Pickford & Co.

[Geddy2112]

Again apologies if going over old ground. I just wish to get something completely straight.

Charles Cross, carman, who appeared in Court with a rough sack apron on, said that he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for some years.

Also we have the census records stating Lechmere was a carman. Apart from the quote above is there any concrete proof he worked for Pickfords and was not a carman for another company, apologies I'm not an expert here. I know about the RTA but I'm sure I've read there were other people named Cross that it possibly could have been. I also know Pickford's www site state there is no records of a Lechmere working for them and I know Stow etc have stated there are zero employee records available for this time period.

So I just want to get straight in my head that the only evidence we have of Charles Lechmere working for Pickfords is his own say so. Sorry again if this is old ground being trod on.

[Sam Flynn]

It would have been easy enough to check with Pickfords if they had a Charles Cross in their employ at the time, so there was no earthly use or reason in him making it up.

[Geddy2112]

It would have been easy enough to check with Pickfords if they had a Charles Cross in their employ at the time, so there was no earthly use or reason in him making it up.

Absolutely, I'm trying not to give my game away as such, but I'd really love to know if Lechmere saying he worked for Pickfords at the inquest is the only evidence we had of him working at Pickfords and not another 'carman' employer would be great.

[Tani]

Again apologies if going over old ground. I just wish to get something completely straight.



Also we have the census records stating Lechmere was a carman. Apart from the quote above is there any concrete proof he worked for Pickfords and was not a carman for another company, apologies I'm not an expert here. I know about the RTA but I'm sure I've read there were other people named Cross that it possibly could have been. I also know Pickford's www site state there is no records of a Lechmere working for them and I know Stow etc have stated there are zero employee records available for this time period.

So I just want to get straight in my head that the only evidence we have of Charles Lechmere working for Pickfords is his own say so. Sorry again if this is old ground being trod on.

Haven't we the evidence of his running over a child years before?

[The Rookie Detective]

Haven't we the evidence of his running over a child years before?

It was a tragic accident and Charles was not to blame for the child being killed.
That is based on every recorded witness account and the fact that Charles was not intoxicated and not acting in any way suspicious whatsoever. He was as much a victim of circumstance as the poor boy who lost his life.

RD

[Tani]

It was a tragic accident and Charles was not to blame for the child being killed.
That is based on every recorded witness account and the fact that Charles was not intoxicated and not acting in any way suspicious whatsoever. He was as much a victim of circumstance as the poor boy who lost his life.

RD

Yes, but that wasn't my meaning.

Didn't he do it while working for Pickfords? Wouldn't that be evidence of his longevity working for them?

[The Rookie Detective]

Yes, but that wasn't my meaning.

Didn't he do it while working for Pickfords? Wouldn't that be evidence of his longevity working for them?

Ah my apologies; yes of course.

That incident would appear to be proof enough that Charles had some longevity with the company.

I can't recall if he was driving a Pickfords Cart; but one would assume he was.



RD

[Tani]

Ah my apologies; yes of course.

That incident would appear to be proof enough that Charles had some longevity with the company.

I can't recall if he was driving a Pickfords Cart; but one would assume he was.



RD

If someone could look this up that would be good. I don't know the source, myself.

[Belloc]

The Islington Gazette, 29 December 1876, page 2

[Geddy2112]

Unless I'm getting a big memory fade here that still not does prove our Lechmere worked for Pickfords. I said in the OP there is a possibility the Charles Cross named in the paper was a different Charles Cross. I'm sure I read somewhere, someone had found records of another Charles Cross being a carman on the census records etc.

Sorry.

[Tani]

Unless I'm getting a big memory fade here that still not does prove our Lechmere worked for Pickfords. I said in the OP there is a possibility the Charles Cross named in the paper was a different Charles Cross. I'm sure I read somewhere, someone had found records of another Charles Cross being a carman on the census records etc.

Sorry.

Given we have spoken evidence of his having worked for them for a good length of time, his name and nothing to contradict him, whilst I see where you're coming from, I do think Occam's Razor is useful here and this is more than likely the Charles Cross we're talking about. If anyone has evidence of the other Charles Cross and how long he was at Pickford's etc. that would work.

Our Cross would have been about 27 at this time and I think that works. If we find the other one we could see which seems to work best.

[Geddy2112]

Given we have spoken evidence of his having worked for them for a good length of time, his name and nothing to contradict him, whilst I see where you're coming from, I do think Occam's Razor is useful here and this is more than likely the Charles Cross we're talking about. If anyone has evidence of the other Charles Cross and how long he was at Pickford's etc. that would work.

Our Cross would have been about 27 at this time and I think that works. If we find the other one we could see which seems to work best.

Funny this, Occam's Razor is one of a few things I've only ever seen mentioned on these boards. Another is datum and falsehood (I tend to be less polite and just say 'bloody lies') I'm sure there is a couple more but I can't remember the other 'Casebookisms.'

Okay, to let the cat out of the bag as such. My point is IF the only mention in what we know is Charles Lechmere saying he worked for Pickford's is in his testimony then why do Lechmere lovers use this as truth but completely dismiss the rest of his testimony as truth? Or the flip to that if him saying him finding the body, stopping Paul etc is not the truth, how can the bit about working for Pickfords be accepted as truthful. Pickfords have no records of him working there (or anyone else as Stow and Christer will profess) and the RTA Cross could possibly be a different Charles Cross even though it's unlikely. So we are back to his testimony.

Surely it's unsafe when accusing someone of murder of believing half their story and not the other half. That's all I'm getting at...

[Tani]

Funny this, Occam's Razor is one of a few things I've only ever seen mentioned on these boards. Another is datum and falsehood (I tend to be less polite and just say 'bloody lies') I'm sure there is a couple more but I can't remember the other 'Casebookisms.'

Okay, to let the cat out of the bag as such. My point is IF the only mention in what we know is Charles Lechmere saying he worked for Pickford's is in his testimony then why do Lechmere lovers use this as truth but completely dismiss the rest of his testimony as truth? Or the flip to that if him saying him finding the body, stopping Paul etc is not the truth, how can the bit about working for Pickfords be accepted as truthful. Pickfords have no records of him working there (or anyone else as Stow and Christer will profess) and the RTA Cross could possibly be a different Charles Cross even though it's unlikely. So we are back to his testimony.

Surely it's unsafe when accusing someone of murder of believing half their story and not the other half. That's all I'm getting at...

It's a reasonable question, but I think the basic idea is that he could lie about his witness testimony (given the garbled mess that is Buck's Row I am definitely of the opinion that someone lied, or lied by omission etc. and it may well have been Mizen) and no-one could contradict him.

Whereas if the police asked his employer had Cross been there 20 years or so they could say yea or nea.

He also gave his address correctly, presumably correctly identified Robert Paul etc. If he's the murderer all he needs to lie about is what time he left and how he found Polly. By the time Paul arrives, everything could be truth from there as he's already committed the murder. Things like address, employ, etc. can be reasonably well checked, whereas times cannot, especially when the police's own timings contradict them and both say they found the body at 3:45. Someone is either wrong or lying. Here I assume someone is just wrong.

[Tani]

Funny this, Occam's Razor is one of a few things I've only ever seen mentioned on these boards. Another is datum and falsehood (I tend to be less polite and just say 'bloody lies') I'm sure there is a couple more but I can't remember the other 'Casebookisms.'

Curious, I use it all the time. The other forum I'm on uses it a lot, but that one is dedicated to Religion and so those kinds of phrases come up a lot. I just like to use it as a first principle.

[rjpalmer]

Given we have spoken evidence of his having worked for them for a good length of time, his name and nothing to contradict him, whilst I see where you're coming from, I do think Occam's Razor is useful here and this is more than likely the Charles Cross we're talking about. If anyone has evidence of the other Charles Cross and how long he was at Pickford's etc. that would work.

Our Cross would have been about 27 at this time and I think that works. If we find the other one we could see which seems to work best.

The other Charles Cross, carman, mentioned in the 1881 Census lived at 9 Walcot Square, Lambeth, south of the river, but I found his marriage records and he lived in Poplar at the time of his marriage, May 1879. (No specific address). There is no indication for whom he worked.

There was also a third Charles Cross, carman, aged 18 in 1879, so he is not a great fit.

The man in the accident was probably "our" Charles Cross, but (in my opinion) this is a blow to the Lechmere theory, because it shows what many expected all along: he had joined Pickford's during his stepfather's lifetime and simply used the name "Charles Cross" at work, just as it was recorded in the 1861 census. These things "stick," so there was nothing nefarious about his use of the name.

If on the other hand, this isn't Cross, it's still a blow to the Lechmere theory, because advocates like to imply that the road accident is evidence of a violent, callous man. In reality, two children were involved. One saw the van coming, the other didn't. The jury ruled it was a no-fault accident.