Framing Charles

[MrBarnett]

>>‘Oh you mean Charlie Lechmere. I’ve known him for years. My kids went to school with the Lechmere kids and I went to his wedding. Did you ever hear his story about being descended from ‘erefordshire’ gentry? Charles HALLEN Lechmere no less.’<<

That be the one, 'course, I'd known a bit longer than you, since 'e's old step dad Tommie Cross took 'I'm down 'ter Pickfords fer 'es first job. Imagine the shock I got years later when I found out he was also calling 'im self Lechmere out side 'er work!

Your cockney’s better than mine!



‘Oh, so you never got an invite to the wedding, then?’

‘Nah, I didn’t know ‘im that well.’



There were three 20-something carmen living at 11, Mary Ann Street alongside Ma Lechmere in 1871, CAL, Alfred Croote and George Blencowe. The household set up is slightly confusing, but Blencowe at least was Ma’s lodger. He ended up in an asylum suffering from ‘mania’.

[drstrange169]

>Of course, we have no proof of what name he was generally known by.<<

Name of his step dad when he joined Pickfords? Cross
Name on the census when his Step dad was alive? Cross
Name the man Pickford representatives dealt with at the accident inquest? Cross.
Name used at Mrs Nichols inquest when he appeared in his Pickfords uniform? Cross

Of course, we have no proof of what name he was generally known by at Pickfords.

[drstrange169]

>>’Have you seen the misprint on the memorial card? It says Charles ALLEN Lechmere. What a disgrace!’<<

That what he called himself when selling brussels and bananas to customers.

[drstrange169]

>>I wonder how many people attended CAL’s wedding to Elizabeth Bostock in 1870, and whether when the vicar started speaking the congregation began whispering ‘Lechmere? Who’s this Charles ALLEN Lechmere? I thought this was Charlie Cross’s wedding.’<<

Well, of course, Lizzie Lechmere, certain knew Ma Cross, as she was calling her self, at the time. Depending on how long they courted, she might have met Tom too.

[MrBarnett]

Is there any documentation after the the murders and before his death of him switching names.

also off topic in the documentary it indicates he became a wealthy man in later years . How did he make his money .

what name is on his death certificate ?

Name on his death cert? Charles ALLEN Lechmere.
Name in the index of deaths? Charles A Lechmere.
Name in the burial register? Charles ALLEN Lechmere.
Name on the memorial card? Charles ALLEN Lechmere.

Of course, we have no proof of what name he was generally known by.

[drstrange169]

>>‘Oh you mean Charlie Lechmere. I’ve known him for years. My kids went to school with the Lechmere kids and I went to his wedding. Did you ever hear his story about being descended from ‘erefordshire’ gentry? Charles HALLEN Lechmere no less.’<<

That be the one, 'course, I'd known a bit longer than you, since 'e's old step dad Tommie Cross took 'I'm down 'ter Pickfords fer 'es first job. Imagine the shock I got years later when I found out he was also calling 'im self Lechmere out side 'er work!

[MrBarnett]

I wonder how many people attended CAL’s wedding to Elizabeth Bostock in 1870, and whether when the vicar started speaking the congregation began whispering ‘Lechmere? Who’s this Charles ALLEN Lechmere? I thought this was Charlie Cross’s wedding.’

Ditto the funeral.

’Have you seen the misprint on the memorial card? It says Charles ALLEN Lechmere. What a disgrace!’

[MrBarnett]

I wonder how many people attended CAL’s wedding to Elizabeth Bostock in 1870, and whether when the vicar started speaking the congregation began whispering ‘Lechmere? Who’s this Charles ALLEN Lechmere? I thought this was Charlie Cross’s wedding.’

[MrBarnett]

Evidence that Nichols was attacked before the arrival of Cross,is supplied by Cross himself,the first witness at the scene,and to a lesser extent by Paul,who arrived seconds later.Although neither declares to having observed the injuries,they were able to state Nichols was either dead or dying.There was no time between their leaving and the arrival of Neil,for anyone else to intervene.

How does Paul coming across Lechmere (that’s his name) standing by an already dead or dying woman provide evidence that she was attacked before Lechmere arrived? For all Paul knew Charles ALLEN Lechmere could have arrived 2 minutes or 2 hours earlier.

[MrBarnett]

Let me slightly amend your conversation Gary,

A conversation between two old Pickford employees in 1905:

‘Lets meet up for a coffee later. At Charlie Cross’s’

’Where’s that?’

‘It’s in Campbell Road. You can’t miss it, you’ll see the name CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE above the door.’

‘Oh you mean Charlie Lechmere. I’ve known him for years. My kids went to school with the Lechmere kids and I went to his wedding. Did you ever hear his story about being descended from ‘erefordshire’ gentry? Charles HALLEN Lechmere no less.’

[harry]

Evidence that Nichols was attacked before the arrival of Cross,is supplied by Cross himself,the first witness at the scene,and to a lesser extent by Paul,who arrived seconds later.Although neither declares to having observed the injuries,they were able to state Nichols was either dead or dying.There was no time between their leaving and the arrival of Neil,for anyone else to intervene.

[drstrange169]

>>Is there any documentation after the the murders and before his death of him switching names.<<

Outside of Pickfords he and his family were always called Lechmere, as far as we know.


>> also off topic in the documentary it indicates he became a wealthy man in later years . How did he make his money .<<

I don't think you could call him wealthy, but he did leave effects of 262 pounds in 1920 according to probate records. I won't rely on the doco for too much accuracy.


>>what name is on his death certificate ? <<

Lechmere

[drstrange169]

Let me slightly amend your conversation Gary,

A conversation between two old Pickford employees in 1905:

‘Lets meet up for a coffee later. At Charlie Cross’s’

’Where’s that?’

‘It’s in Campbell Road. You can’t miss it, you’ll see the name CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE above the door.’

[drstrange169]

>>- the blood evidence <<

A manufactured notion that needs to believe Neil didn't know the meaning of the word ooze.
That the newspaper reports were in error in describing Mizen talking about seeing blood after he returned.


>>- the covered up wounds<<

Assumes:

A. the wounds were deliberately covered up
B. that if Cross disturbed the killer/s, they wouldn't have covered up the wounds to aid their getaway.


>>- the name change <<

Assumes:

He changed his name, rather than simply gave a name he would have been known by at Pickfords


>>- the timing aspect <<

Assumes:

Paul's highly inaccurate version, not made under oath, is correct and that the actual testimonies under oath by three policemen are inaccurate.


>>- the fact that Paul never mentioned seeing or hearing Lechmere in front of himself<<

Shown to be entirely plausible.


>> - the refusal to help prop Nichols up <<

Information only offered by Cross himself.


>> - the disagreement with Mizen<<

Manufactured to to avoid the fact that Mizen's actions were questionable and that the police didn't pursue the matter.


>>- the links to the Torso series<<

I don't know enough to comment.

To sum up, the case against Lechmere, as listed above, relies on the known evidence being wrong and open to reinterpretation by people heavily biased in favour of Charles allen Lechmere being the killer.

[drstrange169]

>> Once more, you have a lot of ideas about how the Lechmere theory would be wrong, just like many "thinkers" out here (have a look at the company you are currently travelling in...), ...<<


You mean like Stewart Evans, Paul Begg and a veritable who's who of Ripperolgy? Thanks.


>> ... but those ideas are only of interest when you prove them.<<

Following that logic, Lechmere would only be of interest if you proved his guilt, let's try and have a sensible debate.



>> This is typical Dusty stuff. You try to make out as if I had said that I believe that nobody at Pickfords was aware of the Ripper murders. But let´s be honest now: Where exactly did I do that?<<

And I'm afraid this is typical Christer stuff. Knowing you're wrong, you take one part of a sentence out of a sentence out of context to avoid the issue being discussed.

The issue, that you are trying to avoid, was your claim that is reasonable to claim Pickfords didn't know about the boy being run over and Cross attending the inquest. I note Gary has already pointed out that he believes Pickfords would have had legal representation at the accident inquest.


>> This is the sort of indecent stuff that we really should try and avoid. <<

Precisely, so please don't do it and stick to sensible debating.


>> ... if we persist in thinking that Pickfords conducted a full-blown investigation of their own...<<

There you go again.

Of course Pickfords would have checked the drivers story with regards to to the accident. Are you seriously trying tell us, they would have let the matter go to an inquest without protecting themselves? Surely even you can see how silly your argument is coming across.



>>... if this had been found out, then the Swanson reports would have said that he was named Lechmere but on chosen occasions, he called himself Cross <<

Swanson's reports were nothing more than heavily précised versions for the benefit of more senior officials general knowledge of the case. Cross, is but a part of a throwaway line.

Why would that be? Since you've read Swanson's report you should already know.

"...enquires were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, reporting whose character & surroundings of suspicion was cast in statements made to police."
Chief inspector Donald Swanson 19th Oct 1888


>>Please do not claim things on my behalf that I have never said. <<

As shown, I haven't, but you constantly do, which is frustrating to serious debate. So please try and address the actual issues being raised rather than trying to avoid them.