Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

So, not a single reporter was even willing to have a guess at the name - in 1876 or 1888?

Your theory requires that:

* Not a single reporter commented on CAL not giving his name in open court.

* The Echo reporter would ignore CAL's desire for privacy. And that Coroner Baxter probably wouldn't want an address that Baxter had kept from the public to be made public.

* The court reporter would ignore CAL's desire for privacy. And that he would be willing to go directly against his boss to help the reporter.

* Coroner Baxter would not care that an address he had allowed to be kept from the general public was made public.

GUT's theory that CAL mentioned both the Cross and Lechmere surnames at the inquest is unproven, but makes more sense than your theory

[Fiver]

Funny how Lechmere didn’t start his own business until after his mother died. Perhaps he bought a winning lottery ticket on the day after her funeral.

That same mother who had lived in the posh Tiger Bay neighborhood and was reduced to selling cats meat? I'm sure she left her son a vast inheritance.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It was not a form of marriage. It was a marriage, with the question being whether it was a legal marriage.

There is a legal term called presumption of death. It means that someone who disappeared can be legally presumed dead after a certain length of time. Others have shown you that is how the law worked. People accused of bigamy were declared Not Guilty if they believed their previous spouse was dead.

Here's another example, from 1888.

And an example from 1889.

And another example from 1889.

Maria Lechmere married Thomas Cross in 1858, at least 7 years after John Allen Lechere deserted her.

By 1888, it had been at least 37 years since John Allen Lechmere deserted his wife. and he had been dead for almost a decade.

Thank you so much!

I had been trying to ascertain whether such a law had existed at that time.

I had a feeling it had because another seven-year rule is contained in the the Presumption of Death Act 2013.

I have been unable to find a record of the death of John Allen Lechmere.

Where did you find it?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

hi paul g
yeah thats my biggest beef against lech as a suspect. killing on his way to work. my guess would be is that if he was tje ripper, he didnt kill on his way to work (except for maybe polly) but lied and told his wife he was working on those days.

i beleive fish has said that lech had a locker or something at work that he could store, or that he actually just discarded them. neither those really work for me though.

Where is the evidence that Lechmere killed on his way to work?

That has been the headline or catch line in many articles I have seen, but apart from the first murder - of Nichols - he WAS NOT on his way to work when the murders took place!

He was actually enjoying days off with his family - consisting of one wife and nine (approximately) children - in Bethnal Green when most of the murders took place.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Oh gawd! It’s like pulling teeth.

Let’s break it down into small enough chunks that you might be able to swallow.

John Allen Lechmere was still alive when Maria went through a ‘form’ of marriage - neither legally or religiously valid - with both Thomas Cross and Joseph Forsdike. If she had been aware that JAL was still alive when she ‘married’ either of these two men, she would have committed a crime.

Got it so far?

Even if she had had no idea that JAL was still alive when she went through these sham marriage ceremonies, they would still have been invalid in the eyes of the law and the church.

Still with me?

Now, what are the chances that Maria was 100% confident that JAL was dead when she ‘married’ first her toy boy and then her OAP shoemaker?

What are the chances that through her contacts in Hereford she hadn’t heard a whisper of her husband’s still being alive 7 years before she ‘married’ Cross or Forsdyke?

What are the chances that when her son was called to give evidence at inquests in 1876 and 1888 she would not have been concerned that her intentional or unintentional bigamy might have been exposed if he used both the Cross and Lechmere names?

Answers on a postcard…

I would be grateful if you would provide any evidence that John Allen Lechmere was still alive and living in the United Kingdom at the time of those marriages.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No worries.

The blurry version cuts out a sentence, so my transcription misses a line at this point:

Buck’s Row is a short street, ?? ?? ?? the street is the house of Mrs. Green.

There's a sentence missing between the question marks and before the word "the", which in the clearer version reads:

"half by factories and half by dwellings. Half-way down"

And I just noticed I typo'd the date as 1999! oops!

Anyway, I've copied the clearer version out, correcting some other minor errors on my part. I've not kept the original formatting for line breaks, or the hyphens where words in the original story split over lines. Also I've put the name of the paper at the top. This might be easier for people to copy/paste into their notes if they wish, but I would encourage anyone who does to double check my transcription with the clearer version on the previous page in case there are still some mistakes in my transcription:

Edinburgh Evening News
SEPTEMBER 1, 1888,
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
The body of deceased has been identified as that of a married woman named Mary Ann Nichols, who has been living apart from her husband for some years. She had been an inmate of Lambeth Workhouse on and off for seven years. She was discharged from the workhouse a few months ago, and went into domestic service at Wandsworth, suddenly leaving her situation under suspicious circumstances seven weeks ago. Since that time she had frequented the locality of Whitechapel, and was seen in Whitechapel Road on the night of the murder under the influence of drink.
BODY DRAGGED SOME DISTANCE.
It was evident yesterday morning that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found. This was in Buck’s Row, about midway down its length. Buck’s Row is a short street, occupied half by factories and half by dwellings. Half-way down the street is the house of Mrs. Green. Next to it is a large stable yard, whose wide closed gateway is next to the house. In front of this gateway the woman was found by two men, who at first supposed her to be drunk, but closer inspection saw first a pool of blood in the gutter just before her, and then the deathly whiteness of the woman’s face, stained as it was with blood. One of them remained by her, while the other found Constable Neil. Constable Neil immediately woke the Green family, and asked them if they had heard any unusual noises. Neither Mrs. Green, her son, nor her daughter, all of whom were sleeping within a few feet of where the body lay, had heard any outcry. All agreed that ….

- Jeff

There are two glaring errors in that newspaper report: it was established that the body had not been moved, and the street was not short, being 860 feet long, a fairly long street, as is evident from photographs taken at that time.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please show me again were Mitre Square is on Lech's route to work or the fact that Lech visited his mother on the night of the double murder and were there is proof that the neck wounds [ were blood was oozing from ] were covered.
Just conjecture dressed up as fact

Have seen the television documentary that claims that Dutfield's Yard in Berner Street was on Lechmere's direct route home from his mother's house in Cable Street, and that Lechmere killed Stride while ON HIS WAY HOME?

It isn't true.

Bethnal Green is north to north east of Cable Street, whereas Berner Street was northwest of Cable Street.

In order for Lechmere to have killed Stride, he would have had to visit his mother on 29 September 1888 (no evidence), without his wife or any of his nine children (unproven), leave her place after midnight (when there is no evidence that he ever stayed that late), walk in the wrong direction to go home, murder Stride, then walk nearly a mile westwards to Mitre Square and murder Catherine Eddowes, then go to Goulston Street in Spitalfields, where he doesn't deposit the piece of apron until between 2.20 and 2.50 a.m. (according to police testimony), meaning that about two hours after leaving his mother's house, he would still have been about two miles from home.

That's quite a murder spree ON HIS WAY HOME!

It's completely unbelievable.

[rjpalmer]

I would be grateful if you would provide any evidence that John Allen Lechmere was still alive and living in the United Kingdom at the time of those marriages.

You'll find him living in Daventry, Northamptonshire in the 1871 census--a boot maker. He died there in 1879, and here is his burial record.




The point isn't that he wasn't still alive, the point is that he had abandoned his wife and children, moved away, and started a new family. Some 7 or 8 years later Maria remarried to Thomas Cross in London. After his death, she remarried again, to Joseph Forsdyke or Forsdike. There is no evidence that she entertained multiple sexual partners simultaneously--and calling her 'the twice bigamously married Maria Lechmere' is an oversimplification with an obviously enough motive of maligning her sexual ethics.

If she knew that Lechmere was still alive it would have been a technically bigamous marriage, but we have seen many examples of the courts either dismissing such cases outright or in meting out small punishments---an obvious acknowledgment that even the legal profession viewed the divorce laws as backwards and Draconian and not in alignment with the general ethos of what normal people view to be right and wrong.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You'll find him living in Daventry, Northamptonshire in the 1871 census--a boot maker. He died there in 1879, and here is his burial record.




The point isn't that he wasn't still alive, the point is that he had abandoned his wife and children, moved away, and started a new family. Some 7 or 8 years later Maria remarried to Thomas Cross in London. After his death, she remarried again, to Joseph Forsdyke or Forsdike. There is no evidence that she entertained multiple sexual partners simultaneously--and calling her 'the twice bigamously married Maria Lechmere' is an oversimplification with an obviously enough motive of maligning her sexual ethics.

If she knew that Lechmere was still alive it would have been a technically bigamous marriage, but we have seen many examples of the courts either dismissing such cases outright or in meting out small punishments---an obvious acknowledgment that even the legal profession viewed the divorce laws as backwards and Draconian and not in alignment with the general ethos of what normal people view to be right and wrong.

Thanks so much for your reply.

Could you please explain why you think this is the same John Lechmere as Charles Allen Lechmere's father?

I have read that John Allen Lechmere was born in 1820, which makes your candidate about four years younger than he was.

Also, Charles' father's marriage certificate has his middle name, whereas the death certificate does not.

Thanks in advance.

[rjpalmer]

Could you please explain why you think this is the same John Lechmere as Charles Allen Lechmere's father?

I'm not an advocate the Lechmere theory, but if you poke around you'll find threads by Edward 'Stow' and Gary Barnett and others explaining why they believe this is the same bloke.

In a nutshell, Lechmere's father was a shoemaker in Hereford who vanished from the city following a local scandal, and after wards this John Lechmere, also listed as a shoemaker and bootmaker, giving his birthplace as Fawnhope, Herefordshire in the 1861 and 1871 census returns, turns up in Daventry, which was a well-known center of shoemaking. There are other reasons, but this is the main thrust of their argument. Yes, there are some minor differences in birth year, etc., but these are rather commonplace in such records.

Is it your contention that they have made a misidentification?

[rjpalmer]

I should have pointed out in the above that the 1861 census specifically lists John Lechmere of Daventry's birthplace as Kenchester, not Fawnhope, but he's clearly the same man as in the 1871 census.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm not an advocate the Lechmere theory, but if you poke around you'll find threads by Edward 'Stow' and Gary Barnett and others explaining why they believe this is the same bloke.

In a nutshell, Lechmere's father was a shoemaker in Hereford who vanished from the city following a local scandal, and after wards this John Lechmere, also listed as a shoemaker and bootmaker, giving his birthplace as Fawnhope, Herefordshire in the 1861 and 1871 census returns, turns up in Daventry, which was a well-known center of shoemaking. There are other reasons, but this is the main thrust of their argument. Yes, there are some minor differences in birth year, etc., but these are rather commonplace in such records.

Is it your contention that they have made a misidentification?

I don't think they are the same person, because not only is their John Lechmere about four years younger, and missing the middle name 'Allen', but he was born in Fownhope, which is 12 miles from Kenchester, where, according to my information, John Allen Lechmere was born.

I wrote the above before reading your supplementary comment about Kenchester!

When you say the man in the 1861 census is 'clearly the same man as in the 1871 census' do you mean they are registered at the same address?

Do the details in the burial or death certificate definitely match those in the census records?

Thanks again.

[Aethelwulf]

I don't think they are the same person, because not only is their John Lechmere about four years younger, and missing the middle name 'Allen', but he was born in Fownhope, which is 12 miles from Kenchester, where, according to my information, John Allen Lechmere was born.

i wouldn't put much store by that. I've done enough family history to know those are minor differences. As RJ said, things like dates and place of birth being out by a bit are pretty common.

[Fiver]

Thanks so much for your reply.

Could you please explain why you think this is the same John Lechmere as Charles Allen Lechmere's father?

I have read that John Allen Lechmere was born in 1820, which makes your candidate about four years younger than he was.

Also, Charles' father's marriage certificate has his middle name, whereas the death certificate does not.

Thanks in advance.

We can't be 100% certain, but the 1861 Census lists his birthplace as Kenchester, which is the place that John Allen Lechmere was christened. Both men were bootmakers. One man disappears from the records at about the same time the other appears.

A 4 year age discrepancy is nothing. In one record, Thomas Cross' birth is off by 10 years.

Using the Allen middle name was fairly distinctive, and John Lechmere had a lot of reasons to not be easy to find. He had gone bankrupt and abandoned a wife and small children, possibly after stealing the first wife's inheritance and definitely after getting a local constable so drunk that the man died. He probably didn't want wife number 2 finding out about wife number 1, either.

[rjpalmer]

I don't think they are the same person, because not only is their John Lechmere about four years younger, and missing the middle name 'Allen', but he was born in Fownhope, which is 12 miles from Kenchester, where, according to my information, John Allen Lechmere was born.

Yes, he is listed as being born in Fownshope in the 1871 census, but the same man in the 1861 census is listed as being born in Kenchester. I hope I didn't cause you confusion on this point. Sometimes birth locations shift from source to source for various reasons.




And there can be no doubt he is the same man as in the 1871 census; his wife and children have the same names; they both live on North Street, Daventry; his occupation is the same, his wife's birthplace is the same, etc.