Framing Charles

[harry]

He gave his name as Cross.No amount of arguement can prove otherwise.It was a voluntary and not a forced declaration.It was given under oath and accepted by the court.It was legally given.In another hundred years Mr Barnett, it will read the same.It proves nothing as to guillt.He broke no law.
Cross was the first witness to arrive at the crime scene.As the victim had already been attacked,and was dead or dying,the element of opportunity cannot be leveled at Cross.He cannot be placed in the company of Nichols while she was alive,another basic element of the crime,he cannot be proven to have lied about his presence in Bucks Row,there was no physical evidence noted on his person by other witnesses.In total no real or circumstantial evidence.Argue as long and as you like,those circumstances will not change.Amen.

[Michael W Richards]

A theory that someone is probably guilty because they had opportunities based on possible passings by murder sites isnt really a theory at all..its just daydreaming.

[drstrange169]

>>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!"

[MrBarnett]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

>>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?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

>>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.

[Fisherman]

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...?

[Fisherman]

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.