Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>It is only if I want to prove something that I have such an onus on myself. <<

    Interesting.


    >>... what I need to do is to point at possibilities aln likelihoods, where you, if you want to deny them, must PROVE your point.<<

    As I wrote, the QAnon approach.

    That certainly explains a lot about your attitude. The, "Nelson's blind eye", approach.


    >He gave his occupatoin as a carman at the census takings. <<

    You have a census record closer to his starting work at Pickfords where he used the name Lechmere? I think not.

    How is any other census record relevant to his starting work?


    >>And it is not unreasonable that they didnīt.<<

    You think it's not unreasonable to believe Pickfords would not know about an inquest into the death of a boy by one of their drivers and you think it's not unreasonable to think nobody at Pickfords knew about, arguably, the most sensational murder series in English history?


    >>And it is also not unreasonable that they never did.<<

    You think it's not unreasonable to think the police wouldn't verify a witness claims, specifically when that witness disagreed with first the police version of finding the body and then directly disagreed with a policeman's testimony?

    "I see no ships!"








    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    The reason he gave his name as Cross ,might possibly be in relation to how the question or direction was phrased.If it was 'state your name',and not' state your full name' then Charles Cross would suffice.What is apparant is that he was given a choice and chose Charles Cross.Nothing illegal,and nothing obstructive,as there were four points of identification in excess of his home address ,and as Trevor has pointed out,the court and the police(Aberline was present} were satisfied.
    There is no link between the killing of Nichols,and the use of the name Cross.There is no link between the killing of Nichols and Cross being observed at the scene by Paul.There is no evidence that links Cross to the killing of Nichols.There is no evidence that Charles Cross lied.A more innocent man in the history of mankind,will not be found.Amen.
    No, he chose Charles ALLEN Cross.

    See how odd that is? It strikes me that either he was a bit anal about his name or he thought the situation warranted exactitude.

    I either case you would have expected him to have given Charles Allen Lechmere as his name - with a small ‘a’ at the beginning of Allen if he’d written it himself.


    I almost never use my middle name. Only when I’m filling out forms and it states that my full name is required do I do so.

    Ave Maria.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Iīm sure you are correct, Trevor. Like you were the last time over you claimed to have "debunked" the theory.
    I know I am correct but you are never going to admit this part of your theory is flawed

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    The reason he gave his name as Cross ,might possibly be in relation to how the question or direction was phrased.If it was 'state your name',and not' state your full name' then Charles Cross would suffice.

    I think that question was always asked in the same manner, and very likely it would have been "State your full name". Regardless, even if it had been "State your name", the underlying reason would have been to procure the name by which the person in question could be identified. I fail to see how this would not be apparent.

    What is apparant is that he was given a choice and chose Charles Cross.

    Given a choice? No, he was not given a choice. Nobody was. Everyone was asked to give a name by which they were identifiable. It was okay to give ana lias too, but only if you were identifiable by that alias. If you were not, you were supposed to give your real name too. The idea that it was okay to call yourself Donald Duck if you felt like it is simply not true.

    Nothing illegal,and nothing obstructive,as there were four points of identification in excess of his home address ,and as Trevor has pointed out,the court and the police(Aberline was present} were satisfied.

    Nothing obstructive? Is that why Lechmefre was not identified until well over a hundred years after the inquest? Because the name he gave was nothing obstructive? Are you being for real?

    Of course you are not. You never were.


    There is no link between the killing of Nichols,and the use of the name Cross.

    And this you know because?

    There is no link between the killing of Nichols and Cross being observed at the scene by Paul.

    And this you know because?

    There is no evidence that links Cross to the killing of Nichols.

    Oh yes, there is.There is circumstantial evidence a plenty.

    There is no evidence that Charles Cross lied.

    If he told the police and inquest that his true and registered name was Cross, then he did lie.

    A more innocent man in the history of mankind,will not be found.Amen.
    And a less insightful and less factbased poster will not be found out here. Nor will there ever be any poster spending so much time on horse manure than me. I need to do something about that. Like leaving you to your delusions.

    Bye.


    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Its getting tedious because part of your theory is going down the pan fast and you cant or wont accpet that

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Iīm sure you are correct, Trevor. Like you were the last time over you claimed to have "debunked" the theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    And if YOU believe your own take on things, you are cutely naive.

    How were they to know? What if my name is Jonsson and not Holmgren and I have deliberately misled you without you understanding it? Have you established how true or untrue that is by way of magic? Or? Just how does that work? Would the coroner have risen from his chair, exclaiming "NO!!! Your name is NOT Cross!! You canīt fool me, you carman you!!!"

    This was entertaining in the beginning, but it is getting more and more tedious by the minute.
    Its getting tedious because part of your theory is going down the pan fast and you cant or wont accpet that

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    The reason he gave his name as Cross ,might possibly be in relation to how the question or direction was phrased.If it was 'state your name',and not' state your full name' then Charles Cross would suffice.What is apparant is that he was given a choice and chose Charles Cross.Nothing illegal,and nothing obstructive,as there were four points of identification in excess of his home address ,and as Trevor has pointed out,the court and the police(Aberline was present} were satisfied.
    There is no link between the killing of Nichols,and the use of the name Cross.There is no link between the killing of Nichols and Cross being observed at the scene by Paul.There is no evidence that links Cross to the killing of Nichols.There is no evidence that Charles Cross lied.A more innocent man in the history of mankind,will not be found.Amen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    You need to take the blinkers off.

    so you are saying that not only did he con the police when they visited him and took down his statement, but the coroners court when he gave his testimony, and the newspaper reporters who also followed the case,and that none of them had any inkling that he was deliberatey misleading them, if you believe all of that then you are totally deluded

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    And if YOU believe your own take on things, you are cutely naive.

    How were they to know? What if my name is Jonsson and not Holmgren and I have deliberately misled you without you understanding it? Have you established how true or untrue that is by way of magic? Or? Just how does that work? Would the coroner have risen from his chair, exclaiming "NO!!! Your name is NOT Cross!! You canīt fool me, you carman you!!!"

    This was entertaining in the beginning, but it is getting more and more tedious by the minute.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 05-13-2021, 08:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>It is not exactly as if ytou have proven that he did call himself Cross at work, is it? <<

    That's not my problem, because I'm I'm not accusing him of anything. The onus is on you. That's the way it works unless you QAnon.

    It is only if I want to prove something that I have such an onus on myself. But I am not presenting a theory as proven, I am presenting it as a theory. And so, as I have said before, what I need to do is to point at possibilities aln likelihoods, where you, if you want to deny them, must PROVE your point.

    You see, that is also how it works.


    We know that all the available evidence tells us whenever Pickfords is involved the name Cross is used.

    He gave his occupatoin as a carman at the census takings. And so Pickfords was involved there too. And he called himself Lechmere in them. And there goes your rather exotic suggestion.

    It is not unreasonable to believe that Pickfords would be aware of both cases and would be approaching the police if the facts were wrong.

    And it is not unreasonable that they didnīt.

    It is also reasonable to believe that the police would verify the story with Pickfords as standard procedure.

    And it is also not unreasonable that they never did.

    Add to that, the fact that the only recorded time he is called Cross in any documents that we have access to is closest to the time he started work at Pickfords and it is the cumulative effect that supports the story.

    All else is just you behind the curtain, Great Oz.
    And who does that make you? The straw man? Toto? Ot the wicked witch of the East End?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    I prefer to accept that you do not have a clue. Try and imagine that he gave an alias only that was not his registered name. Can you do that? Good! Now, try and imagine that the inquest did not understand that he conned them. Can you do that too? Fine!!

    You see, history is crammed with examples of people who conned other people, without the latter understanding it. Crammed!! It is a VERY trivial, uncontroversial and sad truth.

    Now, if there isnīt anything else...?
    You need to take the blinkers off.

    so you are saying that not only did he con the police when they visited him and took down his statement, but the coroners court when he gave his testimony, and the newspaper reporters who also followed the case,and that none of them had any inkling that he was deliberatey misleading them, if you believe all of that then you are totally deluded

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>It is not exactly as if ytou have proven that he did call himself Cross at work, is it? <<

    That's not my problem, because I'm I'm not accusing him of anything. The onus is on you. That's the way it works unless you QAnon.

    We know that all the available evidence tells us whenever Pickfords is involved the name Cross is used.
    It is not unreasonable to believe that Pickfords would be aware of both cases and would be approaching the police if the facts were wrong.
    It is also reasonable to believe that the police would verify the story with Pickfords as standard procedure.
    Add to that, the fact that the only recorded time he is called Cross in any documents that we have access to is closest to the time he started work at Pickfords and it is the cumulative effect that supports the story.

    All else is just you behind the curtain, Great Oz.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I have a firm grip on this part of the investigation, and time and again you have been told that there is nothing recorded anywhere to show that there was any question marks surrounding his using the name Cross, we can now draw a proper inferenece to say that the name Cross was readily accepted by the coroner, the police, and it seems the press as well.

    You need to now accept the fact that this part of your case against him is now a non starter.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I prefer to accept that you do not have a clue. Try and imagine that he gave an alias only that was not his registered name. Can you do that? Good! Now, try and imagine that the inquest did not understand that he conned them. Can you do that too? Fine!!

    You see, history is crammed with examples of people who conned other people, without the latter understanding it. Crammed!! It is a VERY trivial, uncontroversial and sad truth.

    Now, if there isnīt anything else...?

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But you continually reject the inocent explantions

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Well, Trevor, it is not as if I can accept half of them and reject the other half, is it? If Lechmere was the killer, then ALL the innocent explanations are wrong. If he was not, then there will be innocent explanations for all the many pointers in his direction. And so, since I think he was guilty, I work from the assumption that the innocent explanations are all wrong.

    It is not the same as being able to prove them wrong. It is saying that I think they all are wrong, because I donīt think that any person in the history of mankind has ever had so much pointing in his direction without being guilty.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 05-13-2021, 08:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    And one more point, R J:

    By contrast, whoever was involved in the Pinchin Street case knew how to divide the spinal column, yet didnīt do so for several days, showing that his motivation was entirely different from the Ripperīs.

    To begin with, yes the killer of the Pinchin Street woman did know how to divide the spinal column by way of knife - in September of 1889.

    In the summer of that same year, however, he did not. Hebbert makes it a point to show how the killer evolved in this context: in the Rainham and Whitehall cases of 1887 and 1888, he had to saw the heads off after having given it a try to use the knife. In the Jackson case, he almost succeeded with the knife, but in the end, he had to go and get the saw anyway. In the Pinchin Street case, he finally managed to do it.

    So at the stage when the last accepted Ripper victim, Mary Kelly, was killed, neither the Ripper nor the Torso killer (who were actually not two but ONE man) were able to take a head off by way of knife. In the Torso cases, there was a saw at hand, in Millers Court, there was not, and so Kellys head remained on her neck.

    This of course nullifies this perceived difference of yours. If it is a comfort, Phillips made the exact same mistake as you did; he said that the Torso killer had shown more skill in severing body parts in Pinchin Street than the Ripper had done in Millers Court. The one part where this was given a try in Millers Court was the neck. And so, Phillips also forgot about the time factor, just like you.

    Far from being a difference, it is instead a very clear and very telling SIMILARITY: In 1888, both killers han an urge to try and decapitate by way of knife, but both failed to do so.
    How common a trait within a killer do you think that is?

    You then go on to say that the Torso killer did n ot sever the head for many days, and this would tell him apart from the Ripper. That begs the question whether you have pondered how much of a chance the Ripper would have had to wait for days in the backyard of Hanbury Street or in Millers Court before trying to take the head off?

    Killing out in the open street does not allow for such a thing. But how does that tell us that the killer would not have wanted to take the head off at a later stage - if he had the opportunity? There are various examples of killers who have returned to their victims out in the open (Shawcross, Bundy etc) and mutilated them, but in those cases, the bodies had not been found. It was never as if the Riper could sneak into the mortuary in retrospect and do the cutting, was it?

    Furthermore, the Pinchin Street woman is an exception. to the rule in this context: in all of the other cases, dismemberement followed swiftly after death, as given away by the muscle contraction of the victims.

    So this is where your musings about the motivations may well lead you very wrong.

    My own musings - that may also be wrong, we are talking about the psychology of a very curious mind here - suggests to me that the head was left on the Pinchin Street woman in the same way that is was left on the woman in the gruesome pic in my former post, as the result of a consious choice and an urge within the killer. It was then taken off as he decided that the time had come to discard the corpse, where decomposition had seet in. He took the head off, and he saw to it that the body was equipped with a tell-tale gash from ribs to pubes. It was not a gash from which he could take out any organs, but he did not want to do so from a decaying corpse. Instead he wanted to impress upon people that much as it was said that there were two serial killers roaming the East End streets, there was in fact just the one. And that man wanted to be recogized for ehat he did, so he stamped "Ripper work" on the abdomen and saw to it that the body was dumped deep in Ripper territory. And since it was Lechmere who did it, the choice of Pinchin Street was a given - it was likely the one street most directly linked to bhis backgriund and who he was himself.
    It was all about recognition, and it supplies the link between the Ripper, The Torso killer and Charles Lechmere, all in one.

    As I said, I may be wrong. But I donīt think I am.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    How about his REAL name and his home address?

    Those who regard it as a mere trifle that he forgot to identify himself by his real name would do good to ponder how long it took to identify the man for the ranks of researchers who tried to follow up on him. And that is the exact reason why the real name is asked for - to allow an identification.
    But the police and the coroner had the opportunity to stop him in his tracks when he was asked to give his details when being sworn in on oath and then question him about the ambiguity. they didnt, why didnt they, did they knowingly all allow a person to perjur themesleves in an official and lawful inquest?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X