Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

>>I’ve been on the look out for evidence that he gave his address ..<<

How about the fact coroners were legally bound to take witnesses addresses?


Extract from, "Law of the coroner" 1843

We all know what the usual procedure was, Dusty. But were there any exceptions to that? Such as in the case of the kind of ‘voluntary statement’ that was offered to William Whitaker? And you may recall the other example I posted on JTRF where the witness declined to give his address.

[MrBarnett]

We all know what the usual procedure was, Dusty. But were there any exceptions to that? Such as in the case of the kind of ‘voluntary statement’ that was offered to William Whitaker? And you may recall the other example I posted on JTRF where the witness declined to give his address.

Real life doesn’t always follow the rules:

[MrBarnett]

Good old Jasper Waring ‘who did not give his address publicly’! Was he a one-off?*

*Just to clarify, I mean a unique individual, not an immature horse.

[MrBarnett]

A better analogy would have been to compare your hypothetical to a soap bubble. It's a thin film around a large empty space that immediately collapses under logic or facts.



Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from the police - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his employers - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his coworkers - he gave his work address at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his family - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his friends - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from his neighbors - he gave his home address at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from reporters - he gave his home and work addresses at the Nichols Inquest.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross could not have concealed his identity from prostitutes - in the real world, people don't give their names to prostitutes.



So what? Former neighbors would only be a concern if they witnessed a crime. And using his stepfather's surname would no nothing to protect him if he was seen by a former neighbor.



Nice attempt at moving the goalposts. I never claimed to know why he used his stepfather's surname at the Nichols inquest, but the theory that he did it to hide his identity falls apart.

Back in the world of facts:
* He used the name Charles Cross in 1876. It clearly did not conceal his identity from the police or the eyewitnesses of 1876. Eyewitnesses were also essential to his being cleared in 1876, so trying to conceal his identity would have been worse than useless.
* He voluntarily came forward to testify at the Nichols inquest 1888, an act of complete folly for anyone trying to conceal their identity.
* He gave his home and work addresses at the inquest, so he was not concealing his identity from the police, the press, his employers, his coworkers, his family, his friends, or his neighbors.
* People don't give real names to prostitutes.



So former neighbors that he wasn't close enough to keep in touch with? Even though it would do nothing to keep the police, the press, his family, his current neighbors, his friends, his employers, his coworkers, or prostitutes from recognizing him?

Who's coming up with this cunning plan? The Underpants Gnomes?

Former neighbours who didn’t have his new address. You got there in the end. Unless of course, you imagine that every person he came into contact with during the decade he was living in James Street (not just neighbours but shopkeepers those in pubs etc) was given an invite to his house-warming party at Doveton Street.

Is that what you are suggesting, that every single person who knew him only as Lechmere must have known his new address?

[MrBarnett]

Real life doesn’t always follow the rules:

I know what’ll come next: ‘If he’d refused to give his address, the papers would have reported it!’

Ask yourselves, how often have you seen significant differences between newspaper reports? Even official transcripts got things wrong and missed things out.

[Mark J D]

Ask yourselves, how often have you seen significant differences between newspaper reports? Even official transcripts got things wrong and missed things out.

To me, old bean, it's always seemed significant that -- of all those many papers! -- the one that carried Lechmere's address was the one whose reporter had by far the earliest copy deadline.

He didn't hear the address 'given in open court'. He *copied it off a document as early as he could*, because he was smart and knew the clock was against him.

M.

[drstrange169]

>>Real life doesn’t always follow the rules<<

Actually it does, as he still had to give his address to the coroner as required by law.

The fact that he did not give his address publicly was sufficiently different from the norm to be commented on in the press.

[drstrange169]

>>*Just to clarify, I mean a unique individual, not an immature horse.<<

Nice one!

[drstrange169]

>>Ask yourselves, how often have you seen significant differences between newspaper reports? Even official transcripts got things wrong and missed things out ... <<

Ask yourself, how often you see an address of a witness left out of a report, whilst other witnesses have there's shown? How many times do those reports claim a witness asked for their address to be withheld?

[drstrange169]

>>of all those many papers! -- the one that carried Lechmere's address was the one whose reporter had by far the earliest copy deadline<<

Earlier than the Echo or the Evening News?

How come the Evening News ended it's report with Mizen's testimony?

If the Star printed the address on the Monday, why didn't the dailies have that information in their accounts on the Tuesday?

Why did not one single newspaper report the unusual fact that Charles allen Cross refused to give address publicly?

[drstrange169]

Here's a question to ponder, how many witnesses in the entire case appeared at an inquest twice in one morning?

[Fiver]

Knowing something about the man’s background, I just can’t accept that it did not occur to him that the name Lechmere was the one he should have used when he was sworn in. And if it was the case that he was generally known as Cross (which seems highly unlikely) then he should have mentioned both names. That he didn’t suggests to me he was hiding something.

That's insinuation and speculation, not evidence.

If he was trying to hide something, why did he use the name Charles Cross in 1876?

If he was trying to hide something by using the Cross surname in 1888, why did he include his middle name, work address, and home address? If he was trying to hide something who was he hiding it from. Using the Cross surname would not hide his identity from the police, the press, his employers, his coworkers, his family, his friends, his neighbors, or area prostitutes.

[jerryd]

This incident occurred a few months prior to Charles Lechmere's incident with the horse and cart in 1876. Could word have traveled to the Lechmere relations living in London? It's a possibility, judging by the name of the paper that reported on it. If so, would that be a reason for Charles Lechmere to use the name of Cross, if he were able to, legally?

West End News and London Advertiser
September 2, 1876

[Fiver]

We shouldn’t forget that his mother’s second and third marriages were both technically bigamous, her first husband still being alive. If she had been aware of that fact then she would have committed a crime.

Others have presented evidence that it was not considered bigamy if the first spouse was believed dead.

Around the time she and Thomas Cross left Hereford a cousin of her husband was a policeman there. Given that she had family connections to the City including one to the highly influential Clive family, it’s always struck me as odd that they should move from there to the East End and settle in Tiger Bay of all places. One possible explanation of course is that it was a way of concealing their bigamous marriage from those who might know it was such. Tucked away in the slums of London, no one in Hereford was likely to know of their domestic arrangements. Unless of course they read in the newspaper one day, ‘My name is Charles Allen Lechmere, but I am more generally known by my stepfather’s name of Cross.’

Your theory makes no sense. Moving to the East End does not conceal a marriage made in Hereford from people living in Hereford. And using the middle name Allen at the inquest would be a very stupid thing to do for anyone trying to conceal that their birth name was Charles Allen Lechmere.

I’m pretty sure that in 1888 there was only one Charles Allen Lechmere on the planet.

In 1888, Charles Allen Lechmere's son Charles Allen Lechmere was 5 years old.

And there were other Charles Lechmere's - Charles W Lechmere (1867-1930) and Charles L Lechmore (1855-1927) were living in London at the time.

[Fiver]

Real life doesn’t always follow the rules:

You need to read your source again. It says that, Jasper Waring did not give his address publicly, not that Waring did not give his address to the court. There are other examples, I have previously given some myself.