Evidence of innocence

[Mark J D]

One of the papers had his middle name as ‘Andrew’ I believe. And one journalist misheard Bath Street as Parson Street.

I’ve often wondered whether CAL spoke softly and the Star man had the sharper hearing or was closer to the witness box.

Of course, we see lots of examples of old reporting where names were spelled in multiple ways or plainly mis-heard.

My own opinion is that Lechmere had a speech impediment, among other physical and neurological issues. Watch this space.

M.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to his employers? By what name do you believe he was known to them?

As I stated 20 years previous he would have used the name Cross when first employed by Pickfords, is there any known reason why he should have changed it over the years that followed?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

Concealing one's name means deciding to conceal it. Thus, an active proces. We do not know that Cross deliberately withheld his Lechmere-name.

I don’t know for certain that Queen Victoria was a woman. But it’s a reasonable assumption that she was.

And it’s a reasonable assumption that it crossed the mind of Charles Allen Lechmere a descendant of the Lechmeres of Fownhope, a man who in every other recorded example we have used the name Lechmere (almost always Charles ALLEN Lechmere) when dealing with authority (in fact when dealing with anyone) that it was appropriate to disclose both names. We have examples of Smiths/Jones’s/Bloggs etc feeling it was the right thing to do but not CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE? If it crossed his mind for a second that he should disclose both names and he dismissed the idea, he actively conceal a significant part of his identity.


Of course, it’s not true that his use of Cross in 1888 was totally unprecedented - he had used it once before when he ran over and killed a child and tbe child’s father believed he was to blame for the incident. Not when he opened a grocers shop or sent his kids to school but when he gave evidence at a coroner’s inquest into the death of a small child.

[MrBarnett]

No matter where I am fisherman,the answer will always be the same.What evidence, circumstantial or otherwise,places Cross at any murder site,at the time the crime was committed.Except of course the Nichols murder.Do not be shy,we understand your predicament.Without evidence there would be no charge.No charge no Prima facie case.and that was the situation in 1888.You have committed yourself,you are in the bog yourself and you can't get off to wipe yourself. I can.What a mess you are in,but then the Cross as murderer always had a smell to it.
He did not state his alternate name.He didn't have to.Cross only had to identify himself,and that is what he did.No offence was committed,no participation was concealed.No policeman or authority was mislead,and no wrong done.No arguement can change that.

He mislead the coroner by not stating the ‘whole truth’ in respect of his name.

I know this may be awkward for you because it involves the use of the L word, but what was the ‘whole truth’ when it came to his name?

Was it not true that he overwhelmingly presented himself as CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE in formal situations?

[MrBarnett]

No matter where I am fisherman,the answer will always be the same.What evidence, circumstantial or otherwise,places Cross at any murder site,at the time the crime was committed.Except of course the Nichols murder.Do not be shy,we understand your predicament.Without evidence there would be no charge.No charge no Prima facie case.and that was the situation in 1888.You have committed yourself,you are in the bog yourself and you can't get off to wipe yourself. I can.What a mess you are in,but then the Cross as murderer always had a smell to it.
He did not state his alternate name.He didn't have to.Cross only had to identify himself,and that is what he did.No offence was committed,no participation was concealed.No policeman or authority was mislead,and no wrong done.No arguement can change that.

You’re going to be in trouble with Kattrup with your categorical statement that he didn’t have to give the name Lechmere in court. If Lechmere was the name he was generally - or exclusively - known by, he did have to give it. And we have no evidence whatsoever that in 1888 he was known by anyone as Charles Cross.

I wouldn’t worry too much, though, yours is an anti-Lechmerian error and they seem to go unchallenged.

[Trevor Marriott]

He mislead the coroner by not stating the ‘whole truth’ in respect of his name.

and did that impact on the coroners court proceedings or the outcome of the inquest?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

and did that impact on the coroners court proceedings or the outcome of the inquest?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It may have done.

[MrBarnett]

As I stated 20 years previous he would have used the name Cross when first employed by Pickfords, is there any known reason why he should have changed it over the years that followed?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you know that how?

[Mark J D]

Was it not true that he overwhelmingly presented himself as CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE in formal situations?

Do you have any thoughts about which documents or records the police would have looked up or requested if they wanted to see 'his papers'? What was the 'first stop' data source for identity information, back then?

M.

[FrankO]

Has it been ascertained that Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords?

Hi George,

As has been said by others, it hasn't been ascertained that he was known as Cross there. So, we can't state that as fact. However, what we can do is assume for a moment that he wasn't known by the name of Cross in any social circle at any stage of his adult life and ask ourselves if, in that scenario, it would have been a smart thing for a guilty Lechmere to call himself Cross.

I, for one, don't think it would have been a particularly smart thing to do (risk vs. gain/yield), so I think he was known as Cross somewhere, his place of work seeming a very logical place.

But everyone has to decide for him or herself what's the best answer to the question.

Cheers,
Frank

[Trevor Marriott]

And you know that how?

by applying a common sense approach to the issue

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

Around the same time as CAL started work at Pickfords his sister Emily died. A neighbour who had been present at the death was given the task of registering the death. She registered it in the name of Emily Lechmere.

Why should this tell us or even suggest that Charles didn't use or wasn't going to use the alternative name Cross, Gary? As we have seen, alternative names weren't likely to appear on official documents.

[Kattrup]

I don’t know for certain that Queen Victoria was a woman. But it’s a reasonable assumption that she was.

And it’s a reasonable assumption that it crossed the mind of Charles Allen Lechmere a descendant of the Lechmeres of Fownhope, a man who in every other recorded example we have used the name Lechmere (almost always Charles ALLEN Lechmere) when dealing with authority (in fact when dealing with anyone) that it was appropriate to disclose both names. We have examples of Smiths/Jones’s/Bloggs etc feeling it was the right thing to do but not CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE? If it crossed his mind for a second that he should disclose both names and he dismissed the idea, he actively conceal a significant part of his identity.


Of course, it’s not true that his use of Cross in 1888 was totally unprecedented - he had used it once before when he ran over and killed a child and tbe child’s father believed he was to blame for the incident. Not when he opened a grocers shop or sent his kids to school but when he gave evidence at a coroner’s inquest into the death of a small child.

You did not state that you believe it a reasonable assumption. You stated there is absolutely no question that he concealed a major part of his identity.

There is a difference.

Let's also not forget that the use of Charles Cross is founded in a census. So it it is correct that it was not totally unprecedented - you will perhaps then say that he was a child and had no choice in the matter, and that may well be, but it certainly shows that at one point, he was known as Charles Cross.

Oh, and there's absolutely no question that Queen Victoria was a woman. Since we have sources documenting that she was. We do not, however, presently have any sources showing that Charles Cross concealed anything.

[MrBarnett]

Twenty years previously he was 19. His stepfather would die after a lengthy illness the following year and his widow, I’m informed, did not get a pension.

PC Cross was an H Div copper and Broad Street Station was in the City.

In 1871 Maria had a young boarder, a carman two years older than CAL, living with her at the same address as her son and his wife.

How can you be so sure that Thomas Cross had anything to do with CAL getting the Pickford’s job?

[harry]

Cannot see your point Mr Barnett.He gave an alternate name to that of Lechmere, Cross,a name he has been known by for well over a hundred years.No error there.
You might say he should have given the name Lechmere,a given or baptisimal name.I say he had a choice and chose Cross.The evidence proves my point.