Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Observer]

Hi. For what it's worth.

Here is a section of my post #79

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,

Of course the above should read East of where she lay not West.

Regards

Observer

[caz]

Caz:

" 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?"

Itīs Chas. Andrew in the Daily Telegraph and George in the Times. No big giveaway for some reason.

Morning Fishypoo,

All that is irrelevant unless you are suggesting that he was behind the various different versions appearing in the papers or recorded at the inquest.

Assuming you are suggesting no such thing, and he was the one who informed the police that he was "Charles Allen Cross, carman at Pickfords and living at 22 Doveton", then that was the version he stuck with and would have expected anyone else to use, when describing the man who discovered Nichols. After that, it was beyond his control how those details might actually appear in print, and it was hardly his fault if nobody at the inquest insisted on him giving his home address. What was he meant to do to show his innocence - volunteer it without being asked?

So we are back with what this witness chose to tell the police about himself, to stop his illiterate wife from learning that he - Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton, 20 years a carman at Pickfords - was the man who had found Nichols. All she could have found out from the local gossips, if the papers had printed all the details he had given accurately, was that a Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton, 20 years a carman at Pickfords, had found the body, and naturally being pig thick, she'd have simply assumed this Mr. Cross was a lodger her husband had secreted in the house and forgotten to tell her about.

Yes, it's all becoming clearer now why simply changing Lechmere to Cross would have prevented his wife from suspecting him of serial murder and mutilation and shopping him to the cops.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
I am sure a clever fellow such as yourself understood perfectly well exactly what I said in my much less than perfect way, in relation to the total inadequacy of the theory that Charles Lechmere was allowed to call himself Cross by the police to protect him from anything.

Sometimes I am reduced to posting comments via my I Phone and editing out predictive text mistakes or big-finger-on-wrong-button mistakes is not always easy.

Here's something extra for you to chew over.
There was no universal education system when Charles Lechmere was at school. Universal Education started to be brought in with the 1870 Elementary Education Act.
Before that there were a number of local voluntary church schools that catered for most people's educational needs.
I have however searched the records for all schools within reasonable distance of the addresses Charles Lechmere is known to have lived at as a child and I have come up with nothing. There are in fact hardly any such records to check.
However given the FACT that Charles Lechmere registered his family name as Lechmere on every single occasion when it was up to him and indeed on every single occasion when anyone of his bloodline (including his mother) registered his name (that is about 90 instances), then it has to be counted as being extremely unlikely that Thomas Cross would interefere and give him his surname in a public manner - eg when registering for school.
Census returns were not made public. Many people regard the census return, then and now, as an irksome intrusion.
Charles Lechmere was baptised in his Lechmere name after Thomas Cross married his mother as well remember.

However Moonbeggar, as I said, well done for establishing the likelihood that Charles Lechmere avoided giving his address in public at the inquest.
Another sign of his guilt!

[Lechmere]

On the subject of the blood spots - it is my opinion that it is essentially urban myth and I don't take it very seriously as a piece of evidence.

But as for the supposed location?
The expression above or below is clearly a reference to further away (above - east) or nearer (below - west). That being the persepctive of the journalist who came from the city direction and of Polly who was presumed to have walked from that direction.
The proximity of houses to the blood clinches the notion that the blood was found supposedly 25-35 feet east of Polly's body and just off the kerb.

However, where did Charles Lechmere meet Robert Paul?
The distance given for them noticing each other is 40 yards - 120 feet.
We know that Charles Lechmere went towards Paul as Paul came towards him and that Paul stepped around Charles Lechmere, off the kerb and into the road to avoid him.
The meeting point of Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul must have been almost exactly at the location where the blood spots where supposedly found!
What a coincidence.
Crikey!

[Wickerman]

The meeting point of Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul must have been almost exactly at the location where the blood spots where supposedly found!
What a coincidence.
Crikey!

So Paul should have seen Cross carrying something dripping blood?

Question: Why would a murderer approach a witness while carrying something dripping blood?

Jon S.

[moonbegger]

Hello Lechmere ,

There was no universal education system when Charles Lechmere was at school. Universal Education started to be brought in with the 1870 Elementary Education Act.
Before that there were a number of local voluntary church schools that catered for most people's educational needs.
I have however searched the records for all schools within reasonable distance of the addresses Charles Lechmere is known to have lived at as a child and I have come up with nothing. There are in fact hardly any such records to check.

Cheers's Lech , good information , its a shame we dont have any school records for his education .. Although we can still assume he was educated somewhere ( his Police dad Thomas would have made sure of that ) is that safe to assume ? And in the circumstance he was , His stepdad Thomas would still have him registered as Chas Cross none the less ..

However Moonbeggar, as I said, well done for establishing the likelihood that Charles Lechmere avoided giving his address in public at the inquest.
Another sign of his guilt!

You may find this surprising Lech , but i am not actually on here to vilify or vindicate anyone , my only concern is that every reasonable alternative is looked into before guilt or innocence can be laid at the door of any suspect .The unbiased truth is the goal . Now if find something suspicious i will do my best to question it ( in the words of a Druid high priest , Let the stones lay where they fall) the rest is open to interpretation !

Now if you find the fact that he was the ONLY major JtR witness not be pressed for his address by the Coroner , a true sign of his cunning manipulation , equalled only by his ability to con the police into thinking he was someone other than who he was ( and remain completely unchecked throughout the whole murder spree ) Then that is your prerogative , and i am ok with it .. it is your interpretation of how you see things ..

I personally think that the parameters of coincidence have to be stretched way beyond stretching distance in order to accommodate and allow both of these feats to be accomplished . but again, that is only my humble opinion!

And as far as your I phone comments go ( was pulling your leg about spellcheck by the way )

The police report calls him Cross of Doveton Street. They knew his details

Well of course they did ? and yes someone must have leaked it to the press ..
someone who was privy to that information ?

It is clear he didn't provide his address and the star checked at the lunch recess.

Most probable ! But like i said even if he was afforded the barest of benefits,
[ not having to confirm his address in open court, as well as using his less familiar name] that would still be anonymity .. The Police and the Coroner made an effort on his behalf . It is there in Black and white !

We really should let them stones lay where they fell , without moving them about too much ..

cheers

moonbegger .

[Mr Lucky]

Cross gave his name and address in court.

The Star called him 'carman Cross', if they had access to police/coroners notes they would use his full name. Therefore they didn't get his address from those notes, therefore he said his name and address in court.

There are a least 9 different versions of Cross's name in print.

The court was packed and noisy, this is why most of the witnesses are misnamed somewhere ( Henry Llewellyn, Jane Oram/Hodden, Alfred Mulshaw etc) , or have the wrong address in some press reports

They are not all under police protection.

[moonbegger]

Unless of course .. The Star knew they was going against the wishes of a witness , but still wanted the kudos of actually getting some information before anyone else ?

Perhaps said reporter had jotted down his report already, leading with carman cross, and the only thing missing was the address, so he asks the register who may well have well had it written down on the top of his original statement before hand, and just maybe that register didn't know it wasn't suppose to be withheld from the press ?

you really think that all them other press men would have missed it ?

Not even made an attempt to jot what they thought they heard ?

i'm afraid it is there in print what he said .. no more no less !

cheers

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

Jon
As I said I think the blood story is urban myth.
But...
If it were true...
The place where the blood is described as being must have been almost exactly the same spot where Charles Lechmere tapped Robert Paul on his shoulder.
If Charles Lechmere did it (and in my humble opinion he is head and shoulders above any other suspect so far identified as possibly being the culprit) then he would have secreted the knife about his person. Inside his coat, under his apron, or somewhere similar. Maybe he held it out of sight, behind the hand of the arm that he did not use to tap Paul on the shoulder. Maybe he had it at the ready in that manner in case he needed to use it.
Paul seems to have been spooked by the way he was approached.
Either way it is easy to see how it could have dripped blood.
He wouldn't have had time to wrap it up.

[moonbegger]

Now this is a game changer thanks to Chris Scott

[QUOTE]Here is the record of Charles's baptism, which took place when he was 9 years old.

Charles Lechmere
Baptism
St Dunstan, Stepney
Baptised: 16 Jan 1859
Born: 5 Oct 1849
Child's Christian name(s): Charles Allen
Parents' Names:
Christian: John Allen and Maria Louisa
Surname: Lechmere

If his mum married Thomas Cross in 1858 ..and this 1859 baptism is correct then quite possibly there can be no doubt Thomas cross was happy enough to bring up a child under another man's name .. but how would we explain the 61 census ? ARE THESE DATES 100% ?

But i also think it , it not only raises the steaks, but also adds a lot more weight to his anonymity plea ..

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"All that is irrelevant unless you are suggesting that he was behind the various different versions appearing in the papers or recorded at the inquest."

I am not saying he took care of it himself - but since the names would add to the confusion, there is relevance in it just the same.

"Assuming ... he was the one who informed the police that he was "Charles Allen Cross, carman at Pickfords and living at 22 Doveton", then that was the version he stuck with and would have expected anyone else to use, when describing the man who discovered Nichols."

Yes, Caz. That is correct!

"After that, it was beyond his control how those details might actually appear in print"

No Caz - because he omitted to state his address at the inquest, byt the looks of things. And that tells us that it was NOT beyond his control how it would appear in print. It was actually apparently his very work that ensured that only the Star had his address.

"...and it was hardly his fault if nobody at the inquest insisted on him giving his home address. What was he meant to do to show his innocence - volunteer it without being asked? "

It would have helped immensely, would it not? And what makes you think he was not asked?

"So we are back with what this witness chose to tell the police about himself, to stop his illiterate wife from learning that he - Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton, 20 years a carman at Pickfords - was the man who had found Nichols. All she could have found out from the local gossips, if the papers had printed all the details he had given accurately, was that a Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton, 20 years a carman at Pickfords, had found the body, and naturally being pig thick, she'd have simply assumed this Mr. Cross was a lodger her husband had secreted in the house and forgotten to tell her about. "

But the papers did not print all the details, Caz, did they? Therefore it does not take any assumption that Elizabeth Lechmere was pig thick. To begin with, she could not read, and to carry on, what could be read to her was a garbled mesh, in many a respect thanks to Lechmere not giving his
address at the inquest.
Lucky? Yes. But there you are. Itīs much the same as him not being able to count on the police not checking him out. We canīt say that he was pig thick for chancing it would go down that way, can we?

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Jon
Maybe he held it out of sight, behind the hand of the arm that he did not use to tap Paul on the shoulder. Maybe he had it at the ready in that manner in case he needed to use it.
Either way it is easy to see how it could have dripped blood.
He wouldn't have had time to wrap it up.

So, how did he manage to hide it when they approached the body and were touching Polly? If he didn't have time to hide the knife before Paul arrived, how could he manage to hide it with Paul right there with him?

curious

[curious]

because he omitted to state his address at the inquest, byt the looks of things. And that tells us that it was NOT beyond his control how it would appear in print. It was actually apparently his very work that ensured that only the Star had his address.

Not necessarily. He could have been very soft spoken, therefore it was difficult for the reporters to hear in the noise and distance of the courtroom.

And his being soft spoken can also account for the Mizen misunderstanding.

curious

[Lechmere]

Yes he could have been diberately softly spoken as well.
In the dark with Paul distracted by the body Charles Lechmere could have touched her with his spare hand and while Paul tried to pull the dress down maybe he secured it more safely. Maybe the knife was one reason he refused to prop her up.

[sleekviper]

Perhaps he just simply never wanted to prop someone up that was not alert since they tend to fall over and crack their head open.