Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

Hi MrBarnett,

He went to the police, presented himself as Charles Cross and told them a plausible story about having come across Nichols’ body on his way to work. Perhaps that was sufficient to prevent them looking any further.

You seem to be dismissing the anomaly of Lechmere not disclosing his real name on the basis of some posts from someone or other that you can’t quite recall. Is that helpful?

What the police did, or did not do, with the information he gave them is irrelevant with regards to what he did. Charles had no way of knowing what the police would do. That was out of his control. However, what he did do was provide them with more than sufficient information to identify him, and to find him in the future. He also went to them, as up until the point he made his statement, his identity was not known. In short, nothing Charles did can be seen as him trying to hide his identity from the police, and by not hiding his identity, he is not hiding the name Lechmere.

The fact that I don't recall who or where the original posts are is, I admit, a drag. I would prefer to be able to point to them, and also to review exactly what was said. Sadly, there is so much information on the boards that I can't do that. Regardless, based upon my recall (which I admit is not always the safest thing to rely on, of course), I see nothing all that strange about him giving his step-father's surname (again, a name that does link to his identity). I don't expect you to take me at my word, but I'm not going to change my view just because you would be wise to be cautious of simply accepting something I said without being able to back it up.

But, to cover all the bases. Let's say it was unusual for him to use his step-father's surname, even for the time. What then? Other than it being an odd thing for him to do, how has doing so prevented the police from knowing who he is? The name does link to him directly, via his step-father. He did give his full first and second name. Have gave his address, and his place of work. How then has he truly mislead the police in a way that would thwart them in any meaningful way? He hasn't. He's provided them with more than sufficient information for them to find him again, and for them to work out he goes by Lechmere. The whole deception idea, or whatever it is supposed to be, doesn't make rational sense. It doesn't describe what he actually did, which was divulge more than sufficient information for the police to know exactly who he is and how to find him.

As I say, I can see nothing in the name thing that is at all "telling" unless one mixes it with a hypothetical story with the goal of making it look suspicious. But that can just as easily be done to make him look innocent. It's all in what one adds to the mix, not the name thing itself. The fact is not a pointer to guilt, it's the dressing one puts on it. Once we see the Emperor with no clothes, it looks pretty silly to be making an issue over. There is clearly no attempt being made by Charles of two names to hide his identity, or to prevent the police from being able to investigate him, or seek him out for further questioning. None of that is suspicious behavior. For all we know, he may even have told them he also goes by Lechmere. He has told them everything else after all, so it may just have been they went with Cross for reasons that are lost to us.

- Jeff

[harry]

In reply to Fisherman's last post to me.
So the police are negligent for not questioning all the residents of Buck's row.That leads to the conclusion that the police did question some residents.Did the police need to question all? Did the Coroner compell all residents of Bucks Row to attend court"Was he lacking in his resposibilities?
Police powers allowed police officers to question anyone they considered could provide evidence.This is what happened.There were only so many police,so the police had to be selective in whom they interviewed.
Many Killer's lie,say's Fisherman.True,but that can only be said about Killer'swho are caught and then proven to have lied.Cross was neither a killer who was caught,nor a person who was proven a liar.
'Maybe this is British English' .This is what Fisherman writes,and he is critical of my use of the language.Of course,it is another means of avoiding an answer he doesn't have.Maybe that was also tongue in cheek?
Now maybe individual policemen did make mistakes,doctors too,and coroners,but is that reason to label all as inadequate.
I now await the next excuse as to why Cross was overlooked,the next blunder the authorities made.'Not exonerated'appeared a good suggestion,except that to be exonerated there first has to be blame attached,and poor old Cross was blameless.

[Doctored Whatsit]

One fact about Lechmere allegedly concealing his identity from the police which I don't think has been mentioned yet - his step-father of many years, PC Thomas Cross was a local bobby, and as such it is very likely that several of his colleagues would have known CAL personally or by sight at least.

[MrBarnett]

Hi MrBarnett,



What the police did, or did not do, with the information he gave them is irrelevant with regards to what he did. Charles had no way of knowing what the police would do. That was out of his control. However, what he did do was provide them with more than sufficient information to identify him, and to find him in the future. He also went to them, as up until the point he made his statement, his identity was not known. In short, nothing Charles did can be seen as him trying to hide his identity from the police, and by not hiding his identity, he is not hiding the name Lechmere.

The fact that I don't recall who or where the original posts are is, I admit, a drag. I would prefer to be able to point to them, and also to review exactly what was said. Sadly, there is so much information on the boards that I can't do that. Regardless, based upon my recall (which I admit is not always the safest thing to rely on, of course), I see nothing all that strange about him giving his step-father's surname (again, a name that does link to his identity). I don't expect you to take me at my word, but I'm not going to change my view just because you would be wise to be cautious of simply accepting something I said without being able to back it up.

But, to cover all the bases. Let's say it was unusual for him to use his step-father's surname, even for the time. What then? Other than it being an odd thing for him to do, how has doing so prevented the police from knowing who he is? The name does link to him directly, via his step-father. He did give his full first and second name. Have gave his address, and his place of work. How then has he truly mislead the police in a way that would thwart them in any meaningful way? He hasn't. He's provided them with more than sufficient information for them to find him again, and for them to work out he goes by Lechmere. The whole deception idea, or whatever it is supposed to be, doesn't make rational sense. It doesn't describe what he actually did, which was divulge more than sufficient information for the police to know exactly who he is and how to find him.

As I say, I can see nothing in the name thing that is at all "telling" unless one mixes it with a hypothetical story with the goal of making it look suspicious. But that can just as easily be done to make him look innocent. It's all in what one adds to the mix, not the name thing itself. The fact is not a pointer to guilt, it's the dressing one puts on it. Once we see the Emperor with no clothes, it looks pretty silly to be making an issue over. There is clearly no attempt being made by Charles of two names to hide his identity, or to prevent the police from being able to investigate him, or seek him out for further questioning. None of that is suspicious behavior. For all we know, he may even have told them he also goes by Lechmere. He has told them everything else after all, so it may just have been they went with Cross for reasons that are lost to us.

- Jeff

I don’t know, Jeff, but I suspect you may be referring to discussions involving David Orsam and others where numerous examples of people using assumed names were given. And how do we know those people used more than one name? Because they or their family thought it was appropriate to reveal both names in court. The concept of a ‘real’ name was alive and well in the Victorian era, and the ‘real’ name of the man who found Polly Nichols (or perhaps killed her and was himself found by Robert Paul) was Charles Allen Lechmere.

Did Lechmere have a casual attitude towards the use of his name(s)? If he did, he made a good job of concealing the fact. He rarely neglected to use his middle name of ‘Allen’, a name that held some significance in the Lechmere family story.

Who knows, perhaps Lechmere was known by both names at Pickfords and thought it prudent to approach the police himself and establish the name of Cross before they started digging too deeply. Had he given Paul any indication of where he worked as he accompanied him to Hanbury Street? In that situation it would seem a natural thing to do to reveal where you were going.

Once again I must emphasise that I’m not putting any of this forward as my theory. When it comes to the name issue, I have my own ideas that do not require him to have been a serial killer. I am convinced that the omission of the name Lechmere was a conscious decision and not a mere oversight by someone who had no concept of his ‘real’ name.

[MrBarnett]

One fact about Lechmere allegedly concealing his identity from the police which I don't think has been mentioned yet - his step-father of many years, PC Thomas Cross was a local bobby, and as such it is very likely that several of his colleagues would have known CAL personally or by sight at least.

A local Bobby who had been dead for 19 years.

[MrBarnett]

Or perhaps because it was true

Regards Darryl

Perhaps it was. Both scenarios are possible.

[JeffHamm]

Hi MrBarnett,

I don’t know, Jeff, but I suspect you may be referring to discussions involving David Orsam and others where numerous examples of people using assumed names were given. And how do we know those people used more than one name? Because they or their family thought it was appropriate to reveal both names in court. The concept of a ‘real’ name was alive and well in the Victorian era, and the ‘real’ name of the man who found Polly Nichols (or perhaps killed her and was himself found by Robert Paul) was Charles Allen Lechmere.

Did Lechmere have a casual attitude towards the use of his name(s)? If he did, he made a good job of concealing the fact. He rarely neglected to use his middle name of ‘Allen’, a name that held some significance in the Lechmere family story.

Who knows, perhaps Lechmere was known by both names at Pickfords and thought it prudent to approach the police himself and establish the name of Cross before they started digging too deeply. Had he given Paul any indication of where he worked as he accompanied him to Hanbury Street? In that situation it would seem a natural thing to do to reveal where you were going.

Once again I must emphasise that I’m not putting any of this forward as my theory. When it comes to the name issue, I have my own ideas that do not require him to have been a serial killer. I am convinced that the omission of the name Lechmere was a conscious decision and not a mere oversight by someone who had no concept of his ‘real’ name.

I don't doubt it was a conscious decision, in that he didn't just randomly choose a name out of the two. But, what I'm saying is we do not know what guided or motivated his choice. But, we can rule out one motivation, and that's to hide his identity from the police. Everything else he did shows that cannot be his motive. And that's the only realistic motive that would make this look like the act of a guilty person. So if the only motive outside of Hollywood cannot be his reason, then the name thing sinks into the category of "not a thing", at which point we don't necessarily need to know what his motive was. Now, if something factual were to be discovered that solved this mystery, I would be interested to know, but that's because I'm interested in knowing things, whether they are important to the case or not.

Anyway, as I say, all of the suggestions I've put out have just been speculations, but one doesn't need more than speculation to counter speculation. So I have no idea what his attitude was towards his name, or why he chose to go by his step-father's at the inquest. I do know he wasn't trying to conceal his identity from the police, because he revealed his identity in every other way. After that, it's just a minor curiosity, which is why I'm confused over why it gets mentioned so loudly and so often.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

We cannot rule out the possibility that the use of the name Lechmere might have identified him in some way that the use of Cross didn’t.

The name issue is one of the things put forward to support the theory of Lechmere being the killer. I don’t find it very convincing, but I disagree with those who refuse to accept it as an anomaly or those who claim it couldn’t in any way have helped him evade detection.

[MrBarnett]

If you scroll through the Essex Street school register for 1888, you’ll see how unusual it was for the middle names of children/parents to be recorded. While not unique, the Lechmere family were very unusual in that respect.

Geo William Lechmere, Jas Alfred Lechmere and Thos Allen Lechmere were all registered on 12th June, 1888 and their father’s name was recorded as Charles Allen Lechmere. Allen, you may recall, was also CAL’s father’s middle name. I understand the use of the name in the Lechmere family had its origins in the surname of an Allen who married into the family bringing with him a sizeable estate.

Was CAL a man who had a casual approach to his name? Did he lack the sense of a ‘real’ name that so
many of much humbler origins seemingly possessed?

[Doctored Whatsit]

A local Bobby who had been dead for 19 years.

Agreed , which is why I said "by sight at least". People in an area tend to see old aquaintances from time to time and recognise them. I know it's a minor point, but as I said, it is likely that several would have known him. I frequently see people I haven't met for years but recognise at once, or come across a name I haven't heard of for many a year but remember well.

So with all of the publicity that the murder and the inquest received, I believe that just about every copper in the East End came across the name Charles Cross as the person who found the body, and one or two must have thought "Hey, I think that's Thomas Cross' stepson!"

[JeffHamm]

Hi MrBarnett,

We cannot rule out the possibility that the use of the name Lechmere might have identified him in some way that the use of Cross didn’t.

The name issue is one of the things put forward to support the theory of Lechmere being the killer. I don’t find it very convincing, but I disagree with those who refuse to accept it as an anomaly or those who claim it couldn’t in any way have helped him evade detection.

Well, I did refer to it as a mystery above, albeit I think it's a minor mystery. But unless we embark along some fantastical lines of very specific unsupported speculations, there's really no realistic way use of his step-father's surname would help him avoid detection given all of the other information about himself he has revealed to the police. If he was trying to avoid detection, he wouldn't have gone to the police in the first place and remained unidentified completely. As you suggest, the family may have had some view towards their names. And if so, then that suggests this family had some idiosyncratic aspects towards names and if we knew those it would make his choice completely understandable. But of course, we don't know what those were and it's dangerous to guess. Unless something evidential comes up, which of course could change things, it's just a weird thing, but it's not indicative of guilt in any way unless one dresses it that way. But as I've said before, it's the dressing, not the name thing itself, that makes it look like something worth looking at. By itself, it's just not a thing, other than a oddity.

- Jeff

[harry]

It appears that Cross came to the inquest with a pre determined decision to use the name Cross,and also a pre determined decision to supply information that identified himself.The question is,does that constitute a lie in a legal sense.In my opinion,no,as it in no way altered the real purpose of his attending the inquest,and neither did it mislead the jury into reaching a different verdict had he used the name Lechmere.So intent to deceive,the base upon which Cross is accused,has been a non starter from the word go.

[MrBarnett]

It appears that Cross came to the inquest with a pre determined decision to use the name Cross,and also a pre determined decision to supply information that identified himself.The question is,does that constitute a lie in a legal sense.In my opinion,no,as it in no way altered the real purpose of his attending the inquest,and neither did it mislead the jury into reaching a different verdict had he used the name Lechmere.So intent to deceive,the base upon which Cross is accused,has been a non starter from the word go.

It seems Lechmere came to the inquest with a predetermined decision not to use the name Lechmere.

By what name do you think he was known by his kids’ teachers? Or by his kids’ school friends and by extension their parents? Take a deep breath and make sure you are sitting down before you answer.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Apologies for mentioning this again but was Lech legally known as Cross ? Or at least he thought he was regarding inquests/courts. Was he using the name Cross back in 1876 more [ if indeed it was him], regarding the Islington tragedy with the young boy, Walter.
So what I am thinking is he was/thought he was legally known as Cross, or at least he was or used the surname more often back in 1876 and felt that was the name he had/obliged to use again at an official inquest.

Regards Darryl

[Doctored Whatsit]

Charles clearly knew that his legal name was Lechmere, and used it when he thought it was appropriate eg legal matters etc, but what evidence is there that he didn't use the name Cross from choice in everyday matters? He is unlikely to have had any respect whatever for the father who abandoned him and his mother when he was an infant, and therefore probably no respect for the surname. We know that Thomas Cross started to call the children by his surname, and we can be reasonably sure that Charles was known as Cross at Pickfords, at least at the 1876 inquest, otherwise he could not reasonably have used that name in front of Pickfords' staff and the police who would have made some investigation of the facts. I accept that this issue is unresolved, but I don't see it as very important, and until there is evidence that in his everyday life, at work etc he was known as Lechmere, then I see the point as interesting, but unimportant and probably not of any significance.