Evidence of innocence

[Mark J D]

Just a reminder that the incident with a Charles Cross accidentally running a child over has, as far as I know, not been connected to ‘our’ Charles Cross.

It may have been him, but it could be someone else. We don’t know yet.

If the locations mentioned in the 1876 'Islington Gazette' report are in/near the parish of St Mary's Islington, then the accident site was no great distance from Lechmere's 1888 place of work.

M.

[MrBarnett]

Ah, yes, you had responded. Sorry, I missed that post.

But I see your response suggests he was known to the local prostitutes as Lechmere, etc. That's not a fact, though. There's no evidence that shows he was known by the local prostitutes by any name. We can all offer our speculations, and stories, to make it look sinister or saintly, but none of these stories or lines of speculation are facts, so they don't establish his use of the name Cross at the inquest as being "a thing".

As for the "whole truth", given he has an association with the name Cross, even if he didn't use it, Darryl's suggestion might be worth considering; that he thought he was legally obliged to use it. Given his step-father's name is Cross, and he's in a court, he may have thought he had to use his step-father's name despite not using it for other situations. The use of names in Victorian times was looser than it is now (I'm basing that on posts by people more knowledgeable than I am on these things, but it's come up before) so the courts and police didn't see it as a problem, just what people do. It could be as simple as that.

Sure, I have no proof that's how he thought but your explanation has no proof he was known to prostitutes. I don't mean to be snarky there, just pointing out how our explanations are on equal footing evidence wise - and also that our footing is entirely shakey on both sides!. As I say, we can all spin tales, but that doesn't make our tales facts.

- Jeff

No, Jeff, I was putting that hypothetical scenario forward to counter the argument I’ve often heard that since Lechmere provided his place of work, his address and a name he was associated with, the omission of the name Lechmere would not have helped him evade suspicion. My take on the name issue has nothing to do with Lechmere being the Ripper or using prostitutes.


The informal adoption of a stepparent’s surname was common in Victorian society. And how do we know that? Because the stepchildren often thought it appropriate to disclose their ‘real’ names alongside their assumed ones. Why should we imagine Charles Allen Lechmere would have felt differently?

[MrBarnett]

What we can ascertain pretty easily is that the accident site was no great distance from Lechmere's 1888 place of work:

[link coming]

M.

It was in Islington, a completely different part of London from Broad Street in the City.

Islington, however, was the location of the Metropolitan Cattle Market and contained ‘the chief seat of the London horse slaughterers’, Harrison, Barber’s headquarters.

[MrBarnett]

You are in error again. Charles Lechmere gave his address at the Nichols Inquest, but most newpapers didn't bother to print it.

"CARMAN CROSS was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road." - 3 September, 1888 Star

In the 1876 Inquest, period reports do not mention Lechmere's home address. You assume the worst, ignoring the possibility that the newpapers didn't bother list his address.

Reports of the 1876 incident mentioned the addresses of other witnesses. Why not Charles Cross’s?

[Mark J D]

It was in Islington, a completely different part of London from Broad Street in the City.

Islington, however, was the location of the Metropolitan Cattle Market and contained ‘the chief seat of the London horse slaughterers’, Harrison, Barber’s headquarters.

Would a Broad Street carman really not be asked to deliver/pick up 2 miles north-north-west from the station?

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Live...51.5384066!3e2

Genuine question, squire: Lechmere's walk to work was itself 1.5 miles.

Since we're definitely dealing with a Pickford's employee in 1876, was there a company branch in the Islington area that would have served that locality, and where a non-Lechmere Cross could have worked? (I know Edward Stow has located Pickford's branches further east than Broad Street.)

Bests,

M.

[MrBarnett]

Would a Broad Street carman really not be asked to deliver/pick up 2 miles north-north-west from the station?

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Live...51.5384066!3e2

Genuine question, squire: Lechmere's walk to work was itself 1.5 miles.

Bests,

M.

Of course he might. I suspect, though that he was delivering rather than picking up.

Pickfords main depot was in Camden, which is much closer to Islington than Broad Street. So perhaps he was delivering a commodity that arrived at Broad Street and needed to be transported to Islington.

There was a ‘Scotch Meat and Fish’ express train that arrived into Broad Street at around 4.00 in the morning. I imagine the meat and fish from that would have gone to Smithfield and Billingsgate, though, both in the City.

Then there was the horseflesh brought into London from the provinces to satisfy the capital’s insatiable moggies. That would have gone to the cats meat wholesalers in the East End and Islington.

[MrBarnett]

Would a Broad Street carman really not be asked to deliver/pick up 2 miles north-north-west from the station?

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Live...51.5384066!3e2

Genuine question, squire: Lechmere's walk to work was itself 1.5 miles.

Since we're definitely dealing with a Pickford's employee in 1876, was there a company branch in the Islington area that would have served that locality, and where a non-Lechmere Cross could have worked? (I know Edward Stow has located Pickford's branches further east than Broad Street.)

Bests,

M.

Incidentally, if CAL had started work for Pickfords in the 1860s, they then had a depot in Haydon Square, not far from Mitre Square. In Whitechapel - H. Division - rather than the City. It’s not clear from his reported inquest testimony that he had worked at Broad Street for 20 years.

[Mark J D]

Incidentally, if CAL had started work for Pickfords in the 1860s, they then had a depot in Haydon Square, not far from Mitre Square. In Whitechapel - H. Division - rather than the City. It’s not clear from his reported inquest testimony that he had worked at Broad Street for 20 years.

All terrific stuff! Thanks!

-- Actually, it was Edward Stow who first told me about the Haydon Square depot: it's close to The White Swan, of Tabram murder fame.

M.

[MrBarnett]

All terrific stuff! Thanks!

-- Actually, it was Edward Stowe who first told me about the Haydon Square depot: it's close to The White Swan, of Tabram murder fame.

M.

The relevance of the location of Haydon Square is that it was closer to where CAL was living when he probably started work aged 14 or so - plus it was located in H Division and Thomas Cross was an H Div. PC. Perhaps he started working there and transferred to Broad Street at a later stage. I think Pickfords had stopped operating from Haydon Square by 1870 or so, but they had other east end depots. I think it’s unsafe to assume that CAL had only ever worked out of Broad Street.

[JeffHamm]

id take anything that goes through trevor with a grain of salt Jeff

Hi Abby,

I get what you mean, believe me. However, while Trevor and I often disagree on interpretation, which is of course not an unusual thing for any two people interested in JtR, I don't think Trevor would fabricate such a thing. Nor, to be clear, do I think Fisherman would fabricate anything either, although I often disagree with his interpretation. Basically, if Trevor said he had a conversation with Scobie, and Scobie told him he was unaware of what we would call pretty basic information, then I think that's safe to accept as a real event. To suggest Trevor is lying as a way to avoid the content is in my opinion uncalled for. Trevor's phrasing, such as calling the information given to Scobie "misleading", often employs terms like that which carry a lot of implied baggage despite in the strictest sense being accurate. What I mean is, if the information Scobie was given left out some pretty basic but important information, then by being incomplete it is misleading. However, the word misleading implies an intentionality, which people take offense to, and as a result respond defensively. That leads to unproductive discussions.

That being said, what information Trevor presented, and how he presented it, are fair questions. Those are asking about the "method" used to gather the information. Without knowing the context (questions, and surrounding conversation) and Scobie's replies, it's hard to know exactly how much more to conclude beyond Scobie's conviction that the case was sufficient for court is not as strong as it appears in the documentary.

Asking about methods is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in any area of research. Asking about the "raw data" (what was said exactly, what was the context and questions, etc) is also fair and reasonable. Automatic rejection, though, is not, nor is uncritical acceptance.

As I say, I'm not sure how much to make of Trevor's finding, but even if one felt his questions and the context he presented them in were of the leading sort, it would only mean that they were in a way different from what Scobie was given for the documentary. Therefore, the same facts, coloured in a different light, appear to result in Scobie coming to a different conclusion. And in a court case, that "different light" would be what a defense lawyer would present, and Scobie's willingness to change his mind shows that it would be trivial to establish reasonable doubt. And that is something that is very important to consider, particularly in a thread about "evidence of innocence". Scobie's apparent withdrawl of his statement the case was ready for court would be "evidence of innocence" given his previous statement is presented as "evidence of guilt."

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

No, Jeff, I was putting that hypothetical scenario forward to counter the argument I’ve often heard that since Lechmere provided his place of work, his address and a name he was associated with, the omission of the name Lechmere would not have helped him evade suspicion. My take on the name issue has nothing to do with Lechmere being the Ripper or using prostitutes.

And, as I indicated, I was doing the same, only showing one can hypothesize the complete opposite outcome. Again, my point is the name thing doesn't point anywhere.

Again, by providing all of the other correct information, it would not prevent the police from knowing the last name of Lechmere. And if he was known amongst the prostitutes (for which there is no basis to believe of course) as a violent thug, use of his step-father's surname is not going to prevent the police from still making that connection. Basically, he's done nothing to hide his identity, and as such, nothing to hide from the police that he is also Charles Lechmere.

The informal adoption of a stepparent’s surname was common in Victorian society. And how do we know that? Because the stepchildren often thought it appropriate to disclose their ‘real’ names alongside their assumed ones. Why should we imagine Charles Allen Lechmere would have felt differently?

As I said in my post, I was basing that on information presented by those more knowledgeable than I on that issue. I don't have the expertise to suggest they're incorrect, and at the time they presented various bits of evidence to back up their conclusions. I'm sorry, but I don't recall if it was in this thread or elsewhere, or who the poster was. It was just one of those things I had read and retained.

We shouldn't imagine Cross/Lechmere thinking in any particular way. However, as the "he's guilty" presentation often involves imagining him trying to mislead the police (again, exactly how that's supposed to work has never been adequately explained), it is therefore important to show that if we replaced one imagining with another a completely different outcome emerges. And that is all the proof one needs to show the "he's guilty" outcome is driven by the imagination of why rather than the fact itself.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

And, as I indicated, I was doing the same, only showing one can hypothesize the complete opposite outcome. Again, my point is the name thing doesn't point anywhere.

Again, by providing all of the other correct information, it would not prevent the police from knowing the last name of Lechmere. And if he was known amongst the prostitutes (for which there is no basis to believe of course) as a violent thug, use of his step-father's surname is not going to prevent the police from still making that connection. Basically, he's done nothing to hide his identity, and as such, nothing to hide from the police that he is also Charles Lechmere.



As I said in my post, I was basing that on information presented by those more knowledgeable than I on that issue. I don't have the expertise to suggest they're incorrect, and at the time they presented various bits of evidence to back up their conclusions. I'm sorry, but I don't recall if it was in this thread or elsewhere, or who the poster was. It was just one of those things I had read and retained.

We shouldn't imagine Cross/Lechmere thinking in any particular way. However, as the "he's guilty" presentation often involves imagining him trying to mislead the police (again, exactly how that's supposed to work has never been adequately explained), it is therefore important to show that if we replaced one imagining with another a completely different outcome emerges. And that is all the proof one needs to show the "he's guilty" outcome is driven by the imagination of why rather than the fact itself.

- Jeff

The name Lechmere was never published in connection with the case. People who might have recognised it could have read the accounts of the finding of Nichols’ body and had no idea that it involved the man they knew as Charles Lechmere. Almost certainly some did. I believe I’m right in saying that until CAL named one of his sons CAL, the name was unique to him. He would have been instantly identified by people in Herefordshire in particular.

We are entitled to imagine Lechmere thinking in any way we please.

[JeffHamm]

Hi MrBarnett,

The name Lechmere was never published in connection with the case. People who might have recognised it could have read the accounts of the finding of Nichols’ body and had no idea that it involved the man they knew as Charles Lechmere. Almost certainly some did. I believe I’m right in saying that until CAL named one of his sons CAL, the name was unique to him. He would have been instantly identified by people in Herefordshire in particular.

Ok, sure. But he did nothing to prevent the police from being able to connect him to that name. For all we know, he may even had told the police that he went by both Cross and Lechmere. Regardless, nothing he did would interfere with the police connecting him to the name Lechmere.

We are entitled to imagine Lechmere thinking in any way we please.

Oh, ok. Then my answer to your previous question "Why should we imagine Charles Allen Lechmere would have felt differently?" is simply because "we're entitled too." But to be honest, that doesn't feel very helpful to me.

- Jeff

[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?

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

Or perhaps because it was true

Regards Darryl