Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

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

  • 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

    Comment


    • 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.

      Comment


      • 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.


        Comment


        • 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

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • >>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!"








              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • 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.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    I know I am correct but you are never going to admit this part of your theory is flawed

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    I know I am much more clever than you, but you are never going to realize it.

                    There, an argument in your own vein. Can you see how productive it is?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                      >>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!"







                      Once more, you have a lot of ideas about how the Lechmere theory would be wrong, just like many "thinkers" out here (have a look at the company you are currently travelling in...), but those ideas are only of interest when you prove them.

                      As long as you canīt - and that wonīt change - it amounts to nothing more than a place alongside Trevor Marriot, who just tired to prove his point by saying that he knows that he is right and that I will never admit it.

                      That is a standard of Ripperology that was always to be found out here, of course.

                      Just to give you a little something in return, here is my answer to your last two dramatic points:

                      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?

                      This is typical Dusty stuff. You try to make out as if I had said that I believe that nobody at Pickfords was aware of the Ripper murders. But letīs be honest now: Where exactly did I do that?

                      This is the sort of indecent stuff that we really should try and avoid. What I think is that when Polly Nichols died, although a lot was written about it, it was not a murder of the queen of England, it was the murder of a lowly prostitute in the East End. That will have had an influence on how people in general looked at it. There would not have been the kind of outrage a similar murder of a respectable Westender would have provoked. Even today, people react in much the same way - when a criminal gang member is shot, many reason that he had it coming. When a prostitute is killed, many reason it comes with the trade.

                      This may have played a key role in the degree to which people were outraged by the murder and the degree to which they felt an obligation to get involved in it. I suppose you will now get all upset and say "He thinks the Nichols murder was something that passed unnoticed!", and then you will go ahead and claim that as another of your "truths". I am not saying that it passed unnoticed, but I am saying that it was not the kind of deed that would provoke a maximum outrage. I hope you can see how that works. If not, Iīm sure most people can.

                      So it is against this backdrop that we should ask ourselves to which degree - if any - we may be certain that Pickfords made enquiries into who the carman was.

                      Once we have gotten that far, and if we persist in thinking that Pickfords conducted a full-blown investigation of their own, how do we for instance know that Lechmere did not tell his superiors "Thatīs me they wrote about, but I did not want to upset my mother so I used my old stepfathers name instead of Lechmere"?

                      You see, it is not as if we cannot find explanations to how the carman may have conned his way out of such a dilemma. it is much the same as how you people have no problems finding innocent alternative explanations to anything. It is the easiest thing in the world to do.

                      Once thatīs been said, letīs take a look at your next dramatization along the same lines:

                      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?

                      Here, we of course have the fact that the carman was described as Charles Cross in both the September and the October report by Swansons hand. You clearly suggest that since there was a contradiction between what Mizen and Lechmere said, the police must have set about verifying if he really WAS named Cross, if he really DID live in Doveton Street and if he really DID work at Pickfords. And the fact of the matter is that at least the two first matters - and very likely the third too, if you ask me - would have given away that he was actually named Lechmere, not Cross.

                      And if this had been found out, then the Swanson reports would have said that he was named Lechmere but on chosen occasions, he called himself Cross (it is not as if he did so generally speaking we know that from the many signatures - we in fact do not know that he EVER called himself Cross other than in combination with violent deaths he was involved with). And that is the minimalistic outcome. There is also the option that if the police had found out, we would have articles covering how a witness had been found out to lie and how he subsequently was checked out and iterrogated and found to be the killer. If so, we would not have any Ripper riddle to solve.

                      Anyways, the bottom line/s: Please do not claim things on my behalf that I have never said. And please do not treat it as a given that the police would always act the way we would have wanted them to.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                        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.
                        And claiming that I only base my theory on that factor is just false. But hey, we do what we can, right?

                        You "forgot":

                        - the blood evidence
                        - the covered up wounds
                        - the name change
                        - the timing aspect
                        - the fact that Paul never mentioned seeing or hearing Lechmere in front of himself
                        - the refusal to help prop Nichols up
                        - the disagreement with Mizen
                        - the links to the Torso series

                        If it wasnīt for that, I may have been charitable and said "Nice try!". But in all honesty, it really is nothing of the sort, is it?

                        Guess it is time to stop answering your posts again, until you start being a bit more honest.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          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.
                          To claim that it is proven that the attack had already taken palce as Lechmere arrived, and to base that claim solely on Lechmereīs own testimony is to try and set a standard for the detection of crime that is not dumb, not foolish, not laughable and not naive.

                          None of these descriptions cover it, and I cannot think of a term that does. Can anybody help me?

                          Comment


                          • But the murder of Nichols helped to produce the outrage that followed.and I am sure the police put as much effort in solving that crime as they would have had the victim been a member of note.Just another excuse to downplay the police activity,as a reason for failing to properly understand that master criminal Cross.How entertaining.How juvenile.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              Once more, you have a lot of ideas about how the Lechmere theory would be wrong, just like many "thinkers" out here (have a look at the company you are currently travelling in...), but those ideas are only of interest when you prove them.

                              As long as you canīt - and that wonīt change - it amounts to nothing more than a place alongside Trevor Marriot, who just tired to prove his point by saying that he knows that he is right and that I will never admit it.

                              That is a standard of Ripperology that was always to be found out here, of course.

                              Just to give you a little something in return, here is my answer to your last two dramatic points:

                              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?

                              This is typical Dusty stuff. You try to make out as if I had said that I believe that nobody at Pickfords was aware of the Ripper murders. But letīs be honest now: Where exactly did I do that?

                              This is the sort of indecent stuff that we really should try and avoid. What I think is that when Polly Nichols died, although a lot was written about it, it was not a murder of the queen of England, it was the murder of a lowly prostitute in the East End. That will have had an influence on how people in general looked at it. There would not have been the kind of outrage a similar murder of a respectable Westender would have provoked. Even today, people react in much the same way - when a criminal gang member is shot, many reason that he had it coming. When a prostitute is killed, many reason it comes with the trade.

                              This may have played a key role in the degree to which people were outraged by the murder and the degree to which they felt an obligation to get involved in it. I suppose you will now get all upset and say "He thinks the Nichols murder was something that passed unnoticed!", and then you will go ahead and claim that as another of your "truths". I am not saying that it passed unnoticed, but I am saying that it was not the kind of deed that would provoke a maximum outrage. I hope you can see how that works. If not, Iīm sure most people can.

                              So it is against this backdrop that we should ask ourselves to which degree - if any - we may be certain that Pickfords made enquiries into who the carman was.

                              Once we have gotten that far, and if we persist in thinking that Pickfords conducted a full-blown investigation of their own, how do we for instance know that Lechmere did not tell his superiors "Thatīs me they wrote about, but I did not want to upset my mother so I used my old stepfathers name instead of Lechmere"?

                              You see, it is not as if we cannot find explanations to how the carman may have conned his way out of such a dilemma. it is much the same as how you people have no problems finding innocent alternative explanations to anything. It is the easiest thing in the world to do.

                              Once thatīs been said, letīs take a look at your next dramatization along the same lines:

                              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?

                              Here, we of course have the fact that the carman was described as Charles Cross in both the September and the October report by Swansons hand. You clearly suggest that since there was a contradiction between what Mizen and Lechmere said, the police must have set about verifying if he really WAS named Cross, if he really DID live in Doveton Street and if he really DID work at Pickfords. And the fact of the matter is that at least the two first matters - and very likely the third too, if you ask me - would have given away that he was actually named Lechmere, not Cross.

                              And if this had been found out, then the Swanson reports would have said that he was named Lechmere but on chosen occasions, he called himself Cross (it is not as if he did so generally speaking we know that from the many signatures - we in fact do not know that he EVER called himself Cross other than in combination with violent deaths he was involved with). And that is the minimalistic outcome. There is also the option that if the police had found out, we would have articles covering how a witness had been found out to lie and how he subsequently was checked out and iterrogated and found to be the killer. If so, we would not have any Ripper riddle to solve.

                              Anyways, the bottom line/s: Please do not claim things on my behalf that I have never said. And please do not treat it as a given that the police would always act the way we would have wanted them to.
                              For an idea of how ‘respectable’ citizens viewed the victims, listen to what Wynne Baxter said about Alice McKenzie:

                              “People having the character of the victims had it entirely in their hands to prevent this kind of thing. If they could only be induced not to assist the man who did this sort of work it would be stopped, but unfortunately it was hoping against hope, because they would lend themselves to it.”

                              Comment


                              • A conversation in 1905:

                                ‘Lets meet up for a coffee later. At Charlie Cross’s’

                                ’Where’s that?’

                                ‘It’s in Campbell Road. You can’t miss it, you’ll see the name CHARLES ALLEN LECHMERE above the door.’

                                I have my eyes peeled for photos of CAL’s business premises. :-)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X