Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Irrelevant to what?
    I already explained that. Charles Lechmere gave his work and home addresses, so he was not trying to hide his identity from the police, his employers, his co-workers, his neighbors, or his family.

    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Are you suggesting that it could not have possible that someone might have known him as Charles Lechmere without knowing his address, his employment details and his long dead stepfather’s (fairly common) name?
    I am stating that Charles Lechmere was not trying to hide his identity from the police, his employers, his co-workers, his neighbors, or his family.

    How is that so hard to understand?

    Your speculation that someone knew him as Charles Lechmere, but knew nothing else about him, is not impossible, but it doesn't seem likely, either. And if this possibly imaginary person existed, what difference would that make?

    If Charles Lechmere was guilty, the greatest threats to him being caught were from people who knew him and interacted with him frequently. They have the best chance of catching him in a lie, seeing him when or where he shouldn't be, or spotting unexplained bloodstains, bloody knives, or trophy organs.

    But at the Inquest Charles Lechmere did not try to hide his identity from the police, his employers, his co-workers, his neighbors, or his family.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      Darryl, Have you not picked up on the suggestion that Sunday may have been Lechmere’s one day off in the week, so on Saturday evenings he may have visited his old Ma and his daughter who were living near Berner Street?
      Have you missed the point that people who normally leave for work at 3:20am don't usually get up three hours early on their day off? Or that elderly women usually prefer their children to visit during daylight hours, not in the middle of the night.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
        Uh, no. Pizer's alibi was for the night of the Nichols murder: he was talking to a copper during the dock fire.
        Pizer had an alibi for the Chapman murder. Pizer also had an alibi for the Nichols murder.

        The Chapman alibi appears to have been given first. Sergeant William Thick got it from Pizer's relatives before he brought Pizer in. the Nichols alibi appears to have be discovered after Pizer was brought to the Leman Street police station.

        Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
        And the Chapman ToD has been known as problematic since long before Lechmere was ever talked about: I knew about it decades ago.
        The Chapman ToD is only considered problematic by people whose suspect won't fit with the eyewitness reports. It's always been an attempt to adjust the facts to fit the theory.

        Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
        On top of which, Lechmere doesn't actually have 'an alibi' for the 5:30 slot: you are mis-using the word, and more besides.
        My use of the word "alibi" is the normal use of the word - a claim to have been somewhere else when the crime was committed.

        It's not my fault if people who disagree with me try to redefine the word "alibi" to mean something else.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          Pizer had an alibi for the Chapman murder. Pizer also had an alibi for the Nichols murder.

          The Chapman alibi appears to have been given first. Sergeant William Thick got it from Pizer's relatives before he brought Pizer in. the Nichols alibi appears to have be discovered after Pizer was brought to the Leman Street police station.



          The Chapman ToD is only considered problematic by people whose suspect won't fit with the eyewitness reports. It's always been an attempt to adjust the facts to fit the theory.



          My use of the word "alibi" is the normal use of the word - a claim to have been somewhere else when the crime was committed.

          It's not my fault if people who disagree with me try to redefine the word "alibi" to mean something else.
          This is becoming more than absurd.

          Where was CAL when Chapman was killed? You obviously know otherwise you wouldn’t claim he had an alibi.

          Where was he????

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
            I can only imagine that 5r believes that once Lech had clocked on at 4.00 am he would have been under constant supervision until the end of his shift.
            You grossly misrepresent my position. Again.

            Carman were often assigned a "van guard" or "van boy". That would be a witness if Lechemre left his cart.

            Pickups and deliveries were witnessed and signed for. Strange time gaps would be noticeable. And every pickup and delivery would be a chance for one, possibly several people. to notice unexplained bloodstains. Pickfords was a general goods service, not a slaughterhouse.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              Have you missed the point that people who normally leave for work at 3:20am don't usually get up three hours early on their day off? Or that elderly women usually prefer their children to visit during daylight hours, not in the middle of the night.
              Beyond absurd.

              We have no idea when his day off was or what shifts he worked. We do know where his mother, daughter and (possibly unwell) stepfather lived - not far from Berner Street.











              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                We have no idea when his day off was or what shifts he worked.
                You're the one who suggested it was Lechmere's day off. In post #1545 you said "Darryl, Have you not picked up on the suggestion that Sunday may have been Lechmere’s one day off in the week, so on Saturday evenings he may have visited his old Ma and his daughter who were living near Berner Street?"

                Make up your mind - do you think "Sunday may have been Lechmere’s one day off in the week" or do we "have no idea when his day off was"?

                And we have a good idea what shift Charles Lechmere worked. He testified about it at the Inquest on a Monday. And on that a Friday Chapman was murdered after Lechmere would have been at work.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  You grossly misrepresent my position. Again.

                  Carman were often assigned a "van guard" or "van boy". That would be a witness if Lechemre left his cart.

                  Pickups and deliveries were witnessed and signed for. Strange time gaps would be noticeable. And every pickup and delivery would be a chance for one, possibly several people. to notice unexplained bloodstains. Pickfords was a general goods service, not a slaughterhouse.
                  ‘Often’? Not always?

                  Pickfords was a ‘universal carrier’, they carried pretty much anything you could imagine - including butcher’s meat and horseflesh. And where would the horseflesh that arrived at Broad Street have been taken? You must know the answer to this to support your ‘alibi’ claim. It couldn’t possibly have been anywhere to the east of the City, could it?







                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    You're the one who suggested it was Lechmere's day off. In post #1545 you said "Darryl, Have you not picked up on the suggestion that Sunday may have been Lechmere’s one day off in the week, so on Saturday evenings he may have visited his old Ma and his daughter who were living near Berner Street?"

                    Make up your mind - do you think "Sunday may have been Lechmere’s one day off in the week" or do we "have no idea when his day off was"?

                    And we have a good idea what shift Charles Lechmere worked. He testified about it at the Inquest on a Monday. And on that a Friday Chapman was murdered after Lechmere would have been at work.
                    I have no idea. The Lechmere theory is based on the perfectly plausible idea that he had Sundays off. I’ve challenged the certainty of that on numerous occasions.

                    A shift is not just a start time. It’s the period between a start and finish time. And it can vary from day to day.

                    Do you somehow imagine that all Pickford’s carmen were monitored from the moment their shift started until the moment it ended?








                    Comment


                    • Why do we imagine that Pickford’s drivers were so notorious for their reckless driving?

                      Could it have been because when they were late in delivering something or returning to their depot they got in trouble?

                      But they were never late, were they? At least not according to 5r, and he’s Googled it extensively. Even if one of their drivers had been a psychopathic serial killer he wouldn’t have dared be half an hour late back to his depot.

                      There’s your ‘evidence of innocence’.


                      Comment


                      • Well yes I can give indication,Mr Barnett,that he was known as Cross before stating it under oath at the Inquest.When he was called to give evidence,he would have been called as Cross,unless you have a different version of prior proceedings.When he was summoned to attend the inquest,both his name and address,or his workplace would have been obtained. The world didn't need to know his name.If it was the first time he used the name Cross,and I doubt it was,he was still not guilty of any offence.
                        How could a different name to what he normally used,affect the wording of the evidence he gave.If he had given the name Letchmere,the facts are that he would still only have testified to finding Nicholls body,then seeking help.So where,by using the name Cross,did he mislead by his using that name.
                        How,by using the name Cross and stating that in itself was an offence,do you support that arguement.Can you present a case,where such a charge had been made and succeeded? Or name a law that states using an alternate name was an offence?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          Well yes I can give indication,Mr Barnett,that he was known as Cross before stating it under oath at the Inquest.When he was called to give evidence,he would have been called as Cross,unless you have a different version of prior proceedings.When he was summoned to attend the inquest,both his name and address,or his workplace would have been obtained. The world didn't need to know his name.If it was the first time he used the name Cross,and I doubt it was,he was still not guilty of any offence.
                          How could a different name to what he normally used,affect the wording of the evidence he gave.If he had given the name Letchmere,the facts are that he would still only have testified to finding Nicholls body,then seeking help.So where,by using the name Cross,did he mislead by his using that name.
                          How,by using the name Cross and stating that in itself was an offence,do you support that arguement.Can you present a case,where such a charge had been made and succeeded? Or name a law that states using an alternate name was an offence?
                          So, the only examples you can think of when he would have been known by the name of Cross are in connection with the Nichols inquest?

                          And the only interaction with authority that we know of where he used the name Cross and omitted to ID himself as CAL is in connection with that inquest and, possibly the one in 1876?

                          How many times did he go to church and use the name Lechmere? His wedding, his mother’s second bigamous wedding, his kids’ christenings, their weddings…

                          In what name did he register his kids’ births?

                          What name were his kids known by at school?

                          What name did he advertise his various businesses in?

                          When he added his name to the electoral registers what name did he use?

                          And when he died, what name was his death registered in? What name was on the burial register? What name was used by the undertaker And in what name did he make out his will?

                          And when his sister died in 1869, in what name was her death registered?


                          The answer is Lechmere. Charles Allen Lechmere in almost all of those examples. No whisper of the name Cross except where he stood up in court and identified himself under oath. 100+ examples across a dozen or so different types of record over several decades.

                          And you cannot bring yourself to call him by the only name we can be sure he was known by during his lifetime. Not for a few hours, but for years.
                          Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-17-2021, 05:29 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                            And you cannot bring yourself to call him by the only name we can be sure he was known by during his lifetime. Not for a few hours, but for years.
                            It is only natural that one uses the name he chose for himself; clearly that is the name by which he wished to be known.

                            As has been shown, there are examples of men whose "official" paperwork (census, marriage, children's baptism) is all in one name (their birthname) - which means researchers would normally conclude that they were known by that and used that name always. But where another source shows that they were, in fact, known under another name.

                            So your insistence that using Cross was only one instance overwhelmed by many others of Lechmere is not convincing. Since we do have examples that directly contradict it.
                            Cross chose to use Cross, not Lechmere, and there is nothing wrong - it is indeed proper and respectful - to continue to call him Cross.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                              Cross chose to use Cross, not Lechmere, and there is nothing wrong - it is indeed proper and respectful - to continue to call him Cross.
                              You are totally corrcet, and I fail to see why certain parties continue to make such a big issue on this topic. Fish has created a mystery when there is no mystery to be created. He is using the name angle to bolster his misguided theory that Lechmere was the killer of Nicholls and the other women, and he then has tried to pin the torsos on Lechmere as well when there is no conclusive evidence to show the torsos were victims of homicides

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • It truly is not worth getting bogged down in the Lechmere/Cross debate. Cross was not a name plucked at random, and it did not behove him in any way if he was the killer.

                                Was Charlie Boy somewhere he shouldn't have been? Nope.

                                Did he do anything he shouldn't have? Nope.

                                Charlie was on his usual route to work early that morning, as most carmen were. Just like the one that was minutes behind him. He approached the next person on the scene and pointed him to the victim. Together they went for a policeman, and the both of them attended the police inquest. The fact he gave his stepfather's surname is a complete non-starter. As is the fact that he contradicted PC Mizen. If that's the criteria for guilt, then both carmen were in cahoots.

                                Fisherman has already admitted that Charlie's actions in Buck's Row were not in and of themselves guilty. In fact, he claims quite the opposite. It was the innocence of his actions that paradoxically marks his guilt.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X