Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

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?

I don't know what he would have thought as that is unknowable. We do know, however, there are cases where people testify under names other than their legal one as they also state their legal name. What we do not know, of course, is how common it was for that to occur - the stating of both their legal name and some other name by which they may have been known. It could be, for example, that it was not uncommon for people to testify under names similar to "Cross" and fairly uncommon for the testimony to also end up disclosing their legal name as well. Or, of course, it might have been very common to disclose both. I can pretty much assign any percentage split other than to claim it never happened that both would be disclosed because we have evidence from other cases that zero is wrong. Other than that, though, we don't know if those cases represent the usual or the unusual situation.

As for testifying in court, again, an inquest and a trial, while both legal situations are not the same thing. Moreover, not being a specialist in the formalities of those legal environment, my guess as to how the hypothetical witness would respond is pretty much meaningless.

Regardless, we both agree that Cross did not testify under his legal name, similar to when he testified at an inquest years ago (in which case he was much more directly involved as he was at risk for being held responsible for the fatal accident). Given that history, and from a situation where he would have been considered directly involved in the situation as more than just a bystander, I'm not entirely sure what the point is. He didn't testify under his legal name, we both know that and agree upon that. Neither of us knows why he testifies under the name Cross. We both know he testified under the name Cross at an inquest previously, where he was directly involved, and where his legal name was not listed then (provided, of course, that previous case is him), and so we have a historical precedent for him to have done so.

If we are to speculate as to why he used the name Cross again, perhaps that last point suggests an idea. He may be using the name Cross now because it eases the link between himself and the previous accident. The authorities may have indicated he use the name Cross to provide a consistency with his prior testimony, and perhaps the name Cross was the one he went by at that time, etc.

Do I think that must be the case? Of course not, it's just speculation because, as we both recognize, we don't know why he testifies under the name Cross, we only know he did.

But, regardless of his reason for doing so, does it follow that he was attempting to interfere with the police's ability to investigate him should they choose to? And clearly the answer to that is no. They know where to find him. Moreover, whether he was summoned to the inquest or simply appeared out of nowhere, the idea that the police would not have interviewed him is, I think, untenable. They had to if he was summoned, and I can't accept they wouldn't have if he surprised them by showing up out of the blue. Moreover, there is no evidence that the police considered him a surprise witness, nor that they received any negative press in response to a key witness having gone undiscovered.

So, given the above, that I can see no merit in speculating that he did not at some point undergo questioning by the police, I think the odds are pretty low that his legal name was never disclosed to the police. The fact they do not refer to him by that name would be consistent with Cross being the name he commonly used, but also consistent with just ensuring their files maintain consistency with the name he testified under (meaning it doesn't prove Cross was his commonly used name). While the details of the police interviews for a few people are mentioned at times, they clearly must have interviewed more than a half dozen or so people, so the fact that we do not have a record of his interview can hardly be considered surprising despite how unfortunate it may be.

It's a shame the suspect file has gone missing. It would be interesting to know if, for example, he was listed in that document, particularly if it listed him as Cross/Lechmere. If that file should ever resurface, that would be the sort of new information that could potentially provide us with definitive answers rather than leaving us to speculate stories between what evidence we have and what destination we decide we want to get to with our story.

- Jeff

[SuperShodan]

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

I agree there is some common ground on the name issue. We tend to be very adversarial about all things Lechmere and just automatically disagree with other.

In terms of the name change I’m just interested in why he wouldn’t say his name was Lechmere, but has also been known as Cross. He had used Cross at a previous inquest, which is interesting, but in 1888 his stepfather has been dead nearly 2 decades.

Furthermore, at the previous inquest he could have been in serious trouble too. The inquest could have concluded he caused the young boys death by going too fast or failure to control his horse and cart. So using Cross is noteworthy in this context. He could potentially have ended up in the press as the man who killed a child. Using Cross does seem to occur where there is the potential for an unfavourable outcome.

One of the arguments seems to be he possibly joined Pickford’s as Cross, but would he realistically still be using this name at work 2 decades later ? And of course we don’t know he didn’t join Pickford’s as Lechmere too.

Nevertheless, this is all subjective, I can only speculate as to why he uses Cross. It just seems odd.

Moving on, we have the legal issue, which isn’t subjective. Is it legal to use Cross at an inquest ? Many of our protagonists had nicknames or other names - not least the woman themselves. However, at the inquest the correct name is used. It seems to be a legal requirement. You can’t legally have 2 names or 2 identities. Maybe in the community or even at work, but not in court or at an inquest. So we could have a situation where using Cross is possibly illegal, and considering the circumstances, this has important implications.

Then we have the question of Lechmere’s appearance at the inquest and the circumstances around his attendance. I have seen experienced researchers say that you could present yourself, and others say the exact opposite.

So to conclude I would like to know firstly whether using the name Cross at an inquest was legal, and secondly whether you could present yourself ? My feeling is that there must be a procedure whereby somebody who is an important witness, but has perhaps been missed, can still attend.

I’ve seen plenty of opinion, but I haven’t seen an answer that fully addresses this important issue.

I think if we can establish the legal side then it moves the debate forward.

[MrBarnett]

>>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?

I gave two examples, Dr Strange aka Dusty. One where it appears a man brought along an acquaintance whom he only knew by the nickname of ‘Dick Turpin’ (think Jesse James those of you from the other side of the pond) to be his witness, and another where ‘Dick Turpin’s’ wife was first ‘spoken to’ about being a witness at her husband’s Old Bailey trial a few hours before she entered the witness box.

[MrBarnett]

I don't know what he would have thought as that is unknowable. We do know, however, there are cases where people testify under names other than their legal one as they also state their legal name. What we do not know, of course, is how common it was for that to occur - the stating of both their legal name and some other name by which they may have been known. It could be, for example, that it was not uncommon for people to testify under names similar to "Cross" and fairly uncommon for the testimony to also end up disclosing their legal name as well. Or, of course, it might have been very common to disclose both. I can pretty much assign any percentage split other than to claim it never happened that both would be disclosed because we have evidence from other cases that zero is wrong. Other than that, though, we don't know if those cases represent the usual or the unusual situation.

As for testifying in court, again, an inquest and a trial, while both legal situations are not the same thing. Moreover, not being a specialist in the formalities of those legal environment, my guess as to how the hypothetical witness would respond is pretty much meaningless.

Regardless, we both agree that Cross did not testify under his legal name, similar to when he testified at an inquest years ago (in which case he was much more directly involved as he was at risk for being held responsible for the fatal accident). Given that history, and from a situation where he would have been considered directly involved in the situation as more than just a bystander, I'm not entirely sure what the point is. He didn't testify under his legal name, we both know that and agree upon that. Neither of us knows why he testifies under the name Cross. We both know he testified under the name Cross at an inquest previously, where he was directly involved, and where his legal name was not listed then (provided, of course, that previous case is him), and so we have a historical precedent for him to have done so.

If we are to speculate as to why he used the name Cross again, perhaps that last point suggests an idea. He may be using the name Cross now because it eases the link between himself and the previous accident. The authorities may have indicated he use the name Cross to provide a consistency with his prior testimony, and perhaps the name Cross was the one he went by at that time, etc.

Do I think that must be the case? Of course not, it's just speculation because, as we both recognize, we don't know why he testifies under the name Cross, we only know he did.

But, regardless of his reason for doing so, does it follow that he was attempting to interfere with the police's ability to investigate him should they choose to? And clearly the answer to that is no. They know where to find him. Moreover, whether he was summoned to the inquest or simply appeared out of nowhere, the idea that the police would not have interviewed him is, I think, untenable. They had to if he was summoned, and I can't accept they wouldn't have if he surprised them by showing up out of the blue. Moreover, there is no evidence that the police considered him a surprise witness, nor that they received any negative press in response to a key witness having gone undiscovered.

So, given the above, that I can see no merit in speculating that he did not at some point undergo questioning by the police, I think the odds are pretty low that his legal name was never disclosed to the police. The fact they do not refer to him by that name would be consistent with Cross being the name he commonly used, but also consistent with just ensuring their files maintain consistency with the name he testified under (meaning it doesn't prove Cross was his commonly used name). While the details of the police interviews for a few people are mentioned at times, they clearly must have interviewed more than a half dozen or so people, so the fact that we do not have a record of his interview can hardly be considered surprising despite how unfortunate it may be.

It's a shame the suspect file has gone missing. It would be interesting to know if, for example, he was listed in that document, particularly if it listed him as Cross/Lechmere. If that file should ever resurface, that would be the sort of new information that could potentially provide us with definitive answers rather than leaving us to speculate stories between what evidence we have and what destination we decide we want to get to with our story.

- Jeff

Jeff,

Are you really suggesting the Whitechapel police and Coroner were somehow aware of the 1876 case in Islington and may have suggested he use the name Cross to be consistent with that?

Gary

[JeffHamm]

I agree there is some common ground on the name issue. We tend to be very adversarial about all things Lechmere and just automatically disagree with other.

In terms of the name change I’m just interested in why he wouldn’t say his name was Lechmere, but has also been known as Cross. He had used Cross at a previous inquest, which is interesting, but in 1888 his stepfather has been dead nearly 2 decades.

Furthermore, at the previous inquest he could have been in serious trouble too. The inquest could have concluded he caused the young boys death by going too fast or failure to control his horse and cart. So using Cross is noteworthy in this context. He could potentially have ended up in the press as the man who killed a child. Using Cross does seem to occur where there is the potential for an unfavourable outcome.

One of the arguments seems to be he possibly joined Pickford’s as Cross, but would he realistically still be using this name at work 2 decades later ? And of course we don’t know he didn’t join Pickford’s as Lechmere too.

Nevertheless, this is all subjective, I can only speculate as to why he uses Cross. It just seems odd.

Yes, it is something that is odd and like you, I would be delighted if we had evidence that allowed us to clear it up. Sadly, the evidence trail ends with that oddity and gets us no further. What I see, however, are multiple lines of speculation, some that follow a path towards suspicion, others that follow a path towards innocuous explanations. One can speculate in any direction once freed from the constraints of evidence, that's the danger of speculation, it has the appearance of explanation but it lacks the substance of evidence behind it.

To me, it seems we might find it more constructive to approach the question by examining the destinations. The suspicious destination tends to focus upon him hindering the investigation in some way. Clearly, given his other disclosures, he has in no way hindered the police from locating him as an individual. If the police were to decide they wanted to talk to him, they know where he lives and where he works. Basically, he's done nothing to prevent them from finding him directly. Another line of argument is more indirect, that he's hindering the investigation by making it difficult for some members of the public to recognize him and therefore preventing them from either informing the police directly about their suspicions, or preventing them from recognizing who the police were talking about should the police canvas them in some sort of general search.

That last suggestion, of course, could only occur if the police were investigating him, at which point it become untenable that he himself was not questioned by them. And if he was so questioned, because for some period of time he was considered a person of interest (hence their canvasing for information about him), then they would have come into contact with people who know him by both names because if they are investigating him they aren't only going to come into contact with people who only know him by Lechmere. But if he wanted to do either of those, then if he's not been summond in the first place, then showing up and disclosing all but his legal last name seems to greatly thwart that goal.

If, of course, he was never a person of interest, even if he just showed up unannounced at the inquest, the police are going to have to take an official statement from him for their investigation. The oddity of such a surprise showing given the importance of his information, though, would have to result in a careful and lengthy questioning of him (how do they know he's not just attention seeking?). Particularly as his statement can be compared to that of Paul (even if that comparison had to wait until Paul was located and interviewed). If Paul had not yet been spoken to by the police because they had not yet located him, it may very well have been during this questioning that Cross/Lechmere provided them with additional information that allowed the police to finally track down Paul (that too, of course, is just speculation as we don't know what was asked and what was given in reply).

Moving on, we have the legal issue, which isn’t subjective. Is it legal to use Cross at an inquest ? Many of our protagonists had nicknames or other names - not least the woman themselves. However, at the inquest the correct name is used. It seems to be a legal requirement. You can’t legally have 2 names or 2 identities. Maybe in the community or even at work, but not in court or at an inquest. So we could have a situation where using Cross is possibly illegal, and considering the circumstances, this has important implications.

Then we have the question of Lechmere’s appearance at the inquest and the circumstances around his attendance. I have seen experienced researchers say that you could present yourself, and others say the exact opposite.

So to conclude I would like to know firstly whether using the name Cross at an inquest was legal, and secondly whether you could present yourself ? My feeling is that there must be a procedure whereby somebody who is an important witness, but has perhaps been missed, can still attend.

I’ve seen plenty of opinion, but I haven’t seen an answer that fully addresses this important issue.

I think if we can establish the legal side then it moves the debate forward.

Yes, a clear understanding of the the legal side would help a great deal, particularly if there are some conditions under which his use of the name Cross, despite it not being his legal name, would be considered acceptable, or even preferable, for him to use. If it turns out that it was legally acceptable for him to use the name Cross, though, that would not necessarily address the issue as to why he chose to use it, but it would mean that it wasn't against the legal requirements. If it was supposed to be the case that he disclose his legal name as well, the fact he did not would be a failure of the inquest to ask for this information (on the assumption he was summoned) but could simply reflect his ignorance of the legal requirement if he just showed up. He's the 5th person to testify out of 8 witnesses that day. While I freely admit I do not know how these things are organised, I would think that the order of the witness testimony would have been determined before the starting of the proceedings for the day, although allowing for some flexibility of course as a witness may need to be recalled. However, if someone could just show up on the day to present testimony, my instinct suggests such a person would either appear as the first or last witness (barring any recalls to address the hitherto unknown details the surprise witness introduces). The fact he is right in the middle of the proceedings, and the fact that PC Mizen is not called to rebut Cross's denial of saying PC Mizen was wanted by a policeman, has the feel of him being scheduled and that this difference was not an unexpected revelation. However, that is all far from proven.

But I am 100% in agreement with you that it is important for us to understand what circumstances a surprise witness was allowed to give evidence, and how that worked; did the surprise witness have to make some sort of official statement and undergo some sort of questioning prior to taking the stand or were they just put up on the stand with no idea what they were going to contribute? I suspect that an inquest would still require some sort of vetting process, and if we could find an example of this happening, I would not be entirely surprised if we learned that such surprise witnesses were people previously interviewed by the police who were not deemed necessary to attend, but who personally felt their information was important (rightly or wrongly) and insisted they be given the chance to have that recorded. I could be wrong on that of course, but these are the sorts of possibilities that could be evaluated if we had a clear understanding of if surprise witnesses were even allowed, and if so, how that actually worked.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

Are you really suggesting the Whitechapel police and Coroner were somehow aware of the 1876 case in Islington and may have suggested he use the name Cross to be consistent with that?

Gary

Hi Gary,

Can you prove they didn't?

- Jeff

P.S. Just to be clear, I also said "Do I think that must be the case? Of course not, it's just speculation because, as we both recognize, we don't know why he testifies under the name Cross, we only know he did."

[GBinOz]

Hi all,

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

Hi Jeff,

If we knew by what name he was known at Pickfords it would clarify the issue. If it was Charlie Cross then it would be expected and not at all unusual that he would use this name with police.

After Paul, in effect, dobbed Cross in with the Lloyd's article, Cross had two choices. He could wait to be found by the police or he could be a good citizen and present himself to police. I have read that Paul chose the former and was subjected to a pre-dawn raid, but I don't have a reference and wonder if that report was apocryphal. I agree with your opinion that Cross just rocked up to the inquest. Paul gave his Lloyd's interview on his way home on Friday. On the first day of the inquest, on Saturday no mention was made of Paul or Cross, and that was the day Neil gave his testimony. The next day of the inquest was Monday and Mizen was deposed, mentioning the carmen, and Cross was bought in to be identified by Mizen, and was then deposed himself. I infer from this that this was the first contact Cross had with the police. The police had only Saturday to intercept Cross on his walk to or from work if they had knowledge of him from a source other than the LLoyd's article which was published on the Sunday, or the Monday morning. So if he had just turned up as a surprise witness, and been identified, would the coroner have then turned him away?

Does choosing to present himself to police indicate innocence? But for the LLoyd's article, yes. With the Lloyd's article, perhaps, or perhaps a cunning plan to deflect attention and be seen as a good citizen. One can only speculate whether he would have presented himself had Paul kept quiet. I don't popularity of the Lloyds Weekly, but Cross must have bought a considerable number of news publications to be aware of Paul's statement.

Cheer, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree there is some common ground on the name issue. We tend to be very adversarial about all things Lechmere and just automatically disagree with other.

In terms of the name change I’m just interested in why he wouldn’t say his name was Lechmere, but has also been known as Cross. He had used Cross at a previous inquest, which is interesting, but in 1888 his stepfather has been dead nearly 2 decades.

Furthermore, at the previous inquest he could have been in serious trouble too. The inquest could have concluded he caused the young boys death by going too fast or failure to control his horse and cart. So using Cross is noteworthy in this context. He could potentially have ended up in the press as the man who killed a child. Using Cross does seem to occur where there is the potential for an unfavourable outcome.

One of the arguments seems to be he possibly joined Pickford’s as Cross, but would he realistically still be using this name at work 2 decades later ? And of course we don’t know he didn’t join Pickford’s as Lechmere too.

Nevertheless, this is all subjective, I can only speculate as to why he uses Cross. It just seems odd.

Moving on, we have the legal issue, which isn’t subjective. Is it legal to use Cross at an inquest ? Many of our protagonists had nicknames or other names - not least the woman themselves. However, at the inquest the correct name is used. It seems to be a legal requirement. You can’t legally have 2 names or 2 identities. Maybe in the community or even at work, but not in court or at an inquest. So we could have a situation where using Cross is possibly illegal, and considering the circumstances, this has important implications.

Then we have the question of Lechmere’s appearance at the inquest and the circumstances around his attendance. I have seen experienced researchers say that you could present yourself, and others say the exact opposite.

So to conclude I would like to know firstly whether using the name Cross at an inquest was legal, and secondly whether you could present yourself ? My feeling is that there must be a procedure whereby somebody who is an important witness, but has perhaps been missed, can still attend.

I’ve seen plenty of opinion, but I haven’t seen an answer that fully addresses this important issue.

I think if we can establish the legal side then it moves the debate forward.

What you need to establish is what advantage a guilty Lechmere gained by turning up at an Inquest and using Charles Allen Cross instead of Charles Allen Lechmere whilst giving his home address and place of work. This is the entire point. He gets no advantage and so there’s nothing suspicious about it. I can’t see why we have to keep over-complicating things. He used his step-fathers name. This really is an utter red herring.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

If we knew by what name he was known at Pickfords it would clarify the issue. If it was Charlie Cross then it would be expected and not at all unusual that he would use this name with police.

After Paul, in effect, dobbed Cross in with the Lloyd's article, Cross had two choices. He could wait to be found by the police or he could be a good citizen and present himself to police. I have read that Paul chose the former and was subjected to a pre-dawn raid, but I don't have a reference and wonder if that report was apocryphal. I agree with your opinion that Cross just rocked up to the inquest. Paul gave his Lloyd's interview on his way home on Friday. On the first day of the inquest, on Saturday no mention was made of Paul or Cross, and that was the day Neil gave his testimony. The next day of the inquest was Monday and Mizen was deposed, mentioning the carmen, and Cross was bought in to be identified by Mizen, and was then deposed himself. I infer from this that this was the first contact Cross had with the police. The police had only Saturday to intercept Cross on his walk to or from work if they had knowledge of him from a source other than the LLoyd's article which was published on the Sunday, or the Monday morning.

Does choosing to present himself to police indicate innocence? But for the LLoyd's article, yes. With the Lloyd's article, perhaps, or perhaps a cunning plan to deflect attention and be seen as a good citizen. One can only speculate whether he would have presented himself had Paul kept quiet. I don't popularity of the Lloyds Weekly, but Cross must have bought a considerable number of news publications to be aware of Paul's statement.

Cheer, George

Hi George,

Well, on day one of the inquest nobody who actually interacted with either Paul or Cross/Lechmere testifies. PC Neil can't testify to either of the carmen as at best he only knows of them through PC Mizen's telling him, making it hearsay. PC Mizen has to testify to his interaction with the carmen directly, and at best PC Neil could only testify that PC Mizen mentioned them to him, which is not clear that he did. Even PC Mizen's testimony is that upon his arrival PC Neil directed him to get the ambulance, so while there may have been some interaction between them, given PC Neil has taken charge of the crime scene (he's directed PC Thain to get the doctor already), PC Neil appears to have nothing he can say about the carmen at all.

As for how or why Cross/Lechmere goes to the police, we don't know. It may have had nothing at all to do with Paul's Lloyd's article, that is just one speculation as to Cross/Lechmere's motive. He may simply have gone, as you suggest, to be a good citizen once he heard of the murder and realised that was the woman he saw. Paul's Lloyd interview downplays Cross's involvement a great deal as is, and clearly indicates he has no idea of Cross/Lechmere's identity, so his risk of discovery is very low. All he would have to do, really, is just walk to work by going straight down to Whitechapel road and avoid the Buck's Row/Hanbury Street type routes, and he's not going to be spotted on them. Also, given what Paul says in that interview would clear both of them of any involvement (the woman was long dead, etc), it would not suggest he needs to control the situation - it's already under control (if he's guilty). Of course, if he's innocent and the Lloyd's article has anything to do with his decision to go to the police (which we do not know is the case after all), it may be because of how Paul misrepresents their actions that stirs in him the need to ensure the record is set straight (again, if he's civic minded inclined).

Basically, we don't know why he went to the police, and indeed, it is argued that he may not even have gone to them but just showed up at the inquest. That latter idea seems to suggest someone with a need for the dramatic, and as such I would have thought it more likely for him to wear his "Sunday Bests". Showing up, prepared to return to work immediately if possible, could be argued to be more indicative of someone doing "what has to be done" while trying to minimize the impact it might have on his take home pay; practical utility rather than dramatic flare so to speak.

But in the end, it all boils down to the fact that we do not know what motivated his appearance at the inquest. If he approached the police prior to it, then it seems a safe bet he was compelled, through a summons, to appear. If he just showed up, his motivation was never put on record. In addition, we have no indication that he was even aware of the Lloyd's article, let alone influenced by it, with regards to his decision to get involved (either by going to the police, resulting in a summons, or showing up uncalled for to make his statement; either of those reveals himself for potential investigation by the police over and above what could be derived from the Lloyd's article). Basically, we know the Lloyd's article was published, but we do not know if Cross/Lechmere was ever aware of it or its contents.

As for the use of Cross at the inquest, I agree, if we knew what name he used at work for the past 20 years that would go a long way. But then, if we knew who killed Polly we wouldn't be having such a discussion either. The fact remains that information that would answer our questions is not actually in our possession. Therefore, to claim that his use of Cross rather than Lechmere is evidence of his guilt is unfounded, just as it is equally unfounded to claim that it is evidence of his innocence. It is an oddity that does not, in and of itself, point to either guilt or innocence as there are explanations that go both ways. It is a fork in the road, so to speak, and without evidence to guide us as to which direction to take, once we step along one of those roads we have a chance of having made a wrong step. It becomes very easy to think our speculations along the road we end up following are true because there's no evidence to refute them, and we easily travel to the chosen destination. The problem is that there was no evidence for taking that first step at the fork in the road.

- Jeff

[harry]

The name issue has no bearing on the killing of Nichols.It is a requirement that a person identify themselves in an investigation, or appearance before a court,and this is what Cross/Lechmere did.It does not signify guilt or innocence,it is not meant to.It is a formality only.It is not evidence of criminal involvement.The reason why Cross chose that name will never be known,but it shouldn't matter,it did not affect the investigation in to who killed Nichol's,neither does it point in any way to any guilt on the part of Cross.

[drstrange169]

>> ... it appears ... and ...was first ‘spoken to’ about being a witness at her husband’s Old Bailey trial a few hours before she entered the witness box. <<

Enough said. Case disproven.

[drstrange169]

>>But in the end, it all boils down to the fact that we do not know what motivated his appearance at the inquest. If he approached the police prior to it, then it seems a safe bet he was compelled, through a summons, to appear. If he just showed up, his motivation was never put on record. In addition, we have no indication that he was even aware of the Lloyd's article, let alone influenced by it ..<<

Nicely summed up Jeff.

[GBinOz]

Basically, we know the Lloyd's article was published, but we do not know if Cross/Lechmere was ever aware of it or its contents.

- Jeff

Great post Jeff. I hadn't even thought of the possibility that he may have been unaware of the Lloyd's article.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

On the question of whether Lechmere just turned up at the inquest from choice, or whether he had provided a detailed statement to the police and appeared as a result of a subpoena, the following occurs to me -

Normal practice, it seems, was for the police to take detailed statements from witnesses and provide these to the coroner who would decide who to call, and when to call them. Lechmere appeared at the inquest immediately after Mizen, and they thereby identified each other. They were going to provide evidence that clarified the finding of the body, but to offer somewhat different evidence of what was said at the time. It was totally logical that their evidence would be consecutive,and therefore it seems to me to be clearly methodically organized, and is surely unlikely to be by chance.

As the coroner controls who appears to give evidence at an inquest, if Lechmere had turned up without a subpoena, surely he would have had to have been interviewed by a police officer to establish his evidence, and that evidence presented to the coroner before he appeared, in order to establish whether it was valid. As there would be a small queue of witnesses with subpoenas in front of him, it is unlikely that he would be seen at once. There is nothing in any newspaper coverage to suggest that Lechmere was a "surprise" witness, or that new evidence was presented to the coroner by the police etc, so it must be extremely unlikely that he just "turned up" unexpectedly and gave evidence at once.

His appearance in working clothes is completely in keeping with someone who normally started work at 4 am and who wasn't required to give evidence till, say 10 am. A working man in 1888 was not going to lose a day's income if he could avoid it.

[MrBarnett]

On the question of whether Lechmere just turned up at the inquest from choice, or whether he had provided a detailed statement to the police and appeared as a result of a subpoena, the following occurs to me -

Normal practice, it seems, was for the police to take detailed statements from witnesses and provide these to the coroner who would decide who to call, and when to call them. Lechmere appeared at the inquest immediately after Mizen, and they thereby identified each other. They were going to provide evidence that clarified the finding of the body, but to offer somewhat different evidence of what was said at the time. It was totally logical that their evidence would be consecutive,and therefore it seems to me to be clearly methodically organized, and is surely unlikely to be by chance.

As the coroner controls who appears to give evidence at an inquest, if Lechmere had turned up without a subpoena, surely he would have had to have been interviewed by a police officer to establish his evidence, and that evidence presented to the coroner before he appeared, in order to establish whether it was valid. As there would be a small queue of witnesses with subpoenas in front of him, it is unlikely that he would be seen at once. There is nothing in any newspaper coverage to suggest that Lechmere was a "surprise" witness, or that new evidence was presented to the coroner by the police etc, so it must be extremely unlikely that he just "turned up" unexpectedly and gave evidence at once.

His appearance in working clothes is completely in keeping with someone who normally started work at 4 am and who wasn't required to give evidence till, say 10 am. A working man in 1888 was not going to lose a day's income if he could avoid it.

How easy would it have been for him to remove his apron and roll it up?