Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    If I speak of you as a Druitt denier, does that make me a Druittist?

    I fail to see how you put your closets together.
    Except Abby has been a Lechmere apologist throughout this thread.

    Nice try.

    Comment


    • Annie Chapman was the only other victim found along one of Lechmere’s work routes, and her TOD puts that in jeopardy.

      The fact she was also found along Robert Paul’s work route shows there was nothing unusual about Lechmere’s discovery of the body or his movements.

      Two carmen walked down Buck’s Row within minutes of each other, and the two carmen also took the same route past Hanbury Street.

      Lechmere was encountered standing near a recently killed victim. That in and of itself is no crime. The victims were killed outdoors in the wee hours of the morning, and it stands to reason someone would find the body shortly.

      And again, Lechmere could’ve walked off and taken several escape routes. Serial killers aren’t in the habit of standing around waiting to approach the first witness on the scene.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
        And he saw him move, too, and a way in which someone moves may also be recognized/recognizable. Anyway, a good point, Gary - thanks.
        That’s a good point, Frank. Also, if Lech was in the habit of wearing his ‘Sunday best’ to visit his mother at weekends, that might have been another giveaway. When Charles Booth’s researcher visited 20, James Street in 1887, he described the family of the carman living there as ‘v. decent’. He didn’t award too many other v. decents to the poor folk of STGITE.

        Of course, what we don’t know is when Marshall had last seen CAL. They may not have been in contact for a number of years. The fact that Mrs Marshall had been present at Emily Lechmere’s death in 1869 and that she had been entrusted with officially reporting the death suggests the families were fairly close at that time.

        Comment


        • Click image for larger version  Name:	3FE50D4A-9E62-46FF-9318-C2DB8049F482.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	90.0 KB ID:	768392 Here’s Emily Lechmere’s 1869 death cert, courtesy of Ed Stow on JTRForums.

          One interesting little error is that Emily’s father was recorded as Charles Lechmere instead of John. Possibly Mary Ann Marshall didn’t know Emily’s father’s first name and took a stab at it being the same as that of his first-born son, that being common practice at the time.

          And still the L word sticks in some people’s throats.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
            Click image for larger version Name:	3FE50D4A-9E62-46FF-9318-C2DB8049F482.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	90.0 KB ID:	768392 Here’s Emily Lechmere’s 1869 death cert, courtesy of Ed Stow on JTRForums.

            One interesting little error is that Emily’s father was recorded as Charles Lechmere instead of John. Possibly Mary Ann Marshall didn’t know Emily’s father’s first name and took a stab at it being the same as that of his first-born son, that being common practice at the time.

            And still the L word sticks in some people’s throats.
            The other interesting ‘error’ is the addition of the word deceased next to the father’s name. John Lechmere was still very much alive at the time. Did Mrs Marshall guess that too, or had she been told that John Lechmere was dead?
            Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-16-2021, 08:50 AM.

            Comment


            • Did Cross deliberately attempt to hide his identity,Mr Barnett?Did he admit to that?How do you identify a deliberate attempt.By coming forward he subjected himself to visual recognition of the court,and by his statement of address and works position he provided additional identification.I do not need to provide information of whether Cross was known by that name in any other situation..The position was ,his use of the name could not in any way obscure his(Cross)evidence connected with his finding of the body.Therefor he could not be guilty of misleading the court.The questionof proof lies with you,and others like you who plead Cross lied.Collectively none of you have proven he broke a law.

              Comment


              • Hi Fisherman,

                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                Being the kind of poster that you have just proven yourself to be, I am not surprised to see that you now claim that I would have said that using the name Cross would be tantamount to providing evidence that Lechmere killed Nichols.
                What I have said for a decade or so is that the case against Lechmere cannot be decided on one parameter only. All the bits must be weighed in. And the name issue is one of the bits. He apparently kept his registered name from the police and inquest, and that will be one of the matters that made James Scobie say that he is a man who seems to be acting suspiciously. Hiding your true name is a common enough thing to do in criminal circles, and we seem to have two occasions when he did so in combination with investigations into violent deaths - plus we may well have two occasions of him hiding his address from the press. Taken together, that is not something that can be disregarded as uninteresting in the context of building a criminal case.
                As you may have noticed but disregarded, I have also said many times that even if he DID use the name Cross colloquially or perhaps only at work, that would not detract from the case to any palpable degree. The main points of accusation lie not in the name, but instead in other matters, but when the case is weighed up, the name issue cannot be left outside the scaless.

                Thatīs you and me being done with each other. You are now free to join other posters who, when I disregard their posts, claim that this is becasue I have no answers to give. In your case, you should at least know why I may be disinterested in your posts until further notice.

                And I do NOT sweep material under the carpet!!
                Ok, so the name thing really is just claiming he somehow hid his identity, despite giving his first and middle name, place of residence, place of work, and the name he used was his step-fathers, with no actual evidence that he didn't at some point also tell the police he also had the name Lechmere (we don't know he did tell them that, but there's nothing recorded indicating he didn't either, like a note in the police files indicating that they've since determined he is also known as "Lechmere").

                It's ignoring all the evidence he revealed his identity and focusing solely on the use of his step-father's name, which he has done in similar situations in the past.

                I thought there might be something to it that I was missing that made it worthy of noting, but there isn't.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by harry View Post
                  Did Cross deliberately attempt to hide his identity,Mr Barnett?Did he admit to that?How do you identify a deliberate attempt.By coming forward he subjected himself to visual recognition of the court,and by his statement of address and works position he provided additional identification.I do not need to provide information of whether Cross was known by that name in any other situation..The position was ,his use of the name could not in any way obscure his(Cross)evidence connected with his finding of the body.Therefor he could not be guilty of misleading the court.The questionof proof lies with you,and others like you who plead Cross lied.Collectively none of you have proven he broke a law.
                  Whether he did it deliberately or not we may never know. But we can ask ourselves whether it is likely that it didn’t occur to this man who overwhelmingly identified himself as CAL throughout his life that he should mention his ‘real’ name when giving evidence under oath. How many examples of people disclosing both names in court do you need to see to realise that CAL’s failure to do so is an anomaly?

                  I’m afraid the burden of proof is on you and others who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that the man thought of himself and was thought of by others as Charles Lechmere to explain why you cannot bring yourself to use the L word.

                  By not revealing his full identity, CAL did mislead the court.

                  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.
                    This assumes that Stride's killer wasn't a different person of course, which is highly debatable in itself.

                    Comment


                    • In what way,Mr Barnett,did the use of the name Cross mislead? Are you implying that if he had used the name Lechmere,his(Cross) report of the finding of the body would have been different,or judged by the Coroner and jury to have had a different indication?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

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

                        Two unlucky bleeders, by dawn's early light,
                        One too dead to help with Lechmere's plight.

                        In most cases such as these, the killer will have no ready-made explanation for being found with his victim when she has just been murdered. So in such cases the killer will do anything to avoid this happening.

                        In stark contrast, we would expect anyone who discovers a recently murdered victim to have a credible reason for being there, which can be independently confirmed.

                        Nichols was in Buck's Row when her killer struck.

                        There was a sinister reason for both parties being there together.

                        Anyone but Lechmere would have left the scene of any murder where he had no business being there.

                        Lechmere - lucky bleeder if guilty - could explain with the consummate ease of an innocent witness why his path had inevitably crossed with that of the Buck's Row victim.

                        But only the Buck's Row victim.

                        Today, this makes him an unlucky bleeder, for being precisely where he should have been, in order to be at work on time, when he claimed to see what looked from a distance like a tarpaulin. Today, this is seen by some as suspicious behaviour. He killed Nichols at that time and in that location so the crafty git would have an excuse for being there if he needed it. Damned for being there, either way.

                        All those of us, for whom this thread was started, who have been asked for evidence such as this, which is consistent with an innocent witness, caught up in just one of the terrible events of that year by mere happenstance, have had to put up with being sneered at and insulted, and labelled 'Lech deniers' [WTF?], for playing the game and contributing to the thread.

                        It's as puerile as it is distasteful.

                        And a jury would not like to see the prosecution baiting the defence in this way, when their job is to convict the defendant. Such tactics smack of a lack of conviction - in both senses.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        Last edited by caz; 09-16-2021, 10:28 AM.
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          In what way,Mr Barnett,did the use of the name Cross mislead? Are you implying that if he had used the name Lechmere,his(Cross) report of the finding of the body would have been different,or judged by the Coroner and jury to have had a different indication?
                          He misled them as to his identity. Even if, and there is absolutely no evidence to support it, he was known as Cross at work, he was known elsewhere as Lechmere. It would appear that the coroner, the jury, the police, the press - and through them the wider world - never got to know his real name.

                          Some of those who knew him by the unusual name of Lechmere may not have known him by the name of Cross.

                          Can you name one person whom you can be sure knew him as Charles Cross? There were numerous people who would have known him as Charles Lechmere.
                          Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-16-2021, 10:26 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                            This assumes that Stride's killer wasn't a different person of course, which is highly debatable in itself.
                            Indeed it is. Of course, if Stride’s killer wasn’t a man (or two men) she was witnessed snogging that night, it argues strongly for her having been soliciting.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                              -- And, to me, it is ludicrous even to imagine that a Victorian employer would give a moment's thought to the fate of any random employee...

                              "Okay, Lechmere, I've been on to Head Office, and we're going to back you on this. Come upstairs and meet the lawyer we've hired: he'll be with you all through today's proceedings. He's agreed to pretend that you're called 'Cross'. And remember: if you end up going to jail, we'll keep paying your wages, so your family will all be okay..."

                              M.
                              I had assumed Pickfords would be more concerned with the reason for any employee being absent during normal working hours.

                              Could one of their drivers simply park up somewhere for a couple of hours when they fancied a kip, or have a few pints down the pub, or attend the inquest of a murder victim, without needing to say a word to their boss?

                              Love,

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


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                                I had assumed Pickfords would be more concerned with the reason for any employee being absent during normal working hours.

                                Could one of their drivers simply park up somewhere for a couple of hours when they fancied a kip, or have a few pints down the pub, or attend the inquest of a murder victim, without needing to say a word to their boss?

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                In the 1860s, Pickfords had taken to suing their own employees in an attempt to discourage their reckless behaviour. Or perhaps to put up a facade of disapproval of their recklessness.

                                If CAL had been found to be responsible for the child’s death, the financial implications for Pickfords would have dwarfed the minor inconvenience of having a driver off work for a few hours.

                                They almost certainly would have known that he was AWOL.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X