The Chapman murder and Charles Lechmere

[Lechmere]

Scott
It seems Lechmere and Paul didn't know each other before 31st August - that's all that can really be said.
Paul turned into Corbets Court - we don't know if Lechmere saw him go into a specific workplace but Corbets Court was a very small side street.
I would suggest that Lechmere's likely irritation at Paul (which will have grown when the newspaper story came out) combined with the knowledge of his workplace (keeping tabs on Paul would probably have been part of the motivation in walking off with Paul after he left Mizen) and his probable realisation that the police were annoyed at Paul for slagging them and not turning up, combined with his realisation that the police were eating out of his hand and totally believed in him, this together would have been the midwife for his idea of committing his next crime in quick succession in the general area where Paul worked.
I would not suggest that he immediately came up with this idea on the morning of 31st August.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Lechmere,

You are, of course, right: Charles' first son (also Charles Allen) Died aged 2 in 1875. His second son was named Thomas Allen and a later child was named Charles Allen. He seems pretty determined to maintain the Allen which had been his father's second name, but no sign of a John, his father's first name, so perhaps the name Allen went back further in his family history and was a reminder of glories past.

Regards,

MrB

[Lechmere]

Going backwards in time…
Charles Fox Lechmere (1782-1834) was Charles Allen Lechmere’s grandfather.

Charles Fox Lechmere was the third son of John Scudamore Lechmere (1746-1801) of Fownhope in Herefordshire. The Lechmere’s were the local landed gentry and most prominent family in this district. Chares Fox didn’t make the most of his upbringing and hence his branch of the family ended up in the East End, while the main branch lived the high life in a big house in Herefordshire.

John Scudamore Lechmere was in turn the son of Scudamore Lechmere (1711-1761), who married an heiress called Jane Pateshall (1716-1773). The Pateshall family owned the large Allensmore estate, also in Herefordshire.

Scudamore Lechmere’s second eldest son, Edmund (died 1790 - i.e. John Scudamore’s brother and Charles Fox’ uncle) succeeded to the Allensmore estates in 1772 but he had to change his name to Pateshall.
The Pateshall family are thus really Lechmere’s and they incorporate the Lechmere heraldic symbol (the pelican vulning) in their arms.

Scudamore Lechmere had another son called Thomas Allen Lechmere. This is the first use of the name Allen I can find in the family and I think was connected to the Allensmore estate, as this Thomas Allen’s mother was the heiress to the Allensmore estate.

This Thomas Allen Lechmere was Charles Allen Lechmere’s (aka Cross) grandfather’s uncle.
But there was another connection as Charles Allen Lechmere’s great grandfather John Scudamore Lechmere married Catherine Whitmore, while his younger brother Thomas Allen Lechmere (or Charles Allen Lechmere's great uncle)married her sister Janet Whitmore. So the two brothers married two sisters.

Edmund Lechmere (the one who changed his name to Pateshall) also had a son called Thomas Allen Pateshall (died 1846).

So I am family sure that the use of Allen stems from the connection to the Allensmore estate that a branch of the Lechmere family inherited. This indicates a keen interest on Charles Allen Lechmere’s part on his Lechmere heritage.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Lechmere,

Fascinating stuff!

It's not too much of a leap to imagine Charles harbouring a deep sense of resentment at the hand life had dealt him.

This may be a bit more of a leap, but I'll attempt it anyway: how about the reason for not using his real name in the Nichols case being a reluctance to sully it with something so sordid. Doesn't prove his innocence or guilt one way or the other, but it would seem to be very much in character.

Now all you need to tell me is that Charles Fox's downfall was drink or syphalis and I'll be applying to join team Lechmere.

Cheers,

MrB

[Lechmere]

But why would being a witness in a murder case sully the name of Lechmere?

I think the riches to rags story is a potential and not uncommon source of grievance in a psychopath - just as is the father running away and Charles Lechmere being without a father figure until he was about 8 and then having a youngish policeman 'forced' upon him.

The few records I have traced about Charles Fox Lechmere list him as a Gentleman or Farmer.
Most of his seven children were baptised in churches dispersed around Hereford, and none in Fownhope, the main Lechmere base:

1. Jane Elizabeth Lechmere, 1818 in Kenchester, Herefordshire. This daughter made a reasonable marriage and her husband put up a memorial to Charles Fox Lechmere in Fownhope Church.
2. John Allen Lechmere, 1820 in Kenchester, Herefordshire. Became a bootmaker – Charles Allen Lechmere’s father.
3. Whitmore Lechmere, 1821 in Orcop, Herefordshire. Became a bootmaker and moved to London (died 1881). He had a son (Charles Allen’s cousin) who lived in Hackney.
4. Mary Ann Lechmere, 1824 in Hereford (married a coachman and moved to London).
5. Harriet Maria Lechmere, 1826 in Pipe and Lyde, Herefordshire.
6. Edwin Charles Lechmere, 1829 in Withington, Herefordshire (died young).
7. Emma Catherine Lechmere, 1831 Withington, Herefordshire.

This implies that Charles Fox moved about, which is odd if he was a farmer.
Kenchester is about five and a half miles west of Hereford
Orcop is about eight and a half miles south of Hereford
Pipe and Lyde is about five miles north of Hereford
Withington is five miles north east of Hereford

Both of his sons that lived to adulthood became bootmakers.

[MrBarnett]

Nothing per se embarrassing in being a witness, but being described in the press as CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE, carman, on his way to work in the early hours of an East End morning discovering the mutilated body of a prostitute might have threatened to burst a certain bubble.

Lech. seems to have been quite precious about the name his ancestors had bequeathed him. He may have just wanted to distance that legacy from the sordid reality of his East End life. Which could also explain why he wore the apron to court - to play the role of 'ever-so-umble' Charlie Cross and avoid all connection to CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE ESQ of Herefordshire as he may well have seen himself.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Hi Lechmere,

Do we know if Charles Fox married 'beneath himself' in some way? Did he get the parlourmaid pregnant or something? Sounds like the bootmaking gene might have come from the maternal side.

This could well explain his ostracism from the Herefordshire gentry, and also account for a resentment of women that trickled down into Charles's twisted consciousness (if, indeed, he had one and wasn't just Mr ordinary, a hard-working East End geezer.)


MrB

[Lechmere]

Yes there is good reason to think Charles Fox Lechmere married beneath him as his wife is just given as Mary. She died in 1875, (in Hastings but was buried in Crowhurst) so Chares Allen Lechmere probably knew her. I eventually traced her surname but I can't find where I put it just now.

I think it would have been worse for him if he was discovered as Charles Allen Lechmere who tried to pass himself off as Charles Cross in a major murder case after being found with a dead body. I can only imagine that he had a good reason to take the risk of calling himself by another name.

[Lechmere]

On a more tangible note one of Charles Allen Lechmere's sons returned to Herefordshire, but as a humble rural postman - which rather counts against a family trying to pretend it was more hoity-toity than it actually was.
For what it’s worth, there was no East End family recollection of a gentrified background either.
That suggests that Charles Allen Lechmere nursed any grievance privately.

Although strangely there was a memory of a family connection to one of Nelson's captains - which was via a more distant stem. This Lechmere missed out on commanding his ship HMS Thunderer at Trafalgar as he returned to attend the court martial of Admiral Calder in respect of an earlier engagement, where Calder was deemed to have failed to be suitably energetic and aggressive when defeating a Franco-Spanish Fleet at the Battle of Cape Finisterre.

[MrBarnett]

The risk was there whether he used the Cross name to avoid embarrassment or a charge of murder. At some point he took that risk, knowing that if the police found him out the doo doo would hit the fan.

Do we know at what point Charles first gave his false name to the police?

I don't suppose Mizen took it down in his notebook while he was busy knocking up. But he might well have asked for names at the time (the conversation might also have disclosed both Lechmere's and Paul's addresses and places of work).

This would have put Charles on the spot, and I think at that point the thought of defending the family honour would not have been uppermost in his mind, whether he was the murderer or not.

But if he had not identified himself on the night (as either Cross or Lechmere), he would have had time to reflect, and may have gambled that his simple carman act was convincing and would therefore not lead to any further investigation, so using the false name and dressing the part might have seemed relatively risk-free to either a serial killer or a frustrated snob.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

On a more tangible note one of Charles Allen Lechmere's sons returned to Herefordshire, but as a humble rural postman - which rather counts against a family trying to pretend it was more hoity-toity than it actually was..

Could he not have got a job as postman in London? Sounds to me to me like another example of someone trying to recapture an imaginary golden age/place. The reality of life as a postman in rural Herefordshire (from a material point view, ignoring the glorious countryside) was probably no better than someone in stable employment in Whitechapel. Unless there were some Lechmere family perks still available.

Charles's obsession with his family heritage may have taken a more unhealthy course, but it could still have been a perfectly healthy recurring theme within the family psyche. If you were able to explore it, fine. But if circumstances prevent your escape from a mundane life in a filthy, overcrowded city it might just be the catalyst that creates an morbid resentment.

MrB

[Lechmere]

Charles Lechmere did not give his name to PC Mizen, as in his inquest testimony Mizen made it clear that he had only just the learnt his (false) name .
Accordingly Lechmere must have given his name to the police as Cross when he made contact with them.
This must have been either on Sunday evening – immediately after the appearance of Paul’s newspaper story or possibly (but in my opinion less likely) on Monday morning. If on Monday morning it could have been at his initiative, or he could have been accosted by a police dragnet of some sort (highly unlikely in my opinion).
It was almost certainly a premeditated decision to call himself Cross.

The point about giving a false name is that psychopaths lie glibly about things and tend to be readily believed. This perhaps makes it more likely that the person who so readily lied to the police about his name, and whose tale was so readily accepted was a psychopath.

This person had, remember, been found adjacent to a murdered body and was involved in a dispute with PC Mizen as to what was said in their brief conversation.

In general we see people trying to involve themselves in this case rather than shying away.
We see Toffs drawn to the area to take a look at what was happening.
If he was proud of his ancestry and keen on defending his family honour, I would expect Lechmere to turn up at the inquest in his smartest suit to make a good account of himself and draw attention to how he was upholding the Lechmere name – to attract the notice of his absent father and his wealthy cousins. That would I think be a much more normal response, if innocent.

The fact that one of his sons chose to take a job back in Herefordshire as a humble rural postman tells us that he must have recounted his family background to his children and been aware of his Lechmere heritage. Alongside the use of the name Allen, and in particular Thomas Allen, this strongly suggests that he would never have called himself Cross and makes it all the stranger that he called himself Cross when he appeared at a police station after being found adjacent to the dead body of Polly Nichols.

The excuse that perhaps he did not wish to sully the noble name of Lechmere (although they were landed gentry, country squires, not nobles) by demonstrating the humble reality of his life by appearing under his true name at the inquest, is I think fatally undermined by the prodigal Lechmere son, who did not return to the Lechmere ancestral pastures with his pockets filled with gold, but as a humble postman.

Surely, if he was so sensitive that he called himself Cross to spare Lechmere blushes, he would have discouraged his son from going back to Herefordshire and exposing their comparative poverty in the very shadow of his cousin’s wealth?

[MrBarnett]

I am still having trouble squaring Charles' apparently voluntary contact with the police and the use of a false name and his correct home and work addresses, particularly if it is being suggested that he did so to avoid revealing his true identity.

He had had time to think the thing through, so this was not a spur of the moment inconsistency. He must have believed that his innocent simple carman act had convinced the police and they would not investigate him further.

Having given the correct address (and workplace) he had provided the police with all the information they would need should they want to track him down. By giving a false name he had created a potentially suspicious circumstance in the event that they did seek to contact him at a later date. So he seems to have been fairly confident that his inquest testimony would be the end of the matter.

I suppose that what I am trying to say is that by giving his correct address to the police he had effectively provided them with his true identity. Why then bother to hide the name and create potential future suspicion. Let's not forget that the use of the false name is one of the chief arguments against him today.

MrB

[Cogidubnus]

I still believe it is possible that when "Crossmere" first started working for Pickfords he was still known as Cross and, for reasons unknown to us, retained his existence there under that name. If he was expecting to be subsequently contacted at or via work it would then make perfect sense to use that name for his (now lost) police statement.

However, as poster Lechmere has already (indefatiguably!) exhausted Pickfords employment records as a possibility, this leaves only the decidedly off-chance of coming across an old (probably LNWR) goods receipt with a carriers signature on it...fairly remote I'd agree, but possible as these items of ephemera do appear on ebay and elsewhere.

With regard to the timing of Crossmere's statement there's alas no extant proof whatever that Mizen wasn't simply too stupid or too idle, or maybe just didn't bother to take the names of two apparently upright citizens reporting a crime - nor that Crossmere didn't come forward after work on say Saturday evening...perhaps after hearing locally about the adjourned inquest and realising he ought to report what he'd seen.

His subsequent appearance on the second day of the Inquest in his working gear may simply suggest that his presence was requested late, and that this was how he was attired, ready for his duties, when summoned...maybe he was summoned directly from his duties; it may even additionally suggest that he felt there was a chance of resuming his duties after giving his testimony...after all, he perhaps wasn't to know that he'd be kept back for a possible recall...

Bearing in mind his proven subsequent demeanour down the years, it's just as likely as anything else...and whilst I agree that this brings nothing fresh in the way of outright proof to the table, neither alas do the "Crossmere" theorists...Nonetheless it IS an interesting theory...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Mr B

Firstly we do not know the circumstances of what he was asked and how he was asked it.
Maybe he went intending to give a false name but hadn’t worked out in his head a bogus address and workplace as he was not expecting to be asked those details.

Secondly you are presuming that the primary people who he wanted to mask the true name of the first finder of Nichols from was the police. It may well have been the case that his priority was that he did not want his immediate family to know of his involvement.
This is further suggested by his turning up at the inquest in his work clothes, and even taking the stand in his apron.
Furthermore future generations of his family remained unaware of his involvement in the case.
It is often the case that serial killers are most concerned that their nearest and dearest, who know them better than others, and can keep the under the closest scrutiny, remain in the dark about their activities.

Thirdly, he may have calculated that he could get away with a name swap, particularly by using a name he had a connection to, if he was subject to further investigation. If he was checked up on (which almost certainly does not seem to have happened as the police were still calling him Cross in internal files as late as 19th October 1888) at his work or at his home address as it was false, then the police would have come looking for him with a big element of suspicion in their minds. The police successfully tacked Paul down. It would have been Lechmere’s priority to get out of his predicament (caused by Paul) with the least harm to him.

However, I would imagine that Lechmere would calculate that his plausible manner would stop any element of suspicion in him in its tracks once he had got clear of the inquest.

At the inquest only one newspaper, The Star, gave Lechmere’s address. This was an evening paper and it got his address exactly right. No other newspaper even got vague approximation of his address. I think this shows that Lechmere did not actually give his address in open court but the enterprising Star journalist got the address from the court clerk in the lunch time recess prior to his filing his copy.