Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    It is in the book, Trevor. And I make a point of avoiding to do things the way you do.
    My way is the right way and the fair way, and you should accept that you have made sweeping statements using experts to back you up. I have used an expert to challenge what you say. Why dont you want go back and put those same questions to your experts. Is it because you know they will not support what you postulate?look

    And your snide comments have no effect on me. you are making yourself look like a scared rabbit in the headlights.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      But he gave his name as Cross at the inquest, and in his police statement and to the coroner otherwise how would swanson know he was called Cross

      Did he at any time use the name Lechmere in this investigation? No he didnt, so you are creating a mystery where there is none to create.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Thats brilliant, Trevor: He called himself Cross both when speaking to the police and at the inquest, and so he was consistent throughout. Problem solved, and the insignificant detail that he otherwise called himself Lechmere is not strange at all. Besides, although they never said so, both the police and the inquest were aware of this, eeehr ... because they did not ... suspect him...?

      I sense this is so groundbreakingly clever that a menial nobody like me cannot fully understand it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        My way is the right way and the fair way, and you should accept that you have made sweeping statements using experts to back you up. I have used an expert to challenge what you say. Why dont you want go back and put those same questions to your experts. Is it because you know they will not support what you postulate?look

        And your snide comments have no effect on me. you are making yourself look like a scared rabbit in the headlights.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        No, Trevor, your way is not the right way. It is the dumb way, the uninformed way, the rude way, the Closeau way, the mistaken way, the sad way, the quarter-baked way and the embarrasing way, all in one. The right way, however, it is absolutely not.

        And the day I am scared of your efforts is the day hell freezes over.

        I hope that is clear enough for you.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          But he gave his name as Cross at the inquest, and in his police statement and to the coroner otherwise how would swanson know he was called Cross

          Did he at any time use the name Lechmere in this investigation? No he didnt, so you are creating a mystery where there is none to create.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          But that’s the point, Trevor. On every other occasion (with one possible exception) we know of that this man was asked to provide his name to authority he gave the name Lechmere. Presumably he went first to his nearest police station, introduced himself as Cross and told his story. At some point, the officer taking his statement would have asked for his full name and address and he must have given his name as Cross without it occurring to him to mention that his ‘proper’ name was Lechmere.

          And when he appeared at the inquest, he was again asked to provide his name and again he just said Cross and made no mention of his ‘proper’ name.

          He went so far as to give his middle name ‘Allen’, but didn’t mention that Cross was an aka. How often in life do we introduce ourselves using our middle names? Almost never, so when you do it’s because you believe that the situation warrants complete accuracy.

          ‘What is your full name?’

          ‘Charles Allen Lechmere is my real/proper name, but I am known to many by the name of Cross, which was my late stepfather’s name.’

          Job done. Complete disclosure, as the circumstances required. It’s what I would do I those circumstances.

          Just imagine if one of us was found dead in suspicious circumstances and Christer was the last poster to have crossed swords with them. Would you expect him to give his name as ‘Fisherman’ to the police or to say, ‘My real name is Christer Holmgren, but I am known on the boards as ‘Fisherman’?

          There’s only one credible answer to that question. When it occurs to you, perhaps you can ask yourself why?












          Last edited by MrBarnett; 05-11-2021, 10:43 AM.

          Comment


          • Put yourself in Lechmere’s shoes. You are standing in the witness box with dozens of eyes looking at you. Wynne Baxter fixes you with a gimlet stare and asks you for your full name and address. Your response is Charles ALLEN... Cross. It doesn’t occur to you to mention that your ‘proper’ name is Lechmere?

            You register your kids at school as Lechmere, presumably because you feel that’s the proper thing to do, but when asked for your name by the Coroner for the South East Division of Middlesex, you feel it’s OK just to give the name of your long-dead stepfather?

            Last edited by MrBarnett; 05-11-2021, 10:45 AM.

            Comment


            • I think those who refuse to see the anomaly are worried that by acknowledging it they are accepting a tiny fragment of the Lechmere theory. And that would never do!


              It’s an anomaly and it ain’t going away.

              Comment


              • One last point on the name thing. The name Lechmere was of far greater significance to CAL than if his real dad had been a docker named Smith or Jones.

                It was an unusual name and with addition of the middle name Allen would have pretty much id’d CAL to certain people.

                It was the name of a prominent Herefordshire family. And his mother may well have been receiving an income from another prominent family who would have instantly recognised the name.

                Lechmere had very respectable aunts, his mother’s sisters (one was the wife of a vicar I believe), whom I imagine would have been shocked to have learned of his involvement in such a sordid affair. The vicar’s wife might not have appreciated her nephew being outed as a lowly carman who found the body of a dead prostitute in an East End back street.

                Leaving aside any idea of his being a murderer, there are very good reasons why CAL presented himself to the world as CAC. That it didn’t occur to him to mention his ‘proper’ name really isn’t one of them.




                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  I think those who refuse to see the anomaly are worried that by acknowledging it they are accepting a tiny fragment of the Lechmere theory. And that would never do!


                  It’s an anomaly and it ain’t going away.
                  You are right it isnt going to go away but it doesnt prove Cross/Lechmere was the killer of Nichols or any other women.

                  Its an anomaly that by reason of there being no questions being asked of him about the difference in the name use by the authorities we must draw a proper inference that if he was ever asked he gave a proper explantion to the authorites which was accepted. It is not a crime for anyone to use and alias let alone an alias that he was fully entitled to use.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • The reality is that Cross came forward as a witness who found a body.His evidence indicates the injuries to Nichols had been inflicted before his(Cross) arrival.There was no evidence presented to show that he was lying.The authorities,namely the police at the time,accepted his testimony,and his reason for being in Bucks Row was never doubted.Yes, people who found bodies have later been shown to be the killer of that person,but on other incriminating evidence,not,and I repeat not,simply being a person at the scene.
                    Trevor's arguements based on police proceedures, is clearly superior to any arguements that are purely theory based.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      You are right it isnt going to go away but it doesnt prove Cross/Lechmere was the killer of Nichols or any other women.

                      Its an anomaly that by reason of there being no questions being asked of him about the difference in the name use by the authorities we must draw a proper inference that if he was ever asked he gave a proper explantion to the authorites which was accepted. It is not a crime for anyone to use and alias let alone an alias that he was fully entitled to use.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      No, Trevor, the anomaly is that on this occasion he used the name Cross but did not volunteer the information that his ‘proper’ name was Lechmere.

                      In all your time as a copper did you never once take a statement from someone who had two names, one his ‘proper’ name and one he was commonly known by?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        The reality is that Cross came forward as a witness who found a body.His evidence indicates the injuries to Nichols had been inflicted before his(Cross) arrival.There was no evidence presented to show that he was lying.The authorities,namely the police at the time,accepted his testimony,and his reason for being in Bucks Row was never doubted.Yes, people who found bodies have later been shown to be the killer of that person,but on other incriminating evidence,not,and I repeat not,simply being a person at the scene.
                        Trevor's arguements based on police proceedures, is clearly superior to any arguements that are purely theory based.
                        I forgot to mention the hard core of those who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the name anomaly - those who can’t even bring themselves to use the name Lechmere.





                        Comment


                        • I have to hold my hand up to an error. CAL’s aunt Charlotte was not a Vicar’s wife, she had been the wife of a butler to a senior clerical bod, but was a widow by 1888.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            The reality is that Cross came forward as a witness who found a body.His evidence indicates the injuries to Nichols had been inflicted before his(Cross) arrival.

                            Is that a very roundaboutish was of saying that evidence points to how Nichols was cut by somebody else than Lechmere? If so, letīs keep in mind that the evidence you refer to is what Lechmere said himself. Meaning that accepting it is accepting that whatever a witness says, it must be the truth.
                            The MEDICAL evidence suggests that Nichols was cut at around the time Lechmere was there, by the way. Maybe that is less palatable evidence to you, though...


                            There was no evidence presented to show that he was lying.

                            And that is a very good indicator of how the carman was never investigated in depth. What the police and inquest had no idea about, they could not present as evidence.

                            The authorities,namely the police at the time,accepted his testimony,and his reason for being in Bucks Row was never doubted.

                            Do you know how many killersī testimonies have been accepted although they should not have been? The police accepted Christieīs testimony and hanged Evans. Are you applauding them for it and denying Christies guilt in retrospect? After all, the police DID accept what he said.
                            We do not have to be fools when assessing these matters. We CAN adopt a less rigid view of the police instead of claiming that they must always have been correct. Itīs up to ourselves.


                            Yes, people who found bodies have later been shown to be the killer of that person,but on other incriminating evidence,not,and I repeat not,simply being a person at the scene.

                            Historically, many people have been deeemed guilty on account of having been on a murder scene only. If you mean that in modern times, this has not happened, you will be more correct. There has to be more added. For example if the police entertains suspicion against somebody who claims to have found a murder victim at a time that is consistent with being the killer, and if this person has other things pointing towards foul play, like for example using an alias instead of giving your correct name and having the police saying that you are not being truthful about what happened at the time of the murder, they will elevate that person into a suspect and check him or her out thoroughly, not least from a geographical point of view. And if the geography and timings coincide with the deeds, they are likely to move on to get the person prosecuted. It is totally in line, by the way, with how James Scobie says that there is a court case against Lechmere that suggests that he was guilty.
                            So you are very correct: having been found alone at a murder site is per se not enough to send somebody down. It takes more.


                            Trevor's arguements based on police proceedures, is clearly superior to any arguements that are purely theory based.
                            No. I could make that a longer statement, but "no" suffices.
                            Last edited by Fisherman; 05-11-2021, 12:04 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              I have to hold my hand up to an error. CAL’s aunt Charlotte was not a Vicar’s wife, she had been the wife of a butler to a senior clerical bod, but was a widow by 1888.
                              It does not detract from how Charles Lechmere was only two generations removed from the wealth, influence and historical importance of the Lechmere family of Fownhope, though.

                              Comment


                              • Im not sure....does anyone have evidence that people identifying themselves using 2 distinctly different names was in any way unusual in the LVP? Has anyone read through the Old Bailey records and seen how many people are entered into the records with multiple unique names? Nicknames aside, when you live in an era where there is no accepted single piece of identification that people would have to verify they are who they claim to be, aliases were all the rage.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X