A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[lynn cates]

brasen

Hello Christer. Thanks.

IF I were to discuss, it would have to be a new thread. And its parametres would need to be spelled out exactly--something like Was Lechmere brasen?

Oh, yes, you might wish first to say something about the accusation of game playing. By the way, I did not "diss" (what a garish Americanism) your chap. I reiterated what I said a few years back that, from my perspective, I see no reason to see his name as sinister.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

A couple points.

A carman would often be out for hours on one job as the amount of time they had to wait around for their load to be unloaded varied considerably, as would the distance travelled for the job. So it would not be a realistic proposition for him to have gone in, done a bit of work and then gone to the inquest.
In any case, why did he garnish his attire when in the witness stand with his apron? Why didn’t he take that accessory off?
I would suggest he kept it on to emphasise his ever so ’umble appearance

Did he have Sunday best? It is highly unlikely that he was so dirt poor he only had one set of clothes.
All his children were baptised.
He opened his first shop within about 5 years.
Pictures exist of his children a few years later very well dressed.
But again. Even if he only had one set of clothes, why accessorise it with the apron while in the stand?

Was the ‘Mizen Scam’ complex or risky?
It involved accompanying Paul and making sure he did the talking if – if – they bumped into a policeman on the way. He may have assured Paul that he would do the talking to spare Paul the task. Paul was evidently anti Police.
According to Mizen, he was given some pretty unremarkable information by Lechmere, so it is not surprising that Mizen didn’t take any details. I would imagine that Lechmere would then be hoping that this would be the end of his involvement in the matter… until Paul blabbed to the press.

Would Charles Lechmere’s wife be particularly familiar with his mother in law’s second ex-husband’s name, given that it was a very commonplace name, that he had been dead 19 years, he died before she herself married into the family and her mother in law had long been remarried to someone else?
Would the now Mrs Forsdike discuss her ex-husband with her daughter-in-law?
If she did would she refer to him by his surname?

In any case, if it was Charles Lechmere’s intention to mask his involvement from his family, he may not have been 100% successful. In particular my instinct tells me that his mother probably suspected him. But I think his relationship for his mother was probably a major underlying reason for his behaviour.

As for Charles Lechmere having the ‘right’ to call himself Cross. In fact anyone has the ‘right’ to call themselves anything they choose. That isn’t the point. Charles Lechmere had the ‘right’ to call himself Charles Dickens if he wanted to. He had no more ‘right’ to call himself Dickens than Cross.
The only difference is that we can understand how he probably came to choose Cross from among the countless thousands of potential alternative surnames.

[Dane_F]

He would have been informed about that, as was Robert Paul. There would have been the need for him to find a stand-in for the day, as there was for Robert Paul.

The best,
Fisherman

I'm curious. How would you say that Lechmere was informed of this? Did they already have a date set when he went to the Police station? Did they track him down?

[Lechmere]

Ben
Oh dear, you think I am lying.
Never mind.
Luckily to float the Lechmere theory I don’t have to ignore an interrogation (or belittle a senior policeman), I don’t have to create a connection between Lewis’s man and Hutchinson when no one noticed it at the time, I don’t have to pretend that the Victoria Home didn't have a curfew, and I don’t have to insist that Fleming wasn’t 6 foot 7 inches tall – as recorded.
If I theory I subscribed to relied on such twisting of the known record I would be ashamed.
But then virtually everything you ever say is not backed up by reference to any recorded facts. No offence.

[Lechmere]

Dane
The inquest opened on the Saturday - the day after the murder.
On this opening day PC Neil was presented as the first finder of Nichols.
Paul's story appeared in the press on Sunday afternoon, fingering the unnamed Lechmere as standing by the dead body.
Later that night the police issued a statement denying Paul's story and insisting that Neil was the first finder.
Charles Lechmere appeared at the inquest next day confirming Paul's story.

The most likely explanation is that Charles Lechmere turned up at a police station on Sunday night and gave his version of events - which largely confirmed Paul's newspaper story. He probably turned up at a different police station to that from which the police's statement was issued or he tuned up after it had been issued.

In any event he would have been summonsed to attend the inquest after giving his statement.

It is inconceivable that the police would have proactively tracked him down. They went out of their way to deny the Paul story. That is not consistent with also acting upon the information provided by Paul.

[MrBarnett]

Hi,

It was suggested earlier that Lechmere must have presented himself at a police station on Sunday and been then informed that he was required to attend the inquest the next day. If that were the case he would be faced with problem of informing his employers of the situation. It seems perfectly reasonable that he might turn up for work at the usual time, dressed appropriately, hoping to do a few hours work before he was required at the inquest and thus avoid losing a days pay.

MrB

[Lechmere]

He may have reported and told them he could not work that day - but the nature of his work would mean that he would not practically have been able to do any work. In any case that does not explain his wearing of his apron in the witness stand.
Paul, also a carman, could by the same token have gone in and done several hours work on the two days he was obliged to attend a the inquest, but it was evidently impractical for him to do so.

[Lechmere]

Incidentally there are cases whether witnesses were literally rounded up and taken to give evidence at an inquest virtually on the spot. They would not have had the opportunity to give make alternative arrangements for anything they were due to do. Obligations to the 'State' came first in such circumstances.

But what would he have done if he was seriously ill or if he had an accident and couldn't get into work? This sort of thing must have happened from time to time with people who would not be able to inform their work immediately the reason for their absence.

[MrBarnett]

I'm confused. In one post it is said to be 'inconceivable' that the police would actively seek out a witness, in another you cite instances of people being rounded up by them - which is it?

[Dane_F]

Lechmere,

I appreciate the response but sadly I see no argument listed that isn't based on huge assumptions. Why would he not feel he could squeeze in some work before the inquest, especially if the time gap was multiple hours? No instead he has to go in his work clothes to lie to his family about it and trick the inquest.

What does it matter that he was wearing his apron one way or the other? He went in his work clothes. His apron was part of that. I could just as easily suggest he wore his apron because it was cleaner than his clothes under and he felt it more appropriate. Both are huge assumptions and the most obvious conclusion is wearing the apron means nothing. If it did, it would have been commented on at the inquest.

Having money is irrelevant if he was working before the inquest. Which by the fact that he was wearing work clothes is a much, much more likely a scenario than he skipped worked, accepted not getting paid, and tried to trick his family.

Why would Lechmere not have told his wife about his past? It is more likely that he kept his past an entire secret or that he would discuss it like any normal couple that has a family would do? His mother still being alive adds to the possibility they would know his past, not take away from it. Grand kids are curious about their past and if not his wife they would want to know the history of their family. It is only in a sinister account that Lechmere does not act like a normal person and instead hides his past (for years) so later he could deceive his wife and murder people. Both are assumptions but only one is a logical one I feel.

That's interesting about his mother. Is there anything that helps establish she suspected him or that his relationship with her was. . .abnormal?

It's a very big exaggeration to say, "Anyone has the right to call themselves anything." and if that is the case why is it suspicious that Lechmere would use a different name at all? If he was within his right to give that name then it is not suspicious activity to do so. Trying to paint him in the light of using a "false" name is disingenuous and inaccurate. We know exactly where the name comes from and we know he, as you admit, has a right to us.

I could paint just as good of a picture as a man so focused on his dream of opening a shop that he went to an inquest in work clothes because he wanted to save up all of his money and make it happen. I could say he gave the Cross name to keep the public from bothering and distracting him because he wanted to provide a better life for his wife and children. He felt the loss of his family's place in wealth and wanted to restore that if at all possible. That was his life's dream and his driving force and he did everything he possibly could, even working as a carmen for years upon years to achieve that goal.

If you honestly assess the facts and try not to make him fit the role, which seems more logical and likely?

I feel like Lechmere is less likely the Ripper now than before I posted here because it seems the entire case built around him is just one giant assumption after another. Heck, if you base it off of just facts Joesph Bennett fits better and I don't think he was the Ripper.

[MrBarnett]

Is it totally inconceivable that Lechmere knew what his deliveries were the next day and knew he could work for a few hours in the early morning and still get to the inquest in good time?

[GUT]

Or is it out of the question that Pickford's sad to him, "Well come in and spend a couple of hours loading and you'll still get some pay"?

I know that in the 70's such was still a fairly normal procedure ie for you to do some work even if it was not your normal task. It is only from 70's on that it started to become normal for unions to insist that you only do your normal job.

[Lechmere]

Mr Barnett
In the cases where the police rounded up witnesses and took them straight to an inquest - the people were found on the spot. They did not have to seek them out. They did not have to engage in any sort of man hunt.

The simple answer to the question about whether Lechmere knew about any deliveries he was likely to have to undertake is that we don't know!
However we now the generality of what a carman's work entailed - particularly one working from a big goods station.
We know that they could not predict where they would go or how long the job would take and that frequently they had to wait for a very long time for their delivery to be unloaded.
We also have the example of Paul who was a carman.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Dane,

It has been put forward that the wearing of the apron was part of an 'ever so 'umble' act designed to divert suspicion from Lechmere. My own view is that if he had turned up wearing his Sunday best suit and a clean collar he would have been even less likely to have aroused suspicion. At this point they were not looking for a serial killer, the most likely scenario would have been either a domestic or a client/prostitute dispute. How would turning up in soiled working clothes have helped?

MrB

[Dane_F]

I just want to post and say that Lechmere, Fisherman, GUT, MrBennett, and nearly everyone else here I'm sure has more knowledge of the actual cases than I do or will most likely ever have.

Because of this my entire stance is based entirely off of making logical sense out of the information that other people bring forth. I respect everyone's knowledge of the case greatly and still feel as if I can be persuaded to believe any of them.

However, I do attempt to try to follow a logical thread without jumping to ungrounded or illogical conclusions. I am sorry if my stance at times contradicts other people's stance whom I greatly respect. I have spent a long period of time just reading these forums and I sometimes feel I know the people here. I do hope no one takes offense to my posts. I like to discuss and debate.