Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Mr Lucky]

Sorry Mr Lucky, no evidence for this whatsoever.

Hi Observer

The Star 3rd September 1888 - 'Carman Cross, 22 Doveton Street'

I'll reply to the other parts later.

[Observer]

Hi Moonbegger

I think you're making this up as you go along.

You've perused the various accounts of Polly Nichols inquest and come to your own conclusions regarding what each type of witness has to do when identifying themselves

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!


A witness is a witness, and the fact remains that Cross was not the only one to give his place of work along with his name when identifying himself to the coroner. It is entirely possible that Cross upon hearing other witnesses giving only their place of work as an address, he followed suite and performed the same task.

I'll tell you what, you go away and find an article of law which states that anyone finding a murdered individual is bound by law to give their name and home address to a coroners court, and that minor witnesses are exempt this procedure. This for 1888 mind you.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Observer

The Star 3rd September 1888 - 'Carman Cross, 22 Doveton Street'

I'll reply to the other parts later.

Ok I'll look forward to that

Also

Is that it, no first name or place of work?

What have you to say regarding the fact that no other source reported Cross as giving his home address.

Oh yes, only the Star reporter heard him above the din. Did it ever occur to you that the Star reporter might have wanted to go one step farther and sought out his address from the coroner, or one of his assistants at the cessation of the inquest?

Regards

Observer

[Mr Lucky]

So the witnesses were all lined up and before they gave their testimony they were all asked to state name and address?

Hi Observer,

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

Every time this happens there is period where one person leaves the witness box (or whatever) and the next person takes the stand, gives their oath, there name and address, so many of the people at the court will not be interested in this and would be talking (perhaps quietly, but the court is packed) at this time, it takes a moment for hush to decend

Also, none of the addresses if they can be called that, were incorrect, which were incorrect?

for example Robert Paul -

The Times 18th Sept 1888
‘Robert Baul, a carman, of 30, Foster-street, Whitechapel’

The Illustrated Police News 22nd Sept 1888
‘John Paul, of 30, fester-street, Whitechapel’

Morning Advertiser 18th Sept. 1888
‘Robert Paul, Forster-street, Whitechapel.’

Daily news 18th Sept. 1888
‘Robert Paul said he lived at 30 Forster street, Whitechapel.’

St James Gazette 18th Sept 1888
‘John Hall, carman, said that he lived at 30 Foster street’

Only one has both his correct name and address

For me, the reason some of the names were incorrectly observed was because of accent, and the journalists not being familiar with the name in question, Purkiss, Mulshaw, etc. Company names, Pickfords, East London Railway Company, Essex Wharf, unmistakable.



Because he didn't give Doveton Street as his address?

This is what I believe Cross gave when asked who he was, words to the effect

My name is Charles Allen Cross I am a carman and I work for Pickfords of Broad Street.

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.

[Mr Lucky]

What have you to say regarding the fact that no other source reported Cross as giving his home address.

I think they are more interested in his story, than these kind of details. Plus the noise factor I've mentioned

Oh yes, only the Star reporter heard him above the din. Did it ever occur to you that the Star reporter might have wanted to go one step farther and sought out his address from the coroner, or one of his assistants at the cessation of the inquest?

This has occured to me, but I feel that if the star reporter was going to this amount of trouble for his address then why not use his full name in his report too, rather than calling him 'carmen Cross'.

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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 .