Lucky Lechmere List

[A P Tomlinson]

The carman in the linked example worked for a cheesemonger, not for Pickford's. It would be logical that Pickford's would also take an interest if their carmen were in an accident, but the example doesn't prove it.

Yes That was a mistake on my part, I should have changed that from Pickfords to Employers. And wrote it in a more general sense, I wrote my conclusions instead of the facts.
Case of brain running faster than fingers.
Apologies.

[Fiver]

Well, that at least shows that Pickfords DID take an interest when their drivers were brought before an inquest into a death that happened while they were on duty.

The carman in the linked example worked for a cheesemonger, not for Pickford's. It would be logical that Pickford's would also take an interest if their carmen were in an accident, but the example doesn't prove it.

[A P Tomlinson]

Well, I don't know what you saw, of course, but there's only two known accounts of the 1876 inquest (both almost identical) and they don't mention anything like that.

There was a very long discussion about the accident on JTR Forums and at one point Gary Barnett posted a different accident involving another carman for comparison purposes. In that case, the carman had legal representation and at one point declined to answer questions.

'Our' Charles Cross? - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

See the file attached to Post #154

Well, that at least shows that Pickfords DID take an interest when their drivers were brought before an inquest into a death that happened while they were on duty. And makes it far more likely that they would have known that Lechmere was known as Cross by his employers as far back as 12 years before he gives his name as Cross at the Nichols inquest.
If they are sending legal represntation for one of their drivers involved in an accidental death, it follows that they would at the very least be aware of the goings on at another, and at the risk of upseting the "You Can't Prove it" applecart, I'd say that it makes it highly likely they had a legal representative sat with Cross in 1876.
Making them party to Perjury if Cross was giving a false name.

[A P Tomlinson]

To APT:

I am truly sorry that I cannot be more helpful about this, but I did not make a note of the website nor copy any of the article.

It must have been last year.

As far as I can remember, the article provided no facsimile of any original report nor quotes from a report, but just stated what happened.

It did not mention a lawyer but rather a legal representative of Pickfords.

It stated that at some point during the proceedings, Cross was asked a particular question - and I believe it stated what the question was - at which point, the legal representative advised Cross not to answer that question.


To Roger Palmer:

It may be that it did not happen, but the article I read claimed that it did happen and was definite about the legal representative's intervention.

It did not mention any theory.

No Worries, I'll keep looking. I've got few feelers out with a couple of people who have mre documnets and access to research websites than I.

[A P Tomlinson]

The claim that a lawyer/spokesman for Pickford's was at the inquest was just a theory that was making the rounds; there was no evidence for it, but it's reasonable to believe the company would have been painfully aware of the accident and were watching the inquest closely.

Ah, glad I caught this, yeah, that's the thing I was trying to corroborate. Thanks for the other one though.

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul,

On the 'Cross' name issue, there are basically three different theories that I've seen put forward seriously. Firstly, a previous member of Casebook 'Gary Barnett' speculated that the use of the name Cross was specifically to keep the name Lechmere out of the national press, Lechmere being a rarer name. Charles didn't want his Hereford relatives finding out where he and his mother were. Not a ridiculous notion but one built entirely on speculation, it does remove the 'sinister' aspect.

Charles Cross was obscuring his identity from the authorities. I mean, it took over 100 years for us to find out he was really Charles Lechmere! Case closed. Maybe. Quite how the police in 1888 wouldn't be able to trace Charles Cross, 22 Doveton St, 20 years a Pickford's carman, I'm not entirely sure about. It relies on Charles willfully withholding his address at inquest, but that was never the case. This particular argument is often presented as such, by calling himself Cross and not giving an address he could vanish from the authorities sight. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The other theory is that Charles was hiding his inquest appearance from his family. This is where the 'wearing an apron and not his Sunday best' argument comes in. Charles never told his family that he was in any way involved with the Bucks Row murder, so to attend the inquest he pretends he's off to work, nips round for a quick testimony and carries on about his day. His family (or friends, or colleagues, or neighbors) will never get wise to this because they'll all read about a Charles Cross. Very clever. And that's assuming many of them were literate enough to read the papers. Sadly, it does involve taking the belief that no one would connect Charles Cross, 22 Doveton St, 20 years a Pickford's carman with Charles Lechmere (formerly Cross), 22 Doveton St, 20 years a Pickford's carman. Again, it doesn't hold up well. But we are reliably informed that none of his surviving descendants have any family lore of his involvement in the Whitechapel 'Autumn of Terror', so he obviously hid it from them, because that's what psychopaths do.

The Cross / Lechmere name issue is for me irrelevant. He identified himself, the police knew where to find him.

Hi - this completely matches what I feel. I think the initial discovery of this seeming subterfuge was too much of a 'Eureka' moment, and has been way over-interpreted. To me, it doesn't pass the 'sniff test' for how the killer would behave, in ever appearing at that inquest. Each step in the Lechmere theory is clever, and even 'works', but step back and it's created something that seems wrong.

There's also a tendency for the assumptions to be used as justifications, along the lines of 'Well, he did this, so that's the proof.' The 'this' relying on Lechmere being JtR. It's a circular argument - I can't recall the name used for the logical fallacy it shows.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Thanks so much, Roger, for the very interesting information about that parallel case.

I am certain, however, that that is not the case I read about last year and that the one I read about was the 1876 case.

[rjpalmer]

To Roger Palmer:

It may be that it did not happen, but the article I read claimed that it did happen and was definite about the legal representative's intervention.

It did not mention any theory.

Well, I don't know what you saw, of course, but there's only two known accounts of the 1876 inquest (both almost identical) and they don't mention anything like that.

There was a very long discussion about the accident on JTR Forums and at one point Gary Barnett posted a different accident involving another carman for comparison purposes. In that case, the carman had legal representation and at one point declined to answer questions.

'Our' Charles Cross? - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

See the file attached to Post #154

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

To APT:

I am truly sorry that I cannot be more helpful about this, but I did not make a note of the website nor copy any of the article.

It must have been last year.

As far as I can remember, the article provided no facsimile of any original report nor quotes from a report, but just stated what happened.

It did not mention a lawyer but rather a legal representative of Pickfords.

It stated that at some point during the proceedings, Cross was asked a particular question - and I believe it stated what the question was - at which point, the legal representative advised Cross not to answer that question.


To Roger Palmer:

It may be that it did not happen, but the article I read claimed that it did happen and was definite about the legal representative's intervention.

It did not mention any theory.

[rjpalmer]

The claim that a lawyer/spokesman for Pickford's was at the inquest was just a theory that was making the rounds; there was no evidence for it, but it's reasonable to believe the company would have been painfully aware of the accident and were watching the inquest closely.

[rjpalmer]

I'm trying really hard to track that report down of the 1876 inquest.

It's your lucky day. I just went on coffee break and noticed your post.

[A P Tomlinson]

Lechmere must also have taken time off from work at Pickfords in order to appear at the inquest in 1876.

I have read that Pickfords provided him with a legal representative at that hearing.

They must presumably have known him by the name of Cross 12 years before the Whitechapel murders began.

I'm trying really hard to track that report down of the 1876 inquest.
Because if it exists, a Pickfords lawyer at that inquest simply cancels out the theory that Cross was lying about his name at either inquest.

So far I've found a couple of reports but nothing beyond a few very general column inches.
Lots of opinion pieces and letters in newspapers getting very angry at how cart drivers (Pickfords in particular) seemed to be killing a lot of pedestrians and generally being a menace to society. Mind boggling when you compare them to the traffic we endure today...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Lechmere must also have taken time off from work at Pickfords in order to appear at the inquest in 1876.

I have read that Pickfords provided him with a legal representative at that hearing.

They must presumably have known him by the name of Cross 12 years before the Whitechapel murders began.

[A P Tomlinson]

It's not just Pickford's. They're assuming that none of Charles Lechmere's neighbors read the press reports and wondered why they said their new neighbor at 22 Doveton Street, Charles Lechmere, was called Charles Cross. And Lechmere's wife might have been illiterate, but there's no evidence that she was deaf. The odds of her discussing the case with neighbor women are almost certain.

The issue they can't overcome with the Pickfords thing is that he took time off work at very short notice.
Which would have required a reason!
Despite some of the cultists claimining that he waited days before finally showing up at the inquest, he would have learned about it on Sunday and would have needed to put some not inconsiderable effort in to appear the next day.

The inquest was convened late on the Friday in order for the Police to proceed with finding the witnesses, without an initial public hearing.
The first hearing was Saturday and was reported on the Sunday.
Cross then turned up on the Monday.
That means he went into work and said that he needed to attend an inquest. There is no chance in hell that he was found by the police by Sunday and summonsed to appear.
No WAY they found Cross before Paul, who had already spoken to the papers.

He must have gone himself upon finding out on the Sunday.
He will then have been requested/ordered to attend which means he needed to let Pickfords know either later on the Sunday, or very early on Monday. They probably allowed him to take a few hours out of his work (HENCE the shock-horror, incriminating outrage of "turning up in his work clothes") and would have been unlikely to allow him to go without a bloody good excuse.
There is absolutely NO logical reason, beyond attempting to pin the failing scaffolding that supports the "name lie" for him NOT to say that he needs to give evidence at an inquest.
The employers can't deny that. They have to let him go. But the House of Flat Caps would have us think they asked for no corroboration, and just let him go on a whim?
It would have seriously gone against him in his employers' eyes if they subsequently read the papers to find out that some guy with a different name had been the one giving evidence that day!
Since he will have learned about the inquest from the papers, only a complete dribbling idiot would not realise that the hearing he was about to attend on Monday would also be covered by, and appearing, in the papers.
Now, some thinkers may use that as "Ah! He didn't want anyone to know... so he lied to Pickfords about why he needed the time off and used an alias to cover his true identity!"
But... again... he would have to be clinically brain damaged to then use his genuine address and real place of employment as part of this clever ruse.
This "Lie"about his name is just about the most stupid, confabulted, half arsed, idea that has gained traction since "Prince Eddie and The Masons" (who I think my grandad once saw at the Batley Variety Club in 1961.)
It makes no sense.

It was a great find, to discover that he had a different birth name to the one he used day to day, fabulous bit of researching... but there it ends. The extrapolation conducted to have the guy dismembering women when he's not eviscerating them because of this mistaken idea, with not ONE JOT of evidence, is just ludicrous.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Not to mention, what's the chance no one else who worked for Pickfords (i.e. Lech's co-workers) read the press reports on the inquest and wondered 'who's this Cross bloke?'. And what's the chance a cunning criminal, employing subterfuge via a 'false name', wouldn't think of that?

Hi Paul,

On the 'Cross' name issue, there are basically three different theories that I've seen put forward seriously. Firstly, a previous member of Casebook 'Gary Barnett' speculated that the use of the name Cross was specifically to keep the name Lechmere out of the national press, Lechmere being a rarer name. Charles didn't want his Hereford relatives finding out where he and his mother were. Not a ridiculous notion but one built entirely on speculation, it does remove the 'sinister' aspect.

Charles Cross was obscuring his identity from the authorities. I mean, it took over 100 years for us to find out he was really Charles Lechmere! Case closed. Maybe. Quite how the police in 1888 wouldn't be able to trace Charles Cross, 22 Doveton St, 20 years a Pickford's carman, I'm not entirely sure about. It relies on Charles willfully withholding his address at inquest, but that was never the case. This particular argument is often presented as such, by calling himself Cross and not giving an address he could vanish from the authorities sight. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The other theory is that Charles was hiding his inquest appearance from his family. This is where the 'wearing an apron and not his Sunday best' argument comes in. Charles never told his family that he was in any way involved with the Bucks Row murder, so to attend the inquest he pretends he's off to work, nips round for a quick testimony and carries on about his day. His family (or friends, or colleagues, or neighbors) will never get wise to this because they'll all read about a Charles Cross. Very clever. And that's assuming many of them were literate enough to read the papers. Sadly, it does involve taking the belief that no one would connect Charles Cross, 22 Doveton St, 20 years a Pickford's carman with Charles Lechmere (formerly Cross), 22 Doveton St, 20 years a Pickford's carman. Again, it doesn't hold up well. But we are reliably informed that none of his surviving descendants have any family lore of his involvement in the Whitechapel 'Autumn of Terror', so he obviously hid it from them, because that's what psychopaths do.

The Cross / Lechmere name issue is for me irrelevant. He identified himself, the police knew where to find him.