The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[drstrange169]

>>With professional witnesses, I mean people working for the society, and not people employed by private employers.<<

Which, of course would rule out Thomas Ede, as he worked for the "privately" owned East london Railway Company.

>>Interestingly, with that distinction, my reasoning does not fall down.<<

As just shown, it not only falls down it gets run over by a passing train.

It seems almost everything you've posted in this thread has been disproven by the available evidence.

This is the importance of actually doing some research.

>>That is the litmus paper to go by, if you are discerning enough to care about the details.<<

I agree that's how I knew the East London Railway Company was "privately" owned and you didn't.

Umm ... now what exactly was it Ludwig Mies van der Rohe said:-)

[drstrange169]

Hello Abby Normal,

>>Would have it been possible for lech to ask the coroner, or some other quest official, before he gave his statement, if he could leave out his address over concern for his family? Perhaps he gave it privately to the court?<<

In which case it would presumably be privileged information and not available to the Star reporter, otherwise it's pointless.

[drstrange169]

Hell Abby,


>>He WAS close to the body. <<

Define "close"? Just how close is close to be guitly? We know in Christer's TV show he was depicted as leaning over the body when Paul arrived.

>>He was found by another witness, before alerting anyone.<<

Altering who to what?

>>I think it, if not sinister, again is just another of a long list of things that make you go hmmmmmmm with lech.<<

And there's the rub, there is no evidence of anything remotely sinister, just pre-judgmental implications, without any actual supporting evidence.


__________________

[drstrange169]

Hello Roy,

>>In LechWorld only Robert Paul can "find" someone. Lechmere cannot "find" anyone, only kill.<<

Bingo!

[drstrange169]

Was any other witness seen by another witness near a victim before they raised any alarm? I mean what are the chances that one witness just happens to come upon another witness at exactly the moment that witness found the body but before he goes to seek help or raises the alarm?

If you are talking about the C5, every other witness saw a mutilated body and naturally raised the alarm.

Buck's Row is COMPLETELY different, as Xmere claimed he didn't know she had been murdered, Paul claimed he didn't know she had been murdered and even the medical expert didn't know she had been mutilated.

What was Xmere meant to have done? Knocked on all the doors screaming, "Hey, come quick, there is a tarpaulin on the side of the road?

Even when he realised it was person, if everybody in the East End of London screamed every time they saw somebody sleeping rough, nobody would get a good nights sleep ever. Even in 2017.



>>Especially since bucks row was one of, if not the most, deserted sites at that time. Dutfields yard, hanbury street back yard, mitre square, millers court are literally crawling with potential witnesses. You would think that this oddity would have happened at one of these locations, but it just happened to happen in the loneliest location. One in which neither man had seen or heard each other on there walk when one would expect they might? But meet just at that moment.
Just seems a little odd to me.<<

In which case you should think it "odd" that xmere would kill the rest in such busy locations.

[drstrange169]

So to sum up so far, it has been shown with contemporary examples that there was nothing unusual or suspicious about having another name in a court or inquest.

It has been shown that newspapers did regularly leave out witnesses addresses from their reports even though they did in fact give them in the court.

Witnesses like Thomas Ede were not exempt from giving addresses because they were "professionals" as defined by Christer.

No reasonable reason has been given as to why xmere would need to hide his identity or how he could have succeeded in doing so with his deposition and testimony.

The police had enough information to check him out.

Pickfords had enough information to identify him.

His family had enough information to identify him.

This IS all something that can be concluded by the information available.

All else requires leaps of faith so where, exactly, is the problem?.

[Sam Flynn]

I somewhat disagree. I think the language is pretty neutral and accurate.
He WAS close to the body.

Well, according to Paul, Cross was standing in the road. To that extent, allowing for poor visibility and considering the lighting conditions, he was arguably only a few feet closer to the body than Paul was when the latter entered Buck's Row. If we're not careful with our language, the impression might be taken that Cross was only inches away from the body, when - by a strict reading of the evidence - he apparently was not.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In answer to your post 433.What needs to be proven.You often claim you have found the killer.That Cross is the best suspect.He was never a police suspect,so what your ramblings are about that I don't know.
In an earlier post(finaly) you claimed there was no proofs,that your case would not stand up in court.Why not? What proofs were you referring to?Enlighten us.
You do not know what I think.I do not think you should leave the boards.Your presence is welcome,your attempts to prove Cross a killer,highly amusing.Stay on,I need a good laugh now and again.
George Hutchinson? He was probably the fellow in the shadows,leaving as Cross approached?

[Barnaby]

Well, according to Paul, Cross was standing in the road. To that extent, allowing for poor visibility and considering the lighting conditions, he was arguably only a few feet closer to the body than Paul was when the latter entered Buck's Row. If we're not careful with our language, the impression might be taken that Cross was only inches away from the body, when - by a strict reading of the evidence - he apparently was not.

According to Cross's testimony, he got close enough to see her face. Then, he heard Paul coming from approximately 40 yards away. So I fail to see how he was arguably only a few feet closer to the body when Paul entered Buck's Row. Also, my read of Paul's testimony is that Cross was in the middle of the road, Paul tried to go around him, and Cross motioned across the street to the body. Not down the street a good bit. So Cross was near the body before Paul and remained there until Paul got there.

[drstrange169]

Hello Barnaby,

>>According to Cross's testimony, he got close enough to see her face. <<

I've read Xmere's testimony many, many, times and I've never come across one where he claimed he saw her face, could you tell us where that was written?


>>Then, he heard Paul coming from approximately 40 yards away. So I fail to see how he was arguably only a few feet closer to the body when Paul entered Buck's Row. <<


If Paul was 40 yards away he must have been in the street when Xmere first saw the body. Xmere said he was at the Wool Warehouse when he saw the body, that's 4 houses away from where Mrs Nichols lay.

[Fisherman]

There's the problem right there. The idea that Lechmere was the only witness who was not required to state or confirm his address! i.e. that he was allowed not to do it.

His written deposition was being taken at the same time as he was giving his oral evidence so of course that detail would not have been omitted.

From the fact that only one newspaper reported his address you've built up a whole fantasy about what happened in court despite the fact that variations of personal witness details across all the newspapers are clear for everyone to see.

It's a non-runner. There could not possibly have been a 'gamble' by Lechmere. He simply must have confirmed his name and address for the inquest but whether the reporters all heard it properly is another matter.

So I'm suggesting that all we probably have here is an issue with acoustics, the Star reporter having correctly heard his address, although possibly not his full name hence the reference in the Star to "Carman Cross" (thus strongly suggesting that the reporter did not get his details from a clerk).

To begin with, the "of course" you suggest does not exist.

What exists is an "of course one would have expected Lechmere to have been asked about his address and to have given it".

The outcome is not in accordance with your suggestion, Iīm afraid.

However, you DO suggest that there was a problem with accoustics, and that is - of course - a possibility.

But there is also Eade to consider, if he was not regarded as a proffesional witness. If this was so, then why did these two witnesses live in another accoustic reality than the other unproffesional witnesses?

I find there is every reason to believe that Eade gave no address. And if he DID give an address, then why did the reporters not take it down? Was it because he was regarded a civil servant?

There is another question to answer too - if there was an accoustic problem in combination with Lechmere giving his address, then why is it that this accosustic problem went away when he stated his name and gave his versions of the events?

It seems very odd, does it not?

Of course, you could be saying that it was not an accoustic problem as such at all, but instead a question of Lechmere whispering/mumblig/distorting when he stated his addresses - in which case it would support the idea that he wanted to keep the address from the papers.

But why did the coroner not encourage him to speak up in such a case?

These are all points that challenge the "of course" you suggest. To me, that "of course" is off course.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman always oversells the fact that Lechmere was at the crime scene, as opposed to any other named suspect who could feasibly have been there. How many serial killers are actually found with the murder victim that aren't caught?

Why would anybody catch a murder victim?

Just pulling your leg, Harry.

You do realize that the question you ask is unanswerable, donīt you? Any wish to claim it canīt happen goes down the drain, Iīm afraid.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, and don't forget that, in LechWorld, it's perfectly permissible for Lechmere to be "found". Subconsciously, or even consciously, there's only a small step between being "found" to being "caught", and even being "found" can easily be taken to imply being "found out". We have to choose our words very carefully, or we might end up misleading ourselves.

Indeed, Gareth. Thatīs why "found" and not "caught" is what I use. The word "find" is not loaded in a negative way, other than in your fantasy.

You need to take it one step further:

Is it damning to be caught with a victim? Yes.

Is it damning to be found by a victims side? No.

You are all very quick to point out that there is nothing at all sinister in finding a murder victim. I fully agree.

But if you do it alone, and stay by the side of the victim, then - innocent though you are - you WILL sooner or later be found by the victims side.

Itīs not as if the finding goes away for reasons of respect, is it? It is there, and it is completely innocent if you did not do the deed.

There is, I find, a phobia involved in all of this. People will not touch any wording that they themselves have the capacity to interpret into a sinister thing.

How about how Lechmere was in Bucks Row when Paul arrived? Is that not potentially damning? Maybe we should just say that he was in Whitechapel, when Paul saw him?

[Fisherman]

It certainly was quiet, albeit not entirely deserted. We know of two - even three - policemen who either passed down Bucks Row or the adjoining streets, and at least two "commuters" (Cross and Paul) who passed through; there may have been others about whom we'll never know.

Still, as you suggest, it was probably one of the quietest sites, although arguably not as much as Mitre Square.

Why do you reason that there may have been other people in Bucks Row that we donīt know of? Why donīt you do the same in the Mitre Square case?

Are you trying to establish that Bucks Row was traversed by some people while Mitre Square was not? There were policemen in the square too, and in adjoining streets.

The simple truth is that what was said about Bucks Row was that there was not a soul to see in the surroundings, but for the PC:s and the two carmen. The only exception was two working men in Brady Street, mentioned by Thain. And they are trumped by THREE jews and a man talking to a woman up at the passage into Mitre Square.

[Fisherman]

Nothing surer to get the one asking the questions, and the judge (or coroner) asking and asking and asking again, than failing to answer a question. Guarantee you if he skipped one of the parts there'd have been a supplementary question.

And some as that as one question, many make it three seperate questions.

Please tell the Court you name

Your address

Your occupation.

I think I am wise to throw any "guarantees" offered out the nearest window. They are probably not worth the cyberpaper they are written on anyway.