What did a carman look like?

[Shaggyrand]

That style was used by a bunch of other countries' navy, the Russians wore it since 1811 and by 1888 a ton of Eastern European countries had adopted it, so you can find tons of pictures of them being worn during the time period. It still wasn't at all commonly used in England, so if it was that style, wouldn't they have mentioned it was the type not worn by the English? Instead its a far more general description, so it would be a hat that the English would be wearing. Unless it was the knit style cap, which has been long used by almost every kind of sailor.
That's just how it seems to me, less likely to be that kind of brimless cap.

[MrBarnett]

Officers of the Discovery, 1901:

[Fisherman]

Also the only photo of Xmere available to us, shows him sporting a full hipster beard.

If that beard was a lifetime one like mine, he may well have had it in 1888. That would definitely distance him from witness reports.

What an excellent point! One of the best you have made so far, I believe. Why would he NOT have worn the beard 24 years before the pic was taken? I canīt think of any reason.

Can you?

[Fisherman]

I would tend to agree, although whether or not they would wear the apron may be debatable. More likely you would "hang it up" at the end of the day? I do wonder why Cross, when he turned up at the inquest, would not have turned out more "presentable". Until recent times I believe it was the "right thing" to do to turn up in your Sunday best to Court was it not ie dust off the old suit and tie?

It was. And the Lechmereīs were not very poor, going by the pictures of their children, who were nicely dressed.

You may have noticed that the Lechmere theory involves the presumption that the carman was hiding his involvement in the Nichols case from his family and aquaintances. Therefore, we think it is a viable suggestion that he put on his working clothes in order to hide from his family that he was on his way to the murder inquest.

[Billiou]

It was. And the Lechmereīs were not very poor, going by the pictures of their children, who were nicely dressed.

You may have noticed that the Lechmere theory involves the presumption that the carman was hiding his involvement in the Nichols case from his family and aquaintances. Therefore, we think it is a viable suggestion that he put on his working clothes in order to hide from his family that he was on his way to the murder inquest.

So you think his normal routine have been wearing the apron on his way to work?

[Errata]

So you think his normal routine have been wearing the apron on his way to work?

Isn't that the norm? Don't most people put on their work clothes at home unless they keep their work clothes at work? Which a carman wouldn't because someone has to wash the apron, and it's not going to be his employer.

[Rosella]

Trades like carpenters often wore specialised work gear in the 19th century, which they would have worn going to and from work. Working class people in general had so few clothes then that items like an apron would have distinguished them from others.

[drstrange169]

Hello Billiou,

>>More likely you would "hang it up" at the end of the day?<<

Not in Xmere's case,

" ... Cross ... came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron"

In other words, we know he wore his apron outside of his work hours.


>>I do wonder why Cross, when he turned up at the inquest, would not have turned out more "presentable". <<

The most obvious answer is often the right one, because he came straight from work.

[drstrange169]

>>Why would he NOT have worn the beard 24 years before the pic was taken? I canīt think of any reason. Can you?<<

Far too cryptic for my poor simple mind, Fish.

[drstrange169]

>> ... we think it is a viable suggestion that he put on his working clothes in order to hide from his family that he was on his way to the murder inquest.<<

Which beggars the question, what did he do for the 5 to 7 hours before the inquest started, how did explain, despite returning home later than usual, his pay packet was significantly lighter that week?

How many days did he attend the inquest? We know from Paul that witnesses were required to attend more than just the day they gave evidence on.

It would be a very convoluted and complicated lie. A far more realistic answer is that he came straight from work to the inquest. Money was a matter of survival to these people.

[Billiou]

>> ... we think it is a viable suggestion that he put on his working clothes in order to hide from his family that he was on his way to the murder inquest.<<

Which beggars the question, what did he do for the 5 to 7 hours before the inquest started, how did explain, despite returning home later than usual, his pay packet was significantly lighter that week?

How many days did he attend the inquest? We know from Paul that witnesses were required to attend more than just the day they gave evidence on.

Cross attended for one day, as far as we know. BTW Paul is recorded as giving a statement on the third day of the Inquest but he complained that he had been summoned for two. Do we assume he attended on the second day (Monday 3rd) but was not called upon that day? Or was he already in "police custody" from the night before?

It would be a very convoluted and complicated lie. A far more realistic answer is that he came straight from work to the inquest. Money was a matter of survival to these people.

I thought too Cross may have come to the inquest straight from work that morning. The Inquest resumed at 10.00am Monday morning, so it would make sense to go to work then go to the inquest whatever time the summons was for. There would be no need to go all the way home, get changed, then go back to the Institute. And his statement was finished by lunchtime.

But how will we really know? He's not around to ask!

[drstrange169]

"But how will we really know? He's not around to ask!"

... and that sums up the whole case and the nature of the attraction that pulls us all here;-)

[Fisherman]

So you think his normal routine have been wearing the apron on his way to work?

It is the best suggestion, yes. Maybe it would be easier to carry it in your hand if it was awkward to walk with, I donīt know. But his wearing it would be the number one guess.

[Fisherman]

>>Why would he NOT have worn the beard 24 years before the pic was taken? I canīt think of any reason. Can you?<<

Far too cryptic for my poor simple mind, Fish.

You should not be too hard on yourself, Dusty - for as long as Iīve known you, you have never been at a loss to produce new takes on things.

[Fisherman]

[/I]In other words, we know he wore his apron outside of his work hours[I][B].

Nope - we only know that it seems so, and that owes to how he wore it in court. But strictly speaking that only proves he wore it in court.

Donīt misunderstand me - my guess is that he wore it in his everyday work and going to and fro that work. But certain, I cannot be.