Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[Fiver]

Thank you. Surely that causes some confusion though. Also a possibility the Cross/Lechmere 'investigation' has some crossed wires. This is all hurting my head a bit now with this name changing shenanigans.

1) 22 Doveton Street Charles gave his name at the inquest as Cross and said he worked for Pickfords.
2) There was a Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords.
3) There is no record of a 'Lechmere' working for Pickfords. (Who did 22 Doveton Street Charles work for?)
4) Charles Cross and Charles Allen Lechmere were two different people.
5) How did Lechmere know to give 'Cross' as a name since there was a Charles Cross working for Pickfords.
6) Wonder what the late book read at Pickfords

The above are not statements of fact rather just enquiries. Sorry all quite confusing.

* The witness gave his name as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, and said he had worked as a carman for Pickfords for about 20 years and and started his shift at the Broad Street station at 4am.
* Records show that the man living at 22 Doveton was a 39 year old carman named Charles Allen Lechmere.
* Thomas Cross became his stepfather when Charles was 8 and died when Charles was 20.
* Charles Allen Lechmere was listed as Charles Cross in the 1861 Census, when he was 11 years old.

According to the Pickfords website - "In 2012, a descendent [sic] of Charles Latchmere [sic] searched the Pickfords archive to find any reference to her relative. No records were found"

That could mean the records for Cross/Lechmere were lost. It could mean that the records were in the archive, but that his descendant could not find the records. It could mean that only the name Charles Lechmere was searched for and he was employed as Charles Cross.

The linked website for some bizarre reason talks about Charles W Lechmere a man with a different middle name, different age, different birthplace, and different address than Charles Allen Lechmere.

The witness who gave his name as Charles Allen Cross of 22 Doveton Street, and said he had worked as a carman for Pickfords for about 20 years and and started his shift at the Broad Street station at 4am was definitely carman Charles Allen Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street, the stepson of Thomas Cross.

[FrankO]

hi frank. yes we do, because Abberline in his report said he "interrogated him (hutch)and found his statement to be true."
but i see your point with the rest.

Thanks Abby, I had all forgotten about that little phrase.

[Abby Normal]

Do we really know that Hutchinson was investigated? Anyway, we know the other two were, so you do have a point.

What keeps nagging at me, though, is the notion that the police had every reason to get cleared up why Lechmere & Paul didn't tell Mizen that they'd examined the body. After all, the most obvious reason for doing so for them would be to get past Mizen and why would they want to get past him? Could there be any nefarious reason behind it, or was it just that they didn't want to loose time being taken back to Buck's Row?

I would find it rather odd if it ever turned out that the police didn't get this cleared up. But, of course, it's also possible that Lechmere & Paul, or at least one of them, told the police that they did that and why the very first time they spoke to them, giving their original statement and didn't come across as nervous or suspicious.

Cheers,
Frank

hi frank. yes we do, because Abberline in his report said he "interrogated him (hutch)and found his statement to be true."
but i see your point with the rest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks for that, I saw her picture, got scared and left...

I know what you mean.

[Geddy2112]

There were carmen named Charles Cross. But the carman who lived at 22 Doveton was Charles Allen Lechmere.

Thank you. Surely that causes some confusion though. Also a possibility the Cross/Lechmere 'investigation' has some crossed wires. This is all hurting my head a bit now with this name changing shenanigans.

1) 22 Doveton Street Charles gave his name at the inquest as Cross and said he worked for Pickfords.
2) There was a Charles Cross who worked for Pickfords.
3) There is no record of a 'Lechmere' working for Pickfords. (Who did 22 Doveton Street Charles work for?)
4) Charles Cross and Charles Allen Lechmere were two different people.
5) How did Lechmere know to give 'Cross' as a name since there was a Charles Cross working for Pickfords.
6) Wonder what the late book read at Pickfords

The above are not statements of fact rather just enquiries. Sorry all quite confusing.

[Geddy2112]

Geddy, I’ll confidently guess that ‘Karen’ is Karen Trenouth who posted on here before my time and got banned by Ally....

Thanks for that, I saw her picture, got scared and left...

[FrankO]

maybe. maybe not. so no we would not necessarily know i think. however, we do know other witnesses were, like richardson, barnett and hutch so i lean towards that we would probably know if lech was.

Do we really know that Hutchinson was investigated? Anyway, we know the other two were, so you do have a point.

What keeps nagging at me, though, is the notion that the police had every reason to get cleared up why Lechmere & Paul didn't tell Mizen that they'd examined the body. After all, the most obvious reason for doing so for them would be to get past Mizen and why would they want to get past him? Could there be any nefarious reason behind it, or was it just that they didn't want to loose time being taken back to Buck's Row?

I would find it rather odd if it ever turned out that the police didn't get this cleared up. But, of course, it's also possible that Lechmere & Paul, or at least one of them, told the police that they did that and why the very first time they spoke to them, giving their original statement and didn't come across as nervous or suspicious.

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Self correction.

Reeves didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He went in search of a policeman.
Crow didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He ignored the body and kept walking.

Nobody immediately shouted for help. Nobody immediately went to the police. Yet only Lechmere (and sometimes Paul) are criticized for it.

I believe the argument goes something like "That's because the others weren't guilty, while Cross/Lechmere was a cunning psychopath who knew how to act exactly like an innocent person."


- Jeff

[Fiver]

It's one of many things that Lechmerians say point to guilt, but only for Charles Lechmere.

Crow didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He went in search of a policeman.
Davis didn't shout for help when he found Chapman's body. He contacted some other men nearby, showed them the body, and then went in search of a policeman.
Diemschutz didn't shout for help when he found Stride's body. He contacted some other men nearby, showed them the body, and then went in search of a policeman.
PC Watkin didn't shout for help when he found Eddowes' body. He contacted another man nearby, showed them the body, and that man ran to fetch more police.
Bowyer didn't shout for help when he found Kelly's body. He contacted another man nearby, showed them the body, and both men went in search of a policeman.
Lechmere didn't shout for help when he found Nichols' body. He contacted another men nearby, showed them the body, and both men went in search of a policeman.

So how is Lechmere different?

Self correction.

Reeves didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He went in search of a policeman.
Crow didn't shout for help when he found Tabram's body. He ignored the body and kept walking.

Nobody immediately shouted for help. Nobody immediately went to the police. Yet only Lechmere (and sometimes Paul) are criticized for it.

[drstrange169]

"So how is Lechmere different?"

One big difference is, all those you listed found a mutilated body, Cross and Paul did not. I can't emphasis enough how big a difference that is to peoples reactions.

Cross went to the police disputing the police contention that Neil found the body first.
At the inquest he disputed the previous witness's testimony.
The only person that could support his claims was missing and had to eventually be forcibly taken in the middle of the night for severe questioning.

It's very hard to believe that the police did not conduct at least some kind of investigation into the veracity of Cross's story.

[Sam Flynn]

yes of course sam. i see your point.but im not talking about how close someone was to a body.of course legit witnesses will be close. but let me ask you this. if you were walking along to work and saw a man standing in the middle of the street in the dead of night next to what you later found out was a freshly killed dead woman wouldnt you be a tad suspicious? i know i would.

Firstly, he was standing in the road, not next to the body. Secondly, if he willingly brought my attention to the body, accompanied me to examine it, and went with me to find a police officer, I don't think I'd be suspicious at all. I might also pick up some verbal/non-verbal cues from meeting him in person, e.g. his tone of voice and demeanour, which are insights entirely denied to us in the relatively sparse reports we have at our disposal.

[Fiver]

It does yes, however do you consider what 'Karen' is saying to have any truth in it? See seems convinced, like I said difficult to read, that Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere are two completely different people which opens up loads of new 'lines' of enquires. Pickford's history states Charles Cross worked at Pickfords. Not Charles Lechmere.

There were carmen named Charles Cross. But the carman who lived at 22 Doveton was Charles Allen Lechmere.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It does yes, however do you consider what 'Karen' is saying to have any truth in it? See seems convinced, like I said difficult to read, that Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere are two completely different people which opens up loads of new 'lines' of enquires. Pickford's history states Charles Cross worked at Pickfords. Not Charles Lechmere.

Geddy, I’ll confidently guess that ‘Karen’ is Karen Trenouth who posted on here before my time and got banned by Ally. Ally could tell you more but, if memory serves, I don’t think that she’s keen on revisiting the whole episode. Someone linked me to details about her but I don’t have them to hand. I’d describe her as an unbalanced person to put it mildly. She was prosecuted by another woman for something or other. Genuinely believes and openly states that she is a genius. If she told me what day it was I’d check the calendar first. She wrote this book, which I haven’t read and have no intention of reading.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Satanic-Karen-Trenouth/dp/1425972373

She called author Bob Hinton a ‘corrupt magistrate’ after a huge spat on here.

This is a blog about her.

http://masonicinfo.com/trenouth.htm

[Geddy2112]

It's from 2013 and that forum appears to have died in 2021.

It does yes, however do you consider what 'Karen' is saying to have any truth in it? See seems convinced, like I said difficult to read, that Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere are two completely different people which opens up loads of new 'lines' of enquires. Pickford's history states Charles Cross worked at Pickfords. Not Charles Lechmere.

[Abby Normal]

Fair enough, Abby. As far as your last remark, though, an honest question: would we necessarily have known it if he had been investigated or even just questioned and cleared?

I'm curious what you and others think about that.

maybe. maybe not. so no we would not necessarily know i think. however, we do know other witnesses were, like richardson, barnett and hutch so i lean towards that we would probably know if lech was.