Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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 Lechmereīs? He had been a carman for Pickfordīs for twenty years - it wasnīt exactly a new situation to him or the other Lechmereīs, 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

[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

[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

[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

[Bridewell]

But why would he care, if he did never move in the same circles as the better-off Lechmereīs? He had been a carman for Pickfordīs for twenty years - it wasnīt exactly a new situation to him or the other Lechmereīs, 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]

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

[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.

[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?

[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. Donīt you think that the Lechmereīs 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 donīt buy this at all, Iīm 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

[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 - thatīs 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 Pickfordīs carman placed him alongside hundreds of other men in the same business and occupation, I believe.

The best,
Fisherman