Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Observer]

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

take care

Regards

Observer

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

No, it not the soundest solution, as it involves special court/police documents where contrary to all expectation and legal precedent, Charles Allen Cross is named as ‘Carman Cross’, documents that only the star journalist has access to, documents that rather than being used to confirm the other witnesses details are then ignored and never accessed again.- Perhaps they have self-destructed 5 seconds after the star journalist had found out Cross’s address, !!

The soundest solution is the expected and obvious one, and the one that the evidence suggests, that he gave his name and address at Baxter’s inquest.
while the rest of the press men paid more attention to his name, star did the same regarding his address.

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?

Hold on, I’m saying he gave the court his name and address, you’re the one that claimed he had told the court he was called Carmen Cross, and therefore this is why he is being referred too as this in the inquest documentation, as this is your explanation for how the star have his address but not his name. As the star, of course, and only the star (because of their excellent relationship with the police perhaps, ha-ha), have access to special court room documents which list him as ‘carman Cross’ rather than his actual name. I’ll go with the obvious, the star have called him ‘carman Cross’ as he is wearing a carman’s apron.

I suppose that with one suspect and two theories, there will be points of disagreement like this, so I'll leave it at that, for now (I’ll read your reply of course)

Anyway , all the best to you Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"No, it not the soundest solution, as it involves special court/police documents where contrary to all expectation and legal precedent, Charles Allen Cross is named as ‘Carman Cross’, documents that only the star journalist has access to, documents that rather than being used to confirm the other witnesses details are then ignored and never accessed again."

It does no such thing - such a list as the one I speak of would only be ONE possibility. It may equally be that the Star journalist spoke to a representative of the police or somebody else who did not have Lechmere´s full name, but knew that he was Cross the carman. Plus there are other possibilities too, as you will realize.

"The soundest solution is the expected and obvious one, and the one that the evidence suggests, that he gave his name and address at Baxter’s inquest.
while the rest of the press men paid more attention to his name, star did the same regarding his address."

But why did all the papers but the Star fail to provide the professional interest they were payed to show - and displayed visavi all the other witnesses?
How many more examples can you dig up - from any contemporary inquest - where one paper gets the address exactly correct, and a dozen others fail to do so, not even saying a word about it? Leaving it out totally, as it were?
And IF you should be able to dig up a parallel - how big a chance do you think it is that the very observant and keen-eared muckracker that got every syllable and number right in the address issue, was the ONLY one to totally miss out on the given names of the person he had displayed such an interest in address-wise?
Incidentally, the evidence does not suggest that he gave his address. It instead suggests that he did not. It´s twenty to one or something like that in favour of Lechmere not having said a iota about the address. So let´s be fair about that.

"Hold on, I’m saying he gave the court his name and address, you’re the one that claimed he had told the court he was called Carmen Cross, and therefore this is why he is being referred too as this in the inquest documentation, as this is your explanation for how the star have his address but not his name."

Like I have shown, there may be many a reason for the Stars calling him Carman Cross (not Carmen - that´s too Bizet´ish).

"As the star, of course, and only the star (because of their excellent relationship with the police perhaps, ha-ha), have access to special court room documents which list him as ‘carman Cross’ rather than his actual name."

If the Star had access, then so had all other papers too. But once again, speaking to a policeman, checking with a colleague ("I didn´t hear what his first name was but he´s a carman called Cross, mate!") would do the trick too. So we may not need to speak of any access, and I really don´t care much for having it implied that I believe that the Star was favoured by the police, as you may understand.

" I’ll go with the obvious, the star have called him ‘carman Cross’ as he is wearing a carman’s apron."

The obvious, Mr Lucky, is that the reporters listen to the witness, and provide information that may sometimes have been misheard to some extent. But they DO provide information. That´s what we see in the other cases. What we don´t see in any other case, though, is one paper being spot on detailwise about an address (and rather an obscure one too), and the others not even presenting any information in that context at all.

"I suppose that with one suspect and two theories, there will be points of disagreement like this"

That´s pretty obvious

"so I'll leave it at that, for now"

Wise move. I´ll join, and the others can choose for themselves.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Lechmere ,

Apologies for the " other fella " line , it was actually suppose to be fellas .. ( pertaining to TL ) And yes i did note the date indescrepencies .. but as CX was almost stating it as fact i was curious to see if he actually had something in the ways of solid proof !

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

Me.
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

Cheers

moonbegger .

[Bridewell]

Colin...grrr..I see that you replied before I edited to correct the spelling of 'Schwartz'. And that's all I see for the mo' (it's late).

Tell a lie..these 'bragging people' are going to be totally anonymous and unknown 'storytellers' aren't they ? Impossible to quote.

I have a day off on Monday, and shall see how many people brag a connection to a modern murderer like the Yorkshire Ripper..
(and don't forget that Charlie was ostensibly only a witness).

In fairness I think I was editing as well because the original post (which you quoted!) seemed a little too caustic, so I amended it. I only posed the original question because Lechmere chided Dave for some examples which he gave. Returning to the subject of the thread, I don't think that Cross / Lechmere can be seen as completely vindicated by what's been posted. He's still a possible, but nothing more than that.

Regards, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Hello All ,

"As the star, of course, and only the star (because of their excellent relationship with the police perhaps, ha-ha), have access to special court room documents which list him as ‘carman Cross’ rather than his actual name."

I think the Link to him being called "Carman Cross" Is neither a special document or report , or his own words ! I think that the name stuck as soon as PC Myzen referred to him as "Carman Cross " on the stand , just before Cross gave evidence .

Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there. Witness went to the spot,

However , where the Address came from is still the main mystery ? Seeing as it was clearly not read out during the inquest !

cheers

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Hello ruby , Bridewell ,

And all other interested parties ! In regards to people bragging about JtR connections ..

I Posted this quite some time ago on another thread , under ( possible new witness connection) and in light of some of the later posts , thought it may be of some interest .

I have a quick tale to pass on , maybe its Nothing , but then again .. at the very most i guess it could be an interesting link to check out . i did have a go myself but came up with nothing ..but i am sure there are alot better detectives on here than Me ..

I was just recently in a London pub chatting with a good friend of my dad . Who, back in the day used to be a young man in a small firm ( gang) around the Hoxton , Murry grove area ( central , East London ) . After chatting about the old East End and the Ripper murders , He told me that on occasions his little firm were Visited by Ronnie Kray , and asked to run errand's across the water ( South London ) to another firm . He told me that on one occasion he and his pals ended up in a pub in bermondsey or somewhere close by, having a few beers with the south London firm . He went on to say that one of the brothers in this firm after a few beers started ranting on about his family having their roots in the East End .. And that their Granddad John was even a Main witness at one of the Jack the Rippers murders .The Name of the Gang was the Richardsons .


I will admit that the conversation we was having was the hanbury street murder and my disbelief of some of the witnesses .. in particular John Richardson . at which point he stopped me in my tracks, and matter of faculty told me " that was Charlie Richardsons Grandad ". And then followed through with how he came to hear it.


Now i know that nearly everyone in the East End (of a certain age) has a Ripper tale to tell .. But for the life of me i cant see my Dad's pal Telling me porky's ( Pork pies =lies ) Maybe the Original teller was expressing a certain amount of creative licence ? to get his point across , i really don't know but i did think it worthy of a mention on here .


And i'm also pretty sure its easy to prove or diprove it in a heartbeat. Especially given the Internet tools and the wise fools ( that was a mistake , but i like it, so i'm leaving it in ) we have at our disposal .

cheers all

moonbegger .

[Bridewell]

Hello ruby , Bridewell ,

And all other interested parties ! In regards to people bragging about JtR connections ..

I Posted this quite some time ago on another thread , under ( possible new witness connection) and in light of some of the later posts , thought it may be of some interest .
cheers all

moonbegger .

Hi MB,

I think that can fairly be described as an example of someone boasting about a family member's involvement! Thanks for re-posting it.

[Lechmere]

I don't think it's that much of a mystery where the address came from.
There would have been a running order or agenda for the coroner to follow and the usher would have a copy - very likely it had thd name and address of the civilian witnesses and name and station or occuptional status gor officials (police, doctors etc).
It would be simplicity itself for an enterprising journslist to ask for a missing address.

[caz]

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. It´s much the same as him not being able to count on the police not checking him out. We can´t say that he was pig thick for chancing it would go down that way, can we?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fishy,

I’m sorry, but I’ve never read such desperate straw-clutching to make Cross’s (unconfirmed) behaviour at the inquest look fishy.

There are only two alternatives here:

1) He stated his home address at the inquest, whether asked for it or not.

Not remotely fishy.

2) He wasn’t asked to state his home address, so he didn’t state it (supplying his work details instead, as we have seen other, entirely innocent witnesses do, apparently without a problem).

Not remotely fishy. Apparently quite normal.

If I, or anyone posting here, had just found someone horribly murdered within a short walking distance of our home, our spouse and our kids, and were attending the inquest to make a statement about it, would we gaily give out our full home address if we hadn’t actually been asked for it, or were not formally obliged to state it? I sure as hell wouldn’t! That doesn’t make me remotely fishy, as long as I had disclosed my address to the police and they could find me again, under any of the surnames I have ever used.

Love,

Caz
X
　

[caz]

Hi Lechmere,

You wrote:

We do not know that the police had a policy of 'checking out' routinely witnesses adddresses or places of work. I very much doubt they did so at all.
If they had reason to be suspicious of such a person then they logically would have done - eg if someone gave a statement that was found to be false or if they were in a class of person that the police were prejudiced against.

The point is that if even you are having to guess what routine policy the police may or may not have had, regarding the formal identification of witnesses (and I agree, it would probably have been very much down to the individual concerned, their perceived honesty and the circumstances), then Cross himself certainly could not have known that his little Lechmere secret would remain safe - and that’s assuming he wasn’t known as Cross at Pickfords, despite freely stating his employment details at the inquest.

The funny thing is, a lot has been made of Cross telling PC Mizen a provable and blatant falsehood, within minutes of the murder, then giving a false statement about what he told this policeman, effectively accusing him of lying or at least being incompetent. So by your own logic, that alone would have been sufficient grounds for checking him out. If they didn’t check him out, it rather implies that they had reason to believe Mizen had his wires crossed.

Also, you keep saying that Cross could have afforded more than just his work clothes, and that therefore he must have owned better and would have worn better to the inquest had he nothing to hide. That’s several layers of speculation for the price of one! But even if you knew for a fact, that after feeding and clothing the kids and the missus, paying the rent and all the bills, he had enough spare cash to splash out on leisure wear for himself (with precious little leisure time to wear it in), you can’t possibly know that he would have spent the money that way, as there are always a million and one ways for a man to be parted from his hard-earned dosh, and that's if he didn't save anything going spare for a rainy day - or at least for his daughters’ future wedding days, when he would presumably have wanted everyone, including himself, to be well turned out.

It’s a fool’s errand to guess what a working man with a large family would or would not have chosen to spend any extra income on in 1888. Many a good man (and woman) would give the best cuts of meat they could afford, and the best clothes, to the kids, while making do with scraps and rags for themselves, while the not so good might do the opposite. The even worse would have pissed it all up against the wall or gambled it away.

Love,

Caz
X