Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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...

[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

[Lechmere]

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 conceivable purpose.

[CitizenX]

Citizen
Your dates are badly adrift.

In what respect?

[Lechmere]

Citizen
Your dates are badly adrift.

[Lechmere]

Again
We know that they did not know his real name as the internal police reports that always recorded aliases or alternative names give no hint of any name other than Cross. His treatment in these Internal reports also debunks the theory that he was granted anonymity.

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.

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.

[CitizenX]

Thanks Citizen...so you agree that at work he was known as Charles Cross...

All the best

Dave

Yes I do believe that is the case...and there was nothing illegal, wrong or underhand in doing so.

The following is all thanks to the great work of Chris Scott..

1849 - Charles Allen Lechmere was born in St Anns, Soho
1861 - Recorded in the census, along with his sister Emily as Cross...his stepfathers surname. (Age 11)
Sometime around 1864 starts working for Pickfords under the name of Cross (Age 14) presumed still in the Cross family home.

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.

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

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.

All this Cross/Lechmere theory is a none starter for me i'm afraid. (Sorry Fish!!)

[Sally]

It is unlikely the police would have checked his workplace as logically they would so have checked his home address as well and it seems very unlikely this happened as they would surely have found out his real name.

Please state your evidence for the above - i.e. specifically, how you know that the police did not know his 'real' name.

We don't know if the police 'checked out' the residential and workplace details supplied to them by witnesses - but whether they did or not, it was almost certainly a matter of policy.

[Lechmere]

It is beyond doubt that Charles Lechmere gave his name as Charles Cross to the police when he appeared at a police station, almost certainly onthe Sunday evening. He will have been given a summons to appear at the inquest almost certainly in person at the same time.
He also gave his workplace as Pickfords and his address as 22 Doveton Street - although we don't know the sequence of events - I.e how he was asked the questions which led him to give these details.

At the inquest he seems to have just given his workplace and not his address but this does not appear to be unusual.
It is unlikely the police would have checked his workplace as logically they would so have checked his home address as well and it seems very unlikely this happened as they would surely have found out his real name.

In conclusion he avoided having his true name and address read out in open court.

[CitizenX]

Failure to provide a name and an address, when asked for by a PC, was an offense.

Not sure how that stands at inques I must admit, did everywhere else.

Monty

Not sure how it stood in 1888 but presently in England you do not have give a policeman your name or address unless under arrest or in charge of a motor vehicle. Many police do not understand the rights of individuals or on purposely misrepresent them. In most cases people do give their details as they don't know any better or to save all the bother....I suppose it was no different in 1888.

This is cut from the following website

http://www.freedompress.org.uk/news/2011/03/23/march-26th-do-i-have-to-give-the-cops-my-name-and-address/

You do not have to give your name and address unless under a specific legal obligation (Rice v Connolly 1966). Refusal to give your name and address cannot amount to obstructing the police in the course of their duty under s89(2) Police Act 1996 but giving a false name and address can (Ledger v DPP 1991). Note this is pre-Human Rights Act. In general you can use any name you like unless it is for an illegal purpose. There are however a number of laws which make refusal or giving a false name and address to a constable a crime (in 1800s this was peddling or poaching). All have a maximum penalty of a fine.

[Cogidubnus]

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

Thanks Citizen...so you agree that at work he was known as Charles Cross...

All the best

Dave

[CitizenX]

I can only speak of my own experiences and that has never happened.

However, I have known of evidence given via video link with the witness speaking via video from behind a screen.

Trevors experience wouldn't have surprised me. Again it goes back to the point I was making some weeks ago of 'known as'. The name truly is irrelevant.

In 1888, if a inquest witness was reluctant to appear for valid reasons, his evidence was read out in his absence, with Coroners questions put before hand and responded likewise. However I'm not sure if a witness is summons, and the Coroner insists, if the witness has to attend. I suspect he does but, as with Trevors man, he would be allowed to give his name as an psuedonym.

Monty

Here is a link the Coroners Act for 1887

http://archive.org/details/coronersact1887w00melsuoft

In Summary

An inquest is a "Court of Record" and not a "Court of Law" and as such has limited powers available to those obstruction its enquiry. It is a misdemeanor to obstruct the coroner or his jury, punishable by a fine. The coroner has the right to issue an arrest warrant and have anyone brought before the enquiry but only within the jurisdiction he is within i.e Whitechapel.

The hearing is open to the public and the jury is not sworn or held to any secrecy. There is nothing in place to assure the anonymity of witnesses or to the withholding of evidence during the enquiry.

However the coroner is free to manage the session how he sees fit so I suppose he can withhold persons addresses or evidence if he or the police feels it will hamper the investigation in some way.