Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Barnaby]

G'day Barnaby

But for all we know he stopped to urinate, or grabbed a bite to eat.

Fair point. Or merely soliciting a prostitute. Which could explain the name shiftiness.

But jeez there are a lot of coincidences. Another possibility is that he was the killer.

[Barnaby]

Having thought about this more, how long does it take to urinate? And why would he stop for a bite to eat minutes after leaving home? And this wasn't a market with various food vendors lined up. No, he was up to something. Could be just an affair.

[GUT]

G'day again Barnaby

There are issues with the man but I ask myself do that add up to hm being the killer and keep coming back with the answer "No there just isn't enough".

In a Court you wouldn't even persuade a prosecutor to charge him.

And before anyone tells me, that applies to pretty much the whole field.

[Barnaby]

Hi Gut,

I definitely agree that there are issues with a number of known persons of interest. Cross isn't my #1 suspect but I feel he is a very good suspect that the majority are simply dismissing him out of hand for a reason I don't quite understand.

[Fisherman]

The name issue is an easy one to resolve - if we think logically and straight. Sadly, not all of us do.

The carman presented himself to the police as Charles Cross. This opens up the possibility that he went under the name of Charles Cross to some extent and/or in some contexts.

Is that a feasible suggestion? Yes, it is.

What we therefore have is a man whose true name was Charles Lechmere, but who may have chosen to call himself Charles Cross to some extent and/or in some contexts.

How can we check whether this holds true? We can check it in one way only, since there is nobody left to ask - by looking at how he signed himself.

He signed himself Charles Lechmere in every single document that has surfaced, amounting to a good deal more than a hundred documents. We may therefore conclude that as best as we can tell - and we have lots of material to underline it - the name Charles Cross was not a name he used whenever signing his name on any document of some sort, or whenever giving his name for an official to sign it.

The documents we have represent a wide range of contacts between Charles Lechmere and different authorities.
In some instances he has signed the documents himself.
In other instances, he has been asked to give his name, whereafter an official has signed the name for him. It will have been along the line: "Can you state your name, Sir?"

When he went to the police in combination with the murder inquest after Polly Nichols, he was asked the exact same question: "Can you state your name, Sir?" And at that stage, he answered "Charles Cross".

We therefore have a very clear and undeniable anomaly on our hands, since in all other contacts with authoritites of any kind, he gave the answer "Charles Lechmere" to that question. And that is what he should have answered the policeman that took down his details too, and for double reasons:

1. Because that was what he otherwise always did when asked about his identity by the authorities.
2. Because his real name was Charles Lechmere, and obviously the police wants to - and are entitled to - have the real names and identities of the people they deal with.

The circus that has arrived in town in the aftermath of the presentation of these facts may be entertaining to join or watch, but the truth of the matter is that it is dealing in nothing but conjecture, presenting suggestions that are not only totally unsubstantiable but also in direct conflict with the collection of signatures that is undeniably there.

Everybody is entitled to a view, no matter if that view is an intelligible one or if it belongs in la-la-land. But as it stands, let the record show that there is no substantiation at all behind the lofty musings about the carman´s use of the name Cross in combination with the inquest after Polly Nichols being an example of what he normally called himself.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

GUT
I didn't know you worked for the Crown Prosecution Service and are aware of the level of circumstantial evidence required in order to initiate proceedings.
But your assessment is presumably based on not knowing that he was described by Paul as being where the body was before he approached Paul, add you think it is credible to suggest that either Paul or Lechmere (I'm not sure which) stopped to urinate or grab a bite to eat, straight after leaving home and when they both claimed to be late for work

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

Can you tell me the date on the first of the 120 documents you refer to?

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman

Can you tell me the date on the first of the 120 documents you refer to?

No, I can not, since I am not the one who keeps the documents. But there are documents that precede his going to the police if that is what you want to know.

You are free to suggest that any documents from a specific date would have been signed Cross if they existed, if you wish - nothing surprises me any longer.

Myself, I am content to know that no matter what dates there are on these documents, it still applies that as long as they are all signed Lechmere, the only reasonable and factbased conclusion is that we must regard Lechmere as the name he habitually and always used when signing documents.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

No, I can not, since I am not the one who keeps the documents. But there are documents that precede his going to the police if that is what you want to know.

You are free to suggest that any documents from a specific date would have been signed Cross if they existed, if you wish - nothing surprises me any longer.

Myself, I am content to know that no matter what dates there are on these documents, it still applies that as long as they are all signed Lechmere, the only reasonable and factbased conclusion is that we must regard Lechmere as the name he habitually and always used when signing documents.

The best,
Fisherman

Can you tell me who does hold these documents?

[GUT]

GUT
I didn't know you worked for the Crown Prosecution Service and are aware of the level of circumstantial evidence required in order to initiate proceedings.
But your assessment is presumably based on not knowing that he was described by Paul as being where the body was before he approached Paul, add you think it is credible to suggest that either Paul or Lechmere (I'm not sure which) stopped to urinate or grab a bite to eat, straight after leaving home and when they both claimed to be late for work

No I don't work for The Dept of Public Persecutors I work for the other side. Though I have been briefed to appear in prosecutions.

[Fisherman]

Can you tell me who does hold these documents?

Yes, I can - Edward does. But many of them are on display on these very boards, since he has posted them to some extent.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I don't work for The Dept of Public Persecutors...

Persecutors? You could have fooled me ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Yes, I can - Edward does. But many of them are on display on these very boards, since he has posted them to some extent.

The best,
Fisherman

OK thank you for that.

[MrBarnett]

GUT,

The first record will of course be Lechmere's birth certificate, but presumably he had no hand in that. The first as an independent adult would probably have been his marriage cert. dated 3/7/1870. Thereafter, he appears to have only used the name Charles Lechmere.

The reasonable person will ask, what about the intervening period when he began his career at Pickfords, because the use of Cross then would solve the whole blooming mystery. Sadly, as far as I am aware, only 2 records exist from his time as PC Cross's stepson. One is a census return in the name of Cross and the other a belated baptism in the name of Lechmere.

MrB

[Fisherman]

The reasonable person will ask, what about the intervening period when he began his career at Pickfords, because the use of Cross then would solve the whole blooming mystery.
MrB

Actually, it would do no such thing. We would still be faced with the fact that he always signed himself Lechmere whenever in contact with any authority, whereas he suddenly used Cross instead in combination with a murder investigation.

In the years leading up to the murder: Lechmere.

In the years following the murder: Lechmere.

But at that inquest: Cross.

That is the mystery that we need to solve. Some of us, at least.

And that does not go away, no matter what he would have called himself in 1870 (which was Lechmere, according to his marriage certificate, just like you say).

All the best,
Fisherman