The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Jon Guy]

Nota bene that the papers remarked that the carman was clothed in working gear, sacking apron and all, whereas the rest of the inquest witnesses were apparently clad in their Sunday best. That sits well with how he could have given the impression back home that he was heading for work and NOT for the inquest.

To be fair, Christer, only Polly`s dad seems to have dressed for the occasion. Tomkins was dressed for work, Hatfield and Mann were wearing the workhouse uniform, Emily Holland was wearing the old tatty stuff.

[caz]

...we can clearly see that what he did, did NOT end up with him becoming a suspect at all.

Circular argument.

Assuming Lechmere was up to his elbows in gore, he somehow managed to avoid becoming a suspect. No shi* Sherlock. Ingenious reasoning.

I might just as well say that the fact he did NOT end up becoming a suspect is entirely consistent with him being an innocent witness who did nothing remotely suspicious.

The presumption of innocence is in my favour here BECAUSE he gave nobody at the time the least reason to think he did not come across the body innocently.

When will you learn you are on a hiding to nothing, Christer?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I am saying that there are very many pointers to the carman being the killer, and the name swap certainly does nothing at all to help him out. I am presenting a theory, and theories will inevitably involve speculation.

Yeah, and the name 'swap' is pure, unadulterated speculation because you have absolutely no evidence that he was known as Lechmere at work and only swapped to Cross for his role as a murder witness.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

And your evidence that he was on the books as Lechmere at work and when Nichols was murdered he suddenly changed it to Cross just for the inquest is.... what?

Anything at all?

No, didn't think so.

And that is the point.

We don't need to show he was known as Cross at Pickfords.

You have to show he wasn't.

That's the way these things work.

Love,

Caz
X

Maybe for you, Caz, but not for me. There are ample recordings of his name, and they all have him down as Lechmere. That firmly puts the ball in YOUR court, not in mine. I cannot be expected to dissolve anything you may feel at ease to conjure up. It is instead the conjurers who need to prove their argument.
The records are very much against your idea. Charles Lechmere married as Lechmere about seven months after Thomas Cross died. If he had taken the name Cross as his, and if he was hired as Cross by Pickfords, then why on earth would he not marry as Cross?

Maybe that is my duty to answer that too?

[Fisherman]

To be fair, Christer, only Polly`s dad seems to have dressed for the occasion. Tomkins was dressed for work, Hatfield and Mann were wearing the workhouse uniform, Emily Holland was wearing the old tatty stuff.

So why do you think the paper remarked on this? And at any rate, the suggestion that he was avoiding to show his wife where he was going still stands.

[Fisherman]

Circular argument.

Assuming Lechmere was up to his elbows in gore, he somehow managed to avoid becoming a suspect. No shi* Sherlock. Ingenious reasoning.

I might just as well say that the fact he did NOT end up becoming a suspect is entirely consistent with him being an innocent witness who did nothing remotely suspicious.

The presumption of innocence is in my favour here BECAUSE he gave nobody at the time the least reason to think he did not come across the body innocently.

When will you learn you are on a hiding to nothing, Christer?

Love,

Caz
X

When will I learn ANYTHING from you, Caz? That is the question. You are arguing that Lechmere would be more likely to not show up at the inquest if he was the killer.

I am saying that such a thing would be a lot more dangerous, since it would in all probability cast him in the killer´s role.

In that respect, it is relevant to look at how - regardless if he was the killer or not - what he did, took him out of harm´s way.

That would NOT have happened if the police had cottoned on to what Paul told them. Incidentally, they were disinclined to do so, but that was something Lechmere could not bank on.

The circular reasoning seems to be more on your side. People can be innocent even if they use an alternative name - Lechmere used an alternative name - ergo he is innocent.

Bravo.

[Fisherman]

Yeah, and the name 'swap' is pure, unadulterated speculation because you have absolutely no evidence that he was known as Lechmere at work and only swapped to Cross for his role as a murder witness.

Love,

Caz
X

No, I only have evidence that he always used the name Lechmere in official circumstances, apart from in combination when he ran a risk to be dubbed a suspect in a murder case.

it is in evidence that there WAS a name swap therefore, going by the official records that tell us that the carman should, in order to be in line with the records, have called himself Lechmere. Instead, he swapped names this time - and as far as we can tell, this time only in official circumstances.

Thats my evidence, and in comparison, looking at YOUR pile of evidence, a pile of seagull **** would be of equal bearing. Is it not true that you have not a scintilla of evidence that he ever used the name Cross other than at the inquest, Caz? Or?

[Jon Guy]

So why do you think the paper remarked on this? And at any rate, the suggestion that he was avoiding to show his wife where he was going still stands.

I believe he was dressed in his every day clothes because:

1) He had been to work before his inquest appearance
2) He was going to work after his inquest appearance

[Fisherman]

I believe he was dressed in his every day clothes because:

1) He had been to work before his inquest appearance
2) He was going to work after his inquest appearance

Be that as it may, the suggestion that he left his wife in the dark by dressing in working gear is no less viable. And apparently, the papers found it something that needed to be remarked upon.

[John Wheat]

Circular argument.

Assuming Lechmere was up to his elbows in gore, he somehow managed to avoid becoming a suspect. No shi* Sherlock. Ingenious reasoning.

I might just as well say that the fact he did NOT end up becoming a suspect is entirely consistent with him being an innocent witness who did nothing remotely suspicious.

The presumption of innocence is in my favour here BECAUSE he gave nobody at the time the least reason to think he did not come across the body innocently.

When will you learn you are on a hiding to nothing, Christer?

Love,

Caz
X

Fisherman won't learn he's on a hiding to nothing unless it's proven someone other than Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman won't learn he's on a hiding to nothing unless it's proven someone other than Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

Another excellent and exhaustive post from you, John - congratulations. You always seem to add to the factual discussion.

[Jon Guy]

. And apparently, the papers found it something that needed to be remarked upon.

Yes, the newspapers often coloured their reports with descriptions of the "East Enders", for the benefit of their middle classes readers.

[Fisherman]

Yes, the newspapers often coloured their reports with descriptions of the "East Enders", for the benefit of their middle classes readers.

I can imagine...

[John Wheat]

Another excellent and exhaustive post from you, John - congratulations. You always seem to add to the factual discussion.

Thanks Fish. I still think Lechmere is a witness and I still think Bury is the best suspect by a country mile. He is also logically the best suspect. Frankly it doesn't matter to me what you or anyone else think about that.

[Harry D]

Thanks Fish. I still think Lechmere is a witness and I still think Bury is the best suspect by a country mile. He is also logically the best suspect. Frankly it doesn't matter to me what you or anyone else think about that.

Aha, but Fish will point out that Bury cannot be definitively placed at a murder site, which puts him at a staggering disadvantage to Lechmere – who can. Of course, before the advent of DNA testing, how were the police able to link a suspect to a crime scene if the murder was random, there were no witnesses, and the perpetrator wasn't smart enough to flee the scene of the crime?