Charles Lechmere interesting link

[MrBarnett]

Actually, he used the name Cross twice during the Nichols investigation. Once when he called at the police station and then again at the inquest.

Of course the first instance was a less formal affair and given his connection to Thomas Cross more conducive to the use of the Cross name. Funny how that gets forgotten and we are always presented with him standing in the witness box, hand on bible swearing to a name that wasn't his.

[Fisherman]

What you do not seem to understand, Mr Barnett, is that if you were to find dealings inbetween our carman and any authoritites, dating from his early years at Pickfords and signed Cross, it would actually go to prove my point, not yours.

It would effectively show that he HAD preferred the name Cross at that stage, and that he had signed himself accordingly, whereas he would have decided later on that he no longer wanted to be Charles Cross, instead opting for taking on the identity Charles Lechmere. We would see that he actively chose not to call himself Cross.

What you need is documents signed Charles Cross, derived from the period around 1888. And my guess is that you are not going to find them for the simple reason that they never existed in the first place.

Putting it otherwise: you are fighting a battle you cannot possibly win, since reality is against it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Of course the first instance was a less formal affair

It was just as formal as most of his encounters with the authorities: He was asked to state his name by somebody with a pen in hand, Mr Barnett. And he had had many a day to ponder what he was going to call himself, knowing full well that he would figure in an official hearing ruled by the police.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

And his sister seems to have called herself Lechmere prior to the death of Thomas Cross.
Just a slight correction - I think there are about 110 records not 120, and indeed I very much doubt he had his name on a door label. I haven't previously mentioned this when Fisherman has occasionally mentioned it as it didn't seem an important point - as indeed it isn't.

[MrBarnett]

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

Fish,

Are you saying that if we discovered employment and school records in the name of Charles Cross, you would not consider that an explanation of why he used the name when he reported to the police station?

I'm sure that if the opposite were true, i.e. those records being discovered in the name Lechmere, you would consider it significant.

I hope you haven't completely closed your mind to the possibility of an innocent explanation.

And by the way, I didn't get my wake up call this morning. I was expecting a list of all the 'authorities' who were in regular correspondence with our man, but my postbox is empty!

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

I think it is an important point. You guys are the experts on this man and when one of you tells us he had a postbox with CAL emblazoned on it how are your dear readers to know whether this is an ascertained fact or a bit of spin? Perhaps we could set up a system where such flights of fancy are posted in italics. So if we read 'He wore shirts with a CAL monogram' we would know you are musing aloud and not revealing an ascertained fact.

For all we know, you might have a photo if an avuncular looking ex carman leaning against that very postbox.

But let's forget the box, and concentrate on the statement it dressed up, that CAL received correspondence in that name and that name only. Do you have evidence of that?

[GUT]

Persecutors? You could have fooled me ...!

The best,
Fisherman

What would fool you about the Dept of Public Persecutors>

[Fisherman]

What would fool you about the Dept of Public Persecutors>

Mainly the spelling - I was expecting Prosecutors rather than Persecutors. But I feel more subjected to the latter category.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ed,

I think it is an important point.

I think I already stated that I believed that you did things the way we do them - with a name on the mailbox. Apparently you don´t. End of that story.

If you think such a mistake on my behalf proves Lechmere innocent, you may want to try another approach.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:
Are you saying that if we discovered employment and school records in the name of Charles Cross, you would not consider that an explanation of why he used the name when he reported to the police station?

I am saying that if we have a man who uses a name A during a period of time, and then changes to the name B, we should not expect to see him calling himself A in the B period. If the removes of time are long ones, with no other exceptions involved, it should be regarded as a major anomaly if the name A is used deep into the B name time period.

Not that we HAVE any A period here, but just for the sake of argument.

I'm sure that if the opposite were true, i.e. those records being discovered in the name Lechmere, you would consider it significant.

I would! Absolutely - it would go some way to further fortify that he always called himself Lechmere. If the name Cross was found in that period, it would go to show that he called himself Cross at that stage - but the fact that he calls himself Lechmere afterwards would open up for the possibility that he had taken a dilsiking to the name Cross or a liking to the name Lechmere. And after that, and after having used Lechmere for nigh on two decades, it would be VERY strange if he for just the one murder inqust day returned to a name that he had actively shunned.

It is not rocket science - it is simple logic, bolstered by facts.

I hope you haven't completely closed your mind to the possibility of an innocent explanation.

Not at all - I look at all the arguments that surface, and I try to weigh them as best as I can. Not that it will help me - I am going to be called biased and predecided anyway.

And by the way, I didn't get my wake up call this morning. I was expecting a list of all the 'authorities' who were in regular correspondence with our man, but my postbox is empty!

Maybe you should write your name on it?

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

Mainly the spelling - I was expecting Prosecutors rather than Persecutors. But I feel more subjected to the latter category.

The best,
Fisherman

Most defence barristers call the Persecutors, here at any rate.

[Fisherman]

Most defence barristers call the Persecutors, here at any rate.

Probably just another "mailbox" on my behalf, then, Gut - English is my second language and England is my second cultural sphere, so I´m bound to get it wrong at times. I take comfort in the English-speaking peoples shortcomings when it comes to the Swedish language ...

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

I think I already stated that I believed that you did things the way we do them - with a name on the mailbox. Apparently you don´t. End of that story.

If you think such a mistake on my behalf proves Lechmere innocent, you may want to try another approach.

The best,
Fisherman

Nice editing, Fish.

You leave out the bit where I say the box is irrelevant and ignore my request for a list, or some general idea of who you think was writing to CAL. You seem to have conflated the idea of the '100+ records' with the idea of CALs identity being known by his postman. Not logical at all, I'm afraid. First, very few of the examples of the official use of the name Cross would have entailed postal communication by the authorities to a named recipient. And secondly, the postman's job was to deliver post to an address, not an individual.

All very trivial, I agree, but you raised it. And presumably as some kind of support for your case and not as an interesting snippet of postal history.

Believe it or not, I find CAL a credible subject. There's little or no evidence, of course, but he perfectly fits my imagined profile for Jack. I just get a little irritated when attempts are made to fit too much into the Lechmere pint pot.

Give us the meaty stuff (literally - cat's meat!) not unverifiable trivia.

MrB

[Lechmere]

It's CAL now?
Like PAV?
Or GWTH
Better than CAC.

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Nice editing, Fish.

You leave out the bit where I say the box is irrelevant and ignore my request for a list, or some general idea of who you think was writing to CAL. You seem to have conflated the idea of the '100+ records' with the idea of CALs identity being known by his postman. Not logical at all, I'm afraid.

Editing? I have already said that I obviously got the mailbox thing wrong on account of us doing it differently here in Sweden. My mailbox says Holmgren, my neighbours says Björklund.

I do not know what I am to do to suit you on this errand; go hang myself?

As for what authority mail would have reached Lechmere, I think that whatever I say, you may claim that the Lechmere proposition is one with a barrel full of rotting apples. Sweden is one of the most bureucratized countries in the world, with a very longstanding tradition of authorities demanding all sorts of information through the mail. Perhaps Britain differs in that respect, I can´t tell since I live here, and not there.

I am sure that we can make the mail and mailman business the biggest point in the whole affair, if we put our minds to it. Maybe we can even use it to decide that all those who believe in Lechmere´s guilt are a bunch of habitual liars and deceivers, I don´t know. Much can be built on a single misunderstading, as long as we are willing to make the effort!

Myself, I would have thought that the more important thing is that we may be certain that whatever authority letters arrived in 22 Doveton Street to our carman would have had the name Lechmere written on them. That is what I am discussing.
What you choose to regard as important is your business.

All very trivial, I agree, but you raised it. And presumably as some kind of support for your case and not as an interesting snippet of postal history.

The point, however, is not what it would presumably have said on the mailbox - the point is what it would have said on the letters: Lechmere, as long as they came from any authority.

Believe it or not, I find CAL a credible subject.

I always believe that. Anyone who disagrees with that is way off the mark - the case is a very obvious one. So it´s the ones who claim he is a non-starter and say that no case can be made for him I choose to disbelieve. I find it disingenious to throw something such forward.

There's little or no evidence, of course, but he perfectly fits my imagined profile for Jack.

There is not little or no evidence. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence, much, much more so than for any other suspect.

I just get a little irritated when attempts are made to fit too much into the Lechmere pint pot.

And I get irritated when what there is is not readily recognized.
By the way, acknowledging that he would not have needed to have his name on the mailbod, is not the same as a certainty that it was not there nevertheless. For all we know, he could have had his name painted on his door.
Lechmere, that is - not Cross.

The best,
Fisherman