The Chapman murder and Charles Lechmere

[Lechmere]

That's pretty much it Mr B.

There's a chapter discussing Cross as a suspect in 'Abberline - the man who hunted Jack the Ripper' by John Thurgood, but it doesn't cover most of the grounds for suspicion - including his real name - and still concludes that he is a good suspect.
Which he clearly is.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Lechmere,

I agree he's as good a candidate as anyone.

MrB

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom,

Would you care to elaborate?

Happy New Year.

MrB

It's well known that East End carmen annually spent the end of August and the first two weeks of September in Paris. That's no doubt where Lechmere was. All the police and press reports were hoaxed. A close study reveals them all to be in the hand of Walter Sickert.

Ed Stow and Christer conveniently ignore all this hard evidence. Why? I believe a study of their respective descendants will reveal them both to be descendants of Walter Sickert and part of a 125 year cover-up conspiracy.

The clues were left at murder scenes. The definition of 'stow' is to "place or arrange, in a neat way". This was evidenced at the Chapman murder scene. And it's no coincidence that a portrait of the Fisherman's widow was left behind at the Kelly scene.

You just need to know how to read the evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[MrBarnett]

Paris, of all places! Now we have a link to Mary Kelly.

Thanks Tom.

MrB

[Sam Flynn]

Yes opposite Senate House - why have you happy memories of the place ?

My alma mater was UCL, and my "local" was the Marlborough Arms in Torrington Place

[Lechmere]

Then you must also have known Walter Sickert.

[curious]

Then you must also have known Walter Sickert.

Looks like all roads lead to Sickert.

curious

[Sam Flynn]

Then you must also have known Walter Sickert.

We used to get rat-arsed together on a regular basis. He was a mean pool-player, I can tell you.

[moonbegger]

Hello Lech , And Happy new year to all ..

As Cog pointed out , There is still no Evidence against him starting his working career as Cross , at a much younger age than many today , ( 1864 young Cross would have been 14 , and 5 years prior to his step fathers death , he would have still been known as Cross ) Its also very plausible that he started his Pickford's career as Cross, and may well have still been known as Cross in 1888 .

Another thing ( back on topic) is this Killing to frame Paul , malarkey !
It seems possible that Chapman had used 29 previously ( according to a witness ) and most likely led the killer into the yard, But how could a killer CrossMere be so assured he would end up conveniently close to Pauls work place ?

Also .. CrossMere's Lack of address at the inquest .. remember this ole Chestnut ..

Prior to any major witness giving testimony at a murder inquest .. The Coroner will always ask " will the witness state their full name and Address" take a Look for your self through the countless witness statements ..

"In Reply to the Coroner he said" ..

Edward Walker .. I live at 15 , maidwell street , Albony rd
Henry Tomkins, Horse slaugter , 12 coventry street , Bethnal green .
Emily Holland , 18 Thrawl street
Emma green , cottage next to murder scene
Robert paul , 30 Forster street ,

I could go on through every inquest , but i'm sure you get the point . Each and every time it is always the same . The first thing confirmed by the witness is Name and ADDRESS. The only witnesses exempt from complying with this procedure are Police officers and Doctors , and in fact on occasions even leading Doctors will automatically comply with the orders from the Coroner . " I am George Baxter Phillips , I live at 2 Spital Sq and i am a surgeon" .

So why was Charles Lechmere the only major witness in the whole case , allowed to keep his address off the public record , along with his official name , Charles Allen Lechmere . He was allowed at the inquest to be registered as [ Chas Andrew Cross , Carman ] At first glance it does appear to be a bit suspicious or even guilty .. untill we add to that less than honest name , the failure of the coroner to press him for his address . Then it becomes clear that he was allowed his anonymity !

And be in no doubt that he was GRANTED this privilege ( there was no bluffing the Coroner ) For it is inquest procedure that would have dictated that the Coroner demand his Address to be noted down just like EVERYONE else . But he didn't , he let it go .

You know it makes sense Rodney ,

moonbegger .

[Lechmere]

I would suggest Lechmere went looking for a victim near Paul's workplace and it just happened that he ended up with Chapman in that location.

On his address at the inquest, I would suggest he didn't give it and in the confusion and hubbub it wasn't noticed - that is why the newspapers didn't record it was they did for the others as you point out, except the Star.

[MrBarnett]

Hello,

Could the reason for the Allen/Andrew confusion possibly be Lech. wasn't speaking very clearly? Is so, it's one thing to have a guess at a name beginning with A, but if he mumbled Doveton Street it might be lost on the assembled pressmen.

MrB

[Lechmere]

No other paper even got an approximation of his address but the Star got it exactly right.
His name - like many other people's names and addresses - is often garbled.
All I am suggesting is that it is a reasonable proposition that he did not in fact give his address in open court. It is one of those things that cannot be proved 100% either way but I would suggest the balance of evidence points to it being more likely that he did not give his address.
Now this in itself isn't a sign of guilt. It could have been an innocent omission
I find it remarkable that the critics of the Lechmere theory find it impossible to concede that he may have not given his address. That is the manner in which these debates are invariably conducted.
Actually I don't find it remarkable at all, I am used to it.

[MrBarnett]

Lechmere describe part of his route to work and the press picked it up as' down Parson Street across Brady Street and through Bucks Row'. I think Parson Street should be Bath Street, which suggests to me that either he wasn't speaking clearly or the court was noisy and it was misheard. The press misheard Allen, they misheard Bath and quite possibly they couldn't catch Doveton at all.


MrB

[Lechmere]

Yes I'm not at all sure about the Parson Street bit. Bath doesn't sound like it at all, even in Mockney.
From memory I think only one newspaper bothered to record the detail of that extra street, although I think at least one other mentioned Brady Street.
I would suggest that most reporters just didn't bother with that part of his testimony as it seemed unimportant.
However as routine most recorded the witness' name and address. As I said only one recorded Lechmere's address - the Star and they got it exactly right.
If the Star reported it as 20 Loveton Street, then it would point to Lechmere stating it in court and his words being obscured or mumbled.
The very exactness and uniqueness of the Star recording of his address points in my opinion to their reporter obtaining the detail of his address from the court clerk.

[Ben]

Apologies for the late reply, Lechmere.

It seems, whatever you may personally think, that the police did suspect Paul and not Lechmere.

I'm afraid I disagree.

They suspected both carmen or they suspected neither. Those are the only realistic options. We can forget the idea that they entertained the possibility of guilt in one case and not the other. If it's not very nearly impossible, it's very actually impossible (for Blackadder fans out there!). At the very least, any suspicion against Paul would have introduced the possibility that he was in cahoots with Cross.

I doubt there was a freemasonry or brotherhood of Carmen by the way, and I don’t think that it would be particularly unusual for a gentile to do the dirty on a fellow gentile.

That wasn't the point I was making.

It's not so much guilt at doing the dirty on a fellow carmen that makes a nonsense of the "implicating Paul" argument, but rather the certainty that any attempt to draw attention to a carmen killing prostitutes en route to work would have focussed the spotlight directly on himself, wholly defeating the purpose of deflecting suspicion away from himself.

As you know, I doubt that Lechmere usually walked Paul’s Hanbury Street route as it wasn’t his shortest route to work.

But Cross probably had no idea that it wasn't the shortest route to work, being relatively new to the area. It was simply an obvious "crow-flies" route to work that avoided the dodgy areas like Old Montague Street.*

Regards,
Ben

*As we established, one of the shortest routes to work involved walking along Hanbury Street for some of the way.