Framing Charles

[MrBarnett]

One last point on the name thing. The name Lechmere was of far greater significance to CAL than if his real dad had been a docker named Smith or Jones.

It was an unusual name and with addition of the middle name Allen would have pretty much id’d CAL to certain people.

It was the name of a prominent Herefordshire family. And his mother may well have been receiving an income from another prominent family who would have instantly recognised the name.

Lechmere had very respectable aunts, his mother’s sisters (one was the wife of a vicar I believe), whom I imagine would have been shocked to have learned of his involvement in such a sordid affair. The vicar’s wife might not have appreciated her nephew being outed as a lowly carman who found the body of a dead prostitute in an East End back street.

Leaving aside any idea of his being a murderer, there are very good reasons why CAL presented himself to the world as CAC. That it didn’t occur to him to mention his ‘proper’ name really isn’t one of them.

[MrBarnett]

I think those who refuse to see the anomaly are worried that by acknowledging it they are accepting a tiny fragment of the Lechmere theory. And that would never do!


It’s an anomaly and it ain’t going away.

[MrBarnett]

Put yourself in Lechmere’s shoes. You are standing in the witness box with dozens of eyes looking at you. Wynne Baxter fixes you with a gimlet stare and asks you for your full name and address. Your response is Charles ALLEN... Cross. It doesn’t occur to you to mention that your ‘proper’ name is Lechmere?

You register your kids at school as Lechmere, presumably because you feel that’s the proper thing to do, but when asked for your name by the Coroner for the South East Division of Middlesex, you feel it’s OK just to give the name of your long-dead stepfather?

[MrBarnett]

But he gave his name as Cross at the inquest, and in his police statement and to the coroner otherwise how would swanson know he was called Cross

Did he at any time use the name Lechmere in this investigation? No he didnt, so you are creating a mystery where there is none to create.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But that’s the point, Trevor. On every other occasion (with one possible exception) we know of that this man was asked to provide his name to authority he gave the name Lechmere. Presumably he went first to his nearest police station, introduced himself as Cross and told his story. At some point, the officer taking his statement would have asked for his full name and address and he must have given his name as Cross without it occurring to him to mention that his ‘proper’ name was Lechmere.

And when he appeared at the inquest, he was again asked to provide his name and again he just said Cross and made no mention of his ‘proper’ name.

He went so far as to give his middle name ‘Allen’, but didn’t mention that Cross was an aka. How often in life do we introduce ourselves using our middle names? Almost never, so when you do it’s because you believe that the situation warrants complete accuracy.

‘What is your full name?’

‘Charles Allen Lechmere is my real/proper name, but I am known to many by the name of Cross, which was my late stepfather’s name.’

Job done. Complete disclosure, as the circumstances required. It’s what I would do I those circumstances.

Just imagine if one of us was found dead in suspicious circumstances and Christer was the last poster to have crossed swords with them. Would you expect him to give his name as ‘Fisherman’ to the police or to say, ‘My real name is Christer Holmgren, but I am known on the boards as ‘Fisherman’?

There’s only one credible answer to that question. When it occurs to you, perhaps you can ask yourself why?

[Fisherman]

My way is the right way and the fair way, and you should accept that you have made sweeping statements using experts to back you up. I have used an expert to challenge what you say. Why dont you want go back and put those same questions to your experts. Is it because you know they will not support what you postulate?look

And your snide comments have no effect on me. you are making yourself look like a scared rabbit in the headlights.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, your way is not the right way. It is the dumb way, the uninformed way, the rude way, the Closeau way, the mistaken way, the sad way, the quarter-baked way and the embarrasing way, all in one. The right way, however, it is absolutely not.

And the day I am scared of your efforts is the day hell freezes over.

I hope that is clear enough for you.

[Fisherman]

But he gave his name as Cross at the inquest, and in his police statement and to the coroner otherwise how would swanson know he was called Cross

Did he at any time use the name Lechmere in this investigation? No he didnt, so you are creating a mystery where there is none to create.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thats brilliant, Trevor: He called himself Cross both when speaking to the police and at the inquest, and so he was consistent throughout. Problem solved, and the insignificant detail that he otherwise called himself Lechmere is not strange at all. Besides, although they never said so, both the police and the inquest were aware of this, eeehr ... because they did not ... suspect him...?

I sense this is so groundbreakingly clever that a menial nobody like me cannot fully understand it.

[Trevor Marriott]

It is in the book, Trevor. And I make a point of avoiding to do things the way you do.

My way is the right way and the fair way, and you should accept that you have made sweeping statements using experts to back you up. I have used an expert to challenge what you say. Why dont you want go back and put those same questions to your experts. Is it because you know they will not support what you postulate?look

And your snide comments have no effect on me. you are making yourself look like a scared rabbit in the headlights.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay. Swansons reports from September and October name the carman Cross. And the anomaly remains, since his registered name was Lechmere.

So you are wrong. And it is proven. I shudder at the prospect of having to prove you right ...

But he gave his name as Cross at the inquest, and in his police statement and to the coroner otherwise how would swanson know he was called Cross

Did he at any time use the name Lechmere in this investigation? No he didnt, so you are creating a mystery where there is none to create.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well if that be the case you wont have any problem in detailing and providing for all to see the questions and their answers in the way I have done.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is in the book, Trevor. And I make a point of avoiding to do things the way you do.

[Fisherman]

Well prove me wrong!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Okay. Swansons reports from September and October name the carman Cross. And the anomaly remains, since his registered name was Lechmere.

So you are wrong. And it is proven. I shudder at the prospect of having to prove you right ...

[Trevor Marriott]

I have asked the pathologists the relevant questions and they have given answers that very much point to how Lechmere is a very good bid for the cutters role in Bucks Row. Its in my book, Trevor.

Well if that be the case you wont have any problem in detailing and providing for all to see the questions and their answers in the way I have done.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

As far as you are aware?

Okay.

Well prove me wrong!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

By the bye, if anyone is interested, I will be interviewed for the Obscura True Crime podcast tomorrow. 10 am, CET, downloading the Stereo app will allow you to listen in.

[Fisherman]

As far as I am aware there is no evidence to show what name he gave in his police statement by the fact that no one questioned his name at the time or therefater suggests he gave the name Cross in which case you suspicion surrounding him goes out the window.

Because I do find it strange that this anomaly you seek to heavily rely on is never ever mentioned

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As far as you are aware?

Okay.

[Fisherman]

I think you should revist those professors and ask them the same questions I asked Dr Biggs and let all of us see their response because Dr Biggs comments and observations clearly shoot your theory down in flames and even a wet paper bag wont dampen the efffect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have asked the pathologists the relevant questions and they have given answers that very much point to how Lechmere is a very good bid for the cutters role in Bucks Row. Its in my book, Trevor.

I have a lot of fun reading your "shoot down in flames" and "Blow out of the water" comments. They remind me of a great favourite of mine from years gone by, a man who was called "Bagdad Bob".