Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

Charles Allen Lechmere , Finally Vindicated , Proof .

I finally have proof that Charles Lechmere was allowed anonymity by the Police , and just like those proclaiming his guilt , the evidence of his innocence has been staring us in the face all along . Prior to any major witness giving testimony at a murder inquest .. The Coroner will always ask " will the witness state their full name and Address" take a Look for your self through the countless witness statements ..

"In Reply to the Coroner he said" ..

Edward Walker .. I live at 15 , maidwell street , Albony rd
Henry Tomkins, Horse slaugter , 12 coventry street , Bethnal green .
Emily Holland , 18 Thrawl street
Emma green , cottage next to murder scene
Robert paul , 30 Forster street ,

I could go on through every inquest , but i'm sure you get the point . Each and every time it is always the same . The first thing confirmed by the witness is Name and ADDRESS. The only witnesses exempt from complying with this procedure are Police officers and Doctors , and in fact on occasions even leading Doctors will automatically comply with the orders from the Coroner . " I am George Baxter Phillips , I live at 2 Spital Sq and i am a surgeon" .

So why was Charles Lechmere the only major witness in the whole case , allowed to keep his address off the public record , along with his official name , Charles Allen Lechmere . He was allowed at the inquest to be registered as [ Chas Andrew Cross , Carman ] At first glance it does appear to be a bit suspicious or even guilty .. untill we add to that less than honest name , the failure of the coroner to press him for his address . Then it becomes clear that he was allowed his anonymity !

And be in no doubt that he was GRANTED this privilege ( there was no bluffing the Coroner ) For it is inquest procedure that would have dictated that the Coroner demand his Address to be noted down just like EVERYONE else . But he didn't , he let it go .

So Why was this witness so special ?

Looking at the climate of fear that was on the rise during that Autumn , The two recent murders by a Crazed lunatic , the vicious gangs that were killing these innocent people , The press were just piling on the Coal to an already raging fire . The fearful public was no doubt terrified out off their whits , And Pollys murder was according to the press victim number three !

So along comes Charles Lechmere , family man on his way to work . Turns into Bucks Row , and possibly disturbs the killer/killers in mid flow .. What man on Gods green earth would not fear for the safety of himself and his family ? The last thing he would want would be his name and address to be held up for killer to contemplate how much he thinks witness #1 saw .. why put your family at the slightest risk in these uncertain times ? when there is an alternative .

So the Police agree to him using his lesser known name , and keep his and his family's Address out of the inquest, and out of the papers, make sense?

All is going well until a sleuth reporter working for the Star asks himself the burning question .. Why no address for Carman Cross ? which leads to his own line of inquiry down at bethnal green police station and to a certain Inspector Helston , who for whatever reason gives the star reporter the lowdown on Carman Cross!

How do we know this ? Partly conjecture based in association and print ..

[Print] The Star is the only paper to release CrossMere's home address . [Association] The Star reporter that was writing up Polly's murder inquiry was also working on Annie Chapmans murder story [ fact ] The same reporter went back to Inspector Helson hoping for some more inside information regards Chapman.

[The Star] "It being almost positively certain that the murderer of Dark Annie is the murderer of Mary Ann Nicholls, a Star reporter went to the Bethnal-green police-station to inquire whether the new murder threw any light on the other. Inspector Helston was "very busy," but Sergeant Godley showed himself. All the information that could be got, however, was that the scene of the new crime "is just out of our district." Our representative suggested that, as a matter of course, the two cases would be investigated together, but the Inspector didn't seem at all sure about this' "

[Conjecture] Inspector Helston got a telling off from his superior for blabbing to the press and was unfortunately unavailable.. " very busy" .

Also there is this as a side .. an after thought maybe.

[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]

So the killer of Polly, kept himself on the pavement , tight against the dark shadow of the school wall occasionally dripping blood !
CrossMere and Paul walked down the centre of the road together .

cheers

moonbegger .

[lynn cates]

sauce for the gander

Hello MB. A lot of thought went into this.

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

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

[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.

Just by way of saving time, do you happen to have a quote handy which reports these drops of blood?

I notice Insp. Spratling looking for blood but finding none.

Coroner - Did you examine Buck's row?

Witness - Yes; between five and six o'clock in the morning, and also the railway and yards abutting on the street.

Coroner - Did you examine the street for blood stains, I mean?

Witness - Yes, between eleven and twelve o'clock I examined Buck's row and Queen street, but found no blood stains in either. I subsequently, in company with Sergeant Godley, examined the East London District Railway embankment and the Great Eastern Railway yard for blood stains and weapons, but found none.

Thanks, Jon S.

[moonbegger]

Hello MB. A lot of thought went into this.

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

Cheers.
LC

Couldn't really tell you lynn ... We know he wasn't . Maybe because he wasn't the first on the scene ? He would not have been the one to possibly interrupt the killer ? Your guess is as good as mine !

cheers

moonbegger .

[Rubyretro]

Good morning Moonbegger !

Fisherman will have to begin a new thread 'The Anonymity Scam'.

What a brilliant trick to keep your name out of the papers, so that the wife and neighbours don't know ! -beg for anonymity because of 'fear' !

The police would have been even less likely to 'check out' a scared witness
rather than a cocksure one. And if he were guilty and had an apprehension about walking voluntarily into a police station, he could easily explain away his nerves.

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.

Thank you Moonbegger -you have just established that he was certainly known as just Lechmere by all those around him, and he definitely didn't want his role at the murder scene made public.

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..

[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?

[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

[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 ?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.