Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[caz]

Hi Fishy,

I said that you and others 'may' ignore the fact that class had a huge part to play in those days. You also clearly missed the point with this:

I also wrote that I donīt invest very much in it. Thats how I feel about it - I think Lechmere may well have been proud of his name and ancestors, and that he did not mind giving his name at all. I also think it a stretch that he would accept any encouragement on behalf of his relatives not to mention his name, but in fact instead lie on their request.

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!

And who said anything about his relatives even knowing about his involvement, let alone encouraging him to lie at their request? If it's a 'stretch', it's one entirely of your own making. 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.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

My post: "As the Lechmere family was an ancient one, dating back to the Norman Conquest, is it not possible that, in giving the name Cross, 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?

Not because he was a killer, not because he was an innocent passer-by, just because he was embarrassed - about his own lowly social status? "

But still, Colin, he signed all documents with his correct name.

Documents which would not enter the public domain during his lifetime, if ever.

And he would have his name on the postbox at home too. And his kids, what did he do with them? Ask them not to reveal that they were Lechmeres, in spite of having been baptized by that name, the lot of them? His wife, was she told not to give away what name he had given her by marriage?

I didn't say he was ashamed to be a Lechmere, so you're arguing with a point I wasn't making. 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!

Even if he was embarrased, I fail to see how he could have effectively hidden what he was called.

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?

But you are, it seems, suggesting that the rest of the Lechmeres put pressure on him not to come out with their name on his behalf. "Please, Charles, donīt let the world know what you have sunk to, it would hurt our feelings and maybe lord and lady Haversham wonīt come to our annual tea party", sort of?

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

For sure, stranger things have happened. But I still think it a very far shot. Other explanations are far closer at hand, the way I see it.

Okay, but there has been great play made, on another thread, about the high status of the Lechmere family and the humble status of Cross/Lechmere himself. Great play has been made of the effect which this may have had on his world view and his behaviour. I've simply taken that idea to its logical conclusion. That conclusion - that his circumstances caused him to be embarrassed - is a great deal more plausible that the argument that the same circumstances transformed him into a serial killer. I'll go along with the notion that the simplest and most obvious explanation is most likely to be true. That's why I added 'Occam's razor' to my last post. Are you seriously stating that becoming a serial killer is a more likely outcome that becoming socially embarrassed?

Regards, Bridewell.

[caz]

The Star quote does seem to suggest the two drops of blood were caused by something dripping blood being carried away by the killer. Yet, we know no organs were removed in this case. In fact the concept of organ removal had not even transpired yet.

Even if the knife dripped blood as the killer left the scene, such small drips would be hardly noticeable.
How to account for "fresh thick blood" being on the footpath, if connected with the murder?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

Any indication that an item of clothing - a scarf for instance - could have been taken by the killer, and dripped blood as he left the scene?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Here we are:

His family was well established. His distant cousin was a Tory MP - a close cousin ran big estates in Herdfordshire.
One of his great uncles served with Nelson and ended up as Rear Admiral of the Blue.
He had a name he would have been proud of.
So why opt for Cross?
At the very least it is odd. Anyone to say otherwise needs to take a reality check.

No reality check needed. This is very far from 'odd', if Cross simply didn't want to be involved, and didn't want the family name of Lechmere dragged into it either. I doubt he'd have relished the idea of it being all over the papers that a Lechmere who had fallen on hard times and ended up in Whitechapel had stumbled across a dead prossie on his way to work as a carman. Using the name Cross would have protected himself from the posh side of the family turning up their toffee noses in shame and horror, and kept the Lechmere name well and truly out of it - at least until modern researchers began digging.

I can only agree with what Sally said here:

I wonder if it's ever occurred that Crossmere may simply not have wanted to be involved? Some of his known actions are consistent with such a wish. It has been seen as (further) indications of his guilt that he refused to touch Nichol's body; perhaps wanted to keep his family out of the public eye; and apparently didn't talk about the events of that morning in later years.

Yeah. Well, while its all very well to live in fantasy-speculator world where every action has an equal and opposite indication of guilt, in the REAL world, finding a dead body - that later turns out to be a victim of the Whitechapel Fiend - is not everybody's idea of a good time.

However we may wish to pick over the bones of these crimes, those who actually lived through them might very well not have had the same desire - and understandably so.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"The length of this debate shows that size doesn't matter, but class most definitely did back in the day and told its own story. Fishy et al may ignore it at their peril."

Aaand there we go again, claiming that I "ignore" things. Read up, Caz, and you will see that I told Colin that stranger things have happened.

Does that imply that I "ignored" it? Or that you ignore that I didnīt ignore it?

I also wrote that I donīt invest very much in it. Thats how I feel about it - I think Lechmere may well have been proud of his name and ancestors, and that he did not mind giving his name at all. I also think it a stretch that he would accept any encouragement on behalf of his relatives not to mention his name, but in fact instead lie on their request.

But of course, why accept that this is how I feel about it, when you can instead imply that I pounce on any opportunity to paint Lechmere out as a villain, no matter what.

I will say one thing, though, and I think that most people will agree about it.

If there is a detail attaching to a person who is a potential criminal, and if that detail lends itself to an interpretation of guilt as well as of innocence, then we should offer the benefit of a doubt although we should also keep our eyes open for other details that may equally point to guilt. And if the number of such details keep growing, we should be more and more ready to accept foul play the more these details are.

And here is another detail that fits in EXACTLY with what "team Lechmere" has claimed from the outset: That his use of the name Cross was probably a means to avoid letting his wife and other aquaintances know that he was involved in a murder investigation. This is what we have - to many peopleīs dismay - always claimed. And how does the fact that he omitted to mention his address at the inquest - which he seemingly did, I know that it is not proven, but once again the inference is there - fit with this? Exactly - it fits like a glove. He gives a name that he wonīt be recognized by, and he leaves out his adress. He states that he works at Pickfordīs, but so did very many other carmen across London - hundreds and hundreds of them, I should imagine.

So, IF his aim was to obscure his identity from the ones who knew him, then he did a very good job of it.

One more detail, potentially pointing to guilt, but as always with alternative explanations. The hill is growing into a mountain, piece by piece. Ignore it at your peril, Caz...!

Fisherman

[Wickerman]

I have to thank Moonbegger for responding (off-list) with the source of the quote:

"Furthermore, the two large drops of blood clear and undeniable, which were visible on the Buck's-row pavement, 25 and 35 feet above the place where the body lay, were made by fresh thick blood, and were probably caused by something in the hands of the murderer as he walked away. Added to this is the slight abdominal hemorrhage, such as would be the case if the cutting were done after death." Star, 5 Sept. 1888.

Spratling had not seen any blood in the street, but in fairness the blood had been washed away by a Carman, Mr Green, who lived next to where the body was found. When Spratling arrived at the murder scene there was only a stain left at the spot.

Insp. Helson did say that he saw marks which may have been blood:

"The only suspicious mark discovered in the neighbourhood of Buck's-row was in Broad-street, where there was a stain which might have been blood."

As there were horse-slaughterers in the area, perhaps blood stains in the street were not unusual.

The Star quote does seem to suggest the two drops of blood were caused by something dripping blood being carried away by the killer. Yet, we know no organs were removed in this case. In fact the concept of organ removal had not even transpired yet.

Even if the knife dripped blood as the killer left the scene, such small drips would be hardly noticeable.
How to account for "fresh thick blood" being on the footpath, if connected with the murder?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

no thanks

Hello Jon. Thanks. I take it that your answer is, "Paul cared not for anonymity"?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Good Morning, All.

As the Lechmere family was an ancient one, dating back to the Norman Conquest, is it not possible that, in giving the name Cross, 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?

Not because he was a killer, not because he was an innocent passer-by, just because he was embarrassed - about his own lowly social status? (Might it also be the reason why the coroner let him get away with it?)

Occam's Razor?


Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

I have been having exactly the same thoughts while catching up with the whole Crossmire/Crossedwires saga. From a post by Lechmere elsewhere, it also seems that a cousin (?) was a Tory MP of all creatures, so when I read that, I thought to myself "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".

The length of this debate shows that size doesn't matter, but class most definitely did back in the day and told its own story. Fishy et al may ignore it at their peril.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

peril

Hello MB. Thanks. Then he would not be in danger--even though a witness?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"As the Lechmere family was an ancient one, dating back to the Norman Conquest, is it not possible that, in giving the name Cross, 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?

Not because he was a killer, not because he was an innocent passer-by, just because he was embarrassed - about his own lowly social status? "

But still, Colin, he signed all documents with his correct name. And he would have his name on the postbox at home too. And his kids, what did he do with them? Ask them not to reveal that they were Lechmeres, in spite of having been baptized by that name, the lot of them? His wife, was she told not to give away what name he had given her by marriage?

Even if he was embarrased, I fail to see how he could have effectively hidden what he was called. But you are, it seems, suggesting that the rest of the Lechmeres put pressure on him not to come out with their name on his behalf. "Please, Charles, donīt let the world know what you have sunk to, it would hurt our feelings and maybe lord and lady Haversham wonīt come to our annual tea party", sort of?

For sure, stranger things have happened. But I still think it a very far shot. Other explanations are far closer at hand, the way I see it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

From a web page on inquest proceedings:

"Many coroners will release a witness list of who they propose to call to give evidence in advance of the inquest. "

Was this a common thing back in 1888 too? If so, then that may explain why the Star had the address whereas the others had not - maybe they could have gotten it from the witness list, if such an item was at hand? Anybody who knows?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"How do you think witnesses were summond to attend?"

Iīll do a de Niro here: Ya talking to me?

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Protecting The Family Name

Good Morning, All.

As the Lechmere family was an ancient one, dating back to the Norman Conquest, is it not possible that, in giving the name Cross, 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?

Not because he was a killer, not because he was an innocent passer-by, just because he was embarrassed - about his own lowly social status? (Might it also be the reason why the coroner let him get away with it?)

Occam's Razor?


Regards, Bridewell.

[curious]

You'd think that if he was so scared, he'd have warned his wife of possible danger wouldn't you ? so that she could be wary -but his family didn't know..

Hi, Ruby,
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.

curious

[Monty]

How do you think witnesses were summond to attend?

Monty