Charles Lechmere and the Curious Case of Henry John Holland

[MrBarnett]

Ah, but George Morris was an ex-copper, some 22 years in the force (he retired in T Division in the early 1880s), and if you notice, the home addresses of policemen are frequently omitted during the inquest. I'm guessing, but I think this is very possibly a courtesy to the police, who may not want any unpleasant home visits from people they've nicked in the past.

A more interesting example is Eliza Gold. Her address is not given in the 'official' Eddowes inquest records, but is recorded in The Times, The Daily News, etc., which rather puts doubt on the commonplace observation by Ripperologists that 'official' records are always more reliable than what is printed in the press.

Eliza Gold’s address of ‘Thrawl Street, Spitalfields’ was given in her statement.

[rjpalmer]

Eliza Gold’s address of ‘Thrawl Street, Spitalfields’ was given in her statement.

Yes, but is 'Thrawl Street' an address?

My point, perhaps poorly made, is that, judging by the Eddowes inquest papers, the newspapers often gave more detail than even the 'official' transcript. The Times and The Daily Telegraph and other papers give Gold's full address: "No. 6 Thrawl Street."

I've had a look at the policemen whose depositions survive in the Corporation of London Records.

We are not given the addresses of Edward Watkins, Edward Collard, John Mitchell, Baxter Hunt, Louis Robinson, James Byfield, George Henry Hutt, James Harvey, Alfred Long, or Daniel Halse.

Other than the address of Gordon Brown's surgery, only Richard Pearce's home address is given, and it is relevant and unavoidable because he lived at No. 3 Mitre Square and was off-duty when alerted to the murder.

So I can't agree with your statement that the lack of an address for George Morris, who had 22 years on the force, can tell us anything useful about Charles Lechmere.

[MrBarnett]

Yes, but is 'Thrawl Street' an address?

My point, perhaps poorly made, is that, judging by the Eddowes inquest papers, the newspapers often gave more detail than even the 'official' transcript. The Times and The Daily Telegraph and other papers give Gold's full address: "No. 6 Thrawl Street."

I've had a look at the policemen whose depositions survive in the Corporation of London Records.

We are not given the addresses of Edward Watkins, Edward Collard, John Mitchell, Baxter Hunt, Louis Robinson, James Byfield, George Henry Hutt, James Harvey, Alfred Long, or Daniel Halse.

Other than the address of Gordon Brown's surgery, only Richard Pearce's home address is given, and it is relevant and unavoidable because he lived at No. 3 Mitre Square and was off-duty when alerted to the murder.

So I can't agree with your statement that the lack of an address for George Morris, who had 22 years on the force, can tell us anything useful about Charles Lechmere.

The ‘official transcript’ was part of the official procedure and it seems to have been somewhat lax.

So, Morris was concerned about people from his past knowing his home address but was happy to reveal that he was an ex-copper and disclose his place of work where he could be found alone at night? And a serving copper, Pearce, is willing to give his full home address so as to provide his crucial evidence - I saw and heard nothing? Why mention Pearce was off-duty? Morris had been off-duty for 9 years. Fiver provided examples of addresses being intentionally withheld - the fact was made public and reported in the press. There’s no mention of that in respect of Morris. Lechmere’s address wasn’t reported in 1876 and only one paper reported it in 1888. That doesn’t go away because you imagine ex-coppers get preferential anonymity over off-duty ones.

How and when did the coroner’s clerk receive the information about witnesses’ names, addresses and occupations? Why did one describe Kearley and Tonge as Wholesale Grocers while the Times reporter said they were tea merchants? Perhaps the coroners clerk (or whoever produced the transcripts of the witnesses’ evidence) already had their names, addresses and occupations, thus fulfilling the coroners obligation to obtain them, and the repetition of them in the witness box was just a matter of confirming that witness A was witness A and not witness B.

Nothing that has been produced so far has cancelled out the possibility that Lechmere did not give his address from the witness box but the Star, perhaps thinking it was an important part of the story given the timings, asked a coroner’s official for it.

What Fish has been saying all along still stands.

Devastating indeed - all that effort to maintain the status quo.

[Mark J D]

Nothing that has been produced so far has cancelled out the possibility that Lechmere did not give his address from the witness box but the Star, perhaps thinking it was an important part of the story given the timings, asked a coroner’s official for it.

I don't know if I've ever mentioned it on here, but my own experience writing stuff for an evening paper in the pre-internet '80s was that, since the horrifically early deadlines meant there was no 'second chance' to fill knowledge gaps, anything and everything that had even an outside chance of being needed would be obtained as far in advance as possible. I'm guessing the guy from The Star was tapping the desk clerk for accurate names and addresses while Lechmere was still selecting the best apron for his "'umble, salt-of-the-earth workin' man" act...

M.

[MrBarnett]

I don't know if I've ever mentioned it on here, but my own experience writing stuff for an evening paper in the pre-internet '80s was that, since the horrifically early deadlines meant there was no 'second chance' to fill knowledge gaps, anything and everything that had even an outside chance of being needed would be obtained as far in advance as possible. I'm guessing the guy from The Star was tapping the desk clerk for accurate names and addresses while Lechmere was still selecting the best apron for his "'umble, salt-of-the-earth workin' man" act...

M.

You can just imagine an editor reading through the report and asking, ‘So, the body was found at this time, the finder said he left home at that time. How far away did he live…?’

Or perhaps that sort of editorial scrutiny wouldn’t have happened?

[Mark J D]

You can just imagine an editor reading through the report and asking, ‘So, the body was found at this time, the finder said he left home at that time. How far away did he live…?’

Or perhaps that sort of editorial scrutiny wouldn’t have happened?

I think the guy from The Star was just doing his job intelligently, knowing that every accurate fact he collected before the event was one he didn't have to worry about getting once it started and the race was on.

And we're lucky he was so good.

M.

[rjpalmer]

I'm guessing the guy from The Star was tapping the desk clerk for accurate names and addresses while Lechmere was still selecting the best apron for his "'umble, salt-of-the-earth workin' man" act...

Ah, the old work apron gambit—well-known in the annals of crime.

Amelia Palmer… “who was poorly clad…”

James Cable aka Kent: “he wore a long overcoat that had once been green…”

John Richardson: “He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat…”

John Reeves (at the Tabram inquest) “dressed in corduroy trousers and a black overcoat, and wearing earrings…”

I reckon there were a lot of East Enders that didn’t get the memo about putting on a monkey suit for the benefit Wynne Baxter—the same coroner who once observed that many East Enders kept their best clothes in the local pawnshop.

[rjpalmer]

Nothing that has been produced so far has cancelled out the possibility that Lechmere did not give his address from the witness box but the Star, perhaps thinking it was an important part of the story given the timings, asked a coroner’s official for it.

Nothing has been shown to demonstrate that Lechmere' didn't give his home address --which is the procedure under the Coroner's Act--and that the newspapermen, other than the Star, either didn't hear it or recognize what he had said.

In the case of Fountain Smith, whose address is not given, it was explicitly stated that it was because it was inaudible.

In the case of Henry John Holland, the Times reporter gave his address--but this address doesn't appear to have existed, raising the very real possibility that it was also inaudible, and he merely guessed at what was said. Less than two weeks later, The Times reporter was one of the assembled crowd that didn't give--nor explain--the omission of Fountain Smith's address.

So much for "tapping up the court clerk" for info.

[rjpalmer]

And a serving copper, Pearce, is willing to give his full home address so as to provide his crucial evidence - I saw and heard nothing? Why mention Pearce was off-duty?

Seriously?

Pearce was the only resident of the square and gave evidence that he had heard nothing during the night...which IS evidence. How was he supposed to explain this without revealing his home address? It was unavoidable. Was he supposed to pretend that he was on-duty as a fixed-point constable in Mitre Square? That wouldn't quite work, would it?

Meanwhile, there are 10 other policemen who gave testimony at the Eddowes' inquest, and none of their home addresses are revealed in open court...unlike the other witnesses. Are you suggesting this is a coincidence?

All I am speculating--reasonably, in my opinion--that Morris was given the same courtesy as the other policeman, having spent 20+ years on the force.

Morris could hardly refrain from telling people where he worked at night...he was giving relevant evidence having been alerted to the murder by Watkins.

I really have no idea what you are suggesting or why this is supposedly relevant to Charles Allen Lechmere

[Mark J D]

In the case of Fountain Smith, whose address is not given, it was explicitly stated that it was because it was inaudible.

Folks, from the point of view of Lechmere Studies (as opposed to the point of spew of all those shrieking 'There shall be no Lechmere Studies! Stop thinking about him! He's just a man who found a body'), this bit of information is interesting. The reason is that if Lechmere had spoken with a serious speech impediment (I'll come back to this sometime) and thereby generated the 'George'/'Charles', 'Andrew'/'Allen' confusions so many of the papers (but not The Star!) fell victim to, we might have expected to see someone include information to the effect that 'he spoke indistinctly'. Therefore he likely didn't. Yes, there's a reason for caring about this -- and not simply because it may suggest that he found exactly the correct vocal level to ensure he wasn't clearly heard over the noise in the room.

M.

[bolo]

Hello RP, all,

This rather side-steps the issue at hand.

If he didn't give it in court, how was is that The Times managed to record Henry John Holland's address, when nobody else did?

More more needs to be done, but let me hazard a guess. I wonder if it isn't the same old culprit: weak voices and bad acoustics.

I'm failing to find any Aden-Yard, Mile-End Road on the Goad maps, nor any mention of it in census reports, etc.

There is, however, a No. 4 Hayfield-yard, Mile End Road.

Did the sickly young man say 'afield-yard' and no one knew what he said and so left it off? And The Times made a rather bad stab at it, recording is as Aden-yard?

I don't know, but the 'Robert Bauls' and 'George Crosses' along with the inaudible Fontain Smith tells me that the Working Lad's Institute was no Royal Albert Hall when it came to acoustics.

I really like that - it's a simple but in my opinion very plausible explanation that does not need a lengthy discussion about a possibly sinister motive.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, isn't it.

Grüße,

Boris

[drstrange169]

>You can just imagine an editor reading through the report and asking,...<<

Having worked in the industry, I can't.

If your supposition were true, there were one hell a lot of angry editors on that Monday evening. The Star had a deadline scant hours away. What excuse did the dailies have? If the editors were that angry they would have sent the reporters back for the info.

There's no real world logic in this.

[drstrange169]

In fact, I suspect the opposite.

The editors of the dailies deleted the various reporters references to the address. Reading the articles, they strongly suggest that.

[Mark J D]

In fact, I suspect the opposite.

The editors of the dailies deleted the various reporters references to the address. Reading the articles, they strongly suggest that.

At this point, I really have heard everything.

M.

[Mark J D]

I don't know, but the 'Robert Bauls' and 'George Crosses' along with the inaudible Fontain Smith tells me that the Working Lad's Institute was no Royal Albert Hall when it came to acoustics.

For the sake of anyone interested in making acquaintance with reality, I should point out that the Royal Albert Hall is, in fact, acoustically appalling, the inevitably disastrous sonic shortcomings of a hollowed-out wedding cake having proved only partially rectifiable down the decades.

M.