Framing Charles

[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

[MrBarnett]

As to being known as Cross in 1888,the papers,nationly and internathionly,used that name,so the inference is that he was only known as Lechmere to a very small minority. There is little doubt he would have had time to consider what name he would use at the inquest,and would know the consequences of giving false evidence.
So he gave evidence that could be checked,and which would identify him.That was all he was legally entitled to do.As to his evidence being of value in pointing guilt at anyone,especially himself, it is useless.

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.

[harry]

As to being known as Cross in 1888,the papers,nationly and internathionly,used that name,so the inference is that he was only known as Lechmere to a very small minority. There is little doubt he would have had time to consider what name he would use at the inquest,and would know the consequences of giving false evidence.
So he gave evidence that could be checked,and which would identify him.That was all he was legally entitled to do.As to his evidence being of value in pointing guilt at anyone,especially himself, it is useless.

[John Wheat]

What it says about me is that I am thinking sensibly and logically and asssesing and evaluating the facts based on what has been presented, and that includes the lack of evidence from 1888 to show that he deliberately misled the police, the coroner and the press to deflect any suspicon away from him, and lets come back to reality anyone who thought that they could do that in such a high profile murder investigation without questions being asked or suspicion falling upon him as is being suggested now must be more than stupid to even consider that fact.

If you or anyone else has evidence to the contrary then this is the opportuntity to make it public

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But what about all the other great evidence against Lechmere? Oh right there isn't any. Lechmere was a witness and should not be considered a suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

We have no idea why he chose not to reveal his real name. That you claim it was definitely not to deflect suspicion away from him tells us a lot about you, but nothing, I’m afraid, about Lechmere.

What it says about me is that I am thinking sensibly and logically and asssesing and evaluating the facts based on what has been presented, and that includes the lack of evidence from 1888 to show that he deliberately misled the police, the coroner and the press to deflect any suspicon away from him, and lets come back to reality anyone who thought that they could do that in such a high profile murder investigation without questions being asked or suspicion falling upon him as is being suggested now must be more than stupid to even consider that fact.

If you or anyone else has evidence to the contrary then this is the opportuntity to make it public

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

That you've been able to piece this together is a testament to how deeply you've delved into Lechmere's life story, Gary.

I think it's fair to say that Marshall's presence in the street cuts both ways--and is bound to generate some lively discussion.

I suppose it could be argued that even if he was aware that Lechmere had visited 'the hood' that night, and had previously discovered the body of Polly Nichols under the name 'Cross,' Marshall might have hesitated before 'dropping him in it,' because Lechmere wasn't the same man he had seen with Stride an entire hour before the murder.

Yes, it’s not a knock out blow to the theory by any means. For me, though, it adds a little extra weight to the name anomaly that in 1869 some of their neighbours in MA Street knew their real name was Lechmere.

I’ll keep looking for interesting tidbits.

[MrBarnett]

The issue is did he give the name Cross to the police and the coroner and to the press with intent to miselead, deceive, or deflect suspicion away from himself as being the killer, the answer has to be a definate no on all three. Unbtil you or anyone else can prove any of those three factors the matter is dead in the water.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We have no idea why he chose not to reveal his real name. That you claim it was definitely not to deflect suspicion away from him tells us a lot about you, but nothing, I’m afraid, about Lechmere.

[Trevor Marriott]

Where’s your evidence that he was known by the name Cross in 1888?

There is none.

Where is your evidence to show he didnt use the name of Cross at Pickfords?

The evidence that he was known as Lechmere is stacking up. You may want to stop the story at a point where it supports your view, others may wish to keep searching for the truth.

The issue is did he give the name Cross to the police and the coroner and to the press with intent to miselead, deceive, or deflect suspicion away from himself as being the killer, the answer has to be a definate no on all three. Unbtil you or anyone else can prove any of those three factors the matter is dead in the water.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

That you've been able to piece this together is a testament to how deeply you've delved into Lechmere's life story, Gary.

I think it's fair to say that Marshall's presence in the street cuts both ways--and is bound to generate some lively discussion.

I suppose it could be argued that even if he was aware that Lechmere had visited 'the hood' that night, and had previously discovered the body of Polly Nichols under the name 'Cross,' Marshall might have hesitated before 'dropping him in it,' because Lechmere wasn't the same man he had seen with Stride an entire hour before the murder.

[MrBarnett]

From Ripper Wiki:


William Marshall


Witness at Elizabeth Stride's inquest.


Born William Henry Marshall c.1841 in Dagenham, Essex. Married to Mary Ann (b.1844, Shadwell) with four children - William (b.1865), Jemima (b.1867), Henry (b.1872) and Mary Ann (b.1876).^[1]

A labourer living at 64 Berner Street who testified to seeing a woman he later recognised in the mortuary as Elizabeth Stride standing about three doors away from his house at about 11.45pm, 29th September 1888. She was apparently on the pavement opposite No.68, between Christian Street and Boyd Street and was with a man; the couple were talking quietly. Because there was no lamp nearby, Marshall could not see the man's face clearly, but was able to furnish the inquest with other particulars - he was middle-aged and stout, about 5ft 6in tall, respectably dressed in a small black cut-away coat and dark trousers. He was wearing a small peaked cap, "something like a sailor would wear". He had the appearance of a clerk. The woman was wearing a black jacket and skirt and a black crape bonnet, but did not see the flower that was pinned to the jacket.

Marshall had been standing at his door since 11.30pm, his attention first being drawn towards the couple because the man was kissing the woman, otherwise, he did not take too much notice of them. He heard the man say "you would say anything but your prayers" and then they walked leisurely down the street. Neither appeared to be intoxicated.

Marshall went inside at midnight and heard no more until a little after 1.00am when he heard the cry of "murder" being called in the street.^[2]

The description of the man suggests that he may be the same person seen with Stride by J. Best and John Gardner in the doorway of the Bricklayer's Arms at 11.00pm.^[3]

Marshall, his wife and youngest daughter moved from Berner Street to 185 Cable Street some time after 1891.^[4]
References

1. ↑

Marshall’s occupation changed over the decades, but I’m sure this is the same man that was living at 24, Mary Ann Street in 1871.

His POB then was given as Romford, which was the registration district for nearby Dagenham.

[MrBarnett]

I've just popped in and am still analyzing this, but I think Christer may be cancelling the Christmas card.

Unless we are to believe that William Marshall saw Stride with Lechmere, but didn't recognize him, despite the argument that Lechmere had reason to go to Berner Street on a Saturday nights--in order to unwind after his exhausting workweek by visiting the woman who nursed his sister 19 years previously?

Or have I lost the plot?

It’s been a bit of a helter skelter for me.

Lechmere was known by that name to some of his neighbours in Mary Ann street from 1869 - Christer cracks a smile.

There were people Lechmere knew personally living in Berner Street in 1888 - Christer’s smile gets broader.

But then he pauses, the smile freezes on his face as he wonders how likely it would be for Lechmere to commit a murder a few doors away from the home of a family friend.

And then he realises that Lechmere’s old neighbour was actually out on Berner Street around 11.45...

[rjpalmer]

The Marshalls were at 71, Berner Street in 1873. In 1888, they were possibly the street’s longest residents. You’d imagine it likely that the Lechmere’s kept in touch with the Marshalls.

I've just popped in and am still analyzing this, but I think Christer may be cancelling the Christmas card.

Unless we are to believe that William Marshall saw Stride with Lechmere, but didn't recognize him, despite the argument that Lechmere had reason to go to Berner Street on a Saturday nights--in order to unwind after his exhausting workweek by visiting the woman who nursed his sister 19 years previously?

Or have I lost the plot?

[MrBarnett]

If I was more of a Ripperologist, I would have spotted this before.

Please stress test this, folks. I may have got it completely wrong, but I think that William Marshall the B Street witness personally knew Charles Allen Lechmere - by that name.

[MrBarnett]

Mary Ann’s husband was the Berner Street witness William Marshall...

[MrBarnett]

The Marshalls were at 71, Berner Street in 1873. In 1888, they were possibly the street’s longest residents. You’d imagine it likely that the Lechmere’s kept in touch with the Marshalls.