Framing Charles

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.