The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[drstrange169]

>>Scobie - who has probably forgotten more about legal proceedings than you will ever learn about them - says that there is a court case, implicating him as the killer.<<

Except we don't know how accurate the information Scobie based his opinion on was.

If we look at the TV show show it appears that he was given misinformation and made his comments based on that misinformation.

[drstrange169]

>>Of all those who have singlehandedly found victims of extensive sharp violence - how many did this when the victim was still bleeding five minutes after they found them?<<

In the case of Jack the ripper? All of them except perhaps Bowyer, so what's your point?

[drstrange169]

>We know for certain that Lechmere found the body of Nichols.<<

If we know for certain Lechmere found the body of Nichols then we know for certain that Lechmere was not the killer.

You did say you were a journalist didn't you?

You do understand the meaning of Lechmere found the body of Nichols?

[drstrange169]

Whoops, I see David has already pointed out the stupidity of Christer's "we know for certain ..." post.

[drstrange169]

Don't think I've read the Christer's theories so comprehensively demolished by proven evidence as much as they have in this thread.

I think we are finally seeing the demise of his Lechmere fantasy.

[David Orsam]

1. Scobie - who has probably forgotten more about legal proceedings than you will ever learn about them - says that there is a court case, implicating him as the killer.

The above doesn't seem to have much meaning.

What James Scobie QC actually said in the documentary was this:

"The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically, you add all those points together, piece it all together and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects." Then, in a separate quote: "What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

In respect of the timing point, as glimpsed on camera, Scobie's briefing paper states:

"KEY EVIDENCE (3)

TIMINGS

Charles Lechmere (as we know now him to be called) is reported as saying he left home for work at 3:30am, although in other reports he appears to initially say he left home even earlier at, 3:20".

This is, of course, inaccurate. Cross was reported as saying that he left for work at "about" 3:30am. The word "about" is missing from Scobie's briefing note. It is speculation to say that he initially said "3:20"."

The notion, put forward by Scobie, that Cross never gave "a proper answer" as to where he was that morning is ludicrous given that he said he was walking to Bucks Row from his home in Doveton Street!

I also can't see how he can say of Cross that "there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically".

A further visible page of Scobie's briefing note, incidentally, summarises Dr Jason Payne-James' belief that: "The lack of blood at the [scene of the crime] suggests she was strangled to death before her neck was cut. This removed any arterial [illegible]. Death by asphyxia takes a minimum of 2 minutes and a maximum of 4 minutes.

Lack of wounds on her hands and arms suggests there was no struggle. This corroborates [illegible] hypothesis."

[Sam Flynn]

Scobie - who has probably forgotten more about legal proceedings than you will ever learn about them

An instance of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, perhaps, or the "My Dad's Bigger than Yours" fallacy, as I like to call it?

[Sam Flynn]

Unless those circumstances are that he was Jack the Ripper? No, I don't think he can.

Unless he was planning on being Jack the Ripper more than 25 years before the event, the "circumstances" are a moot point. We know there's a reasonable possibility that Lechmere used the name "Cross" since at least 1861, where he is recorded as such in the Census.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Your post 415.
You begin by writing,"Nothing has been proven Harry",then go on to say but there are a lot of inconsistencies.Yes maybe,but nothing that is inconsistent with innocence.

Further on you state,"None of these things are enough to convict him in a court of law,and he may have been able to to offer alternate innocent e xplanations to them". Well he did offer innocent explanations.Cross explains his presence in Bucks Row,how he came upon the woman lying there,of Pauls arrival,and their decision to tell a policeman.All which points to innocence,not guilt.

I notice your little bit of sidestepping to shift the onus for a prima facia case onto Scobie.Lost your confidence for doing it yourself, If Scobie is so talented in matters of law,he can always post himself.I'm sure David,Dusty etc, will a ccomodate him.He might prove a bigger laugh than yourself.

[drstrange169]

Just looking at the Lipski case for something else, i noticed that no newspaper gave, key witness, Richard Pitman's address, yet the Old Bailey transcripts clearly show he stated his address as 2 White's Gardens, Star St. Commercial Rd.

Ditto: Harris Dywien (sp?). In his case only one newspaper I found gave his address. Sound familar?

I think we can finally close this part of the Lechmere loony theory.

[GUT]

Just looking at the Lipski case for something else, i noticed that no newspaper gave, key witness, Richard Pitman's address, yet the Old Bailey transcripts clearly show he stated his address as 2 White's Gardens, Star St. Commercial Rd.

Ditto: Harris Dywien (sp?). In his case only one newspaper I found gave his address. Sound familar?

I think we can finally close this part of the Lechmere loony theory.

Bet we don't though.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: But in pretty much every murder case the person who finds the body is a suspect.

Is he - or she? I would say that depends wholly on the circumstances. Remember - Tutanchamon was murdered, and Howard Carter found him.

So, on your view, we can never say that we know "for certain" who found the body.

In my book, Paul found the body. Lechmere produced it.

In my own list of certainties with the Nichols murder, based on the evidence, number 1 is that Cross found the body.

Thing is, you can read the evidence in more than one way. As I keep trying to get over to you, the evidence clearing Lechmere is evidence produced by Lechmere. So much as you have a point from a historical point if view, it is less valuable - and potentially stupid - from an investigative angle.

Of course, it is also potentially stupid to name Lechmere the only really probable suspect, but thatīs a risk I am willing to take.

[Fisherman]

Well yes and I'll tell you why. When I was researching this point, I checked every single newspaper in existence at the time for reports of the inquest on 17 September (specifically for reports of Paul's evidence). I found that about 90% of them were by the same agency reporter.

So it must be an established truth that there was a much smaller number of reporters at the inquest that day than there had been on 3 September.

It would be nice if you posted your material on this point plus the material from the 3:rd.

[Fisherman]

I think it is a useful example. If he married under the name Thornaby, then his wife was surely Mrs Thornaby. If they had children (and we don't know if they did or didn't) one can certainly appreciate that legally they should have been registered under the name Thornaby.

You can surely start to see why a man might use one surname under some circumstances and another surname in different circumstances.

Can you see how a criminal may use a name that is not the one he normally uses, with an intent to mislead?

[Fisherman]

>>Your idea that I was not aware that the railway company was privately owned is baseless. That was why I wrote that he MAY have been regarded as an official witness, since railway employeees may have been looked upon as civil servants.<<

You really should stop and read your posts before pressing "submit reply".

Why on earth would anyone in 1888 regard an employee of a company as a public servant?

It seems you're so desperate to patch up a collapsing theory you will write anything.

A railway employee was not a public servant, full stop. We are dealing with facts here not your fantasies.

We are talking about an inquest where legal precedents are set out for people to follow.

Since part of Pickfords job was to deliver parcels for the Post Office, if anyone was going to be considered as possibly/may/perhaps/mistakenly a public servant it possibly/may/perhaps/ mistakenly would have been Xmere.

Your reasoning is simply ridiculous.




>>Look at all the other unprofessional witnesses in the case ...<<


Pointless, let's instead look at something relevant, Patrick Mulshaw a night porter for the Whitechapel District Board of Works, someone who really might justifiably be considered a "professional" by your definition.

He gave his address as 3 Rupert St.

Shhh ... what's that I hear in the distance? Another of your bizarre theories crashing to the ground.

Do you really not see the damage you are doing to your credibility with all this nonesense?

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.