Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;233445]
" You are now suggesting that he was known to his neighbours as Cross after all."

Eh - no. I am suggesting that if people picked up on him calling himself Cross at the inquest, and then approached a woman who thought she was named Lechmere, then she would be astounded by anybody calling her Cross. Please, please, Colin, do try to keep things apart. Otherwise you will make a mockery of the debate - and you would not want that.

Or would you?

This is what you actually posted:

Neither. Since we are speaking of the name Lechmere on this occasion. I fail to see where I have argued that he consistently tried to hide that away from people in general. Hiding it from the inquest was a very temporary thing. It took ten seconds and would either work or fail. Hiding it from the rest of the world, his neighbours included would fail the moment they said "Good morning, Mrs Cross!"

.
I'm looking at the last sentence in particular:

Hiding it from the rest of the world, his neighbours included would fail the moment they said "Good morning, Mrs Cross!"

"I have no idea how this is relevant to what I posted, so I assume it's intended for somebody else."

Nope. It was intended for you, since you said that it was much more creible that he was not a serial killer or something to that effect.

Ted Bundy had no relevance to the point I made. If you want to comment on something I've said, why not use the 'quote' facility rather than creating your own paraphrase?

"In your own words: "Kind of a circular argument, that one.""

What? That a feeling of unackowledged superiority is often a driving force behind serial killers? How is that circular?

That isn't. (It's not what you posted.) This is:

It is a bit strange that your ponderings have not taken you down this particular lane? Instead you ask "Are you seriously stating that becoming a serial killer is a more likely outcome that becoming socially embarrassed?", well knowing that NOTHING is less likely than becoming a serial killer. But when you had a serial killer out and about, you must realize that something turned him into what he was. And a feeling of unacknowledged superiority is a very, very fair bet in that discipline. And that would fit very well with Lechmere.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Fundamentally, he acts like an innocent man, not a guilty one."

Absolutely - he presents himself under a false name and he tells Mizen that another PC wants him in Buck´s Row - that´s fundamentally innocent if I´ve ever seen fundamental innocence.

"If he'd really wanted to hide his involvement from his wife, e.g. he'd have given the police a false address, a false workplace etc. I mean, what if he'd done that and walked out of the cop shop - how would the police have found him again, exactly?"

They would have his description down to the last shirt button. He would become the most wanted person in Britain after that - very probably the killer of Nichols. If caught, he would swing for it.

Why run that risk? Would a man that was cool enough to con Paul and ease past Mizen the way he did suddenly panic an run - after having created the kind of scam he created? It would be a total shift of personality.
He brazened things out, by the looks of things, and he did it skilfully enough to stay on the course.

"No, we can't explain his use of the name 'Cross' on this occasion "

Bravo. The sooner we realize that and it´s potential implications, the better. Michael Connor did NOT know this when he first pointed his finger at "Cross". Nor had he seen the implications of the Mizen meeting. Nor did he know about the Cable Street adress. Nor did he notice that "Cross" apparently avoided to give his address at the inquest, thus keeping it from (almost all) the newspapers.

"the answer must lie elsewhere."

Must? No - but you WANT it to. Different things, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

The thing is..

Charles Lechmere didn't hide his address. I mean that's how modern researchers found him in the first place, right?

Had he been a guilty man then why give his address to the police, as he surely did? Why remain at the same home for years - why not pack up and go elsewhere, where his past would never catch up with him? (and of course we know he did stay there don't we, because of all those lovely records we can see on Ancestry)

Fundamentally, he acts like an innocent man, not a guilty one. If he'd really wanted to hide his involvement from his wife, e.g. he'd have given the police a false address, a false workplace etc. I mean, what if he'd done that and walked out of the cop shop - how would the police have found him again, exactly?

No, we can't explain his use of the name 'Cross' on this occasion - but the premise that he did it to elude the police is logically untenable in the circumstances.

Therefore, the answer must lie elsewhere.

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"As Caz said, he gave his place of residence and place of work"

He gave that information to the police, apparently. But to the inquest he said nothing about his address by the looks of things, and Pickfords housed many carmen.

".. so if he really had something to hide it was hidden in plain sight and could have been easily rumbled."

He could have been researched by the police, yes. But he in all probability was not, which is why we have the police naming him Cross. They apparently did not search the registers for his name.

If they had - and he would arguably have realized that they might have - then it would have been foolish to call himself Brown or Smith. Cross, however - that was a name he did have some distant claim to. If checked out, he could say that he called himself Cross in honour of his old stepfather. That would not work with phony names.
The purpose of giving the name Cross could well be to keep his wife and aquaintances in the dark. That´s how it applies.

"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?"

You may, of course. I don´t see much mileage in the embarrasment suggestion either.

"And if it was to save him being treated as a suspect it was a very transparent subterfuge, i.e., no real protection, IMHO."

There was a lot of transparency involved. But what could the police do, if they found out that he was called Lechmere? Of course, they would have looked at him more suspiciously, but they would have been a number of days late in doing so. He had had plenty of time to wash any blood away, and he would have had time to get rid of the weapon too. They could only pin him to being dishonest about his name, and he would have an explanation for that one.

It would have given him away to his wife and aquaintances, though. And they may well have become suspicious of him, and they may have noticed that the killings occurred along his work route at times when he had reason to be there. That would be bad for business, decidedly. It was a conscious risk he decided to run, I believe. The same thing applies for the Mizen scam. Word stood against word, but in the end, he landed on his feet in both cases.

All the best,
Fisherman

[ChrisGeorge]

Caz:

"But he very obviously did mind giving the family name of Lechmere in connection with his little Buck's Row encounter, since he gave his name as Cross!"

Yes. Strange, is it not? So something more important than pride may have been at stake. His neck, perhaps?

" The whole point would have to been to keep his Lechmere relatives in blissful ignorance"

And here you are again, trying to keep me in blissful (one l at the end please, not two!) ignorance. How on earth was giving his name as Charles Allen Cross, instead of Charles Allen Lechmere, then giving his home address and work details, a neck-saving exercise? And please, please, don't tell me it must have been because it worked!

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Fisherman

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.

Best regards

Chris

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"How on earth was giving his name as Charles Allen Cross, instead of Charles Allen Lechmere, then giving his home address and work details, a neck-saving exercise?"

Take it in four steps, Caz.

1. He does not want his wife to find out about his involvement.
2. If he says "Lechmere", then she will find out.
3. ... and then she gives him away.
4. Then we arrive at the neck thing.

Please observe that he apparently did NOT give his home adress at the inquest - that´s what this thread is about, by the way. That seems to implicate a reluctance to give away who he was. Stating that he was a Pickford´s carman placed him alongside hundreds of other men in the same business and occupation, I believe.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"And yet you and Lechmere have argued elsewhere that one of his reasons for supposedly becoming a serial killer was the resentment he felt at his reduced circumstances. (In fact, you do it later in the same post!) Why would such extreme resentment kick in after 20 years, but not before?"

Why does not every serial killer start killing after having crawled out of the cradle? Why wait? Normally, Colin, because something triggers their sprees.

" You are now suggesting that he was known to his neighbours as Cross after all."

Eh - no. I am suggesting that if people picked up on him calling himself Cross at the inquest, and then approached a woman who thought she was named Lechmere, then she would be astounded by anybody calling her Cross. Please, please, Colin, do try to keep things apart. Otherwise you will make a mockery of the debate - and you would not want that.

Or would you?

"I referred to embarrassment and to the idea of protecting the Lechmere family name. "

But Colin, he had worked at Pickfords for twenty long years. He had grown up in the East End. Don´t you think that the Lechmere´s had come to terms with this? And they were very rich people - if they had felt like it, they could have bought Charles out of there, I reckon. Yet they did not. How does that leave him in any way indebted to the family, feeling any duty not to reveal his own shortcomings? I don´t buy this at all, I´m afraid. He mad no effort whatsoever to conceal that he was a Lechmere other than at the inquest, as far as we can tell.

"I have no idea how this is relevant to what I posted, so I assume it's intended for somebody else."

Nope. It was intended for you, since you said that it was much more creible that he was not a serial killer or something to that effect.

"In your own words: "Kind of a circular argument, that one.""

What? That a feeling of unackowledged superiority is often a driving force behind serial killers? How is that circular?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Monty
If as seems most probable Lechmere appeared at a police station on the Sunday evening and appears at the inquest Monday morning, then it makes sense that his summons to attend was given to him in Person. I very much doubt it was posted to him.

But what do you think?

[Lechmere]

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.
It is one thing to suggest he was aware of his family background and to suggest that this might cause resentment. I am afraid resentment is a more common phenomena than relishing the name and wishing to Protect his much better off distant cousins.
In any case his father was a shoe maker, he had uncles and their Children and first cousins living humbly in other areas of London. There were a lot of humble Lechmeres in London as they had big families and not enough family wealth to go round. I bet he never met any of his superior relatives.
The chances of him opting to use Cross to save his distant family embarrassment at his humble job is so remote as to be laughable.

[caz]

Caz:

"But he very obviously did mind giving the family name of Lechmere in connection with his little Buck's Row encounter, since he gave his name as Cross!"

Yes. Strange, is it not? So something more important than pride may have been at stake. His neck, perhaps?

And here you are again, trying to keep me in blissful (one l at the end please, not two!) ignorance. How on earth was giving his name as Charles Allen Cross, instead of Charles Allen Lechmere, then giving his home address and work details, a neck-saving exercise? And please, please, don't tell me it must have been because it worked!

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

But why would he care, if he did never move in the same circles as the better-off Lechmere´s? He had been a carman for Pickford´s for twenty years - it wasn´t exactly a new situation to him or the other Lechmere´s, was it?

And yet you and Lechmere have argued elsewhere that one of his reasons for supposedly becoming a serial killer was the resentment he felt at his reduced circumstances. (In fact, you do it later in the same post!) Why would such extreme resentment kick in after 20 years, but not before?

Neither. Since we are speaking of the name Lechmere on this occasion. I fail to see where I have argued that he consistently tried to hide that away from people in general. Hiding it from the inquest was a very temporary thing. It took ten seconds and would either work or fail. Hiding it from the rest of the world, his neighbours included would fail the moment they said "Good morning, Mrs Cross!".

And another plank of the argument put forward is that he never used the name Cross - did so only for the purposes of the inquest. You are now suggesting that he was known to his neighbours as Cross after all. What's his thought process here then? "I'll use the other name I use quite a lot - the one the neighbours know me by. That way nobody will know it was me"? Was he known as Cross or wasn't he?

Aha. Since you wrote "Charles Lechmere was simply protecting the Lechmere family who might not like it being known, in their elevated social circle, that a member of the family was working as a carman in the East End of London", I felt you were implying some sort of pressure from their side. But you instead think that Lechmere took it upon him to absolve them, by calling himself "Cross", mainly because he sensed that he owed it to his relatives, and also because he was very ashamed of being a lowly carman in the East End. Is that about correct?

I referred to embarrassment and to the idea of protecting the Lechmere family name.

By the way, the chances that Bundy was a serial killer were also very remote - it was much more credible to suggest that he was innocent, since most people are. Kind of a circular argument, that one.

I have no idea how this is relevant to what I posted, so I assume it's intended for somebody else.

It is a bit strange that your ponderings have not taken you down this particular lane? Instead you ask "Are you seriously stating that becoming a serial killer is a more likely outcome that becoming socially embarrassed?", well knowing that NOTHING is less likely than becoming a serial killer. But when you had a serial killer out and about, you must realize that something turned him into what he was. And a feeling of unacknowledged superiority is a very, very fair bet in that discipline. And that would fit very well with Lechmere.

In your own words: "Kind of a circular argument, that one."

Regards, Bridewell.

[caz]

I have suggested on numerous occasions that Lechmere may have resented the life he had been offered, resented spending his days among whores, pimps and thieves, and that he may have felt that he was better than them all.

All the more reason for him not wanting the posh side of the family to 'read all about it' in their morning papers! Good point, well made, Fishy.

By the way, the chances that Bundy was a serial killer were also very remote - it was much more credible to suggest that he was innocent, since most people are. Kind of a circular argument, that one.

Again, someone had to come across each of the Whitechapel victims, just as someone had to find each of Bundy's numerous victims. I'm sure if Bundy hadn't been identified as the killer, you'd have found plenty of imaginary dirt to dig up from among all those innocent people.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The whole point would have to been to keep his Lechmere relatives in blissful ignorance and the Lechmere name unassociated with the whole sordid affair...

...and it worked - until modern researchers found out and a couple of suspect theorists licked their lips, smelling blood.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"But he very obviously did mind giving the family name of Lechmere in connection with his little Buck's Row encounter, since he gave his name as Cross!"

Yes. Strange, is it not? So something more important than pride may have been at stake. His neck, perhaps?

" The whole point would have to been to keep his Lechmere relatives in blissful ignorance"

Blissfull ignorance is not for me, Caz. So thanks, but no thanks.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"My suggestion is that he might be embarrassed about the possibility of his working as a carman in the East End becoming known in the social circles the other Lechmere's moved in. They are likely to read The Times; they are not likely, as you know very well, to be going round Bethnal Green reading the names on letter-boxes!"

But why would he care, if he did never move in the same circles as the better-off Lechmere´s? He had been a carman for Pickford´s for twenty years - it wasn´t exactly a new situation to him or the other Lechmere´s, was it?

"I thought you and Lechmere were arguing that this is exactly what he did for 120 years. Has that position changed or just become temporarily inconvenient?"

Neither. Since we are speaking of the name Lechmere on this occasion. I fail to see where I have argued that he consistently tried to hide that away from people in general. Hiding it from the inquest was a very temporary thing. It took ten seconds and would either work or fail. Hiding it from the rest of the world, his neighbours included would fail the moment they said "Good morning, Mrs Cross!".

"No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that this was something which Cross/Lechmere himself was worried about."

Aha. Since you wrote "Charles Lechmere was simply protecting the Lechmere family who might not like it being known, in their elevated social circle, that a member of the family was working as a carman in the East End of London", I felt you were implying some sort of pressure from their side. But you instead think that Lechmere took it upon him to absolve them, by calling himself "Cross", mainly because he sensed that he owed it to his relatives, and also because he was very ashamed of being a lowly carman in the East End. Is that about correct?

If so, it is interesting. I have suggested on numerous occasions that Lechmere may have resented the life he had been offered, resented spending his days among whores, pimps and thieves, and that he may have felt that he was better than them all.
That does not fall very far from your suggestion.

It is a bit strange that your ponderings have not taken you down this particular lane? Instead you ask "Are you seriously stating that becoming a serial killer is a more likely outcome that becoming socially embarrassed?", well knowing that NOTHING is less likely than becoming a serial killer. But when you had a serial killer out and about, you must realize that something turned him into what he was. And a feeling of unacknowledged superiority is a very, very fair bet in that discipline. And that would fit very well with Lechmere.

By the way, the chances that Bundy was a serial killer were also very remote - it was much more credible to suggest that he was innocent, since most people are. Kind of a circular argument, that one.

All the best,
Fisherman