Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Trevor was probably too busy following the ‘standard procedure’ of checking out the ID of every last witness he ever interviewed, just to make sure the weren’t Fred Bloggs but Charlie Peace or Reggie Kray.
    That may well explain the matter, Gary. By the bye, didnīt Charles Peace call himself John Ward when arrested? Not that it matters, everybody is free to call themselves whatever they want to, of course, of course...

    Come on, move along now! Nothing to see here!!
    Last edited by Fisherman; 09-21-2021, 12:58 PM.

    Comment




    • Just for the record and to achieve maximum tedium level - the various Lechmere kids attended at least three schools: Lower Chapman Street, Betts Street and Essex Street. The existing records show them being registered in the name of Lechmere with their middle names proudly on display and show their father’s name in its full glory: Charles Allen Lechmere. So that’s three sets of teachers/kids/parents etc who would have been aware of the name Lechmere. Dozens of people - hundreds?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        Just for the record and to achieve maximum tedium level - the various Lechmere kids attended at least three schools: Lower Chapman Street, Betts Street and Essex Street. The existing records show them being registered in the name of Lechmere with their middle names proudly on display and show their father’s name in its full glory: Charles Allen Lechmere. So that’s three sets of teachers/kids/parents etc who would have been aware of the name Lechmere. Dozens of people - hundreds?
        Another good example of how Lechmere has turned the tables. It is not those who promote him as a suspect who provide the guesswork and have to lean on unsubstantiated alternative explanations, it is instead the ones claiming he is not a good suspect. Theres a wealth of evidence available to the ”Lechmere crowd”, whereas the deniers have nothing or very little to go by.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          thanks Gary-yes another example of lech using lech and not cross.
          Interesting, this has always been, but it is so many years after 1888, that we can put relatively little importance to it. We are looking for evidence of what he usually called himself in 1888 surely.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

            Interesting, this has always been, but it is so many years after 1888, that we can put relatively little importance to it. We are looking for evidence of what he usually called himself in 1888 surely.
            Yes, precisely. And when searching for the information, we weigh in all information pertaining to the matter that we uncover, right?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

              Interesting, this has always been, but it is so many years after 1888, that we can put relatively little importance to it. We are looking for evidence of what he usually called himself in 1888 surely.
              The evidence shows he was calling himself/being called Lechmere throughout his entire life.

              And what we are actually looking for is an explanation of why he omitted to disclose the name Lechmere during the Nichols investigation. The more varied examples we have of him using Lechmere throughout his life, the more anomalous the 1/2 uses of Cross appear. The school registrations and business advertisements are far less formal than a court appearance and would have lead to hundreds of people associating him with the name Lechmere. Three of his kids were registered in the name of Lechmere just a few weeks before the Nichols inquest.



              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                If he owned up to being Charles Lechmere, the carman with the census takers, why would he be Charles Cross, the carman with the police?
                Because that was the name he went by at work - at what age did he start working for Pickford's?

                All the best

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  Theres a wealth of evidence available to the ”Lechmere crowd”, whereas the deniers have nothing or very little to go by.
                  Its a shame you do not know the defintion of evidence in the true sense, and the deniers time and time again are able to rebut the misguided facts you seek to rely on

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                    Because that was the name he went by at work - at what age did he start working for Pickford's?

                    All the best
                    Again, if he was the killer, it would provide an alternative reason for changing names. He said he had worked for Pickfords for twenty years, and the Pickfords branch at Broad Street opened up more or less exactly twenty years before the murders. Although we do not know for sure that he was always working there, it seems anything but unlikely.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Its a shame you do not know the defintion of evidence in the true sense, and the deniers time and time again are able to rebut the misguided facts you seek to rely on

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      The only shame around here clings to yourself, Trevor. It must be taxing always to have to resort to misrepresentations, slandering film companies and such.

                      But this is not what the boards are for. If you are interested in delusionary reasoning, there are better suited places to engage in such things.

                      Maybe, before you leave, you are able to confirm that name changing is something the police do not look favourably on? No?
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 09-21-2021, 02:31 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        The only shame around here clings to yourself, Trevor. It must be taxing always to have to resort to misrepresentations, slandering film companies and such.

                        But this is not what the boards are for. If you are interested in delusionary reasoning, there are better suited places to engage in such things.
                        I am more than happy to stand up to any slander allegations because I know I am right in what I say.

                        Its a shame you cant handle the truth because you have gone to far with this misguided Lechmere theory, for you there is no going back so you have no choice other than to grow a pair and admit that perhaps you were too hasty in suggesting Lechmere was JTR and the Torso killer, because yout theory is in tatters

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          Again, if he was the killer, it would provide an alternative reason for changing names. He said he had worked for Pickfords for twenty years, and the Pickfords branch at Broad Street opened up more or less exactly twenty years before the murders. Although we do not know for sure that he was always working there, it seems anything but unlikely.
                          So, he started at Pickfords when he was 18/19, around the time his first ‘stepfather’ died?
                          Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-21-2021, 02:38 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            I am more than happy to stand up to any slander allegations because I know I am right in what I say.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            That must be a great feeling. Me, I dont know, I just suspect that I am right. But if you are right, then I cannot be of course.

                            Could it be that you are actually wrong. No?

                            Oh, and can you please answer my question about the police and false names…?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              Again, if he was the killer, it would provide an alternative reason for changing names. He said he had worked for Pickfords for twenty years, and the Pickfords branch at Broad Street opened up more or less exactly twenty years before the murders. Although we do not know for sure that he was always working there, it seems anything but unlikely.
                              I thought he had two names because his mother remarried, and for a period of time he used his stepfather's surname. If he started working at Pickford's while he was using his stepfather's name, then it seems reasonable that he would continue using that name at work.

                              All the best

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                                Because that was the name he went by at work - at what age did he start working for Pickford's?

                                All the best
                                hi greenway
                                and thats the innocent explanation-he was known at cross at work maybe and since this was in the context of a carman on his way to work when he found the body, thats the name he used.... and or since his stepdad cross was a cop... and or he innocently wanted to just keep his more well known name out of it (although this last explanation could have nefarious reasons). Still, it is an odd thing to me he used his cross name apparently in this one instance (two, if he is the cross that ran over the child) when dealing with police/courts(and also without providing his more common name lechmere). Could have an innocent explanation of course, but maybe not. but its still another potential yellow flag in a series of them with Lech-being seen with a freshly killed victim alone, the geographical info(and yes it is circumstantial-legally viable), the discrepency with Mizen, seemingly in bucks row earlier than he should have been. They start to add up-for me at least. Hes a valid suspect IMHO.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X