Charles Cross

[rjpalmer]

I think he is definitely leaning on a chair with his left hand, an open gate would not have a tapered cross section. Agreed with the right hand, sometimes it looks to me like a cane, then maybe a cap. Have to wait on Mark with his hi-res photo I guess...

Hello Geddy

I generally see the photograph in the same way you do, with the building in the background possibly on the other side of a fence. Of course, a higher resolution photograph would help us.

If that's a cap in his right hand as Mark suggests, and not a cane (and that cap might have a bill or peak), it only increases my sense that his stance looks awkward. His possibly underdeveloped right shoulder (our left) is thrown back, while both his left shoulder and left leg are urging themselves forward, with his leg crossing. It's a strange twisting of his torso as if he's walking toward the camera, but I doubt that he is. At the same time, his right ribcage seems to be exerting itself or else he has a remarkably well-developed sternum or set of male breasts.

To me, it looks awkward, unless he couldn't help himself due to curvature of the spine, or a stroke. Of course, if Ed would simply take a pick and a shovel with him on his next trip to the cemetery so I could satisfy my curiosity...

[Herlock Sholmes]

To me he appears to have a crook style walking stick in his left hand. I see the circular top of the stick in the hand with the fingers wrapped around it, and the straight extending below. It appear to me that he has something like a book in his right hand - that isn't the way a walking stick is gripped.

Cheers, George

Good point George. If it’s a stick it certainly doesn’t look like he’s putting any weight on it. It looks like he’s holding something, like his stick or something like a book as you suggest. It also looks like the curved arm of a chair but the problem with this is that we can’t see a corresponding one.

[Geddy2112]

In your Lechmerian travels, have you come across a high-definition photograph of Charles Lechmere that isn't cropped? The only one I can readily locate is very blurry.

Ta, Da

No chair, and holding a cap by the looks of it... hehe. I just have visions now of Charlie Boy doing a 'Del Boy' if that gate swings open.

[rjpalmer]

Ta, Da

Thanks. Well done. So, you were right about the fence rails.

He looks less twisted in this, but still somewhat awkward as if he's trying to look debonair.

And nice boots.

[rjpalmer]

I don't know if Carlton Road, Mile End has been renumbered? The arial view of No. 24 shows a back garden, but I can't quite wrap the brain cells around what building in the next yard we are seeing.

I was also idly wondering about the number of rooms there were at No. 22 Doveton Street, to determine what sort of privacy Lechmere could have expected at home.

He has 7 children who would have been at home in 1888, but as bad luck would have it, the number of rooms is badly blotted in the 1911 census. 6?

He might have moved house because the family was expanding.

[Geddy2112]

I don't know if Carlton Road, Mile End has been renumbered? The aerial view of No. 24 shows a back garden, but I can't quite wrap the brain cells around what building in the next yard we are seeing.

I can't find a Calton Road, Mile End on the modern map so must have been demolished or called something else. Would the out building possibly be an outside toilet?

I was also idly wondering about the number of rooms there were at No. 22 Doveton Street, to determine what sort of privacy Lechmere could have expected at home.

Sorry for being vague but been reading a bit and watching a few videos about Doveton Street recently and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure Michael Conner said in the Rip #22 consisted of four 'flats' or the like and he suggests Cross had two of them.

Yes Cross' boots are tremendous, obviously not a tall chap. Does it look like the left heel is larger than the right?

[Fiver]

Oh whilst I'm here, according to Michael Conner in the Ripp 87 we get this...



Now I'm not sure how he came to this conclusion but some evidence would be nice. Any ideas?

Conner is wrong. There is evidence that Charles Allen Lechmere was literate.
* He signed his 1870 marriage certificate. (His wife and the two witnesses made marks)
* In 1872 he signed as a witness his mother's marriage certificate to her third husband.
* In 1896 he signed as a witness his daughter Elizabeth Emily's marriage certificate.
* In 1898 he signed as a witness his son Thomas Allen's marriage certificate.
* In 1899 he signed as a witness his daughter Mary Jane's marriage certificate.

His job as carman would need at least some level of literacy - he would need to read delivery dockets and delivery invoices. His later job of grocer would also require ate least some level of literacy.

[Fiver]

Ta, Da

No chair, and holding a cap by the looks of it... hehe. I just have visions now of Charlie Boy doing a 'Del Boy' if that gate swings open.

Is there any information on when this was taken or if there was anything written on the back of the photo?

[rjpalmer]

I can't find a Calton Road, Mile End on the modern map so must have been demolished or called something else. Would the out building possibly be an outside toilet?



Sorry for being vague but been reading a bit and watching a few videos about Doveton Street recently and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure Michael Conner said in the Rip #22 consisted of four 'flats' or the like and he suggests Cross had two of them.

Yes Cross' boots are tremendous, obviously not a tall chap. Does it look like the left heel is larger than the right?

Thanks. I'll have to chase that down when I get the time.

In 1911, there are only four adults living at 22 Doveton, divided into 3 households (two people living alone, and a couple). The number of rooms is illegible in two cases, but the last occupant, a man named Arthur Rogers, occupied a single room.

[Geddy2112]

Is there any information on when this was taken or if there was anything written on the back of the photo?

No idea, it's just the full version of what was lobbed on the end of the Missing Evidence. I presume it came from Susan Clapp (Hi Sue if you are watching...) who uses a 'false' name here https://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....chmere-theory/ in Sue Lechmere

I think it said in dark red sinister ink 'Yours Jack' on the back dated 1910 or thereabouts

[Mark J D]

Sharing is caring.

My thoughts exactly.

M.

[Mark J D]

Mind-boggling levels of irony here considering the comedic lengths that some have gone to in the past to manufacture a case against a man who simply found a body just like the thousands of others who found a dead body whilst walking outdoors - none of whom turned out to have been a serial killer.

Translation: "I've been tipped on my arse, and I don't like it".

M.

[Mark J D]

Amazing that you can all apparently see the completely invisible, transparent, imaginary chair on his left, but somehow not see the *totally obvious* Loch Ness Monster over to his right...

Let's focus on that 'chair' again, shall we...?



[/QUOTE]

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Translation: "I've been tipped on my arse, and I don't like it".

M.

Here we go….spoon feeding required.

You said:

“It reminds me of the old nursery rhyme 'Let's try and make this man more visibly deformed than any suspect reported by any witness'... A sad ending to that one, as I recall...”

Clearly stating that non-gullibles were attempting to shape evidence to dismiss Cross (even though it’s not required because Cross is a non-starter as a suspect) I never mentioned his physique by the way.

So I said:

“Mind-boggling levels of irony here considering the comedic lengths that some have gone to in the past to manufacture a case against a man who simply found a body just like the thousands of others who found a dead body whilst walking outdoors - none of whom turned out to have been a serial killer.”

Explaining clearly the point that I was making which was entirely fair considering the Mount Everest of drivel that has been written and the tricks that have been used to try and shoehorn this witness into the killers shoes. You won’t find me or anyone on here doctoring evidence by deliberately leaving out important words.

As for the photograph, I mentioned nothing about Cross’s physical condition. I was merely trying to decipher a poor quality photograph. A better quality photograph now shows that it was a gate rather than the fence that I’d merely suggested. I was also wrong about what he was leaning on and what was in his right hand. Hardly anything to be embarrassed or annoyed about considering the poor quality of the photograph and the fact that I was only giving an opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Amazing that you can all apparently see the completely invisible, transparent, imaginary chair on his left, but somehow not see the *totally obvious* Loch Ness Monster over to his right...

Let's focus on that 'chair' again, shall we...?

M.[/QUOTE]

A desperate attempt at point scoring which fails embarrassingly. We had a poor quality, indistinct photo to try and work out. Even looking again at the crap picture it still looks to me like he’s leaning on a chair and it still looks to me like there’s a fence behind him. We now know that this wasn’t the case. So what? How desperate are you to finally win a debate?

Perhaps the mistake is worse than ‘accidentally’ leaving the word ‘about’ out of a book. Or ‘accidentally’ leaving the word ‘about’ out of a documentary. Or ‘accidentally’ forgetting to mention this to a Barrister?

I know what I think.