Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere did use an alias, but he did not use that alias to avoid detection - he gtold the police his home address and where he worked.

You have no idea why he chose not to use his real name or what effect that might have had.

Let me suggest a simple scenario where the use of his stepfather’s name might have enabled him to escape detection. Purely hypothetical of course.

His stepfather was long dead by the time he moved to James Street and he had a growing brood of kids who all went by the name Lechmere. He’d married using the name Lechmere a decade before and we know that at that time some of his old neighbours back at Mary Ann Street knew his name was Lechmere. So why on earth would he have introduced himself as Charles Cross to his new neighbours? I think that’s highly unlikely.

So far that’s all either fact or reasonable assumption.

Now let’s imagine that as Charles Lechmere he’d acquired a dubious reputation with his James Street neighbours or the local street walkers. How would any of them be able to recognise him as Charles Cross of Doveton Street? Pickfords was the largest employer of carmen in the country at the time, so his occupation and the name of his employer alone wouldn’t have ID’d him.

[MrBarnett]

In what bizzaro world does wearing an apron imply guilt?

Where did I say that?

I said I thought his wearing the apron was significant. Surely it tells us something about the man. Perhaps he was a scruffy little oik with no sense of social etiquette in respect of what clothes it was appropriate to wear in court. Particularly in a coroners court where the tragic death of a woman was being examined. Perhaps, but does what we know of his background and the photos of him and his children support that? I’d say no. So why did he turn up wearing his apron?

Is that a ‘bizzarro’ question in your mind?

[Fiver]

Where did I say that?

You do understand the difference between "say" and "imply"?

Lacking facts, you had to imply Lechmere's guilt. You claimed that "his wearing the apron was significant", yet provided no reason that it would be significant. You claimed that Lechmere's wearing the apron was "a bit odd" without providing the slightest bit of evidence or reasoning as to why it would be odd.

[Fiver]

Dusty (if that’s his real name) seems to be saying that if Lechmere hadn’t worn his apron in the witness box that would somehow have prevented him from returning to work.

If you really think Dusty was saying that, then you badly need to work on your reading comprehension skills. drstrange169 merely pointed out a reasonable explanation for why Charles Lechmere was wearing his work clothes - that he had come straight from work and possibly was going back to work after giving his testimony. Another, non-exclusive reason would be to make it easier for PC Mizen to identify if Lechmere was the carman that he had spoken with on the night of the murder.

It's clear that Cross was identified by PC Mizen before Cross testified, as a jury member asked Mizen "Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?".

[Fiver]

You have no idea why he chose not to use his real name or what effect that might have had.

I never claimed to know why Lechmere chose to use the name Charles Allen Cross. I merely pointed out he did not use the Cross surname to avoid detection, since he told the police his home address and where he worked.

Let me suggest a simple scenario where the use of his stepfather’s name might have enabled him to escape detection. Purely hypothetical of course.

He gave his home address and work address to the police. This information was given in public at the inquest. Lechmerere had no reason to suspect that all but one newspaper would not put the home address into print, plus the address would still be on record with the court.

Your hypothetical has some glaring omissions. Charles Lechmere had previously used the surname Cross at an inquest in 1876. That's before he even moved to James street. He didn't just give his occupation and the name of his employer - he gave his work address and his home address in open court.

Your hypothetical is also based multiple assumptions - that he frequented prostitutes, that he had a bad reputation with prostitutes, and that he gave his real name to those prostitutes. Back in the real world, prostitutes don't care about their clients names and men who frequent prostitutes don't give out their real names, let alone their home addresses. It's also based on the dubious assumption that a man with a bad reputation with prostitutes and/or his neighbors on James Street would not develop the same negative reputation when he moved to Doveton Street.

Jack Pizer did have a reputation for violence against prostitutes. That led to the police looking for "Leather Apron", an indication that prostitutes knew him by sight, not by name. Newspapers confirmed this, with the September 5 Star saying "His name nobody knows." By the 7th, a week after the search for Leather Apron began, police finally identified him, and Pizer was arrested on the 10th.

If prostitutes were going to recognize Lechmere, it would be from seeing him at th inquest or on the street, not from reading his name and address in the newspaper.

Using the name Charles Allen Lechmere wasn't going to his his identity for his family, his neighbors, or his employers - he gave his work and home addresses in open court.

Your hypothetical is a non-starter. It has more holes than a fishing net.

[MrBarnett]

Kudos to 5er for finding evidence that Lechmere gave his home and work addresses in ‘open court’ in 1876. Having discovered that incident 5 years ago, I’ve been on the look out for evidence that he gave his address ever since.

Perhaps you can share your source with us, oh insightful one.

[MrBarnett]

I never claimed to know why Lechmere chose to use the name Charles Allen Cross. I merely pointed out he did not use the Cross surname to avoid detection, since he told the police his home address and where he worked.



He gave his home address and work address to the police. This information was given in public at the inquest. Lechmerere had no reason to suspect that all but one newspaper would not put the home address into print, plus the address would still be on record with the court.

Your hypothetical has some glaring omissions. Charles Lechmere had previously used the surname Cross at an inquest in 1876. That's before he even moved to James street. He didn't just give his occupation and the name of his employer - he gave his work address and his home address in open court.

Your hypothetical is also based multiple assumptions - that he frequented prostitutes, that he had a bad reputation with prostitutes, and that he gave his real name to those prostitutes. Back in the real world, prostitutes don't care about their clients names and men who frequent prostitutes don't give out their real names, let alone their home addresses. It's also based on the dubious assumption that a man with a bad reputation with prostitutes and/or his neighbors on James Street would not develop the same negative reputation when he moved to Doveton Street.

Jack Pizer did have a reputation for violence against prostitutes. That led to the police looking for "Leather Apron", an indication that prostitutes knew him by sight, not by name. Newspapers confirmed this, with the September 5 Star saying "His name nobody knows." By the 7th, a week after the search for Leather Apron began, police finally identified him, and Pizer was arrested on the 10th.

If prostitutes were going to recognize Lechmere, it would be from seeing him at th inquest or on the street, not from reading his name and address in the newspaper.

Using the name Charles Allen Lechmere wasn't going to his his identity for his family, his neighbors, or his employers - he gave his work and home addresses in open court.

Your hypothetical is a non-starter. It has more holes than a fishing net.

My hypothetical has no holes. It provides a perfectly plausible explanation of how the use of the name Cross might have concealed his identity.

Now read my lips: the folk in the James Street area may not have known him as Cross and may not have known he had moved to Doveton Street. In which case they would have no reason to identify the ‘finder’ of Nichols with their ex neighbour.

Am I saying that’s what happened? No. I’m just pointing out the gaping hole in your statement that ‘Lechmere did use an alias, but he did not use that alias to avoid detection’. I repeat, you have no idea why Lechmere chose not to use his real name in court. There are all sorts of possible reasons and one of them is that he sought to conceal his identity from people who would not recognise the name Cross or his new address in Doveton Street.

Got it?

[Fiver]

Kudos to 5er for finding evidence that Lechmere gave his home and work addresses in ‘open court’ in 1876. Having discovered that incident 5 years ago, I’ve been on the look out for evidence that he gave his address ever since.

Perhaps you can share your source with us, oh insightful one.

Charles Allen Lechmere gave his home and work address at the Nichols inquest. That was implied by me mentioning it after his move to James Street, but it could have been clearer.

As to the 1876 Williams inquest, the paper doesn't mention his home address, but that does not mean it was was not given. It does prove that he was using the name Charles Cross well before he moved to James Street.

[Fiver]

My hypothetical has no holes.

A better analogy would have been to compare your hypothetical to a soap bubble. It's a thin film around a large empty space that immediately collapses under logic or facts.

It provides a perfectly plausible explanation of how the use of the name Cross might have concealed his identity.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from the police - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his employers - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his coworkers - he gave his work address at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his family - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his friends - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his neighbors - he gave his home address at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from reporters - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from prostitutes - in the real world, people don't give their names to prostitutes.

Now read my lips: the folk in the James Street area may not have known him as Cross and may not have known he had moved to Doveton Street. In which case they would have no reason to identify the ‘finder’ of Nichols with their ex neighbour.

So what? Former neighbors would only be a concern if they witnessed a crime. And using his stepfather's surname would no nothing to protect him if he was seen by a former neighbor.

Am I saying that’s what happened? No. I’m just pointing out the gaping hole in your statement that ‘Lechmere did use an alias, but he did not use that alias to avoid detection’. I repeat, you have no idea why Lechmere chose not to use his real name in court.

Nice attempt at moving the goalposts. I never claimed to know why he used his stepfather's surname at the Nichols inquest, but the theory that he did it to hide his identity falls apart.

Back in the world of facts:
* He used the name Charles Cross in 1876. It clearly did not conceal his identity from the police or the eyewitnesses of 1876. Eyewitnesses were also essential to his being cleared in 1876, so trying to conceal his identity would have been worse than useless.
* He voluntarily came forward to testify at the Nichols inquest 1888, an act of complete folly for anyone trying to conceal their identity.
* He gave his home and work addresses at the inquest, so he was not concealing his identity from the police, the press, his employers, his coworkers, his family, his friends, or his neighbors.
* People don't give real names to prostitutes.

There are all sorts of possible reasons and one of them is that he sought to conceal his identity from people who would not recognise the name Cross or his new address in Doveton Street.

So former neighbors that he wasn't close enough to keep in touch with? Even though it would do nothing to keep the police, the press, his family, his current neighbors, his friends, his employers, his coworkers, or prostitutes from recognizing him?

Who's coming up with this cunning plan? The Underpants Gnomes?

[drstrange169]

>>I’ve been on the look out for evidence that he gave his address ..<<

How about the fact coroners were legally bound to take witnesses addresses?


Extract from, "Law of the coroner" 1843

[John Wheat]

The case against Lechmere boils down to him finding a body and then at the inquest using a name that could very easily be traced back to him. It's not much at all.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Charles Allen Lechmere gave his home and work address at the Nichols inquest. That was implied by me mentioning it after his move to James Street, but it could have been clearer.

As to the 1876 Williams inquest, the paper doesn't mention his home address, but that does not mean it was was not given. It does prove that he was using the name Charles Cross well before he moved to James Street.

The name Lechmere was uncommon, and would have stuck out, particularly in rural Herefordshire, so the idea that he used the name Cross to specifically keep the name Lechmere out of the papers isn't far fetched, maybe sparing the blushes of distant relatives or his kids in school. Does that imply guilt on his part? Not to mind, it's a perfectly sensible and innocent idea.

The idea that he did it to hide from those who could associate him with murder, or to hide from the authorities, no, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Abby Normal]

The name Lechmere was uncommon, and would have stuck out, particularly in rural Herefordshire, so the idea that he used the name Cross to specifically keep the name Lechmere out of the papers isn't far fetched, maybe sparing the blushes of distant relatives or his kids in school. Does that imply guilt on his part? Not to mind, it's a perfectly sensible and innocent idea.

The idea that he did it to hide from those who could associate him with murder, or to hide from the authorities, no, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Hi Al

The name Lechmere was uncommon, and would have stuck out, particularly in rural Herefordshire, so the idea that he used the name Cross to specifically keep the name Lechmere out of the papers isn't far fetched, maybe sparing the blushes of distant relatives or his kids in school. Does that imply guilt on his part? Not to mind, it's a perfectly sensible and innocent idea.

agree. Or he used cross because in the context of the situation-- a carman on the way to work, where he was (probably) known as Cross, because it just made sense.

Now that being said, it seems he did use the name lechmere more commonly, so the use of cross is an apparent anomaly, that does need to be explained away. an innocent explanation probably, but it is well known that criminals frequently use aliases to conceal or confuse their identity. If Lech was the killer I could see him using this tactic to try and distance himself from the crime from people who knew him as lechmere.

the name use is a just a little (possible) yellow flag to me. the big yellow flag IMHO is being seen near a freshly killed victim before raising any alarm. and the geographic stuff-the lech triangle, the gsg on a route back to his home and his work route taking him past the victim locations.

[MrBarnett]

Let’s say for the sake of argument that he was known as Cross by his neighbours before he moved to James Street. The one piece of evidence we have shows that some at least of the neighbours knew he was a Lechmere as early as the (late) 1860s. Although, of course, as the ‘stepson’ of PC Cross we can assume that Charles was associated with the name Cross.

His sister dies and one of the neighbours registers the death in the name of Lechmere. His stepfather, Thomas Cross then dies. Charles marries, the banns are read out three times in Church using the name Lechmere, the marriage certificate is issued in the name of Lechmere and he and his wife begin their large family by registering and christening their children as Lechmeres. His name is recorded on the 1871 census as Lechmere. About a decade later he moves to James Street. Why would the family introduce themselves to their new neighbours as the Cross’s? Ten years or more after Thomas Cross had died and with their growing family of little Lechmere’s around the them? The likelihood is that they were known in James Street as the Lechmere family.

After another decade or so they move to Doveton Street and once again, given that their children are all registered at school in the name of Lechmere, it’s a fairly safe bet they were known by that name at the new address.

So here’s my point, who among the numerous people he would have associated with during his decade in James Street would have recognised the name and address of Charles Cross/Doveton Street? Conceivably no one.

Am I suggesting that he concealed his name to hide his ID from ex-neighbours in James Street? Not especially, but if he’d wanted to do so, using the name Cross at Polly’s inquest would have done the job.

Knowing something about the man’s background, I just can’t accept that it did not occur to him that the name Lechmere was the one he should have used when he was sworn in. And if it was the case that he was generally known as Cross (which seems highly unlikely) then he should have mentioned both names. That he didn’t suggests to me he was hiding something.

[MrBarnett]

We shouldn’t forget that his mother’s second and third marriages were both technically bigamous, her first husband still being alive. If she had been aware of that fact then she would have committed a crime.

Around the time she and Thomas Cross left Hereford a cousin of her husband was a policeman there. Given that she had family connections to the City including one to the highly influential Clive family, it’s always struck me as odd that they should move from there to the East End and settle in Tiger Bay of all places. One possible explanation of course is that it was a way of concealing their bigamous marriage from those who might know it was such. Tucked away in the slums of London, no one in Hereford was likely to know of their domestic arrangements. Unless of course they read in the newspaper one day, ‘My name is Charles Allen Lechmere, but I am more generally known by my stepfather’s name of Cross.’

I’m pretty sure that in 1888 there was only one Charles Allen Lechmere on the planet.