Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

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.

Thomas Cross had been dead for nineteen years in 1888.

[Fisherman]

A local Bobby who had been dead for 19 years.

You bet me to it, Gary. On a side note; havenīt we seen this argument 986 times before...?

[Fisherman]

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!"

Even if Charles never called himself Cross? Really?

There are too many "musts" around in places where they donīt belong.

[MrBarnett]

I meant concealment from friends and family or his work place (given he would have to have taken time off - he was there in his work clothes). As for concealment from those who wouldn't recognize him from those details, there would be very few, if any, that would have recognized him by the name Lechmere. I realize this isn't your theory, and I appreciate your presenting the idea (because as I say, I can't ever recall Fisherman laying out why using his step-father's name is such a black mark against him - he just presents it as self evident, but it's anything but self evident as far as I can see). Anyway, as I've said a few times, it's always possible to speculate there was someone out there who knew something and only knew the name Lechmere, so that's all he had to change to vanish from view from this one phantom person. But that's just a story, those sorts of things are just the dressing up, and it's only the dressing up that contains anything suspicious, the fact is he used his step-father's name and divulged more than sufficient information to ensure his identity was available, hence I stand by my statement there was no concealment, but perhaps will rephrase it to be appropriately cautious as "there is no evidence to support concealment as his motivation." That's sufficiently wishy-washy for me.

- Jeff

Jeff - where do you get the idea that ‘very few, if any, would have recognised him by the name Lechmere’? Bearing in mind that he gave his two forenames, Charles and Allen, and that the combination of those two with the surname Lechmere was unique, and that he had used the name Lechmere on numerous occasions.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

Why would I discuss that with somebody who claims that I "sweep things under the carpet"?

And why would you trust such an untrustworthyt person in the first place, Jeff? Wouldnīt you be better off discussing the case solely with honest people, instead of scoundrels like me?

Maybe we should start in that end.

That would have been far more effective had you not been discussing things with me after that post already. But you did. It's only now you choose to become indignant, which makes it look like you're just avoiding answering the question (is that another broom I hear?). So again, all I'm asking you to do is simply to lay out for everyone's benefit your reasoning behind claiming that his use of his step-father's last name is indicative of him killing Nichols. I accept his use of Cross may be considered a rare event. But what is it about his using his step-father's last name that makes him Nichol's murderer, keeping in mind all of the other information he has given with respect to his identity (first name, middle name, address, place of work). Abby has presented his understanding of your idea, and others have presented their own suggestions. It would be helpful if you were to lay out your lines of thinking as well.

And I would trust your response because I do not think you will misrepresent your own ideas. And I think that's the best place to start.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi MrBarnett,

Jeff - where do you get the idea that ‘very few, if any, would have recognised him by the name Lechmere’? Bearing in mind that he gave his two forenames, Charles and Allen, and that the combination of those two with the surname Lechmere was unique, and that he had used the name Lechmere on numerous occasions.

I think you've misread my post.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

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?

What evidence is there that he did not call himself Bostock in everyday matters? I find it intensely interesting that people like you take joy in pointing out that I have no proof of my theory - as if theories would be theories when proven, how nutty is that ...? - and then you go on to suggesting totally unproven things yourself.

Apparently that is a different matter.

[Fisherman]

He married in 1870 in the name of Charles Allen Lechmere.

He appears as Charles Allen Lechmere on the 1871 census.

His mother (bigamously) remarried in 1872 and he acted as a witness, giving his name as Charles Allen Lechmere.

His first son was born in 1872 and was named after his father - Charles Allen Lechmere. The child died in 1875 and his death was registered in the name of Charles Allen Lechmere.*

His son Thomas Allen was born in 1876 and the name of his father appears on his birth certificate and his christening record as Charles Allen Lechmere.

Thomas Cross died in 1869. While he was still alive CAL’s sister Emily died and her death was registered (by one of the family’s neighbours) in the name of Lechmere.

* I should add that another child, born in 1884, was given named Charles Allen Lechmere after his father.

Yes, but how do we know that Lech was not legally known as Cross...? Or thought he was?

My admiration for your patience, Gary.

[Fisherman]

You're really stretching with this, Abby.

If that were the case, why even bother attending the inquest?

But you know this already, Harry. It has been pointed out thosuands of times: Becasue in the Lloyds article, Paul laid down that he had found a guy standing alone "where the body was". Therefore, if Lechmere was aquainted with the article, he would know that there was a great risk that he would be hunted down as the main suspect if he did not come forward.

And how would the police find him? They could post Mizen as a look-out, for example. And they could check which carmen were likely to pass through Bucks Row at around 3.45. If Lechmere fled, they would be interested to speak to the carman who usually passed through Bucks Row, but who disappeared as the word got out that the police were looking for him.

You know this, Harry. Why ask? Again?

[MrBarnett]

Hi MrBarnett,



I think you've misread my post.

- Jeff

Perhaps you can clarify on what basis you doubt that many, if any, people who were unaware of CAL’s address and occupation would have known him by the name of Lechmere. Just a hunch? Based on what? The two occasions in more than a decade that he used another name as opposed to the 100+ times over seven decades that his name was recorded as Charles Lechmere?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



That would have been far more effective had you not been discussing things with me after that post already. But you did. It's only now you choose to become indignant, which makes it look like you're just avoiding answering the question (is that another broom I hear?). So again, all I'm asking you to do is simply to lay out for everyone's benefit your reasoning behind claiming that his use of his step-father's last name is indicative of him killing Nichols. I accept his use of Cross may be considered a rare event. But what is it about his using his step-father's last name that makes him Nichol's murderer, keeping in mind all of the other information he has given with respect to his identity (first name, middle name, address, place of work). Abby has presented his understanding of your idea, and others have presented their own suggestions. It would be helpful if you were to lay out your lines of thinking as well.

And I would trust your response because I do not think you will misrepresent your own ideas. And I think that's the best place to start.

- Jeff

I make my own calls about when to feel indignant, you donīt make them for me. And I would still like to know why you suggested that I would sweep things under the carpet. The suggestion is in fact quite exotic, since I have said since 2014 that I have never meet Scobie, much less do I know the contents of the material he was provided with. Since I do not know that, I cannot possibly know if there was something in it that needed to be "swept under the carpet".
Moreover, if I had been aware of any flawed material handed to James Scobie, I would have sounded the alarm bell immediately. I am not the kind of person you took it upon yourself to paint me out as, and therefore I am interested to know what made you throw out that accusation.

Once you have provided an answer to that question, I will provide an answer to yours.

If you provide no answer, that will in itself be enough of an answer to me, as I believe you understand.

[Darryl Kenyon]

You should read the comments about the docu, and you will find what I am talking about. Two versions of it has been taken away from Youtube, but before that happened, there wefe lots and lots of people endorsing the theory. So thatīs wherre I get it from. GFurther to that, just about any Ripper related net discussion has people popping up saying it was Lechmere who did it.
Casebook and JTR are not the only forums that discuss the case, Harry.

Anybody who treats a man who was FOUND at a murder site, alone with a freshly killed victim, as a person of interest at best is probably somebody who has taken a spanking on the Ripper forums in a Lechmere related topic, and so they try - as best as they can - to belittle the theory, sobbing as they go along.

Any such person as described above is automatically a suspect if no other viable suspect can be found and if the person in question has no obstacle that nullifies him as a suspect.

The fact that not everybody understands this is something that is as obcious as it is sad, but there you are.

"Met", was it?

There have been lots and lots of people endorsing any old theory, whether it is a royalist **** and bull story or a fake diary for instance.

Anybody who treats a man who was FOUND at a murder site, alone with a freshly killed victim, as a person of interest at best is probably somebody who has taken a spanking on the Ripper forums in a Lechmere related topic, and so they try - as best as they can - to belittle the theory, sobbing as they go along.

Any such person as described above is automatically a suspect if no other viable suspect can be found and if the person in question has no obstacle that nullifies him as a suspect.

So what you are saying Fish that 130 years later anyone with an iota of common sense should see that Lech is at least a very good suspect. But the police, who were there hadn't a clue that Jack was right in front of them. Or at the very least someone who should raise a suspicion or two.
So every single police officer, patrolman or higher up was a complete dimwit , and not one of them saw through the sinister name issue or the Mizen scam?
What did they think ? He was a nice looking chap so it couldn't have been him.
But us far superior intellectual beings 130 years later know better of course. Even though we were not there and we are looking at almost certainly incomplete evidence.
Be it court transcripts or otherwise.
Not for me and lots and lots of others, as you say. I am afraid.
Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

Yes, but how do we know that Lech was not legally known as Cross...? Or thought he was?

My admiration for your patience, Gary.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘legally’. His mother wasn’t legally married to Thomas Cross. Doesn’t the fact that Lechmere almost exclusively used the name Lechmere throughout his life when dealing with the authorities strongly suggest he thought that was the appropriate name to use at such times?

I’ve always thought that the fact that Maria had both her children Christened shortly after she ‘married’ Thomas Cross is a little odd. Religious convictions? Perhaps, but her daughter had already been Christened. Perhaps she just wanted a couple of documents that recorded the kids’ relationship to the Lechmeres.


Not that I have to tell you any of this.

[Doctored Whatsit]

What evidence is there that he did not call himself Bostock in everyday matters? I find it intensely interesting that people like you take joy in pointing out that I have no proof of my theory - as if theories would be theories when proven, how nutty is that ...? - and then you go on to suggesting totally unproven things yourself.

Apparently that is a different matter.

Christer, it is quite routine to discuss theories, and we both know there is no proof. My simple suggestion, which everyone can understand, is that at the inquest in 1876, Charles used the surname Cross, and no-one seems to have queried it at the time. As this was a serious matter, and the police and Pickfords were closely involved, it seems he was very unlikely to have been allowed to use the surname Cross under oath unless he was known as Cross at Pickfords, and the police accepted this. Not a proven fact, but a likely one. So all I am saying is that there is information which suggests that the use of the name Cross was normal at his work. If that is so, he was likely to be Charles Cross to his workmates too. There is no reason whatever for us to make a big issue over this. We are discussing possibilities and probabilities, not hard known facts. I am fully aware of that.

I also cannot see that his use of the name Cross at the Nichols' murder is particularly sinister, as he gave his correct address and place of work, and seems to have appeared totally voluntarily without being sought by the police. He was fully co-operative and identifiable. Paul had to be pursued, it seems, so some regard that as suspicious.

[Abby Normal]

There have been lots and lots of people endorsing any old theory, whether it is a royalist **** and bull story or a fake diary for instance.

Anybody who treats a man who was FOUND at a murder site, alone with a freshly killed victim, as a person of interest at best is probably somebody who has taken a spanking on the Ripper forums in a Lechmere related topic, and so they try - as best as they can - to belittle the theory, sobbing as they go along.

Any such person as described above is automatically a suspect if no other viable suspect can be found and if the person in question has no obstacle that nullifies him as a suspect.

So what you are saying Fish that 130 years later anyone with an iota of common sense should see that Lech is at least a very good suspect. But the police, who were there hadn't a clue that Jack was right in front of them. Or at the very least someone who should raise a suspicion or two.
So every single police officer, patrolman or higher up was a complete dimwit , and not one of them saw through the sinister name issue or the Mizen scam?
What did they think ? He was a nice looking chap so it couldn't have been him.
But us far superior intellectual beings 130 years later know better of course. Even though we were not there and we are looking at almost certainly incomplete evidence.
Be it court transcripts or otherwise.
Not for me and lots and lots of others, as you say. I am afraid.
Regards Darryl

we, a hundred or so years later were the ones that found out his real name was Lechmere. and not the police at the time apparently. so that should tell you alot-mainly they were far from perfect.