Framing Charles

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I should probably let it go, and the conversation has moved on, but I'd like to return to the Pinchin Street torso for a moment, because it seems I have been misunderstood and my point mischaracterized.



This wasn’t Phillip’s observation, it was Hebbert’s and Swanson’s, but Yes! this is what I have been saying all along. Despite efforts to dismiss or downgrade Swanson's September 10^th report, we are faced with the apparent fact that the victim's legs were indeed removed some days before the head was removed. Even simple observation made this obvious.

And this is precisely why I am suggesting that any claim that the woman was murdered by having her throat cut is not proven...not by a long shot.

Could she have had her throat cut?

Yes, but to accept this, we are to believe that the murderer cut her throat (and remember that in some cases the Ripper cut his victim’s throats clear down to the spinal column, with a clear attempt at decapitation), but nonetheless decided to leave her head attached for several days while cutting off the legs. When he finally got around to removing the head, he did not simply continue with the throat cut that he had started (which by now would have had similar signs of drying and blackening at the front edges of the throat, just as the legs did) but made an entirely new cut, further down, leaving no trace of the original throat cut, which otherwise would have left tell-tale signs of decomposition. If not, surely Hebbert would have noticed some sign of drying skin and blackened flesh where the throat was originally cut and bled?

Is it possible that entirely new cuts were made? Again, yes. But if such were the case (and here is the key point): there would be no remaining evidence that the victim's throat HAD been cut in the first place, beyond the victim having died from hemorrhaging. The entirety of the neck wound was described as 'moist and red.'

And this doesn’t contradict Phillips one iota, because he admitted there was no evidence that the cause of death was the throat being cut—it was ‘supposition.’



This comment appears to be missing or avoiding the point. Clearly it is Christer's theory that the two cases are connected, not mine, so the attempt at turning the tables is unwarranted.

If something is obscured, it is obscured. If the cuts that removed the head “obscured the throat cuts,” as Phillips suggested, and left the entirety of the neck ‘moist and red,’ as Hebbert described, how do we know there were any throat cuts to begin with? Answer: we don’t. It is solely an assumption based on the victim having bled to death. Phillips makes this clear. There was no sign of stomach or lung bleeding, so he assumed it must have been a throat wound—though he was honest enough to admit there was no direct evidence of this.

Is this so difficult to accept?

And with no evidence to show how the victim died, we are left with a theory---and this is what Phillips admitted. The victim’s throat having been cut was a “supposition and only a supposition."

Apparently some here want to disregard Phillip’s admitted uncertainty, in a race to place an alleged throat slashing at the doorstep of Lechmere’s mother. I merely point out the difficulties in accepting Phillip’s theory, based on Hebbert’s notes and Swanson’s report, coupled with simple logic.

And, as I noted, people can bleed to death from head wounds or from leg wounds. I have no idea why Phillips did not raise these possibilities. But considering that both the head and the legs were missing, just as any evidence of an earlier throat cut was missing, I maintain that any insinuation that this is ‘similar’ to a Ripper crime is strictly theoretical, and, in some degree, illogical, considering the pains the Ripper took to divide his victim’s spinal columns at the time he murdered them. Equally, we must acknowledge that he failed in those attempts.

By contrast, whoever was involved in the Pinchin Street case knew how to divide the spinal column, yet didn’t do so for several days, showing that his motivation was entirely different from the Ripper’s. Since it was done soon before dumping the body, the obvious implication is that it was done to destroy evidence: the victim’s identity, to be specific, which is the hallmark of a domestic killing. Even if the Ripper learned how to separate the spine between 1888 and September 1889, why didn’t he do so immediately? Why wait until just before dumping the body, leaving the throat red and moist? And several days after the legs had been cut off? Did the Ripper ever exhibit such patience when attacking his victim’s throats?

Are the questions I raised now understood?

This, along with all lack of relevant genital injuries, is why I believe Monro, Macnaghten, and others were skeptical that the Pinchin Street victim was the work of the 'Ripper.'

Uncertainty exists, of course, but the motivations appear to be different, and there is reasonable doubt that the victim was even a street ‘unfortunate.’

"Motivations appear to be different".

If I was to advice anybody with an interest in the case to avoid something, then it would be to avoid relying too mucgh on your own hunches about the psychology involved.

Before I go any further: have you read my book, R J? If not, it would certainly help if you did, if you want to (but why would you...?) take a look at how I see it. Just for starters, the idea that it must be strange if someone cuts off the legs from a torso at an earlier stage than the head is something that I give an explanation to.

If you want to save up and donīt buy the book, hereīs two questions for you:

Why did the killer in the 1874 case leave a leg on that torso, while cutting away head, arms and the other leg? How does that jibe with your take?

Why did the killer leave the arms on the Pinchin Street torso? How does that jibe with your take?

Wasnīt he supposed to divide the corpses up in the traditional six parts?

Now, brace yourself, because I am now going to link you too a very, very gruesome set of pictures from the net. Take a good look at this, and then tell me why you think it was that the killer of this woman did not remove her head. And why did he sever the arms half way down?
If the killer of this woman subsequently cut her head off and dumped the body, ca you see how it could result in dry surfaces where the legs had been and a moist one where the head had been?
If you want a good nights sleep, you should perhaps not look at all, but if you want a better understanding of how I look at the killer, it may help:

http://www.charonboat.com/item/235

I apologize to the rest of the posters out here in advance, but I am trying to make a very important point here.

[Trevor Marriott]

In which world are the authorities "happy" for testifying witnesses to give an aliasa only and not provide the name they were registered by?

You really - REALLY - need to get a grip.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

There were four clear indications of identification that Cross gave ,a name,an address,a work situation,and last but not least,at the inquest exposed himself to body and features identification.What more was needed?.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Changing your name in combination with a crime has always walked hand in hand with suspicion. It is not frivolous or paranoid in any way, it is sound, empirically based thinking.

That said, there may of course be an innocent explanation. WHich is why more parameters need to be checked, like the geography. Like whether there may be other lies involved. And lo and behold ...

But you continually reject the inocent explantions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

>>He may have been known as Cross at Pickfords, but elsewhere he would have been known as Lechmere. ... CAL was a stickler for providing his full ‘real’ name - except when he appeared before coroners.<<

And what is the common denominator in the inquest appearances?

Pickfords!

He joined Pickfords at a time Thomas Cross was his step father.
Assuming the "boy accident" case was our man, being recognised by Pickfords people, not school people, not electoral, was a key factor at the inquest.
Since he appeared Mrs Nichols inquest in his Pickford uniform and would have needed Pickfords permission to attend, again Pickfords, not school, not electoral forms, was key to the issue.

As far as we know, based on the actual information available, there is nothing unusual him using the name Cross at the inquest.

If he was not known as Cross at Pickfords then there is an issue. But that's up to the accusers to prove and, to date, they haven't. It's all been smokescreens about schools and election forms, which have no proven relationship to the inquest.

It is not exactly as if ytou have proven that he did call himself Cross at work, is it? So we are on equal footing on that score, and we will in all probability remain so. Claiming or trying to make out as if your position is in any way better is untrue, therefore.

He was able to remember that he was called Lechmere whenever he spoke to any authority. You now suggest that his wearing bhis working clothes when witnessing at the inquest would have lulled him into a Pickfords mode where he would automatically call himself Cross.

It is up to anyone to invest as much he or she wants to in that suggestion...

[Trevor Marriott]

The mystery exists, Trevor. This guy who seems to have been somewhat anal about using his full name - Charles allen Lechmere - neglected to use it twice. On both occasions it was when he was involved in something unpleasant. I can understand why those of you who refuse to accept CAL as a suspect can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that he might have done so to hide his ID. Some of us, however, are able to look at the facts objectively and accept that as the most likely reason.

But you are also forgetting that if he had been the killer he had the chance to make good his escape as soon as he heard Paul approaching, why would he create a problem therefater for himself if it could be avoided.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Lets go there. Was there anything unclear or incorrect in what I said?

Your whole presence out here is lined with incorrect statements, Iīm afraid. I need only to remind you of how you claimed that Lechmeres mother lived in Pinchin Street at the time of the Stride murder, for example.

So now we went there. I hope you enjoyed it.

[Fisherman]

The line points to Charles lechmere's home because you chose the Pinchin Street torso while ignoring all the other Torso victims.

Refresh my mind: in which other torso case was there a bloody apron found afterwards?

[Trevor Marriott]

And what can you prove...?

I dont have to prove anything it is for you to produce the evidence to support your theory, and so far what you have produced is nothing more than wild speculation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You have to accept that the authorities were happy for him to give that name

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In which world are the authorities "happy" for testifying witnesses to give an aliasa only and not provide the name they were registered by?

You really - REALLY - need to get a grip.

[Fisherman]

I agree with the poster recently who noted it would seem more likely he killed after his shift was over

At which time he would have to operate in broad daylight. At which time, his wife would in all probability know when he got off and should be expected home.

The trek to work in the morning offered him dark streets with few people on them and he would likely be able to creep out at any which time he preferred.

Serial killers are to a very high degree opportunistic. Leaving home some little time before he needed to and venturing into the dark maze of Spitalfields would provide an opportunistic killer with prime hunting grounds in secure lighting conditions.

The way I see it, the morning trek was as good as it got for him.

[Fisherman]

That's the problem, though, isn't it?

Suspicion is in the mind of the beholder--it doesn't exist in the object.

Our suspicions against someone can be utterly frivolous and paranoid, or they can be legitimate and deeply insightful.

The Lechmere accusers have to convince us that their suspicions are the latter, and not the former.

Changing your name in combination with a crime has always walked hand in hand with suspicion. It is not frivolous or paranoid in any way, it is sound, empirically based thinking.

That said, there may of course be an innocent explanation. WHich is why more parameters need to be checked, like the geography. Like whether there may be other lies involved. And lo and behold ...

[Fisherman]

But that isnt a crime, and is not enough for you to suggest he is a killer., there is no conflict of evidence how many times do you need telling.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Once again, and as I have pointed out over and over and over and over again: I have not said it is a crime and I do not suggest he is a killer for that reason only.

Maybe you can take this in and process this time? No?

What I HAVE said and will always say is that the practice ADDS to his suspect status and does not help him at all.

Is this really too subtle a message for you to understand?

[Fisherman]

There is no conflict he gave the name Cross under oath at the inquest. He stated he had been employed at Pickfords for the past 20 years. This was after he gave his police statement with the same personal details on. He was fully entitled to use any of the two names.

You cannot prove he was not using the name Cross when employed at Pickfords

You cannot prove that he came under suspicion at the time or any time thereafter

You cannot prove that the police did not check out his work details to confirm his name and address

Until you can do all of the above his status as a suspect is poorly deserved

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And what can you prove...?