The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

I think that each unprofessional witness was told to state name, address and working place. I am sure somebody on the boards can confirm or deny this, but I believe a phrase like " State your name, address and place of work" was uttered when a witness took the stand. And that would have been the case for Lechmere too.
However, I believe he may have skipped over the adddress, and that it may have passed unremarked upon. [/B]

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).

[Sam Flynn]

We know for certain that Charles Lechmere was found standing in the street, close to the body of Polly Nichols

No, we can't say that for certain. To say that Cross was "found" and "close to the body" are examples of what I might call "directed language", which clearly impart a more sinister slant to Cross's actions than an objective reading of the evidence permits. (See my post yesterday.) That's not to say he wasn't up to anything sinister, but it's clearly inadmissible to assert that we "know such things for certain" when, in reality, they are subjective interpretations of the evidence.

[Harry D]

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?

[Abby Normal]

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).

Hi David and fish
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?

[Abby Normal]

No, we can't say that for certain. To say that Cross was "found" and "close to the body" are examples of what I might call "directed language", which clearly impart a more sinister slant to Cross's actions than an objective reading of the evidence permits. (See my post yesterday.) That's not to say he wasn't up to anything sinister, but it's clearly inadmissible to assert that we "know such things for certain" when, in reality, they are subjective interpretations of the evidence.

Hi Sam
I somewhat disagree. I think the language is pretty neutral and accurate.
He WAS close to the body. He was found by another witness, before alerting anyone. I think it, if not sinister, again is just another of a long list of things that make you go hmmmmmmm with lech.

[David Orsam]

Hi David and fish
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?

And how did the Star reporter then obtain it?

[Roy Corduroy]

I think the language is pretty neutral and accurate.
He WAS close to the body. He was found by another witness, before alerting anyone.

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

This is the exact opposite of neutral, Abby.

Roy

[Abby Normal]

And how did the Star reporter then obtain it?

Good question. Maybe he asked.

[Abby Normal]

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

This is the exact opposite of neutral, Abby.

Roy

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?

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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

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.

[David Orsam]

Good question. Maybe he asked.

But if it was a secret, due to concern for Lechmere's family, he wouldn't have been told.

[Sam Flynn]

Especially since bucks row was one of, if not the most, deserted sites at that time.

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.

[Harry D]

What are the chances of an innocent carman finding the body? I don't know, about the same as the one who was right behind him. Obviously Buck's Row was a common route for these early workers and therefore Lechmere's placement at the murder site was nothing out of the ordinary.

[GUT]

I keep reading "Cross didn't raise the alarm" (or similar).

Who was he supposed to raise the alarm to.

Oh the first person he saw. You might say.

You mean like when Paul came along and rather than letting him walk on by, says "Vome and have a look, I'm not sure if she's dead or drunk out of her tine mind".

So no suspicion here either I'm afraid, just like the name issue a real non starter.

[GUT]

Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I think that each unprofessional witness was told to state name, address and working place. I am sure somebody on the boards can confirm or deny this, but I believe a phrase like " State your name, address and place of work" was uttered when a witness took the stand. And that would have been the case for Lechmere too.
However, I believe he may have skipped over the adddress, and that it may have passed unremarked upon.

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.