Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    but its ok for the anti lechers to call people fantacists, delusional absurd etc and other insults. wheres your indignation then?
    Abbs,

    Don’t knock RJ. If he hadn’t pointed it out, my ‘quarrel‘ with David Barrat might have blinded me to the fact that some ‘ordinary blokes’ used their stepfathers’ surnames. Who’d a thought it?

    Gary

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      Jeff,

      Do you accept that the name Lechmere was part of his identity?

      Do you have any evidence that he disclosed that name to the police or the coroner?

      Gary
      Hi Gary,

      Yes, of course, Lechmere is a name he uses, the documents being referred to show that. But we're dealing with a "rose by any other name" situation, meaning has he failed to identify himself by using the name Cross? If the police ask someone their name, and they fail to give their middle name (for example), have they failed to identify themselves? Or have they identified themselves even though the information is incomplete. Our "identity", though, is more than just our "name", and things like his address and workplace, are part of his "identity". He may have had some nicknames as well, would failing to mention those also be failing to "identify himself"? Would failing to mention his favorite local pub be "failing to divulge his complete identity"? I know names are special sorts of information, so I'm being a bit pedantic here, but again, the information he gave was more than sufficient for the police to find him, and therefore can only be seen as identifying himself fully. The fact that some people in the world might not know him sufficiently to recognize him from how a newspaper story presents him is not material to the point of identifying himself to the police.

      And no, I've not seen anything that shows he disclosed the name Lechmere to the police and/or the coroner. However, we do know that police procedures of the day involve the verification of people's accounts for themselves (we see reference to this in the police files for other people brought to police attention), which, when appropriate, involved talking to the person's family (i.e. Pizer - his brother verified his whereabouts). We therefore have evidence that police procedures involved what has been suggested, that the police would have verified Cross/Lechmere's account of his movements on the day Nichol's body was discovered (and, for completeness, would have done the same for Robert Paul). While we do not have it recorded that they did this, it would be a gross bit of negligence on their part if that were the case. In short, we do have recorded evidence upon which to build that hypothesis - it would correspond to standard police procedures which makes it an evidenced based suggestion that is both plausible and reasonable.

      What follows from the police performing what would be standard procedure is a questioning of his wife and/or workplace. And, it is unreasonable to presume that upon questioning his wife/family and/or workplace, that they would not have come across the name Lechmere if he did indeed use that in anything other than gov't documentation. Given there were no known consequences forthcoming due to his use of the name Cross at the inquest, it is hard to see the basis for this being considered by the police at the time that he was being "deceptive". So either they already knew of the name Lechmere (as in he told them), or it was not considered problematic. And if they didn't come across it in their questioning of his family and/or workplace, then that would suggest he did not use it other than in the types of documents we have, and his use of Cross at the inquest was because as a witness it was important for the police to be able to find him again (or ask questions about him) and Cross was the name he was generally known as.

      My questions about his background in Hereford is trying to establish if we have anything similar for what is offered as an alternative line of reasoning, because to my knowledge we do not have any evidence either for the hypothesized people from which he is hiding, or any evidence to suggest there might even be such people. Therefore the alternative suggestion is a hypothetic built upon another hypothetic, requiring us to both imagine the evidence that then allows us to imagine his motive. That reduces it to something in need of evidential support before it can be considered a real alternative.

      But there is documented evidence that he disclosed sufficient information for the police to track him down (and so uniquely find him, which is for all intents and purposes to identify him) at any time in the future should they wish to. And that is, by definition, not concealing his identity from them, and they are the ones who will be investigating the murder.

      - Jeff
      Last edited by JeffHamm; 09-20-2021, 01:00 AM.

      Comment


      • I use the phrase,'A person calling himself Cross,attended the inquest and gave evidence of finding Nichols body'
        I have been asked to use his proper? name of Lechmere.
        'A person calling himself Lechmere attended the inquest and gave evidence of finding Nichols body'.There Mr Barnett I have used the name Lechmere.Is that what Happened?
        Which version is correct? Which version should be used?
        Now can anyone claim I am at fault in using the name Cross?
        Of course that is all Cross claimed to have done.Find a body.and seek help What are the many,many,other things of a suspicious nature that is attributed to him.
        The total time covering his involvement,amounts to minutes,and most of that time was spent in the company of Paul.Sure he was found standing alone by the body of Nichols,but that amounts to only seconds before the arrival of Paul.Yes.I am aware it is just his word on that,but in his favour is the fact there is no evidence to contradict him.No evidence to present to a court,that is.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          Abbs,

          Don’t knock RJ. If he hadn’t pointed it out, my ‘quarrel‘ with David Barrat might have blinded me to the fact that some ‘ordinary blokes’ used their stepfathers’ surnames. Who’d a thought it?

          Gary
          And yet you bend yourself into ridiculous pretzel shapes trying to avoid admitting that Charles Cross did.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

            Abbs,

            Don’t knock RJ. If he hadn’t pointed it out, my ‘quarrel‘ with David Barrat might have blinded me to the fact that some ‘ordinary blokes’ used their stepfathers’ surnames. Who’d a thought it?

            Gary
            And it’s a bit more complicated than that, isn’t it, Gary?

            ”Maybe you would have my respect”—to use your phrase—if you would acknowledge that Barrat’s examples aren’t merely men using their stepfather’s name, but examples were this use is NOT REFLECTED in census returns, electoral rolls, etc.

            That is what undermines your argument for CAL. I think most intelligent people will appreciate that.
            Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-20-2021, 05:46 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              But there is documented evidence that he disclosed sufficient information for the police to track him down (and so uniquely find him, which is for all intents and purposes to identify him) at any time in the future should they wish to. And that is, by definition, not concealing his identity from them, and they are the ones who will be investigating the murder.

              - Jeff
              I totally agree with you and this has been said countless times on here, and I just wish those who keep suggesting anything to the contrary come to their senses and accpet that there is nothing sinister or suspicious in him giving the two differnet names.

              He clearly would have at some point either in the first instance when he first spoke to the police, or at the coroners court be asked about the two differnet names. Again for those who wont accept that he was asked, and clearly by the answers he gave to those who asked the questions were satisfied with his answers.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                And it’s a bit more complicated than that, isn’t it, Gary?

                ”Maybe you would have my respect”—to use your phrase—if you would acknowledge that Barrat’s examples aren’t merely men using their stepfather’s name, but examples were this use is NOT REFLECTED in census returns, electoral rolls, etc.

                That is what undermines your argument for CAL. I think most intelligent people will appreciate that.
                Here’s the Barrat example you seem chary of sharing:



                Case Study 5 – Charles Jones a.k.a. Taylor

                Report of Jones v Jones divorce case in the Portsmouth Evening News, 7 June 1889 (petitioner: Mrs Harriet Vale Jones)

                "The respondent, Charles Jones, was then called by his counsel. He said he had taken the name of his step-father, which was Taylor, and drove a coach for him. He denied that his wife about bought a landau [carriage] for him. She had advanced a small sum of money to enable him to complete the purchase."

                Further research:

                Charles Jones was born on 8 November 1847 on the Isle of Wight, the son of Charles and Fanny Jones nee Attrill. Charles Jones Senior is said to be a plasterer on his birth certificate.

                Charles Jones Senior appears to have died in 1848 and his widow married an innkeeper called James Taylor in Newport in 1851.

                In the 1861 census, Charles Jones is living with James Taylor, a licensed victualler, said to be his father, and his mother, Fanny Taylor, at the Royal Albert public house in Taylor’s Row, Ryde, along with his sister Agness Jones. Four other children of James and Fanny with the surname of Taylor are also living in the same property.

                From the Isle of Wight Observer, 13 May 1865

                "An application was received from Mr James Taylor, of Monkton Street, for a license for his step-son, Charles Jones, for a driver’s license; the license had been previously refused by the committee. The present application, however, was backed by a number of responsible signatures.
                MR JAMES HARBOUR said he had asked Jones to go on a job and he refused; he afterwards went, but said he would not have gone unless he liked [to]. Not that he intended to vote against the application, but he should be cautioned not to repeat such conduct."


                In the 1871 census, Charles Jones, now an assistant in business aged 23 is said to be living with his father James Taylor, an innkeeper and postmaster, and his mother Fanny, at the Victoria Tavern, Monkton Street, Ryde.

                Isle of Wight Observer, 16 August 1873

                Ryde Petty Sessions:

                "Charles Jones, driver, of Monkton-street, was summoned for having unlawfully refused to drive a gentleman named John Richardson, to East Cowes, after having been engaged to do so.
                The case was called on twice, defendant made his appearance in the dock, but as Mr. Richardson was not present to prosecute, the summons was dismissed, his Worship remarking that another summons could be taken out if thought necessary."


                Charles Jones, now a postmaster, said on his marriage certificate to be the son of a plasterer, Charles Jones (deceased), married Harriet Vale Hunt in the Isle of Wight on 7 May 1878. He signs his name “Charles Jones”.

                From the Isle of Wight Observer, 11 May 1878, reporting on a case at the Ryde Petty Sessions on Monday 6 May:

                Case of William Holbrook, mariner, of Clay Lane, who had been summoned by Inspector Peet, RSPCA, for cruelly ill-treating a horse by over driving it.

                "Charles Taylor of Monkton Street, said that he was foreman to his father, a postmaster." [His evidence about what he saw followed. Holbrook was convicted and fined Ģ1].

                The 1881 census records Charles Jones, a postmaster aged 34, living with his wife, Harriet Vale Jones, aged 40, in Ryde, Isle of Wight.

                Isle of Wight Observer, 24 May 1884

                Ryde Petty Sessions:

                Reports that a coach owner allowed a coach to remain in one place longer than was necessary for taking up and setting down passengers and says “Arthur Whittingstall of John Street, and Charles Jones, of Monkton Street, were also summoned on similar charges, and were each fined 5s with costs.”

                Divorce petition filed by Harriet Vale Jones on 12 December 1888. Parties are “Harriet Vale Jones otherwise Taylor v Charles Jones otherwise Taylor”.

                Isle of Wight Observer, 25 March 1893

                "SAD DEATH - We are sorry to record the death of Charles Taylor (whose real name is, however, Jones), a son-in-law of Mr. Taylor, the well-known postmaster, of Monkton street. The deceased (whose long connection with the coaches had made him very well known amongst those whose avocations take them to the Esplanade) was first missed on Friday last. It was, however, supposed he had gone away on a visit. As no tidings could be obtained of him, his brother, Mr. William Taylor, decided on Wednesday afternoon to break into the residence of the deceased, at Dunstans, and there deceased was found lying dead in his bed. The medical opinion seems to be that he had been dead at least since Friday, and that an apoplectic fit was the cause of death. The Coroner had not considered it necessary to hold an inquest. Deceased was about 48 years of age. " 

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  The ‘Lechmere crowd’ - who are they? You aren’t trying to mislead people by suggesting I’m one of them, are you?

                  Christer and Ed would be p…ing themselves at the suggestion.






                  True!

                  Maybe R J thinks that anybody who is not 100 per cent endorsing the claim that there is nothing at all that points in Lechmeres direction is part of the abominable Lechmere crowd? Thatīs just a suggestion though, and Iīm sure R J is ready and willing to clarify what he means.
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 09-20-2021, 07:58 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    And it’s a bit more complicated than that, isn’t it, Gary?

                    ”Maybe you would have my respect”—to use your phrase—if you would acknowledge that Barrat’s examples aren’t merely men using their stepfather’s name, but examples were this use is NOT REFLECTED in census returns, electoral rolls, etc.

                    That is what undermines your argument for CAL. I think most intelligent people will appreciate that.

                    My argument is that where people were known by two names they generally thought it appropriate to reveal both names when giving evidence in court. Is it your belief that only unintelligent people might agree with me?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by harry View Post
                      I use the phrase,'A person calling himself Cross,attended the inquest and gave evidence of finding Nichols body'
                      I have been asked to use his proper? name of Lechmere.
                      'A person calling himself Lechmere attended the inquest and gave evidence of finding Nichols body'.There Mr Barnett I have used the name Lechmere.Is that what Happened?
                      Which version is correct? Which version should be used?
                      Now can anyone claim I am at fault in using the name Cross?
                      Of course that is all Cross claimed to have done.Find a body.and seek help What are the many,many,other things of a suspicious nature that is attributed to him.
                      The total time covering his involvement,amounts to minutes,and most of that time was spent in the company of Paul.Sure he was found standing alone by the body of Nichols,but that amounts to only seconds before the arrival of Paul.Yes.I am aware it is just his word on that,but in his favour is the fact there is no evidence to contradict him.No evidence to present to a court,that is.
                      I sense some progress. You’ve used the L word and the sky didn’t fall on you. See - I told you! :-)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        I sense some progress. You’ve used the L word and the sky didn’t fall on you. See - I told you! :-)
                        Whoa! What was that crashing sound...?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


                          My argument is that where people were known by two names they generally thought it appropriate to reveal both names when giving evidence in court. Is it your belief that only unintelligent people might agree with me?
                          Letīs hope not. I donīt want to feel stupid.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 09-20-2021, 09:31 AM.

                          Comment




                          • Hi Jeff,

                            I’ll respond your long post in a piecemeal fashion, if that’s OK?

                            I’m very interested in your strong belief that witnesses were thoroughly checked out by the police. You call it a ‘standard procedure’. You mention Pizer, but he’s not really a valid example because he was a suspect and not just a witness. Do you have any others? This isn’t a trick question, I genuinely don’t know if other witnesses homes and workplaces were visited by the police in order to confirm their IDs. If it was a ‘standard procedure’, then almost all of the witnesses in the case will have undergone it, and presumably it’s mostly on record.

                            Pizer is a good example, though, of someone known by one name among a particular group and by another name elsewhere. The women of Spitalfields knew him as Leather Apron, his family were apparently unaware of the nickname. If Sgt Thick or some other copper hadn’t been aware of both names, the connection may never have been made.

                            Gary
                            Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-20-2021, 10:35 AM.

                            Comment



                            • Hi Gary,

                              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              Hi Jeff,

                              I’ll respond your long post in a piecemeal fashion, if that’s OK?

                              I’m very interested in your strong belief that witnesses were thoroughly checked out by the police. You call it a ‘standard procedure’. You mention Pizer, but he’s not really a valid example because he was a suspect and not just a witness. Do you have any others? This isn’t a trick question, I genuinely don’t know if other witnesses homes and workplaces were visited by the police in order to confirm their IDs. If it was a ‘standard procedure’, then almost all of the witnesses in the case will have undergone it, and presumably it’s mostly on record.

                              Pizer is a good example, though, of someone known by one name among a particular group and by another name elsewhere. The women of Spitalfields knew him as Leather Apron, his family were apparently unaware of the nickname. If Sgt Thick or some other copper hadn’t been aware of both names, the connection may never have been made.

                              Gary
                              True, Pizer was a suspect, though likewise I think his nickname (Leather Apron) wasn't really a "name", it was a description of him because he wore a leather apron, used by people who didn't know him. So, yes, in one way it was a "name", but not in the sense we're discussing because it wasn't one he ever called himself (he didn't tell the prostitutes' he was called "Leather Apron", they simply referred to his clothing when talking about him, and the description stuck as a placeholder due to the lack of a name). If our hypothetical people didn't know Cross/Lechmere by name in a way that was equivalent to Pizer, then any name reported in the press would be as opaque to them as any other apart from some idiosyncratic descriptive name that Cross/Lechmere himself would probably be unaware of (it's not clear that Pizer knew he was referred to as Leather Apron amongst the prostitutes until those stories came out in the press, and it was pointed out to him that he was the man referred to as Leather Apron, at which point he went into hiding at his brother's suggestion).

                              Anyway, with regards to witnesses, I can think of a few examples. We know the police interviewed Packer a few times, and eventually decided he would be an unreliable witness due to his story continually changing over time (with regards to the time he said he sold the grapes). That would make him useless in court as a defense attorney would play havoc with all of his conflicting statements. They also spoke to his wife, again, to try and get independent confirmation of his statement. Also, the police report that they checked out Schwartz, had him identify the body in the mortuary for example, and also searched for (and may have found) Pipeman in order to try and find someone who could confirm, or provide further details on, his statement. Also, Mrs. story of the man with the black bag, was followed up (although here the fellow came to the police, so perhaps not the best example). Those are some examples that come to mind of police looking for confirmation of a witness statement, which in the case of Packer led them to deciding he would not be helpful, and was considered unreliable due to their following up. It also strikes me as unlikely that the police would simply take at face value information given, particularly by those who reported finding the body. It would be manifestly obvious that their involvement must be ruled out, if possible. Much of the information that remains tends to document their following up on suspects, however, and we do not have a lot of information on the details of how witness statements were evaluated, but with Cross/Lechmere and Paul, ascertaining aspects of their statements (time they left home, time they arrived at work, etc), seems like pretty low hanging fruit. I believe there's something indicating the police checked out Hutchinson's statement (about his stated whereabouts), but I could be mistaken on that. In Dutsfield yard we know they took statements, and checked everyone for blood, etc, and would no doubt cross-check the statements.

                              So, while we sadly do not have all of the specifics, which would be such a helpful thing to us looking back on the case, I think what does survive points to the fact the police did attempt to verify witnesses statements, and in the case of Packer, it could lead to them dismissing that witness, so they could find issues (in the case of Packer, of course, he kept changing his statement).

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                                Hi Gary,



                                True, Pizer was a suspect, though likewise I think his nickname (Leather Apron) wasn't really a "name", it was a description of him because he wore a leather apron, used by people who didn't know him. So, yes, in one way it was a "name", but not in the sense we're discussing because it wasn't one he ever called himself (he didn't tell the prostitutes' he was called "Leather Apron", they simply referred to his clothing when talking about him, and the description stuck as a placeholder due to the lack of a name). If our hypothetical people didn't know Cross/Lechmere by name in a way that was equivalent to Pizer, then any name reported in the press would be as opaque to them as any other apart from some idiosyncratic descriptive name that Cross/Lechmere himself would probably be unaware of (it's not clear that Pizer knew he was referred to as Leather Apron amongst the prostitutes until those stories came out in the press, and it was pointed out to him that he was the man referred to as Leather Apron, at which point he went into hiding at his brother's suggestion).

                                Anyway, with regards to witnesses, I can think of a few examples. We know the police interviewed Packer a few times, and eventually decided he would be an unreliable witness due to his story continually changing over time (with regards to the time he said he sold the grapes). That would make him useless in court as a defense attorney would play havoc with all of his conflicting statements. They also spoke to his wife, again, to try and get independent confirmation of his statement. Also, the police report that they checked out Schwartz, had him identify the body in the mortuary for example, and also searched for (and may have found) Pipeman in order to try and find someone who could confirm, or provide further details on, his statement. Also, Mrs. story of the man with the black bag, was followed up (although here the fellow came to the police, so perhaps not the best example). Those are some examples that come to mind of police looking for confirmation of a witness statement, which in the case of Packer led them to deciding he would not be helpful, and was considered unreliable due to their following up. It also strikes me as unlikely that the police would simply take at face value information given, particularly by those who reported finding the body. It would be manifestly obvious that their involvement must be ruled out, if possible. Much of the information that remains tends to document their following up on suspects, however, and we do not have a lot of information on the details of how witness statements were evaluated, but with Cross/Lechmere and Paul, ascertaining aspects of their statements (time they left home, time they arrived at work, etc), seems like pretty low hanging fruit. I believe there's something indicating the police checked out Hutchinson's statement (about his stated whereabouts), but I could be mistaken on that. In Dutsfield yard we know they took statements, and checked everyone for blood, etc, and would no doubt cross-check the statements.

                                So, while we sadly do not have all of the specifics, which would be such a helpful thing to us looking back on the case, I think what does survive points to the fact the police did attempt to verify witnesses statements, and in the case of Packer, it could lead to them dismissing that witness, so they could find issues (in the case of Packer, of course, he kept changing his statement).

                                - Jeff
                                So lets ask the obligatory question: If Lechmere was checked out, why is it that the police calls him Cross in their reports? As you may understand, he would not be easily traceable by that name, as generations of ripperologists were to find out.

                                I think the police perhaps checked out some of the witnesses, but only those they found unreliable. And I dont know how deep those checkouts were.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X