Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

Good morning Lechmere (Ed),

Charles Lechmere discovered the body of Polly Nichols and gave his name as Charles Cross. I suggest he used the name Cross (his stepfather's) because this was the name he was known as at work, at Pickfords. Since he discovered the body on his way walking to work.

But there is another possibility, equally plausible. Charles Lechmere gave the name Charles Cross for the safety, privacy and security of himself and his immediate family. Which makes sense too. Etiher way.

Roy

Actually, Roy, there is a THIRD possibility too, believe it or not! And that one makes perfect sense too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

None of it would be odd, however, if you were known - outside of official documents the police were unlikely to be consulting - by the surname you gave them, at the addresses they asked you to give.

Love,

Caz
X

Aha. But would it not be a bit odd if Lechmere - having been baptized Lechmere, having wed Elizabeth Bostock to the Lechmere name, having his mail delivered to a postbox with the name Lechmere on it, having given his kids the name Lechmere, signing every document we can find with the name Lechmere - was actually instead known as Cross at his home address?

I think that would be decidedly odd.

Are you saying that he kept the name Lechmere since it was the name he was baptized into, and signed official documents with that name so as not to cause any inconvenience with the authorities?
And that he used the name Cross in his day-to-day life, since he actually felt that he was Charles Cross, and had always called himself Charles Cross?

If so, please explain why he told the police authorities that his name was Charles Cross when he told all other authorities that his name was Charles Lechmere.

Many of the signatures we have on him were signed by officials from different authorities who had asked him: State your name, please! whereupon he always, no exceptions found, answered Charles Allen Lechmere.

This time over a police sergeant at a desk will have said: State your name, please!, and he goes Charles Allen Cross...?
After having had two days to think about it?

Why is it that THIS time, and as far as we can tell, this time ONLY, when the authorities push the name button, another name comes out than the one that otherwise always came out?

And how on earth is it that this is not odd?

It´s not only Edward that fails to get this, Caz - I´m equally thick myself.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Why is it that THIS time, and as far as we can tell, this time ONLY, when the authorities push the name button, another name comes out than the one that otherwise always came out?

And how on earth is it that this is not odd?

It´s not only Edward that fails to get this, Caz - I´m equally thick myself.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

It might be odd but that's all it is. I believe he was known as Cross in his circles similar to you being known as Fisherman in 'Ripper' circles.

I believe you've made a case based on a lot of circumstantial evidence that might support he is hiding something based on his words and actions. However, there are many explanations and each one would be a guess based on lack of evidence. You choose to believe he is a serial murderer, I believe there is probably a less vicious explanation.

Cheers
DRoy

[Mr Lucky]

Good morning Lechmere (Ed),

Charles Lechmere discovered the body of Polly Nichols and gave his name as Charles Cross. I suggest he used the name Cross (his stepfather's) because this was the name he was known as at work, at Pickfords. Since he discovered the body on his way walking to work.

But there is another possibility, equally plausible. Charles Lechmere gave the name Charles Cross for the safety, privacy and security of himself and his immediate family. Which makes sense too. Etiher way.

Consider this in context -

Hi Roy

Context! what a lovely idea! How about the very real context that Cross was giving evidence in court.

In which case, if what you claim is true, "I suggest he used the name Cross (his stepfather's) because this was the name he was known as at work" perhaps you could provide some precedence for this.

Can you find an example for us ? - Where someone on the way to work, which inherently involved some kind of change of identity, an actor appearing on stage for example, gives evidence not under their usual legal identity but as the name they use at work. Something like this would do -

COURT : I'm sorry Mr Gielgud, As you were on you way to work you'll have to go down on record as Widow Twanky....

Good luck with it.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

It might be odd but that's all it is. I believe he was known as Cross in his circles similar to you being known as Fisherman in 'Ripper' circles.

I believe you've made a case based on a lot of circumstantial evidence that might support he is hiding something based on his words and actions. However, there are many explanations and each one would be a guess based on lack of evidence. You choose to believe he is a serial murderer, I believe there is probably a less vicious explanation.

Cheers
DRoy

I´m afraid that it goes beyond a mere "might be odd", Roy. It IS decidedly odd.

It MAY have an innocent explanation - but that does not mean that it is perhaps not odd. It remains odd just the same.

You are welcome to believe that there may be "a less vicious explanation" as you put it. And I agree, since my case cannot be proven per se - there MAY be.
But we´re not talking about just the one explanation if this applies - we are talking about a score of them.

In the end, when item after item tallies with that vicious scenario, sooner or later you must accept the cold facts. After all, we are talking about a man who was found alone by a Ripper victim, who gave the wrong name to the police, who seemingly omitted mentioning his address at the inquest, who had a working trail that reasonably would take him past the murder sites at the approximate hours of the murders, who had a strong connection to and reason to be at the Stride and Eddowes sites and who seemingly lied to get past the police.

All innocent? Your choice.

A red hot Ripper suspect and realistically the killer of Polly Nichols? My choice.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

After all, we are talking about a man who was found alone by a Ripper victim, who gave the wrong name to the police,

Fish,

Someone had to find her. He either was either known as Cross regardless how he signs official papers or he gave that name for a different reason.

who seemingly omitted mentioning his address at the inquest

Seemingly doesn't cut it Fish. That's guesswork

who had a working trail that reasonably would take him past the murder sites at the approximate hours of the murders

"reasonably" and "approximate" are two words that leave quite a bit to the imagination to fill.

who had a strong connection to and reason to be at the Stride and Eddowes sites

So did many others. There is no proof he was at either place however.

and who seemingly lied to get past the police.

"Seemingly" is another vague word meaning no evidence.

What we have is someone who lived at one end not too far from a couple of murder sites who had to "approximately" pass some of the other murder sites on his way to work at a "reasonably" approximate time of some of the murders who called himself a name that didn't match the name he signed in official papers and he found one of the victims.

Now seriously ask yourself...if he was having an affair or was up to no good in any sort of capacity, would Lechmere still have to walk to work at the same times, pass the same places, etc? Would he still want to keep things away from his family, friends, co-workers, and even the police... hence he quickly tried to save his reputation by using the name Cross?

How is that not just as possible (or 'probable') as him being a serial murderer? There is as much evidence in my scenario as yours.

Cheers
DRoy

[Lechmere]

Caz
If your tortured logic were applied across the board them no one would tell a lie in case they were caught out and no one would commit a crime in case they were discovered and punished. But you know what they do.
People take risks if they think it is worthwhile. Hell, some people just like taking risks.
Sometimes taking a risk unexpectedly leads to other potentially compromising situations.

[Fisherman]

DRoy: Fish,

Someone had to find her.

And somebody had to be her killer.

He either was either known as Cross regardless how he signs official papers or he gave that name for a different reason.

What different reason would that be?

Seemingly doesn't cut it Fish. That's guesswork

Is it? Do we have all papers mentioning his address? Or do we have just the one? What do YOU conclude from this, Roy - one hearing journalist and twenty deaf ones? Beware, though - whatever you conclude will be guesswork.

"reasonably" and "approximate" are two words that leave quite a bit to the imagination to fill.

Yes, and look how that imagination works...!

So did many others. There is no proof he was at either place however.

Nope - just a very good reason.

"Seemingly" is another vague word meaning no evidence.

Or meaning strong circumstantial evidence.

What we have is someone who lived at one end not too far from a couple of murder sites who had to "approximately" pass some of the other murder sites on his way to work at a "reasonably" approximate time of some of the murders who called himself a name that didn't match the name he signed in official papers and he found one of the victims.

Eh - no.

What we have is someone who lived at one end not too far from any of the murder sites and who had to approximately pass some of these other murder sites on his way to work at the approximate time of some of the murders, and who called himself a name that didn't match the name he signed in official papers and who claimed to have found one of the victims - without substantiation.

Now seriously ask yourself...if he was having an affair or was up to no good in any sort of capacity, would Lechmere still have to walk to work at the same times, pass the same places, etc? Would he still want to keep things away from his family, friends, co-workers, and even the police... hence he quickly tried to save his reputation by using the name Cross?

I think you are the one having an affair, Roy - and your chosen mistress is no good.

How is that not just as possible (or 'probable') as him being a serial murderer?

Well, to begin with, he was found by a victim and not a mistress... plus I don´t care much for any explanations that have no evidence at all behind them. He could have been on his way to try and get elected king of Tonga, and that´s why he lied to Mizen.

In the end, what you need to do is not to produce alternatives, one more odd than the other. You need to break a link in the chain that points to Lechmere as the killer. And that, my friend, you cannot do.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Fish,

You're hilarious and I mean that honestly!

plus I don´t care much for any explanations that have no evidence at all behind them. He could have been on his way to try and get elected king of Tonga, and that´s why he lied to Mizen.

At least you are admitting to being ignorant by ignoring other possibilities. That's a start. You have no evidence, my theory had no evidence, and neither does your latest theory involving elections in Tonga. An even field I'd say.

You need to break a link in the chain that points to Lechmere as the killer. And that, my friend, you cannot do.

What link??? Okay fine, I know what you meant.
Do you mean besides what everyone else have already presented but is being ignored? If you're talking actual evidence we both know it likely isn't going to happen (ironically for the same reason your theory is still alive...no evidence to the contrary). Not that I have any faith you'd consider anything presented but okay, i'll bite.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy:
At least you are admitting to being ignorant by ignoring other possibilities.

If you feel a need to call me ignorant, you are going to need a lot better excuses. I do not ignore other possibilitites - if I had, I would have said that there can be no doubt that Charles Lechmere was the killer, and that we did not need to look at other possibilitites.

But I don´t, do I?

What I do is to look at all other suggested possibilities, and then I find that none of them has as much going for them as the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer.

What is it that you expect/hope/speculate I would do? Say that "Yeah, you´re right - he probably was known as Cross to all and sundry, and they must have been really perplexed to find out that he was really named Lechmere"?

Is that it? Should I endorse a dumb suggestion to please people?

There are, Roy, those who actually say that no case (!) can be made for Lechmere as the killer. That in itself is a lot more interesting than my statement that I´ve already seen too many suggested alternative scenarios to much enjoy one more. Especially not if it is totally unsupported by any form of evidence at all.

I trust you can see the difference. If not, please let me know. I am a very patient man.

That's a start. You have no evidence, my theory had no evidence, and neither does your latest theory involving elections in Tonga. An even field I'd say.

Now, there´s TRUE ignorance!

What link??? Okay fine, I know what you meant.
Do you mean besides what everyone else have already presented but is being ignored?

No, I do not mean all unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable "suggestions". I mean real, solid evidence that can take Lechmere out of the picture or statistical material telling us that most people swop names when going to the police, that most innocent men disagree over what has transpired with the police, that most killers who leave their victims on display will save just the one victim for hiding the damages and so on.
Otherwise, I may start believing that I´ve got the much better case.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

I trust you can see the difference. If not, please let me know. I am a very patient man.

Fish,

I might dispute certain things but I am also one who has given both you and Lech (the poster) props for your researching of this topic and for all the information you've provided on Lechmere. Not to mention I've also supported you both on your theory because it is better than most, I understand the efforts put forth, and believe there is something "odd" about the whole thing. I'm not convinced he's the killer at all, but commend you both for your work. I hope that doesn't try your patience?

To clarify 'ignorant', I specifically meant in regards to choosing evidence, possibilities, and suppositions that fit your theory only and ignoring others (like my example) that have just as much going for it. No offense meant.

I know you are looking for evidence to disprove your theory, not suggestions. However, it is difficult because what I see as suggestions in your theory, you treat those things as support for your theory because you see it as more evidence. I'll see what I can come up with.

Cheers
DRoy

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Roy

Context! what a lovely idea! How about the very real context that Cross was giving evidence in court.

In which case, if what you claim is true, "I suggest he used the name Cross (his stepfather's) because this was the name he was known as at work" perhaps you could provide some precedence for this.

Can you find an example for us ? - Where someone on the way to work, which inherently involved some kind of change of identity, an actor appearing on stage for example, gives evidence not under their usual legal identity but as the name they use at work. Something like this would do -

COURT : I'm sorry Mr Gielgud, As you were on you way to work you'll have to go down on record as Widow Twanky....

Good luck with it.

Good evening Mr, Lucky,

Yes I gave my possible scenarios, two of them, for Charles Lechmere using the name Cross, either one satisfying me. If it doesn't satisfy you that's fine, too.

In which case, if what you claim is true, "I suggest he used the name Cross (his stepfather's) because this was the name he was known as at work" perhaps you could provide some precedence for this.

Can you find an example for us ? - Where someone on the way to work, which inherently involved some kind of change of identity ...

No I don't have a single example for you except Lechmere/Cross, which is what we're discussing, so happily I don't feel the need to go finding one. I read Fish's article in Rip, I've been following the Lechmere threads, I assume you have also. Ed, who is a very sharp researcher by the way, has been asked the question, oh maybe a dozen times at least -"Was Lechmere listed on the employment records at Pickfords, or perhaps as Cross?" to which he has patiently answered that, no, those records no longer exist.

Context! what a lovely idea! How about the very real context that Cross was giving evidence in court.

Yes I like context too. But I notice you decontextualized my post. You left out the context I gave- the notoriety of the crime, causing the citizens of the entire street of Buck's Row to get the name changed, which was successful. Actually Charles Lecmere may have been ahead of the curve in trying to disassociate himself with this whole business. Yes he did his duty and went to the inquest, but he didn't want to. He didn't really want to have to walk down Buck's Row in the wee hours of the morning. And he certainly didn't want to find the body of a woman there. How spooky is that? But he had no choice. As far as I can tell, from his home on a street in Bethnal Green, to get to his workplace in the City of London, he had to somehow get around this giant coal depot sitting directly astride his route. To the south is Buck's Row, Old Montague, sort of a dicey area. Maybe the northern route appealed to him even less. But there he was.

If you wanted to have a conversation about the legal aspects of coroner's inquest, well yes it is a fascinating subject, but in this case, the horse has left the barn. Charles Cross has come and went.

Roy

[drstrange169]

Whenever the tricky trio of Mizen, Paul and "Crossmere" crop up, I always re-check the actual evidence.


The first the world hears of Mizen is PC Neil's evidence at the inquest,

" … seeing another constable pass along Baker's row..." (Echo)

Fact: This is the first of a series of discrepancies in Mizen's reported inquest testimony.

Question: If Mizen arrived uncalled, why didn't Neil ask why he was there?

Question: Even if Neil didn't ask that, rule 101 in any police inquiry, is ask, "Did you pass anyone on your way here?"



Next press mention of Mizen was on the Sunday morning, when Paul accused him of dereliction of duty,

"(Mizen) was going around calling people up ... I asked him to come, but he would not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling people up," (Lloyds Weekly)

Paul went on,

"... which I thought was a great shame after I had told him the woman was dead."

At the inquest Mizen claimed,

"Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder being committed." (Times)



Next and most crucial mention of Mizen, is in a police "statement" on the Sunday evening,

"It is not true,says Constable Neil ... that he was called to the body by two men. ... he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These constables had seen no men leaving the spot" (Manchester Guardian)

Other reports phrased it slightly differently,

"... no one leaving the spot to attract attention"

Neil claims Mizen was called and did not just arrive.

Fact: When the police were adamantly denying Paul's story about finding the body first, Mizen didn't confirm the story, despite Paul giving Mizen's exact position and what he was doing.


So, aside from any "Crossmere" involvement, Mizen's actions are something it is legitimate to question.


Fact: At the Inquest, Mizen gives, inaccurate evidence. He fails to mention Paul, who was, after all, the cause of police press denial, until the coroner specifically asks him.

Question: Could Mizen have really unaware that Paul had publicly called his credibility in to question?

Question:Could Mizen have really not been aware the police were denying the presence of two men at the crime scene?

Question:Why did he not mention there were two men until pressed.

Fact: Two men leaving a crime scene is significant information by anybody's reasoning, even if they are innocent.

Fact: Delibarately or accidentally, Mizen was creating a false picture of the events that actually happened.


Paul and "Crossmere"'s evidence essentially tallys. Mizen's, at best, is incomplete, confusing, disputable and seemly at odds with three other witnesses, namely Neil, Paul and "Crossmere".

Those are the facts as we know them. Certainly, spin can be put on them, but it is important to acknowledge that it is just that, spin.

[Abby Normal]

Whenever the tricky trio of Mizen, Paul and "Crossmere" crop up, I always re-check the actual evidence.


The first the world hears of Mizen is PC Neil's evidence at the inquest,

" … seeing another constable pass along Baker's row..." (Echo)

Fact: This is the first of a series of discrepancies in Mizen's reported inquest testimony.

Question: If Mizen arrived uncalled, why didn't Neil ask why he was there?

Question: Even if Neil didn't ask that, rule 101 in any police inquiry, is ask, "Did you pass anyone on your way here?"



Next press mention of Mizen was on the Sunday morning, when Paul accused him of dereliction of duty,

"(Mizen) was going around calling people up ... I asked him to come, but he would not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling people up," (Lloyds Weekly)

Paul went on,

"... which I thought was a great shame after I had told him the woman was dead."

At the inquest Mizen claimed,

"Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder being committed." (Times)



Next and most crucial mention of Mizen, is in a police "statement" on the Sunday evening,

"It is not true,says Constable Neil ... that he was called to the body by two men. ... he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These constables had seen no men leaving the spot" (Manchester Guardian)

Other reports phrased it slightly differently,

"... no one leaving the spot to attract attention"

Neil claims Mizen was called and did not just arrive.

Fact: When the police were adamantly denying Paul's story about finding the body first, Mizen didn't confirm the story, despite Paul giving Mizen's exact position and what he was doing.


So, aside from any "Crossmere" involvement, Mizen's actions are something it is legitimate to question.


Fact: At the Inquest, Mizen gives, inaccurate evidence. He fails to mention Paul, who was, after all, the cause of police press denial, until the coroner specifically asks him.

Question: Could Mizen have really unaware that Paul had publicly called his credibility in to question?

Question:Could Mizen have really not been aware the police were denying the presence of two men at the crime scene?

Question:Why did he not mention there were two men until pressed.

Fact: Two men leaving a crime scene is significant information by anybody's reasoning, even if they are innocent.

Fact: Delibarately or accidentally, Mizen was creating a false picture of the events that actually happened.


Paul and "Crossmere"'s evidence essentially tallys. Mizen's, at best, is incomplete, confusing, disputable and seemly at odds with three other witnesses, namely Neil, Paul and "Crossmere".

Those are the facts as we know them. Certainly, spin can be put on them, but it is important to acknowledge that it is just that, spin.

oh quit beating around the bush-Mizen was the ripper!!

[Lechmere]

Dr Strange

You are quite correct to point out that Neil assumed he called for Mizen’s assistance after noticing him on his beat on Baker’s Row (now Valance Road).

However you cannot see Baker’s Row from anywhere in the vicinity of Brown’s Stable Yard as the length of Buck’s Row - White’s Row (now Durward Street) has a kink in it.
In one’s mind – and probably Neil’s mind – it is straight. But it isn’t.
So Neil was wrong.

Mizen must have been some way down Buck’s Row – certainly past Thomas Street - before he was noticed and Neil signed him.
Neil wrongly presumed that was what attracted Mizen.

Mizen was more or less immediately sent for the ambulance (hand cart) at Bethnal Green Police station. It is clear that Mizen did not mention the two men he had just seen to Neil in the short time they were together.

Why?
If Mizen believed that he had been told that there was woman down and he was wanted by a policeman then his actions are understandable.
Otherwise his actions are those of a wrong ‘un already more intent on covering up his negligence than doing his duty.

Mizen’s round trip to Bethnal Green Police Station must have taken at the very least 20 minutes. Probably more like half an hour.
When he got back to Buck’s Row Llewellyn had already pronounced the victim dead. She was quickly put on the ambulance and taken to the mortuary. A crowd was already gathering and other officers were present.

While this was going on there would have been little time for Mizen and Neil to compare notes – and neither would have seen the need.
Unless that is Mizen was a wrong ‘un and he deliberately kept schtum.

After the hullabaloo they again had no opportunity to gossip and discuss the opening events as by a quirk of fate they were from different Police Divisions and based at different Police Stations. This was I think critical in facilitating the misunderstanding about the discovery of Nichols until Lechmere turned up.

Then we have the Paul press story – which was in a Sunday evening paper (not morning). This was partially a work of fiction by Paul but also partly accurate.
Other wild stories had already appeared in the press which carried the potential of distracting the police investigation.

For example the Saturday edition of the Echo reported that a man named Marshal who ran a coffee stall on the corner of Cambridge Heath Road and Whitechapel Road (near the Blind Beggar) claimed that a woman he thought might be Nichols had bought tea from his stall while arguing with another man.
The same paper reported that a Mrs Colwell, who lived in Brady Street close to its junction with Buck’s Row, claimed that she had heard the iconic scream ‘Murder, Police’, which disappeared into the direction of Buck’s Row.
And to muddy things still further the Echo claimed there was a trail of blood leading from Brady Street to Brown’s Stable Yard.

It was in the context of the press attempting to set the police’s investigatory agenda that Paul’s story appeared.
In those circumstances it is hardly surprising that Paul’s story was dismissed in the police ‘press conference’ or statement that was issued later on the Sunday evening.

The officers at either end of Buck’s Row – Thain at the Brady Street end and Mize at the Baker’s Row end - were reported as saying they:
‘…had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention.’
Not no one leaving, just no one leaving to attract attention.

In other words the two carmen had not attracted Mizen’s attention much. They were part of the woodwork. They were not worth highlighting as in Mizen’s eyes they had been sent by Neil.
Or of course you may prefer that Mizen was a wrong ‘un and he was covering up his mistake and malignantly derailing the investigation to save his own worthless skin.

The next day the inquest resumed.
Mizen clearly stated that Lechmere (in the guise of Cross) was the only one who spoke to him.
It is also clear that Mizen only mentioned that another person was there when prompted by the coroner.
But the coroner only knew to ask that question because he would have had Mizen’s written report in front of him. So it isn’t credible to suggest that Mizen didn’t mention Paul’s presence for any nefarious reason.
This is important to understand.
Mizen's written report - which would have been in front of the coroner - must have mentioned that two carmen came up to him, with one stating that he was wanted in Buck's Row by a policeman because a woman was lying there.

It seems obvious that Mizen must have been aware of the Paul newspaper story as his inquest testimony was almost exclusively in response to it. His testimony began with Lechmere coming up to him.
When Mizen became aware of the Paul story is not clear.

Was Mizen consulted about the statement that had been issued by the police the night before?
I suspect not. Mizen was from a different Division and it seems the police assumed that Paul meant he had spoken to Neil, not Mizen.

Paul’s testimony tallied with Lechmere’s. His newspaper interview did not.