Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

So, he started at Pickfords when he was 18/19, around the time his first ‘stepfather’ died?

And we should bear in mind that Broad Street was in the City, but Thomas Cross was an H Div copper, so it’s unlikely he would have been personally known to anyone at Broad Street. His beat would appear to been in the south part of Whitechapel/STGITE.

A few months before Cross died, around the time CAL would have been applying for his job at Pickfords, Mary Ann Marshall had been asked to register the death of CAL’s sister - in the name of Emily Lechmere.

And don’t forget that shortly after Maria married TC, she had both her children christened and recorded them as the children of John Allen Lechmere. Emily had already been christened in Hereford, shortly after she was born, so she was already safe in the hands of Jesus. Why the need for a second baptism? Perhaps the resulting certificate provided useful evidence of the kids’ identity. I can’t imagine a more likely document CAL would have had to hand to show to his potential employers.

[Fisherman]

So, he started at Pickfords when he was 18/19, around the time his first ‘stepfather’ died?

The Broad Street branch of Pickfords opened in 1868 (in May if I donīt misremember) and Thomas Cross passed away the following year. Charles was born October 5, 1849, so yes, you are on the money.

Of course, it is a presumption that Charles was always employed at the Broad Street branch, but it certainly seems a possibility. The timings given dovetail nicely.

[Fisherman]

I thought he had two names because his mother remarried, and for a period of time he used his stepfather's surname. If he started working at Pickford's while he was using his stepfather's name, then it seems reasonable that he would continue using that name at work.

All the best

At work? Perhaps. In police interviews and at inquests? Much less likely, Iīd say.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The evidence shows he was calling himself/being called Lechmere throughout his entire life.

And what we are actually looking for is an explanation of why he omitted to disclose the name Lechmere during the Nichols investigation. The more varied examples we have of him using Lechmere throughout his life, the more anomalous the 1/2 uses of Cross appear. The school registrations and business advertisements are far less formal than a court appearance and would have lead to hundreds of people associating him with the name Lechmere. Three of his kids were registered in the name of Lechmere just a few weeks before the Nichols inquest.

His name was undoubtedly Lechmere throughout his life, and he certainly used that name whenever he thought it appropriate. Actually we don't know that he didn't disclose that his birth name was Lechmere, but that he had taken his stepfather's name, during the Nichols investigation, and we are assuming that he didn't because we can find no evidence that he did so. A reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. We have insufficient evidence of police investigation, witness statements, and police opinion to be certain - actually we have practically no evidence of this sort. But I certainly don't press this point - absence of evidence either way!

I have always wondered about the 1876 inquest, and how he could possibly have called himself Cross under oath if he was known as Lechmere. It is very intriguing and has been described as using a false name, but how could it happen? CAL runs over and kills a child whilst working for Pickfords, and there would have been some sort of police investigation and witness statement taking etc prior to the inquest. Pickfords may have had to produce a witness to confirm CAL's employment, to confirm that the route was where he should have been at the time, to answer possible questions about what they require from their drivers, or any instructions they provide etc, or possibly not, and they may have wished to attend anyway because of the possible compensation repercussions should CAL have been found at fault. I suspect that they were present, but am obviously not certain. Let's look at what might have happened.

1. If CAL called himself Lechmere at work, and was Lechmere to the police, he would have been called to give his evidence as Lechmere, and his evidence using the name Cross would have been queried by the coroner, the police, and everyone else, and an explanation required. Nothing in the newspaper report suggests that this happened, as everything is in the name of Cross.
2. If CAL was Lechmere at work, but Cross to the police, then the shallowest, skimpiest police investigation should have revealed this at once. For example PC to Pickfords - "We wish to talk to you about your employee Charles Cross". Pickfords - "No-one of that name here!" It seems just about impossible for the police to have any sort of contact with Pickfords without spotting this glaring discrepancy. But if the police didn't even speak to Pickfords, no representative of Pickfords, if present at the inquest, would have recognized the name Cross, so it would have been just about impossible for CAL to get away with this.
3. If CAL was Cross at work and gave the name Cross to the police, no identification problem would have arisen.
4. If CAL told Pickfords that his birthname was Lechmere, but that he had taken his stepfather's name Cross, and told the police the same, or just that his name was Cross, there probably would have been no query at the inquest either.

For me personally, the above considerations point to the strong probability that CAL was Cross at work, and therefore Cross to his workmates. Once I think along those lines, it is easy to assume that others probably knew him as Cross too, or maybe some knew him as Lechmere who preferred to be known as Cross.

For me, the name issue is a non-runner.

[MrBarnett]

I thought he had two names because his mother remarried, and for a period of time he used his stepfather's surname. If he started working at Pickford's while he was using his stepfather's name, then it seems reasonable that he would continue using that name at work.

All the best

His mother went through a marriage ceremony with Thomas Cross, but it was invalid because her first husband was still alive. On the marriage certificate she claimed to be a widow and her very young husband bumped his age up a year or two. On the 1861 census it was bumped up by nearly a decade.

Maria had no way of knowing that her first (only) husband was dead - because he wasn’t - but it seems a little odd that she should assume that he, a man in his mid-30s at the time, was no longer living.

It seems her husband had family living in Hereford where Maria herself was living in the early 1850s after she had been abandoned by him. There was an obvious chance that she might learn that her husband was still alive through them or through other mutual connections in the small provincial town. For some reason she decided to move her young family to the anonymity of the teeming East End of London away from her family and other connections in Herefordshire and set up house with there with Thomas Cross as her husband.

[MrBarnett]

His name was undoubtedly Lechmere throughout his life, and he certainly used that name whenever he thought it appropriate. Actually we don't know that he didn't disclose that his birth name was Lechmere, but that he had taken his stepfather's name, during the Nichols investigation, and we are assuming that he didn't because we can find no evidence that he did so. A reasonable assumption, but still an assumption. We have insufficient evidence of police investigation, witness statements, and police opinion to be certain - actually we have practically no evidence of this sort. But I certainly don't press this point - absence of evidence either way!

I have always wondered about the 1876 inquest, and how he could possibly have called himself Cross under oath if he was known as Lechmere. It is very intriguing and has been described as using a false name, but how could it happen? CAL runs over and kills a child whilst working for Pickfords, and there would have been some sort of police investigation and witness statement taking etc prior to the inquest. Pickfords may have had to produce a witness to confirm CAL's employment, to confirm that the route was where he should have been at the time, to answer possible questions about what they require from their drivers, or any instructions they provide etc, or possibly not, and they may have wished to attend anyway because of the possible compensation repercussions should CAL have been found at fault. I suspect that they were present, but am obviously not certain. Let's look at what might have happened.

1. If CAL called himself Lechmere at work, and was Lechmere to the police, he would have been called to give his evidence as Lechmere, and his evidence using the name Cross would have been queried by the coroner, the police, and everyone else, and an explanation required. Nothing in the newspaper report suggests that this happened, as everything is in the name of Cross.
2. If CAL was Lechmere at work, but Cross to the police, then the shallowest, skimpiest police investigation should have revealed this at once. For example PC to Pickfords - "We wish to talk to you about your employee Charles Cross". Pickfords - "No-one of that name here!" It seems just about impossible for the police to have any sort of contact with Pickfords without spotting this glaring discrepancy. But if the police didn't even speak to Pickfords, no representative of Pickfords, if present at the inquest, would have recognized the name Cross, so it would have been just about impossible for CAL to get away with this.
3. If CAL was Cross at work and gave the name Cross to the police, no identification problem would have arisen.
4. If CAL told Pickfords that his birthname was Lechmere, but that he had taken his stepfather's name Cross, and told the police the same, or just that his name was Cross, there probably would have been no query at the inquest either.

For me personally, the above considerations point to the strong probability that CAL was Cross at work, and therefore Cross to his workmates. Once I think along those lines, it is easy to assume that others probably knew him as Cross too, or maybe some knew him as Lechmere who preferred to be known as Cross.

For me, the name issue is a non-runner.

And why might he not have thought it appropriate to disclose his real name in one of the most formal situations possible - the swearing of an oath and the giving of evidence in court?

[Doctored Whatsit]

And why might he not have thought it appropriate to disclose his real name in one of the most formal situations possible - the swearing of an oath and the giving of evidence in court?

We don't know. My item was intended to demonstrate why I thought he was almost certainly known as Cross at work, and therefore quite possibly beyond work. If he was Cross at work, maybe he thought his evidence should be in the name of Cross. If he took his stepfather's name, then it isn't really suspicious that he used it on oath. I really don't think it is relevant in the case of an accident at work where his evidence was about a specific event. If he had been asked for his birth name and said Cross, then that would have been suspicious.

[Greenway]

Hi Abby,

I agree he's a valid suspect - he's the first person we know of at the murder scene, and we don't know that he had an alibi for any of the other murders. But there is nothing suspicious about him being there at that time - that's exactly where you'd expect him to be at that time of the morning, and he may have had an alibi for every other murder. The police might have checked him out when further crimes occurred.

There's a simple explaination for the name confusion - if he gave a name he was commonly known by and his correct address, I can't really see that as evidence he had something to hide. Maybe he did have something to hide - if he did it might be nothing to do with the murder.

Lechmere's and Paul's statements pretty much agree and accurately describe events - seems reasonable to me to think Mizen is the one who got it wrong. But neither Mizen or Paul saw any blood or anything else suspicious about Lechmere.

And the geographical info is very circumstantial IMHO. Doesn't really amount to much more than he lived in the area - a lot of people did.

Overall I can't see any evidence that he wasn't just a man on his way to work who discovered a murder victim.


All the best.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Abby,

I agree he's a valid suspect - he's the first person we know of at the murder scene, and we don't know that he had an alibi for any of the other murders. But there is nothing suspicious about him being there at that time - that's exactly where you'd expect him to be at that time of the morning, and he may have had an alibi for every other murder. The police might have checked him out when further crimes occurred.

There's a simple explaination for the name confusion - if he gave a name he was commonly known by and his correct address, I can't really see that as evidence he had something to hide. Maybe he did have something to hide - if he did it might be nothing to do with the murder.

Lechmere's and Paul's statements pretty much agree and accurately describe events - seems reasonable to me to think Mizen is the one who got it wrong. But neither Mizen or Paul saw any blood or anything else suspicious about Lechmere.

And the geographical info is very circumstantial IMHO. Doesn't really amount to much more than he lived in the area - a lot of people did.

Overall I can't see any evidence that he wasn't just a man on his way to work who discovered a murder victim.


All the best.

Hi Greenway,

I totally agree. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect him, and look for evidence, but I believe from what you have written, that you, like me, consider him to be innocent until proven guilty. The evidence collected against him is rather like fog, there's quite a bit of it, it clouds up the picture, but it just isn't tangible.

[Greenway]

Hi Greenway,

I totally agree. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect him, and look for evidence, but I believe from what you have written, that you, like me, consider him to be innocent until proven guilty. The evidence collected against him is rather like fog, there's quite a bit of it, it clouds up the picture, but it just isn't tangible.

I wouldn't like to be convicted of murder on the basis of the evidence against him - If I was I'd look for a better lawyer.

All the best.

[Fisherman]

1. If CAL called himself Lechmere at work, and was Lechmere to the police, he would have been called to give his evidence as Lechmere

And how do we know that he was called to give evidence? We know that Pauls story was not believed by the police as late as on the evening of the 2nd of September. The inquest was on the 3rd. When Lechmere stepped into the inquest room at the Working Lads, he was formally identified by Mizen as the person who had spoken to the PC on the morning of the 31st. That identification could presumably have been made BEFORE the inquest - IF Lechmere was there to be identified before the inquest, that is.
Isnīt it pretty clear that Lechmere was never called at all, but instead came forward on his own account?

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby,

I agree he's a valid suspect - he's the first person we know of at the murder scene, and we don't know that he had an alibi for any of the other murders. But there is nothing suspicious about him being there at that time

True. It is only when the rest of the ingredients are added that he becomes a suspect. Then again, it must be noted that he was at the nurder site at a time that is consistent with him being the killer, and that Nichols bled for many minutes after he left. Those are some of the ingredients I point to, that Do make him a suspect.

- that's exactly where you'd expect him to be at that time of the morning

No, Iīd expect him to be halfway down Hanbury Street at 3.45 if he left home at 3.30.

, and he may have had an alibi for every other murder.

May or may not. Once we have an alibi, it will play a role. Before that, it wonīt.

The police might have checked him out when further crimes occurred.

Realistically no. If they did, they would have known his true name.

There's a simple explaination for the name confusion - if he gave a name he was commonly known by and his correct address, I can't really see that as evidence he had something to hide. Maybe he did have something to hide - if he did it might be nothing to do with the murder.

It seems very likely that he gave no address at the inquest, although he did so with the police. Again, we do not know and nothing bears out the suggestion that he was known as Cross. As you say, it does not prove that he had something to hide, but it can NEVER be a good thing for the defense when their man gives a name by which he is not registered and that he otherwise never use in officialdom. That should be extremely and utterly clear to anybody.

Lechmere's and Paul's statements pretty much agree and accurately describe events - seems reasonable to me to think Mizen is the one who got it wrong.

"Pretty much" is not good enough, when you cannot even prove that Paul was anywhere near Lechmere and Mizen as they spoke together.

But neither Mizen or Paul saw any blood or anything else suspicious about Lechmere.

... ad Jason Payne James, forensic physician extraordinaire, said that Lechmere need not have any blood on his person. What else of a "suspicious" character would there be to take part of? Nervous tics?

And the geographical info is very circumstantial IMHO. Doesn't really amount to much more than he lived in the area - a lot of people did.

Dear me. Exactly how many of these people spent time alone with the freshly killed Polly Nichols? 3? 15? All of them? Or none? If a person is unser suspicion of murder, the police will try and check that persons whereabouts at the time/s of the murder/s. If they get a match or something that very much resembes a match, then let me assure you they wilol not find that fact trivial in any shape of form.

Overall I can't see any evidence that he wasn't just a man on his way to work who discovered a murder victim.


All the best.

You just pointed much of it out, the name, the disagreement with Mizen, the timings, the geography... That IS circumstantial evidence. Itīs jsut that you can think up alternative innocent explanations, and let me tell you - we ALL can. In spades!! The problem is that nobody has so many matters pointing in their direction out of sheer coincidence. In my world, there can be no realistic chance that he was NOT guilty. And I have a barrister who says he would warrant a murder case that suggests he is guilty.

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't like to be convicted of murder on the basis of the evidence against him - If I was I'd look for a better lawyer.

All the best.

The fact that you admit he NEEDS a lawyer should tell you something...

[Greenway]

The fact that you admit he NEEDS a lawyer should tell you something...

I quite clearly didn't say he needs a lawyer.

I have a barrister who says he would warrant a murder case that suggests he is guilty.

I wouldn't be looking to hire them then.

All the best

[Doctored Whatsit]

And how do we know that he was called to give evidence? We know that Pauls story was not believed by the police as late as on the evening of the 2nd of September. The inquest was on the 3rd. When Lechmere stepped into the inquest room at the Working Lads, he was formally identified by Mizen as the person who had spoken to the PC on the morning of the 31st. That identification could presumably have been made BEFORE the inquest - IF Lechmere was there to be identified before the inquest, that is.
Isnīt it pretty clear that Lechmere was never called at all, but instead came forward on his own account?

You haven't read the item, Christer. When you do, you will realise that it was the 1876 inquest being discussed.