Tweet
Chris
It is the same Sion Square.
The baptism took place after Charles Lechmere's mother had married Thomas Cross, and his real father is acknowledged.
His real father was living in Northamptonshire with a new family.
Monty...
"For him to have appeared at court he must have been summond, which would have been served at his address. Therefore his address would have been known prior to the inquest
A fact which has been overlooked."
I hasn't been overlooked at all.
The presumption has been that he gave his address at the police station when he appeared on the Sunday evening and was immediately summoned to the inquest. There would have been no time to poast a summons as he would have been leaving for work at 3.30 in the morning.
Monty you may have overlooked this...
Post 43 of "Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof?"
"Monty
If as seems most probable Lechmere appeared at a police station on the Sunday evening and appears at the inquest Monday morning, then it makes sense that his summons to attend was given to him in Person. I very much doubt it was posted to him.
But what do you think?"
Also Monty it is not a 'fact' that his address was known prior to the inquest. It is a presumption. We know it was known by the 3rd September, the day of the inquest. That is the only fact of which we can be sure.
In my opinion it is likely that he gave his address when he was at the police station - but it isn't a fact.
It is equally possible that he just turned up at the inquest first thing in the morning and they fitted him into the running order as he was clearly an important witness.
On a different note...
I very much doubt that a witness list was printed and available. It is more probale that a hand written running order was made available to the coroner.
The numerous spelling mistakes with personal names and street addresses tells me that no list was available for general use.
Sally
It is a reasonable assumption that Charles Lechmere didn't give his address as only the Star recorded it.
It is the same Sion Square.
The baptism took place after Charles Lechmere's mother had married Thomas Cross, and his real father is acknowledged.
His real father was living in Northamptonshire with a new family.
Monty...
"For him to have appeared at court he must have been summond, which would have been served at his address. Therefore his address would have been known prior to the inquest
A fact which has been overlooked."
I hasn't been overlooked at all.
The presumption has been that he gave his address at the police station when he appeared on the Sunday evening and was immediately summoned to the inquest. There would have been no time to poast a summons as he would have been leaving for work at 3.30 in the morning.
Monty you may have overlooked this...
Post 43 of "Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof?"
"Monty
If as seems most probable Lechmere appeared at a police station on the Sunday evening and appears at the inquest Monday morning, then it makes sense that his summons to attend was given to him in Person. I very much doubt it was posted to him.
But what do you think?"
Also Monty it is not a 'fact' that his address was known prior to the inquest. It is a presumption. We know it was known by the 3rd September, the day of the inquest. That is the only fact of which we can be sure.
In my opinion it is likely that he gave his address when he was at the police station - but it isn't a fact.
It is equally possible that he just turned up at the inquest first thing in the morning and they fitted him into the running order as he was clearly an important witness.
On a different note...
I very much doubt that a witness list was printed and available. It is more probale that a hand written running order was made available to the coroner.
The numerous spelling mistakes with personal names and street addresses tells me that no list was available for general use.
Sally
It is a reasonable assumption that Charles Lechmere didn't give his address as only the Star recorded it.
Comment