Lucky Lechmere List

[Elamarna]

If Lechmere was the Whitechapel murderer, then he must be the Woody Allen of serial murderers.

He is just totally incompetent if he really wants to get away with his crimes.

First, he sees someone coming and makes no attempt to get away.

Then, in spite of the fact that the person coming has not noticed the body and is about to walk straight past, he draws his attention to the body.

To compound his errors, he then goes with that person to find, of all people, a policeman.

Incredibly, he then tells the policeman the name of his employers.

Even more incredibly, he then comes forward to give evidence at the inquest.

On being asked by the coroner whether he saw or heard anyone leaving the scene of the crime on his arrival at it, he replies 'no'!

No wonder the police had no suspicions regarding him.

We may not agree on other issues, but on Lechmere, we are broadly in agreement.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We may not agree on other issues, but on Lechmere, we are broadly in agreement.

Steve

Yes indeed.

And I was already aware of that.

[A P Tomlinson]

In reply to APT:

Thank you for mentioning the 1876 inquest.

Many months ago, I mentioned the fact that I once saw an article online about that inquest, which reported that Cross was provided by Pickfords with legal representation at that inquest.

Unfortunately, i can no longer find the article.


About the possibility of deliberately getting blood on him in order to cover up his involvement in the murder, I have seen the argument before.

As for his reluctance to move the body being used against him: murderous psychopaths are not bothered by dead people's bodies at all.

Lechmere's reluctance once again points to his innocence.

I did previously make the point that if he had been the murderer, he could not approach a policeman and be completely confident that no blood would show anywhere on his person.

I think someone retorted that as it was so dark, the policeman might not have noticed blood on him.

Well, he did have a Lantern - didn't he?

It's just more in the "He was bloody lucky" column.

I'd love to see a copy of that report if you ever find it again. I've said for ages that they would at the very least have had a few Suits sitting in on the hearing because it seems an obvious thing. But of course, without proof something can be as straightforward as it can be, but the people who make up a theory accusing aman of multiple murders and nothing linking him to any but one, demand documented evidence if you want to challenge their whimsical flight of fancy.

When I challlenged Christer on the matter of Pickfords taking an interst in the inquest, he said of the 1888 one that he saw no reason to think they would have.
If they knew that he was using "Cross" at a coroners inquest, when it wasn't the name he was known by THEY would been liable for not reporting it.
But Christer never got back to me in regard to whether he thinks Pickfords took any interest in the 1876 inquest, because if they knew he had "lied" about his name that time and didn't report him, they would have been party to the purjury, and if his lie were to be discovered then it may have swayed the inquest toward considering him dishonest, and he would obviously be charged with perjury.
They would have reported him themselves in the hope of mitigating a potential shitstorm of fines, compensation and bad press.

As far as I'm concerned if we can SHOW that Pickfords knew him as Cross, then any and all talk of him "Lying" to the 1888 inquest flies out of the window, and pretty much the entire case against Lechmere/Cross goes with it.
I would love to be able to say that the Lechmere Lot would have no leg to stand on, but these people who claim they are only going by the evidence, try very hard to discredit or squash evidence that suggests their theory to be wrong. I imagine the same would happen with this.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It's just more in the "He was bloody lucky" column.

I'd love to see a copy of that report if you ever find it again. I've said for ages that they would at the very least have had a few Suits sitting in on the hearing because it seems an obvious thing. But of course, without proof something can be as straightforward as it can be, but the people who make up a theory accusing aman of multiple murders and nothing linking him to any but one, demand documented evidence if you want to challenge their whimsical flight of fancy.

When I challlenged Christer on the matter of Pickfords taking an interst in the inquest, he said of the 1888 one that he saw no reason to think they would have.
If they knew that he was using "Cross" at a coroners inquest, when it wasn't the name he was known by THEY would been liable for not reporting it.
But Christer never got back to me in regard to whether he thinks Pickfords took any interest in the 1876 inquest, because if they knew he had "lied" about his name that time and didn't report him, they would have been party to the purjury, and if his lie were to be discovered then it may have swayed the inquest toward considering him dishonest, and he would obviously be charged with perjury.
They would have reported him themselves in the hope of mitigating a potential shitstorm of fines, compensation and bad press.

As far as I'm concerned if we can SHOW that Pickfords knew him as Cross, then any and all talk of him "Lying" to the 1888 inquest flies out of the window, and pretty much the entire case against Lechmere/Cross goes with it.
I would love to be able to say that the Lechmere Lot would have no leg to stand on, but these people who claim they are only going by the evidence, try very hard to discredit or squash evidence that suggests their theory to be wrong. I imagine the same would happen with this.

As far as the 1876 inquest is concerned: the article stated that at some point in the proceedings, Pickfords' legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question and he accepted the advice.

As far as the 1888 inquest is concerned: what is the probability that Lechmere's superiors neither read press reports of the proceedings nor heard about them, when Pickfords was mentioned in the testimony?

[Paul Sutton]

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?

[A P Tomlinson]

As far as the 1876 inquest is concerned: the article stated that at some point in the proceedings, Pickfords' legal representative advised Cross not to answer a certain question and he accepted the advice.

As far as the 1888 inquest is concerned: what is the probability that Lechmere's superiors neither read press reports of the proceedings nor heard about them, when Pickfords was mentioned in the testimony?

As to the second, I think there is next to zero chance. Even if they weren't scouring the news for mentions of their names, at some point, someone would have said to one of the Pickfords management; (creatively paraphrasing) "Hey, I read the other day that one of your boys found a body! You know that brutal killing in Bucks Row? Yeah THAT one... it was in the Paper! Charles something or other..."
But some people think that even a 1 in 1000 chance euqates to being equal in viability to the 999.

Relying on the Holmesian mantra "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" actually involves eliminating at some of the other possible outcomes before claiming that the enormously improbable theory you are pushing is the truth. That bit, (about elminiating the impossible), is generally the bit they miss out. and skip to "...however improbable, must be the truth!"
In the case of Cross, it would be nice if they could eliminate ANYTHING ahead of presenting their case. All they have is a whole lot of, "But what if..." It is entirely insubstantial.

I've said it many times before... it's a nice story. And if they made it into a film, at the very least it would be more accurate than "From Hell".

[Fiver]

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?

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.

[Fiver]

Relying on the Holmesian mantra "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" actually involves eliminating at some of the other possible outcomes before claiming that the enormously improbable theory you are pushing is the truth. That bit, (about elminiating the impossible), is generally the bit they miss out. and skip to "...however improbable, must be the truth!"

Their general attitude seems to be if you can't prove it's impossible, then their theory is valid.

But it's their theory. The burden of proof is on them.

[Paul Sutton]

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.

Yes, good point. The more one thinks about it, the less sense it makes; unless he was innocent. The name business is something out of nothing. As is the exchange with Mizen - both Lechmere and Paul wanted to have as little to do with Old Bill as possible- and from my unfortunate experiences, they were so wise.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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...

[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.

[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.