Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 Tongesīs, just as Lechmere seems to have said that he was a carman working at Pickfordīs. 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 Lechmereīs 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

[Monty]

How do you think witnesses were summond to attend?

Monty

[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

[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.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

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

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

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]

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

[lynn cates]

peril

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

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]

no thanks

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

Cheers.
LC

[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.