Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Bridewell]

Hi Moonbegger,

The context indicates that the presence of the blood was "probably caused by something in the hands of the murderer as he walked away". That makes the interpretation of 25 to 35 feet "above the place" as being vertically above it something of a nonsense, I would have thought. My interpretation would be that it was the same distance along the street in the uphill direction (i.e. towards Spitalfields). I'll be interested to see how others interpret it though.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Moonbegger

The two blood spots you mention are up towards the board school,

From Lloyd's Weekly News 2nd Sept. 1888

‘Shortly after noon on Friday some men while searching the pavement in Buck's-row, above the gateway, in a different direction to that from which the woman came, or was brought, found two large spots of blood, and each about the size of a shilling. The first was about 25 feet from the gateway and the second 10 feet beyond. Both were a few inches from the kerb in the roadway and clearly defined. It was at once agreed they came either from the hands or the clothing of the murderer as he went away, and that they resulted from the squeezing out some blood-soaked clothing. Our representative discovered, however, on making inquiries the same night, that at a house near where the blood spots were a man, early on the morning of the tragedy, had made a murderous assault on his wife and cut her throat. She was carried to the London hospital, and it is very probable some blood dripped from her.’

[Observer]

Hello Observer ,

yep you could be right Sir .. either way if the article is to believed there is no way CrossMere could have put them there ..

cheers

moonbegger

First off well done for deciphering my post!

If Cross were the murderer, and we adhere to witness testimony, then no, he could not have deposited the blood 35 feet or so from the body.

All we need now is some concrete evidence, (other than the Star report) that the blood actually existed.

I wonder where The Star picked that particular piece of information up? Certainly not from the inquest.

To be fair Inspector Spratling who testified that no blood spots were detected in Bucks Row did not actually search the area until 11am. I suppose an intrepid reporter from The Star could have searched and found the blood spots before this time, but why were they not visible at 11 a.m. when Spratling searched the Street?

Wouldn't it have been the duty of anyone finding such an important piece of evidence to report it to the police?

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Well done Mr Lucky!

Although the odds are that Polly Nichols and her killer entered Bucks Row from the West. So the blood spots ( if there were any) were in the opposite direction, West of where she lay, farther up Bucks Row towards Brady Street, and not towards the Board School. Also there were no dwellings between where Polly Nichols lay and the Board School, the houses were situated in the opposite direction, so the blood must have been situated outside one of those houses.

Also if the spots were found shortly after noon why did Spratling not detect them? He inspected the street between the hours of 11 and 12.

The Inquest dragged on until the 22nd of September ample time for the spots of blood to be discussed at inquest. Is it possible the police learned of the attack by the man on his wife, and came to the conclusion that the blood spots had been deposited then?

Regards

Observer

[Mr Lucky]

Well done Mr Lucky!

Although the odds are that Polly Nichols and her killer entered Bucks Row from the West. So the blood spots ( if there were any) were in the opposite direction, West of where she lay, farther up Bucks Row towards Brady Street, and not towards the Board School.

Hi Observer

I think the reporter is comparing the new blood stains with the old ones, the ones that were already found not to be blood, that lead to Brady Street. the article describes the body being 'brought', it dates from when they still thought she might have been murdered somewhere else

Also if the spots were found shortly after noon why did Spratling not detect them? He inspected the street between the hours of 11 and 12.

They were very small, he may not have been looking for two drops of blood 10 foot apart, but much larger amounts as they thought someone had moved the body.

The Inquest dragged on until the 22nd of September ample time for the spots of blood to be discussed at inquest. Is it possible the police learned of the attack by the man on his wife, and came to the conclusion that the blood spots had been deposited then?

That the interesting bit, I dont know who the man/wife are or who lived nearer the board school than the Perkiss family or the Greens!

[moonbegger]

Hello Retro ,

Firstly those pesky brackets (eg) [Conjecture alert ] That Lechmere was known as Cross for one single time when he was a child and had no say in the matter [clear] all clear, conjecture siren is silent See ruby pure conjecture .. there is no way of proving this .

Born Charles Allen Lechmere in 1849, St Anne's, Soho, son of John Allen Lechmere and Maria Louisa (nee Roulson). In 1858, Charles' mother remarried, to Thomas Cross, a policeman and Charles took his surname.

Charles took his surname ! just take a wild stab in the dark at this one , what do you suppose ( Charles took his surname) means .. for a day ? for a week ? possibly a month ? a year ? or how about up until he decided to get married and start his own family in 1871 ? we really have no way of knowing exactly how long he was known as Cross .. unless you are keeping back some vital information that predates the 1871 census ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Observer]

Hi Mr Lucky

Looking at the Lloyds weekly article it seems to me as if the spots lay 30 feet and 40 feet respectively farther up Bucks Row towards Brady Street, near to one of the dwelling houses in Bucks Row.

Stains were found in Broad Street, but proved not to be blood

Also wouldn't an incident as serious as a throat cutting be reported in the newspapers?

I suspect the Lloyds Weekly article is a garbled account of the Bucks Row murder of Polly Nichols.

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger

The two blood spots you mention are up towards the board school,

From Lloyd's Weekly News 2nd Sept. 1888

‘Shortly after noon on Friday some men while searching the pavement in Buck's-row, above the gateway, in a different direction to that from which the woman came, or was brought, found two large spots of blood, and each about the size of a shilling. The first was about 25 feet from the gateway and the second 10 feet beyond. Both were a few inches from the kerb in the roadway and clearly defined. It was at once agreed they came either from the hands or the clothing of the murderer as he went away, and that they resulted from the squeezing out some blood-soaked clothing. Our representative discovered, however, on making inquiries the same night, that at a house near where the blood spots were a man, early on the morning of the tragedy, had made a murderous assault on his wife and cut her throat. She was carried to the London hospital, and it is very probable some blood dripped from her.’

Hello Mr Lucky ,

great find , also makes a lot more sense than the Star .. Do we know if the woman died or how severe the attack was ? Observer must be right in saying the blood was further up/down the row by the houses .. Also i don't get "early on the morning of the tragedy" did he mean the morning before Polly was murdered or a few hours after Polly was murdered or a couple of hours before Polly ? My money's on a couple before .. surely this chap must of been arrested and suspected of doing Polly also ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"Yes you right Fish , but these are non essential witnesses ! if you go through each of victims inquest reports you will find a few non essential witnesses , who have no real significance in regards to the actual murder .. and their address are not deemed important ."

But this is not what you claimed, is it. You claimed that the coroner requested all witnesses to give their names and addresses. Besides, how can George Morris NOT have been an important witness, having had his door ajar to the Eddowes murder? How is Emma Green, who slept through the Nichols murder a MORE important witness? Back to the drawing board ...!

" he was allowed a certain degree of anonymity .."

I´m sorry, but this is just nonsense. If he was granted anonymity, why provide him with a name by which he was not anonymous to "some people" as you put it? Why not say that the he was Mr Hickersham of Brady Street, a waterside labourer? What possible temptation could a discerning legal system find in letting him use a name under which he was actually known, if they recognized a need of anonymity on his behalf?

Don´t you see that this is just wrong?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Now there, Fisherman, I do agree with you. "

There you go then, Sally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

"It may only be a comma but, yes, it is a big deal if it changes the whole meaning of the sentence!"

It is. You are absolutely correct, Colin. And I freely and heartily apologize for being discorteous.

"I accept that you didn't intend the meaning as originally written, but I had no way of knowing that. You didn't mean it as written, so I withdraw the comments based upon that version."

I humbly thank you for doing so. I´ll try to get the commas right fortwith - it would facilitate things. And when I get them wrong, I will try not to hold you responsible ...

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Fisherman ,

But this is not what you claimed, is it. You claimed that the coroner requested all witnesses to give their names and addresses. Besides, how can George Morris NOT have been an important witness, having had his door ajar to the Eddowes murder? How is Emma Green, who slept through the Nichols murder a MORE important witness? Back to the drawing board ...!

Yes, because that is the evidence we have , but you also have to think that the Coroner may well be a little more lenient on more trustworthy, less prominent witnesses like that of George Morris a security guard who was actually on duty , and was if memory serves me an Ex Copper /Soldier who actually did give his work address .. I'm sure you have gone through all the inquest openers by now , and George Morris is the closest you can get , which kind of underlines my original point Fish .

He was the only major witness in all the JtR inquests , allowed to withhold his address .

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
Well done for noticing the business about the Star being the only paper to print the address details.
But your theory that this was to protect Lechmere is I am afraid ludicrous.
The police report calls him Cross of Doveton Street. They knew his details.
The report gives no hint that he had smother name and we know they recorded other names.
The report gives no hint that he was worried about being attacked by the culprit. This would be a material matter to mention in the report.
The idea that he was given anonymity at the inquest and then a senior policeman at the inquest gave the star his address is ludicrous.
It is clear he didn't provide his address and the star checked at the lunch recess.

Also you have quoted another poster's interpretation of whether he used the name Cross as if it were fact. The evidence suggests he never use. The name Cross himself. We gave now 90 instances Ivor him using Levhmere and never once Cross. That is what the historical record tells us. He was listed as Cross once by his step father when he would have been too young to know.

[moonbegger]

Shall i give you a minute to put spell check on ..
and maybe tidy it up and make it readable ?

back in 5

[moonbegger]

Here is something to chew on while you figure it out ..

Thomas Cross married Chas's mum and took young Chas under his long arm .

Thomas Registered Chas aged 9 in 61 as Cross ..

Not sure how the school system played out back then .. if he would have switched up to a secondary school around age 11 or if you stayed in one school ?

But either way if T Cross was Keen and willing enough to register young Chas as Cross on the census .. then you can bet your house he would have had him registered at school as Chas Cross as well .. That has to be as close to a fact you will ever get without seeing solid proof !

Therefore he would have answered to the name Cross whenever a teacher spoke to him .. He would have written his own name as Cross ,his new friends would only know him as Cross .. his books would have said Cross on the cover .. his report card would say Cross .. His first job his step-dad would have touted him into , he no doubt would have been called Cross .

moonbegger .