Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

We know that CAL used his birth name for things like marriage, birth of children etc, because presumably he felt that this was the correct thing to do. What we do not know is the name that he normally used day by day, at work, and with friends. Both sides of the argument are making assumptions. It is not proven that we can argue or suggest that he only used the name "Cross" in "cases of violent death".

We can reasonably assume that since his children were known as Lechmere at school, that others in the area would have associated the family with that name. The only record in existence of any of his neighbours mentioning the family name uses the name Lechmere. That was in 1869. The neighbours in question were living in Berner Street in 1888.

How is the act of standing up in court and giving evidence under oath less formal than registering your kids in the local board school or advertising your coffee shop?

[Fisherman]

We know that CAL used his birth name for things like marriage, birth of children etc, because presumably he felt that this was the correct thing to do.

And why would he have that sentiment? Because he knew that he was taking part in a official capacity, I´d say. Marriages and births and such are of course family celebrations, but tax records, census listings and enrolling your children at school are not. They are, though, also expressions of taking part in the official parts of society. And so is testifying before an inquest and providing testimony to the police.

What we do not know is the name that he normally used day by day, at work, and with friends.

We know that the Marshall woman who was present when Lechmeres sister died knew the family as Lechmere. Are we to think that she called the sister Lechmere but the brother Cross?

Both sides of the argument are making assumptions. It is not proven that we can argue or suggest that he only used the name "Cross" in "cases of violent death".

Assumptions can be made on more or less solid grounds. It is not as if all assumption are equally viable, I´m afraid. As for the cases of violent death, all we can say is that we know of Charles Lechmere being mentioned in official matters on a round hundred occasions. We also know that he is only known to have called himself Cross when the offical matter at hand involved violent death. In all the other examples we have, he called himself Lechmere. We can nitpick as much as we want to, but there really is no way around this. Which is why I ask myself why it is so very important to some poster to try and make it look as if there was.

Hasn´t the time come now to admit that the name business is not looking good for the carman? Or must we do more rounds?

[FrankO]

I don't have access to whatever court and newspaper database/s people here use to dredge up old inquest and trial reports: has anyone thought of searching for the various key words that would not only bring up more of the (apparently many) deaths caused by Pickfords cart drivers, but would also indicate whether the driver's address was normally revealed in court, and whether a real name would be quoted as well as an alias in such a case...?

Hi Mark,

I haven't found any cases of death caused by Pickford's carmen, but going through the Old Bailey there are numerous examples of witnesses and also one accused who don't mention their address, they just say "I'm a carman in the employ of", "I'm employed by...".
Look at ex Pickford's carman Charles Rouse here (accused of stealing):
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...20Co#highlight
See various people empoled by Pickford's here:
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...20Co#highlight

Frank

[MrBarnett]

Hi Mark,

I haven't found any cases of death caused by Pickford's carmen, but going through the Old Bailey there are numerous examples of witnesses and also one accused who don't mention their address, they just say "I'm a carman in the employ of", "I'm employed by...".
Look at ex Pickford's carman Charles Rouse here (accused of stealing):
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...20Co#highlight
See various people empoled by Pickford's here:
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/brow...20Co#highlight

Frank

Thanks, Frank.

This interested me:

JAMES BARTON . I am fourteen years of age, and am a van-boy in the employ of Pickford and Co.—on 4th April I was with Boyce and his van, 385 at the station—I led the horse—the van was driven to Cannon Street—we called at Higgins and Eagles' and left four cases there—we then drove to Cook's, in St. Paul's Churchyard—Boyce went in there; while he was there a man came and spoke to me—when Boyce came out I told him what the man had said to me, and he sent me round to Higgins and Eagles'—I did not see the man there that spoke to me; when I came back to Cook's the van was gone—I cannot recognise any of the prisoners.

The van boy was sent away while the driver got up to his shenanigans.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Assumptions can be made on more or less solid grounds. It is not as if all assumption are equally viable, I´m afraid. As for the cases of violent death, all we can say is that we know of Charles Lechmere being mentioned in official matters on a round hundred occasions. We also know that he is only known to have called himself Cross when the offical matter at hand involved violent death. In all the other examples we have, he called himself Lechmere. We can nitpick as much as we want to, but there really is no way around this. Which is why I ask myself why it is so very important to some poster to try and make it look as if there was.

Hasn´t the time come now to admit that the name business is not looking good for the carman? Or must we do more rounds?

Back to where we started! We don't know what name he used at work. I thought we had agreed this. Therefore we don't know what name his workmates called him by, for instance. Both sides of the argument can pick and choose and make assumptions, which is what I said.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Gary,

Hi Jeff,

I’ve been looking long and hard for evidence of the ‘standard procedure’ of checking out witnesses identities and finding it very elusive. I’ve reached the conclusion that there was no such ‘standard procedure’ and that most witnesses’ identities were taken at face value.

Witnesses like Bowyer, Reeves and Davies barely get a mention in police reports. Swanson, in his report of 19th October lists the specific actions that had been taken by the police in their investigation of the Chapman but makes no mention of having checked out Davies or any other witness for that matter.

So I don’t believe Lechmere was checked out and I think the fact that his real name doesn’t appears in any police report supports that view. There’s nothing whatsoever to support the opposite view.

Gary

Sadly, most of the police documentation is lost to us. What does remain tends to be reports, which focus primarily on suspects, and often lacks the details that would be helpful to us. The phrase "gave an adequate account of themselves" ... is sometimes recorded with reference to people who came under police attention, but it would be naďve of us to conclude that means all a person had to do was spin a good yarn and off they went. Behind that would be some checking and verification of the person's account. I guess we just have a different opinion of the police of the day with regards to what we see as expected behaviour. I cannot fathom them just accepting witness statements at face value, particularly those so close to the crime scenes. Indeed, I see in their checking, and rechecking on Packer as a bit of surviving evidence that they did just that, while you see it as something they may have done sporadically. So, as we clearly are starting from very different premises about what the police would do, it's hardly surprising we end up with different conclusions. So, while we may not agree, at least we understand the reasons why we diverge in our opinions.

Hmmm, you mentioned Davies. I seem to recall, and I may be wrong, that there is a statement in the records where it says he was checked out initially? I could be wrong, though, but I have a memory of something to that effect, but I could be misremembering that. I'm only mentioning it in case someone recognizes what I'm talking about and can point out where that's from. If I'm confused, then nobody will know what I'm talking about (I'm not even sure I do! ha ha)

- Jeff

[harry]

Well no,Fisherman,but Cross when giving that name at the inqust,was alluding to his identity and employment at Pickfords.The question of him finding a dead body came later.I am pleased though that you have associated him with only finding a body.

[Abby Normal]

We know that CAL used his birth name for things like marriage, birth of children etc, because presumably he felt that this was the correct thing to do. What we do not know is the name that he normally used day by day, at work, and with friends. Both sides of the argument are making assumptions. It is not proven that we can argue or suggest that he only used the name "Cross" in "cases of violent death".

hi dr.
well since lech was his birthname, and he used it for marriage, birth of his kids, registered his kids at school, all other documentation, and the only evidence of what the neighbors knew him by its lech I think its highly likely lech was his more commonly used name. i think he was probably known as cross at work, but thats not neccessarily a proven either.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,



Sadly, most of the police documentation is lost to us. What does remain tends to be reports, which focus primarily on suspects, and often lacks the details that would be helpful to us. The phrase "gave an adequate account of themselves" ... is sometimes recorded with reference to people who came under police attention, but it would be naďve of us to conclude that means all a person had to do was spin a good yarn and off they went. Behind that would be some checking and verification of the person's account. I guess we just have a different opinion of the police of the day with regards to what we see as expected behaviour. I cannot fathom them just accepting witness statements at face value, particularly those so close to the crime scenes. Indeed, I see in their checking, and rechecking on Packer as a bit of surviving evidence that they did just that, while you see it as something they may have done sporadically. So, as we clearly are starting from very different premises about what the police would do, it's hardly surprising we end up with different conclusions. So, while we may not agree, at least we understand the reasons why we diverge in our opinions.

Hmmm, you mentioned Davies. I seem to recall, and I may be wrong, that there is a statement in the records where it says he was checked out initially? I could be wrong, though, but I have a memory of something to that effect, but I could be misremembering that. I'm only mentioning it in case someone recognizes what I'm talking about and can point out where that's from. If I'm confused, then nobody will know what I'm talking about (I'm not even sure I do! ha ha)

- Jeff

Thanks, Jeff. I’ll look more closely at Davies to see if I can find what you are referring to.

[MrBarnett]

Well no,Fisherman,but Cross when giving that name at the inqust,was alluding to his identity and employment at Pickfords.The question of him finding a dead body came later.I am pleased though that you have associated him with only finding a body.

No, Harry, Lechmere gave his home address and his occupational details, which was quite common. But he identified himself only by the surname of his first stepfather who had been dead for almost twenty years and failed to disclose the name that he used in every other formal situation we have a record of. Except one, of course, the other time he gave evidence on oath in a coroner’s inquest into a violent death.

Do you see nothing odd in that even if his workmates knew him as Charlie Cross he thought it appropriate to advertise his back street coffee shop in his unique real name, but to give evidence under oath in his long-dead stepfather’s name?

It’s the equivalent of wearing his Sunday best suit for work and turning up at church in his grubby apron.

[Abby Normal]

No, Harry, Lechmere gave his home address and his occupational details, which was quite common. But he identified himself only by the surname of his first stepfather who had been dead for almost twenty years and failed to disclose the name that he used in every other formal situation we have a record of. Except one, of course, the other time he gave evidence on oath in a coroner’s inquest into a violent death.

Do you see nothing odd in that even if his workmates knew him as Charlie Cross he thought it appropriate to advertise his back street coffee shop in his unique real name, but to give evidence under oath in his long-dead stepfather’s name?

It’s the equivalent of wearing his Sunday best suit for work and turning up at church in his grubby apron.

hi gary
lech had a coffee shop? where? when? was it a building or a more like a stall? possible bolt hole?

[MrBarnett]

hi dr.
well since lech was his birthname, and he used it for marriage, birth of his kids, registered his kids at school, all other documentation, and the only evidence of what the neighbors knew him by its lech I think its highly likely lech was his more commonly used name. i think he was probably known as cross at work, but thats not neccessarily a proven either.

And what’s key for me is that he did not mention his real name in court. There are so many examples of both names being disclosed, we have to ask ourselves why he didn’t do so. Did it just not occur to him in the way that it clearly did to do many others? You’d think that the origin of his real name would be something he was very much aware of, and he’d been using it in all sorts of formal situations over the almost two decades since Thomas Cross had died. It won’t have been just a minor detail at the back of his mind.

The use of Cross is not the issue here, it’s the omission of Lechmere. But that’s just my opinion.

[MrBarnett]

O

hi gary
lech had a coffee shop? where? when? was it a building or a more like a stall? possible bolt hole?

Not until the 1900s. A proper shop by the looks of it.

Sadly, none of his friends, neighbours or ex-colleagues would have recognised it as being the business of their old mate Charlie Cross.

[Fisherman]

Well no,Fisherman,but Cross when giving that name at the inqust,was alluding to his identity and employment at Pickfords.The question of him finding a dead body came later.I am pleased though that you have associated him with only finding a body.

There are numerous census listings where he has presented himself as a carman named Charles Lechmere. So even though he said he was a carman, that did not make him go: ”Oh, thats right, I’ m a carman, so then my name will be Cross”, did it?
If he owned up to being Charles Lechmere, the carman with the census takers, why would he be Charles Cross, the carman with the police?
Your proposition leaks rather badly, I’ m afraid.
And if you can use Cross because ”he said so”, then I can use him as the ”finder” of Nichols for the same reason.

[Fisherman]

Back to where we started! We don't know what name he used at work. I thought we had agreed this. Therefore we don't know what name his workmates called him by, for instance. Both sides of the argument can pick and choose and make assumptions, which is what I said.

Did I object to that? Pick away, by all means. What I actually said was that not all assumptions are equally viable. I have a hundred examples of him claiming he was called Lechmere, something that dovetails with the records. You have two examples of violent death he was involved with and where he called himself Cross, something that is in conflict with the records.

Not all assumptions are equally viable, therefore.