Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

Is this legtimately the only only criticism that they have on this woman?

Well, it depends on what you mean by legitimately.

One Lechmere theorist often refers to her second husband, PC Thomas Cross, as her "Boy Toy," because he was several years younger than she was, which I suppose is meant to imply something untoward about her sexual appetites.

I could never quite see the picture they were attempting to paint of this woman, actually. We know absolutely nothing about her personality, her beliefs, etc.,

On one hand, she was apparently a hussy, on the other a stern religionist who warped her son by constantly warning him about the prostitutes of St. George in the East. It's not a very coherent portrait, let alone a compelling one, as it is based entirely or almost entirely on speculation, and on what these theorists think is plausible.

I suppose they are making a stab at forensic psychology, having decided that Lechmere is highly likely to have been Jack the Ripper, and thus are implying that she was an evil influence on young Charles, a sort of Norman Bates/Ma Bates dynamic.

Later in life, after her third husband's death, she is known to have been in the cat meat business, so this throws a touch of the Little House of Horrors into the equation. One suggestion is that Charles dismembered the unknown Pinchin Street victim in his mother's cat meat shop in 1889 (with or without her cooperation is unclear) though currently there is nothing to show that she had been in the cat meat business until 1891.

I'm not really feeling it, but that's it in a nutshell, as I understand it. I also read somewhere that Mr. Stow or Butler believes that Maria Lechmere may have murdered her second husband. Is it common to poison one's Boy Toy in order to marry an older man? I don't know. It seems rather unlikely to me.

That's my brief tour of Maria Lechmere. You might consider taking the longer tour with someone more sympathetic to the Lechmere theory, but I can't imagine it will end well.

[Paddy Goose]

... a sort of Norman Bates/Ma Bates dynamic.

Thanks RJ, easily the most enjoyable Lechmere post ten years counting.

Paddy

[Abby Normal]

while im no lechmerian, more of a lech apologist, I pretty much agree with this. good point. Ive often said that the lechmerians over egg the pudding. they dont need to.
and it also goes to the name thing. if JAL was so bad, and it seems he was, why did Lech want to keep the name??

no one wants to take a crack at this question? Ill ask again-If lechs biological father was such a cad (and it seems he was) why did he keep the name? or switch back to it? BTW this is a totally neutral question lol.

[JeffHamm]

no one wants to take a crack at this question? Ill ask again-If lechs biological father was such a cad (and it seems he was) why did he keep the name? or switch back to it? BTW this is a totally neutral question lol.

Hi Abby,

I think the issue is that his use of Lechmere is documented on legal documents, where he would be required to put his legal name, whether he liked it or not. The question is what name he used in every day life, such as at work, etc. What has come to us through the years are only the legal documents, because they get preserved, while use of the name Cross would not (unless we came across, say, a collection of personal letters that he wrote). This is what would be referred to as a "biased sample" in research, and given the possibility that description may get misconstrued as to my intention, what calling a sample biased means is we're only looking at information from a restricted range of sources. Other examples of a "biased sample" would be testing a medicine only on males, or only on females, or only on people aged 20-25, etc. While the conclusions may generalise to other "males/females/young adults", there always remain the possibility that the medicine may produce different results when used outside the tested group.

So because we only have access to legal documents, our sample of his name usage is limited to his name use on legal documents, not his name use in other situations.

Now, at the inquest, all we have documented is that he used Cross, which appears at odds with his use of Lechmere on other legal documents. However, it has been pointed out by some that it would have been entirely acceptable for him to identify himself as "Cross" if that were the name he was generally known by, even if it was not his legal name. I don't know enough about the laws around this to evaluate that argument, but if that is the case then going by Cross at this inquest, as well as the previous one, would suggest that Cross was the name by which he was commonly known and Lechmere is the name that he is registered under with gov't institutions. So the census, and tax office, marriage licences, births, etc "know" him as Lechmere but everyone else calls him Cross. Now whether or not everyone else also knew he had the name Lechmere associated with him is an open question. It may be people knew he had two names, one "formal" and one "informal" and that he generally went by his informal name (Cross), but this is a question for which we have no answer because we only have the records from the gov't offices to examine, but not records of his name use from elsewhere (other than the one other inquest he was involved in, where again he went by Cross).

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I think the issue is that his use of Lechmere is documented on legal documents, where he would be required to put his legal name, whether he liked it or not. The question is what name he used in every day life, such as at work, etc. What has come to us through the years are only the legal documents, because they get preserved, while use of the name Cross would not (unless we came across, say, a collection of personal letters that he wrote). This is what would be referred to as a "biased sample" in research, and given the possibility that description may get misconstrued as to my intention, what calling a sample biased means is we're only looking at information from a restricted range of sources. Other examples of a "biased sample" would be testing a medicine only on males, or only on females, or only on people aged 20-25, etc. While the conclusions may generalise to other "males/females/young adults", there always remain the possibility that the medicine may produce different results when used outside the tested group.

So because we only have access to legal documents, our sample of his name usage is limited to his name use on legal documents, not his name use in other situations.

Now, at the inquest, all we have documented is that he used Cross, which appears at odds with his use of Lechmere on other legal documents. However, it has been pointed out by some that it would have been entirely acceptable for him to identify himself as "Cross" if that were the name he was generally known by, even if it was not his legal name. I don't know enough about the laws around this to evaluate that argument, but if that is the case then going by Cross at this inquest, as well as the previous one, would suggest that Cross was the name by which he was commonly known and Lechmere is the name that he is registered under with gov't institutions. So the census, and tax office, marriage licences, births, etc "know" him as Lechmere but everyone else calls him Cross. Now whether or not everyone else also knew he had the name Lechmere associated with him is an open question. It may be people knew he had two names, one "formal" and one "informal" and that he generally went by his informal name (Cross), but this is a question for which we have no answer because we only have the records from the gov't offices to examine, but not records of his name use from elsewhere (other than the one other inquest he was involved in, where again he went by Cross).

- Jeff

Jeff wasnt he Known legally as cross when he was younger and step dad cross was still around-wasnt he found as cross in like an early census record or something and also at pickfords re the fatal accident? he then would have to legally change it back to lechmere(which aparently he did)-why would he do that since his dad lech was such such a jerk? thats what im getting at.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Abby,

I think the issue is that his use of Lechmere is documented on legal documents, where he would be required to put his legal name, whether he liked it or not. The question is what name he used in every day life, such as at work, etc. What has come to us through the years are only the legal documents, because they get preserved, while use of the name Cross would not (unless we came across, say, a collection of personal letters that he wrote). This is what would be referred to as a "biased sample" in research, and given the possibility that description may get misconstrued as to my intention, what calling a sample biased means is we're only looking at information from a restricted range of sources. Other examples of a "biased sample" would be testing a medicine only on males, or only on females, or only on people aged 20-25, etc. While the conclusions may generalise to other "males/females/young adults", there always remain the possibility that the medicine may produce different results when used outside the tested group.

So because we only have access to legal documents, our sample of his name usage is limited to his name use on legal documents, not his name use in other situations.

Now, at the inquest, all we have documented is that he used Cross, which appears at odds with his use of Lechmere on other legal documents. However, it has been pointed out by some that it would have been entirely acceptable for him to identify himself as "Cross" if that were the name he was generally known by, even if it was not his legal name. I don't know enough about the laws around this to evaluate that argument, but if that is the case then going by Cross at this inquest, as well as the previous one, would suggest that Cross was the name by which he was commonly known and Lechmere is the name that he is registered under with gov't institutions. So the census, and tax office, marriage licences, births, etc "know" him as Lechmere but everyone else calls him Cross. Now whether or not everyone else also knew he had the name Lechmere associated with him is an open question. It may be people knew he had two names, one "formal" and one "informal" and that he generally went by his informal name (Cross), but this is a question for which we have no answer because we only have the records from the gov't offices to examine, but not records of his name use from elsewhere (other than the one other inquest he was involved in, where again he went by Cross).

- Jeff

It is clear that his employers, Pickfords, knew him by the name Cross throughout his many years of service, because it is a fact (and not, as some people here like to say, a supposition or an assumption) that they knew him by the name Cross at both inquests, 12 years apart.

That is important because his accusers allege that he never used the name except at the inquests.

That is not true!

He used the name throughout his working life.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff wasnt he Known legally as cross when he was younger and step dad cross was still around-wasnt he found as cross in like an early census record or something and also at pickfords re the fatal accident? he then would have to legally change it back to lechmere(which aparently he did)-why would he do that since his dad lech was such such a jerk? thats what im getting at.

Hi Abby,

I think in the early census he is recorded as Cross, but it is unlikely that he filled that out (wasn't he like 8 or something at the time?), so his listing there as Cross probably reflects somebody else's decision, but it does suggest that he may have went by that name at that time.

And yes, I mentioned his use of Cross at the other inquest.

I don't think there is any record of him legally changing his name at any time is there? In fact, given he's signed all the legal documents as Lechmere suggests he never legally changed his name, even if he generally went by the name Cross. That's what I was getting at, the legal documents he signed he may have had to use Lechmere to make them legal.

It maybe his marriage would not be considered legal if he used the name Cross, so he has to use Lechmere there while identifying yourself at an inquest may legally require him to give the name he is most commonly known by. (I don't know if that is the case, just giving an example of a situation where in both cases he's fulfilling the legal requirements).

Again, I don't think he went through any legal process of changing his name at any point. At least, I've never seen anybody show evidence that he did that.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

no one wants to take a crack at this question? Ill ask again-If lechs biological father was such a cad (and it seems he was) why did he keep the name? or switch back to it? BTW this is a totally neutral question lol.

If you are asking 'why did Charles keep the name or switch back to it?', he did start using the name Cross in childhood (I think I can safely say that that is a fact rather than an assumption or supposition) and he used the name Cross throughout his working life.

Maybe he didn't think it was necessary to change his name legally.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Abby,

I think in the early census he is recorded as Cross, but it is unlikely that he filled that out (wasn't he like 8 or something at the time?), so his listing there as Cross probably reflects somebody else's decision, but it does suggest that he may have went by that name at that time.

And yes, I mentioned his use of Cross at the other inquest.

I don't think there is any record of him legally changing his name at any time is there? In fact, given he's signed all the legal documents as Lechmere suggests he never legally changed his name, even if he generally went by the name Cross. That's what I was getting at, the legal documents he signed he may have had to use Lechmere to make them legal.

It maybe his marriage would not be considered legal if he used the name Cross, so he has to use Lechmere there while identifying yourself at an inquest may legally require him to give the name he is most commonly known by. (I don't know if that is the case, just giving an example of a situation where in both cases he's fulfilling the legal requirements).

Again, I don't think he went through any legal process of changing his name at any point. At least, I've never seen anybody show evidence that he did that.

- Jeff

He was recorded as Charles Cross, aged 11, in the 1861 census.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, it depends on what you mean by legitimately.

One Lechmere theorist often refers to her second husband, PC Thomas Cross, as her "Boy Toy," because he was several years younger than she was, which I suppose is meant to imply something untoward about her sexual appetites.

I could never quite see the picture they were attempting to paint of this woman, actually. We know absolutely nothing about her personality, her beliefs, etc.,

On one hand, she was apparently a hussy, on the other a stern religionist who warped her son by constantly warning him about the prostitutes of St. George in the East. It's not a very coherent portrait, let alone a compelling one, as it is based entirely or almost entirely on speculation, and on what these theorists think is plausible.

I suppose they are making a stab at forensic psychology, having decided that Lechmere is highly likely to have been Jack the Ripper, and thus are implying that she was an evil influence on young Charles, a sort of Norman Bates/Ma Bates dynamic.

Later in life, after her third husband's death, she is known to have been in the cat meat business, so this throws a touch of the Little House of Horrors into the equation. One suggestion is that Charles dismembered the unknown Pinchin Street victim in his mother's cat meat shop in 1889 (with or without her cooperation is unclear) though currently there is nothing to show that she had been in the cat meat business until 1891.

I'm not really feeling it, but that's it in a nutshell, as I understand it. I also read somewhere that Mr. Stow or Butler believes that Maria Lechmere may have murdered her second husband. Is it common to poison one's Boy Toy in order to marry an older man? I don't know. It seems rather unlikely to me.

That's my brief tour of Maria Lechmere. You might consider taking the longer tour with someone more sympathetic to the Lechmere theory, but I can't imagine it will end well.

' I also read somewhere that Mr. Stow or Butler believes that Maria Lechmere may have murdered her second husband.'

The causes of death were listed as: fatty degeneration (chronic), dropsy, and uroemia.

Unless Maria knew of a poison that could induce fatty degeneration, and used it long term, and unless she knew of a poison that could induce kidney and heart failure, and administered it, then I don't see how she could have done it.

In short, if anyone is alleging that she did so, then it is an 'assumption' or 'supposition' and not a fact.

[JeffHamm]

It is clear that his employers, Pickfords, knew him by the name Cross throughout his many years of service, because it is a fact (and not, as some people here like to say, a supposition or an assumption) that they knew him by the name Cross at both inquests, 12 years apart.

That is important because his accusers allege that he never used the name except at the inquests.

That is not true!

He used the name throughout his working life.

There is certainly an argument to be made for that, but what we do not have are any documents from his employment at Pickford where it is demonstrable that he was referred to as Cross anywhere other than at the inquests. But I agree, his use of Cross at the inquests, particularly the first where I recall it being mentioned Pickford's had a lawyer involved, who would have interacted with Charles at the time, is pretty strong evidence that he was known as Cross at work though and it may be the best we can do this far removed in time.

If, though, my recollection about there being a Pickford's lawyer involved at the first inquest is incorrect, then the counter-argument that gets put forth is that he again was "hiding behind a name by which he was not otherwise known." As such, to separate those two alternative hypotheses one needs additional evidence, either to show that he was known as Lechmere at Pickfords or that he was known as Cross at Pickfords. Neither side has been able to produce any further documents to support their claim.

And I suspect that even if there was a lawyer involved at the first inquest then it would be argued that it was the lawyer who encouraged him to use Cross, so that if necessary, Pickfords could then say "nobody by that name works with us at this time" should the press come knocking.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is certainly an argument to be made for that, but what we do not have are any documents from his employment at Pickford where it is demonstrable that he was referred to as Cross anywhere other than at the inquests. But I agree, his use of Cross at the inquests, particularly the first where I recall it being mentioned Pickford's had a lawyer involved, who would have interacted with Charles at the time, is pretty strong evidence that he was known as Cross at work though and it may be the best we can do this far removed in time.

If, though, my recollection about there being a Pickford's lawyer involved at the first inquest is incorrect, then the counter-argument that gets put forth is that he again was "hiding behind a name by which he was not otherwise known." As such, to separate those two alternative hypotheses one needs additional evidence, either to show that he was known as Lechmere at Pickfords or that he was known as Cross at Pickfords. Neither side has been able to produce any further documents to support their claim.

And I suspect that even if there was a lawyer involved at the first inquest then it would be argued that it was the lawyer who encouraged him to use Cross, so that if necessary, Pickfords could then say "nobody by that name works with us at this time" should the press come knocking.

- Jeff

You ARE right that Pickfords provided Lechmere with legal representation.

I don't think it would be reasonable for anyone to say that he was known as Lechmere at work.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

"Neither this Act, nor anything therein contained, shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall be continually remaining beyond the seas by the space of seven years together, or whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of seven years together, in any parts within his Majesties Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time." - Bigamy Act of 1603.

Maria Lechmere waited the seven years, so her second maraige was not bigamous.

John Allen Lechmere, OTOH, had a son by another woman in 1855.



They have to imply these things about Maria to try to make her son fit the FBI Ripper profile. They also like to skip inconvenient parts of the profile or reword them in ways that might make CAL fit, even though he clearly doesn't fit what was said in that part of the profile.

Of course, no case has ever been solver by profiling.

Is that the John Lechmere who was born in March 1855?

If true, then Maria would presumably have had grounds for divorce, which perhaps suggests that she did not know what he was up to.

[Elamarna]

You ARE right that Pickfords provided Lechmere with legal representation.

I don't think it would be reasonable for anyone to say that he was known as Lechmere at work.

So far as I am aware the attached is the ONLY report of the RTA , I see NO mention of Pickfords providing legal advice.

We complain about the Lechmere people presenting theory as FACT, but it does not help if those arguing against do the very same.

So a few ideas and the Facts on several issues.

1. The idea because no knife was found on him by Mizen he wasn't the killer.

This is simply unrealistic, Mizen never searched Lechmere, he had NO reason to.

2. That because he had no blood on him.he can't be the killer.

Again, I have to say, it very likely, as I have said for many years that the killer would have very LITTLE blood on him.
In Bucks Row, maybe his hands or shirt cuffs, but that is it.
Blood on clothing in the dark really does not show up that well, so the best we can do is say that he had no obvious blood on him, but I doubt either Paul or Mizen were looking for such anyway.
The lack of noticeable blood simply does not rule him out.

On to the RTA, although I strongly suspect the Charles Cross in the 76 accident is the same man, it's not 100% conclusive, but probailitiy says it was.

Again, if it was the same man, then it probably means he was Known as Cross at Pickfords, but to state that as a fact is simply doing the same the Lechmere people do when they make their claims .

Anyone who knows me knows I am no fan.of the Lechmere theory, but let's try and stick.to the facts.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

So far as I am aware the attached is the ONLY report of the RTA , I see NO mention of Pickfords providing legal advice.

We complain about the Lechmere people presenting theory as FACT, but it does not help if those arguing against do the very same.

So a few ideas and the Facts on several issues.

1. The idea because no knife was found on him by Mizen he wasn't the killer.

This is simply unrealistic, Mizen never searched Lechmere, he had NO reason to.

2. That because he had no blood on him.he can't be the killer.

Again, I have to say, it very likely, as I have said for many years that the killer would have very LITTLE blood on him.
In Bucks Row, maybe his hands or shirt cuffs, but that is it.
Blood on clothing in the dark really does not show up that well, so the best we can do is say that he had no obvious blood on him, but I doubt either Paul or Mizen were looking for such anyway.
The lack of noticeable blood simply does not rule him out.

On to the RTA, although I strongly suspect the Charles Cross in the 76 accident is the same man, it's not 100% conclusive, but probailitiy says it was.

Again, if it was the same man, then it probably means he was Known as Cross at Pickfords, but to state that as a fact is simply doing the same the Lechmere people do when they make their claims .

Anyone who knows me knows I am no fan.of the Lechmere theory, but let's try and stick.to the facts.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I had recalled the idea of there being a lawyer involved has been mentioned, but couldn't recall if that was established or not (hence my bob both ways on that regards).

If this news story is the only coverage of the first inquest that we have, then it appears the idea of legal representation being provided by Pickford's is a hypothesis only, and not something established by evidence.

Do we know if there are cases where lawyers get involved at inquests at that time? (particularly inquests into work accidents like this; did companies generally provide a lawyer or did they tend to distance themselves from the whole thing?) Or was that such a rare occurrence that to suggest it is to bet the long odds?

Anyway, unless there is some other source, then there appears to be no evidence that Pickford's provided a lawyer at the first inquest. As such, we're still without evidence as to what name Cross/Lechmere was known as at Pickfords.

- Jeff