The Chapman murder and Charles Lechmere

[Lechmere]

Ungallant

[Cogidubnus]

I think it is decidedly unlikely that Lechmere called himself Cross when he started at Pickford’s in about 1868. His sister died the next year as a Lechmere and we can see evidence in his life that he was very conscious of his Lechmere heritage.

It is fairly clear that PC Mizen failed to take the names of Paul and Lechmere on the morning of 31st August. He was reported as stating at the inquest that the man he met was now known to him as Cross. In other words he only found out his name on the morning of the inquest.

My interpretation as to why Mizen failed to take their details on that morning was because Lechmere told him there was a woman lying in the street (not a very serious incident) and that Mizen was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row (i.e. that policeman had sent Lechmere as a messenger and would probably have already taken his details if it had been deemed necessary).
Mizen should probably have taken their details anyway, but his negligence in doing so was minor if the circumstances were as Lechmere described (according to Mizen).
If Lechmere’s account was true then Mizen was indeed lazy, idle and a liar.

It is most unlikely that Lechmere could have gone to the police on the Saturday evening, indeed at any time prior to Sunday evening, as the police issued a statement on Sunday evening that in essence denied Paul’s newspaper story and continued to paint Neil as the first finder of Nichols.

Lechmere’s attire at the inquest is another one of those awkward anomalies about the man. Excuses can be made for him, but the detail I find impossible to square away is the apron. Why wear that when he took the stand? To my mind it was to reinforce his workman status, to make him look more humble and harmless. It went along with his repeated ‘yes sir’ and ‘no sir’-ing which was another noticeable feature of his testimony.

Hi Ed

Yes I agree that later in life he seems to become more aware of his Lechmere name, but whether that includes the heritage or not I couldn't say. I wonder exactly when that awareness started to blossom? Are there any examples of his using the Lechmere surname on documents prior to starting at Pickfords for example? As a matter of interest, just when was his first "Lechmere signature"?

With regard to Mizen, the testimony available to us could very well suggest that the PC, having been bollocked by his superiors, was attempting before the Coroner and attendant press to minimise his earlier folly....and I agree with you that if this is the case, then he was indeed lazy idle and a liar...

However, I don't believe the fact that the Police issued a statement on Sunday evening, denying Paul's press statements, can necessarily preclude “Crossmere” making a statement on Saturday evening. If I recall correctly we’re referring to Helson’s press release which only denied that Neil had been approached by two men…Mizen wasn’t mentioned was he?

The evidence given at the Inquest on Saturday was probably on the streets by that evening for “Crossmere” to hear, (Inquests are public affairs after all). Given the non-cooperation between the Met and the press that Autumn, however, do you honestly feel that the contents of a police statement given by a witness on Saturday evening would have been openly disclosed to the press the following day in response to an even slightly erroneous story…or even, for that matter, a correct one?

As a matter of interest what sort of apron do you envisage “Crossmere” wearing Ed? I think as a carman it wouldn’t have been a dainty round the waist job…One of my grandfathers spent the latter part of his life as a warehouseman, and his “apron” was a heavy duty almost full bodylength job secured by a band round his neck , another round his waist and a looser one at his thighs…it was as much part of his working apparel as anything else he wore, and this was probably more so for a carman. I honestly think you may be reading too much into this…

All the best

Dave

[Sam Flynn]

Ungallant

What? My referring to Martha Tabram and Pearly Poll getting pie-eyed with a couple of soldiers prior to an assignation in a George Yard stairwell? Perhaps if I'd used "Dutch Courage" instead of "beer-goggles" it might have taken the curse off it, but there was a touch of the latter as well. That's not "ungallant", that's merely stating a sad fact.

[Bridewell]

It is fairly clear that PC Mizen failed to take the names of Paul and Lechmere on the morning of 31st August. He was reported as stating at the inquest that the man he met was now known to him as Cross. In other words he only found out his name on the morning of the inquest.

That is one possibility. Another is that one of the two men identified himself to Mizen as Charles Allen Lechmere, but preferred to use the surname Cross when under the media spotlight accompanying the inquest. In other words that the man he met was (at the inquest) "now known to me as Cross" - but previously as Lechmere.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin

That is one possibility. Another is that one of the two men identified himself to Mizen as Charles Allen Lechmere, but preferred to use the surname Cross when under the media spotlight accompanying the inquest. In other words that the man he met was (at the inquest) "now known to me as Cross" - but previously as Lechmere.

I must admit that's a possibility I hadn't thought of before...nice one

All the best

Dave

[MrBarnett]

Hi All,

Still banging on about the use of the Cross name – sorry.

Am I right in saying that we don’t know exactly when Charles started work at Pickfords? He told the inquest he had worked for them for ‘over twenty years’, so 1868 at the earliest, when he was 18 and while his stepfather was still very much alive. But since most working class kids started work at around 14 (or even earlier) back then, unless he had another job for four years and learnt his cabman skills there, the chances are he started at Pickfords as a van boy well before 1868 while still very much part of the Cross household.

This was long before the days of computerised HR systems, national insurance numbers etc. For such a lowly job there was probably no form-filling required at all. His name to his employers was whatever he called himself when he (possibly in company with his stepfather) applied for the job. I very much doubt that he had to provide a birth certificate to prove his identity. So he could very well have given the name Cross that his stepfather had deemed appropriate for use on a census form just a few years earlier.

For me this would reconcile the inconsistency of giving of a false name and a correct address. In giving the name Cross, his correct address and place of work, he was perhaps assuming (and maybe tried to engineer) that the police would make any inquiries at his place of work, where all three elements would check out.

And the fact that as he grew older he filled out ‘official’ forms in his legal name in my view doesn’t weaken this theory. He just grew out of the shadow of his stepfather and recreated himself as CAL.

As for evidence to support my theory, well the only evidence we have concerning the name he went by while a youngster is the census form where he is shown as Charles Cross.

MrB

By the way I have tracked down some back issues of Ripperana on line.

[Lechmere]

So Lechmere told Mizen he was called Lechmere and then went to a police station and said he was called Cross.
Yes that's likely

This is how Mizen's testimony was reported in the Echo on 3rd September 1888:
Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman.

The only sensible conclusion is that Mizen did not known him by any name until he met him at the inquest.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mr Barnett

I don't disagree...in fact, my suspicion (as per my postings) is that you may well be perfectly correct...to me the fact that he gave his correct address (even if, as Ed suggests, only to the Star) and his correct employer, only serve to negate any suggestion that he was attempting to conceal his identity...

Following which...what are we debating?

Best wishes

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mr Barnett

By the way I have tracked down some back issues of Ripperana on line.

Sorry, I know it's off-topic, but what have you found and where? I'd love to read same...

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

This is from the Daily News of 3rd September 1888, reporting on the Sunday evening police release:

Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete.

It is abundantly clear that the police at this stage did not believe that anyone but Neil had found the body. They obviously assumed that Paul’s story was about Neil being called to the scene by two men and discounted that notion. They went further in saying that Mizen (and Thain) had not seen anyone either. The only sensible conclusion is that at this stage they did not know anything about Lechmere’s version of events.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

So how do you specifically respond to my earlier post:

Yes I agree that later in life he seems to become more aware of his Lechmere name, but whether that includes the heritage or not I couldn't say. I wonder exactly when that awareness started to blossom? Are there any examples of his using the Lechmere surname on documents prior to starting at Pickfords for example? As a matter of interest, just when was his first "Lechmere signature"?

With regard to Mizen, the testimony available to us could very well suggest that the PC, having been bollocked by his superiors, was attempting before the Coroner and attendant press to minimise his earlier folly....and I agree with you that if this is the case, then he was indeed lazy idle and a liar...

However, I don't believe the fact that the Police issued a statement on Sunday evening, denying Paul's press statements, can necessarily preclude “Crossmere” making a statement on Saturday evening. If I recall correctly we’re referring to Helson’s press release which only denied that Neil had been approached by two men…Mizen wasn’t mentioned was he?

The evidence given at the Inquest on Saturday was probably on the streets by that evening for “Crossmere” to hear, (Inquests are public affairs after all). Given the non-cooperation between the Met and the press that Autumn, however, do you honestly feel that the contents of a police statement given by a witness on Saturday evening would have been openly disclosed to the press the following day in response to an even slightly erroneous story…or even, for that matter, a correct one?

As a matter of interest what sort of apron do you envisage “Crossmere” wearing Ed? I think as a carman it wouldn’t have been a dainty round the waist job…One of my grandfathers spent the latter part of his life as a warehouseman, and his “apron” was a heavy duty almost full bodylength job secured by a band round his neck , another round his waist and a looser one at his thighs…it was as much part of his working apparel as anything else he wore, and this was probably more so for a carman. I honestly think you may be reading too much into this…

[Lechmere]

Regarding Lechmere’s (non) use of the name Cross.
Apart from when he turned up at the police station in 1888, the only instance we have of Charles Lechmere being called Charles Cross was in the 1861 census when he was about 11. His step father Thomas Cross would almost certainly have provided the information and the most likely explanation is that he hurriedly told the enumerator their names and didn’t want to enter into a long winded explanation, hardly imagining the consequences of that brief encounter.

Why is this the most likely explanation?
Thomas Cross married Mrs Maria Lechmere in February 1858.
In January 1859 her two children (Emily and Charles) from her previous marriage were both christened as Lechmeres. They were christened late, being born in 1847 and 1849 respectively, so this baptism was a deliberate act – not just an automatic family occasion.
In 1861 we have the census anomaly.
Broad Street Goods station opened in May 1868 – a little over twenty years before Charles Lechmere testified that he had worked for Pickford’s for over twenty years. It is likely that he had worked at Broad Street Goods Station from the day it opened.
The next record while Thomas Cross was still alive was the death of Emily from TB in July 1869. She died as a Lechmere.
In December 1869 Thomas Cross died.
In July 1870, Charles Lechmere married as Charles Lechmere. This is his first Lechmere signature – seven months after the death of his stepfather.

His first son was born in 1872 and was given his own name – a bit egotistic perhaps. This son died young - in March 1875.
His second child, born in 1873, was a girl named Elizabeth Emily. Elizabeth was the name of his aunt, the wife of his father’s brother (Whitmore Lechmere). They also lived in London also so I suspect she was named after her. Emily was his sister’s name.
His third child, born in March 1875 was called Mary. His grandmother (who had been married to Charles Fox Lechmere) died in April 1875, so I suspect that this daughter was named after his grandmother.
His fourth child was Thomas Allen, born in 1876. The combined names Thomas Allen appear a couple of generations back in two branches of his more wealthy family and the middle name Allen seems to have been adopted after the Allensmore estate came into the possession of the Lechmere family.
The Allensmore estate came into the possession of the Lechmere’s via marriage to the Pateshall family. But I think the Pateshalls obtained Allensmore a little earlier from married to the heir of the original Thomas Allen who as active around 1700. This Thomas Allen was the grandfather of Jane Pateshall who married Scudamore Lechmere of Fownhope. They had a son that they named Thomas Allen Lechmere. Their second son was Edmund Lechmere who changed his name to Pateshall also had a son also called Thomas Allen.

His first four children all seem to have had names associated with his Lechmere heritage. They were all born within a few years of the death of Thomas Cross. It cannot be said that Charles Lechmere’s Lechmerian fascination came on to him late in life.
Apart from the census, the only references we have for Charles Lechmere or his sister while their mother was married to Thomas Cross have them listed as Lechmeres.

It can’t be sustained with the slightest scrap of evidence that Charles Lechmere ever called himself Cross and by contrast seems to have had a deep and long standing connection to the name Lechmere.

[Lechmere]

East London Observer – 8th September 1888.
Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on.

The bigger the apron the less likely he would wear it into court I would have thought.
Here are a couple of Pickfordian options:

[Lechmere]

Cog
I think I've answered all your points.
There really is no chance that Lechmere went to the police on Saturday - otherwise they made fools of themselves denying it on the Sunday.
At this stage in the investigation the police were telling the press pretty much everything on a daily basis.

I would not accuse Mizen of being lazy, idle an a liar. His behaviour is consistent with his testimony.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

Thank you so much for your much more detailed responses. I am genuinely grateful.

So as regards the name anomaly we have the very brief period between the 1861 census and Emily's death in 1869. Crossmere started at Broad Street at the latest at 1868. In fact a far more typical date of first employment might have been 1865 or even earlier, but we simply don't know...either way this doesn't in itself establish a burgeoning awareness of a Lechmere ancestry, or a family usage of the Lechmere name until that 1869 date and there is, therefore, the possibility at least of a four year window of opportunity (within which Charlie's after all at an impressionable age)...not an impossible margin within which to establish the "Cross" name at Pickfords.

With regard to Mizen and his testimony I suppose there really is no absolute proof one way or the other. His Inquest testimony suggests at worst the man's a complete and utter pillock, and at best he's a complete and utter pillock....hmmm...I'm therefore inclined towards the belief that he's, in your words, lazy, idle and a liar...and I can't really see anything evidentially to contradict this view...

I'm afraid you've been unable to convince me at all that "Crossmere" couldn't have contacted the police as early, say, as Saturday evening, (or earlier even)...The Helson press release denies that Neil was approached by two men...Mizen isn't mentioned, and specific as it is to Constable Neil, aligned as it is with the prevailing atmosphere of non-cooperation between the police and the press, it does not in the least convince me that "Crossmere" couldn't have come forward as early as Saturday evening.

The wearing or otherwise of the apron does not convince me one way or the other either...sorry Ed

All the best, and (genuinely) good luck with the book (I'll probably buy it),

Dave