Framing Charles

[rjpalmer]

All that's fine, Gary, but none of it shows her marriage to Cross would have been seen as illegal or untoward or would have had a negative psychological influence on young Charles Lechmere--which is where my interest lies. You're finding her guilty by implication.

A lot of people sink in the world; it doesn't make them shady outlaws. Hereford is in her past. She's a London woman now, and had been for at least 9 years when she married Thomas Cross. Why would she give a rat's about the opinion of the Prebend of Parma in Herford, now that she was in the East End and never planned on going back?

And how is any of this evidence of bigamy in the eyes of the law? You are confusing perceived social stigma in Hereford with what was seen as normal and acceptable in the East End.

P.S. Your repeated references to 'Googling' is becoming more than a little juvenile, but I suppose it goes back to someone demonstrating to you that the phrase "bumbling buffoon" was absent from hundreds of thousands of on-line texts and newspapers from the 19th Century, and that didn't sit too well, did it?

Don't blame technology if you came to the wrong conclusion. It's simply a tool--no different from a library card. Almost all the texts I read are from the 19th Century and were not generated by "Google."

[rjpalmer]

Whitfield House – History | Herefordshire Past

Thanks for the link. Did you use Google to find it, and if so, does that make it of no value?

[Fiver]

What is unclear about how Tabram, Chapman and Kelly were found dead at times that are roughly consistent with the killer having been in place in the early morning hours at the murder sites?

If Charles Lechmere was murdering people on the way to work, then we'd expect the victims to be killed between 3:30am and 4am.

Martha Tabram's body was spotted by Andrew Crow around 3:30am. That makes it very unlikely that Lechmere killed Tabram.

Annie Chapman was still alive at 5:30am according to Elizabeth Long. That's an hour-and-a-half after Lechmere started work, so there's almost no chance he could have killed Chapman.

According to George Hutchinson, Mary Jane Kelly was still alive at 3am. Her body was not found until 10:45am. While Lechmere could have killed Kelly on the way to work, there probably wasn't time for him to inflict the extreme mutilations.

[Fiver]

I worked for an international trading company for the best part of 30 years and can waffle on about demurrage/despatch/bills of lading/charter parties as well as anyone. Knowledge of shipping doesn’t help us I’m afraid. What we need to know to work out CAL’s shift patterns is what he carried on his cart.

Your decades with an international trading company makes it even more surprising that you did not know that in American English, "shipping" refers to all forms of transport by vehicle.

We have no idea what Charles Lechmere carried on his cart. We do know he worked for Pickford's so what Lechmere carried would vary significantly from day to day and so would the length of his work day.

[Fiver]

I should have thought of this example straight off.

Two carmen out and about in the early hours of Sat/Sun in Spitalfields in 1904. Drinking plenty (one had 11/12 beers, the other had more) and brawling after work. One gets killed and the other gives evidence at his inquest before Wynn Baxter and at the OB trial. The first was a relative of mine by marriage, the second was my grandad.

If it were the case that men who worked long shifts were incapable of having a few pints on a Saturday night, the pubs would have been virtually empty. My speculation would be that Saturday night was the booziest of the week.

https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t19031019-name-88&div=t19031019-785#highlight

Perhaps they had generous bosses and they worked v. short shifts - or perhaps even after a long shift a livener or two gave them the energy to carry on boozing for several hours.

Thank you for sharing the link, but it gives us no idea what time Charles Humphries started his shifts as a carman, let alone ended them. Unless he worked the same shift as Charles Lechmere, the comparison is meaningless.

[Fiver]

This occured in Whitechapel on August 28th/ 29th 1908. Almost exactly 20 years after Nichols murder (exactly 20 years if going off the day of the week rather than the date). It has all the hallmarks of a Ripper killing yet it is significantly less successful, maybe due to an aging Ripper decreasing strength. The attacker was never apprehended yet was described as elderly which could support this. Lechmere is the only suspect I'm aware of who was alive and free around this time, albeit much older.

Thank you for finding the information on the attack on Clara Sophia Heard. The attack has minor similarities to the Ripper killings, not "all the hallmarks of a Ripper killing". Hundreds of people have been accused of being the Ripper. Many of them were alive and free in 1908 - for example, besides Charles Lechmere there were Robert Stephenson, Joseph Barnett, James Kelly, Walter Sickert, Joseph Silver, Willy Clarkson, John Williams, and L Forbes Winslow.

[Fiver]

Were you not aware that when Paul arrived, Nichols’ clothing had already been pulled down over her abdominal wounds? You seem not to appreciates a lot of the crucial facts underlying Christer’s theory.

Feel free to provide evidence that "when Paul arrived, Nichols's clothing had already been pulled down over her abdominal wounds".

PC Neil did say "Inspector Spratley came to the mortuary, and while taking a description of the deceased turned up her clothes, and found that she was disembowelled."

Robert Paul said "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.".

Surgeon Llewllyn testified "There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument."

[Fiver]

It remains an anomaly when somebody who otherwise always presented himself as Charles Lechmere to the authorities suddenly decided that he was Charles Cross instead when witnessing at a murder inquest. As has been pointed out, it is a very clear example of what an anomaly is - an exception to the rule.

Charles Lechmere did not always present himself to the authorities as Charles Lechmere. In 1876, he presented himself at an Inquiry as Charles Cross. It seems like Lechmere was the name he used in everyday life, while Cross, the name of his police stepfather, was the name he used when dealing with the police and the legal system.

[rjpalmer]

It seems like Lechmere was the name he used in everyday life, while Cross, the name of his police stepfather, was the name he used when dealing with the police and the legal system.

Isn't that what Christer Holmgrem has been saying for years?

'Cross' was a name Lechmere used when dealing with the police and the legal system, commonly known as an alias.

[GUT]

Charles Lechmere did not always present himself to the authorities as Charles Lechmere. In 1876, he presented himself at an Inquiry as Charles Cross. It seems like Lechmere was the name he used in everyday life, while Cross, the name of his police stepfather, was the name he used when dealing with the police and the legal system.

But also related to Pickfords.

[rjpalmer]

It seems like Lechmere was the name he used in everyday life, while Cross, the name of his police stepfather, was the name he used when dealing with the police and the legal system.

Let's step back a moment.

'History' isn't the study of life, nor of 'reality.' It is the study of what was documented. Or not even that. It is the study of the documentation that has survived.

Historians demand documentation--and for good reason. There isn't any other way of going about their business, unless one is compiling an 'oral' history.

Of all the huge swirling infinite mess of reality that we call "life," historians are forced to navigate their way using only the scraps of paper that managed not to be pulped.

And since the vast majority of life, experience, reality, etc., is never documented, the surviving "paper trail" can often be misleading. At its worse, the 'historical record' might be leaving us with a false impression.

If we forget the inquests for a moment, and forget the 1861 census, the surviving 'paper trail' for Charles Allen Lechmere shows that he was known as Charles Allen Lechmere. He used the Lechmere name when he got married, when he registered his children for school, etc. The Lechmere theorists claim that he used the name a 100 times in various documentation.

Thus, when he uses the name 'Cross' at the inquest(s), it looks suspicious as hell. It's a 'one-off,' or maybe a 'two-off.'

That's fine, but just bear in mind that this belief is based strictly on the surviving paper trail; we cannot know what name Lechmere may have used casually, or what his co-workers may have called him, because such things are almost never written down or recorded. He could have been known as 'Charles Cross' to dozens of people, but unless their diaries or letters survived, we would never know it.

With this in mind, study Case History #1, on the thread 'David Orsam' compiled, which can be found here:

Lechmere/Cross "name issue" Part 2 - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

Here we have a guy named William Adams of Yorkshire. (Aside: Before anyone asks, I re-checked Orsam's work and found nothing wrong with it. What he states is accurate).

William Adams was William Adams on his birth certificate, on every census in which he appeared, on his marriage banns, and the 'Adams' name was what was listed when his children were born, etc.

If it wasn't for a strange quirk there would be nothing in the surviving historical record to show that he was anything other than William Adams. Historians would be stuck with this alleged 'fact.'

But, as Orsam noticed, there was a terrible mining accident in 1907 that killed several miners near Burnley, Yorkshire, and our guy 'Adams' was one of them.

The startling thing is, despite all the paper trail, his name was listed in the paper as 'W. A. Slack.'





What the heck is going on?

What the surviving paper trail could not tell us is that Adams went by the name 'William Slack' at work...he had been raised by his step-father, Tom Slack, and he used the 'Slack' name casually, even though he used the name 'Adams' when getting married, registering his children, etc.

Slack may even have been the only name his employers and co-workers knew, because they gave that name when reporting the casualties of the mining disaster.

Based strictly on the surviving paper trail of 'official' documents, we wouldn't know any of this, except that his widow explained it at the inquest:




Think on that for a bit. The same can be true of Lechmere--and this is precisely what several people have been saying for years. Just like Adams, Lechmere may have 'adopted' the Cross name from his step-father in his formative years and it was the name he was known by at work. And like Adams, he nonetheless used his 'proper name' on the census returns, his children's baptismal records, etc.--all of which leave us with a false impression. The only difference is that Lechmere lived a lot longer than Adams.

And since this is an entirely reasonable possibility, the only question left, then, is whether Lechmere would have felt obliged to give his 'proper' name when addressing the inquest.

Which brings us to the curious case of the bloke from Ryde, Hampshire, also mentioned by David Orsam.

But I'll leave you or others to chase that one down.

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

Edit to the above: I should have written "Barnsley" and not Burnley. I've got a Burnley on the brain.

[ohrocky]

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?

Nicely consistent. If somebody posts an opinion that doesn't fit in with your own agenda then "attack, attack, attack"!

You are suggesting that the noose should be placed around Lechmere's neck on the basis that he gave a different name to a policeman.

I have posted a contribution quoting somebody who was there at the time, admitting that she didn't use her real name either. Ergo, this wasn't an unusual circumstance. This wasn't an incident that was so unusual. It certainly wasn't anything illegal. The onus is on you to prove that "going by" another name was a criminal offence. Possibly "grounds for suspicion" I grant you. But not illegal.

But hey, if you are not going to take the word of a former Met Murder Squad detective, I guess you aren't going to be persuaded by anything a JCL nomark like me is going to say.

[Fiver]

Isn't that what Christer Holmgrem has been saying for years?

'Cross' was a name Lechmere used when dealing with the police and the legal system, commonly known as an alias.

That was not the way Fisherman's post came across to me.

Fisherman said "It remains an anomaly when somebody who otherwise always presented himself as Charles Lechmere to the authorities suddenly decided that he was Charles Cross instead when witnessing at a murder inquest. As has been pointed out, it is a very clear example of what an anomaly is - an exception to the rule."

Charles Lechmere did not "suddenly decide" that he was Charles Cross in 1888 - he used his step-father's name at an Inquiry in 1876. Charles Lechmere did not "always present" himself to the authorities as Charles Lechemere, based on the examples he appears to have always presented himself to the police as Charles Cross.

Using a stepfather's surname is a fairly common thing to do. Lechmere was unusual in that he used his birth name most of the time and his father's surname when dealing with the police. Some point to that as "proof" that Lechmere was the Ripper, but Lechmere was using the Cross name in court over a decade before the Ripper killings. We have no idea if it was a "sudden decision" in 1876. It certainly was not a "sudden decision" in 1888.

[Fiver]

Let's step back a moment.

'History' isn't the study of life, nor of 'reality.' It is the study of what was documented. Or not even that. It is the study of the documentation that has survived.

Historians demand documentation--and for good reason. There isn't any other way of going about their business, unless one is compiling an 'oral' history.

Of all the huge swirling infinite mess of reality that we call "life," historians are forced to navigate their way using only the scraps of paper that managed not to be pulped.

And since the vast majority of life, experience, reality, etc., is never documented, the surviving "paper trail" can often be misleading. At its worse, the 'historical record' might be leaving us with a false impression.

If we forget the inquests for a moment, and forget the 1861 census, the surviving 'paper trail' for Charles Allen Lechmere shows that he was known as Charles Allen Lechmere. He used the Lechmere name when he got married, when he registered his children for school, etc. The Lechmere theorists claim that he used the name a 100 times in various documentation.

Thus, when he uses the name 'Cross' at the inquest(s), it looks suspicious as hell. It's a 'one-off,' or maybe a 'two-off.'

That's fine, but just bear in mind that this belief is based strictly on the surviving paper trail; we cannot know what name Lechmere may have used casually, or what his co-workers may have called him, because such things are almost never written down or recorded. He could have been known as 'Charles Cross' to dozens of people, but unless their diaries or letters survived, we would never know it.

I was already aware of these points, but thank you for putting all this out in detail. As someone who is trying to look at this historically, I have attempted to use qualifiers in my statements.

For example, I said "It seems like Lechmere was the name he used in everyday life, while Cross, the name of his police stepfather, was the name he used when dealing with the police and the legal system." I put in the qualifier because we only have two examples of Lechmere testifying at an Inquiry. As you note, we do not know whether his neighbors and coworkers knew him as Cross or as Lechmere. It is even possible that neighbors from one neighborhood knew him as Cross while neighbors in another neighborhood might have known him as Lechmere.