Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evidence of innocence
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
Agreed , which is why I said "by sight at least". People in an area tend to see old aquaintances from time to time and recognise them. I know it's a minor point, but as I said, it is likely that several would have known him. I frequently see people I haven't met for years but recognise at once, or come across a name I haven't heard of for many a year but remember well.
So with all of the publicity that the murder and the inquest received, I believe that just about every copper in the East End came across the name Charles Cross as the person who found the body, and one or two must have thought "Hey, I think that's Thomas Cross' stepson!"
There are too many "musts" around in places where they donīt belong.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
I meant concealment from friends and family or his work place (given he would have to have taken time off - he was there in his work clothes). As for concealment from those who wouldn't recognize him from those details, there would be very few, if any, that would have recognized him by the name Lechmere. I realize this isn't your theory, and I appreciate your presenting the idea (because as I say, I can't ever recall Fisherman laying out why using his step-father's name is such a black mark against him - he just presents it as self evident, but it's anything but self evident as far as I can see). Anyway, as I've said a few times, it's always possible to speculate there was someone out there who knew something and only knew the name Lechmere, so that's all he had to change to vanish from view from this one phantom person. But that's just a story, those sorts of things are just the dressing up, and it's only the dressing up that contains anything suspicious, the fact is he used his step-father's name and divulged more than sufficient information to ensure his identity was available, hence I stand by my statement there was no concealment, but perhaps will rephrase it to be appropriately cautious as "there is no evidence to support concealment as his motivation." That's sufficiently wishy-washy for me.
- Jeff
Comment
-
Hi Fisherman,
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
Why would I discuss that with somebody who claims that I "sweep things under the carpet"?
And why would you trust such an untrustworthyt person in the first place, Jeff? Wouldnīt you be better off discussing the case solely with honest people, instead of scoundrels like me?
Maybe we should start in that end.
And I would trust your response because I do not think you will misrepresent your own ideas. And I think that's the best place to start.
- Jeff
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Hi MrBarnett,
Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
Jeff - where do you get the idea that ‘very few, if any, would have recognised him by the name Lechmere’? Bearing in mind that he gave his two forenames, Charles and Allen, and that the combination of those two with the surname Lechmere was unique, and that he had used the name Lechmere on numerous occasions.
- Jeff
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View PostCharles clearly knew that his legal name was Lechmere, and used it when he thought it was appropriate eg legal matters etc, but what evidence is there that he didn't use the name Cross from choice in everyday matters?
Apparently that is a different matter.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
He married in 1870 in the name of Charles Allen Lechmere.
He appears as Charles Allen Lechmere on the 1871 census.
His mother (bigamously) remarried in 1872 and he acted as a witness, giving his name as Charles Allen Lechmere.
His first son was born in 1872 and was named after his father - Charles Allen Lechmere. The child died in 1875 and his death was registered in the name of Charles Allen Lechmere.*
His son Thomas Allen was born in 1876 and the name of his father appears on his birth certificate and his christening record as Charles Allen Lechmere.
Thomas Cross died in 1869. While he was still alive CAL’s sister Emily died and her death was registered (by one of the family’s neighbours) in the name of Lechmere.
* I should add that another child, born in 1884, was given named Charles Allen Lechmere after his father.
My admiration for your patience, Gary.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Harry D View Post
You're really stretching with this, Abby.
If that were the case, why even bother attending the inquest?
And how would the police find him? They could post Mizen as a look-out, for example. And they could check which carmen were likely to pass through Bucks Row at around 3.45. If Lechmere fled, they would be interested to speak to the carman who usually passed through Bucks Row, but who disappeared as the word got out that the police were looking for him.
You know this, Harry. Why ask? Again?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JeffHamm View PostHi MrBarnett,
I think you've misread my post.
- JeffLast edited by MrBarnett; 09-14-2021, 12:58 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JeffHamm View PostHi Fisherman,
That would have been far more effective had you not been discussing things with me after that post already. But you did. It's only now you choose to become indignant, which makes it look like you're just avoiding answering the question (is that another broom I hear?). So again, all I'm asking you to do is simply to lay out for everyone's benefit your reasoning behind claiming that his use of his step-father's last name is indicative of him killing Nichols. I accept his use of Cross may be considered a rare event. But what is it about his using his step-father's last name that makes him Nichol's murderer, keeping in mind all of the other information he has given with respect to his identity (first name, middle name, address, place of work). Abby has presented his understanding of your idea, and others have presented their own suggestions. It would be helpful if you were to lay out your lines of thinking as well.
And I would trust your response because I do not think you will misrepresent your own ideas. And I think that's the best place to start.
- Jeff
Moreover, if I had been aware of any flawed material handed to James Scobie, I would have sounded the alarm bell immediately. I am not the kind of person you took it upon yourself to paint me out as, and therefore I am interested to know what made you throw out that accusation.
Once you have provided an answer to that question, I will provide an answer to yours.
If you provide no answer, that will in itself be enough of an answer to me, as I believe you understand.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
You should read the comments about the docu, and you will find what I am talking about. Two versions of it has been taken away from Youtube, but before that happened, there wefe lots and lots of people endorsing the theory. So thatīs wherre I get it from. GFurther to that, just about any Ripper related net discussion has people popping up saying it was Lechmere who did it.
Casebook and JTR are not the only forums that discuss the case, Harry.
Anybody who treats a man who was FOUND at a murder site, alone with a freshly killed victim, as a person of interest at best is probably somebody who has taken a spanking on the Ripper forums in a Lechmere related topic, and so they try - as best as they can - to belittle the theory, sobbing as they go along.
Any such person as described above is automatically a suspect if no other viable suspect can be found and if the person in question has no obstacle that nullifies him as a suspect.
The fact that not everybody understands this is something that is as obcious as it is sad, but there you are.
"Met", was it?
Anybody who treats a man who was FOUND at a murder site, alone with a freshly killed victim, as a person of interest at best is probably somebody who has taken a spanking on the Ripper forums in a Lechmere related topic, and so they try - as best as they can - to belittle the theory, sobbing as they go along.
Any such person as described above is automatically a suspect if no other viable suspect can be found and if the person in question has no obstacle that nullifies him as a suspect.
So what you are saying Fish that 130 years later anyone with an iota of common sense should see that Lech is at least a very good suspect. But the police, who were there hadn't a clue that Jack was right in front of them. Or at the very least someone who should raise a suspicion or two.
So every single police officer, patrolman or higher up was a complete dimwit , and not one of them saw through the sinister name issue or the Mizen scam?
What did they think ? He was a nice looking chap so it couldn't have been him.
But us far superior intellectual beings 130 years later know better of course. Even though we were not there and we are looking at almost certainly incomplete evidence.
Be it court transcripts or otherwise.
Not for me and lots and lots of others, as you say. I am afraid.
Regards Darryl
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, but how do we know that Lech was not legally known as Cross...? Or thought he was?
My admiration for your patience, Gary.
I’ve always thought that the fact that Maria had both her children Christened shortly after she ‘married’ Thomas Cross is a little odd. Religious convictions? Perhaps, but her daughter had already been Christened. Perhaps she just wanted a couple of documents that recorded the kids’ relationship to the Lechmeres.
Not that I have to tell you any of this.Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-14-2021, 01:08 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
What evidence is there that he did not call himself Bostock in everyday matters? I find it intensely interesting that people like you take joy in pointing out that I have no proof of my theory - as if theories would be theories when proven, how nutty is that ...? - and then you go on to suggesting totally unproven things yourself.
Apparently that is a different matter.
I also cannot see that his use of the name Cross at the Nichols' murder is particularly sinister, as he gave his correct address and place of work, and seems to have appeared totally voluntarily without being sought by the police. He was fully co-operative and identifiable. Paul had to be pursued, it seems, so some regard that as suspicious.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
There have been lots and lots of people endorsing any old theory, whether it is a royalist **** and bull story or a fake diary for instance.
Anybody who treats a man who was FOUND at a murder site, alone with a freshly killed victim, as a person of interest at best is probably somebody who has taken a spanking on the Ripper forums in a Lechmere related topic, and so they try - as best as they can - to belittle the theory, sobbing as they go along.
Any such person as described above is automatically a suspect if no other viable suspect can be found and if the person in question has no obstacle that nullifies him as a suspect.
So what you are saying Fish that 130 years later anyone with an iota of common sense should see that Lech is at least a very good suspect. But the police, who were there hadn't a clue that Jack was right in front of them. Or at the very least someone who should raise a suspicion or two.
So every single police officer, patrolman or higher up was a complete dimwit , and not one of them saw through the sinister name issue or the Mizen scam?
What did they think ? He was a nice looking chap so it couldn't have been him.
But us far superior intellectual beings 130 years later know better of course. Even though we were not there and we are looking at almost certainly incomplete evidence.
Be it court transcripts or otherwise.
Not for me and lots and lots of others, as you say. I am afraid.
Regards Darryl
Comment
Comment