Lechmere graves and tragedy

[Bridewell]

Assume away, by all means!

I am just saying that I find it impossible myself to speculate what applies.

Except in post #16 of this thread in which you say you "always assumed Lechmere left his money to his wife".

[GUT]

Didn't one of the Lechmere children tell another undertaker he was needed at the funeral?

Columbo

But I think the real undertaker arrived before him.

[Columbo]

The undertaker was questioned severely but, stately positively that there was no funeral when he looked half an hour before.

Didn't one of the Lechmere children tell another undertaker he was needed at the funeral?

Columbo

[drstrange169]

The undertaker was questioned severely but, stately positively that there was no funeral when he looked half an hour before.

[GUT]

We will never know because Mrs Cross said there was another undertaker already there.

But

A. Did he give his real name and

B. Was said undertaker buried with his wife?

[Kattrup]

As I'm going to continue to "assume" This is the simplest and most logical explanation and it also comes from a professional in the field, unlike the second hand explanations and interpretations of others professional opinions that haunt this forum from time to time.

It has been intimated although not said outright that Liz consciously chose not to be buried with Charles because he was a killer. Since there is no concrete evidence (contemporary or otherwise) that Lechmere was a killer there is absolutely no reason to accept this is why she was buried where she was. They had several children and it may very well have been their decision where to bury her.

It is apparent that Miss Marple is correct. Pro-suspect people tend to make ambiguous statements and insinuations, such as the case here, and then when cornered by a question or request they tend to pull out the old standard "We'll never know" or "You can't be sure and shouldn't speculate", when this is what they're doing on other threads to boast their theory.

Hypocrisy is rampant and when you see it in writing, you realize how ridiculous people can be when they don't want to face facts.

Columbo

Completely agree - nice post

[drstrange169]

We will never know because Mrs Cross said there was another undertaker already there.

[Columbo]

I suspect the opening words of the memoriam card issued by the family might help clear up any mystery.

Did they make a second one for Charles Cross?

Columbo

[Pcdunn]

Dr. Strange, thank you for sharing your find of the Lechmere funeral card. It's another piece of evidence to support the idea of Charles as a hard-working family man who raised his family and managed to leave some silver behind, too.

[Columbo]

I suspect the opening words of the memoriam card issued by the family might help clear up any mystery.

Does so for me. Thanks for showing.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

I suspect the opening words of the memoriam card issued by the family might help clear up any mystery.

[Columbo]

Are you a professional police officer or detective? Or if not, what is your profession?

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I'm a Computer Systems Administrator. I specialize in Mac OSX, Windows and Linux Servers.

Jack the Ripper is a very part-time hobby with me as is crime as a whole. I do not claim to be an expert on this subject at all.

Columbo

[GUT]

As I'm going to continue to "assume" This is the simplest and most logical explanation and it also comes from a professional in the field, unlike the second hand explanations and interpretations of others professional opinions that haunt this forum from time to time.

It has been intimated although not said outright that Liz consciously chose not to be buried with Charles because he was a killer. Since there is no concrete evidence (contemporary or otherwise) that Lechmere was a killer there is absolutely no reason to accept this is why she was buried where she was. They had several children and it may very well have been their decision where to bury her.

It is apparent that Miss Marple is correct. Pro-suspect people tend to make ambiguous statements and insinuations, such as the case here, and then when cornered by a question or request they tend to pull out the old standard "We'll never know" or "You can't be sure and shouldn't speculate", when this is what they're doing on other threads to boast their theory.

Hypocrisy is rampant and when you see it in writing, you realize how ridiculous people can be when they don't want to face facts.

Columbo

Yep, plenty of it goes on around here.

[Mayerling]

As I'm going to continue to "assume" This is the simplest and most logical explanation and it also comes from a professional in the field, unlike the second hand explanations and interpretations of others professional opinions that haunt this forum from time to time.

It has been intimated although not said outright that Liz consciously chose not to be buried with Charles because he was a killer. Since there is no concrete evidence (contemporary or otherwise) that Lechmere was a killer there is absolutely no reason to accept this is why she was buried where she was. They had several children and it may very well have been their decision where to bury her.

It is apparent that Miss Marple is correct. Pro-suspect people tend to make ambiguous statements and insinuations, such as the case here, and then when cornered by a question or request they tend to pull out the old standard "We'll never know" or "You can't be sure and shouldn't speculate", when this is what they're doing on other threads to boast their theory.

Hypocrisy is rampant and when you see it in writing, you realize how ridiculous people can be when they don't want to face facts.

Columbo

Are you a professional police officer or detective? Or if not, what is your profession?

Jeff

[Columbo]

It has absolutely no significence. The nature of common graves is that bodies are placed where there is space in a communal grave. If the graves are full they would not be used, twenty years had passed. Also burial in a common grave does not consider relatives. No one is going to search through registers looking for relatives because it has no bearing on the case. The original grave location may have been forgotten to family as there are no markers. There was a war on, more important things to worry about.

Miss Marple

As I'm going to continue to "assume" This is the simplest and most logical explanation and it also comes from a professional in the field, unlike the second hand explanations and interpretations of others professional opinions that haunt this forum from time to time.

It has been intimated although not said outright that Liz consciously chose not to be buried with Charles because he was a killer. Since there is no concrete evidence (contemporary or otherwise) that Lechmere was a killer there is absolutely no reason to accept this is why she was buried where she was. They had several children and it may very well have been their decision where to bury her.

It is apparent that Miss Marple is correct. Pro-suspect people tend to make ambiguous statements and insinuations, such as the case here, and then when cornered by a question or request they tend to pull out the old standard "We'll never know" or "You can't be sure and shouldn't speculate", when this is what they're doing on other threads to boast their theory.

Hypocrisy is rampant and when you see it in writing, you realize how ridiculous people can be when they don't want to face facts.

Columbo