Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Click image for larger version  Name:	345F4A9A-EF21-4A2C-8548-FAD13DB43674.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	281.1 KB ID:	768685
    The Tichborne claimant clearly understood the concept of a real/proper name. Do we imagine that everyone who followed the case scratched their heads and asked, ‘What could he possibly mean by the term ‘real name’?’?
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-19-2021, 04:06 AM.

    Comment


    • He gave his full name:

      Charles Andrew Cross

      - Not just Charles Cross, wounder why always this is missed!


      He gave his actual Address

      And he gave his place of work.





      The Baron

      Comment


      • It’s a curious hill to die on.

        Accuse, imply, or toy with the idea that he murdered and dismembered women all over London, but by God don’t call him by his stepfather’s name.

        That would be disgraceful.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
          He gave his full name:

          Charles Andrew Cross

          - Not just Charles Cross, wounder why always this is missed!


          He gave his actual Address

          And he gave his place of work.





          The Baron
          If he had given the name Andrew, he would definitely have been lying.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            It’s a curious hill to die on.

            Accuse, imply, or toy with the idea that he murdered and dismembered women all over London, but by God don’t call him by his stepfather’s name.

            That would be disgraceful.
            Not disgraceful, just ignorant.

            I have never accused or implied that CAL was the killer, but I have toyed with the idea. It’s what we do, isn’t it? As for the name thing, I’ve probably accused him of deliberately concealing an aspect of his identity as vociferously as anyone. If you want to conflate the two to create an hilarious sound bite, be my guest.

            You might garner more respect, though, if you laid out the full details of Lord O’s IOW delivery driver.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              If he had given the name Andrew, he would definitely have been lying.
              His full name was Charles Allen Lechmere. Funny how, true to form, he included the significant Allen, but then balked at the Lechmere bit. Perhaps everyone at work knew him as Charlie Allen Cross, so he felt it was imperative to use all three names. Or perhaps by using Allen and Cross he was honouring both his biological father and his stepfather. Those of you who lose sleep over concerns about calling him by the name he wanted posterity to use should ensure they don’t omit the Allen in future. It must be a minefield for you trying to do the right thing by CAL/CAC.
              Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-19-2021, 07:24 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                It’s quite simple: if CAL had been known to anyone by the name of Lechmere only (i.e. not Cross) and they were unaware that he had just moved to Doveton Street, they would not have recognised the person they knew as the finder of Nichols’ body. Pickfords carmen were ten a penny, but Charles Allen Lechmeres - Lechmeres of any sort - were rather thin on the ground.
                I am sorry Gary but even if no one knew Lechmere by Cross at Pickfords, they would not be able to put two and two together and realise who was at the inquest is frankly baffling.
                Regards Darryl

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                  I am sorry Gary but even if no one knew Lechmere by Cross at Pickfords, they would not be able to put two and two together and realise who was at the inquest is frankly baffling.
                  Regards Darryl
                  Perhaps my explanation wasn’t clear (they rarely are).

                  I’m talking about a situation where someone knew him as Charles Lechmere, but was unaware of his stepfather’s name or his current address. Bear in mind that he had only recently moved to Doveton Street in Mile End Old Town from STGITE. Such a person is highly unlikely to have recognised him from the press reports covering the Nichols inquest.







                  Comment


                  • Hi MrBarnett,

                    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    It’s quite simple: if CAL had been known to anyone by the name of Lechmere only (i.e. not Cross) and they were unaware that he had just moved to Doveton Street, they would not have recognised the person they knew as the finder of Nichols’ body. Pickfords carmen were ten a penny, but Charles Allen Lechmeres - Lechmeres of any sort - were rather thin on the ground.

                    Why he felt the need to go to the police and provide them with a partial identity in the first place is a mystery. But he did, and his omission of his real name when he did is an anomaly that just won’t go away. When RJ has the decency to provide the details of Lord Orsam’s IOW delivery driver, we will be able to judge whether that is somehow ‘evidence of innocence’ against CAL or whether in fact it highlights the anomaly even further.

                    Who are these people and how do we know they only knew him as Lechmere? Do we have their names, and their addresses? How are we aware they did not know he had moved? Why would Cross/Lechmere be worried about these people knowing who he is, while not being worried about the police knowing who he is?

                    Did these people really did exist? Again, what is the evidence we have that let's us know about them? Or are these hypothetical people and hypothetical sets of knowledge that we have to imagine?


                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                      Hi MrBarnett,




                      Who are these people and how do we know they only knew him as Lechmere? Do we have their names, and their addresses? How are we aware they did not know he had moved? Why would Cross/Lechmere be worried about these people knowing who he is, while not being worried about the police knowing who he is?

                      Did these people really did exist? Again, what is the evidence we have that let's us know about them? Or are these hypothetical people and hypothetical sets of knowledge that we have to imagine?


                      - Jeff
                      Here we go again…

                      No we don’t. They are hypothetical people used to demonstrate that there are circumstances in which the omission of ‘Lechmere’ could have hidden CAL’s identity. And these hypothetical people are necessary to counter the claims that their are no circumstances in which the omission of Lechmere could have misled anyone.

                      Do you have the names and addresses of anyone who knew CAL as Cross? All his workmates at Pickfords for instance.

                      Although I can’t provide individual names, there will have been people in Hereford who would have immediately recognised the unique name of Charles Allen Lechmere. Did they know he had been raised in the household of Thomas Cross? Were they aware he worked for Pickfords or had recently moved to Doveton Street?

                      There are perfectly plausible scenarios which might explain why he deliberately withheld his real name. When people accept that, perhaps we can move on and see if we can find anything further. I’ve put out some feelers to see if he was ever a member of the London Carman’s Trade Union. It may involve a trip to Warwick, though, so we’ll have to be patient.





                      Comment


                      • I call him Cross,because we are discussing a murder in which he appeared as a witness who gave a name of Cross.Nothing can change that.What is of the most importance is that the use of the name Cross did not change the value of his evidence.but there are those who claim it was a lie to prevent the knowledge of his other name being Lechmere,which for reasons never disclosed,would have led to suspicion being directed his way,and be enough to try him(Cross) for murder.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          I call him Cross,because we are discussing a murder in which he appeared as a witness who gave a name of Cross.Nothing can change that.What is of the most importance is that the use of the name Cross did not change the value of his evidence.but there are those who claim it was a lie to prevent the knowledge of his other name being Lechmere,which for reasons never disclosed,would have led to suspicion being directed his way,and be enough to try him(Cross) for murder.
                          And if he’d used the name Michael Mouse in court and there were a thousand other records showing he was Albert Einstein, you’d still be spelling his name M - I - C - K - Y …

                          Here’s a thought, if a boot-finisher named John Pizer of Mulberry Street had found the body of a prostitute, would the Spitalfields women who knew him only as Leather Apron have recognised him from press reports of the incident?

                          Comment


                          • How many Charles Cross's worked at Pickfords ? These were the murders of the age. The fact that an employee of Pickfords found the body [ this was never hidden ], would have spread through the workplace like wildfire. Lech had worked there for 20+ years. He would know at the very least some of his work colleagues. You are telling me that no one at all, even his best work mates, some he had probably worked with for years did not know that his mother married again to a man named Cross when he was young ? All it would take is for one single person to have known that Lech had found poor Polly's body or that his stepfather was called Cross and that's it.

                            Not only that, but coroners inquests, weren't they open to the public ? Anyone in the public gallery could have recognised him, or anyone from the crowd who undoubtedly would have gathered on the outside.

                            Plus there is the fact that no one, would have had to have known he moved to 22 Doveton St recently.

                            A carman resident in Doveton st employed by Pickfords saw the body at 3.45 am . Joined by Paul, Cross concluded the woman was dead the two found and informed PC Mizen.
                            Mepo 3/140 ff. 242-56.

                            How is this concealing his true I.D

                            Regards Darryl

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              ... perhaps we can move on and see if we can find anything further...
                              This is precisely the issue here. The point of the endless anti-Lechmereist pushback -- not excluding obtrusive dissembling, I am genuinely sad to say -- is *to shut down investigation of Lechmere*. Posting after posting on here can be meaningfully translated as "Stop looking for evidence against Lechmere: you have no evidence against Lechmere!"

                              I've already pointed out that the contortions we see are clearly indicative of Lechmere being *a disallowed suspect* for sociological and psychological reasons: we've even had someone so bent out of shape by his candidacy as to accuse a poster of "attempting to put a noose around the neck of an innocent man". (Reality Check: You do all know, don't you, that *a minimum* of 699 out of 700 proposed lone-wolf 'Ripper' suspects are guaranteed to be 'innocent men'; and that every one is dead now, anyway?)

                              No, I'm not imagining for a moment that my saying this will cause anyone to reconsider their actions -- all the less so since (as we saw in someone's posting the other day), this is an issue that (somehow) allows people to paint themselves as crusaders for Truth and Justice in the fight to save an 'innocent' man -- but I do think a few people on here should ponder my shy assertion that *this genie is not going back into the bottle*.

                              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              I’ve put out some feelers to see if he was ever a member of the London Carman’s Trade Union.
                              -- At which point, and not for the first time, we see Gary B behaving in a sensible manner that is all the more admirable in view of the fact that he's not any kind of die-hard Lechmereist.

                              M.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                Fish — we are dealing with the life of a very obscure person. The life of Lechmere is not documented in the way the day to day life of Princess Di or Napoleon was documented.

                                And when there is only a smattering of information available, historians are very likely to jump to wrongly conclusions.

                                David Barrat published an example of a delivery driver on the Isle of Wight who used an alternative name in court. Highly suspicious! But guess what? It made no difference whether he used the name Tom, Dick, or Harry—he still had to pay the fine.

                                And what did research show? The alternative name he used was the surname of his stepfather.

                                Census records confirmed this, but they also showed that the driver himself was always listed in these “official” documents by his birth name.

                                His use of his stepfather’s name in court would appear to have been a pointless one-off subterfuge, if it wasn’t for one devastating detail:

                                Years later, when the man died, his obituary explicitly stated that he was commonly known around town by the name of the man who raised him. His stepfather!

                                Unfortunately, but understandably, such details are seldom recorded, so, based on the little information we have, we can be lead astray.

                                I strongly suspect this is what is happening in CAL’s case, and I’m not alone. In 1888 he deposed that he had worked for Pickford’s for over twenty years. Does that not date his employment back to a time when the man who raised him—Thomas Cross—was still alive?

                                That innocent explanation makes far more sense to me than CAL’s pointless attempt to use an “alias”—which wouldn’t have worked.
                                That´s all very interesting, I´m sure - but it has nothing to do with the point I made. If you are truly interested, it´s post 1796 you should revisit.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X