Framing Charles

[rjpalmer]

I might be eventually proven wrong, but I've grown skeptical of Ed Stowe's claim that Maria Lechmere was "twice bigamously married."

The insinuation is that there was something untoward and promiscuous and illegal about her relationships during Charles Lechmere's formative years, but is there any conclusive proof that she behaved other than honorably? Would Charles have needed to hide his mother's bigamous marriage by using the name 'Cross,' if it was, in fact, not bigamous?

The 7+ year span between her abandonment by John Allen Lechmere and her marriage to Thomas Cross--a police constable no less--is suggestive. She may well have waited the required span before legally remarrying, and one would certainly hope that a constable would be leery of leaping into an illegal marriage.

Yes; one might suspect that Maria would have been aware that her absconding husband was still alive, but what is the evidence that John Allen Lechmere stayed in contact with their friends and relations back in Herefordshire? Has any such evidence come to light? If he had been socially embarrassed for his part in a drunken death, it seems entirely plausible that he simply fled the area, either before or after Maria made her way to London.

As far as I am aware, we next hear of John Lechmere when he next turns up in Daventry--famous as a center of shoe-making, where, presumably, he could easily find employment and get a fresh start. At some point meets up with a servant girl, or young woman, rather, and they have a child by at least 1855. Daventry is a good 70 miles from his old stomping grounds in Herefordshire--a safe distance for someone wishing to keep a low profile.

Emily Lechmere’s father is listed as dead on her death certificate; this could have been the family’s honest belief. It's also interesting to note that Charles Lechmere's half-brother is living in London (the West End) by the mid-1880s, but was Charles even aware of this? The witnesses at James Lechmere’s 1886 marriage are John and Henry King.

As far as I can tell, Maria Lechmere’s marriages may have been entirely legal. The baptisms of Emily and Charles after her marriage to Cross may have been an attempt to stress that everything was on the 'up and up,' and that she was not hiding her past marriage to Lechmere. If she had just bigamously married Cross, it would have been a strange move indeed! Maybe she even thought it would give her or her children some legal standing if Lechmere ever turned up or had left an unclaimed estate.

It's a little odd that Thomas Cross is a former shoemaker from the same general area of Herefordshire as John Lechmere, also a shoemaker, and though the age difference between Tom and Maria is substantial, it does leave one wondering what it might mean.

[MrBarnett]

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.

This is rather garbled, I’m afraid. Perhaps you can clarify the specific statute that covers the identification of witnesses in coroner’s courts.

[MrBarnett]

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.

That’s statute law or statutory, not statuary.

[MrBarnett]

I was not intending to contribute to this thread until I had finished reading Cutting Point but I was just reading a MJK thread and came across this (posted by Wickerman):-

"On the very first day of her murder, one of her neighbors told a reporter 'we didn't know her real name, we called her Mary Jane', none of us use our real name, no-one knows mine' (or words to that effect)". {my emphasis}

This supports my view, shared by many others, that using a different name from that recorded on official records was certainly not unusual in the LVP.

It struck me that possibly those attaching such significance to using "Cross" rather than "Lechmere" may live outside of the UK where different laws govern the use of names. I know that Mr Marriott has made the point several times but under UK law you can freely chose to go under any name that you wish provided that the use of an "alias" is not for any criminal purpose. There is a formal process to register the new name should an individual choose to do so but it is not a legal requirement now and it wasn't in 1888.

Do you live in the U.K. yourself? Have you done much genealogical research?

Do you appreciate the social distinction between a lodging house prostitute and a policeman’s wife who was the daughter of a butler who had served in the household of a member of one of the most prominent families in the country? A woman who had been raised on a grand estate in Herefordshire and who married a man from a prominent Herefordshire family?

Can you explain to me why numerous people with humble origins felt it appropriate to disclose their real and assumed names in court but Charles Allen Lechmere didn’t?

[ohrocky]

I was not intending to contribute to this thread until I had finished reading Cutting Point but I was just reading a MJK thread and came across this (posted by Wickerman):-

"On the very first day of her murder, one of her neighbors told a reporter 'we didn't know her real name, we called her Mary Jane', none of us use our real name, no-one knows mine' (or words to that effect)". {my emphasis}

This supports my view, shared by many others, that using a different name from that recorded on official records was certainly not unusual in the LVP.

It struck me that possibly those attaching such significance to using "Cross" rather than "Lechmere" may live outside of the UK where different laws govern the use of names. I know that Mr Marriott has made the point several times but under UK law you can freely chose to go under any name that you wish provided that the use of an "alias" is not for any criminal purpose. There is a formal process to register the new name should an individual choose to do so but it is not a legal requirement now and it wasn't in 1888.

[MrBarnett]

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."

Thanks RJ,


My take on that does stray into slightly more speculative territory and requires more explanation than I feel is worthwhile. It has to do with Maria’s neighbour in Blue School Lane in 1851, the local JP who refused him a promotion, the will of Thomas Roulson, the age and occupation of Thomas Cross, the location of his and Maria’s marriage and the nature of the City of Hereford.

Perhaps not the sort of information that would be appreciated by devotees of Ripper Cluedo (you and Dusty being two of a handful of notable exclusions from that classification!)

[John Wheat]

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?

[harry]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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.

https://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?

[MrBarnett]

One of your more stupid posts.

Let me take that back - it isn’t by a long chalk.

[MrBarnett]

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.

[John Wheat]

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.

https://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.

[Trevor Marriott]

‘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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

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."

[rjpalmer]

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?