Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    Apologies for mentioning this again but was Lech legally known as Cross ? Or at least he thought he was regarding inquests/courts. Was he using the name Cross back in 1876 more [ if indeed it was him], regarding the Islington tragedy with the young boy, Walter.
    So what I am thinking is he was/thought he was legally known as Cross, or at least he was or used the surname more often back in 1876 and felt that was the name he had/obliged to use again at an official inquest.

    Regards Darryl
    He married in 1870 in the name of Charles Allen Lechmere.

    He appears as Charles Allen Lechmere on the 1871 census.

    His mother (bigamously) remarried in 1872 and he acted as a witness, giving his name as Charles Allen Lechmere.

    His first son was born in 1872 and was named after his father - Charles Allen Lechmere. The child died in 1875 and his death was registered in the name of Charles Allen Lechmere.*

    His son Thomas Allen was born in 1876 and the name of his father appears on his birth certificate and his christening record as Charles Allen Lechmere.

    Thomas Cross died in 1869. While he was still alive CAL’s sister Emily died and her death was registered (by one of the family’s neighbours) in the name of Lechmere.

    * I should add that another child, born in 1884, was given named Charles Allen Lechmere after his father.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-14-2021, 10:54 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
      Charles clearly knew that his legal name was Lechmere, and used it when he thought it was appropriate eg legal matters etc, but what evidence is there that he didn't use the name Cross from choice in everyday matters? He is unlikely to have had any respect whatever for the father who abandoned him and his mother when he was an infant, and therefore probably no respect for the surname. We know that Thomas Cross started to call the children by his surname, and we can be reasonably sure that Charles was known as Cross at Pickfords, at least at the 1876 inquest, otherwise he could not reasonably have used that name in front of Pickfords' staff and the police who would have made some investigation of the facts. I accept that this issue is unresolved, but I don't see it as very important, and until there is evidence that in his everyday life, at work etc he was known as Lechmere, then I see the point as interesting, but unimportant and probably not of any significance.
      The main point seems to be consistently missed - standing up in court and providing your name under oath is about as formal as it gets. We are to believe that Lechmere (and his family) was (were) punctilious in giving his ‘real’ name in all other formal situations but when he gave it under oath at inquests he neglected to do so because his mates at work may have known him as Charlie Lechmere?

      In 1876, his address also seems to have been omitted.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
        Hi MrBarnett,



        I don't doubt it was a conscious decision, in that he didn't just randomly choose a name out of the two. But, what I'm saying is we do not know what guided or motivated his choice. But, we can rule out one motivation, and that's to hide his identity from the police. Everything else he did shows that cannot be his motive. And that's the only realistic motive that would make this look like the act of a guilty person. So if the only motive outside of Hollywood cannot be his reason, then the name thing sinks into the category of "not a thing", at which point we don't necessarily need to know what his motive was. Now, if something factual were to be discovered that solved this mystery, I would be interested to know, but that's because I'm interested in knowing things, whether they are important to the case or not.

        Anyway, as I say, all of the suggestions I've put out have just been speculations, but one doesn't need more than speculation to counter speculation. So I have no idea what his attitude was towards his name, or why he chose to go by his step-father's at the inquest. I do know he wasn't trying to conceal his identity from the police, because he revealed his identity in every other way. After that, it's just a minor curiosity, which is why I'm confused over why it gets mentioned so loudly and so often.

        - Jeff
        hi jeff
        i think you may be missing the point. the argument is that it wast motivated to hide his identity from police, but perhaps from family, friends coworkers etc. about any involvement in the case. as i mentioned before because if any of them had any suspicions or had any kind of "dirt" on him and could perhaps put it all together to implicate him he might employ this tactic. the use of a name thats not your real name, or an alias or a name your not commonly known by etc is a well know tactic used by criminals for whatever the reason. its really not that hard of a concept.
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          hi jeff
          i think you may be missing the point. the argument is that it wast motivated to hide his identity from police, but perhaps from family, friends coworkers etc. about any involvement in the case. as i mentioned before because if any of them had any suspicions or had any kind of "dirt" on him and could perhaps put it all together to implicate him he might employ this tactic. the use of a name thats not your real name, or an alias or a name your not commonly known by etc is a well know tactic used by criminals for whatever the reason. its really not that hard of a concept.
          You're really stretching with this, Abby.

          If that were the case, why even bother attending the inquest?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

            You're really stretching with this, Abby.

            If that were the case, why even bother attending the inquest?
            He probably went to the police first, didn’t he?

            Comment


            • Hi Abby,

              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              hi jeff
              i think you may be missing the point. the argument is that it wast motivated to hide his identity from police, but perhaps from family, friends coworkers etc. about any involvement in the case. as i mentioned before because if any of them had any suspicions or had any kind of "dirt" on him and could perhaps put it all together to implicate him he might employ this tactic. the use of a name thats not your real name, or an alias or a name your not commonly known by etc is a well know tactic used by criminals for whatever the reason. its really not that hard of a concept.
              Hmmmm, I think family and friends would easily recognize him. The paper lists his place of work, his address, first and middle names, and the last name in the paper is his step-father's last name. There's no concealment going to happen. As for work, he would have had to take time off to appear at the inquest, so they know it's him too. And the police would have made inquiries at his place of work, and also at his home (verifying his statements; sadly, all that sort of paperwork is lost to us, I bet there was a lot of interesting things recorded about the case, and how the investigation into all of the murders was conducted in notes like that - but I digress). Anyway, anyone who knew him would easily recognize him given all of the identifying information that is given. And when criminal's use an alias, they don't just change their last name to that of their step-father, they actually disguise their identity.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                You're really stretching with this, Abby.

                If that were the case, why even bother attending the inquest?
                hi harry
                well yes it is a stretch i agree and its not really my theory. I was just trying to explain to jeff what fish and other lechmerians argument is. as ive mentioned before IMHO there probably is a totally innocent explanation.
                but perhaps not. if this were the only check mark against him it would really be nothing to me. but it is just another potential yellow flag to me that needs some explaining away with lech.

                ive always said that to me the main thing pointing to his possible guilt, is being seen near a freshly killed victim alone, before raising any kind of alarm.ive never heard of an innocent "witness" having this type of circumstance, and ive studied alot of true crime. it clearly puts him in the frame for being her killer. And today, the person who discovers the body is de facto a person of interest to the police, but apparently not then, or at least in lechs case as it appears they never questioned him hard or investigated him.

                overall, I think he probably was just a carman who discovered a body on his way to work, but comparitively speaking compared to all the other suspects, i just think hes one of the least weak (with a handful of others).

                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                  Hi Abby,



                  Hmmmm, I think family and friends would easily recognize him. The paper lists his place of work, his address, first and middle names, and the last name in the paper is his step-father's last name. There's no concealment going to happen. As for work, he would have had to take time off to appear at the inquest, so they know it's him too. And the police would have made inquiries at his place of work, and also at his home (verifying his statements; sadly, all that sort of paperwork is lost to us, I bet there was a lot of interesting things recorded about the case, and how the investigation into all of the murders was conducted in notes like that - but I digress). Anyway, anyone who knew him would easily recognize him given all of the identifying information that is given. And when criminal's use an alias, they don't just change their last name to that of their step-father, they actually disguise their identity.

                  - Jeff
                  Sorry, Jeff, they sometimes did change their name to that of their stepfather. I have an example in my own family.

                  Do you have a single example of the sort of investigation you seem convinced was carried out into Lechmere’s working and home life? Any of the other civilian finders of WM victims for instance?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                    Hi Abby,



                    Hmmmm, I think family and friends would easily recognize him. The paper lists his place of work, his address, first and middle names, and the last name in the paper is his step-father's last name. There's no concealment going to happen. As for work, he would have had to take time off to appear at the inquest, so they know it's him too. And the police would have made inquiries at his place of work, and also at his home (verifying his statements; sadly, all that sort of paperwork is lost to us, I bet there was a lot of interesting things recorded about the case, and how the investigation into all of the murders was conducted in notes like that - but I digress). Anyway, anyone who knew him would easily recognize him given all of the identifying information that is given. And when criminal's use an alias, they don't just change their last name to that of their step-father, they actually disguise their identity.

                    - Jeff
                    yes alot of good points jeff, but if they didnt know about the name lechmere perhaps none of the other identifyers are going to matter. or maybe some would recognize him but some wouldnt. but i cant go along with such a blatent blanket statement you make-"theres no concealment going to happen". of course there would be...at least some.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      Sorry, Jeff, they sometimes did change their name to that of their stepfather. I have an example in my own family.

                      Do you have a single example of the sort of investigation you seem convinced was carried out into Lechmere’s working and home life? Any of the other civilian finders of WM victims for instance?
                      Let’s take the three HB slaughterman for instance. They were looked upon with a great deal of suspicion by some. We know they were interviewed separately about their movements on the night. Did the police visit their homes or interview Alfred Barber or other HB employees to check their stories out?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        yes alot of good points jeff, but if they didnt know about the name lechmere perhaps none of the other identifyers are going to matter. or maybe some would recognize him but some wouldnt. but i cant go along with such a blatent blanket statement you make-"theres no concealment going to happen". of course there would be...at least some.

                        Spot on, Abby.

                        Is the idea that Lechmere was known by certain people just as Charles Lechmere, without their knowing where he lived or worked, really so implausible?



                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                          Where are you getting thousands from? Do you guys have an annual convention?

                          I would say there's more in the Ripper community (hate that term but whatever) who treat Lechmere as a 'person of interest' at best.
                          You should read the comments about the docu, and you will find what I am talking about. Two versions of it has been taken away from Youtube, but before that happened, there wefe lots and lots of people endorsing the theory. So thatīs wherre I get it from. GFurther to that, just about any Ripper related net discussion has people popping up saying it was Lechmere who did it.
                          Casebook and JTR are not the only forums that discuss the case, Harry.

                          Anybody who treats a man who was FOUND at a murder site, alone with a freshly killed victim, as a person of interest at best is probably somebody who has taken a spanking on the Ripper forums in a Lechmere related topic, and so they try - as best as they can - to belittle the theory, sobbing as they go along.

                          Any such person as described above is automatically a suspect if no other viable suspect can be found and if the person in question has no obstacle that nullifies him as a suspect.

                          The fact that not everybody understands this is something that is as obcious as it is sad, but there you are.

                          "Met", was it?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            yes alot of good points jeff, but if they didnt know about the name lechmere perhaps none of the other identifyers are going to matter. or maybe some would recognize him but some wouldnt. but i cant go along with such a blatent blanket statement you make-"theres no concealment going to happen". of course there would be...at least some.
                            I meant concealment from friends and family or his work place (given he would have to have taken time off - he was there in his work clothes). As for concealment from those who wouldn't recognize him from those details, there would be very few, if any, that would have recognized him by the name Lechmere. I realize this isn't your theory, and I appreciate your presenting the idea (because as I say, I can't ever recall Fisherman laying out why using his step-father's name is such a black mark against him - he just presents it as self evident, but it's anything but self evident as far as I can see). Anyway, as I've said a few times, it's always possible to speculate there was someone out there who knew something and only knew the name Lechmere, so that's all he had to change to vanish from view from this one phantom person. But that's just a story, those sorts of things are just the dressing up, and it's only the dressing up that contains anything suspicious, the fact is he used his step-father's name and divulged more than sufficient information to ensure his identity was available, hence I stand by my statement there was no concealment, but perhaps will rephrase it to be appropriately cautious as "there is no evidence to support concealment as his motivation." That's sufficiently wishy-washy for me.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              But what does it matter? How does his use of his stepfather s surname at the inquest bear upon his guilt?

                              You are going to great lengths to show he didn't use it on all sorts of forms, but so what? What is the point of this? All I've seen are vague references to "misleading the police", but he gives a name he is legitimately connected to, gives his place of work, gives his address, gives his real first and second name. There is no basis for saying he mislead anyone.

                              So what is the point about establishing the rarity of him using Cross on documents?

                              - Jeff
                              Why would I discuss that with somebody who claims that I "sweep things under the carpet"?

                              And why would you trust such an untrustworthyt person in the first place, Jeff? Wouldnīt you be better off discussing the case solely with honest people, instead of scoundrels like me?

                              Maybe we should start in that end.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                In reply to Fisherman's last post to me.
                                So the police are negligent for not questioning all the residents of Buck's row.That leads to the conclusion that the police did question some residents.Did the police need to question all? Did the Coroner compell all residents of Bucks Row to attend court"Was he lacking in his resposibilities?
                                Police powers allowed police officers to question anyone they considered could provide evidence.This is what happened.There were only so many police,so the police had to be selective in whom they interviewed.
                                Many Killer's lie,say's Fisherman.True,but that can only be said about Killer'swho are caught and then proven to have lied.Cross was neither a killer who was caught,nor a person who was proven a liar.
                                'Maybe this is British English' .This is what Fisherman writes,and he is critical of my use of the language.Of course,it is another means of avoiding an answer he doesn't have.Maybe that was also tongue in cheek?
                                Now maybe individual policemen did make mistakes,doctors too,and coroners,but is that reason to label all as inadequate.
                                I now await the next excuse as to why Cross was overlooked,the next blunder the authorities made.'Not exonerated'appeared a good suggestion,except that to be exonerated there first has to be blame attached,and poor old Cross was blameless.
                                Oh, but I do have all the answers, Harry. Didnīt you know? I even have the answer to the question whether or not the police had to question all of the Bucks Row dwellers. If you had been aquainted with the material you would also have had the answer. Itīs inevitably always about that: knowing.

                                From the Daily Telegraph, September 18, 1888. The text in bold is my contribution:

                                Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.

                                The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X