Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • 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,

    You make some good points here too.

    But my own point was more about a situation equivalent to the one in Buck's Row, where the 'finder' is on his own, close to where the victim is actually lying, when someone else comes along.

    So the equivalent in Hanbury Street would be some unlucky bastard being found in the back yard, when Annie Chapman has just been murdered and mutilated. How would the killer bluff his way out of that one, even if he'd got away from Buck's Row unseen?

    In short, he'd have had his work cut out.

    Buck's Row was the ONLY situation that would have given a guilty Lechmere that luxury, but it would still have been a close call.

    The next four murders were committed in places where Lechmere could not have explained his presence.

    Isn't it a fortunate coincidence that in Buck's Row, at the one crime scene where he had to contend with an approaching witness, he was where he would have been anyway?

    Love,

    Caz
    X


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


    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      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.
      Thanks Gary.

      I was thinking more of the inquest into the murder of Nichols in 1888.

      Would Pickfords have picked up on CAL's absence on that occasion, and what the absence was for, whether or not he told them himself?

      Love,

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


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

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

        Caz
        X
        I'm getting a rap vibe here.

        Were you West Philadelphia born and raised, Caz ?


        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Thanks Gary.

          I was thinking more of the inquest into the murder of Nichols in 1888.

          Would Pickfords have picked up on CAL's absence on that occasion, and what the absence was for, whether or not he told them himself?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Almost certainly - but…

          The Working Lads Institute wasn’t too far way from where the horse meat wholesalers were located. I’m not putting this forward as a theory, but it’s possible that CAL might have left his cart while it was being unloaded at H,B’s or somewhere and turned up at the inquest still in his working garb. Who knows how long he had to wait to give his evidence. He might have been in and out within half an hour, or he may have been there much longer.

          Of course, once the fact that a Pickford’s man had found the body appeared in the papers they would probably have worked out who it was.

          A slim chance they may not have known in advance, next to no chance they never found out, I’d say.

          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
            Hi Frank,

            It is always worth hearing from you, and you make a valid point regarding the reliablility of witness statements. In this case there was another courting couple in the area, seen my Mortimer and, IMO, Brown. Missing the flower is understandable, but there is a reasonable visual difference between the hats involved. On the other hand, Marshall's couple did head off south towards the pub and Packer's couple later approached from that direction. Marshall said he didn't see the man's face so if it was someone he knew he could only have recognised the voice and the walk.

            Cheers, George

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              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?
              That’s merely your spin, Gary. It could be equally argued that the family hadn’t heard from Wandering Johnny in years—since he abandoned them—and they assumed he was dead. He was so little discussed Marshall didn’t even know his name and honestly believed he was deceased. No reason to paint her a liar as well.

              Thus, as with the case I cited in the Old Bailey archives, Maria almost certainly would have been found not guilty of bigamy. Seven years had passed, she assumed her husband was dead, and she could legally remarry. The courts were fully aware the divorce laws were inhumane in regard to abandoned women and turned a blind eye, seldom enforcing such cases. In the Old Bailey case, the first husband was proved to be alive and well—he was probably present in the courtroom—and the judge still found the woman not guilty.

              I certainly don’t wish to stand in judgment of Maria, but some take the hardline, maybe out of some religious conviction, or moral outrage that she married a younger man. I don’t share their beliefs. Her behavior was nothing unusual and perfectly reasonable. Did she not have the right to be happy? She was supposed to stay forever single while the man who abandoned her married someone else and sired numerous children?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                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 evidence is that he used the name Cross in court—apparently twice—and that this was the name of the stepfather who raised him. He is listed as such in the 1861 census, and after 150 years, that’s probably as good as we will get. There is nothing sinister about it. If my own nephew was to disappear off the face of the earth, he would leave a paper trail with hundreds of documents showing his legal name. But that’s not the name he goes by. He has his reasons, and they are not dissimilar to CAL’s.

                Ed Stowe—is that his real name?—seems to have won you over, Gary, as you keep repeating his observation that Charles used the name Lechmere over a hundred times. Of course he did. He retained that as his ‘legal’ name, so of course it’s the name that would show up on later electoral roles, etc. Same with my nephew—but there again, that’s not the name he uses or people know him by. Documents are what is left when we wither away and die—our ‘oral’ histories disappear.

                David Barrat produced a long list of similar cases. Men who are identified by their birth name in census reports, electoral roles, etc., but who casually used the name of the stepfathers who raised them. And yes, and in one case the man even used his alternative names in court—without a peep that it wasn’t their birth name.

                Tell me this. If CAL had used the name Lechmere in court, what difference would it have made? How would it have hurt him?
                Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-16-2021, 04:33 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  That’s merely your spin, Gary. It could be equally argued that the family hadn’t heard from Wandering Johnny in years—since he abandoned them—and they assumed he was dead. He was so little discussed Marshall didn’t even know his name and honestly believed he was deceased. No reason to paint her a liar as well.

                  Thus, as with the case I cited in the Old Bailey archives, Maria almost certainly would have been found not guilty of bigamy. Seven years had passed, she assumed her husband was dead, and she could legally remarry. The courts were fully aware the divorce laws were inhumane in regard to abandoned women and turned a blind eye, seldom enforcing such cases. In the Old Bailey case, the first husband was proved to be alive and well—he was probably present in the courtroom—and the judge still found the woman not guilty.

                  I certainly don’t wish to stand in judgment of Maria, but some take the hardline, maybe out of some religious conviction, or moral outrage that she married a younger man. I don’t share their beliefs. Her behavior was nothing unusual and perfectly reasonable. Did she not have the right to be happy? She was supposed to stay forever single while the man who abandoned her married someone else and sired numerous children?
                  How is it spin?

                  John Lechmere was still alive, so saying he was dead was an error. Fact.

                  Either Mrs Marshall was told he was dead or she assumed he was. Where’s the spin in saying that?

                  You have no idea whether Maria would have been found guilty of the crime of bigamy because you have no idea whether Maria knew JAL was still alive.

                  I’m not making a moral judgement of Maria’s actions, just putting forward a plausible explanation for why she might have moved to East End and why she might subsequently have been averse to her location and marriage to Thomas Cross being broadcast to all and sundry.

                  We clearly have a different view of Victorian social mores.

                  Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-16-2021, 04:49 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    The evidence is that he used the name Cross in court—apparently twice—and that this was the name of the stepfather who raised him. He is listed as such in the 1861 census, and after 150 years, that’s probably as good as we will get. There is nothing sinister about it. If my own nephew was to disappear off the face of the earth, he would leave a paper trail with hundreds of documents showing his legal name. But that’s not the name he goes by. He has his reasons, and they are not dissimilar to CAL’s.

                    Ed Stowe—is that his real name?—seems to have won you over, Gary, as you keep repeating his observation that Charles used the name Lechmere over a hundred times. Of course he did. He retained that as his ‘legal’ name, so of course it’s the name that would show up on later electoral roles, etc. Same with my nephew—but there again, that’s not the name he uses or people know him by. Documents are what is left when we wither away and die—our ‘oral’ histories disappear.

                    David Barrat produced a long list of similar cases. Men who are identified by their birth name in census reports, electoral roles, etc., but who casually used the name of the stepfathers who raised them. And yes, and in one case the man even used his alternative names in court—without a peep that it wasn’t their birth name.

                    Tell me this. If CAL had used the name Lechmere in court, what difference would it have made? How would it have hurt him?
                    The two court appearances (only one of which is definitely CAL) are the anomalies we are considering. The census record would have been generated by either TC or Maria and recorded by census officials who may never have even caught sight of CAL.

                    I can’t recall whether it was Ed or Christer from whom I first heard of the 100+ entries, but I have researched them myself over a number of years.

                    David Barrat and Kattrup did an excellent job of demonstrating how often the fact that people used two names was revealed when they appeared in court. I seem to remember the one example David found where the original name wasn’t revealed was a completely different scenario from that of CAL.




                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      How is it spin?

                      John Lechmere was still alive, so saying he was dead was an error. Fact.

                      Either Mrs Marshall was told he was dead or she assumed he was. Where’s the spin in saying that?

                      You have no idea whether Maria would have been found guilty of the crime of bigamy because you have no idea whether Maria knew JAL was still alive.

                      I’m not making a moral judgement of Maria’s actions, just putting forward a plausible explanation for why she might have moved to East End and why she might subsequently have been averse to her location and marriage to Thomas Cross being broadcast to all and sundry.

                      We clearly have a different view of Victorian social mores.
                      RJ,

                      Go back and read my post. Then read yours where you suggest I have painted Mrs Marshall as a liar. Then once the penny has dropped that it is in fact you who is spinning, ask yourself why.

                      If the lightbulb doesn’t illuminate, you’ll forgive me if I don’t respond to any of your future ‘objective’ comments.

                      Not holding my breath…

                      Gary

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                        This was the first C5 case, there was no serial killer at that stage. I bet if MN hadn't been first, or Lech had 'found' a later victim, he'd have got a lot more attention than he did.
                        Well yes, if Lechmere had been found with any of the later victims, and had identified himself as the man who had discovered the body, you can bet he'd have got a lot more attention if his explanation for being there sounded less than entirely credible.

                        As it was, he gave his home and work addresses, which would have tied in with his claim to be a Pickfords carman, who had set out from home to start work at 4am when he discovered the deceased. That might have been enough for the authorities to believe him, but they did have the means to check if they had any doubts, and as long as they knew him as Cross at work he'd have passed the basics.

                        He would not have been so lucky if found instead in close proximity to a later victim, in a place which gave him no such plausible explanation.

                        Love,

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


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                          I'm getting a rap vibe here.

                          Were you West Philadelphia born and raised, Caz ?

                          No, Dickere, I'm a Londoner born and bred. Dragged up on The Beatles and The Kinks in The Swinging Sixties.

                          A bit different from my late ma, who was taught music at St. Paul's school in Hammersmith by Gustav Holst. The girls used to call him "Gussy".

                          I was influenced in that particular post of mine by the song 'Two Sleepy People'.

                          I'm funny that way.

                          Love,

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


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            No, Dickere, I'm a Londoner born and bred. Dragged up on The Beatles and The Kinks in The Swinging Sixties.

                            A bit different from my late ma, who was taught music at St. Paul's school in Hammersmith by Gustav Holst. The girls used to call him "Gussy".

                            I was influenced in that particular post of mine by the song 'Two Sleepy People'.

                            I'm funny that way.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Nice one, Caz. Similar here, though I'm a 'few' years adrift of you shall we say. More The Clash than The Beatles.

                            These days you're more Straight Outta Cullompton it seems

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                              Nice one, Caz. Similar here, though I'm a 'few' years adrift of you shall we say. More The Clash than The Beatles.

                              These days you're more Straight Outta Cullompton it seems
                              Nice one, D!


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                Are you ever going to answer the question of where Lechmere was when Chapman was killed?
                                I have. Repeatedly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X