The Chapman murder and Charles Lechmere

[GUT]

G'Day MrB

Why do you assume I'm antipodean?

GUT

[MrBarnett]

G'Day GUT,

Because your posts are so ripper!

MrB.

[GUT]

G'Day MrB

That I'll take as a compliment.

GUT

[GUT]

G'Day again Mr B

I'm not strictly antipodean, I'm willing to be persuaded that podean did it!

G.U.T.

[Bridewell]

G'Day Sleekviper

Quote:
Which is why the deed poll becomes important; he can not call himself anything but the name he would have registered, which would then be his legal name.

How then I ask do we have so many names for the victims?

Because Lechmere is right. Anyone can call themselves anything they like.

[GUT]

G'Day Bridewell,

My point exactly.

GUT

[sleekviper]

Deed poll says, "A Deed Poll legally binds the person who signs it to a particular course of action as detailed on the Deed Poll document.
A Deed Poll for a change of name contains three declarations and by executing the Deed Poll (signing, dating and having your signing witnessed) you are legally committing yourself to:
•Abandoning the use of your former name;
•Using your new name only at all times;
•Requiring all persons to address you by your new name only."

http://www.ukdps.co.uk/WhatIsADeedPoll.html

As far as others using multiple names, it appears they have no more completed the process of deed poll than Lechmere. I stick with the importance of deed poll, but that is just me.

[MrBarnett]

G'Day again Mr B

I'm not strictly antipodean, I'm willing to be persuaded that podean did it!

G.U.T.

You may have something there.

I've just had a vision of Rolf Harris in a blood-stained smock , a knife in each hand, standing over a mutilated corpse and asking ' Can you guess what it was yet?'

MrB

[GUT]

Love it.

But hasn't poor old Rolf got enough problems.

[Lechmere]

Only one newspaper reported the address and the Lechmeres had only just moved in, so the chances of his neighbours picking up on him would be slight, I would have thought.
As for his workmates this is more of a puzzle. On the one hand it is possible (from some accounts anyway) that lots of people worked at Pickfords in Broad Street so maybe it wasn’t so noticeable. Secondly, maybe he came clean and told them it was him and that he was known as Cross at home due to his step dad. He may have had to offer some sort of explanation as he would have to have had a day off to attend the inquest. Unless he pulled a sickie – which would have looked somewhat coincidental on the same day anyway.
My conclusion is that he must have told them at Pickfords about his involvement.

But the question has to be approached by asking who he would have been was primarily concerned about misleading?

I would suggest it was his immediate family. More particularly his wife. That explains why he didn’t give his address in open court (if indeed I am correct in suggesting that is what happened).

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;284377]Only one newspaper reported the address and the Lechmeres had only just moved in, so the chances of his neighbours picking up on him would be slight, I would have thought.

Ed,

These were the 'Whitechapel Murders', even as early as Nichols. It was what everyone in the East End was talking about. The Lechmeres had moved to Doveton Street only a couple of months before and would themselves have been the local news. And you don't think that until after the W.M. panic died down Mrs Lechmere ever mentioned that hubby, Charles Allen, was a carman who worked for Pickfords? And in the meantime nobody connected to Doveton Street ever spotted the reference to it in the press?

MrB

[Lechmere]

In this period the East End population was relatively transient and mobile, and it was crowded, so new arrivals wouldn't attract that much notice, I suspect.
Lechmere's testimony and involvement was not dwelled upon by the press. It was reported in a matter of fact and unglamorous manner.
His address was published in one evening paper. I can envisage that it did pass unnoticed in his smallish street.
We have no idea whether the family kept themselves to themselves or whether they were very gregarious.
It is not difficult to be anonymous in such circumstances if you want to be.

If his address was in most papers then I would agree with you - but it wasn't.
If they had lived in the street for many years with stable neighbours, again I would tend to agree.
If his wife could read I would tend to agree that she would find out.
On a different note, had he turned up at the inquest in his Sunday best then I would say that his wife must have known of his involvement and then it would make it more likely that the 'name swap' had some innocent explanation.
But these factors were not in place, which in my opinion make it very possible that his involvement in the case could have easily passed unnoticed.

[MrBarnett]

In this period the East End population was relatively transient and mobile....

Really? Depends on how you define the 'East End'. Spitalfields, certainly. The maritime parts of St. Georges, also ( but don't forget Charles lived in St. Georges for , what, 20 years?).

On the whole most 'respectable' East London families (the majority) spent most of their lives within a few streets.

It is a major rewrite of history to suggest that families in somewhere like Doveton Street didn't know each other like (in unabashed Cockney) 'the ins and outs of the cat's arse'.

MrB

[moonbegger]

But the question has to be approached by asking who he would have been was primarily concerned about misleading?

I would suggest it was his immediate family. More particularly his wife. That explains why he didn’t give his address in open court (if indeed I am correct in suggesting that is what happened).

Misleading v protecting ? we are one word away from agreement

If his wife could read I would tend to agree that she would find out.

Maybe if she was deaf too .. or was kept locked in the cupboard under the stairs .. And as MrB suggested , whether they liked it or not, a new family moving into a new street would have attracted all sorts of attention .. We really don't know anything about the particular family / neighbors dynamics here , but the history of neighbor interaction in the East End must be taken into account .. it seems bizarre to conclude or assume they would have had no interaction with other neighbors .. I'm not suggesting ( because I don't know ) that neighbors were all out helping them move in on moving day.. or even bringing them a welcoming cup of tea , but it seems highly unlikely that they would not have had some kind of neighbor interaction very early on in their new street.. children playing together , doorstep gossiping( ect )
PS. They did all of the above in my street back in my granddads day, not too far away !

His address was published in one evening paper. I can envisage that it did pass unnoticed in his smallish street.

I'm struggling follow the logic or reasoning here Ed ? Surely the same logic would also apply to Crossmere reading about Pauls Lloyds interview in that same smallish street ? Also it wasn't just one street ! it was all the streets close by . The murders were big news locally , Bucks row was packed with people gawping at the murder site on the same day .. perhaps that was another reason he wanted to keep his address out of the public eye , to keep the murder tourists from his door or from gawping at his wife and kids . Once again , Protection of his family seems to be his priority .

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

I don't see any other witness in the case protecting their family.
The 'good neighbour' East End chestnut grew up later I would suggest, when the population became more settled.
I have pointed out that in his adult life Lechmere moved six times and lived at 7 addresses.
I have looked at Robert Paul and he never seems to be in the same place twice (and like most East Enders) is difficult to trace accurately as clearly he wasn't as punctillious about his own record keeping as Lechmere.

If Lechmere did it I would suggest he kept his eyes on the newspapers - so the logic of him noticing Paul's story is quite different. If he was innocent then of course it is unlikely he would have noticed Paul's story and his coming forward would be coincidental.