Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    To claim that it is proven that the attack had already taken palce as Lechmere arrived, and to base that claim solely on Lechmere´s 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.
    But the reality is that you cannot disprove his account. The blood flow you seek to rely on is flawed because he could have quite easily have disturbed the killer.

    If he had have been the killer he could have made good his escape but he didnt, how foolish would that have been for a supposed killer who had according to you killed on the streets before to put himself as the crime scene with a freshly killed victim.

    There is nothing to show that when he gave the name Cross there was any intent to decieve, this is something you have invented to back up your theory which has no foundation other than your persitence to support this wild speculative theory sadly lacking in any substantive evidence.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk


    Comment


    • One says that we have evidence that Nichols was cut before Lechmere arrived at the scene. Evidence given by guess who...?

      Another one claims that I am daydreaming when I build a case solely on how Lechmere may have passed the murder sites.

      A third thinks the name swapping matter is "going down the drain" swiftly. And why? Because he thinks the victorian police was infallable and made a thorough check of a man they didn´t even find out the name of.

      A fourth claims that I do not think that the people at Pickfords knew anything about the Ripper murders.

      I spend time out here hoping to get intelligent reactions and useful criticism of the theory I have presented in my book. And THIS is what I get....??? People jumping around and jeering "Fisherman is wro-ong, Fisherman is wro-ong, all day lo-ong, all day lo-ong!" And calling ME juvenile?

      I´m off for some time. If I want the kind of criticism on offer out here, I may just as well get it at the local kindergarten.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
        >>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.
        This is a shrewd point, of course, and not easy to refute.

        In the 1876 case that killed little Walter William, it would have been entirely pointless and even counterproductive for Lechmere to have used an alias. His employers would have followed the inquest closely, and may have even provided a legal observer, or at least a watcher from Pickford's. Unless someone wants to argue that Pickford & Co. was "in on it," it certainly suggests that Lechmere was widely known as 'Cross' at work.

        It might not be entirely analogous, but I worked with a guy named 'Woody' for years. Everyone knew him by that name. One day, when someone in the corporate office referred to a 'Steve,' I had no idea who the heck he was talking about--it was 'Woody's' real name, but I had never once heard it used in all those years. Names stick, and people don't necessarily share their private life with co-workers. Many people 'compartmentalize."

        Had Lechmere been stupid enough to use an alias in the 1876 case, it would have been used against him--showing he had something to hide.

        But no blame was attached to him for this tragic accident, and his blamelessness was entirely independent of the name he was known under, which suggests he wouldn't have tried to hide his identity--it would have been futile.

        Thus, I suspect you're right. 'Cross' was his Pickford's name. It's a little unusual, admittedly, but not out-of-the-question.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

          This is a shrewd point, of course, and not easy to refute.

          In the 1876 case that killed little Walter William, it would have been entirely pointless and even counterproductive for Lechmere to have used an alias. His employers would have followed the inquest closely, and may have even provided a legal observer, or at least a watcher from Pickford's. Unless someone wants to argue that Pickford & Co. was "in on it," it certainly suggests that Lechmere was widely known as 'Cross' at work.

          It might not be entirely analogous, but I worked with a guy named 'Woody' for years. Everyone knew him by that name. One day, when someone in the corporate office referred to a 'Steve,' I had no idea who the heck he was talking about--it was 'Woody's' real name, but I had never once heard it used in all those years. Names stick, and people don't necessarily share their private life with co-workers. Many people 'compartmentalize."

          Had Lechmere been stupid enough to use an alias in the 1876 case, it would have been used against him--showing he had something to hide.

          But no blame was attached to him for this tragic accident, and his blamelessness was entirely independent of the name he was known under, which suggests he wouldn't have tried to hide his identity--it would have been futile.

          Thus, I suspect you're right. 'Cross' was his Pickford's name. It's a little unusual, admittedly, but not out-of-the-question.
          It is a shrewd point, but it’s one that has been made many times before. The anomaly in my mind is not that he used the name Cross, but that he neglected to mention his ‘real’ name. Others in the same/similar situation with far less reason to honour their birth name felt it appropriate to give both.





          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

            It is a shrewd point, but it’s one that has been made many times before. The anomaly in my mind is not that he used the name Cross, but that he neglected to mention his ‘real’ name. Others in the same/similar situation with far less reason to honour their birth name felt it appropriate to give both.




            I think it’s highly likely that Pickford’s had some legal representation at the 1876 inquest. If so, the name Cross must have been known to them.

            Comment


            • Is there any documentation after the the murders and before his death of him switching names.

              also off topic in the documentary it indicates he became a wealthy man in later years . How did he make his money .

              what name is on his death certificate ?

              Comment


              • >> 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...), ...<<


                You mean like Stewart Evans, Paul Begg and a veritable who's who of Ripperolgy? Thanks.


                >> ... but those ideas are only of interest when you prove them.<<

                Following that logic, Lechmere would only be of interest if you proved his guilt, let's try and have a sensible debate.



                >> 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 let´s be honest now: Where exactly did I do that?<<

                And I'm afraid this is typical Christer stuff. Knowing you're wrong, you take one part of a sentence out of a sentence out of context to avoid the issue being discussed.

                The issue, that you are trying to avoid, was your claim that is reasonable to claim Pickfords didn't know about the boy being run over and Cross attending the inquest. I note Gary has already pointed out that he believes Pickfords would have had legal representation at the accident inquest.


                >> This is the sort of indecent stuff that we really should try and avoid. <<

                Precisely, so please don't do it and stick to sensible debating.


                >> ... if we persist in thinking that Pickfords conducted a full-blown investigation of their own...<<

                There you go again.

                Of course Pickfords would have checked the drivers story with regards to to the accident. Are you seriously trying tell us, they would have let the matter go to an inquest without protecting themselves? Surely even you can see how silly your argument is coming across.



                >>... 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 <<

                Swanson's reports were nothing more than heavily précised versions for the benefit of more senior officials general knowledge of the case. Cross, is but a part of a throwaway line.

                Why would that be? Since you've read Swanson's report you should already know.

                "...enquires were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, reporting whose character & surroundings of suspicion was cast in statements made to police."
                Chief
                inspector Donald Swanson 19th Oct 1888


                >>Please do not claim things on my behalf that I have never said. <<

                As shown, I haven't, but you constantly do, which is frustrating to serious debate. So please try and address the actual issues being raised rather than trying to avoid them.


                dustymiller
                aka drstrange

                Comment


                • >>- the blood evidence <<

                  A manufactured notion that needs to believe Neil didn't know the meaning of the word ooze.
                  That the newspaper reports were in error in describing Mizen talking about seeing blood after he returned.


                  >>- the covered up wounds<<

                  Assumes:

                  A. the wounds were deliberately covered up
                  B. that if Cross disturbed the killer/s, they wouldn't have covered up the wounds to aid their getaway.


                  >>- the name change <<

                  Assumes:

                  He changed his name, rather than simply gave a name he would have been known by at Pickfords


                  >>- the timing aspect <<

                  Assumes:

                  Paul's highly inaccurate version, not made under oath, is correct and that the actual testimonies under oath by three policemen are inaccurate.


                  >>- the fact that Paul never mentioned seeing or hearing Lechmere in front of himself<<

                  Shown to be entirely plausible.


                  >> - the refusal to help prop Nichols up <<

                  Information only offered by Cross himself.


                  >> - the disagreement with Mizen<<

                  Manufactured to to avoid the fact that Mizen's actions were questionable and that the police didn't pursue the matter.


                  >>- the links to the Torso series<<

                  I don't know enough to comment.

                  To sum up, the case against Lechmere, as listed above, relies on the known evidence being wrong and open to reinterpretation by people heavily biased in favour of Charles allen Lechmere being the killer.


                  Last edited by drstrange169; 05-15-2021, 01:20 AM.
                  dustymiller
                  aka drstrange

                  Comment


                  • Let me slightly amend your conversation Gary,

                    A conversation between two old Pickford employees 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.’

                    dustymiller
                    aka drstrange

                    Comment


                    • >>Is there any documentation after the the murders and before his death of him switching names.<<

                      Outside of Pickfords he and his family were always called Lechmere, as far as we know.


                      >> also off topic in the documentary it indicates he became a wealthy man in later years . How did he make his money .<<

                      I don't think you could call him wealthy, but he did leave effects of 262 pounds in 1920 according to probate records. I won't rely on the doco for too much accuracy.


                      >>what name is on his death certificate ? <<

                      Lechmere
                      dustymiller
                      aka drstrange

                      Comment


                      • Evidence that Nichols was attacked before the arrival of Cross,is supplied by Cross himself,the first witness at the scene,and to a lesser extent by Paul,who arrived seconds later.Although neither declares to having observed the injuries,they were able to state Nichols was either dead or dying.There was no time between their leaving and the arrival of Neil,for anyone else to intervene.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          Let me slightly amend your conversation Gary,

                          A conversation between two old Pickford employees 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.’
                          ‘Oh you mean Charlie Lechmere. I’ve known him for years. My kids went to school with the Lechmere kids and I went to his wedding. Did you ever hear his story about being descended from ‘erefordshire’ gentry? Charles HALLEN Lechmere no less.’

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            Evidence that Nichols was attacked before the arrival of Cross,is supplied by Cross himself,the first witness at the scene,and to a lesser extent by Paul,who arrived seconds later.Although neither declares to having observed the injuries,they were able to state Nichols was either dead or dying.There was no time between their leaving and the arrival of Neil,for anyone else to intervene.
                            How does Paul coming across Lechmere (that’s his name) standing by an already dead or dying woman provide evidence that she was attacked before Lechmere arrived? For all Paul knew Charles ALLEN Lechmere could have arrived 2 minutes or 2 hours earlier.

                            Comment


                            • I wonder how many people attended CAL’s wedding to Elizabeth Bostock in 1870, and whether when the vicar started speaking the congregation began whispering ‘Lechmere? Who’s this Charles ALLEN Lechmere? I thought this was Charlie Cross’s wedding.’

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                I wonder how many people attended CAL’s wedding to Elizabeth Bostock in 1870, and whether when the vicar started speaking the congregation began whispering ‘Lechmere? Who’s this Charles ALLEN Lechmere? I thought this was Charlie Cross’s wedding.’
                                Ditto the funeral.

                                ’Have you seen the misprint on the memorial card? It says Charles ALLEN Lechmere. What a disgrace!’

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X