Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[CitizenX]

But the police gave householders, family men and those in regular employment the benefit of the doubt. We see this sort of thing repeatedly in this case.

So you are saying that Cross/Lechmere was treated no differently from any other witness at the time? He gave only his employers name in the inquest which as you say "does not appear to be unusual"

Buts still "he avoided having his true name and address read out in open court"

hmmmmmm

[CitizenX]

The year he started at Pickfords and the year he married.
You have also been economically selective in the dates you presented.

And he gave his name workplace and address to the police - they are all listed in the internal files.
He is listed at his address and everywhere else as Charles Lechmere for every conceivableisting and purpose.

The dates are a guess as nobody knows exactly...including yourself.

There is no dispute that he worked for Pickfords for "over 20 years".

At that time boys started working at around 14 (the age of legal responsibility at that time)

Started at 14 - 25 years service
Started at 18 - 21 Years service

He didn't appear to have been the type to move from job to job...so I "guessed" the higher end of the scale as probable, it could be anywhere in between.

As for the wedding date they were living as man and wife from 1871 census (age 21) and their first child was not born till 1873 so it wasn't because they had to The earliest they could marry without permission was 21 at that time which was "full age" in English law.

"Edit...Just found the marriage certificate posted by Chris Scott and they were married in 1870 (Age 21)...Good Guess!!"

To summarize.

When they married Cross had worked for Pickfords for 3 to 7 years...

[Lechmere]

Incidentally the significance of there being a lack of a family tradition of any Ripper connection among the descendants of Charles Lechmere is obviously that if there were such a tradition then it would undermine the case against him being the Ripper. Not absolutely but to a fair degree.

In other words if you approached an unsuspecting great great grandchild of his and said 'what do you know about Jack the Ripper?' and they piped up 'one of my ancestors was involved in the case somehow' then it would imply that Charles Lechmere's wife certainly knew about the inquest and so forth.

[Lechmere]

Citizen
Broad Street goods station opened in May 1868.
If Charles Lechmere started work there for Pickfords immediately it opened - which seems likely - then he will have been working there for over 20 years by September 1888.
We also know exactly when he married.

[Observer]

You are also incorrect in saying that only Police Officers and Surgeons did not give an address.

Read the testimony recorded for Patrick Mulshaw, the Whitechapel District Board of Works nightwatchman. He doesn't give an address either, just the location where he was working. Thomas Eade another, albeit unreliable, witness also states that he was "a signalman, in the employ of the East London Railway", but gives no home address. These two examples alone are from the Polly Nicols inquest reported in the press...maybe there are more examples if I started wading through the other inquest reports.

Cross stated that he was in the employ of Pickfords. This must have been acceptable to the coroner to establish identification. Pickfords was a reputable employer, Cross had worked for them for over 20 years and the police had obviously checked this out.

It's all there in black and white

Hi Citizen x

I also noted the various ways in which the witnesses revealed their identities. Doesn't seem to be a set procedure does there?

As I stated earlier, what's the difference between, Emma Green cottage next to murder scene, and Chas Andrew Cross carman in employ of Messrs Pickford and co ?

The premise I am disputing here is the notion that the police gave Cross anonymity, wheres the anonymity in the above?

Anyone could trace him given the information he revealed at the inquest. Even if he was known as Lechmere at work, his workmates would have twigged on that it was he who had found the body of Polly Nichols, he gave his proper first name Charles, he stated he'd worked at Pickfords for more than 20 years, he stated he was a carman, and it was obvious that he lived within walking distance of Bucks Row.

Looking at the various ways in which witnesses revealed their identities, isn't it more than likely, that the coroner was satisfied with, Chas Alexander Cross carman in the employ of Messrs Pickfords and co, just as he was satisfied with Emma Green, cottage next to murder scene?

Regards

Observer

[Lechmere]

Actually Emma smith, cottage next to murder scene is clearly more accurate and precise than the details ascribed to Charles Lechmere.

[Observer]

So you are saying that Cross/Lechmere was treated no differently from any other witness at the time? He gave only his employers name in the inquest which as you say "does not appear to be unusual"

Buts still "he avoided having his true name and address read out in open court"

hmmmmmm

Hi again Citizen x

I'm a little confused, you seem to contradict yourself, one moment you're going along with coroners being satisfied with witnesses being vague about their identities, you quote Patrick Mulshaw who didn't give an address either just the area he was working. Now we have a hmmmmmm when Lechmere suggests there is nothing unusual with Cross supplying only his place of work. What about Mulshaw, does he warrant a hmmmmmm also, after all he didn't supply an address?

Regards

Observer

[CitizenX]

Hi again Citizen x

I'm a little confused, you seem to contradict yourself, one moment you're going along with coroners being satisfied with witnesses being vague about their identities, you quote Patrick Mulshaw who didn't give an address either just the area he was working. Now we have a hmmmmmm when Lechmere suggests there is nothing unusual with Cross supplying only his place of work. What about Mulshaw, does he warrant a hmmmmmm also, after all he didn't supply an address?

Regards

Observer

the hmmmmmmm was directed at the inconsistency of Lechmere's quote accepting on one side that there was nothing unusual in supplying only his place of work at the inquest only to contradict himself by saying "he avoided having his true name and address read out in open court"

[Lechmere]

I meant Emma Green of course not Emma Smith - but she gave her full address - New Cottage - anyway.

Yes Charles Lechmere did avoid giving his correct name and address in open court. Whether a court often was satisfied with just a workplace is frankly irrelevant.

[CitizenX]

Hi Citizen x

I also noted the various ways in which the witnesses revealed their identities. Doesn't seem to be a set procedure does there?

As I stated earlier, what's the difference between, Emma Green cottage next to murder scene, and Chas Andrew Cross carman in employ of Messrs Pickford and co ?

The premise I am disputing here is the notion that the police gave Cross anonymity, wheres the anonymity in the above?

Anyone could trace him given the information he revealed at the inquest. Even if he was known as Lechmere at work, his workmates would have twigged on that it was he who had found the body of Polly Nichols, he gave his proper first name Charles, he stated he'd worked at Pickfords for more than 20 years, he stated he was a carman, and it was obvious that he lived within walking distance of Bucks Row.

Looking at the various ways in which witnesses revealed their identities, isn't it more than likely, that the coroner was satisfied with, Chas Alexander Cross carman in the employ of Messrs Pickfords and co, just as he was satisfied with Emma Green, cottage next to murder scene?

Regards

Observer

Maybe a reason he continued to be know as Cross at work was that he needed to be liceneced to be a carman and those licences were under the name Cross. Carman were supposed to be licenced at that time to reduce congestion and peddeling.

[Observer]

Actually Emma smith, cottage next to murder scene is clearly more accurate and precise than the details ascribed to Charles Lechmere.

How about Thomas Ede a signalman in the employ of the East London Railway Company? Or Alfred Mulshaw a nightwatchman in Winthorpe Street?

[Observer]

the hmmmmmmm was directed at the inconsistency of Lechmere's quote accepting on one side that there was nothing unusual in supplying only his place of work at the inquest only to contradict himself by saying "he avoided having his true name and address read out in open court"

Ok sorry I missed that. But I'm still confused.

Regards

Observer

[CitizenX]

I meant Emma Green of course not Emma Smith - but she gave her full address - New Cottage - anyway.

Yes Charles Lechmere did avoid giving his correct name and address in open court. Whether a court often was satisfied with just a workplace is frankly irrelevant.

Sorry I cant see your logic in this at all...

[Lechmere]

From memory the Worshipful Company of Carmen regulated licences for carmen...
But that did not apply to carmen emoted by haulage firms such as Pickfords. It was for self employed carmen who operated in a similar manner to handsome cab or taxi operators.

[CitizenX]

From memory the Worshipful Company of Carmen regulated licences for carmen...
But that did not apply to carmen emoted by haulage firms such as Pickfords. It was for self employed carmen who operated in a similar manner to handsome cab or taxi operators.

Cheers for that..
I did find this online

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=59910

but its much earlier than 1800s

Thanks