Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"Perhaps there was more back ground noise at the start of his testimony. and most journalist just didn't hear him."

Perhaps. Then again, we have the parallel with George Morris, who simply stated that he was a night watchman working at Kearly and Tonges´s, just as Lechmere seems to have said that he was a carman working at Pickford´s. Apparently, an inquest would settle for this sort of presentation.

So once again, we have a detail that lends itself very much to an interpretation of fould play on Lechmere´s 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.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Moonbegger

Nice bit of work, but -

The Star of the 3rd goes to press just after Cross has given evidence (no mention of any witnesses from the afternoon session), yet they already have his address. So Cross has told the court his address, there isn't time to get it from anywhere else.

It appears to have been very noisy at the inquest, as Baxter had to stop Nelly Holland and make her start giving her testimony again as he couldn't hear her.

There are maybe ten or so different sets of names/initials for Cross, including a Charles Crass.

There is the confusion about the time as stated by Cross, as being discused on the other thread.

Perhaps there was more back ground noise at the start of his testimony. and most journalist just didn't hear him.

Those blood stains are very interesting though.

[CitizenX]

The newspaper quote about the two drops of blood come from the fifth edition on the Star on Wednesday 5th September 1888.

It also show perfectly that you shouldn't believe everything printed in the papers at that time.

I would always tend to give more precedence to sworn inquest testimony over unsubstantiated newspaper quotes.

[DGB]

Because the point is that people didn't know him by the name of Cross, and this proves it.

Otherwise, effectively, why not choose 'Charles Bloggs' .

So the neighbours, and their kids, and his wife -maybe even his work colleagues need never have known that he was involved in the case.

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.

Don't get me wrong, I have no strong thoughts one way or another on CrossMere.

But MB's theory - which I liked when I first read it - was undermined slightly when he referred to him having been known by many as Cross (this was what I was replying to). If this wasn't the case - a different argument - then of course it changes the complexion of the theory.

I was just expressing surprise at MB undermining his own theory, which as I say seemed sound.

Incidentally, further complications when we now consider that other did/didn't give their addresses, in a seemingly random fashion.

[Lechmere]

The other possibility is that he deliberately mumbled some lines - eg the time he left, his middle name (often rendered wrongly in different reports) and his address.

[Lechmere]

For cross/lechmere to have appeared at the inquest he must have first given his details to the police and it is inconceivable that they would have not taken his address and workplace - but it is quite possible Cross/Lechmere didn't appreciate that when he went to give his statement (notwithstanding that his long dead step father had been a policeman).
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.
The internal police reports give no hint of any reason to keep his name anonymous for fear of reprisal. This totally destroys the theory as it would have a bearing on who the police suspected. The police would not have granted anonymity if it was for a frivolous reason.
If it is true that Cross/Lechmere did not give his address at the inquest, or gotaway without giving it, and the Star was the only paper interested enough to obtain it - clearly from the police, who must have readily provided it - then this is yet another pointer to Cross/Lechmere's guilt . Very clearly so.

[Fisherman]

Thomas Ede and Patrick Mulshaw do not give their addresses at the inquest. Some doctors did, like Blackwell and Phillips, some didn´t, like Saunders and - in the Nichols case - Llewellyn. George Morris said that he worked at Kearley and Tonge, but does he give his adress? No.

Does this point to any real consequence in this respect. No it does not.

Maybe we should also realize that what Moonbegger speaks of here - Lechmere being exonerated - is something that could not have been achieved by any granted request on Lechmere´s behalf to be called Cross and hide his address. Even if this had been a wish that was granted, how would it exonerate Lechmere? Why could he not have lied about a need for protection, in the hope of staying hard to detect for his wife and aquaintances? Why could he not have been the killer at any rate?

Myself, I think that he simply took the chance not to provide his address, since he did not want anyone he knew to find out that he was the man who had found Nichols - and got away with it. And small deal it was - if the coroner had asked him to fill in his address, he simply would have done so.

A more interesting matter is the article the Star wrote from the inquest. For in it, they state his address. If he did not give it at the inquest, then how did they know? Did they go through the trouble of backtracking through the police reports (were they even allowed to do so?), or is there another explanation? Did the coroner ask him his address after his testimony, the Star being the only paper to find it of some interest?

Whichever way, much as it is interesting that he did not give his address of his own free will initially, it realistically has nothing to do with any exoneration. On the contrary, it seems to point more in the direction of Lechmere intentionally avoiding to give it out loud for the papers to record. He already knew that the police HAD his adress - which they would have taken down as he reported in to them on Sunday, so he had no hope of keeping it a secret from them. Instead, it would seem that he was more interested in keeping it a secret from public knowledge.

Finally, if the authorities had decided that they needed to keep him anonymous, then why would they allow his occupation and working address to be revealed? Because at work he would not be known as Cross, but instead as Lechmere? Ehrm ...!!

Exoneration, was it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

A lot of thought went into this.

Out of curiosity, why would not Paul be allowed equal anonymity?

Hadn`t Paul given an interview to the press?

[Rubyretro]

But why use a pseudonym that many people already knew him by? Why not fabricate a whole new name to hide his true identity and keep his family say.

I have to say it's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it holds much water.

Because the point is that people didn't know him by the name of Cross, and this proves it.

Otherwise, effectively, why not choose 'Charles Bloggs' .

So the neighbours, and their kids, and his wife -maybe even his work colleagues need never have known that he was involved in the case.

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.

[Sally]

But why use a pseudonym that many people already knew him by? Why not fabricate a whole new name to hide his true identity and keep his family say.

I have to say it's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it holds much water.

Yes, but without his address and workplace details, he would have been far more difficult to identify. Charles Cross was a very common name. Charles Lechmere considerably less so. And besides, Cross was in fact his name to use and thus had a legality that a random pseudonym would not have had - important in the context of giving evidence, statements, etc. If MB is correct, most likely he didn't have the option of choosing a random pseudonym.

[DGB]

But why use a pseudonym that many people already knew him by? Why not fabricate a whole new name to hide his true identity and keep his family say.

I have to say it's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it holds much water.

[Sally]

I think People would have still known him as Cross in his past .. and even some at work .. i think the sole purpose was to protect his family .. He wasn't hiding from his friends or people that knew him , He just didn't want the Killer to know where he lived .

Moonbeggar - you make a very good point. But yes, what about Paul? Did Paul have a family at the time? Or do you think it may have been Crossmere's Police connections via his stepfather that enabled him to obtain a grant of anonymity? I have no doubt that you're right about that, btw - but we still need to explain why - and why not Paul, if we can.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=moonbegger;233351]Good morning Retro ,

I think People would have still known him as Cross in his past .. and even some at work .. i think the sole purpose was to protect his family .. He wasn't hiding from his friends or people that knew him , He just didn't want the Killer to know where he lived .

cheers

moonbegger

Hang on a min..." I think that people would still have known him as Cross"
"and even some at work" "he wasn't hiding from his friends"..

How an earth would you know ? It is convenient for you to think that, however you have just shown that he was granted anonymity at the inquest
-presumably because he asked for it. 'Anonymity' was the word that you used and you are putting this forward as a fact supported by the statement that he was the only one at the inquest to use a false name and not give his address.

It would not have been anonymity if he were known at work and elsewhere as Cross, would it ? People gossiped in the East End -so you've told me.

This goes to prove that he was certainly not known as Cross.

A nice cup of this lovely bitter almond smelling tea, to start the day ? One sugar or two ?

[moonbegger]

Good morning Retro ,

It almost proves that he could not have been known as Cross at work, as well. For what good would begging 'anonymity' be, if all his colleagues could have recognised his name 'Cross' in the papers ? Or if plenty of people knew him as Cross anyway ? -it would serve no purpose

I think People would have still known him as Cross in his past .. and even some at work .. i think the sole purpose was to protect his family .. He wasn't hiding from his friends or people that knew him , He just didn't want the Killer to know where he lived .

cheers

moonbegger

[Disco Stu]

It's not a bad theory, but I wish you'd stopped short of using the "p" word.

As Mr Cates pointed out, why would the coroner not exempt Mr Paul for the same reason, or, indeed, later witnesses? A simpler explanation would be that either Crnr Baxter didn't notice or the recorder didn't note it. Police requests to hold back information were routinely denied by Crnr Baxter, and as Mr Cross makes no mention of seeing the killer(s) in his testimony, there seems no reason to protect his identity.

It would be nice if the blood story was true, as that would itself all but clear Mr Cross. Afterall, he'd be hard pressed to drip blood on the pavement from the middle of the road, especially with company. Unfortunately, it's hard to believe the police couldn't find two large blood drops near a murder scene, and as Wickerman pointed out, they were firm in their belief that there was none found. What was your source?