Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

Mainly because he told the police his address.

And because I don't believe the police didn't make any inquires.

If the police made inquiries, Gut - why is it that they have our carman down as Charles Cross on the 19:th of October? If they knew that his identity was Charles Lechmere, then why not write that in the police reports?

And have you noticed that Swanson in this report claims that the carmen found the body together?

Could it be that Swanson - as the rest of the police - were led astray by the carman, failing to realize the true scenario?

What evidence is there that the police made inquiries about the carman? In what memoirs does it show that "Cross" was of much interest and thoroughly looked into, as he should have been? Where can we see that the police realized that there would have been time unaccounted for, when Lechmere was alone with the body?
The fact that the police thinks he is called Charles Cross more or less proves that they never found out who he was - and that would have been child´s play, had they made the effort.

Have you noticed that Dew points a finger at Paul, whereas he cannot even remember what that other carman was called?

Finally, if you work from the assumption that the police did NOT look into Lechmere - do you still think that the name swop and the ommission to state his address would be something that needed not be looked into?

We all know that he told the police his address - the question that remains to be answered is why he did NOT tell the inquest the same thing.

Let´s assume that he did not want to give up his killing carreer in London by means of running and going into hiding some place else.
In such a case, he would have chosen to stay home, stay at work and go to work along his normal routes.

Would the police in such a case be able to find him?

Yes, they would.

Would he be able to get away with calling himself Higginbottom, stating his address as Buckingham Palace and naming his job as Bottomcrackers Limited if the police looked into him?

No, he wouldn´t.

So what could he do, if he wanted to go on killing on his home soil?

Well, he would need to try and stay undetected to the ones who saw what he did on a daily basis. As long as the police did not suspect him, he would be fine with having the police know his real name, his real address and his real workplace - people who are not suspected are free to keep on killing.

But since he was to appear at an inquest, he would have to give the same name to the inquest as he had given to the police. And if he wanted to stay undetected by his family and friends, Charles Allen Lechmere would not do.

So he had a problem: He wanted to have a clean sheet with the police, but he could not get that unless he was willing to reveal to his family and friends that he was a witness in the Ripper case.

Solution: Use a name that people - and hopefully the police - may think would have been his to use, a name that is a common name, and that wouldn´t reveal his ID to his wife and friends.

Next problem: Even though he could say "That must have been a mistake", it would still look odd if "Charles Cross" placed himself at 22 Doveton Street.

Solution: Do not give the address and hope the coroner won´t make you.

It all adds up: If he wanted to come clean with the police to as high a degree as possible, and hide his identity to as large a degree as possible at the same time, then he did ALL he could do. He maximized it on EVERY point.

He fooled the inquest, he fooled the papers, he most probably fooled his wife and family. And lately, he fooled you too, GUT!

All the best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

He certainly may. And what a VERY unlucky coincidence if he just forgot, as one of the very, very few...!

Who said anything about Lechmere FORGETTING to mention an address, Christer? What’s that all about?

Looking at it this way, we can´t even be sure that his own wife did not know or suspect him.

What we can’t be sure of either is that she didn’t know the name Cross. After all, Charles and Elizabeth got married less than 7 months after Charles' stepfather died and it’s quite feasible she got to know his stepfather when she started seeing Charles.

It can be seen both ways.

That’s more or less the whole Cross/Lechmere thing in a nut shell.

All the best,
Frank

[Monty]

"Could it be that Swanson - as the rest of the police - were led astray by the carman, failing to realize the true scenario?"


Extremely unlikely.

There is one scenario which is screaming out to me as the most plausible explanation as to the use of name, and the omission of address.

Cross was a ticket of leave man.

Monty

[Fisherman]

FrankO:

Who said anything about Lechmere FORGETTING to mention an address, Christer? What’s that all about?

It´s about preventing any such suggestion from anybody, since I am sure it will surface otherwiswe. Actually, I am equally sure it will anyway ...

What we can’t be sure of either is that she didn’t know the name Cross. After all, Charles and Elizabeth got married less than 7 months after Charles' stepfather died and it’s quite feasible she got to know his stepfather when she started seeing Charles.

It´s all written in the stars, Frank, just as you´ve realized.

That’s more or less the whole Cross/Lechmere thing in a nut shell.

No, it is not. "The whole thing" can only be seen one way, whereas the many details can be seen both ways, if we look at them one by one.
But no man can have that many "coincidental" runs of bad luck when it comes to the evidence pointing to him, believe me. He did it, alright.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Could it be that Swanson - as the rest of the police - were led astray by the carman, failing to realize the true scenario?"


Extremely unlikely.

There is one scenario which is screaming out to me as the most plausible explanation as to the use of name, and the omission of address.

Cross was a ticket of leave man.

Monty

A ... what? The dictionary says, about the expression ticket-of-leave man: "a convict who has a permit to leave prison, after serving only part of his sentence, with certain restrictions placed on him".

Something tells me that this is not what you are after - you instead make the guess that he was cleared, or...?

If that is what it screams to you, I have some serious hearing checking to do, cause I do not hear a thing.

Such a thing - a proposal that he was cleared - is going to take some proving. I can understand that you stand by your colleagues, but standing behind clear implications has it´s advantages too.

If he was cleared - why does Swanson call him Cross throughout?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Who said anything about being cleared?

A ticket of leave man is a prisoner who is released early, but has to report to his local police station at a set time every day until the end of his sentence. Only prisoners who have behaved themselves whilst in prison are granted this permission.

The stipulations, along with reporting in, are that he must inform the police if he intends to move house. Only the Local station inspector/Sergeant and some members of CID know who he is and where he lives, as well as the Habitual Criminal Dept at Scotland Yard.

The police are not permitted to reveal his name or address.

Once you consider the above, it is plausible Cross may be a ticket of leave man, however there are obvious flaws in this suggestion. That said, it may be another avenue worth investigating, even if to eliminate this idea.

Monty

[FrankO]

It´s about preventing any such suggestion from anybody, since I am sure it will surface otherwiswe. Actually, I am equally sure it will anyway ...

Well, you didn't hear it from me and won't either, Fish. You're barking up the wrong tree.

It´s all written in the stars, Frank, just as you´ve realized.

No, it's a very feasible notion.

No, it is not. "The whole thing" can only be seen one way, whereas the many details can be seen both ways, if we look at them one by one.

Have you been drinking vinegar, Fish? Obviously, that's what I meant.

He did it, alright.

Case closed, then.

[Lechmere]

Monty
I thought you were being facetious when you suggested the ticket of leave thing.
It certainly is an inventive suggestion.
But Lechmere is on the electoral register without break from 1880 and he had children quite regularly from 1872 to 1888.

[GUT]

If the police made inquiries, Gut - why is it that they have our carman down as Charles Cross on the 19:th of October? If they knew that his identity was Charles Lechmere, then why not write that in the police reports?

Maybe because they had the name he was known by at work and by his friends. Something I know you will not accept because he uses his LEGAL name in official documents.

And have you noticed that Swanson in this report claims that the carmen found the body together?

Could it be that Swanson - as the rest of the police - were led astray by the carman, failing to realize the true scenario?

What we 125 years later could find t out but the police at the time couldn't?

What evidence is there that the police made inquiries about the carman? In what memoirs does it show that "Cross" was of much interest and thoroughly looked into, as he should have been? Where can we see that the police realized that there would have been time unaccounted for, when Lechmere was alone with the body?
The fact that the police thinks he is called Charles Cross more or less proves that they never found out who he was - and that would have been child´s play, had they made the effort.

Have you noticed that Dew points a finger at Paul, whereas he cannot even remember what that other carman was called?

Say lots about Dew to my mind.

Finally, if you work from the assumption that the police did NOT look into Lechmere - do you still think that the name swop and the ommission to state his address would be something that needed not be looked into?

No ... no ... no, because he had given his address to the police and it is nothing more than guess work that the police didn't know the other name.

We all know that he told the police his address - the question that remains to be answered is why he did NOT tell the inquest the same thing

Because he wasn't asked is the most logical answer, for all we know he said to the police "Can we keep my address out of the paper?" It happens all the time you know.

Let´s assume that he did not want to give up his killing carreer in London by means of running and going into hiding some place else.
In such a case, he would have chosen to stay home, stay at work and go to work along his normal routes.



Would the police in such a case be able to find him?

Yes, they would.

And that's where your idea falls down, you say he is trying to hide things by gvng the police exactly what they need to find him.

Would he be able to get away with calling himself Higginbottom, stating his address as Buckingham Palace and naming his job as Bottomcrackers Limited if the police looked into him?

No, he wouldn´t.

So what could he do, if he wanted to go on killing on his home soil?

Well, he would need to try and stay undetected to the ones who saw what he did on a daily basis. As long as the police did not suspect him, he would be fine with having the police know his real name, his real address and his real workplace - people who are not suspected are free to keep on killing.

Well then why not give his REAL name? You can't have it both ways.

But since he was to appear at an inquest, he would have to give the same name to the inquest as he had given to the police. And if he wanted to stay undetected by his family and friends, Charles Allen Lechmere would not do.

So he had a problem: He wanted to have a clean sheet with the police, but he could not get that unless he was willing to reveal to his family and friends that he was a witness in the Ripper case.

Solution: Use a name that people - and hopefully the police - may think would have been his to use, a name that is a common name, and that wouldn´t reveal his ID to his wife and friends.

And when police go to Pickfords ...?

Next problem: Even though he could say "That must have been a mistake", it would still look odd if "Charles Cross" placed himself at 22 Doveton Street.

Solution: Do not give the address and hope the coroner won´t make you.

And give the address to the police and hope thay don't.

It all adds up: If he wanted to come clean with the police to as high a degree as possible, and hide his identity to as large a degree as possible at the same time, then he did ALL he could do. He maximized it on EVERY point.

He fooled the inquest, he fooled the papers, he most probably fooled his wife and family. And lately, he fooled you too, GUT!

All the best,
Fisherman

No Fisherman he hasn't fooled me at all.

[Fisherman]

Monty:

Who said anything about being cleared?

That would be me, trying to interpret what a ticket of leave man is. I was totally unfamiliar with the expression.

A ticket of leave man is a prisoner who is released early, but has to report to his local police station at a set time every day until the end of his sentence. Only prisoners who have behaved themselves whilst in prison are granted this permission.

The stipulations, along with reporting in, are that he must inform the police if he intends to move house. Only the Local station inspector/Sergeant and some members of CID know who he is and where he lives, as well as the Habitual Criminal Dept at Scotland Yard.

The police are not permitted to reveal his name or address.

Once you consider the above, it is plausible Cross may be a ticket of leave man, however there are obvious flaws in this suggestion. That said, it may be another avenue worth investigating, even if to eliminate this idea.

Well, I didn´t see that one coming! And I agree that it seems a flawed suggestion in many a respect, but you are of course very welcome to investigate it further.

Meanwhile, his logical routes STILL took him past the murder sites at the approximate murder times, he STILL failed to have Paul noticing him in Buck´s Row, he STILL appeared at the inquest in working clothes, the body was STILL covered when Paul saw it, implicating that somebody close by was trying to get away with things, he STILL is recorded as having fed Mizen a bunch of lies etcetera.

But I suppose ticket of leave men can also kill?

Anyway, it´s a suggestion that could be an alternative explanation to the name and address issue, so I see no harm in looking at it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty
I thought you were being facetious when you suggested the ticket of leave thing.
It certainly is an inventive suggestion.
But Lechmere is on the electoral register without break from 1880 and he had children quite regularly from 1872 to 1888.

That would be the flaws Monty speak of ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

FrankO:

Well, you didn't hear it from me and won't either, Fish. You're barking up the wrong tree.

I wasn´t referring to you, Frank - but I have my doubts abiout many other posters.

No, it's a very feasible notion.

... and the solution is written in the stars anyway - there is no telling. Lechmere may not even have met Elizabeth Bostock at that stage; they married young.

Have you been drinking vinegar, Fish? Obviously, that's what I meant.

Wine. I´ve been drinking wine.

Case closed, then.

Only nearly!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty
I thought you were being facetious when you suggested the ticket of leave thing.
It certainly is an inventive suggestion.
But Lechmere is on the electoral register without break from 1880 and he had children quite regularly from 1872 to 1888.

One of the flaws I'm referring to Ed, however the census would still record his address, not that he was a convicted criminal.

Just throwing it out there. Hence my question earlier this week. Maybe worth keeping an eye out during future research, and if I see anything, I shall let you know.

Monty


PS Just got what you are saying. Well yes, it depends on the length of sentence, but its a valid point.

[Fisherman]

GUT: Maybe because they had the name he was known by at work and by his friends. Something I know you will not accept because he uses his LEGAL name in official documents.

You will have to admit that it´s a pretty good point.

What we 125 years later could find t out but the police at the time couldn't?

"We"?

Say lots about Dew to my mind.

Like?

No ... no ... no, because he had given his address to the police and it is nothing more than guess work that the police didn't know the other name.

It is a lot more than guesswork - it is a near certainty.

Because he wasn't asked is the most logical answer, for all we know he said to the police "Can we keep my address out of the paper?" It happens all the time you know.

He would have been asked to state his name, address and occupation, as would all other unprofessional witnesses.

And that's where your idea falls down, you say he is trying to hide things by gvng the police exactly what they need to find him.

I am? I never noticed. I always thought I was saying that he was fine with giving the police his details, since he didn´t want to get caught out lying and since he had good hope not to get investigated. On the other hand, he did not want friends, relatives and family to know.

Well then why not give his REAL name? You can't have it both ways.

Nor could Lechmere. He HAD to give a false name if he wanted to stay off the radar with friends, family and aquaintances.

And when police go to Pickfords ...?

... they get the name Lechmere, and he says he wanted to honor his dead stepfather.

And give the address to the police and hope thay don't.

Yes, exactly. And if they DID, they get the name Lechmere, and he says he wanted to honor his dead stepfather. It is all very easy and has no risks connected to it, apart from his family and wife finding out about him being the witness and the police perhaps becoming suspicious.

But he could not have it all his way, could he? He tried to minimize the damage, he could not be sure that it would work, but as it turned out, it did.

Do you yourself think that a serial killer would never take any risk at all to be able to kill? Do you think they abort whenever there is a small risk that somebody may make them out? Is that how it works to your mind - all serial killers only employ 100 per cent safe methods?

No Fisherman he hasn't fooled me at all.

That´s what you think. I disagree.

All the best, Gut!
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

He also said he's been at Pickfords for 20 years. Would they have given him his job back? In a job that was dependent on trust and where there was the constant danger of theft?
I can't see any realistic possibility that he could have been in jail for any appreciable period given his electoral registration and I would have thought that it would be a fairly long sentence and for something reasonably serious to be released under a ticket of leave.
But who knows?