Evidence of innocence

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you're being unnecessarily nasty and childish in some of your comments Trevor. If you can't be civil, be quiet.

you give back what you get !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no time for numpties

[Mark J D]

What is a real name...

What name did Lechmere pay his taxes under? That's going to be a pretty 'real' name, isn't it?

So: would Pickfords agree that a man born and officially named Lechmere could show up as 'Cross' on some workplace documents, here and there, just because [insert imaginary reason]?

And: unlike some folks who simply want to nastify this subject to the point that discussion of Lechmere ends altogether, I'm asking a genuine question. People talk as if Lechmere's 'authority contact' and 'work contact' identities could be kept separate ("He must have been known as Cross at work...."). But how could they be kept separate, given that Pickfords was a major employer plugged into the official system, and with 'authority contacts' of its own?

M.

[MrBarnett]

What name did Lechmere pay his taxes under? That's going to be a pretty 'real' name, isn't it?

So: would Pickfords agree that a man born and officially named Lechmere could show up as 'Cross' on some workplace documents, here and there, just because [insert imaginary reason]?

And: unlike some folks who simply want to nastify this subject to the point that discussion of Lechmere ends altogether, I'm asking a genuine question. People talk as if Lechmere's 'authority contact' and 'work contact' identities could be kept separate ("He must have been known as Cross at work...."). But how could they be kept separate, given that Pickfords was a major employer plugged into the official system, and with 'authority contacts' of its own?

M.

How much of an ‘official system’ would there have been in 1888? Or circa 1868 when Lechmere started work at Pickfords? There was no NHS or state pension at the time.

What there was, though, was a London Carmen’s Union and some of their records still exist from the early 20th century at least. I wonder if Ed, Christer or anyone else has searched those for evidence of the name CAL used at work.

[Mark J D]

How much of an ‘official system’ would there have been in 1888? Or circa 1868 when Lechmere started work at Pickfords? There was no NHS or state pension at the time.

What there was, though, was a London Carmen’s Union and some of their records still exist from the early 20th century at least. I wonder if Ed, Christer or anyone else has searched those for evidence of the name CAL used at work.

Thanks for this. I'm currently giving myself a crash course in the history of income tax; I'm also seeking a 'historian of taxation' where I work...

M.

[Doctored Whatsit]

In view of the continuing debate about CAL's surname, and without taking sides, I thought it might be helpful to look at the possibilities as they relate to the 1876 inquest. A child is knocked down and killed by CAL during his job as a carman with Pickfords. There would have been some investigation by the police, and they, some representatives from Pickfords and CAL were at the inquest. Let's consider some possible scenarios -

1. CAL was known as Lechmere at work, and also during the police investigation, and when the name Charles Allen Lechmere was called to give his evidence, he took the oath, said his name was Cross, and the coroner, the police, the newspaper reporters and Pickfords' staff didn't notice, or at least no-one expressed any surprise or queried this.
2. CAL was known as Cross at work and throughout the police investigation, and was called to give evidence as Charles Cross, so no query needed.
3. CAL had advised Pickfords and then possibly the police too, that his birth name was Lechmere but that he preferred to use his stepfather's surname, and so gave evidence as Charles Cross.

These seem to be the main possibilities, and everyone is free to comment and choose their own scenario, or offer different ones. I do notice that number 3 does allow for Pickfords to deal with all Government departments without any issue, a point very reasonably raised by Mark J D .

[Fisherman]

I am not particularly concerned with what the papers know and print. Are you suggesting that he concealed his address from the police? That is surely what would have been suspicious.

I KNOW that he did not conceal his name from the police, since it is in the reports. However, if, as it seems, the carman was involved in two occasions of violent death, and ommitted to name his address at the ensuing inquests, then we have a consistency that does not look good at all. Whether or not you think that it is only concealing your name from the police that can be suspicious, I have a different view: Concealing your name from ANYBODY will have a reason. It may be that he wanted to hide his name - and his participation in a Ripper murder case - from people who knew his everyday movements, and who would be able to connect the dots in a way the police could not. It really should not be a very hard concept to take in.

It is even possible that he told the police his real name was Lechmere, but he preferred to use his stepfathers surname. We simply don't know, and there are endless possibilities.

No, it is not possible that he told the police that his real name was Lechmere, because if he DID, it would have gone into the police reports.

[Fisherman]

Hooray we can all pack up and go home, the case is solved. Err wait a minute were is the evidence ?
Regards Darryl

Iīm not going home, since I am not afraid. But you may be homeward bound, perhaps?

Incidentally, a theory is a theory on account of being an unproven scenario.

[Mark J D]

3. CAL had advised Pickfords and then possibly the police too, that his birth name was Lechmere but that he preferred to use his stepfather's surname, and so gave evidence as Charles Cross.

These seem to be the main possibilities, and everyone is free to comment and choose their own scenario, or offer different ones. I do notice that number 3 does allow for Pickfords to deal with all Government departments without any issue, a point very reasonably raised by Mark J D .

More nasty mischief. My entire point in raising the taxation issue was my total disbelief that the admin people in a huge Victorian employer would ever agree to make additional work for themselves by generating paperwork that called a man 'Lechmere' when it was sent upwards, and 'Cross' when it went downwards.

M.

[Fisherman]

Fish
I am no expert but I have followed the case on and off since the centenary. I went the other way . I thought that Lech needed looking into. Then I started having doubts.
Would he have not just scarpered when Paul approached ?

He either would or he would not. The evidence is in line with him bluffing it out.

Would he have gone off and found a bobby with, possibly a knife on him and/or blood on his hands ?

... and would he, if he DID, serve the PC a lie perfectly designed to take him past the police unsearached?

If he killed on the way to work, how come the double event happened on a, probably none work day ?

In all probability because he wanted to and did not feel himself strictly restricted to killing on work days. Note how the times are different in these murders. If it was a man who did not work, then why kill at late hours on workdays and early hours on weekends? Again, Lechmere is a fit.

Why did he go further west and away from his home to kill Kate when he, probably had a narrow escape with Liz. Thus increasing the chances of him being caught.

Not if he entered another jurisdiction. And whaddayouknow? He left Met territory and ventured into the City Police grounds - where nobody had been alerted.

Especially since he almost certainly would have had body parts upon him ?

Ouch! NOT "certainly"! There are no such certainties.

Would he truly kill just over a week later with Annie after a narrow escape in Bucks row, especially since the police knew who he was.

The police knew who all the witnesses were, but that does not mean that they wouod go after them at a second murder. Typically, witnesses are not villains, so that would have played Lechmere in the hands. If you really want to question the Chapman murder, then you should not look at the time, you should look at the location. The police knew that Lechmere walked Hanbury Street, just as they knew that Robert Paul did. But only the latter failed to come forward, whereas the former did - which would have made him look good in the eyes of the police. Besides, would not Gary Ridgway have stopped killing after he first became a suspect on the 30:th of April 1983? The father of a missing girl led the police to Ridgways house on the same day she disappeared, and Ridgway was questioned by the police outside his house while he concealed his scratched arm behind his back. In 1983 only, he killed TWENTYFIVE (25!) victims! The first victim killed after April 30th was Carol Ann Christensen, who was killed on the 3rd of May, and whose body was discovered five days later. Christensen had last been seen on Pacific Avenue South in Seattle, and guess where the missing girl, Marie Malvar was alst seen? Correct: Pacifi Avenue South, Seattle. So on the 30th of April, Ridgway picks a girl up on that street, drives off and kills her. The same day, her distraught father is able to point out where he thinks the killer lives, and Ridgway becomes a suspect for the first time. And then, three days later, he picks up the next girl - from the exact same street! - drives off and kills her.
I hope that throws some little light on this question of yours. And keep in mind that while Lechmere was never a suspect, Ridgway WAS - but killed twice in four days anyway.

Suppose somebody spotted him coming out of the passageway in Hanbury st and gave a good description of him. "Wait a minute that sounds like that guy Cross". Two murders, two crime scenes. I know they didn't, but they could have. Would Lech really take that risk, or would he probably lie low for a little time ?

See the above. Serial killers are supremely self-confident and arrogant people in most cases.

Again with Annie, how did he know that the police weren't suspicious of him and that they weren't covertly following him ?

How did Ridgeway know? And what did it matter?

Did he really think that no one would suspect him of the crimes, if he kept turning up for work, say twenty mins after another victim is killed ?

In all probability, yes. As I have pointed out, to the typical serial killer, the rest of the world are dumb people, the police are ridiculously inable to catch them and they are free to do whatever they wish to becasue it will have no consequences, as far as they are concerned. We are not discussing you and me here, Darryl, we are discussin a VERY different mindset and a very different coolness under pressure.

And what did he do with the body parts, or the bloody knife at work ?

What do trophy takers do with their trophies? Conceal them, to enable themselves to take them out and relive what they have done is the common answer. But as I said, there may well be reason to think that the killer did NOT take the parts away as trophies. I write about that in my book, so if you want to find out my full reasoning, thatīs how to go about it.

Did he really kill Annie on his way to work when it is likely that he was already there when she was murdered ?

In my world, it is unlikely that she died at 5.30. I am as convinced as Phillips was that she died at around 4 o clock or earlier.

Did he think that none of his family would suspect him of the murders especially since he had, say just left for work before each killing ?

I donīt know. But I DO know thatn many, many serial killers have been the surprise of a lifetime for their family members when revealed. It may of course also be that one or more of the family members suspected him. His own wife, who inherited a tidy sum when he died, saw to it that he was laid to rest in a paupers grave, while she was buried as far away as possible in the cemetery - and in a private grave - when her time came. So maybe...!

None of the above is not without a riposte, but to me when you put them altogether, to my mind it doesn't make Lech a very good suspect.

Regards Darryl

Then we differ totally in that respect. No other suspect has anything that comes even close to what Lechmere has in terms of directly caserelated evidence pointing in his direction. He is the only reasonable suspect belonging to the primary group of suspects - the ones who we know were there at one or more murder sites at the approximate TOD of the victim. That means he is the only really good suspect in my eyes.

[Fisherman]

Quick question.

When people appeared at inquests in Victorian times. Were they reimbursed for loss of wages by the coroner or whoever if they had incurred any ?
I believe I read somewhere that this is the case but I want to be sure.

Regards Darryl

Robert Paul told the press that he lost two days wages for attending the inquest. So apparently no reimbursement, no.

[Mark J D]

Robert Paul told the press that he lost two days wages for attending the inquest. So apparently no reimbursement, no.

I seem to recall (can't look it up right now...) that R Paul was *partly* reimbursed by the inquest, but a piffling amount that came nowhere near covering his loss of earnings or the money he had to pay a deputy to fill in for him at work so he didn't lose his job.

(No doubt someone who's desperate to correct Christer will now leap in with 'chapter and verse' of Paul's complaint...)

M.

[Fisherman]

I was referring to Trevor's phone call being ignored (swept under the carpet). Rather than address the content of Trevor's conversation, where Trevor indicates that Scobie appears to have withdrawn his conviction that the case was court ready and also that Scobie indicates he did not have some pretty basic information that one would need to have to properly form such an opinion. Trevor implies the first of those, but doesn't state it directly - that would have been something I would have thought you would want clarifyied. But instead of addressing the content of Trevor's phone call, your responses dismiss the entire event (ignore the event is to avoid the information, which is to sweep things under the carpet).

Letīs have a look at what you actually wrote when I pointed out that we have no evidence on Trevors behalf that he even spoke to Scobie:

I'm sure he could if he chose to, but I suspect anything short of a video recording, with signed depositions, will not be considered sufficient. Personally, I wouldn't bother trying if I were Trevor, knowing that there is nothing he could present that would be accepted of proof of something that needs to be swept under the carpet.

So what you actually say here - and letīs not try and pretend that there can be other interpretations - is that regardless of what material Trecvor Marriott would be able to present to verify his conversation with James Scobie, I would not accept it but instead sweep the matter under the carpet.

No matter what evidence or absolute proof I could be faced with by Trevor, I would not accept it. With the possible exception of a video recording with signed depositions. Becasue I am that unwilling to accept anything that goes against my theory, right?

Keeping in mind that Trevor has not verified a single iot of anything at all that would go against my theory, Iīd say that is about as damning a statement as anybody can make about another posters character.

If you can find one single example of where I have intentionally swept a single grain of sand under the carpet, it could help your (rather unsavoury) cause, but I beleive you will find that a very hard task.

Although I find you tried to wriggle your way out of the mess you have put yourself in, I actually donīt think you deserve any answer to your question, but in order to show you that you are not dealing with the kind of person you have suggested, letīs do just that anyway. After that, you may find me less inclined to talk to you. In my view, that post of yours sent you plumetting down to the stinky bogs below ripperologyīs underbelly, and I will of course act according to it.

Now, that question of yours:

So, having now provided you with an answer, you said you would provide an answer to my request to outline your reasoning (the logical steps in your thinking) that get you from "used his step-father's name Cross at the inquest" to "solid evidence of guilt he murdered Nichols".

- Jeff

Being the kind of poster that you have just proven yourself to be, I am not surprised to see that you now claim that I would have said that using the name Cross would be tantamount to providing evidence that Lechmere killed Nichols.
What I have said for a decade or so is that the case against Lechmere cannot be decided on one parameter only. All the bits must be weighed in. And the name issue is one of the bits. He apparently kept his registered name from the police and inquest, and that will be one of the matters that made James Scobie say that he is a man who seems to be acting suspiciously. Hiding your true name is a common enough thing to do in criminal circles, and we seem to have two occasions when he did so in combination with investigations into violent deaths - plus we may well have two occasions of him hiding his address from the press. Taken together, that is not something that can be disregarded as uninteresting in the context of building a criminal case.
As you may have noticed but disregarded, I have also said many times that even if he DID use the name Cross colloquially or perhaps only at work, that would not detract from the case to any palpable degree. The main points of accusation lie not in the name, but instead in other matters, but when the case is weighed up, the name issue cannot be left outside the scaless.

Thatīs you and me being done with each other. You are now free to join other posters who, when I disregard their posts, claim that this is becasue I have no answers to give. In your case, you should at least know why I may be disinterested in your posts until further notice.

And I do NOT sweep material under the carpet!!

[Fisherman]

You know you can't win, right?

Why didn't Lechmere scarper? Well, the killer was a psychopath, and psychopaths find thrills in mind-games.

How do we know the killer was a psychopath? Because Lechmere was a psychopath.

How we do know Lechmere was a psychopath? Because he didn't scarper.

Same reason he attended the inquest. He was a proto-Hannibal Lecter who loved to flex his ability to hide in plain sight.

And so on...

If this kind of people had not existed, you would have had a much better point. I can only point out to you what a psychopath is and how he or she works, jut as I can add that 90 per cent plus of the sexual serial killers are diagnosed psychopaths.

If you can come up with a good idea why we should not make use of that knowledge, please donīt keep it to yourself!

[Darryl Kenyon]

Darryl, Have you not picked up on the suggestion that Sunday may have been Lechmere’s one day off in the week, so on Saturday evenings he may have visited his old Ma and his daughter who were living near Berner Street?

Gary

Hi Gary
Yes, I have heard that suggestion. But, sorry if I am wrong here I was under the impression that Scobie thought that the C5 were killed when Lech was on his way to work. And, Prima Facie it could look likely regarding the double event . From his house traverse south to Liz then west to Kate then north towards work were he drops the apron. Except that there is a fair chance Lech wasn't in work that day.
When I mentioned this to Fish a couple of years back on another thread, Fish said that Lech could have called in work passing by that morning as to give him some kind of alibi [ as I remember]. I don't know if Fish still adhere's to this.

Regards Darryl

[Doctored Whatsit]

No, it is not possible that he told the police that his real name was Lechmere, because if he DID, it would have gone into the police reports.

You have seen the detailed police reports of their investigation of the accident that killed a child in 1876? I haven't, I admit.