Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"The address is recorded, it's recorded in the Star. Obviously its been mention at the inquest. Clearly, there is something wrong with your logic, if you think that the fact his address appears in print directly after he has given his testimony proves that he didn't say it."

There is only something wrong with my logic if I rule out any possibility that may apply, Mr Lucky. And I donīt do that. Maybe the Star reporter WAS the only one who managed to hear what Lechmere said.
But it equally applies that this reporter - as the only in the reporter crowd - could either have asked about the adress (which the police would have) or found it in a witness list compiled by the coroner.

There is nothing illogical about suggesting that when all but one of the inquest reports in the papers fail to mention something, this could very well be due to that something not being mentioned.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"So the same sort of reasoning that lends itself towards Lechmere's guilt, cannot be used to point towards his innocence? Now THAT is interesting logic..."

It would be very helpful if you can point out where I said this, Dave. I very much dislike being made responsible for things I have not said, you see.

If you take the time to once again read through what I posted, you will find that I say that I am of the meaning that the more potential pointers to guilt we find, the more we need to be wary of the possibility that he was the killer. It is very simple and basic - people who are not guilty of something, normally wont collect potential pointers to guilt by the dozens.

I hope you read me correct this time, and that you thus save me the trouble of having to defend myself against claims that I have said something that I have not said. Itīs becoming increasingly tiresome.

If you donīt see what Iīm saying, then please ask me before spreading strange accusations on the boards. Could you do that for me? Please?

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

We can deduce his wife didn't know (for the umpteenth time) because Sge died in 1940 and her great grand children some of whom are still alive would have known her and none knew anything about the case

And from this we can deduce only that his wife passed nothing on to his grandchildren...

Look, Jack the Ripper was a bogey man...a source of great shame to a good many Eastenders...as recently as the 50s and 60s my mother used JtR as a bogeyman threat against myself and my brother...when I (much later) asked her about it, she said JtR was regarded the same during HER childhood...Can you be surprised Lechmere's wife wasn't proud of the connection?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

This is reinforced by charles Lechmere turning up at the inquest in his workclothes - so his wife will have thought he was going to work. He was not that poor and would have had other clothes and in any case he was also wearing his apron.

How are you so SURE he wasn't that poor? He was a carman with a fair-sized family for christs sake, not a stockbroker...it was common practice to pawn the Sunday-best first thing Monday and redeem it Saturday...anecdotally it certainly happened in my mother's family...he may not even have HAD a Sunday-best...and as has previously been pointed out, he may've anyway been anticipating going in to do at least a part days work...I honestly don't see how you can read more into it than that...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Who put pressure on him to use Cross in preference to Lechmere? Do you have anything at all to back such an outlandish claim up?
Was it the Lechmere family secret police? Tell me how the rich Lechmere's found out before the inquest appearance that Charles Lechmere was going to be a witness? The next suggestion will no doubt be that the Russian Seccret Police told them - or were they secret Fenians?

It was no more than a bit of speculation...which I'd remind you is, essentially, all you've got...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

If you take the time to once again read through what I posted, you will find that I say that I am of the meaning that the more potential pointers to guilt we find, the more we need to be wary of the possibility that he was the killer. It is very simple and basic - people who are not guilty of something, normally wont collect potential pointers to guilt by the dozens.

And I'm merely pointing out, in a generalised way, that a lot of these so-called pointers to Lechmere's guilt could equally point to his innocence...you want me to start exhaustingly itemising them again or are you satisfied we've been through them?

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Just a small point, but this is a thread which postulates that Cross/Lechmere was innocent so, for the purposes of this thread, "naysayers" are those who deny that this was the case.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

I wonder why 'naysayers' (aka opponents) get put into 'camps' whilst the self-styled 'Team Lechmere' gets to be in a team.

Any thoughts, Fisherman?

[Cogidubnus]

There is no volte face - to suggest it is a little silly.
A beat copper not doing his job right or failing to get evidence properly is one thing. Giving immunity over an address at an inquest and telling a journalist that address at the same Inquest is quite another.
Or am I being unreasonable here?

What you seem to be saying is that when it suits your argument, the police were incompetent, but when it doesn't they simply couldn't have been THAT incompetent...Now I'm sure that's not what you mean to convey, but I'm afraid it's what often comes alechmere...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Cog
It is somewhat tiresome having to repeat things dozens of times to the same people.
We know Charles lechmere paid for his numerous children to be baptised. We know from Paul that carmen werent that badly paid . We know that Lechmere saved enough to open a grocers shop. We know he left a decent sum in his will.
There are things there to back up the contention that he would have had another suit.
Unlike the dross that is put out by team naysayer (the term team lechmere was ironically coined by a naysayer, but that naysayer seems to me to be slipping in his previous illogical naysayer faith - for such is what it is), I back up my supposition with contributory evidence.

The idea that he may have popped to work after the inquest is rot that has been dealt with before.

Your fireside tales of bogey men are very interesting but everyone I know from that area who has any claim to anything to do with past East End misdeeds rigerously grasps it - with advantages. That cog is how east end folk are- not scardy types hiding under their bed sheets.

[Lechmere]

By the way Charles Lechmere lived about 7 minutes walk from where the inquest was held - that is my walking speed by the way and none too hurried - he could have easily popped home to change.

By the way that whole argument about walking speeds. In any normal conversation you could say such and such a place is so many minutes walk away and it would be accepted. It may vary obviously a little from person to person.
Only on this forum and only on a Lechmere thread would a 'nay sayer' indulge in a ridiculous level of argument to dispute the perfectly reasonable contention that Charles Lechmere would take around 7 minutes to get from his house to Browns Stable Yard.

[Cogidubnus]

It is somewhat tiresome having to repeat things dozens of times to the same people.

Yes, isn't it...

We know Charles lechmere paid for his numerous children to be baptised. We know from Paul that carmen werent that badly paid . We know that Lechmere saved enough to open a grocers shop. We know he left a decent sum in his will.

Yes he baptised his children...so did my family and as casual dock labourers they were perpetually skint...And the famous grocers shop - now do you suppose he scrimped and saved that money, making economies as he went, or accumulated it easily?

There are things there to back up the contention that he would have had another suit.

And these are....?

The idea that he may have popped to work after the inquest is rot that has been dealt with before.

Is it such rot? Why so?

Your fireside tales of bogey men are very interesting but everyone I know from that area who has any claim to anything to do with past East End misdeeds rigerously grasps it - with advantages. That cog is how east end folk are- not scardy types hiding under their bed sheets.

That is NOW...there's no shame NOW...but go back 70, 80, 90 years and would the attitude be the same...I doubt it...my mother was born in the Raine Street workhouse and was so ashamed of it she never talked about it. We eventually discovered it on a birth certificate, and asked...she still refused to discuss it...respectable folk were ashamed of having been poor, ashamed of their fathers who drank, ashamed of criminals in the family, ashamed of grandmothers forced to hawk their bodies, ashamed of their very impoverished roots...you think they'd be proud of a JtR connection (no matter how tenuous)? For my part, I don't really think so...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Yes people did like the ripper connection as it was a talking point - a bragging point - totally unlike the exames you gave

[Lechmere]

Ok there are also photos of his kids a out ten years later, done up to the nines
There were not dirt poor. Get used to it - not everyone on the east end was

[Lechmere]

To show how patient I am - as a carman he would have not been able to go to work first and fit in a little work as a carman's job took him all over the place - they got stuck in traffic, they were often kept waiting hours while making deliveries - that sort of thing. The work did not lend itself to popping out to attend an Inquest.

Also once in attendance he would not have been able to just disappear once his testimony was over as he may have been recalled.

You should be able to work that out without me spelling it out anyway.

As I said I try not to make unsupported statements so check Robert paul's second press interview ( after his belated appearance at the inquest).