Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[ChrisGeorge]

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"

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

Hi Fisherman

As Caz said, he gave his place of residence and place of work so if he really had something to hide it was hidden in plain sight and could have been easily rumbled. Might I suggest that the reason that he gave the name Cross was for some personal reason that we don't yet know, but probably not to save the family name? And if it was to save him being treated as a suspect it was a very transparent subterfuge, i.e., no real protection, IMHO.

Best regards

Chris

[Fisherman]

Chris:

"As Caz said, he gave his place of residence and place of work"

He gave that information to the police, apparently. But to the inquest he said nothing about his address by the looks of things, and Pickfords housed many carmen.

".. so if he really had something to hide it was hidden in plain sight and could have been easily rumbled."

He could have been researched by the police, yes. But he in all probability was not, which is why we have the police naming him Cross. They apparently did not search the registers for his name.

If they had - and he would arguably have realized that they might have - then it would have been foolish to call himself Brown or Smith. Cross, however - that was a name he did have some distant claim to. If checked out, he could say that he called himself Cross in honour of his old stepfather. That would not work with phony names.
The purpose of giving the name Cross could well be to keep his wife and aquaintances in the dark. Thatīs how it applies.

"Might I suggest that the reason that he gave the name Cross was for some personal reason that we don't yet know, but probably not to save the family name?"

You may, of course. I donīt see much mileage in the embarrasment suggestion either.

"And if it was to save him being treated as a suspect it was a very transparent subterfuge, i.e., no real protection, IMHO."

There was a lot of transparency involved. But what could the police do, if they found out that he was called Lechmere? Of course, they would have looked at him more suspiciously, but they would have been a number of days late in doing so. He had had plenty of time to wash any blood away, and he would have had time to get rid of the weapon too. They could only pin him to being dishonest about his name, and he would have an explanation for that one.

It would have given him away to his wife and aquaintances, though. And they may well have become suspicious of him, and they may have noticed that the killings occurred along his work route at times when he had reason to be there. That would be bad for business, decidedly. It was a conscious risk he decided to run, I believe. The same thing applies for the Mizen scam. Word stood against word, but in the end, he landed on his feet in both cases.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

The thing is..

Charles Lechmere didn't hide his address. I mean that's how modern researchers found him in the first place, right?

Had he been a guilty man then why give his address to the police, as he surely did? Why remain at the same home for years - why not pack up and go elsewhere, where his past would never catch up with him? (and of course we know he did stay there don't we, because of all those lovely records we can see on Ancestry)

Fundamentally, he acts like an innocent man, not a guilty one. If he'd really wanted to hide his involvement from his wife, e.g. he'd have given the police a false address, a false workplace etc. I mean, what if he'd done that and walked out of the cop shop - how would the police have found him again, exactly?

No, we can't explain his use of the name 'Cross' on this occasion - but the premise that he did it to elude the police is logically untenable in the circumstances.

Therefore, the answer must lie elsewhere.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Fundamentally, he acts like an innocent man, not a guilty one."

Absolutely - he presents himself under a false name and he tells Mizen that another PC wants him in Buckīs Row - thatīs fundamentally innocent if Iīve ever seen fundamental innocence.

"If he'd really wanted to hide his involvement from his wife, e.g. he'd have given the police a false address, a false workplace etc. I mean, what if he'd done that and walked out of the cop shop - how would the police have found him again, exactly?"

They would have his description down to the last shirt button. He would become the most wanted person in Britain after that - very probably the killer of Nichols. If caught, he would swing for it.

Why run that risk? Would a man that was cool enough to con Paul and ease past Mizen the way he did suddenly panic an run - after having created the kind of scam he created? It would be a total shift of personality.
He brazened things out, by the looks of things, and he did it skilfully enough to stay on the course.

"No, we can't explain his use of the name 'Cross' on this occasion "

Bravo. The sooner we realize that and itīs potential implications, the better. Michael Connor did NOT know this when he first pointed his finger at "Cross". Nor had he seen the implications of the Mizen meeting. Nor did he know about the Cable Street adress. Nor did he notice that "Cross" apparently avoided to give his address at the inquest, thus keeping it from (almost all) the newspapers.

"the answer must lie elsewhere."

Must? No - but you WANT it to. Different things, Iīm afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;233445]
" 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?

This is what you actually posted:

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!"

.
I'm looking at the last sentence in particular:

Hiding it from the rest of the world, his neighbours included would fail the moment they said "Good morning, Mrs Cross!"

"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.

Ted Bundy had no relevance to the point I made. If you want to comment on something I've said, why not use the 'quote' facility rather than creating your own paraphrase?

"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?

That isn't. (It's not what you posted.) This is:

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.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Observer]

[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 .

The blood on the pavement in Bucks Roe is an old chestnut. As Citizen X states it was reported in The Star on the 5th September thus,

From Casebook press reports

"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."

Moonbegger

What makes you think that the article implies that the drops lay by the Board School ? To me the article implies that the blood that lay above where the body lay, that is up into Bucks Row proper. This provided there were any blood stains other than where Polly Nichols lay.

If I'm not mistaken these drops of blood were provided as evidence, (in Stephen Knights book,) to suggest that Polly Nichols body had been transported in a carriage to Bucks Row. Don't quote me though, I'm not 100 per cent sure.

Funnily enough one of the jurymen at the inquest asked Inspector Spratling if a trap had been seen in the road.

From Casebook Victims section

To Inspector Spratling

"A Juryman (to witness): Did you see a trap in the road at all?"

"No"

A Juryman:" Knowing that the body was warm, did it not strike you that it might just have been laid there, and that the woman was killed elsewhere?"

Witness: "I examined the road, but did not see the mark of wheels."

As Wickerman has already suggested, Inspector Spratling also searched the area for bloodstains and found none.

I'd say that the blood stains were an invention, they are far too important to have been omitted from the inquest.

Regards

Observer

[Jenni Shelden]

Surely the most obvious thing is that he used both names? Perhaps Cross was his Sunday name that he used so as not to offend his step father?

Who can actually ever know?

Jenni

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Sally;233452]The thing is..

Why remain at the same home for years - why not pack up and go elsewhere, where his past would never catch up with him? (and of course we know he did stay there don't we, because of all those lovely records we can see on Ancestry)

Just try and imagine the logistics of moving elsewhere, Caz..

Leaving a secure job that you've held down for 20 years, telling the wife ....what ? The Lechmere's had only just moved to their address 6 months before (?) Leaving Mum -and the daughter who lived with her. Uprooting the kids and telling them...what ? Moving where exactly ? Finding the time off work to go house hunting and job hunting far away ? The expense of it !

I'm sorry but Lechmere was a bit stuck there, unless he abandoned the whole family and scarpered alone. Well after being a witness found alone with a dead body that might be a clear indication of guilt. Besides...he might have been fond of his family..

[caz]

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.

2. But he can say "Charles Allen (pick any other surname)", carman at Pickfords for 20 years, living at 22 Doveton, and she won't find out or smell a rat?
3. ... and then she gives him away - how, exactly?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Just try and imagine the logistics of moving elsewhere, Caz..

Er, you were not quoting my post, Ruby. It was Sally's.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

Must? No - but you WANT it to. Different things, Iīm afraid.

Oh Yes, they absolutely are, Fisherman. I'm not the one with 'wants' here though. It's not my theory, nor my personal faith in a potential suspect which is being tested by that pesky logic thing.

I've said all along that when new evidence is presented that does make a stronger case for Cross, I'll be quite happy to see it. I stand by that - so, sorry, but no use you pretending otherwise, I'm afraid.

[Sally]

Er, you were not quoting my post, Ruby. It was Sally's.

Love,

Caz
X

It was. And I'd say that well, it appears to have been quite a plausible feat - Cadosch managed to do it, didn't he?

[Wickerman]

As Wickerman has already suggested, Inspector Spratling also searched the area for bloodstains and found none.

I'd say that the blood stains were an invention, they are far too important to have been omitted from the inquest.

Regards

Observer

I was intentionally biting my tongue with respect to that interpretation. Afterall, this is another controversial claim by the ever-so controversial Star newspaper.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

It was. And I'd say that well, it appears to have been quite a plausible feat - Cadosch managed to do it, didn't he?

Well, Cadosch was an altogether different type of person, in different circumstances....but let's save that for a Cadosch thread.

The fact remains that it would have been extremely difficult for Lechmere to scarper..

[Observer]

Hi Wickerman.

I'll bet you were, considering the coverage they gave Hutchinson and his story!

Personally, I don't think The Star bothered much with truth when reporting The Whitechapel murders. They were selling newspapers, and it was far too important a story to let truth get in the way. Wasn't it said that the murders made the newspaper?

Regards

Observer