Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

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

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    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.
    I may be a bit slow here, but how would using the name Cross in court, the name of the man his mother had bigamously married, make this fact less apparent?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

      I may be a bit slow here, but how would using the name Cross in court, the name of the man his mother had bigamously married, make this fact less apparent?
      It’s the combination of the unique name Charles Allen Lechmere and mention of a stepfather that would have given away the bigamy. If he had used both names and explained why he was known as Cross the truth would have been revealed.

      Comment


      • The Shoemaker at the Inquest



        In brief;


        At approximately 9.00 pm on Sunday 7th March, 1847, Robert Parry, a supernumerary police constable based at Hereford City police station, went out to patrol his beat in the city’s ‘H Division’. At two o’clock the following morning Inspector John Davies discovered Parry lying in a drunken stupor in Quay-Lane which lay on Parry’s beat. Parry was taken back to the station house and put into the ‘refractory cell’ to sleep it off. The next morning, when PC Botchett entered the refractory cell he found Parry dead.

        At the inquest into Parry’s death it was suggested that a local shoemaker had given Parry 12 or 13 glasses of brandy and the possibility of a manslaughter charge against the shoemaker was raised.

        The shoemaker denied having given Parry any brandy at all, but admitted giving him a certain amount of gin.

        When the jury brought in their their verdict they reserved their censure for Inspector Davies for not having obtained medical assistance for Parry. The shoemaker wasn’t formally reprimanded, but his description of his own drinking exploits that night and his involvement in supplying Parry, a known drunkard, with alcohol while on duty cannot have done much for his reputation in the small Cathedral city.

        Just over a month later the shoemaker went out of business, and shortly afterwards he seems to have abandoned his wife and two small children.

        The shoemaker’s name was John Allen Lechmere. He was Charles Allen Lechmere’s father.





        Last edited by MrBarnett; 05-17-2021, 07:09 PM.

        Comment


        • Click image for larger version

Name:	2AAAF78E-2C83-47AC-9394-687C13226E8F.jpeg
Views:	124
Size:	163.0 KB
ID:	758565

          Comment


          • Click image for larger version

Name:	E46B5650-79FA-468F-A326-E6DD2BB7581C.jpeg
Views:	121
Size:	103.5 KB
ID:	758567

            Comment


            • Another possible reason for CAL’s reluctance to give his real name at an inquest?
              Last edited by MrBarnett; 05-17-2021, 07:26 PM.

              Comment


              • I haven't followed all the various Lechmere threads, and so I might be missing some relevant details, but is it even accurate to state that Maria Lechmere bigamously married Thomas Cross?

                According to the bigamy act of 1603, there is a loop-hole:


                "Provided always, that neither this Act, nor anything therein contained, shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall be continually remaining beyond the seas by the space of seven years together, or whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of seven years together, in any parts within his Majesties Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time."

                John Lechmere is gone by at least 1851 -- Maria is living alone with her children at the time of the census.

                She doesn't marry Thomas Cross until early 1858. Could this 'seven year span' be relevant?

                Provided she doesn't know her husband's whereabouts, was she not legally entitled to marry Thomas Cross?


                Comment


                • The Bigamy Act of 1603 was repealed in 1828, but replaced by a statute contained in the "Offences Against the Person Act," with much the same wording:

                  "Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend to any Second Marriage contracted out of England by any other than a Subject of His Majesty, or to any Person marrying a Second Time, whose Husband or Wife shall have been continually absent from such Person for the Space of Seven Years then last past, and shall not have been known by such Person to be living within that Time, or shall extend to any Person who at the Time of such Second Marriage shall have been divorced from the Bond of the First Marriage, or to any Person whose former Marriage shall have been declared void by the Sentence of a Court of competent Jurisdiction."



                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                    ‘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.
                    Do you have any idea why he gave the name Cross? I would be interested to hear you explantion based of factual evidence and not wild speculation.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Do you have any idea why he gave the name Cross? I would be interested to hear you explantion based of factual evidence and not wild speculation.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      He has no idea why he gave the name Cross he's just assuming there was a sinister reason because it suits him.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post

                        He has no idea why he gave the name Cross he's just assuming there was a sinister reason because it suits him.
                        One of your more stupid posts.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          One of your more stupid posts.
                          Let me take that back - it isn’t by a long chalk.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Do you have any idea why he gave the name Cross? I would be interested to hear you explantion based of factual evidence and not wild speculation.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            The speculation isn’t wild, Trevor.

                            Unlike yours, which is based on absolutely nothing.

                            But at least you’re not pushing a hopeless suspect like Bury. Or are you?





                            Comment


                            • Mr Barnett,
                              You wished to know what the law was in 1888.Well,in the case of murder it was Common Law,not Statuary law.What does the Common law specify in regard to identification.Well it doesn't specify anything,that is why Cross could use that name.An exception would be IF he was using the name Cross for an illegal reason,and that reason would have to be proven.Now when you talk about legality,you have to realise that Cross was protected by that same law,so,provided he gave sufficient information to identify himself,which he did,no action could be taken against him,and none was.
                              ,Any smokescreen is created by those,who like yourself,have no evidence that Cross committed any crime,nor sought to evade identification.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                                The speculation isn’t wild, Trevor.

                                Unlike yours, which is based on absolutely nothing.

                                But at least you’re not pushing a hopeless suspect like Bury. Or are you?




                                How can a proven violent murderer who was in London at the time be a hopeless suspect? Do you even know what logic is?
                                Last edited by John Wheat; 05-18-2021, 07:30 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X