Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    Good observations as usual, Frank, and I had planned to make the first one myself, in a more general context.

    It is readily acknowledged that once Lechmere had bluffed his way out of one tricky situation, as he did in Buck's Row, he couldn't have tried it a second time. He had played his one joker.

    But it's more complex than that, because he would ONLY have been able to play his joker IF the time and place gave him a tailor-made excuse for being 'found' with one of his victims. Assuming that Nichols ended up in Buck's Row by her own volition, and wasn't forced there at knife point, it would have been a very happy coincidence for Lechmere that on this occasion ONLY, when faced with a spur-of-the-moment decision to make, on hearing someone - Robert Paul - approaching, he was able to opt for staying with his freshly killed victim because he could claim to have discovered her while going about his daily business. Unless he predicted this beforehand, and had already factored it into his thinking, he was jolly lucky that all the circumstances were so totally in his favour when he suddenly needed them to be.

    If he had chosen to leave Buck's Row unseen, the joker up his sleeve would have been no use to him in any other situation.

    "So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at that hour, when you were found standing over the deceased?"

    "So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in Dutfield's Yard at one o'clock on Sunday morning when you were seen with the murdered woman?"

    "So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in Mitre Square, at the scene of the latest atrocity?"

    "So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in Miller's Court etc etc.....?"

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    If Paul hadn’t have happened along and Lechmere had gone off to find a copper himself, that would have been closer to a guilty Wildbore ‘finding’ the torso.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      Catching up with this monster thread, Fish, I have a further question regarding how you see your suspect's character.

      If Charlie "Two series" Lechmere was really looking for recognition for being such a clever bastard, and was so irritated that nobody was linking his ripper and torso crimes that he went to the trouble of designing the Pinchin Street example to get the message across loud and clear, would he not have been more than 'Cross' when the silly bastards still didn't make the connection?

      Could he not have spelled it out for the blockheads, to save you doing it in the 21st century?

      With apologies to the late great Ian Dury:

      I'm Cross, I can't be classed as witless,
      I've reduced my victims to the littlest.
      When I did my slitting-em-up-ness
      I frightened everybody shitless.
      I ain't half been a clever bastard,
      Probably got it from my mum...

      Love,

      Caz
      X


      Very good, Caz. Wasn't she an unlucky bleeder...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

        It's also highly indicative, if I may shyly say so, of the way some people have, in essence, anointed the Lechmeres 'Family of the Year, Every Year'. Just as we see a psychology of 'suspect selection' (starting, historically, with the 'incoming Jew' and the 'foreign sailor'...), so do we also see a modern psychology of 'suspect rejection' -- with Lechmere officially burnished as the paragon paterfamilias dedicated to hard work and self-reliance in an uncaring age, and seen as now being *dumped upon* by accusers who couldn't work half the hours or sire half the brood...) Here and elsewhere, I've seen things written in supposed defence of Lechmere's innocence which, in their combination of topical rage and obsessional persistence, point to a bizarrely personal investment in an idealised image of a man, dead these 101 years, whom no person living ever met. And now of the mother, too.

        M.
        It's called fighting fire with fire, Mark.

        If Lechmere theorists insist on making him out to be a total monster, with feck all evidence, then by Christ it's up to everyone else to provide a balance.

        Rant over.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          I don´t care who brought the GSG into the matter. You very clearly wrote that "Christer's theory suggests Lechmere was a 'terrible communicator'", and Christers theory suggests no such thing at all. Therefore, you misrepresented me in a way that seemed very well shaped to make me look stupid. Now that we can see that your claim is the truly stupid parameter around, it may be time to quote an old Swedish proverb again:

          "Den som gräver en grop åt andra faller ofta själv däri."

          In English? Of course! "He who digs a hole in the ground for others has a tendency to end up in it himself."

          In order not to be a sexist, I will of course allow for changing "he" and "himself" for "she" and "herself".
          Note that I didn't write that Christer suggested Lechmere was a terrible communicator. I 'very clearly wrote' that his theory suggests this - in that Lechmere tried to communicate a message that the ripper and torso cases were the work of one man, but must have communicated it very poorly for nobody to have 'got' it during his lifetime.

          Love,

          Caz
          X

          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • I think my record over the years Fisherman,stand up very well.Your record.Years of trying to sustain a case of murder against an innocent man.A case that has presented not one incriminating piece of evidence.
            I see that those who responded to my question of what is a real name,fail to present any evidence of a legal nature.It matters not what he was known as at different stages of his life,the question is did he commit perjury or lie when giving the name of Cross.The answer is no.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              If he had chosen to leave Buck's Row unseen, the joker up his sleeve would have been no use to him in any other situation.

              "So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at that hour, when you were found standing over the deceased?"

              "So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in Dutfield's Yard at one o'clock on Sunday morning when you were seen with the murdered woman?"

              "So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in Mitre Square, at the scene of the latest atrocity?"

              "So, Mr Cross, what were you doing in Miller's Court etc etc.....?"

              Love,

              Caz
              X

              I personally feel this is a good point Caz. Particularity in view of Hanbury St. We know that when she was almost certainly killed [ yes I know Fish will digress on the time ], the street was getting quite busy with people on the way to the market etc and daybreak evolving.
              Would Lech really take the chance of murdering Annie a few days after Polly when he could have been easily recognised by someone as he came out of the passageway of 29 Hanbury st ? Don't forget he had been a Carman for over 20 yrs and would be more than likely known in the area. And it was only a few days after he appeared at the inquest. So people who did know him, well he would be fresh in their minds.
              And for arguments sake, though not as strongly, I feel the same holds for an earlier time of murder with Annie.
              Would a cool, calculating killer really take that chance ? Or would he lay low for a little while until he knew he wasn't being suspected by the police or anyone else for that matter before he decided to strike again.
              I will go for the latter.

              Regards Darryl

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                It has been suggested that the man Marshall saw was the man seen with Stride in the Bricklayers Arms, and I am personally more inclined to agree with that.

                What I have said is that he may have gone to Pickfords after Mitre Square to wash up and possibly to use the rag from Eddowes´ apron as a makeshift bandage if he cut himself while cutting up Eddowes.
                Hi Christer,

                The man at the Bricklayers Arms wore a Billycock hat. Marshall saw a round peaked cap,...and no flower. Packer saw a Wideawake hat and a flower, Smith saw a hard felt deerstalker, which is not the same as a soft fabric detective deerstalker, and a flower. A Billycock, a Wideawake and a hard felt deerstalker are all brimmed hats, not peaked caps. IMO Marshall saw a different couple.

                I too think that the Ripper cut his hand during the Eddows murder, and used the apron as a bandage. A detour to Pickfords would explain the time delay to the apron being found at Goulston Street and, if the wound was serious and maybe became infected, the time gap to the next murder(s).

                Cheers, George
                Last edited by GBinOz; 09-16-2021, 06:03 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  I think my record over the years Fisherman,stand up very well.Your record.Years of trying to sustain a case of murder against an innocent man.A case that has presented not one incriminating piece of evidence.
                  I see that those who responded to my question of what is a real name,fail to present any evidence of a legal nature.It matters not what he was known as at different stages of his life,the question is did he commit perjury or lie when giving the name of Cross.The answer is no.
                  Where’s your evidence that he was known by anyone as Cross? There’s evidence that he was known as Lechmere by numerous people. The question is not whether he committed perjury by omitting the name Lechmere, it’s whether he deliberately did so to conceal his identity in some way.







                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                    I personally feel this is a good point Caz. Particularity in view of Hanbury St. We know that when she was almost certainly killed [ yes I know Fish will digress on the time ], the street was getting quite busy with people on the way to the market etc and daybreak evolving.
                    Would Lech really take the chance of murdering Annie a few days after Polly when he could have been easily recognised by someone as he came out of the passageway of 29 Hanbury st ? Don't forget he had been a Carman for over 20 yrs and would be more than likely known in the area. And it was only a few days after he appeared at the inquest. So people who did know him, well he would be fresh in their minds.
                    And for arguments sake, though not as strongly, I feel the same holds for an earlier time of murder with Annie.
                    Would a cool, calculating killer really take that chance ? Or would he lay low for a little while until he knew he wasn't being suspected by the police or anyone else for that matter before he decided to strike again.
                    I will go for the latter.

                    Regards Darryl
                    Hi Darryl,

                    He had only recently moved to Doveton Street, so Hanbury Street would not have been on his work route for twenty years. For all we know, the morning of Nichols’ death may have been the first time he had ever used it. And there’s nothing to say that once on his cart he ever ventured east of Broad Street.

                    Gary
                    Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-16-2021, 06:39 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      Hi Darryl,

                      He had only recently moved to Doveton Street, so Hanbury Street would not have been on his work route for twenty years. For all we know, the morning of Nichols’ death may have been the first time he had ever used it. And there’s nothing to say that once on his cart he ever ventured east of Broad Street.

                      Gary
                      Having trudged to work for most of the 20 years along a similar route from Mary Ann Street and James Street, his new route might have engendered a sense of anonymity in him. And taking him through the heart of Spitalfields the new route probably brought him into closer contact with the sort of women who were seemingly the Ripper’s preferred victims.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        Having trudged to work for most of the 20 years along a similar route from Mary Ann Street and James Street, his new route might have engendered a sense of anonymity in him. And taking him through the heart of Spitalfields the new route probably brought him into closer contact with the sort of women who were seemingly the Ripper’s preferred victims.
                        And in addition, the move to Doveton Street provided him with an opportunity to slough off any Cross associations that may still have lingered in STGITE 19 years or so after the death of his stepfather.

                        I know I keep banging on about this, but his kids were registered at their new school in June, 1888 in the name of Lechmere. So their teachers, their schoolfriends etc would have thought of the family as the Lechmeres. Unless after all that time CAL harboured a deep emotional attachment to the distant memory of his mother’s first bigamously married husband, why would anyone in MEOT have known the family as the Crosses?

                        And having sloughed off the Cross associations, he uses the name one final time…
                        Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-16-2021, 07:14 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                          The man at the Bricklayers Arms wore a Billycock hat. Marshall saw a round peaked cap,...and no flower. Packer saw a Wideawake hat and a flower, Smith saw a hard felt deerstalker, which is not the same as a soft fabric detective deerstalker, and a flower. A Billycock, a Wideawake and a hard felt deerstalker are all brimmed hats, not peaked caps. IMO Marshall saw a different couple.
                          Hi George,

                          I don't know Christer's reasons for being more inclined to think the man Marshall saw was the man seen with Stride in the Bricklayers Arms, but I can say why I agree with him. In general, witness descriptions are not all that reliable, so I don't put much stock in the details given by witnesses as to what people they witnessed were wearing. What I do, however, trust is behaviour witnessed and perhaps a general impression of how someone was dressed.

                          In this case, Marshall spoke of a decently dressed man, mild speaking, who was talking quietly to Stride and kissing & cuddling her and both seemed sober. Best saw a respectably dressed man, hugging and kissing the woman he was with and PC Smith also saw a man of respectable appearance, talking together with Stride and who both seemed sober. To me, this could very well have been the same man and this notion is only accentuated by the flower she was given at some stage of that evening.

                          For what it's worth.

                          Cheers,
                          Frank

                          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                            Hi George,

                            I don't know Christer's reasons for being more inclined to think the man Marshall saw was the man seen with Stride in the Bricklayers Arms, but I can say why I agree with him. In general, witness descriptions are not all that reliable, so I don't put much stock in the details given by witnesses as to what people they witnessed were wearing. What I do, however, trust is behaviour witnessed and perhaps a general impression of how someone was dressed.

                            In this case, Marshall spoke of a decently dressed man, mild speaking, who was talking quietly to Stride and kissing & cuddling her and both seemed sober. Best saw a respectably dressed man, hugging and kissing the woman he was with and PC Smith also saw a man of respectable appearance, talking together with Stride and who both seemed sober. To me, this could very well have been the same man and this notion is only accentuated by the flower she was given at some stage of that evening.

                            For what it's worth.

                            Cheers,
                            Frank
                            And bearing in mind that Marshall was someone who knew (or had known) Lechmere, that may be the closest we can get to evidence of innocence. He didn’t see the man’s face, but he heard him speak.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post
                              It is readily acknowledged that once Lechmere had bluffed his way out of one tricky situation, as he did in Buck's Row, he couldn't have tried it a second time. He had played his one joker.
                              Quite so, Caz. If, as Dickere suggested in a post some days ago, he’d “found” a later victim, he’d have got a lot more attention than he did. While she may be right on the attention aspect, my first reaction was more directed towards how that would have gone - exactly as you suggest - as he, obviously, wouldn’t have been able to find any of the other victims “en route” to work. So, indeed, Nichols was – conveniently or not - the only one he would have been able to find on his route to work. If Lechmere really was her killer, then he was as jolly lucky as you suggest he was.

                              The best,
                              Frank
                              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                                And bearing in mind that Marshall was someone who knew (or had known) Lechmere, that may be the closest we can get to evidence of innocence. He didn’t see the man’s face, but he heard him speak.
                                And he saw him move, too, and a way in which someone moves may also be recognized/recognizable. Anyway, a good point, Gary - thanks.

                                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X