Lucky Lechmere List

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.