Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar - check through the reply from the other fella to the citizen's post - his dates are all out.

On the subject of noise in the court - it was a small cramped room. Sometimes there would have been a bit of hubbub but to suggest that this happened with each witness would imply the coroner exerted no control.

Why would the star be the only paper to obtain the address if it was not given in open court? They were sn evening paper and their reporter would want to extract the maximum from the session he could cover before his deadline.
Why not get Cross's first name? He noted his name down while the evidence was being given and then just asked an official afterwards for the address.
The address was significant as it had a bearing on where this witness - who found the body - was coming from. The failure of the other papers is examined by them covering the whole day's session and the name not being given in court. It is easy to understand how it would have happened.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"They would have too put something down for his name, they can't just say 'some fellow at the inquest said', his address just isn't the same level of importance."

But nevertheless, whenever a person gives his address at these inquests, we always have each and every paper trying to decipher what was said. And that results in a number of efforts that will differ inbetween them - but the efforts will be there. Always.

So when there was NO effort made in Lechmere´s case, we can safely rely on that meaning that he never said a word about any address. The Star got it from another source, in which "Cross" was listed as "Carman Cross".

That is the soundest solution, I´m afraid.

"Brady turning into Bradley, well that may well be what the journalist genuinely thought that they had actually heard, rather than a best guess."

Exactly so - and this is what applies in all other cases too, where there is a confusion about what was said.Of course the journalists would not guess as such - they would write down what they thought they heard. And noone thought they heard anything at all about any address when Lechmere witnessed.

"I don't think that there is room for guessing what people are saying at the inquest, the reporters would just leave the possibly mis-heard address out rather than give an inaccurate guess."

No, they would not. Which is why we have Walkers address given in many a way. Have a look at all the inquest reports and you will see this. Another example is James Green in the Chapman inquest, who was stated by one paper (Daily Telegraph) to live in Ackland Street, Burdett-Road, and another one (Morning Advertiser) to live in 26 Acton Street, Burdett Road.
This is what happens over and over again; the adress is given the way the reporters think they hear it, and they very often hear it wrong. But that does not mean that they leave it out, since they feel uncertain.

In Lechmere´s case, however, you ask us to believe that the Star reporter got it exactly correct, whereas no other paper even had a go. This is not in keeping with how it looks otherwise at the inquests, and therefore it will most probably be wrong.

"If he was called 'Carmen Cross' on the witness list, that's what name he would have given his testimony under, not 'Charles Allen Cross', if the star journalist had access to list, police sources etc, then they would have got his name correct."

There´s a backside to that argument, Mr Lucky. If he called himself "Carman Cross", then why do all the other papers have his first names in their articles? Did they all go to a witness list - and all read it differently? Or did they all ask the police - who gave them different answers?

"Why would the star journalist who has a deadline for going to press that afternoon, bother to do this when none of the reporters for the daily/morning papers (who have more time) do?"

Just how much trouble was it? Just how long did it take? One minute? Fifteen? Three hours? Thing is, Mr Lucky, we can´t tell, can we. But we CAN tell that it COULD have been the smallest of efforts, taking very few seconds.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello CX

Sometime around 1864 starts working for Pickfords under the name of Cross (Age 14) presumed still in the Cross family home.

Although i have for some time assumed he started working at age 14, under the name cross ( but not necessarily for pickfords ), i have never found any hard facts to back it up .. So is what you have here CX a proven fact or have you as you like to say CREATED it ?

Sometime after 1866 marries Elizabeth, however in this case it could render the marriage not legal to marry under the name Cross as he is named Lechmere on his birth certificate. Therefore he reverts to the name Lechmere. To obtain a marriage licence in England you have to present a birth certificate

.

Think it was 1871 he married ( could be wrong ) . But once again i am fully on board with this line of conjecture .

All his workmates and records at Pickfords know him as Cross even if from that point he reverts to Lechmere for the family name.

Yep , this has been my suggestion all along ..

When asked for his name and work address by the police for the inquest he gave the name as Cross as Lechmere didn't exist in the records of Pickfords. He did nothing illegal or wrong in this case because, as has been been previously stated, in English law you can use any name you wish unless for an criminal act.

Totally agree ...

But i still think its a huge coincidence that he is the only major witness, not to have an address read out in public at any JtR inquest and even stranger, that the Star was the only paper to revel it .. but i would gladly except that he was known by the name of Cross to many , but as Fish and the other fella will tell you , there really is no conclusive proof either way ! And call it what you will , the Coroner did not press him for his address for whatever reason !

cheers

moonbegger

[Mr Lucky]

Firstly a question, I wonder how many pressmen attended the inquest, and which newspapers did they represent?

I have been looking into this for sometime as I find analysing textual errors quite fun!, but I need more time to check properly, but at the very least 4 original sources (this can be more difficult than you may initially think as some reports are combinations of two or more other sources (which may already be edited), and they are actually combinations of agency telegrams (which we no longer have), not what we actually see in print in the papers, and they are all then edited separately as well, before appearing in print themselves!)

Yes this is the norm I believe, so you'd think that that there would be enough hush for reporters to more or less hear what the witnesses were saying. Also I take it the coroner would have brought to order any excessive noise in the room?

The reporters are just seated with the crowd, I believe. Baxter, the witnesses and the jury are at the front of the room sat at a table.

There is a single report of Baxter stopping Nelly Holland and making her restart her testimony as he couldn't hear her.

Robert Paul. Yes some get his name incorrect, but they all got 30 Forster Street did they not? One had Fester Street, but I think this is probably a typo.

Look again - forster ,fester and foster.

Charles Cross. The Penny Illustrated Paper got it spot on, well done to them. The Daily News were nearly there with Charles A Cross. Every one of the others had Charles Cross of sorts, apart from the Nottingham Evening Post who had Crass. Another typo?

The point I'm making about the misspelling of names and addresses is that there is no list to look at, so the press men try to listen as best as they can, the number of errors (differencies in text in the various sources, not incorrect 'facts') at the start of the witness testimonies (not all, eg Not PC Neil) is usually higher than during the rest of their testimonies. All this suggests to me, noise (destructive interference)

Looking at the various other names and addresses, the press men didn't do too badly at all in recording names and addresses. They seemed to struggle a little with some of the more unusual names Purkiss, and Mulshaw for example but not bad on the whole. And yet for all this, the Star reporter was the only one who picked out Doveton Street, the only one, I personally find this a little hard to believe.

That's fair enough. I can certainly understand your position.

[Observer]

haha ok my friend. As you say nothing is straight forward in this case.

take care

Regards

Observer

[moonbegger]

Observer ..

With respect. I personally think you're putting two and two together and arriving at five.

Why , thank you sir ! that is pretty close .. if we equate 4 with being positive , factual, beyond all reasonable doubt , exactly how it all went down , absolute bang to rights .. One out is surely a good thing .. although i look forward to the day when someone hits 4 bang on the head .

But untill then , i will take 5 with the gratitude and respect it was given

cheers

moonbegger .

[Observer]

Observer ..
I have only interpreted exactly what is in front of us .. So if i made it up then surely the facts that are there at each and every inquest must be made up too ..moonbegger

Hi Moonbegger.

With respect. I personally think you're putting two and two together and arriving at five.

regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Mr Lucky

Firstly a question, I wonder how many pressmen attended the inquest, and which newspapers did they represent?

And now to the inquest

Hi Observer,

No each witness is called into court, they are then sworn in, then they give testimony.

Yes this is the norm I believe, so you'd think that that there would be enough hush for reporters to more or less hear what the witnesses were saying. Also I take it the coroner would have brought to order any excessive noise in the room?

Robert Paul. Yes some get his name incorrect, but they all got 30 Forster Street did they not? One had Fester Street, but I think this is probably a typo.

Charles Cross. The Penny Illustrated Paper got it spot on, well done to them. The Daily News were nearly there with Charles A Cross. Every one of the others had Charles Cross of sorts, apart from the Nottingham Evening Post who had Crass. Another typo?

Looking at the various other names and addresses, the press men didn't do too badly at all in recording names and addresses. They seemed to struggle a little with some of the more unusual names Purkiss, and Mulshaw for example but not bad on the whole. And yet for all this, the Star reporter was the only one who picked out Doveton Street, the only one, I personally find this a little hard to believe.

Regards

Observer

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky!

So, there is a confusion about the name. And that is something you think owes to a large commotion in the inquest room.

Anyhow, the Star reporter was the only one - according to you - that picked up on the address Lechmere gave.
None of the pother journalists heard it. And since they could not hear it correctly, they would not write it. Correct?

But, Mr Lucky, since the reporters called the carman in front of them Charles Andrew, Charles Allen, George, Mr Crass etcetera, i think we must recognize that what the reporters could not readily make out, they reported by giving a phonetic trascription of what they thought they HAD heard.

This would seem about correct, or what do you say?

But what about the Doveton Street address? Why did not all the reporters give their respective phonetic variants of that? 2 Doughton Street, 22 Dafferton Street, 102 Doveman Street, etcetera? Brady Street was turned into Bradley Street - but apparently nobody had a single go at the the street you claim Lechmere "must" have named.

Why?

Hi Fisherman

They would have too put something down for his name, they can't just say 'some fellow at the inquest said', his address just isn't the same level of importance.
Brady turning into Bradley, well that may well be what the journalist genuinely thought that they had actually heard, rather than a best guess. I don't think that there is room for guessing what people are saying at the inquest, the reporters would just leave the possibly mis-heard address out rather than give an inaccurate guess.

They had printed the wrong address for Mr Walker, and the actual resident at that address (a Mr Tasker, IIRC) wrote to the paper to complain!

Well, one paper did - and they miraculously got it 100 per cent correct, 22 Doveton Street, whereas the others were so totally out on it that they would not even venture a faint guess.

Strange, eh?

And to boot, the Star did not call him Charles Allen Cross. They obviously could not hear a iota of his first two names - but clinched the address easily enough...?

The solution? The solution is that they missed out on the name as most other papers, and asked the police or, perhaps more credible, read on a witness list:Carman Cross. That meant that they were bereft of his given names - but it had the clear advantage of having the address added, ready to scribble down for the enterprising Star journalist. And that was something the others missed out on.

Seems a useful bet to me.

If he was called 'Carmen Cross' on the witness list, that's what name he would have given his testimony under, not 'Charles Allen Cross', if the star journalist had access to list, police sources etc, then they would have got his name correct.

Why would the star journalist who has a deadline for going to press that afternoon, bother to do this when none of the reporters for the daily/morning papers (who have more time) do?

[Mr Lucky]

I also think that hurried note taking might explain the address thing. The reporters got the name and the place of employment and felt the address of a nobody witness was not really important. It does not mean that Charles Cross did not give his address, perhaps the reporters in the courtroom did not write it down, or just one wrote it down.

Hi Curious

Thanks. Yes I agree, it would seem that no single report has all of his details, name, address, time he left for work, time he arrived, where he worked etc.

That would be my explanation for the difference in the names and the difference in the details.

Yes, I think you have given some good reasoning for these errors.

[moonbegger]

my point exactly Fisherman ...

Observer ..

i.e. police officials, and doctors are not required to give an address, minor witnesses are also not required to give an home address. but major witnesses, individuals who find a body, oh yes they are required to give a home address.

You've made it up mate!

I have only interpreted exactly what is in front of us .. So if i made it up then surely the facts that are there at each and every inquest must be made up too ..

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Here, Mr Lucky, see what happened to the address of Edward Walker in three different newspapers:

Edward Walker, of 16 Maidswood-road, Camberwell (Times)

Edward Walker deposed: I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell (Daily Telegraph)

Edward Walker, an old man, residing at 16 Maidwood street, Albany road, Camberwell (Daily News)

It seems that the reporters mishear to some degree - but report what they THOUGHT they heard.

Not so in Lechmere´s case.

The obvious solution to that particular riddle is that he never gave any adress. He withheld it, and the Star got it from another source.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Lechmere,

Charles Cross gave his address in court. End of story.

The idea that a star journalist is going to 'hold the press' while he gets this information from some court room official, during the recess, while every other journalist is rushing to wire the biggest story of day back to head quarters is unrealistic.

Cross has actually described his route to Bucks Row, something like ~ I went down Parsons street, crossed Brady street and went up Bucks row

This information would have started with his home address and time he left home, which is confused enough anyway, as has been discussed on the other thread.

I was the one who first brought this up, weeks ago on the other thread, if it had any significance (and I thought it did, once upon time) it would still be in my essay along with the stuff that is, and I would not have brought it up on the forum.

What is significant is the fact that it was the star journalist who was the sole journalist interested enough to record his address when he anounced it in court, and I know why.

Seriously, my dear fellow, I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes on this.

sorry, Mr. Lucky, I had missed this post. and agree with it.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky!

So, there is a confusion about the name. And that is something you think owes to a large commotion in the inquest room.

Anyhow, the Star reporter was the only one - according to you - that picked up on the address Lechmere gave.
None of the pother journalists heard it. And since they could not hear it correctly, they would not write it. Correct?

But, Mr Lucky, since the reporters called the carman in front of them Charles Andrew, Charles Allen, George, Mr Crass etcetera, i think we must recognize that what the reporters could not readily make out, they reported by giving a phonetic trascription of what they thought they HAD heard.

This would seem about correct, or what do you say?

But what about the Doveton Street address? Why did not all the reporters give their respective phonetic variants of that? 2 Doughton Street, 22 Dafferton Street, 102 Doveman Street, etcetera? Brady Street was turned into Bradley Street - but apparently nobody had a single go at the the street you claim Lechmere "must" have named.

Why?

Well, one paper did - and they miraculously got it 100 per cent correct, 22 Doveton Street, whereas the others were so totally out on it that they would not even venture a faint guess.

Strange, eh?

And to boot, the Star did not call him Charles Allen Cross. They obviously could not hear a iota of his first two names - but clinched the address easily enough...?

The solution? The solution is that they missed out on the name as most other papers, and asked the police or, perhaps more credible, read on a witness list:Carman Cross. That meant that they were bereft of his given names - but it had the clear advantage of having the address added, ready to scribble down for the enterprising Star journalist. And that was something the others missed out on.

Seems a useful bet to me.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious]

Ok, he gave his name as Charles Allen Cross, so explain this -

Cross’s names -

‘Charles Cross’ - Manchester Guardian 4th Sept. 1888
‘Charles A. Cross’- Daily News 4th Sept. 1888
‘Charles Allen Cross’ - Penny Illustrated Paper 8th Sept. 1888
‘George Cross’ - The Times 4th Sept. 1888
‘C. H. Cross’ - Birmingham Daily Post 4th Sept. 1888
‘Chas. Andrew Cross’ - Daily Telegraph 4th Sept. 1888
‘Charles Andrew Cross’ - Lloyd’s Weekly News 9th Sept. 1888
‘H. Charles Cross’ - Woodford Times 7th Sept. 1888
‘Charles Crass’ - The Nottingham Evening Post 3rd Sept. 1888

And don't forget the Star, the only one which had his address, calls him 'carman Cross'. No Christian names or initials at all.

Hi, Mr. Lucky,

Very interesting

do you have any personal idea how the names got mixed up that way?

As someone who sometimes writes down what other people are saying, I suspect the reporters were writing as quickly as they could and abbreviating.

I think the guy who got "George" was behind in his jotting and his brain could not remember the first name.

The C.H. was from a reporter who wrote down the initials and then could not read his A. You should try to read some reporters' chicken scratching.

Chas. Well, that is how I abbreviate Charles and I would abbreviate George as Geo. and William as Wm. -- which could possibly get turned into W.M.

I think the reason for the two Charles Andrews was because somebody at Lloyd's Weekly picked it up from the Telegraph's story 5 days earlier. And perhaps the Andrew came from a capital A and some squiggles, with Andrew being the name the reporter came up with.

I also think that hurried note taking might explain the address thing. The reporters got the name and the place of employment and felt the address of a nobody witness was not really important. It does not mean that Charles Cross did not give his address, perhaps the reporters in the courtroom did not write it down, or just one wrote it down.

Charles Crass, Charles Cross?? A's and O's very often look alike when written in cursive. My community news reporters, some in their 80s, still hand write their columns and I often have to call and ask whether they mean "Ray" or "Roy"

The stories were put together (perhaps very quickly under a tight deadline) back at the office from handwritten notes taken in the courtroom.

That would be my explanation for the difference in the names and the difference in the details.

curious