Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Trevor is desperately trying to throw a smokescreen over the name anomaly.

    The witness’s name was Charles Allen Lechmere. We know that because we have numerous examples of him using that name. Other than one (possibly two) inquests, we have no evidence that he ever called himself anything else. As far back as 1869 this was known to his neighbours. Lechmere was the name used by all his children at school.

    Why would he still have been using the name of his long-dead stepfather when he moved to Doveton Street in 1888? Trevor wants to apply some of the common sense he speaks of. The large family living in Doveton Street were the Lechmere family. Their new neighbours would probably not have recognised the name of the discoverer of the Bucks Row victim.
    You keep missing the point take the blinkers off, look at the wider picture and not just at the the differing names. Its not an offence or an admission of guilt to use a name that he was entitled to use. If you want to keep beliveing that there was something sinsiter behind the use of the name Cross than thats your prerogative and yours to prove to the contrary.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      You keep missing the point take the blinkers off, look at the wider picture and not just at the the differing names. Its not an offence or an admission of guilt to use a name that he was entitled to use. If you want to keep beliveing that there was something sinsiter behind the use of the name Cross than thats your prerogative and yours to prove to the contrary.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      My point is just about the names.

      And it isn’t me who is wearing blinkers. In my amateurish way I am actively looking for an explanation of why a man with a very strong sense of what his ‘proper’ name was chose not to use it on one or two formal occasions out of dozens we know of. If you were being objective you would have the same curiosity that I have on the matter.

      And in not wearing blinkers I stumbled across the fact that Charles Lechmere was known to the wife of the Berner Street witness William Marshall, and presumably to Marshall himself, as Charles Lechmere.

      Remind me what your contribution had been.
      Last edited by MrBarnett; 05-17-2021, 01:33 PM.

      Comment


      • Nothing new here, but as I see it, the 1876 case that killed the boy Walter Williams can't be seen as anything but damaging to the legitimacy of the Lechmere theory.

        Here was an instance where it would have served no legal benefit to disguise his name, yet he uses the name Cross. Thus, there must be an alternative explanation, even if we are forced to make an educated guess as to what it might be. Yet, his accusers imply that there is something sinister in it; he only uses the name 'Cross' in instances of 'violent death,' or some such argument.

        But think how more damaging it would now look had he used the name 'Charles Allen Lechmere' at the 1876 inquest.

        His accusers would be oiling the trapdoor and readying the noose. This would be damning proof indeed that Lechmere used ‘Lechmere’ even at work, and thus his use of 'Cross' in 1888 was a one-off instance—an obvious attempt to deceive.

        In other words, his use of 'Cross' in 1876 was suspicious, we are told; his use of 'Lechmere' in 1876 would also have been suspicious (retrospectively).


        Thus, Charles is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, once suspicion has been directed at him. He's on the hook, and cannot win.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          My point is just about the names.

          And it isn’t me who is wearing blinkers. In my amateurish way I am actively looking for an explanation of why a man with a very strong sense of what his ‘proper’ name was chose not to use it on one or two formal occasions out of dozens we know of. If you were being objective you would have the same curiosity that I have on the matter.

          And in not wearing blinkers I stumbled across the fact that Charles Lechmere was known to the wife of the Berner Street witness William Marshall, and presumably to Marshall himself, as Charles Lechmere.

          Remind me what your contribution had been.
          good work Gary! interesting stuff
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            Nothing new here, but as I see it, the 1876 case that killed the boy Walter Williams can't be seen as anything but damaging to the legitimacy of the Lechmere theory.

            Here was an instance where it would have served no legal benefit to disguise his name, yet he uses the name Cross. Thus, there must be an alternative explanation, even if we are forced to make an educated guess as to what it might be. Yet, his accusers imply that there is something sinister in it; he only uses the name 'Cross' in instances of 'violent death,' or some such argument.

            But think how more damaging it would now look had he used the name 'Charles Allen Lechmere' at the 1876 inquest.

            His accusers would be oiling the trapdoor and readying the noose. This would be damning proof indeed that Lechmere used ‘Lechmere’ even at work, and thus his use of 'Cross' in 1888 was a one-off instance—an obvious attempt to deceive.

            In other words, his use of 'Cross' in 1876 was suspicious, we are told; his use of 'Lechmere' in 1876 would also have been suspicious (retrospectively).


            Thus, Charles is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, once suspicion has been directed at him. He's on the hook, and cannot win.
            He was involved in the death of a child and the child’s father at least believed he was at fault. On that occasion his address was also omitted you’ll remember.

            When I came across that article I initially thought of it as a serious blow to the theory. I’m now less sure. It strikes me as just another example of him hiding behind his stepfather’s name when he is involved in something unpleasant that he suspects will appear in the newspapers.

            My interpretation of it is that he (and his mother) were unwilling to allow the Lechmere name to be identified with these two incidents. And even more so were unwilling to risk having her bigamy made apparent to those who might recognise the unique name of Charles Allen Lechmere.

            Bear in mind, he appears to have been the only man with that name in the country. His father, John Allen Lechmere was still alive. If he had stood up and said ‘My name is CAL but I am also known by my stepfather’s name of Cross.’ he would have given the game away. We have two strong motives for him not to have done so. And he didn’t.


            Note: And before anybody jumps in, I do not know whether CAL was aware that his father was still alive. However, the other day I found that a man who may well have been his stepbrother (his father’s son by another mother) living in London. Something I need to check out.
            Last edited by MrBarnett; 05-17-2021, 02:29 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
              Nothing new here, but as I see it, the 1876 case that killed the boy Walter Williams can't be seen as anything but damaging to the legitimacy of the Lechmere theory.

              Here was an instance where it would have served no legal benefit to disguise his name, yet he uses the name Cross. Thus, there must be an alternative explanation, even if we are forced to make an educated guess as to what it might be. Yet, his accusers imply that there is something sinister in it; he only uses the name 'Cross' in instances of 'violent death,' or some such argument.

              But think how more damaging it would now look had he used the name 'Charles Allen Lechmere' at the 1876 inquest.

              His accusers would be oiling the trapdoor and readying the noose. This would be damning proof indeed that Lechmere used ‘Lechmere’ even at work, and thus his use of 'Cross' in 1888 was a one-off instance—an obvious attempt to deceive.

              In other words, his use of 'Cross' in 1876 was suspicious, we are told; his use of 'Lechmere' in 1876 would also have been suspicious (retrospectively).


              Thus, Charles is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, once suspicion has been directed at him. He's on the hook, and cannot win.
              valid point rj.but apparently the kid he killed and polly nichols cant win either. he ran over a child and callously left a woman in obvious need lying in the street. and both times tried to hide his real name apparently. I shed no tear for lech
              Last edited by Abby Normal; 05-17-2021, 02:31 PM.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                He was involved in the death of a child and the child’s father at least believed he was at fault. On that occasion his address was also omitted you’ll remember.

                When I came across that article I initially thought of it as a serious blow to the theory. I’m now less sure. It strikes me as just another example of him hiding behind his stepfather’s name when he is involved in something unpleasant that he suspects will appear in the newspapers.

                My interpretation of it is that he (and his mother) were unwilling to allow the Lechmere name to be identified with these two incidents. And even more so were unwilling to risk having her bigamy made apparent to those who might recognise the unique name of Charles Allen Lechmere.

                Bear in mind, he appears to have been the only man with that name in the country. His father, John Allen Lechmere was still alive. If he had stood up and said ‘My name is CAL but I am also known by my stepfather’s name of Cross.’ he would have given the game away. We have two strong motives for him not to have done so. And he didn’t.


                Note: And before anybody jumps in, I do not know whether CAL was aware that his father was still alive. However, the other day I found that a man who may well have been his stepbrother (his father’s son by another mother) living in London. Something I need to check out.
                hi gary
                i wonder if his mom was bigamously married to cross, could lech even legally use the cross name?
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Click image for larger version

Name:	38527856-F892-4A90-9B3D-F2D13B542BE5.jpeg
Views:	92
Size:	85.6 KB
ID:	758530

                  If you run the name CAL through FreeBMD for all dates from 1837, this is what you get: our man and two of his kids. One died in infancy and so the name was transferred to a subsequent male child.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                    He was involved in the death of a child and the child’s father at least believed he was at fault. On that occasion his address was also omitted you’ll remember.
                    I can't see how any of that matters.

                    As has been discussed many times, Pickford & Co. would have been painfully aware of the accident, and almost certainly would have had representatives watching the case. Are they going to risk the reputation of their firm by allowing their employee to use an alias, particularly in a no-fault accident?

                    A question I've asked myself--but have no answer--is whether there is any reason to believe that Thomas Cross may have had the ability to 'land' Charles a job at Pickford and Co.--a friend or a cousin or someone similar employed there? Nepotism, that convenient oil that keeps the machinery running. I can currently see no evidence that this was the case, but, if it were, it might explain Lechmere's initial use of 'Cross.'

                    As I noted earlier, Ian Stewart used his step-father's name 'Brady,' when landing a job at the fruit market, and thereafter was 'Ian Brady.'

                    Of course, I think Brady jumped at the opportunity to change his name, because he already had 'form' under the name 'Stewart' and 'Sloan.'

                    Had Lechmere been a hell raiser in his youth, it might have explained his desire to take on the name of his copper step-dad. But there's no evidence of that, either.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      hi gary
                      i wonder if his mom was bigamously married to cross, could lech even legally use the cross name?
                      As I understand it, provided he was not doing so to deceive anyone, he could use any name he liked even under oath.

                      In less formal situations, such as the registering of children at school, there were presumably no legal rules. So if the family had been known as Cross by all and sundry his kids could have been registered under that name. They weren’t, they were registered as Lechmere with their full complement of middle names. How confusing would that have been if they had introduced themselves as the Cross family to their neighbours when they moved into Doveton Street in 1888 and the kids had been introduced to their schoolmates as the Lechmeres.

                      Perhaps we should establish exactly what the law was and put it on record. Trevor and Harry appear to know what the law was in this respect in 1888, perhaps they can share their source with us.




                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        I can't see how any of that matters.

                        As has been discussed many times, Pickford & Co. would have been painfully aware of the accident, and almost certainly would have had representatives watching the case. Are they going to risk the reputation of their firm by allowing their employee to use an alias, particularly in a no-fault accident?

                        A question I've asked myself--but have no answer--is whether there is any reason to believe that Thomas Cross may have had the ability to 'land' Charles a job at Pickford and Co.--a friend or a cousin or someone similar employed there? Nepotism, that convenient oil that keeps the machinery running. I can currently see no evidence that this was the case, but, if it were, it might explain Lechmere's initial use of 'Cross.'

                        As I noted earlier, Ian Stewart used his step-father's name 'Brady,' when landing a job at the fruit market, and thereafter was 'Ian Brady.'

                        Of course, I think Brady jumped at the opportunity to change his name, because he already had 'form' under the name 'Stewart' and 'Sloan.'

                        Had Lechmere been a hell raiser in his youth, it might have explained his desire to take on the name of his copper step-dad. But there's no evidence of that, either.
                        You can’t see why a man involved in the death of a child might prefer not to have his real name printed in the press? OK.

                        Thomas Cross was not a Londoner. I’m not aware that he had any relatives in London, he only arrived in the capital in the 1850s. And, incidentally, he was a Met PC and Broad Street was in the City.

                        Don’t get me wrong, I don’t find it implausible that he had used the name Cross at Pickford. What I find suspicious is that he did not volunteer his ‘real’ name at the inquests.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          You can’t see why a man involved in the death of a child might prefer not to have his real name printed in the press? OK.
                          Is that what I said?

                          No, that's not what I said.

                          If a man ran over a child--accidently or otherwise--he may well wish to be swallowed up by the earth and use the name 'John Doe.'

                          The question I raised is whether his employer would have been foolish enough to allow him to do it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                            My point is just about the names.

                            And it isn’t me who is wearing blinkers. In my amateurish way I am actively looking for an explanation of why a man with a very strong sense of what his ‘proper’ name was chose not to use it on one or two formal occasions out of dozens we know of. If you were being objective you would have the same curiosity that I have on the matter.

                            And in not wearing blinkers I stumbled across the fact that Charles Lechmere was known to the wife of the Berner Street witness William Marshall, and presumably to Marshall himself, as Charles Lechmere.

                            Remind me what your contribution had been.
                            My curiosity is satsified, because I belive that if he was ever questioned about the name changes then he gave a satifactory explantion to all interested parties. So I wil not dwell further on an issue that in my opinion is dead in the water.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                              Is that what I said?

                              No, that's not what I said.

                              If a man ran over a child--accidently or otherwise--he may well wish to be swallowed up by the earth and use the name 'John Doe.'

                              The question I raised is whether his employer would have been foolish enough to allow him to do it.


                              What you actually said was ‘I don’t see that any of that matters’ ‘That’ being my response to your ‘damned if he does...’ post.

                              I don’t believe his employers would willingly have allowed him to use a completely false name as you you may be aware, because I have said so on previous occasions and I even created a thread to support my view. (I’ll dig it out to remind myself of how far I got.)





                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                My curiosity is satsified, because I belive that if he was ever questioned about the name changes then he gave a satifactory explantion to all interested parties. So I wil not dwell further on an issue that in my opinion is dead in the water.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                ‘If he was ever questioned’?

                                So in other words you have no idea why he omitted his real name or whether the authorities were aware he had done so. And your curiosity is satisfied by your ignorance of those facts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X