Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Cogidubnus]

It seems inconceivable that the police could have found him at Pickfords that quickly.
Prior to his contact with the police in the aftermath of his bypassing Mizen without giving any personal details, it is clear the police knew nothing about his identity save that he may possibly have looked like a carman.
The police clearly took some time to track Robert Paul down and they had his name - and if they began a house to house search or door to door enquiry eastwards from Bucks Row theywould have found Paul quite quickly.
On the Saturday at the inquest the police were in ignorance of the two carmen. The window of opportunity to find Charles Lechmere at Pickfords was miniscule.

So this posting is now officially redundant...thanks Fish

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

I think you need to explain why, Dave - since I can´t see how this would apply. Then again, I´ve seen and heard so much that I never expected to see or hear, so why be baffled?

Enlighten me, Dave. Please?

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Fish

Simply because you've conceded that following his visit to the police, they knew exactly where to find Mr Cross, and therefore, it is no longer inconceivable that the police could find him at work on the day of the inquest, as posited by Ed...

The window of opportunity to find Charles Lechmere at Pickfords was miniscule

Clearly no longer so either...

Hence, in the context of post #1, post #2 is thus now redundant...

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Simply because you've conceded that following his visit to the police, they knew exactly where to find Mr Cross, and therefore, it is no longer inconceivable that the police could find him at work on the day of the inquest, as posited by Ed..."

But Dave, what Edward said in his post was that the police would not have known the carmen´s identities on the Saturday. That was the first day of the inquest - the day after the murder morning. At that stage, no interview was published with Pauls name in it, and Mizen had not taken down their names. Conclusion? Yes - the police knew not who they were.

After that, the Sunday interview surfaced in Lloyds Weekly. Now the police had a name for carman number two - and Lechmere could have had the knowledge that he had been pointed out as a man standing by the victim minutes or even seconds after she was attacked.

This, we reason, would have been what made him go to the police on the Sunday and give his wrong name, his correct address and his correct workplace to the coppers. He was as a consequence of this summoned to be at the inquest on the following day, said "Alright, I´ll be there" and left the copshop, only to reappear the next day at the Working Lad´s Institute where he gave his testimony WITHOUT naming his address to the coroner and jury, or so it would seem. The Star snifed it out anyway, showing us that the information was at hand - as it had been delivered by himself the day before.

The alternative is that he simply showed at the inquest on Monday morning, was admitted by the coroner, gave his wrong name, his correct address and his correct workplace then and there.

So IF the police were approaced on Sunday bu him, then they COULD have picked him up at Pickford´s on Monday morning IF he had not been summoned to go to the inquest. But since he WAS at the inquest, then he WAS also summoned on the Sunday - if he was summoned at all. Otherwise, he arrived without having been summoned, on the Monday.

Edward may of course want to say this himself, but he has on innumerable occasions said that the information was probably given on Sunday. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Abby Normals original posting relates directly to the morning of the second day of the inquest...the day Cross turned up in his working gear...Any reasoning, therefore, about the knowledge the police might've, or might not've had, prior to the first day of the inquest isn't of much relevance...

You posit that Cross turned up at the police station of his own accord on the Sunday, following the publishing of Paul's account in Lloyds...and that of course is quite possible...going one step further it is also possible, as you say, that he was asked and undertook at that stage to attend the second day of the inquest.

It is also possible that (a) he didn't report to the police station on the Sunday, but first thing on the Monday, perhaps en route to work or (b) he reported on the Sunday but by oversight wasn't asked at that stage to attend the inquest (subsequently being fetched) or (c) he reported to the police on Sunday, they were unsure at that stage whether they'd want him on Monday or not, and he said words to the effect of "well if you want me, catch me at Pickfords first thing, and ask for me as Mr Cross"...could even I suppose be (d) he was intercepted in Bucks Row Monday morning en route to work...unlikely I concede, but still possible...

Assuming he did report to the police at some stage, it may be that he did so after having talked things over with his wife on the Sunday...conscientious family men (as he seems to be) are apt to do so with important decisions in their lives and on that basis I would suggest the likelihood of him talking things over with his wife, is just as great, if not greater, than not doing so...

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"You posit that Cross turned up at the police station of his own accord on the Sunday, following the publishing of Paul's account in Lloyds..."

I think that is the best guess. It becomes part of a logical sequence. But I am not saying this MUST have been so - he COULD have appeared on Monday too.

"and that of course is quite possible...going one step further it is also possible, as you say, that he was asked and undertook at that stage to attend the second day of the inquest."

It rather is, is it not? He would have been of very clear interest to the coroner, no matter how we look upon it.

"It is also possible that (a) he didn't report to the police station on the Sunday, but first thing on the Monday, perhaps en route to work ..."

Yes, true. Which would have him going to the police at a very early hour, though, and he would have had lots of time to change into other clothes than his working attire, thus!

"(b) he reported on the Sunday but by oversight wasn't asked at that stage to attend the inquest (subsequently being fetched)"

But why would they NOT ask him to attend? He was the man who found the body. It would have been a certainty from the outset that his attendance was of great importance. Not telling him that, instead fetching him at work, not even giving him time to change - is that a very credible suggestion? I think not. I cannot rule it out totally, though - but I leave precious little room for such a suggestion.

"or (c) he reported to the police on Sunday, they were unsure at that stage whether they'd want him on Monday or not"

Unsure? The first man to find the victim - unsure? I think we can rule this suggestion out entirely. He would have been sure to have been called.

"could even I suppose be (d) he was intercepted in Bucks Row Monday morning en route to work...unlikely I concede, but still possible..."

Extremely unlikely, if you ask me. But we´ve been over this before.

"Assuming he did report to the police at some stage, it may be that he did so after having talked things over with his wife on the Sunday...conscientious family men (as he seems to be) are apt to do so with important decisions in their lives and on that basis I would suggest the likelihood of him talking things over with his wife, is just as great, if not greater, than not doing so..."

This we cannot rule either in or out. We know, however, that the Lechmere family do not have any tradition of speaking of the carman who was a Ripper witness - it´s as if they never had heard about it. And we know that going to the inquest in working attire would correspond extremely well with a wish to keep his family and wife in the dark. We also know that not giving his true name and refraining from giving his address at the inquest tallies exactly with the same sort of purpose.
Other than that, we know nothing.

I still can´t make out, though, what you meant by your previous post? Surely this does not rule out what Edward has stated before? He has been very clear in pointing Sunday out as the day Lechmere probably approached the police, he has been very adamant that Lechmere gave his particulars at that stage, and he knows very well that Lechmere attended the inquest on the Monday. So nothing is nullified or redundant at all, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer

What I meant was, that if one concedes a visit to the police on Sunday, then post #2 is redundant, because by Monday the police know where to find Cross and can fetch him, if required, both quickly and efficiently...

These misunderstandings are bound to occur when two of you attempt to crank the handle!

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Aaahhh! NOW I see where you are coming from, Dave! You respond to Edward´s line "It seems inconceivable that the police could have found him at Pickford´s that quickly", right?

Then I see what you mean - if the police had his workplace nailed by himself since the day before, then of course they would know where to find him!

But I think that Edward was responding to post number one, made by Abby. It looks like this:

"Whats the probability that :

A) Lech was known as Cross at Pickfords?

B) The police found Lech at work the day of the inquest in which he appeared?

The reason I ask these questions, because one of the main points that those who favor Lech as a suspect is that he gave a "false" name. If he started work at Pickfords when he was still known as Cross then that could be an explanation for why he gave his name as Cross to the police, especially if they found him at work and brought him to the inquest (which would also explain why he was wearing his work clothes at the inquest)."

... and what Abby seems to suggest here is that the police found Lechmere WITHOUT him having gone to them by his own accord. This is what Edward finds very, very improbable - that they would have run him down themselves and taken him to the inquest, still clad in working clothes.

So you see, it will be the answer to a different question than the one you posed, as far as I can tell. I hope you see what I mean!

All the best.
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"These misunderstandings are bound to occur when two of you attempt to crank the handle! "

Just to clarify, Dave - Edward and I differ on a number of points in the Lechmere case. I am the one most conviced that Lechmere really WAS the Ripper, for example. But we both try to give as correct answers as possible when somebody asks something or criticizes a detail. If you back down, however, you will notice that we sometimes differ on some bits and pieces.

That´s all there is to it, really.

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

"It is also possible that (a) he didn't report to the police station on the Sunday, but first thing on the Monday, perhaps en route to work ..."

Yes, true. Which would have him going to the police at a very early hour, though, and he would have had lots of time to change into other clothes than his working attire, thus!

Not necessarily Christer... if Cross turned up on Monday morning they may've hung on to him, "assisting in their enquiries" rather than letting him out of their sight...

"(b) he reported on the Sunday but by oversight wasn't asked at that stage to attend the inquest (subsequently being fetched)"

But why would they NOT ask him to attend? He was the man who found the body. It would have been a certainty from the outset that his attendance was of great importance. Not telling him that, instead fetching him at work, not even giving him time to change - is that a very credible suggestion? I think not. I cannot rule it out totally, though - but I leave precious little room for such a suggestion.

He came forward and stated that he found the body...but up until then, if all the police had was the Paul's Lloyds account (which boosts Paul's role and minimises that of Cross) they may not have been quite sure what exactly they did have...

"or (c) he reported to the police on Sunday, they were unsure at that stage whether they'd want him on Monday or not"

Unsure? The first man to find the victim - unsure? I think we can rule this suggestion out entirely. He would have been sure to have been called.

See above...also the policemen he saw on the Sunday may not have been sufficiently senior to decide...or to bid him turn up for the inquest...

"could even I suppose be (d) he was intercepted in Bucks Row Monday morning en route to work...unlikely I concede, but still possible..."

Extremely unlikely, if you ask me. But we´ve been over this before.

I agree, but it is just possible, so I mention it...no more...

"Assuming he did report to the police at some stage, it may be that he did so after having talked things over with his wife on the Sunday...conscientious family men (as he seems to be) are apt to do so with important decisions in their lives and on that basis I would suggest the likelihood of him talking things over with his wife, is just as great, if not greater, than not doing so..."

This we cannot rule either in or out. We know, however, that the Lechmere family do not have any tradition of speaking of the carman who was a Ripper witness - it´s as if they never had heard about it. And we know that going to the inquest in working attire would correspond extremely well with a wish to keep his family and wife in the dark. We also know that not giving his true name and refraining from giving his address at the inquest tallies exactly with the same sort of purpose.
Other than that, we know nothing.

I suspect that the couple would have made a conscious decision to keep things from their young and impressionable children at the time...With the passing of the years the association with what became a "bogeyman" crime might not have been something they were particularly proud of...known maybe to one generation but not mentioned... and quite possibly not passed down...

In my own family when I mentioned to one of my uncles, the closeness of my great great grandfather's address in Queen Anne Street to Bucks Row, he said he was well aware of the significance of the address, and wouldn't add any more...me, I'd have been quite pleased with some form of vicarious connection, but not him (and I suspect not my aunts either - who despite their birth certificates are almost in denial over any form of East End connection whatsoever!)...funny things families...

All the best

Dave

[Mr Lucky]

The Star snifed it out anyway, showing us that the information was at hand - as it had been delivered by himself the day before.

From the Star 3rd sept 1888, reporting from Baxters inquest -

'Carman Cross was the next witness. he lived at 22 Doveton Street', then follows the rest of his testimony.

Clearly Cross has given his address at the inquest.

[Fisherman]

Dave:

" if Cross turned up on Monday morning they may've hung on to him, "assisting in their enquiries" rather than letting him out of their sight..."

If Cross turned up, then he did so of his own free will. If it happened on Friday morning, they would interview him first, but that would not take a good many hours. And if he had turned up of his own free will, then why would they not give the man a chamnce to go home and change and get ready for the inquest.
Though what you suggest is possible, it is not probable to the same extent, I´m afraid.

"He came forward and stated that he found the body...but up until then, if all the police had was the Paul's Lloyds account (which boosts Paul's role and minimises that of Cross) they may not have been quite sure what exactly they did have..."

There wa never any question about him having been the man that found Nichols, Dave. Much as Paul bigged himself up and left Lechmere out of the proceedings the moment they arrived at Baker´s Row, he DID award Lechmere the role of the sole finder of Nichols. That would have ensured a very logical interest in the man.

"the policemen he saw on the Sunday may not have been sufficiently senior to decide...or to bid him turn up for the inquest..."

Once again possible - but not at all probable. Somebody WOULD have been in charge at the station, and that somebody would have taken care of things like these.

"I agree, but it is just possible, so I mention it...no more..."

Fair enough, Dave - fair enough.

"I suspect that the couple would have made a conscious decision to keep things from their young and impressionable children at the time...With the passing of the years the association with what became a "bogeyman" crime might not have been something they were particularly proud of...known maybe to one generation but not mentioned... and quite possibly not passed down..."

I´m not venturing down any conjecture lane on this one, Dave. I´ve had my say and have nothing to add to it.


All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"From the Star 3rd sept 1888, reporting from Baxters inquest -

'Carman Cross was the next witness. he lived at 22 Doveton Street', then follows the rest of his testimony.

Clearly Cross has given his address at the inquest."

We´ve been over that, Mr Lucky - I find it incredible that not a single one of all the other papers would mention his address. If he spelt it out loud and clear enough for the Star reporter to get it all exactly right, then the otheres would have heard it and reported it too.

But been there, done that, yes ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

We´ve been over that, Mr Lucky - I find it incredible that not a single one of all the other papers would mention his address. If he spelt it out loud and clear enough for the Star reporter to get it all exactly right, then the otheres would have heard it and reported it too.

Hi Fisherman

All the other papers get his name (or a version of his name), but not his address.
The Star gets his address, but not his name.

Nothing was being spelt out loud and clear, that why none of the press get both, they all get one or another.

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"Nothing was being spelt out loud and clear"

Then, if it wasn´t - how did the Star reporter get it perfect - and why did the others miss out totally? Is it not true that the addresses are many, many times overheard erroneously by the reporters - but written down just the same? Why did not a single one of the other reporters get the address to at least SOME extent when the Star managed to get it spot on, letter for letter, number for number?

Is it not more useful to realize that the Star differed in BOTH respects visavi the other newspapers? They ALL had a name for him correctly heard or not, and NONE had the street. They are ALL in accordance, whereas ONE single paper is totally out of line with the others.

They asked, Mr Lucky. They did not hear, they asked, that´s why.

The best,
Fisherman