Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

Of course you are going to say you are correct ...

Correction: I said that me AND Scobie are the ones more likely to be correct, since we dovetail 100 per cent.

for you to not take that stance you would have to accept that Scobie was not given the full facts because if he had have he would not have made those comments which as they aired you seek to heavily rely on to prop up your theory.

Correction: I have alreaddy pointed out that I donīt think that Scobie was given "the full facts". Nor do I thinbk he had to, he was to assess the case against Lechmere, nothing else.

The question is did you know what Scobie had said in his interview before the program aired?

I suspect not because you admit that you had no contact with Scobie. so you could not have been aware of what the final edit was made up of until it aired and as I have previoulsy stated the remit of Blink films was to make a documentary to show that Lechmere was the killer from what you and Edward had provided them with.

I have pointed out before that I knew nothing of Scobie beforehand, so thatīs no news. Nor is it news that a documentary can produce a case for something WITHUT misleading experts along the way. That only happened in your head, as far as we can be aware. Otherwise - prove it.

We know your theory and the supporting evidence you seek to rely on has proved to be flawed on all fronts.

Correction: That too only happened in your head.

So Blink films had to deliver an edited program that would not show those flaws, which we know about and knew about at the time, and had some of those experts not come up to what was expected of them and what Blink films wanted to hear the final edit and what was aired was in my opinion thus edited to give a false picture from an evidential perspective.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Itīs a creepy world you seem to live in, Trevor. Really creepy. Hallucinatory, sort of.

[Fisherman]

The descriptions we have are hardly complete. It isn't as if Paul, for example, actually said "I felt her hands without moving them even slightly from the ground". And I repeat that PC Neil could raise her hands to check pulse/temperature and claim he hadn't moved her body. It is easy for someone to imagine that body means the main torso only, and that the hands are separate. I would also suggest that he could even have moved her body, and claimed that he hadn't - but I won't, bacause I don't suppose that he did. But his statement is not necessarily 100% truth.

We both agree that the information is incoplete, Dr. That, though, has never been the issue, has it?

[Fisherman]

blah blah blah. he told police his name was cross. it was really lechmere. it took us over a hundred years to find out his real name. end of story. jeff i respect you greatly as you know, but i find your strict adherence to the status quo very strange.

Yes, Abby: Bah, blah, blah. The more manure you cover something with, the less likely is it that it will shine through.

[Fisherman]

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

On a side note, I just read up on serial killer Kenneth McDuff. It seems his full name was Kenneth Allen McDuff. And guess what his fathers name was...?

John Allen McDuff.

Okay, back to business!

[Fisherman]

There are perfectly plausible scenarios which might explain why he deliberately withheld his real name. When people accept that...

... is when hell freezes over, Iīm afraid.

[Fisherman]

How many Charles Cross's worked at Pickfords ? These were the murders of the age.

Not when Nichols died, they werenīt. They were not even murder/s (plural) at that stage if we are to rely on MAcNaghten. I have pointed out the lax attitude on behalf pf the police during the Nichols investigation. It was something that would never have been allowed to pass further down the line, when it had become clear that the murders were unique.
By that stage, the carman had retreated into the shadows.

The fact that an employee of Pickfords found the body [ this was never hidden ], would have spread through the workplace like wildfire.

And this you know because..? Were you there, or are you guessing? My own guess is that thre would have been some interest, but how much is very hard to gauge. It was perhaps just another prostitute getting killed to some.

Lech had worked there for 20+ years. He would know at the very least some of his work colleagues.

Although it is very possible, we do not have exact records of where he worked over the Pickfords years. But regardless of where it was, yes, he would likely know a bunch of people.

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 ?

Conversely, are you telling me that it was his only conversation piece? Amny people are adverse to speaking of their private and family business, so you have no point here, I fear. At least nothing like the point you seem to think you have.

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.

And all it would take for nobody to make the link was if he had not mentioned the matter to his working comrades. The point is - as so often - that we donīt know.

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.

The inquest was not conducted on Wemblay stadium. It was held in a room in the Working Lads institute, where reporters may have made up the bulk of the listeners. Besides, serial killers are normally not adverse to taking risks. The alternative for Lechmere would be to take an even larger risk and not go to the inquest, putting himself forward as an unfound man who was alone with the victim at the approximate time of death.

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

Are you being ironic, or? As I have pointed out before, it seems he did NOT give his address before the inquest. If he had, I think all papers would have had it. Only the Star did, and they probably got it from a clerk. Compare, if you will, the accident where a carman Charles Cross ran over a young boy; that carman did NOT give his address. If you cannot see a likely consistency here, I can.

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

But for the Star, all papers had it that a Pickfords carman Charles Cross, no address given, found the body.

Thats how his identity was concealed.

And congratulations, since you are the millionth poster to ask the question, you have won a can of spam!

[MrBarnett]

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

I’m suggesting some people might have only known him as Lechmere and not known his address. He’d lived in the east end for most of his 39 years, but he had only recently moved to Doveton Street. Outside of his immediate circle of friends and family it’s unlikely that too many people he had interacted with over the years would have been aware of his new address.

Hypothetically: Person A knew him as Charles Lechmere and was aware that he was someone who used and abused prostitutes. Person A had no idea who he worked for or where he lived. When person A read reports of the finding of Nichols body by a Pickfords carman named Charles Cross of 22, Doveton Street, person A would have had no reason to connect Charles Cross with Charles Lechmere.

My take on things is that the ommission of the Lechmere name may have had more to do with keeping something hidden from his family in Hereford than anything to do with the Whitechapel murders.

[Darryl Kenyon]

But for the Star, all papers had it that a Pickfords carman Charles Cross, no address given, found the body.

Thats how his identity was concealed.

And congratulations, since you are the millionth poster to ask the question, you have won a can of spam!

From The Star 3 Sept - CARMAN CROSS
was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road. He was employed by Pickfords.

From The Star 31 Aug - THE DEED OF A MANIAC.

The other murder, in which the woman received 30 stabs, must also have been the work of a maniac. This murder occurred on Bank Holiday. On the Bank Holiday preceding another woman was murdered in equally brutal but even more barbarous fashion by being stabbed with a stick. She died without being able to tell anything of her murderer. All this leads to the conclusion, that the police have now formed, that there is a maniac haunting Whitechapel, and that the three woman were all victims of his murderous frenzy.

The Star, largest circulation of any evening paper in the Uk.

1 - It does not matter if Lech didn't give his address at the hearing. His address was out there, simple as.

2- Not when Nichols died, they werenīt. They were not even murder/s (plural) at that stage if we are to rely on MAcNaghten. I have pointed out the lax attitude on behalf pf the police during the Nichols investigation. It was something that would never have been allowed to pass further down the line, when it had become clear that the murders were unique.
By that stage, the carman had retreated into the shadows.

Are you sure about that Fish ? really. Seems to me the police at the time of Polly's murder formed an opinion that the murders could be linked, where as Mac formed the opinion that Polly was the first in the series years later.

3- Conversely, are you telling me that it was his only conversation piece? Amny people are adverse to speaking of their private and family business, so you have no point here, I fear. At least nothing like the point you seem to think you have.

And all it would take for nobody to make the link was if he had not mentioned the matter to his working comrades. The point is - as so often - that we donīt know.

These points are bizarre. A terrible murder is committed, it doesn't matter if people thought it was the first, second or third in a series. What is known is that a carman from Pickfords discovered the body on his way to work , and nobody , but nobody would ask who it is . And nobody but nobody knew that Lech stepfather was known as Cross and that a guy named Cross raised him. And nobody but nobody read The star who didn't know that lech was living at 22 Doveton St .
Really ?

4- But for the Star, all papers had it that a Pickfords carman Charles Cross, no address given, found the body.

Thats how his identity was concealed.

And congratulations, since you are the millionth poster to ask the question, you have won a can of spam!

When a million people ask the same question, I would normally assume it is because the question as never been answered to everyone's satisfaction.

Regards Darryl

[Doctored Whatsit]

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!"

M.

I think that the regular attempts on here to offer a defence of CAL might just be because that is why this thread was set up - "A thread devoted to and offering space for evidence ..." on CAL's behalf. So we must accept that some will use it for the purpose intended!

However, I do not consider that these attempts should be translated as "shut down investigation of Lechmere". I have myself contributed and made it quite clear that he is rightly a person of interest, but that in my opinion the evidence is not yet strong enough to convince me of his guilt, and I have welcomed further investigation whether it strengthens or weakens the case. It is surely, the truth we are seeking, not the resolving of some vendetta.

[MrBarnett]

Thatīs all very interesting, Iīm sure - but it has nothing to do with the point I made. If you are truly interested, itīs post 1796 you should revisit.

Not that interesting, Fish. The IOW man’s father was still very much alive and a prominent local businessman. The stepson worked in his stepfather’s business, driving his carts I think, probably with his stepfather’s name emblazoned across them. How does that compare to CAL?

[Mark J D]

... It is surely, the truth we are seeking, not the resolving of some vendetta...

Au contraire. 'The truth' is something far too many people think they found years ago in the retirement-home drivellings of some failed copper. Which brings me to the important difference concerning the way *they are are left to get on with it*. Want to investigate Druitt? Be my guest. I don't feel diminished in the slightest by someone's attempt to build a case against a seemingly harmless man whose life and mind fell apart -- nor do I consider their efforts an Affront to Decency that needs to be quibbled to death as rapidly as possible in ways that then get mischievously re-painted as a search for 'evidence of innocence'.

M.

[Fisherman]

From The Star 3 Sept - CARMAN CROSS
was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road. He was employed by Pickfords.

From The Star 31 Aug - THE DEED OF A MANIAC.

The other murder, in which the woman received 30 stabs, must also have been the work of a maniac. This murder occurred on Bank Holiday. On the Bank Holiday preceding another woman was murdered in equally brutal but even more barbarous fashion by being stabbed with a stick. She died without being able to tell anything of her murderer. All this leads to the conclusion, that the police have now formed, that there is a maniac haunting Whitechapel, and that the three woman were all victims of his murderous frenzy.

The Star, largest circulation of any evening paper in the Uk.

1 - It does not matter if Lech didn't give his address at the hearing. His address was out there, simple as.

Hold your horses, Darryl! Letīs keep in mind that we are dealing with TWO aspects of the matter and not just the one. True, the address got out there, and so we could say, like you do, that in that sense, it did not matter if Lechmere withheld it.
However, and thatīs a huge however, it matters a whole lot when we discuss the intentions and mindset of the carman! If he tried to conceal his address, and it very much seems he did, then that should raise a very big red flag.

2- Not when Nichols died, they werenīt. They were not even murder/s (plural) at that stage if we are to rely on MAcNaghten. I have pointed out the lax attitude on behalf pf the police during the Nichols investigation. It was something that would never have been allowed to pass further down the line, when it had become clear that the murders were unique.
By that stage, the carman had retreated into the shadows.

Are you sure about that Fish ? really. Seems to me the police at the time of Polly's murder formed an opinion that the murders could be linked, where as Mac formed the opinion that Polly was the first in the series years later.

Yes, I am very sure. The interest in the murders of course grew as the killer carried on killing, there can be no doubt about that. And as I said, this was reflected in how the police allowed themselves to be lax in the Nichols case, whereas they had to up their game from Chapman forward. Completely and utterly sure, therefore.

3- Conversely, are you telling me that it was his only conversation piece? Amny people are adverse to speaking of their private and family business, so you have no point here, I fear. At least nothing like the point you seem to think you have.

And all it would take for nobody to make the link was if he had not mentioned the matter to his working comrades. The point is - as so often - that we donīt know.

These points are bizarre. A terrible murder is committed, it doesn't matter if people thought it was the first, second or third in a series. What is known is that a carman from Pickfords discovered the body on his way to work , and nobody , but nobody would ask who it is . And nobody but nobody knew that Lech stepfather was known as Cross and that a guy named Cross raised him. And nobody but nobody read The star who didn't know that lech was living at 22 Doveton St .
Really ?

The problem is that you seem to think the opposite applied: All people discussed who the carman was., and everybidy were interested in finding out all they could avout him.
He was a lowly carman, not a rock star, he had only just moved away from the area where people would have found his face familiar and he used another name than the one he always otherwise used in official circumstances.
Ask yourself this: If somebody knocked on his door and asked "Are you the carman of Bucks Row fame?" and he answered "No, somebody must have gotten the ddress wrong, my name is Lechmere, not Cross", what would have happened? Would the visitor say what you say: "This is bizarre, surely you are the right man?"

Things are not always what we think they must be.

4- But for the Star, all papers had it that a Pickfords carman Charles Cross, no address given, found the body.

Thats how his identity was concealed.

And congratulations, since you are the millionth poster to ask the question, you have won a can of spam!

When a million people ask the same question, I would normally assume it is because the question as never been answered to everyone's satisfaction.

Regards Darryl

If you can find a way to answer questions that satisfies all ripperologists, donīt forget to tell me about it.
In my world, wanting to keep people in the dark if you have done something you donīt want them to know about, is a very logical thing to do. Thatīs why I consider those who claim they cannot see how that works are a tad slow on the uptake, to put things less inflammatory than I could have.

[Fisherman]

Not that interesting, Fish. The IOW man’s father was still very much alive and a prominent local businessman. The stepson worked in his stepfather’s business, driving his carts I think, probably with his stepfather’s name emblazoned across them. How does that compare to CAL?

Not very well. At all.

[Harry D]

Lechmere is an attractive suspect for people simply for the fact he was at the crime scene. The problem with most named suspects is there's no definitive way to tie them to the crime scene. They might have lived in the area at the time, but without anything else connecting them to the murders they're often a dead end. Lechmere was there. He was stood near the victim not long after she'd been killed. After that, it's simply a matter of adding layer upon layer of defamation and idle speculation to frame him as a serial killer.

There's a reason the killer was never caught. Because he was a shadow. He was never seen and never heard. To think he stood around in Buck's Row and approached the first guy on the scene in some kind of devilish mindgame is the work of a fantasist.

[rjpalmer]

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

Of course it’s baffling…and utterly absurd.