Framing Charles

[Abby Normal]

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?

[Abby Normal]

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

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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

[rjpalmer]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Just like slavery, syphilis, women’s rights and cholera? They may have accepted such things in 1888, but thankfully a progressive future generation can re-examine the past with knowledge, tools and technology they didn’t have then.

It would be pretty depressing if we as a society did not accept that we needed to progress from 1888.

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.

[erobitha]

If they accepted it in 1888 you and others should do so in 2021.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just like slavery, syphilis, women’s rights and cholera? They may have accepted such things in 1888, but thankfully a progressive future generation can re-examine the past with knowledge, tools and technology they didn’t have then.

It would be pretty depressing if we as a society did not accept that we needed to progress from 1888.

[MrBarnett]

Common Sense, and the need for clarification, and to check his account as would be standard practice, which is evident by the fact that there is nothing anywhere to show there was any question marks surrounding his statement or his coroners court evidence, you need to let it go now

How do you know they didnt check him out

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How do you know they did? There were dozens of witnesses involved in the WM cases, where is the evidence that their IDs were checked?

Common sense and the evidence tells us that the police put their efforts into investigating the victim’s lives and not the lives of witnesses who had no connection to the victims.

[MrBarnett]

Now Cross didn't have to account to anyone except the Authorities,and then only at the inquest.The press in particular are/were notorious for accepting and printing one christian name and one surname.People when introduced rarely give more than one of each.I myself have gone through life doing just that.That is all that is needed.This insistance that Cross should have said I am Charles Allen Lechmere,and be labelled a liar and a murderer because he didn't is simply ludicrous,laughable and juvenile.

He gave his middle name at the inquest. He always gave it. It was clearly important to him.

And he was clearly known by the name Lechmere and should have given that name also.

Guess what, I have also gone throughout my life without using my middle name except on a few occasions where my ‘full’ name was specifically requested. Charles Allen Lechmere was the polar opposite, he rarely left his middle name out.

Try running the name CAL through genealogical sites and see how many results you get. Between 1837, when civil registration of births became mandatory, and now only three births were recorded in that name: that of the Nichols witness and two of his children.

[harry]

Now Cross didn't have to account to anyone except the Authorities,and then only at the inquest.The press in particular are/were notorious for accepting and printing one christian name and one surname.People when introduced rarely give more than one of each.I myself have gone through life doing just that.That is all that is needed.This insistance that Cross should have said I am Charles Allen Lechmere,and be labelled a liar and a murderer because he didn't is simply ludicrous,laughable and juvenile.

[Trevor Marriott]

They clearly didn’t Trevor. The facts are there and you should accept them.

Can you provide me with one example of the press probing the identity of a witness in the Ripper case? They just didn’t. So why on earth do you imagine they would have picked up the use of two names?

Common Sense, and the need for clarification, and to check his account as would be standard practice, which is evident by the fact that there is nothing anywhere to show there was any question marks surrounding his statement or his coroners court evidence, you need to let it go now

How do you know they didnt check him out

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Do you not think the police, the coroner and the press would have not picked up on the use of two different names. They clearly would have done, and I have no doubt whatever explanation he gave was accepted because we see nothing from 1888 to the contrary. If they accepted it in 1888 you and others should do so in 2021.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

They clearly didn’t Trevor. The facts are there and you should accept them.

Can you provide me with one example of the press probing the identity of a witness in the Ripper case? They just didn’t. So why on earth do you imagine they would have picked up the use of two names?

[Trevor Marriott]

That makes no sense Harry. He only gave the one name - Cross - so he controlled how he was known to the worldwide public. But that’s not what we are talking about, we’re talking about how he was generally known by those who actually knew him. And there’s more reason to suspect he was known widely as Lechmere than there is Cross.

His neighbours knew him as Lechmere; his kids school friends, and through them their parents, knew the family as Lechmere; when he married he used the name Lechmere, so his in-laws knew that name; when he opened businesses a few years later he advertised them in his full name of Charles Allen Lechmere, so all his customers would have known that name; when he died, the name Charles Allen Lechmere was entered into the burial register and printed in bold lettering on the In Memoriam cards. There’s lots more, as you know. As for Cross, apart from the one occasion it was used on a census when he was a child, the only time it was ever used was when he was involved in rather unpleasant situations in a coroner’s court. Once when he had killed a child and the second when he either found or killed Polly Nichols. Given his family background and the uniqueness of his name, he had every reason to hide behind his stepfather’s name. I should also add that if he was aware of his mother’s bigamies, he would have had an even more powerful reason for not giving both names.

By not saying, ‘My real name is Charles Allen Lechmere, but I am known to some as Cross, which was my stepfather’s name.’ or something of the sort, he was concealing a part of his identity. My personal view is that he did so so as to avoid besmirching his real name, but I don’t completely dismiss the possibility that his evasion was in some way connected to his being Nichols murderer.

Do you not think the police, the coroner and the press would have not picked up on the use of two different names. They clearly would have done, and I have no doubt whatever explanation he gave was accepted because we see nothing from 1888 to the contrary. If they accepted it in 1888 you and others should do so in 2021.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk