Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Hi Fishy,

But..."

Now, WHERE have I seen that before...? Here we go again (sigh) ...

"according to you, Lechmere happily waited for Paul to come across him with the body, so he was well aware from the word go that Paul had a story to tell involving the man who first found the murder victim; what that story was likely to consist of ..."

I donīt think he was THAT quick, Caz. But yes, I think he eventually had to weigh in the risk that Paul would be in a position to state that Lechmere had been alone by the body.
He either would or he wouldnīt. If he did not surface, then perhaps so much the better for Lechmere. He would have been obliged to deal with whatever came up, and he would only be able to influence this to a limited degree.

On the other hand, he may have had important influence in some regards - Lechmere made sure to walk with Paul all the way down to Corbettīs Court, and so he would have had plenty of time to rub his own version of events in; "there I was, having just put my foot on the street, the other one still on the pavement, when I heard you arriving ..." Depending on how impressionable Paul was, he could have achieved quite a lot by grooming him. Therefore he would perhaps be able to get an impact on how Paul shaped his story.

"If it was good enough for the innocent Paul to avoid further contact with the police (until they tracked him down), why not for Lechmere too?"

Paul was never implicated as standing over the body in any press interview, as I thought you knew by now, Caz? In your former post, of course, you chose to point that out as totally irrelevant, but me no buy. Me no buy big time, actually. I still find it hard to believe you took that stance, but I have a feeling that you prefer to leave it to oblivion...?

"He had effectively contacted the police, by alerting PC Mizen to the possibly dead woman lying in Buck's Row."

No, Caz, I donīt think so at all. He said nothing at all about a possibly dead woman, if you ask me. This is what he tells the inquest that he (AND Paul) did, but look at what Mizen says!!

"The fact that his details were not taken at the time would have been a Godsend if he wanted no more to do with the affair."

Yes, it would - had it not been for that damn interview ...

"All he had to do after that was the same as Paul, and wait for the police to come to him, if they could find him again."

And why would he want to do that, if the police at that stage was looking for the man who had been alone with Nichols at approximately the time she had her neck cut and her abdomen ripped open? Why on earth would he want to let the police think things over long and hard and see the implications? What do you think a reluctance to come forward would do to the image the police would form of him? Hereīs the choice:
1. A benevolent, helpful man that had the bad luck of stumbling over the body, and who reported this to a PC as soon as he could, and followed it up afterwards by contacting the police station and help with the inquiries, or...
2. A man that was seen standing by the victim on the murder night, at the time when she had her throat cut, and who breezed past a PC without giving his name, and thereafter vanished from the face of the earth.

Please tell me, Caz, that it is not beyond you to discern the difference inbetween these two characters!

"Mizen might have been able to help in this regard, but Paul wouldn't necessarily have co-operated. Why would he willingly piss off a reluctant Lechmere (who could also be a highly dangerous maniac) by finding him again for the cops? "

Because he would just love to be on the front pages of the papers, if nothing else. And he would sense a reward coming his way, perhaps.

Otherwise, if you are right and he would not help, there was still Mizen. He too had seen Lechmere close up and spoken to him, so he would suffice.

Right, Caz - next "but". Keepīem coming; I have answers for all of them, I believe.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Fishy,

But according to you, Lechmere happily waited for Paul to come across him with the body, so he was well aware from the word go that Paul had a story to tell involving the man who first found the murder victim; what that story was likely to consist of; and that Paul - as the innocent witness - would soon be telling all and sundry about it (as we keep being told all innocent witnesses in the ripper case made a habit of doing).

If it was good enough for the innocent Paul to avoid further contact with the police (until they tracked him down), why not for Lechmere too? He had effectively contacted the police, by alerting PC Mizen to the possibly dead woman lying in Buck's Row. The fact that his details were not taken at the time would have been a Godsend if he wanted no more to do with the affair. All he had to do after that was the same as Paul, and wait for the police to come to him, if they could find him again. Mizen might have been able to help in this regard, but Paul wouldn't necessarily have co-operated. Why would he willingly piss off a reluctant Lechmere (who could also be a highly dangerous maniac) by finding him again for the cops?

And so what, if they had managed to track Lechmere down like they did Paul? Even if they found it dead suspicious that he hadn't thought he'd be needed again after reporting the matter to Mizen (as with thousands of innocent witnesses from that day to this), what evidence could they have had against him for the murder? Not a sausage.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Nothing Paul had said in the papers (even assuming Lechmere had bought the right paper and read all about it) added anything suspicious to what would already have been reported by PC Mizen anyway: that two men who had seen the body in Buck's Row had alerted him on their way to work. "

Aha, Caz. So Mizen would have known that Lechmere ALONE was in place first? And Mizen would have known that Paul found him standing where the body was?
This he would have known in spite of Lechmere withholding that information from him, I guess?

Donīt you think that this information, provided by Paul in his interview, would be rather more serious and potentially guilt-implicating on Lechmereīs behalf than the information PC Mizen would have given - that TWO carmen apparently had found the body together, supervised by a PC?

If you canīt see the difference, then maybe you should try some other hobby. To be honest, Caz, itīs beyond belief to say that Paulīs interview would not add to the information Mizen had been given and thus put Lechmere much more at risk to be regarded as a person of interest in the affair.

"To all intents and purposes he had done nothing wrong at that point, so why would he be the least bit bothered if the police had managed to track him down, as they later did with Paul, as a result of, say, a description from Mizen?"

Because the self same police would, after having spoken to Paul and/or read his interview, have two pieces of information at hand that potentially spelt disaster for Lechmere:

1. He had been alone in Buckīs Row with the victim, and had been found standing by the same victim.
2. He had avoided to contact the police.

"All he had to say was that he didn't realise the police needed him."

Yes, exactly - and that would be the tactics he would probably employ. But there is a large difference in benevolently coming forward of your own free will, and staying away from the police. The fact that they never formed an opinion that Lechmere could be the bad guy, was in all probability led on by his evasive manouver.

Not that I harbour any real hopes that you will see the point - so far you have avoided it like the plague - but this is how I see the affair.

But Caz, to claim that Pauls version of events was no more incriminating for Lechmere than Mizenīs - that is taking things very much astray. You have to do better on that score if you want to be taken seriously.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Nope, I still don't see what Charles Allen Lechmere/Cross, of 22 Doveton St, 20 years a carman for Pickfords, would have had to fear at the point when he is supposed to have turned up at the cop shop to volunteer his details and his witness account. Nothing Paul had said in the papers (even assuming Lechmere had bought the right paper and read all about it) added anything suspicious to what would already have been reported by PC Mizen anyway: that two men who had seen the body in Buck's Row had alerted him on their way to work. Whether 'Cross' or Paul, or both, had actually spoken to Mizen about it, doesn't alter the fact that he was aware of the two men at the time. And Lechmere had gone on to work without apparently giving any personal details away. To all intents and purposes he had done nothing wrong at that point, so why would he be the least bit bothered if the police had managed to track him down, as they later did with Paul, as a result of, say, a description from Mizen? All he had to say was that he didn't realise the police needed him.

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

Yes caz
As fisherman says it is a question of timelines.
Charles Lechmere would have been anxious that the police would track him down - as they did in fact track robert Paul down, but with some difficulty - but tracking him down with 12 dark hours was not within the police's capability.
Surely that concept is obvious and does not need to be spelt out?

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I've only just read this thread through and I think I must be missing something here."

Small surprise, Caz - small surprise!

"Isn't your usual argument that Lechmere only felt obliged to come forward and identify himself when he did, because he figured that the police (thanks to Paul blabbing to the press) would be able to track him down in no time if he tried to keep his head down?"

No. My usual argument is that the police would do their utmost to track him down, and that Lechmere would run the risk of getting caught sooner or later. Not the exact same thing, thus.
What has an impact here is that he would maybe stay in the clear if he fled and left London - but that would give away what he was about, and it would seem he chose the other option, the bluff option, here too. If he was the killer, that is!

"Now you seem to be saying that even after Paul's story appeared, they would have had the devil's own job if they'd wanted to trace Lechmere with the vague details they had at that time"

Not necessarily, no. They would have very little to go on, but staking the territory out in company with Mizen would quite possibly fix that problem. What I AM saying is that they would have had precious little time to look for him in order to secure him for the first days of the inquest. Other posters are entertaining the possibility that he was picked up by the police at his job, but I donīt think the police would have had that sort of information at hand AT THAT STAGE. It defies belief.

"in which case why the hell did he help them by coming forward at all if he had an elephant in the room to hide?"

I trust you realize that the two other answers I have given take care of this one too...? Otherwise, he would have A/ run for it, and left the police with a very clear mistake that he was the killer - not healthy. Or he could have B/ stayed put in the district without reporting in, in which case he same would apply - he would give the coppers the idea that he could be a nasty character.

If he wanted to keep his family in the dark and if he wanted to keep killing in the area, the only choice would have been to bluff it out - if he could pull it off.

And he seemingly could.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

I concur very much with what Edward says about the chances that the police could have found and picked up Lechmere at Pickfordīs by their own efforts...

...And if this was their chosen way of approaching Paul, it sounds odd that they would have gone out of their way to find Lechmere in person. And even if they DID devote resources to do so, what would they be looking for? A man that could have been a carman and who in all probability worked west of Corbettīs court? Thatīs very little to go on, wouldnīt you say?

...Lechmere made his own way to the cop shop - the early inclusion of him at the inquest tells us that this must have been so. The possibility that the police searched him out on no description at all in the worldīs largest city in a few hoursītime is freakishly small.

Hi Fishy,

I've only just read this thread through and I think I must be missing something here. Isn't your usual argument that Lechmere only felt obliged to come forward and identify himself when he did, because he figured that the police (thanks to Paul blabbing to the press) would be able to track him down in no time if he tried to keep his head down?

Now you seem to be saying that even after Paul's story appeared, they would have had the devil's own job if they'd wanted to trace Lechmere with the vague details they had at that time, in which case why the hell did he help them by coming forward at all if he had an elephant in the room to hide?

Love,

Caz
X

[Lechmere]

The Toppy saga throws up many interesting facts which are the more interesting due to their contrast to the lechmere saga.

[Fisherman]

It could well be that simple, yes.

And Lechmere made the other choice, apparently. Or had it made for him, courtesy of that mother of his. Anyway, we know how he chose to sign documents throughout his life.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I think it tells us that Florence made a decision to favour her step father in preference to her biological father.

[Fisherman]

Well, we need to know more, obviously. Here we have a grown woman, taking on the name of her stepfather but calling herself by another name, aquired by marriage, and signing herself accordingly. Plus we have a man who was baptized as a young boy, NOT taking on the name of HIS stepfather, and using the name he WAS baptized by to sign every document he got in his hands, plus handing down the same name to his wife by marriage and using it to baptize his own kids.

If there is a pattern, it illudes me. And why would somebody take on a name by baptism that you werenīt gonna use anyway? Of course, this seems to be exactly what Florence did - but why? Could there have been some sort of practical purpose or was it only a gesture towards her stepfather?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Baptism is really about Christian names rather than surnames. The surname is recorded for identification - I think

Yeah, I agree. I'll go with the probability that a surname used at baptism is irrelevant to what you call yourself (or your parents call you) normally.

[Lechmere]

Baptism is really about Christian names rather than surnames. The surname is recorded for identification - I think

[Debra A]

Toppy married Francis Jervis on 15th May 1898.
The marriage was witnessed by her parents – William and Clara Jervis
The parents are also listed on Francis’s belated baptism on 2nd April 1899.

But William Jervis only actually married Clara (Birkett) on 18th February 1912. She was a widow and her original maiden name was Davis.

In fact Francis Jervis was the daughter of Clara Birkett (formerly Davis) and Joseph Birkett.
Clara had married Joseph Birkett on 2nd March 1879.
William Jervis was her step father and she adopted his name.

Thanks, but I know that. I told you about her being born a Birkett, I found the thread yesterday.
I was more interested in whether in those days late baptism was some sort of ceremony where names could be changed and birth names added/removed?

Toppy's wife was baptised after she had married Toppy, so legally her surname was now Hutchinson but she was baptised with her old name (that of her stepfather) Jervis and not the name she was obviously going to
under now-Hutchinson-do you see what I mean?

[Fisherman]

Abby!

I concur very much with what Edward says about the chances that the police could have found and picked up Lechmere at Pickfordīs by their own efforts.

In one passage, Edward writes:

"clearly the Lloyds reporter managed to find Paul on the Friday and Saturday... which suggests that Paul was findable but that the police did not attempt to find him, and by implication Charles Lechmere also."

In this context, we can look at what Dew wrote: "The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so."

In the end, this was wrong - Paul was forced out of his lair and was questioned by the police, plus he attended the inquest on the 17:th. But the more interesting thing here is that Dew writes that appeals were made; apparently that was how they went about things. They appealed - and to me, that sounds like they mailed him and asked him to contact them. And if this was their chosen way of approaching Paul, it sounds odd that they would have gone out of their way to find Lechmere in person. And even if they DID devote resources to do so, what would they be looking for? A man that could have been a carman and who in all probability worked west of Corbettīs court? Thatīs very little to go on, wouldnīt you say?

And why does not Dew mention the almighty search that must have been on for Lechmere? And why was not a similar search on for Paul? If they thought Lechmere of that monumental importance, then why did they settle for "appealing" only, when it comes to Paul? Since they had not spoken to any of them and would not know what they had to say, respectively, surely they would have been equally interested in both men?

Lechmere made his own way to the cop shop - the early inclusion of him at the inquest tells us that this must have been so. The possibility that the police searched him out on no description at all in the worldīs largest city in a few hoursītime is freakishly small.

All the best,
Fisherman