Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Fiver]

And as for the address, although he furnished it to officials, it has already been well hashed out that he most likely did not mention his address at the inquest - all but one newspaper failing to mention it, as opposed to most other witnesses.

That idea has little traction outside of Lechemerian echo chambers. Inquest proceeding did allow for a witness to not publicly state their address, but it was at the discretion of the coroner, not the witness. And it was unusual enough that the press usually commented on it.

Which leaves two possibilities.

* Charles Cross publicly asked the coroner to be allowed to not give his home address at the inquest. None of the newsmen mentioned this unusual action. The reporter from the Star, an evening paper, chose to ignore the coroner's wishes and get the information from the court clerk. The court clerk chose to ignore the coroner's wishes and give the information to the reporter. Having spent the time to get Cross' home address, the reporter didn't take the time to record Cross' first name, let alone his middle name. The coroner, upon finding his wishes had been defied, did nothing to censure the reporter or the court clerk.

* Cross gave his home address at the inquest. Only one paper mentioned it.

Yet Lechmerians think the first option his more likely.

[Fiver]

This is new to me, what do you mean exactly here? That he saw cross walking in front of him, or the usual saw a man standing in the middle of the street ?


The Baron

"He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning and as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road."

Paul testified that he saw Cross in front of him, but Paul was never asked how far that distance was or when he first saw Cross. Paul was never asked if he heard Cross before he saw Cross.

[The Baron]

Paul testified that he saw Cross in front of him

This is new to me, what do you mean exactly here? That he saw cross walking in front of him, or the usual saw a man standing in the middle of the street ?


The Baron

[Lewis C]

Here's another question for you: why did Lechmere stop and wait some 20 - 30 seconds for Paul, when he had identified there being a woman in distress lying on her back? Wouldn't it make more sense to quickly check up on her condition before he accosted Paul. Most people would do that, particularly if they stopped out of a sense of concern. And yet he just stood there and waited for Paul. Strange!

And why did he suddenly hear footsteps at that point, in the middle of the road, when a guy was supposedly walking right behind him for some 2 minutes?

Hi Newbie,

When Cross stopped walking, two things happened that would have made it easier to hear Paul. One is that being stationary while Paul was moving, Paul would have gotten progressively closer to Cross. The other is that there would no longer be any sound from Cross' footsteps to drown out other noises.

[rjpalmer]

Had Cross dressed up like Alfie Doolittle in his Sunday best, is there any doubt that his accusers would now be suggesting that it was a calculated move---putting on a bogus façade of respectability to alleviate suspicion?

Ted Bundy wore a bowtie to court.

He must have been innocent.

[Fiver]

I regard your second point as far more critical than the proposed 7 minute time gap. Cross and Paul should have been aware of each other walking down Buck's Row. The fact that they testified that they were not raises the possibility that the reason was that Cross was stationary at the time.

Thats not an accurate summary of their testimony. Cross testified that shortly after he saw the body, he heard Paul behind him at an estimated distance of 40 yards. Paul testified that he saw Cross in front of him, but Paul was never asked how far that distance was or when he first saw Cross. Paul was never asked if he heard Cross before he saw Cross.

[Fiver]

The question you might ask is why did Lechmere want to keep his family name (& address) out of the local papers?
And why did he show up at the inquest dressed like Alfie Doolittle in his work clothes, instead of dressing up for the occasion, like someone who aspired to respectability and would eventually have his own business?

Ah, the oft repeated myth about people wearing their Sunday best for the inquest.

Now lets try looking at the East London Observer, which provided a lot of description compared to the other newspapers.

"Before the coroner sat the woman who had identified the deceased as Martha Turner, with a baby in her arms, and accompanied by another woman - evidently her mother - dressed in an old, brown figured pompadour." - Tabram Inquest

"The first witness called was a Mrs. Elizabeth Mahoney - a young woman of some 25 or 26 years, plainly clad in a rusty-black dress, with a black woollen shawl pinned round her shoulders." - Tabram Inquest

"Alfred George Crow was the next witness. In appearance, he was a young man of about twenty-three or four, with closely cropped hair, and a beardless, but intelligent face, and wore a shabby green overcoat." - Tabram Inquest

"Mary Ann Connolly, otherwise known as "Pearly Poll", was next introduced, wearing simply an old green shawl and no hat, her face being reddened and soddened by drink." - Tabram Inquest

"Amelia Palmer, the next witness, a pale dark-haired woman, who was poorly clad, said: I live at 35, Dorset-street, Spitalfields, a common lodging-house." - Chapman Inquest

"The next witness was James Cable, a man from Shadwell. A youngish-looking man, with a bullet head and closely cropped hair, and a sandy close-cut moustache; he wore a long overcoat that had once been green, and into the pockets of which he persistently stuck his hands." - Chapman Inquest

"Her evidence was not very material, and she was soon replaced by John Richardson, a tall, stout man, with a very pale face - the result, doubtless, of the early hours he keeps as a market porter - a brown moustache, and dark brown hair. He was shabbily dressed in a ragged coat, and dark brown trousers." - Chapman Inquest

"Piser wore a dark overcoat, brown trousers, and a brown and very battered hat, and appeared somewhat splay-footed - at all events, he stood before the Coroner with his feet meeting at the heels, and then diverging almost at right angles." - Chapman Inquest

But somehow Charles Lechmere wearing his work clothes is supposed to be suspicious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone would act in a decent, selfless, fearless way when faced with the situation that Cross found himself in at the time. Undoubtedly some would have just walked past, not wanting to get involved but Cross at least stopped. Then of course there’s a potential concern of being blamed if the figure was dead. Then there’s the possibility of the figure springing to life and attacking the finder (maybe a drunk or maybe a ploy to facilitate a robbery?) Added to that we have a natural reluctance of some to touch a potentially dead person; a level of squeamishness)

Once he’d stopped and peered at the woman from the middle of the road in the darkness a level of hesitancy or indecision would have been entirely normal I’d suggest. Then he hears Paul in the distance and decides to wait until there’s two of them to approach the woman.

Everything that Cross did was entirely normal and human.

[rjpalmer]

And yet people here try to normalize it and pretend that he went around calling himself Charles Cross to his neighbors.
Back then, it would be considered just plain weird.

I'm curious. What examples can you provided to demonstrate that people would find this "just plain weird"?

On what is your opinion based, and is it possible that your perception is incorrect?

I would encourage you to chase down and read two threads called "The Lechmere/Cross Name Issue" by Kattrup and "The Lechmere/Cross Name Issue Part II" by David Barrat. Both include multiple case studies.

These were real, average Victorians and none were considered "just plain weird" by their contemporaries.

In fact, I think the exact opposite of what you are suggesting was true.

In an age where divorce for the average person was almost impossible, where child abandonment was commonplace, when people "adopted" their spouse's previous children in a causal rather than in a formal manner, and when people lived in relationships that we might loosely call "bigamous," using more than one name was not at all uncommon--it was both understood and accepted.

The more one studies the Victorians, the more one realizes that they weren't very Victorian. The cliché is wrong. Many people had complicated, messy, and convoluted family relationships.

The use of multiple names was not anywhere as uncommon or "weird" as you seem to think it was.

[Geddy2112]

You must admit, a married man going around calling himself Charles Cross, when his wife and children have the surname of Lechmere, that might be okay today, but in Victorian England? Egads! What would people think?

Surely it was just at work he was known as Cross, probably because at the age he would have started his step father was alive. I thought this aspect had been done and dusted.

And why did he show up at the inquest dressed like Alfie Doolittle in his work clothes, instead of dressing up for the occasion, like someone who aspired to respectability and would eventually have his own business?

This to me is one of the weakest 'points of guilt' Team Lechmere thrust upon us. Maybe just maybe he had started work, then went to the inquest then he went back to work. I really do not see what he was wearing is a sign of anything of any importance. For me it's completely irrelevant.

Here's another question for you: why did Lechmere stop and wait some 20 - 30 seconds for Paul, when he had identified there being a woman in distress lying on her back? Wouldn't it make more sense to quickly check up on her condition before he accosted Paul. Most people would do that, particularly if they stopped out of a sense of concern. And yet he just stood there and waited for Paul. Strange!

Did he wait 20-30 seconds though? According to Cross he noticed the bundle, what he thought was a tarpaulin then heard footsteps then approached Paul. There is no mention of him waiting any length of time. He did not just stand there and wait for Paul.

Regarding your last point Ed Stow did a HoL video claiming they should have been aware of each other entering Bucks Row. However the video then proceeds to take 15 seconds to catch up to a point they could have seen each other in broad daylight. The video contradicts the point Ed was trying to make ironically. The other problem is of course is Paul's statements, which I do not trust. He claims times of 'exactly' 3:45am. I find this rather odd and I do believe he lies more than Lechmere is claimed to have done.

[GBinOz]

Here's another question for you: why did Lechmere stop and wait some 20 - 30 seconds for Paul, when he had identified there being a woman in distress lying on her back? Wouldn't it make more sense to quickly check up on her condition before he accosted Paul. Most people would do that, particularly if they stopped out of a sense of concern. And yet he just stood there and waited for Paul. Strange!

And why did he suddenly hear footsteps at that point, in the middle of the road, when a guy was supposedly walking right behind him for some 2 minutes?

Hi Newbie,

Two excellent relevant questions.

Most people would proceed to the body to see if help could be rendered rather than standing in the middle of the road and then preventing a stranger from passing.

I regard your second point as far more critical than the proposed 7 minute time gap. Cross and Paul should have been aware of each other walking down Buck's Row. The fact that they testified that they were not raises the possibility that the reason was that Cross was stationary at the time.

Cheers, George

[Newbie]

Here's another question for you: why did Lechmere stop and wait some 20 - 30 seconds for Paul, when he had identified there being a woman in distress lying on her back? Wouldn't it make more sense to quickly check up on her condition before he accosted Paul. Most people would do that, particularly if they stopped out of a sense of concern. And yet he just stood there and waited for Paul. Strange!

And why did he suddenly hear footsteps at that point, in the middle of the road, when a guy was supposedly walking right behind him for some 2 minutes?

[Newbie]

Interesting hypothetical, but I don't think he was trying to hide his identity from anyone.

At the Inquest, he gave his name as Charles Allen Cross. There were dozen of Charles Crosses. Most of them didn't have the middle name of Allen.

He had to give his home address to the Inquest. He had the right to ask for his home address to not be given publicly - there are several examples. Instead, he chose to publicly give his home address of 22 Doveton Street.

You must admit, a married man going around calling himself Charles Cross, when his wife and children have the surname of Lechmere, that might be okay today, but in Victorian England? Egads! What would people think?

And yet people here try to normalize it and pretend that he went around calling himself Charles Cross to his neighbors.
Back then, it would be considered just plain weird. Who then is the actual father?

And as for the address, although he furnished it to officials, it has already been well hashed out that he most likely did not mention his address at the inquest - all but one newspaper failing to mention it, as opposed to most other witnesses.

The question you might ask is why did Lechmere want to keep his family name (& address) out of the local papers?
And why did he show up at the inquest dressed like Alfie Doolittle in his work clothes, instead of dressing up for the occasion, like someone who aspired to respectability and would eventually have his own business?

I keep on asking for a response and I always get just another temper tantrum from those who have a wild hair up their rectum about Lechmere.

I can think of one excellent reason why it would be advantageous to use the name of Lechmere in this particular situation. I can think of no good reason for using Cross.

[Geddy2112]

Interesting hypothetical, but I don't think he was trying to hide his identity from anyone.

At the Inquest, he gave his name as Charles Allen Cross. There were dozen of Charles Crosses. Most of them didn't have the middle name of Allen.

He had to give his home address to the Inquest. He had the right to ask for his home address to not be given publicly - there are several examples. Instead, he chose to publicly give his home address of 22 Doveton Street.

I do not think he was trying to hide anything either. It's obvious he was known as Cross at Pickfords so gave that name to 'avoid' confusion. He might have even given both, we have no way of knowing. More than likely he was known to all his friends and family as Cross but just Lechmere on official records. Maybe he used Cross as a nickname, who knows.

I do wonder though if the papers had reported it as Charles Allan Lechmere we would be having these threads today? It does seem to be the starting point, well him near the body was the starting point but the name thing seems to be the first rung on the ladder for him being a suspect. I'm sure if the name was not the issue he would not be considered. Which kind of proves how weak the theory is.

It really boils my pee when I see all these videos (not just HoL) and comments stating 'he lied to Police etc about his name, so he must be guilty.' It's amazing how many sheep latch onto that and do not a) understand it, or b) challenge it. They just accept it because the 'internet' told them so. Mindless sheep.

[Fiver]

Was thinking about this from a slightly different angle... let's have some role play..

Mrs L - How was your day at work darling?
CL - Work was fine but on the way to work I found a murdered woman in Bucks Row. I flagged down another man, we checked and she was dead so went to get a copper to help out. We were both late for work so hurried on.
Mrs L - Oh Dear that is tragic. One of those gangs no doubt.
CL - Not sure but the bloke I stopped went and blabbed to the papers and I'm not sure what to do now. It might look bad whatever I do, I was just late to work and she was dead I did what I could. I can't afford to lose my job, how would I support you and the kids?
Mrs L - Well maybe if it's going to be in the paper and you could be identified it's best you go to the inquest before they come looking for you, the man could identify you no doubt.
CL - Good idea, but then I will have to give my name and the newspapers will report it and the killer might find out where we live and come looking for us or the children.
Mrs L - Very true Chassy boy. Why don't you tell them where you work, how long you have worked there and use the name you are known there by, that should throw the killer off the scent if he reads about it in the papers.
CL - So give my step father's name and Pickfords, after all I used his name 'Cross' when I was a kid and signed up for them.
Mrs L - Great idea, you have done the right thing, you did what you could for the poor lady and by giving that name the Police can still find you if needs be but your kids and I should be a lot safer from this fiend.
CL - Excellent. I'll not walk to work next week past Hanbury Street just in case, got a bad feeling about that street...

Interesting hypothetical, but I don't think he was trying to hide his identity from anyone.

At the Inquest, he gave his name as Charles Allen Cross. There were dozen of Charles Crosses. Most of them didn't have the middle name of Allen.

He had to give his home address to the Inquest. He had the right to ask for his home address to not be given publicly - there are several examples. Instead, he chose to publicly give his home address of 22 Doveton Street.