Why Cross Was Almost Certainly Innocent

[FrankO]

Yes, my mistake I read the 45-52 as yards, rather than meters

Steve

I guess that's something that's easily done, from your end of the stick (or North Sea), Steve.

[drstrange169]

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

Ah, yes, no records were found because there are no records, full stop. There are no Pickford employee records for that time period for anybody.

[drstrange169]

>>So long story short there is zero evidence Charles Lechmere actually worked for Pickfords????<<

If it's the same Charles Cross, which it seems it is, yes there is evidence, the court records from his R.T.A. in the 1870's.

[drstrange169]

"If anyone wants to check out this article, it's in issue 142 of Ripperologist, from February 2015."

Never really trusted that Dusty Miller, anyone who gives a false name is obviously guilty!

[Geddy2112]

Ah, yes, no records were found because there are no records, full stop. There are no Pickford employee records for that time period for anybody.

Mmmm... but Ed and CH state Charles Lechmere worked for Pickfords...

If it's the same Charles Cross, which it seems it is, yes there is evidence, the court records from his R.T.A. in the 1870's.

'IF' not to be funny but it's a bloody big 'IF.' The whole Lechmere theory hangs on it. Like I said another site proposes with 'evidence' that Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere were not the same person. Was discussed a few pages ago and whilst it's agreed the author may be slightly erm.. insert your own adjective here as I do not wish to fall foul of the Mark no one seems to dispute what she found. Or can prove it anyway.

Never really trusted that Dusty Miller, anyone who gives a false name is obviously guilty!

Name changing in relation to Lechmere, Shirley Knott... I know the 'Butler' did it...

[rjpalmer]

no one seems to dispute what she found. Or can prove it anyway.

I suspect that your tongue is somewhat in your cheek, but I think pretty much everyone is disputing it, aren't they?

She found an alternative Charles Cross--not a particularly unusual name--who was a carman in Lambeth--the Surrey side of the river.

She's found nothing to connect this Cross to Pickford's, nor to 22 Doveton Street, nor to even Mile-End or Bethnal Green.

By contrast, the witness, Charles Cross aka Lechmere, did live at 22 Doveton Street. His stepfather's name was Cross, which explains his use of it. He's listed as Charles Cross in 1861, but Charles Lechmere in 1871. He's listed as a carman on his 1870 marriage records, as a carman in 1871, and a carman in 1881.

It's him.

[John Trent]

'IF' not to be funny but it's a bloody big 'IF.' The whole Lechmere theory hangs on it. Like I said another site proposes with 'evidence' that Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere were not the same person. Was discussed a few pages ago and whilst it's agreed the author may be slightly erm.. insert your own adjective here as I do not wish to fall foul of the Mark no one seems to dispute what she found. Or can prove it anyway.

There's the report of a Mr Cross in the RTA from 20 years previously and Charles Cross testifying that he'd worked for Pickfords for 20 years. That could be a coincidence. However, nobody ever seems to have found in any records, such as census reports, any carman named Cross in the intervening period. That seems pretty strong evidence that they are one and the same.

(Sorry rjp - I was typing at the same time as you)

[JeffHamm]

Hang on, are you suggesting the latest HOL video is being economical with the truth? According to the HOL there are at least 4 opportunities for Cross/Lechmere to have been seen by Paul and vice versa before entering Bucks Row, even though within seconds the video contradicts itself by showing on film 15 seconds or more of 'blackout territory.' Seriously you can't make it up... although they have tried.

Oh Dear,
If HOL has shown that, I should bin everything, they've clearly sorted it.

[JeffHamm]

That is a point I have raised for years Jeff, Paul was not asked one very important question.
"Were you aware of the man ahead of you , before you saw him in the road"

Steve

I suspect the police did ask him that. What is sad, is that we have no record of it - so nobody can prove I'm wrong. Hmmmm, may that should become my hobby horse.

[John Trent]

Hi John Trent,

The hem would normally come to her ankles. If you pull that up and place it near her chest, then the fold will be mid thigh ish. So to pull down a dress that is exposing up to the thighs one would grab the hem that is near the chest.

Something like that I imagin.

- Jeff

If that were the case I'd agree but Cross testified, "her clothes were up above her knees, we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down." To me that clearly implies that the hem of the dress at the front was at thigh level. Then, not mentioning pulling down the clothes: "The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little." Paul, at the inquest, said, "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.... He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not." Paul was also reported as saying "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." Disarranged doesn't chime with 'pulled up to the chest'.

Bizarrely, by trying to hear her breathing Paul was doing what a trained first aider would do - listen (coupled with putting his face down to see if he could feel breath on his cheek). However, feeling her chest is pointless because you can't feel breathing unless the casualty is obviously breathing (which you can see). Paul wasn't trained and it would have been too dark for such a check anyway. I find Paul's evidence somewhat confusing as to precisely what he did. I speculate that he may be looking to feel a heart beat but it's unlikely (and you can't feel a heart beat through the rib cage anyway).

Disclaimer - I was a St John Ambulance instructor and examiner and also a qualified Police First Aid instructor. I am very aware that neither Cross nor Paul had any first aid knowledge. It just seems very odd to me that Paul acted as he did.

[Geddy2112]

I suspect that your tongue is somewhat in your cheek, but I think pretty much everyone is disputing it, aren't they?

She found an alternative Charles Cross--not a particularly unusual name--who was a carman in Lambeth--the Surrey side of the river.

She's found nothing to connect this Cross to Pickford's, nor to 22 Doveton Street, nor to even Mile-End or Bethnal Green.

By contrast, the witness, Charles Cross aka Lechmere, did live at 22 Doveton Street. His stepfather's name was Cross, which explains his use of it. He's listed as Charles Cross in 1861, but Charles Lechmere in 1871. He's listed as a carman on his 1870 marriage records, as a carman in 1871, and a carman in 1881.

It's him.

It kinda was in my cheek but I had a long break from these forums and still catching up. The Lechmere thing was the main area of reading for me mainly because of that documentary, Cutting Point and Inside Bucks Row. As far as I can remember I've not known a suspect be so aggressively supported by so few so I decided the Lechmere angle would be 'read' first. The documentary is riddled with erm inaccuracies, I've not got to Cutting Point yet, I'm a good chunk through 'Inside Bucks Row' which I consider to be very well presented and think HOL should be banned from YouTube due to the 'Fake News' elements of the productions.
So apologies to yourself and John Trent but I was just double checking. Mainly because if there is any doubt that Cross and Lechmere are two different people and or there is no evidence stating he worked for Pickfords (which there appears not to be, a carman could be a number of working venues I presume) then it blows the who Crossmere theory out the water and should never be discussed again haha. So apologies, just dotting the I's and Lechmering the T's so to speak. Thank you.

[Fiver]

Name changing in relation to Lechmere, Shirley Knott... I know the 'Butler' did it...

Stow that kind of talk.

[drstrange169]

"'IF' not to be funny but it's a bloody big 'IF.' The whole Lechmere theory hangs on it."

Not really, he swore under oath that he worked for Pickford for 20 years and gave the address of 22 Doveton. Census records show him as a carman. There is a lot to doubt about Lechmere's candidacy, but working for Pickfords isn't really one of them.

[JeffHamm]

If that were the case I'd agree but Cross testified, "her clothes were up above her knees, we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down." To me that clearly implies that the hem of the dress at the front was at thigh level. Then, not mentioning pulling down the clothes: "The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little." Paul, at the inquest, said, "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.... He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not." Paul was also reported as saying "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down." Disarranged doesn't chime with 'pulled up to the chest'.

Bizarrely, by trying to hear her breathing Paul was doing what a trained first aider would do - listen (coupled with putting his face down to see if he could feel breath on his cheek). However, feeling her chest is pointless because you can't feel breathing unless the casualty is obviously breathing (which you can see). Paul wasn't trained and it would have been too dark for such a check anyway. I find Paul's evidence somewhat confusing as to precisely what he did. I speculate that he may be looking to feel a heart beat but it's unlikely (and you can't feel a heart beat through the rib cage anyway).

Disclaimer - I was a St John Ambulance instructor and examiner and also a qualified Police First Aid instructor. I am very aware that neither Cross nor Paul had any first aid knowledge. It just seems very odd to me that Paul acted as he did.

Hi John Trent,

Unfortunately for us, the statements are often very unclear and given how they are reported in the papers, more versions usually add to, rather than reduce, the confusion. I sometimes think if multiple people were given a mannequin and asked to arrange the clothes as described by the witnesses, we would have as many versions as we have people! The details of what they saw and what they did are hard to pin down, and as such all we can do is suggest the various ways they could be interpreted to get an idea of the range of possibilities of what happened.

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

So... going back to my previous post and to further my 'knowledge' of the Crossmere activity I've come to the horrible 'cross' roads. Do or do I not splash £15 on Cutting Point? (or 'What's The Point' as I saw one reviewer refer to it as...)
The problem I have is the author for one. Very biased, rather rude and aggressive in attacking people who do not agree with him and never open to the fact he could be wrong no matter how many times he is told.
For two the blurb on the back 'The Jack the Ripper murders and the Thames Torso murders, so similar to each other, took place during the same period in London and have never been solved.' (I actually think there are 3 or 4 'material inaccuracies' in the back cover alone.) Now even for me that seems rather a large stretch. The MO in both cases are completely different unless you count 'female victims' 'London' and the 'same 5 or so year period.' Does this kind of statement run through the book, i.e. comments that are rather economical with the truth?
Thirdly, and more importantly does the book actually provide any 'decent' (of course I won't and can't use concrete) evidence in the other four canonical murders? Does it give good evidence for Lechmere killing Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly? Or it is just focused on the Bucks Row shenanigans?
Thanks