Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

I’m not sure of the relevance of your John Allen Lechmere whataboutery.

I'm noting that for Maria Lechmere you are assuming guilt and using pejoratives such as "boy toy" for her second husband Thomas Cross. You don't do that for John Allen Lechmere for his deserting his wife, which was a crime. Or for possibly stealing from his wife's inheritance, which would also be a crime. And you don't use disparaging terms for John Lechmere's much younger, possibly teen-aged, mistress.

There's an old saying "Whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." Your posts come across as assuming the worst for the goose and excusing the gander.

[Fiver]

Here’s a question for our newly-informed Lechmere expert (or his advisor), what % of STGE carmen were classified as ‘v. decent’ in 1887?

So now you're implying I'm a sockpuppet?

[paul g]

If Cross/Letchmere killed on his way to work what did he do with the organs. Put them in his locker until hometime ?.

Regarding the Apron and graffiti again if cross were they situated and found inbetween the murder site and his route to work .

in the murder of Annie the approximate T.O.D is given at around 6am. Previously posted on the boards if I am correct was Carmen started there shift at 6am if so why would cross be looking for a victims so close to his start time at work

[Fiver]

Here’s a question for our newly-informed Lechmere expert (or his advisor), what % of STGE carmen were classified as ‘v. decent’ in 1887?

Newly informed?

I started posting on this thread before you did, back in July of last year.

[Abby Normal]

If Cross/Letchmere killed on his way to work what did he do with the organs. Put them in his locker until hometime ?.

Regarding the Apron and graffiti again if cross were they situated and found inbetween the murder site and his route to work .

in the murder of Annie the approximate T.O.D is given at around 6am. Previously posted on the boards if I am correct was Carmen started there shift at 6am if so why would cross be looking for a victims so close to his start time at work

hi paul g
yeah thats my biggest beef against lech as a suspect. killing on his way to work. my guess would be is that if he was tje ripper, he didnt kill on his way to work (except for maybe polly) but lied and told his wife he was working on those days.

i beleive fish has said that lech had a locker or something at work that he could store, or that he actually just discarded them. neither those really work for me though.

[Fiver]

If Cross/Letchmere killed on his way to work what did he do with the organs. Put them in his locker until hometime ?.

Regarding the Apron and graffiti again if cross were they situated and found inbetween the murder site and his route to work .

in the murder of Annie the approximate T.O.D is given at around 6am. Previously posted on the boards if I am correct was Carmen started there shift at 6am if so why would cross be looking for a victims so close to his start time at work

Based on Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul's testimony, it seems they started work at 4am. Quite a while back, I posted newpaper article from a couple years after the killings that showed carmen, including people that worked at Pickfords worked 14 to 18 hour days. That means Lechmere would have been getting off work between 6pm and 10pm. If Lechmere was the killer it would have made a lot more sense to kill people on the way home.

[MrBarnett]

So now you're implying I'm a sockpuppet?

Oh gawd! It’s like pulling teeth.

Let’s break it down into small enough chunks that you might be able to swallow.

John Allen Lechmere was still alive when Maria went through a ‘form’ of marriage - neither legally or religiously valid - with both Thomas Cross and Joseph Forsdike. If she had been aware that JAL was still alive when she ‘married’ either of these two men, she would have committed a crime.

Got it so far?

Even if she had had no idea that JAL was still alive when she went through these sham marriage ceremonies, they would still have been invalid in the eyes of the law and the church.

Still with me?

Now, what are the chances that Maria was 100% confident that JAL was dead when she ‘married’ first her toy boy and then her OAP shoemaker?

What are the chances that through her contacts in Hereford she hadn’t heard a whisper of her husband’s still being alive 7 years before she ‘married’ Cross or Forsdyke?

What are the chances that when her son was called to give evidence at inquests in 1876 and 1888 she would not have been concerned that her intentional or unintentional bigamy might have been exposed if he used both the Cross and Lechmere names?

Answers on a postcard…

[MrBarnett]

Newly informed?

I started posting on this thread before you did, back in July of last year.

That long ago? Wow!

When/from where did you obtain your detailed knowledge of Maria Lechmere’s background?

[MrBarnett]

In June, 1845, John Allen Lechmere was ridin’ high, as this advertisement from the Hereford Times of 5th July, 1845 demonstrates:



“JOHN LECHMERE ,


ANATOMICAL BOOT-MAKER,


ST. PETER’S-STREET HEREFORD,


Most respectfully acquaints the nobility, Clergy, Gentry, and the Public generally that he has REMOVED to more commodious premises, situate in ST. PETER’S STREET (as above), IMMEDIATELY OPPOSITE THE OLD BANK, where, he trusts, that by the practical knowledge he has obtained in every branch of the trade, by several years’ experience in the first manufactories of the English and French capitals, by a determination to employ none but first-rate workmen, by using none but the very best materials, and by pledging himself, in all orders he may be favoured with, to adhere strictly to punctuality and dispatch, to still receive a continuance of that marked encouragement he has hitherto enjoyed, and which, with pride, he begs leave most gratefully to acknowledge.


J.L., having made the construction of the human foot his particular study, and having a regular and ready supply of patterns of every newly invented fashion, Parisian, &c., &c., earnestly requests of Ladies and Gentleman, who have been in the habit of sending their orders to London, to favour him with an early call, and inspect the choice specimens of goods completed, and, at present, under hand, which, he is positive, cannot be excelled for neatness, excellence, and elegance, by any house in the kingdom.


J.L. also respectfully calls the notice of the Fashionables to his much admired LIGHT SUMMER DRESS BOOTS AND SHOES, made from the newly manufactured articles famed for pliability, elasticity, and for its prepared chemical properties, which render Corn and Plaster and Chiropodists unnecessary; also to his much-admired and approved HUNTING AND RIDING BOOTS, ANKLE BOOTS &c., &c.




APARTMENTS TO LET, FURNISHED OR UNFURNISHED.


St. Peter’s-street, June, 28, 1845.“



Of course, what an unmarried budding entrepreneur needed in the 1840s was a wife of an equivalent, or better, social and financial standing to support him and produce an heir. By 1846 JAL had found one:


“Marriages

May 7, at Wormbridge, by the Rev. D. D. George, Mr. J. A. Lechmere, St. Peter's-street, Hereford, to Maria Louisa, youngest daughter of Mr. Thos. Roulson, Whitfield Lodge, in this county. “


From the Hereford Journal 13th May, 1846


What could go wrong?


The Shoemaker at the Inquest

In brief:

At approximately 9.00 pm on Sunday 7th March, 1847, Robert Parry, a supernumerary police constable based at Hereford City police station, went out to patrol his beat in the city’s ‘H Division’. At two o’clock the following morning Inspector John Davies discovered Parry lying in a drunken stupor in Quay-Lane which lay on Parry’s beat. Parry was taken back to the station house and put into the ‘refractory cell’ to sleep it off. The next morning, when PC Botchett entered the refractory cell, he found Parry dead.

At the inquest into Parry’s death it was suggested that a local shoe maker had given Parry 12 or 13 glasses of brandy and the possibility of a manslaughter charge against the shoemaker was raised. The shoemaker denied having given Parry any brandy at all, but admitted having given him a certain amount of gin.

When the jury brought in their their verdict they reserved their censure for Inspector Davies for not having obtained medical assistance for Parry. The shoemaker wasn’t formally reprimanded, but his description of his own drinking exploits that night and his involvement in supplying Parry, a known drunkard, with alcohol while on duty can’t have done much for his reputation in the small Cathedral city.

Just over a month later the shoemaker went out of business. His name was John Allen Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

hi paul g
yeah thats my biggest beef against lech as a suspect. killing on his way to work. my guess would be is that if he was tje ripper, he didnt kill on his way to work (except for maybe polly) but lied and told his wife he was working on those days.

i beleive fish has said that lech had a locker or something at work that he could store, or that he actually just discarded them. neither those really work for me though.

Hi Abby,

If he was a Pickford’s carman, he probably worked fixed hours six days a week - perhaps 12+ hours a day.

If he was transporting horse flesh, say, from Broad Street to one of Harrison, Barber’s premises, why would he have needed to stash a kidney or whatever in his locker?

The idea of a Victorian carman having a locker at his workplace seems a bit odd.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Based on Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul's testimony, it seems they started work at 4am. Quite a while back, I posted newpaper article from a couple years after the killings that showed carmen, including people that worked at Pickfords worked 14 to 18 hour days. That means Lechmere would have been getting off work between 6pm and 10pm. If Lechmere was the killer it would have made a lot more sense to kill people on the way home.

And weren’t you shown that those carmen also had long breaks throughout their working day? Or do you imagine that such carmen climbed onto their carts at, say, 4.00am and didn’t get off again until 10pm?

[Darryl Kenyon]

And weren’t you shown that those carmen also had long breaks throughout their working day? Or do you imagine that such carmen climbed onto their carts at, say, 4.00am and didn’t get off again until 10pm?

And do you imagine a carman climbing off his cart , harnessing his horse, walking around while leaving any thing of any value on the cart, finding a victim [ I am assuming here Annie ] , cutting her up , taking body parts and carrying on for another 10 hours say, delivering and receiving goods ?

Regards Darryl

[Dickere]

Based on Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul's testimony, it seems they started work at 4am. Quite a while back, I posted newpaper article from a couple years after the killings that showed carmen, including people that worked at Pickfords worked 14 to 18 hour days. That means Lechmere would have been getting off work between 6pm and 10pm. If Lechmere was the killer it would have made a lot more sense to kill people on the way home.

He'd have been too tired after a long day.

[Fiver]

John Allen Lechmere was still alive when Maria went through a ‘form’ of marriage - neither legally or religiously valid - with both Thomas Cross and Joseph Forsdike. If she had been aware that JAL was still alive when she ‘married’ either of these two men, she would have committed a crime.

"If any persons or persons within his Majesty's Dominions of England and Wales, being married, or which hereafter shall marry, do at any time after the end of the session of this present Parliament, marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive ... then every such offence shall be felony ... Provided always, that neither this Act, nor anything herein contained, shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall be continually remaining beyond the seas by the space of seven years together, or whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of seven years together, in any parts within his Majesty's Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time." - Bigamy Act of 1603

Others have shown you that is how the law worked. People accused of bigamy were declared Not Guilty if they believed their previous spouse was dead.

Here's another example, from 1888.

And an example from 1889.

And another example from 1889.

Maria Lechmere married Thomas Cross in 1858, at least 7 years after John Allen Lechere deserted her. By the law, John Allen Lechmere had been gone long enough for he to legally marry Cross.

[Fiver]

If Lechmere had stood up in court and said, ‘My name is Charles Allen Lechmere, but I am known by the name of Cross, which is my stepfather’s name.’ he would have been announcing to the world that his mother had married someone named Cross. And since his name was a unique one, certain people in Herefordshire (and a particular person in Daventry) would have potentially been made aware that Maria had committed bigamy. That concern must have been ever present in Maria’s mind.

You are aware that John Allen Lechmere had been dead for almost a decade by 1888, so who is this "particular person in Daventry" you refer to?

And if anyone in Hereford still cared, stating both the Lechmere and Cross surnames would tell them nothing about whether the former Maria Lechmere was still alive, let alone when she had remarried. And under the law, Maria Lechmere was free to remarry after she had not heard from her spouse for 7 years.

Maria’s legacy was in the form of income, how could her (one and only) husband have stolen it?

I see you are as unfamiliar with the Married Women's Property Act 1870 as you are with the Bigamy Act of 1603. Before 1870, a woman's inheritance belonged to her husband.