Evidence of innocence

[Elamarna]

Thanks Steve. I had recalled the idea of there being a lawyer involved has been mentioned, but couldn't recall if that was established or not (hence my bob both ways on that regards).

If this news story is the only coverage of the first inquest that we have, then it appears the idea of legal representation being provided by Pickford's is a hypothesis only, and not something established by evidence.

Do we know if there are cases where lawyers get involved at inquests at that time? (particularly inquests into work accidents like this; did companies generally provide a lawyer or did they tend to distance themselves from the whole thing?) Or was that such a rare occurrence that to suggest it is to bet the long odds?

Anyway, unless there is some other source, then there appears to be no evidence that Pickford's provided a lawyer at the first inquest. As such, we're still without evidence as to what name Cross/Lechmere was known as at Pickfords.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,
The press reports of RTAs are often not as detailed as that one.
Often details are very scarce.
I suspect,no more that Pickfords may have had a representive present, to keep track.of the inquest.
My take is that on the balance of probabilities he was Known as Cross at Pickfords, but we can't say it is 100% conclusive.
Related to the RTA in inside Bucks Row, the new Edition , I have some research from Dusty, it covers 20 RTA reports over 27 years, and while it does not prove anything as the sample is small, in none of those reports is the drivers address given, but the employer is named, and sometimes the employers address, which means Lechmere address it not being given in the 76 accident is not unique .

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So far as I am aware the attached is the ONLY report of the RTA , I see NO mention of Pickfords providing legal advice.

We complain about the Lechmere people presenting theory as FACT, but it does not help if those arguing against do the very same.

So a few ideas and the Facts on several issues.

1. The idea because no knife was found on him by Mizen he wasn't the killer.

This is simply unrealistic, Mizen never searched Lechmere, he had NO reason to.

2. That because he had no blood on him.he can't be the killer.

Again, I have to say, it very likely, as I have said for many years that the killer would have very LITTLE blood on him.
In Bucks Row, maybe his hands or shirt cuffs, but that is it.
Blood on clothing in the dark really does not show up that well, so the best we can do is say that he had no obvious blood on him, but I doubt either Paul or Mizen were looking for such anyway.
The lack of noticeable blood simply does not rule him out.

On to the RTA, although I strongly suspect the Charles Cross in the 76 accident is the same man, it's not 100% conclusive, but probailitiy says it was.

Again, if it was the same man, then it probably means he was Known as Cross at Pickfords, but to state that as a fact is simply doing the same the Lechmere people do when they make their claims .

Anyone who knows me knows I am no fan.of the Lechmere theory, but let's try and stick.to the facts.

Steve

I object to your description of my mentioning of Charles Cross' being accompanied by a Pickfords legal representative as 'presenting theory as FACT'.

I also object to your comment that I 'state that [he was Known as Cross at Pickfords] as a fact' and am therefore 'simply doing the same the Lechmere people do when they make their claims .'

The 'Lechmere people' I have dealt with elsewhere are often rude, aggressive, crude, and unscrupulous in their treatment of evidence.

I don't do 'the same' as what they do; in particular, I don't try to frame people.

Charles Cross was accompanied by a legal representative of Pickfords and during the proceedings, the legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question because doing so would not be in his best interests.

I don't have the reference to hand but will post it as soon as I have located it.

I did not dream it up and it certainly is not a theory, as you seem to claim it is.

I can't remember whether I stated that it is a fact that the Crosses in the two inquests were the same man.

I have been a member for some 24 hours and have lost count of the number of times I have been challenged for claiming that something is a fact or for not, supposedly, having stated a fact.

I make statements based on evidence.

It is reasonable, based on the evidence we have, to conclude that the Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords and appeared at an inquest in 1876 was the same Charles Cross who was employed by Pickfords and testified at the 1888 inquest.
If you thought my deduction were unreasonable, you could have said so, but instead you compared my deduction with the way Lechmere's accusers argue.
That's out of order!

Even if they were not the same man, Pickfords must have been aware that Lechmere (as we know him) appeared at the 1888 inquest as Cross, because he testified on a Monday, which was a work day, and must have taken time off work.
Furthermore, his superiors - and possibly Pickfords' legal advisers - must have read his testimony, in which he stated that he was an employee of Pickfords, as reported in the newspapers, and if they had known him as Lechmere then they would have wanted an explanation from him.
If his employers had known him as Lechmere, then he would presumably have had to give the name Lechmere at the inquest, which he did not.

And don't tell me that's a theory and not a fact!

[Fiver]

Is that the John Lechmere who was born in March 1855?

If true, then Maria would presumably have had grounds for divorce, which perhaps suggests that she did not know what he was up to.

Until 1857, divorce could only be granted by Parliament, which only the rich could afford. After the Marriage Act of 1857, divorce was handled by a court in London, which was less expensive, but a woman had to prove the husband was adulterous and also cruel. Not until the 1870 Married Womens Property Act was a married or divorced woman allowed to own any of her own property or income.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Actually, Harry’s response was a bit more sophisticated than that, since he said that Lechmere was considered innocent since he was not accused. Past tense.
That is, the police at the time had opportunity to take his statement and probe his story, and considered him nothing more than a witness. This would qualify as circumstantial evidence of his innocence.

I have myself in the past made the point that the police were in the best position to decide whether one of today's suspects behaved at all suspiciously, and also to check his alibis.

They were also in the best position to judge whether a suspect - or someone who is today considered to be a suspect - had blood on his clothing or hands.

Now someone has said that this is not a court of law and that it's not a matter of proving a suspect's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But one is entitled to ask, 'where is the evidence'?

According to one documentary, Lechmere arrived for work wearing a blood-stained apron.

Not only is this unbelievable, but there isn't any evidence for it.

It has been claimed again and again that he passed by each murder site at the time that the murder was taking place.

This is simply not true!

He was on holiday when three of the murders took place, and almost certainly with his wife and nine children.

That is something that would have counted with the police, but his accusers never mention it.

Two of the murders (if, as some of his accusers do, you include Tabram) took place before he set out for work.

The police never suspected Lechmere because there is nothing suspicious about someone setting out for work at 3:30, to start work at 4;00, and along the way, at 3:37, finding a body in a long, dark, empty street, because it is obvious that they were walking in opposite directions and she had no reason to go down that street unless she was already with a client.

I think the police could work that out.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Abby,

I think the issue is that his use of Lechmere is documented on legal documents, where he would be required to put his legal name, whether he liked it or not. The question is what name he used in every day life, such as at work, etc. What has come to us through the years are only the legal documents, because they get preserved, while use of the name Cross would not (unless we came across, say, a collection of personal letters that he wrote). This is what would be referred to as a "biased sample" in research, and given the possibility that description may get misconstrued as to my intention, what calling a sample biased means is we're only looking at information from a restricted range of sources. Other examples of a "biased sample" would be testing a medicine only on males, or only on females, or only on people aged 20-25, etc. While the conclusions may generalise to other "males/females/young adults", there always remain the possibility that the medicine may produce different results when used outside the tested group.

So because we only have access to legal documents, our sample of his name usage is limited to his name use on legal documents, not his name use in other situations.

Now, at the inquest, all we have documented is that he used Cross, which appears at odds with his use of Lechmere on other legal documents. However, it has been pointed out by some that it would have been entirely acceptable for him to identify himself as "Cross" if that were the name he was generally known by, even if it was not his legal name. I don't know enough about the laws around this to evaluate that argument, but if that is the case then going by Cross at this inquest, as well as the previous one, would suggest that Cross was the name by which he was commonly known and Lechmere is the name that he is registered under with gov't institutions. So the census, and tax office, marriage licences, births, etc "know" him as Lechmere but everyone else calls him Cross. Now whether or not everyone else also knew he had the name Lechmere associated with him is an open question. It may be people knew he had two names, one "formal" and one "informal" and that he generally went by his informal name (Cross), but this is a question for which we have no answer because we only have the records from the gov't offices to examine, but not records of his name use from elsewhere (other than the one other inquest he was involved in, where again he went by Cross).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

A point I've made before regarding the 'formal' and 'informal' names. There's plenty of Lechmere signatures (100 apparently), so his name was Lechmere, right? But on historical record, we have two, certainly one but probably two surviving records of Charles using his own voice. Both Cross. To me, that's a key point. Both uses of Cross are from his own mouth, not written on a formal record.

(Personally, Lechmere/ Cross is an either/ either for me, it has no bearing on his candidacy or lack of as a suspect. I'm actually inclined to agree with Gary that it may well have been to avoid publicity re: family and neighbours with non nefarious reasons.)

[harry]

It is law that sets the standard of innocence.Law enforcement officers have to observe that law.Police are the law enforcement officers who investigate murder,and,except for a couple of instances only police can name a murder suspect.
It is true Investigator,that some posters declare this is not a court of law,and we should not seek to hold to those standards,and thats fine,except that anything less will leave us with a multitude of suspects, who in reality,would never be suspect.Cross is just one.He is a person of interest,a witness,nothing more.

[Elamarna]

I object to your description of my mentioning of Charles Cross' being accompanied by a Pickfords legal representative as 'presenting theory as FACT'.

I also object to your comment that I 'state that [he was Known as Cross at Pickfords] as a fact' and am therefore 'simply doing the same the Lechmere people do when they make their claims .'

The 'Lechmere people' I have dealt with elsewhere are often rude, aggressive, crude, and unscrupulous in their treatment of evidence.

I don't do 'the same' as what they do; in particular, I don't try to frame people.

Charles Cross was accompanied by a legal representative of Pickfords and during the proceedings, the legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question because doing so would not be in his best interests.

I don't have the reference to hand but will post it as soon as I have located it.

I did not dream it up and it certainly is not a theory, as you seem to claim it is.

I can't remember whether I stated that it is a fact that the Crosses in the two inquests were the same man.

I have been a member for some 24 hours and have lost count of the number of times I have been challenged for claiming that something is a fact or for not, supposedly, having stated a fact.

I make statements based on evidence.

It is reasonable, based on the evidence we have, to conclude that the Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords and appeared at an inquest in 1876 was the same Charles Cross who was employed by Pickfords and testified at the 1888 inquest.
If you thought my deduction were unreasonable, you could have said so, but instead you compared my deduction with the way Lechmere's accusers argue.
That's out of order!

Even if they were not the same man, Pickfords must have been aware that Lechmere (as we know him) appeared at the 1888 inquest as Cross, because he testified on a Monday, which was a work day, and must have taken time off work.
Furthermore, his superiors - and possibly Pickfords' legal advisers - must have read his testimony, in which he stated that he was an employee of Pickfords, as reported in the newspapers, and if they had known him as Lechmere then they would have wanted an explanation from him.
If his employers had known him as Lechmere, then he would presumably have had to give the name Lechmere at the inquest, which he did not.

And don't tell me that's a theory and not a fact!

I await your evidence that Pickfords provided legal representation. Given there are apparently no records from Pickfords and only the report in the Islington paper I wonder what you can have?
While it's indeed possible, anf logical that pickfords would at least watch the inquest carefully, there is nothing in my exhaustive research on Bucks Row and all those connected that I am aware of that backs that claim up.

And you do present it as fact, when I do not believe the evidence exists to back it up.

If you are going to object every time someone disagrees with you on here, you will be objecting alot, it the way of things.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

He was recorded as Charles Cross, aged 11, in the 1861 census.

thanks PI

Jeff, didnt the census have to use the persons legal name? hes listed as cross on the census as a child, it seems he was cross at pickfords. why would he use the name lechmere? if his dad was a jerk, and it seems he was, why keep using or switch back to lechmere?? once cross was his step dad, he could just have stayed a cross, legally changed his name to cross, totally abandon the name lechmere.

yet he chose to keep it. it seems weird to me.

[Fiver]

and have we really come to the point where people question why on an unsolved serial murder case Ripper forum why people are discussing the whodunnit aspect? good grief.

Actually, that's the problem - a lot of people treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit you are given all the clues and can solve the case if you are clever enough. Barring deliberate deception, all information is accurate. This includes times, especially times of death. There is a direct link between the killer and the victims. There is a clear list of suspects. Alibis are either rock solid or further deceptions by the killer. Anything found is a clue or deliberate red herring.

None of this is true in a real case. We don't even have a clear list of victims, let alone a clear list of suspects. Human perception and memory are fallible. Eyewitnesses can contradict each other and not be lying. Objects found may just be random objects that have nothing to do with the case. Alibis are often soft and generally can't be proven or disproven this long after the events. Times given are usually estimates by people who didn't own a pocket watch. Estimated times of death are little more than guesswork, based on variables we are still trying to understand in the 21st century.

[Abby Normal]

Actually, that's the problem - a lot of people treat the case as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit you are given all the clues and can solve the case if you are clever enough. Barring deliberate deception, all information is accurate. This includes times, especially times of death. There is a direct link between the killer and the victims. There is a clear list of suspects. Alibis are either rock solid or further deceptions by the killer. Anything found is a clue or deliberate red herring.

None of this is true in a real case. We don't even have a clear list of victims, let alone a clear list of suspects. Human perception and memory are fallible. Eyewitnesses can contradict each other and not be lying. Objects found may just be random objects that have nothing to do with the case. Alibis are often soft and generally can't be proven or disproven this long after the events. Times given are usually estimates by people who didn't own a pocket watch. Estimated times of death are little more than guesswork, based on variables we are still trying to understand in the 21st century.

Hi Fiver
And now your the worthy keeper of the Semantics? lol. Everybody knows what a whodunnit means. Its an unsolved case, whether it be in real life or fiction. And this is my issue with the fervent anti Lechers. Its stuff like this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I await your evidence that Pickfords provided legal representation. Given there are apparently no records from Pickfords and only the report in the Islington paper I wonder what you can have?
While it's indeed possible, anf logical that pickfords would at least watch the inquest carefully, there is nothing in my exhaustive research on Bucks Row and all those connected that I am aware of that backs that claim up.

And you do present it as fact, when I do not believe the evidence exists to back it up.

If you are going to object every time someone disagrees with you on here, you will be objecting alot, it the way of things.

Steve

As you are of course aware, I'm not the only member here who has seen that piece of information, and it was reported as fact.

My reference to it was as follows:

'Charles Cross was accompanied by a legal representative of Pickfords and during the proceedings, the legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question because doing so would not be in his best interests.'

Are you saying that I should have prefaced the above quote by 'I read that' or 'it has been reported that'?

Would you consider it to be a misrepresentation of something as fact to say that Charles Cross worked for Pickfords?

Is one expected to say instead, 'Charles Lechmere said that he worked for Pickfords', or 'Charles Lechmere claimed that he worked for Pickfords', or that it 'was reported that Charles Lechmere said that he worked for Pickfords'?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is certainly an argument to be made for that, but what we do not have are any documents from his employment at Pickford where it is demonstrable that he was referred to as Cross anywhere other than at the inquests. But I agree, his use of Cross at the inquests, particularly the first where I recall it being mentioned Pickford's had a lawyer involved, who would have interacted with Charles at the time, is pretty strong evidence that he was known as Cross at work though and it may be the best we can do this far removed in time.

If, though, my recollection about there being a Pickford's lawyer involved at the first inquest is incorrect, then the counter-argument that gets put forth is that he again was "hiding behind a name by which he was not otherwise known." As such, to separate those two alternative hypotheses one needs additional evidence, either to show that he was known as Lechmere at Pickfords or that he was known as Cross at Pickfords. Neither side has been able to produce any further documents to support their claim.

And I suspect that even if there was a lawyer involved at the first inquest then it would be argued that it was the lawyer who encouraged him to use Cross, so that if necessary, Pickfords could then say "nobody by that name works with us at this time" should the press come knocking.

- Jeff

'I recall it being mentioned Pickford's had a lawyer involved, who would have interacted with Charles at the time'

Can you recall whether you read it - or was it narrated in a documentary?

Was it by any chance by Richard Jones?

[Elamarna]

As you are of course aware, I'm not the only member here who has seen that piece of information, and it was reported as fact.

My reference to it was as follows:

'Charles Cross was accompanied by a legal representative of Pickfords and during the proceedings, the legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question because doing so would not be in his best interests.'

Are you saying that I should have prefaced the above quote by 'I read that' or 'it has been reported that'?

Would you consider it to be a misrepresentation of something as fact to say that Charles Cross worked for Pickfords?

Is one expected to say instead, 'Charles Lechmere said that he worked for Pickfords', or 'Charles Lechmere claimed that he worked for Pickfords', or that it 'was reported that Charles Lechmere said that he worked for Pickfords'?

Ok so you have provided a reference, where did that come from?

I respectfully asked for a source for the statement that he had legal representation provided by Pickfords.

A press report would be something.

However, there is none so far as I am aware.

There are no records at Pickfords, and there is only the single press report of the inquest, which does not mention legal representation.

I am sorry, but just repeating what someone else as written on a website or in a book is not evidence, you need a source ,this is why so much gets repeated as fact in books over and over, because no one checks.

At two inquests We have a Carman called cross who works for Pickfords. Evidence given under oath . We have records listing his employment as Carman.

Thats enough to establish he worked at Pickfords

All I am asking is a source which says that from the time.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

'I recall it being mentioned Pickford's had a lawyer involved, who would have interacted with Charles at the time'

Can you recall whether you read it - or was it narrated in a documentary?

Was it by any chance by Richard Jones?

Hi PI1,

Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I should have indicated that I recall it being mentioned here on the boards as I did not mean to imply I recall it from some other independent source. But I don't know who mentioned it or if they had evidence for their suggestion or if they were speculating on what action they thought Pickfords might have taken.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

thanks PI

Jeff, didnt the census have to use the persons legal name? hes listed as cross on the census as a child, it seems he was cross at pickfords. why would he use the name lechmere? if his dad was a jerk, and it seems he was, why keep using or switch back to lechmere?? once cross was his step dad, he could just have stayed a cross, legally changed his name to cross, totally abandon the name lechmere.

yet he chose to keep it. it seems weird to me.

Hi Abby,

Again, I doubt he himself answered the census and so his listing as Cross there probably reflects the decision of someone else, probably his step-father if I had to guess. As for his reasons for using Lechmere in all the legal documents, I think that reflects the fact his name was never legally changed. As such, and this of course is just an idea, he may have been obliged to use Lechmere on such documents despite going by the name Cross in every other aspect of his life. His children would likewise legally have the name Lechmere, so their registrations in school and so forth would also have to be under Lechmere. It may be the only time he used Lechmere are on the types of documents that tend to get persevered.

I don't know if that's the case, of course, but I don't know that it isn't either. We don't have information on his name use in other, more mundane, circumstances. We do, however, see that he identifies himself as Cross at the inquests, which some have suggested would be fine provided that was the name he was generally known as.

Again, these are just hypotheses and they need proper researching. Research is not the formulation of "possible explanations" though, it involves the hard grind of searching through documents and historical records, maybe trying to uncover a trove of personal letters, etc. Our tossing back and forth of various scenarios isn't research, it's just us being creative. That's fine, but we're not going to solve anything by doing so. We simply demonstrate that, without evidence, there are an infinite number of ways to explain things and get one to a desired outcome.


- Jeff