Evidence of innocence

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Again, I doubt he himself answered the census and so his listing as Cross there probably reflects the decision of someone else, probably his step-father if I had to guess. As for his reasons for using Lechmere in all the legal documents, I think that reflects the fact his name was never legally changed. As such, and this of course is just an idea, he may have been obliged to use Lechmere on such documents despite going by the name Cross in every other aspect of his life. His children would likewise legally have the name Lechmere, so their registrations in school and so forth would also have to be under Lechmere. It may be the only time he used Lechmere are on the types of documents that tend to get persevered.

I don't know if that's the case, of course, but I don't know that it isn't either. We don't have information on his name use in other, more mundane, circumstances. We do, however, see that he identifies himself as Cross at the inquests, which some have suggested would be fine provided that was the name he was generally known as.

Again, these are just hypotheses and they need proper researching. Research is not the formulation of "possible explanations" though, it involves the hard grind of searching through documents and historical records, maybe trying to uncover a trove of personal letters, etc. Our tossing back and forth of various scenarios isn't research, it's just us being creative. That's fine, but we're not going to solve anything by doing so. We simply demonstrate that, without evidence, there are an infinite number of ways to explain things and get one to a desired outcome.


- Jeff

No, I hear you. I just cant fathom why he would remain Lechmere, if he could change or keep his name cross, seeing that his Dad Lechmere was such a jerk and among other things, abandoned him and his mother.

[JeffHamm]

No, I hear you. I just cant fathom why he would remain Lechmere, if he could change or keep his name cross, seeing that his Dad Lechmere was such a jerk and among other things, abandoned him and his mother.

Hi Abby,

I don't know what would be involved for him to legally change his name. If it involved some expense, he may just not have bothered? Without knowing what would be involved at the time I can't even begin to imagine reasons that are worth considering.

- Jeff

[GUT]

No, I hear you. I just cant fathom why he would remain Lechmere, if he could change or keep his name cross, seeing that his Dad Lechmere was such a jerk and among other things, abandoned him and his mother.

Isn’t the theory that the Lechmere family had money even if dad was skint and a right Royal b

[drstrange169]

>>Charles Cross was accompanied by a legal representative of Pickfords and during the proceedings, the legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question because doing so would not be in his best interests.<<

Happy to be corrected, but this reads like you may be confusing Cross's R.T.A. with the case of a young lad named William Whitaker's R.T.A. which Gary Barnett and I debated recently elsewhere. In that case his employer advised him not to answer a question.

[drstrange169]

>>I just cant fathom why he would remain Lechmere, if he could change or keep his name cross, seeing that his Dad Lechmere was such a jerk and among other things, abandoned him and his mother.<<

The same reason for so many actions are undertaken in life ... money.

[drstrange169]

>>Lechmere's walk to work took him right past the scene of Nichols' murder, but none of the others.<<

There a debate to be had about the suitability of the timing and Cross, with regards to Mrs Chapman's murder, but there is no debate that his known route to work took him past 29 Hanbury Street.

[JeffHamm]

>>Lechmere's walk to work took him right past the scene of Nichols' murder, but none of the others.<<

There a debate to be had about the suitability of the timing and Cross, with regards to Mrs Chapman's murder, but there is no debate that his known route to work took him past 29 Hanbury Street.

And given the proximity of Miller's Court to Hanbury Street, his walk to work would also pass close enough to be near enough (on the assumption the theory is he goes with Kelly to that location rather than he enters her room with her unaware). A walk to work explanation for Kelly's murder would require that he was working on the morning of the parade, and also that the murder occurred at a time that is later than the generally accepted night time murder, but still prior to the proposed sightings that morning (although I believe some argue he parks up his wagon during his working day and kills her then).

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

>>Charles Cross wahas accompanied by a legal representative of Pickfords and during the proceedings, the legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question because doing so would not be in his best interests.<<

Happy to be corrected, but this reads like you may be confusing Cross's R.T.A. with the case of a young lad named William Whitaker's R.T.A. which Gary Barnett and I debated recently elsewhere. In that case his employer advised him not to answer a question.

I'm pretty sure I haven't read about that case before.

I was researching Lechmere at the time!

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

>>Lechmere's walk to work took him right past the scene of Nichols' murder, but none of the others.<<

There a debate to be had about the suitability of the timing and Cross, with regards to Mrs Chapman's murder, but there is no debate that his known route to work took him past 29 Hanbury Street.

Can you please provide the evidence?

[drstrange169]

>>I'm pretty sure I haven't read about that case before.<<

Certainly, fresh information would be more than welcome.

[drstrange169]

>>Can you please provide the evidence?<<

"The other man left witness (Cross) at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court."
The Times 4/9/88

[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

Something has just occured to me: Mizen testified that when Lechmere approached him, he identified himself as a carman.
(I suppose I ought to have written, 'When the man whom we know as Lechmere approached him, Mizen gathered that he was a carman, which suggests IMHO that Lechmere had identified himself as a carman').

Can you imagine Lechmere introducing himself merely as a carman?

I have a hunch that he identified himself as an employee of Pickfords.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

>>Can you please provide the evidence?<<

"The other man left witness (Cross) at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court."
The Times 4/9/88

I don't understand why the fact that, after leaving the body, Lechmere and Paul went to the corner of Hanbury Street and Baker's Row is bring taken to have any bearing on the question of which route he took to work.

They went there only in order to find a policeman.

[JeffHamm]

Something has just occured to me: Mizen testified that when Lechmere approached him, he identified himself as a carman.
(I suppose I ought to have written, 'When the man whom we know as Lechmere approached him, Mizen gathered that he was a carman, which suggests IMHO that Lechmere had identified himself as a carman').

Can you imagine Lechmere introducing himself merely as a carman?

I have a hunch that he identified himself as an employee of Pickfords.

As we don't have their exact conversation it's hard to say. For example, if he mentioned he was on his way to work when he found her, PC Mizen might have asked about what he did and he indicated he was a carman. If he mentioned that he worked for Pickfords, that's not recorded anywhere but of course it's possible that got mentioned. But I would think his name would also have come up in such a conversation and as I understand it, PC Mizen did not have either Cross/Lechmere's or Paul's name. Mind you, it could be they were said and he didn't write them down and forgot what they were, particularly if at the time he didn't get the impression that there was a real emergency.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I don't understand why the fact that, after leaving the body, Lechmere and Paul went to the corner of Hanbury Street and Baker's Row is bring taken to have any bearing on the question of which route he took to work.

They went there only in order to find a policeman.

I would say it's because when they left Nichols, they left to go to work with the intention of alerting a police man along the way. Therefore, the route reflects their route to work and PC Mizen is the police officer they found while in transit. Also, once PC Mizen had been alerted, if Cross/Lechmere normally went a different route then one would expect him to then set out upon that route. Again, suggesting Hanbury Street was probably his normal route. Finally, the route via Hanbury does get him to where he worked, so it is also a sensible route.

- Jeff