Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

>>During his recent hilarious attempt to deny that Charles Lechmere had a long-standing connection to the Pinchin Street area, Lord O of Stepney introduced us to a character named Benjamin Jordan who was known by the nickname of Dick Turpin.<<


I get why you are obsessed with David Barrett, but as Abby pointed out it's not doing you any favours.


>>Some years later, Jordan’s wife appeared as a witness when he was up at the Old Bailey - no less - charged with stealing a safe, and she claimed she had been asked to attend court that morning by a detective who had called to interview her about her husband. Again, it seems to have been a fairly informal process.
Although witnesses may generally have been summoned to appear in court by means of a formal summons, I wonder how often they just turned up at the last minute.<<

Ignoring the fact that it was a court case, not an inquest, the point left seems to be that the wife was brought to the court by the police, she didn't just turn up by herself.

"I was first spoken to about giving evidence, this morning .."

So she was asked to attend court, is that a summons?

I'm at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make.

[harry]

I fail to see how the use of a name,when other evidence of identity is produced,connects a person to a murder.Does the name Cross have more of a direct link with the murder of Nichols,than the name Lechmere?.Is the name Cross evidence in the killing of Nichols.?Is it a motive,a means of killing?On it's own the name means nothing,and there is no circumstantial evidence Cross committed a murder.No eyewitness,no blood evidence,no weapon,no connection to the dead person.One could go on saying what there isn't in the nature of evidence.When will incriminating matter be forthcoming?

[MrBarnett]

>>During his recent hilarious attempt to deny that Charles Lechmere had a long-standing connection to the Pinchin Street area, Lord O of Stepney introduced us to a character named Benjamin Jordan who was known by the nickname of Dick Turpin.<<


I get why you are obsessed with David Barrett, but as Abby pointed out it's not doing you any favours.


>>Some years later, Jordan’s wife appeared as a witness when he was up at the Old Bailey - no less - charged with stealing a safe, and she claimed she had been asked to attend court that morning by a detective who had called to interview her about her husband. Again, it seems to have been a fairly informal process.
Although witnesses may generally have been summoned to appear in court by means of a formal summons, I wonder how often they just turned up at the last minute.<<

Ignoring the fact that it was a court case, not an inquest, the point left seems to be that the wife was brought to the court by the police, she didn't just turn up by herself.

"I was first spoken to about giving evidence, this morning .."

So she was asked to attend court, is that a summons?

I'm at a loss to understand what point you are trying to make.

Witnesses to criminal trials/hearings were also summonsed by means of a written summons - but not always, it would seem.

So the point is:

Although witnesses may generally have been summoned to appear in court by means of a formal summons, I wonder how often they just turned up at the last minute.

[MrBarnett]

I fail to see how the use of a name,when other evidence of identity is produced,connects a person to a murder.Does the name Cross have more of a direct link with the murder of Nichols,than the name Lechmere?.Is the name Cross evidence in the killing of Nichols.?Is it a motive,a means of killing?On it's own the name means nothing,and there is no circumstantial evidence Cross committed a murder.No eyewitness,no blood evidence,no weapon,no connection to the dead person.One could go on saying what there isn't in the nature of evidence.When will incriminating matter be forthcoming?

But do you see why a person giving evidence under oath in a court of law might feel it appropriate to reveal his real name, the name he used in every other interaction with authority? Apart from the Nichols inquest and possibly another when he ran over and killed a child, there is no evidence that he ever used the name Cross.

We have no idea whether he was known as Charlie Cross at Pickfords or elsewhere, but even if he was the evidence is that his ‘Sunday best’ name, used when dealing with authority, was Charles Allen Lechmere.

[SuperShodan]

It’s worth pointing out that for over a 100 years we never even knew his real name.
I would suggest the name change worked superbly well.
Furthermore, every single Ripper book I’ve read that’s more than a decade old gets Bucks Row very, very wrong. Even the best researchers, the great and the good of Ripperology, didn’t get the basic facts of Bucks Row correct.
It’s not hard to see how Lechmere slipped under the radar in 1888, he slipped under the radar of every Ripperologist for the entire 20th century.

[MrBarnett]

It’s worth pointing out that for over a 100 years we never even knew his real name.
I would suggest the name change worked superbly well.
Furthermore, every single Ripper book I’ve read that’s more than a decade old gets Bucks Row very, very wrong. Even the best researchers, the great and the good of Ripperology, didn’t get the basic facts of Bucks Row correct.
It’s not hard to see how Lechmere slipped under the radar in 1888, he slipped under the radar of every Ripperologist for the entire 20th century.

Just look at who the police questioned: Mulshaw, the slaughtermen, the residents of Buck’s Row (eventually). And why did they question these people? Because they believed they were nearby when the murder occurred.

[MrBarnett]

In his summary report of 19th October, Swanson described the action taken in respect of the slaughtermen in some detail:


‘… three slaughtermen, named Tomkins, Britton and Mumford employed by night at Messrs. Harrison Barber &amp; Coy. premises Winthrop Street. Their statements were taken separately, and without any means of communicating with each other, and they satisfactorily accounted for their time, being corroborated in some portions by the police on night duty near the premises.’

Did they do the same for ‘Cross’ and Paul but Swanson forgot to mention it?

Incidentally, in the same report where he details the interrogation of the slaughtermen, Swanson says this:

The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Buck’s Way, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross and Robert Paul, carmen on their way to work.

He doesn’t even mention that it was ‘Cross’ who found the body. Nor does he mention ‘Cross’s’ real name.

Of course Charles Allen Lechmere was thoroughly checked out at home and at work. The details just slipped Swanson’s mind for a moment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s worth pointing out that for over a 100 years we never even knew his real name.
I would suggest the name change worked superbly well.
Furthermore, every single Ripper book I’ve read that’s more than a decade old gets Bucks Row very, very wrong. Even the best researchers, the great and the good of Ripperology, didn’t get the basic facts of Bucks Row correct.
It’s not hard to see how Lechmere slipped under the radar in 1888, he slipped under the radar of every Ripperologist for the entire 20th century.

He’s slipped ‘under the radar’ Bob because there’s nothing to incriminate him without invention like stating that Lechmere said that he’d left home at 3.30 when he didn’t say that at all.

[jerryd]

Regarding the horse incident Charles was involved with in 1876. The incident in the clip below occurred in August 1876, which was a few months prior to the one Charles was involved with. Any chance the London Lechmeres may have heard news of the family magistrate in Fownhope being involved in an incident involving a horse and trap?

West End News and London Advertiser
September 2, 1876

[Mark J D]

"The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Buck’s Way, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross and Robert Paul, carmen on their way to work."

-- After the shock of seeing the Lloyd's Weekly interview on the Sunday, how long would it have taken for the police to identify and locate a 'Robert Paul' living in a street that started literally 228 feet from the end of Buck's Row? What collection of names and addresses would the police have had access to? They plainly didn't know who Paul was on the Monday (which is when Lechmere did his 'I'm Charlie Cross and this is my apron' act), so it seems they couldn't just read local residents' addresses off a list. The next thing we hear is Paul attending the third day of the inquest -- which was on 17 September, nine days after Chapman had been killed at an address 240 yards from the street he worked out of. Was Paul still a mystery when Lechmere tried to direct the police towards him, or had he been found and 'fetched up' by then?

M.

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

With regards to Cross/Lechmere, and the name issue, it strikes me that describing the two names as his "real" or "false" name carries with it some semantic baggage that seems to hinder discussion. By describing "Lechemere" as his "real name" and Cross as his "false name" this comes with it the implication that his using of a "false" name is indicative of him being either deceptive or otherwise trying to make it difficult for the authorities to find him.

Technically, of course, one could define real and false when in this situation to not include that implicit accusation. In that case, one could just describe Lechmere as his "legal name", while Cross is not. The reason I think it might be helpful to do this is that I don't think anybody argues that is not the case, so it is the common ground that can be built upon.

The crux of the debate seems to be about whether or not his use of a name other than his legal name was to hinder the investigation, and I think those who do not see evidence of this are reluctant to describe Cross as his "false" name because that is a loaded term, implicitly carrying with it the idea he's being deceptive.

I know there are some lines of speculation that maybe he was trying to prevent either members of his family from realising it was him, or to prevent people who did not know him very well (and only by Lechmere), and so forth, but those lines of speculation are based upon the assumption that he used his legal name in daily life and not just on legal forms, like a census, or when registering his children for school. We don't know that was the case, so that line of speculation is simply countered by speculating that it was Cross that he would have been known as by people who did not know him well, demonstrating we've reached the end of what we know today. As such, these lines of speculation are exhausted, and until some new information is uncovered to provide evidence towards that we're a bit stuck.

What, I think, the evidence does show is that he was not hindering the police from being able to locate him. He provides his home address, his first and second name, his place of employment, and the name Cross is directly linked to him through his stepfather, the first three of these are details the authorities would be able to use to easily locate him should they choose to do so, and the last makes the description of "false" somewhat inappropriate as well. It also makes describing it as an "alias" a bit inappropriate as we commonly associate "alias" with criminal intent, which is of course what is being debated. Finding ways to point to objective data (his names) without attaching conclusions (guilt/innocent) to their descriptions is generally a helpful practice as it allows both sides of the debate to agree on what the data is, without appearing to concede ground as to the interpretation or conclusion. The use of loaded terms is a form of sophistry, a technique where one tries to win a debate not through the actual logic and objective evidence but rather by phrasings and terms that appear to make the other side concede.

Furthermore, when we also look at the suggestion that he was not summonsed to the inquest but just showed up to give testimony, this is entirely inconsistent with the notion that he is trying to avoid being known to the police. This explanation is required to explain his presence at the inquest while maintaining that the police never interviewed him. If the police interviewed him, that would greatly increase the probability that they would have been aware of his legal name even though we ourselves have no record of that. Because we have no record of that, however, despite the increased probability, it would still be a speculation, albeit one that is supported because we know he does use his legal name in other legally formal situations. And yet, he does not use his legal name when presenting at the inquest (which appears to have been the case many years earlier as well).

That leads to the possibility that during that interview session he disclosed his legal name and indicated that he is more commonly known by his step-father's name Cross, and the police indicated that using that name would be acceptable, maybe even preferable, because it would be more widely known. It is also possible to speculate that he did not disclose his legal name at that time as well, of course, so while we cannot state with certainty the police would know his legal name, I think it would be easier to argue that the probability would lie in that direction.

Also, if he simply showed up, unannounced, and identified himself as the person who first found the body and claimed to be almost immediately joined by Paul (and so the police would now know there's the potential to compare statements between Paul and this shock witness), to argue that the police did not interview him requires the acceptance that despite now being able to locate him (by whatever name), the police saw no utility in gathering details from him with respect to his initial discovery (so they didn't think it would be important to be able to corroborate Paul if he's located, or to obtain at least one official statement covering the events Paul described in the Lloyd's interview). While we have no record of any interview of Cross/Lechmere by the police, the idea they would not conduct an interview with such a surprise witness, whose very appearance would suggest a high degree of incompetence by the police (how can you not be aware of this man? etc), seems to me a difficult stance to defend. Particularly as we also have no evidence to indicate any admonishment of the police and their investigation in their failure to locate this person prior to the inquest. Moreover, showing up as a surprise witness seems hard to reconcile with arguments that he wants to remain unknown to anyone, whether that be the police or some speculated group outside of the police (family in the country, former neighbours, etc). If he didn't want the police to know about him, or he simply didn't want some group that only knew him by his legal name to realise it was him, then showing up at the inquest means he chose to do something diametrically apposed to this goal. In other words, his actions in this line of speculation refute the explanation that is being speculated.

Anyway, we know his legal name was Lechmere. We know his step-father's name was Cross. His behaviour and disclosure of other pertinent details about himself refute the notion he was trying to conceal himself from the police, and therefore avoid being investigated (note, we don't know if the police investigated, I'm just saying we cannot say he was trying to avoid being investigated). Finally, whether he was summands to the inquest (which would mean he was interviewed by the police prior to the inquest) or simply rocked up and claimed to be the one to initially find the body, then being interviewed by the police is by far the odds on favourite (the former necessitates it, the latter would greatly increase the probability of it, to the point I think it could be even be said to also necessitate it). We have no surviving record of this interview, which could be pointed to in order to argue it never happened. However, we have no surviving record of any criticism of the police for being caught unawares of his finding the body until showing up out of the blue at the inquest, and so by the same logic we are led to his showing up as a surprise never happened. We know he showed up, which means it is the surprise part that fails the test.

Obviously I'm just presenting my take on things.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

The concept of a ‘real name’ was understood at the time. The ‘semantic baggage’ is contemporary with the events we are considering.

[JeffHamm]

The concept of a ‘real name’ was understood at the time. The ‘semantic baggage’ is contemporary with the events we are considering.

Sure, but since the baggage exists in our discussions I'm just suggesting that we remove our baggage, and I think referring to Lechmere as his legal name might be one way to allow the discussion to focus on the real issue - was he attempting to conceal himself from the authorities or in any other way hinder any potential investigation of himself. It is similar to the baggage associated with my previous use of the term "fantasy" (not to reignite that), the core concept I was trying to convey was not at issue but the baggage it was associated with was objected to. I think the same applies here. All I'm suggesting is that "real name" is ambiguous, it can simply mean "legal name", but "false name" is really where the baggage comes in to it as "false name" is not used to simply mean "not his legal name".

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Sure, but since we're all contemporary the baggage exists in our discussions. I'm just suggesting that we remove our baggage, and I think referring to Lechmere as his legal name might be one way to allow the discussion to focus on the real issue - was he attempting to conceal himself from the authorities or in any other way hinder any potential investigation of himself. It is similar to the baggage associated with my previous use of the term "fantasy" (not to reignite that), the core concept I was trying to convey was not at issue but the baggage it was associated with was objected to. I think the same applies here.

- Jeff

It isn’t our baggage, it’s the baggage of Lechmere’s time, place and social background.

For me the question is, would he have thought it was appropriate to mention his ‘real’ (call it ‘legal’ if you must) name when giving evidence under oath in court?

Imagine a man whose birth was registered with the forename Robert. On every document he ever fills out he gives his name as Robert. Yet his friends and family call him Bob, Bobby, Rob, Robbie, Bobster… If he gives evidence in a court of law, what forename does he give?

[drstrange169]

>>Witnesses to criminal trials/hearings were also summonsed by means of a written summons - but not always, it would seem.<<

Perhaps you could show me where Annie Jordan says she was never given a summons?

" I was first spoken to about giving evidence, this morning—Inspector Langrish spoke to me"

So Inspector Langrish was the first to speak to her about giving evidence. How many others spoke to her about giving evidence? Did one of those others also give her a summons?


>>So the point is: Although witnesses may generally have been summoned to appear in court by means of a formal summons, I wonder how often they just turned up at the last minute.<<

Except it not a point at all, as your example shows, Annie didn't just turn up to court, she was sought out by the police, interviewed and asked to appear in court.

Your example disproves your theory, it doesn't support it. Surely you can see that?