Framing Charles

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor, the anomaly is that on this occasion he used the name Cross but did not volunteer the information that his ‘proper’ name was Lechmere.

In all your time as a copper did you never once take a statement from someone who had two names, one his ‘proper’ name and one he was commonly known by?

You dont know that he didnt volunteer that information. It is not a crime to use an alias and as keeps being said he was fully entitled to use the two differnet names.

From an investigative perspective if the authorities were aware of the anonamly then they would have taken steps to find out why he was using two different names. As stated in the absence of anything to show that that course of action was not carried out then we must draw the proper inference that it was.

Therefore the suspicion Christer seeks to rely on with regards to the differing names is clearly negated.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

How would we be able to tell if somebody who was named A presented themselves as B unless it was afterwards discovered? And logged? Any such case would be likely to be linked to criminality. There is also the possibility that somebody who had used the name Smith for years on end in spite of being baptized and registered by the name of Jones would simply forget to mention the latter detail on account of never using that name - but that was not the case for Lechmere, because he always otherwise called himself Lechmere when speaking to authorities. The anomaly is a glaring one and there is no way of denying that. The only realistic alternative to foul play would be an effort to protect the family name of Lechmere from being sullied - but would finding the body and calling upon the next person on the site to help out and subsequently directing a PC to the place not instead be an act of helpfulness and social responsibility?

What there is, is a series of examples where people were identifying themselves by TWO names - and that is not the same as the Lechmere case, where apparently one name only was given, and it was not the name by which the carman was registered or otherwise used.

If aliases were "all the rage" on account of allowing people not to verify who they really are, what category of people do you primarily think would make use of that possibility?

Aliases were not ‘all the rage’ in the general population - far from it.

[Fisherman]

Im not sure....does anyone have evidence that people identifying themselves using 2 distinctly different names was in any way unusual in the LVP? Has anyone read through the Old Bailey records and seen how many people are entered into the records with multiple unique names? Nicknames aside, when you live in an era where there is no accepted single piece of identification that people would have to verify they are who they claim to be, aliases were all the rage.

How would we be able to tell if somebody who was named A presented themselves as B unless it was afterwards discovered? And logged? Any such case would be likely to be linked to criminality. There is also the possibility that somebody who had used the name Smith for years on end in spite of being baptized and registered by the name of Jones would simply forget to mention the latter detail on account of never using that name - but that was not the case for Lechmere, because he always otherwise called himself Lechmere when speaking to authorities. The anomaly is a glaring one and there is no way of denying that. The only realistic alternative to foul play would be an effort to protect the family name of Lechmere from being sullied - but would finding the body and calling upon the next person on the site to help out and subsequently directing a PC to the place not instead be an act of helpfulness and social responsibility?

What there is, is a series of examples where people were identifying themselves by TWO names - and that is not the same as the Lechmere case, where apparently one name only was given, and it was not the name by which the carman was registered or otherwise used.

If aliases were "all the rage" on account of allowing people not to verify who they really are, what category of people do you primarily think would make use of that possibility?

[MrBarnett]

Im not sure....does anyone have evidence that people identifying themselves using 2 distinctly different names was in any way unusual in the LVP? Has anyone read through the Old Bailey records and seen how many people are entered into the records with multiple unique names? Nicknames aside, when you live in an era where there is no accepted single piece of identification that people would have to verify they are who they claim to be, aliases were all the rage.

I haven’t carried out a survey, but I’ve done enough digging into this stuff to know that most people used just the one surname. And when they used more than one for innocent reasons (such as informally adopting their stepfather’s name) and appeared as witnesses in court they very often felt it was appropriate to disclose both names. The concept of a ‘real’ or ‘proper’ name was firmly fixed in the Victorian psyche.

[MrBarnett]

It does not detract from how Charles Lechmere was only two generations removed from the wealth, influence and historical importance of the Lechmere family of Fownhope, though.

Not at all. Nor from the respectability of his butler Roulson grandfather. If anything, a butler in a good household might have been more of a snob than his employers.

[MrBarnett]

I have to hold my hand up to an error. CAL’s aunt Charlotte was not a Vicar’s wife, she had been the wife of a butler to a senior clerical bod, but was a widow by 1888.

Checking this out led me to an interesting discovery. On the 1891 census, Maria Louisa’s two sisters, Charlotte and Harriet, were recorded at 9, Park Street, Hereford - both ‘living on own means’.

All three sisters had received a legacy in the form of income from investments from their father’s estate. It seems the estate was managed by the Clive family for whom their father had worked as a butler. The Clives in question were related to ‘Clive of India’. They were at the top of the Herefordshire social tree.

Just compare Harriet and Charlotte, two financially independent widows, living in Herefordshire and possibly still receiving income from the Clives, to Maria, twice bigamously married and living in the East End with a shoe maker until 1889 and then selling cats meat from a shop in the Ratcliffe Highway.

The idea that CAL would stand up in open court and say my proper name is CAL but I am known as Cross which was my stepfather’s name. Thomas Cross also came from Herefordshire. The scandal that would have occurred if CAL had told all in court doesn’t bear thinking about. He was never going to do so.

[Michael W Richards]

Im not sure....does anyone have evidence that people identifying themselves using 2 distinctly different names was in any way unusual in the LVP? Has anyone read through the Old Bailey records and seen how many people are entered into the records with multiple unique names? Nicknames aside, when you live in an era where there is no accepted single piece of identification that people would have to verify they are who they claim to be, aliases were all the rage.

[Fisherman]

I have to hold my hand up to an error. CAL’s aunt Charlotte was not a Vicar’s wife, she had been the wife of a butler to a senior clerical bod, but was a widow by 1888.

It does not detract from how Charles Lechmere was only two generations removed from the wealth, influence and historical importance of the Lechmere family of Fownhope, though.

[Fisherman]

The reality is that Cross came forward as a witness who found a body.His evidence indicates the injuries to Nichols had been inflicted before his(Cross) arrival.

Is that a very roundaboutish was of saying that evidence points to how Nichols was cut by somebody else than Lechmere? If so, letīs keep in mind that the evidence you refer to is what Lechmere said himself. Meaning that accepting it is accepting that whatever a witness says, it must be the truth.
The MEDICAL evidence suggests that Nichols was cut at around the time Lechmere was there, by the way. Maybe that is less palatable evidence to you, though...

There was no evidence presented to show that he was lying.

And that is a very good indicator of how the carman was never investigated in depth. What the police and inquest had no idea about, they could not present as evidence.

The authorities,namely the police at the time,accepted his testimony,and his reason for being in Bucks Row was never doubted.

Do you know how many killersī testimonies have been accepted although they should not have been? The police accepted Christieīs testimony and hanged Evans. Are you applauding them for it and denying Christies guilt in retrospect? After all, the police DID accept what he said.
We do not have to be fools when assessing these matters. We CAN adopt a less rigid view of the police instead of claiming that they must always have been correct. Itīs up to ourselves.

Yes, people who found bodies have later been shown to be the killer of that person,but on other incriminating evidence,not,and I repeat not,simply being a person at the scene.

Historically, many people have been deeemed guilty on account of having been on a murder scene only. If you mean that in modern times, this has not happened, you will be more correct. There has to be more added. For example if the police entertains suspicion against somebody who claims to have found a murder victim at a time that is consistent with being the killer, and if this person has other things pointing towards foul play, like for example using an alias instead of giving your correct name and having the police saying that you are not being truthful about what happened at the time of the murder, they will elevate that person into a suspect and check him or her out thoroughly, not least from a geographical point of view. And if the geography and timings coincide with the deeds, they are likely to move on to get the person prosecuted. It is totally in line, by the way, with how James Scobie says that there is a court case against Lechmere that suggests that he was guilty.
So you are very correct: having been found alone at a murder site is per se not enough to send somebody down. It takes more.

Trevor's arguements based on police proceedures, is clearly superior to any arguements that are purely theory based.

No. I could make that a longer statement, but "no" suffices.

[MrBarnett]

I have to hold my hand up to an error. CAL’s aunt Charlotte was not a Vicar’s wife, she had been the wife of a butler to a senior clerical bod, but was a widow by 1888.

[MrBarnett]

The reality is that Cross came forward as a witness who found a body.His evidence indicates the injuries to Nichols had been inflicted before his(Cross) arrival.There was no evidence presented to show that he was lying.The authorities,namely the police at the time,accepted his testimony,and his reason for being in Bucks Row was never doubted.Yes, people who found bodies have later been shown to be the killer of that person,but on other incriminating evidence,not,and I repeat not,simply being a person at the scene.
Trevor's arguements based on police proceedures, is clearly superior to any arguements that are purely theory based.

I forgot to mention the hard core of those who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the name anomaly - those who can’t even bring themselves to use the name Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

You are right it isnt going to go away but it doesnt prove Cross/Lechmere was the killer of Nichols or any other women.

Its an anomaly that by reason of there being no questions being asked of him about the difference in the name use by the authorities we must draw a proper inference that if he was ever asked he gave a proper explantion to the authorites which was accepted. It is not a crime for anyone to use and alias let alone an alias that he was fully entitled to use.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, the anomaly is that on this occasion he used the name Cross but did not volunteer the information that his ‘proper’ name was Lechmere.

In all your time as a copper did you never once take a statement from someone who had two names, one his ‘proper’ name and one he was commonly known by?

[harry]

The reality is that Cross came forward as a witness who found a body.His evidence indicates the injuries to Nichols had been inflicted before his(Cross) arrival.There was no evidence presented to show that he was lying.The authorities,namely the police at the time,accepted his testimony,and his reason for being in Bucks Row was never doubted.Yes, people who found bodies have later been shown to be the killer of that person,but on other incriminating evidence,not,and I repeat not,simply being a person at the scene.
Trevor's arguements based on police proceedures, is clearly superior to any arguements that are purely theory based.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think those who refuse to see the anomaly are worried that by acknowledging it they are accepting a tiny fragment of the Lechmere theory. And that would never do!


It’s an anomaly and it ain’t going away.

You are right it isnt going to go away but it doesnt prove Cross/Lechmere was the killer of Nichols or any other women.

Its an anomaly that by reason of there being no questions being asked of him about the difference in the name use by the authorities we must draw a proper inference that if he was ever asked he gave a proper explantion to the authorites which was accepted. It is not a crime for anyone to use and alias let alone an alias that he was fully entitled to use.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

One last point on the name thing. The name Lechmere was of far greater significance to CAL than if his real dad had been a docker named Smith or Jones.

It was an unusual name and with addition of the middle name Allen would have pretty much id’d CAL to certain people.

It was the name of a prominent Herefordshire family. And his mother may well have been receiving an income from another prominent family who would have instantly recognised the name.

Lechmere had very respectable aunts, his mother’s sisters (one was the wife of a vicar I believe), whom I imagine would have been shocked to have learned of his involvement in such a sordid affair. The vicar’s wife might not have appreciated her nephew being outed as a lowly carman who found the body of a dead prostitute in an East End back street.

Leaving aside any idea of his being a murderer, there are very good reasons why CAL presented himself to the world as CAC. That it didn’t occur to him to mention his ‘proper’ name really isn’t one of them.