Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    The kids were registered at school in the name of Lechmere.

    Perhaps their form teacher was told, ‘We’ve registered these children in the name of Lechmere, but their parents have asked us never to refer to them by that name. Instead, they are to be spoken of as the Cross boys.’

    Genealogists would find that a rather absurd idea. Ripperologists find it perfectly plausible - after all a couple of months later the kids’ father would discover (or whatever) a dead prostitute on his way to work and tell the police his name was Cross. That was the most significant event in his entire life, and even if he’d told the police his name was Michael Mouse, we should always refer to him by that name.
    I see you're putting words in rjpalmer's mouth, too. Congratulations on refuting something he never said.

    What he actually said was "And as the many examples posted by David Barrat amply demonstrate, the written record can be highly misleading. Every surviving record for the coal miner he drummed-up used his birth name. If it wasn’t for a relative coming forward at the inquest, there would be no record that the miner actually used the name of his stepfather in his day to day life. Not even the census records reflected this fact."

    Comment


    • Once again I see the errerroneous caim that on the 2nd September the police were denying the lloyds/Paul account.

      Let's look at what was actually said..


      The Times reported

      "It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and flashing his lantern to examine it, he was answered by the lights from two other c2onstables at either end of the Street."


      Daily News 3rd

      "It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the Street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete."


      Now nowhere in the Lloyds account does it claim or even imply that the two carmen took or even spoke to Neil. The report cannot therefore logically be refering to the Lloyds account, which never says, what the police deny.

      So what does this denial refer to?

      Clearly it's refering to the Star account of 31st, reprinted in regionals on 1st, which claimed that two men had found the body, and then found PC Neil( mentioned by name) and taken him to the body.

      It's therefore clear that the Times and Daily news reports 3rd, refers to the Star story, which was untrue, and not to the Lloyds account of Robert Paul, which NEVER mentions two men contacting Neil.
      Last edited by Elamarna; 09-21-2021, 07:40 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Greenway View Post
        Hi Abby,

        I agree he's a valid suspect - he's the first person we know of at the murder scene, and we don't know that he had an alibi for any of the other murders. But there is nothing suspicious about him being there at that time - that's exactly where you'd expect him to be at that time of the morning, and he may have had an alibi for every other murder. The police might have checked him out when further crimes occurred.

        There's a simple explaination for the name confusion - if he gave a name he was commonly known by and his correct address, I can't really see that as evidence he had something to hide. Maybe he did have something to hide - if he did it might be nothing to do with the murder.

        Lechmere's and Paul's statements pretty much agree and accurately describe events - seems reasonable to me to think Mizen is the one who got it wrong. But neither Mizen or Paul saw any blood or anything else suspicious about Lechmere.

        And the geographical info is very circumstantial IMHO. Doesn't really amount to much more than he lived in the area - a lot of people did.

        Overall I can't see any evidence that he wasn't just a man on his way to work who discovered a murder victim.


        All the best.

        Hi Greenway
        Yes I understand alot of your points. Just a few more things if I may. The geographical info is circumstantial of course-but circumstantial evidence is valid in court. Its lead to the conviction of many a criminal. And the geographical nature of it is similar to how detectives use a cell phone pinging to see how close suspects are to murder sights, dumping sights etc. except back then if any of the coppers were suspicious of lech they could have set up one of those boards with pins and strings and seen that his route to work and his mums place were very near to the murders, it would have me go hmmmm. add to that he was actually seen near a freshly killed victim alone. For me this and the geographical evidence is very compelling. And I have studied alot of true crime and I cant remember when an innocent "witness" was ever in this type of circumstance.
        Full disclosure-I also lean toward torsoman and the ripper being the same man and lech is one of the only suspects that agewise fits that bill, so thats another (small) check mark against him for me.
        Full disclosure number two-Like you I think more than not he was just a man on his way to work who found a body... and gun to head, if asked if he was the ripper, Id say no, but id squinch my face as I did.
        I think all the suspects are weak, some just less weak than others, and I put Lech in that category.

        Comment


        • Hi Gary,

          Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          Thanks, Jeff. I’ll look more closely at Davies to see if I can find what you are referring to.
          No problem. As I say, it could be a wild goose chase, but I have this vague memory of there being some mention of the police initially looking into one of the witnesses from the Chapman case, and concluding they were not involved. Anyway, I don't recall what evidence was given for that, or if it was just a speculative idea at the time - it wasn't central to the discussion as I recall, but it's impression seems to have been left in my memory, just a bit smeared. But, as it's central to what we're exploring, the details are important so I'll try and track it down as well. Nice chatting with you.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            I see you're putting words in rjpalmer's mouth, too. Congratulations on refuting something he never said.

            What he actually said was "And as the many examples posted by David Barrat amply demonstrate, the written record can be highly misleading. Every surviving record for the coal miner he drummed-up used his birth name. If it wasn’t for a relative coming forward at the inquest, there would be no record that the miner actually used the name of his stepfather in his day to day life. Not even the census records reflected this fact."
            Please keep up 5r.


            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
              Dr W stated that a Pickford’s representative was present at the inquest. There’s no evidence that one was.
              Dr W provided reasons why Pickford's would want to have a representative. You did not even attempt to address his points. Instead, you stated a true, but irrelevant point. We do not have a list of who attended. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
              I believe I have the honour of being the person who discovered the 1876 incident.
              I am well aware that you posted the article. If you were paying attention, I used it to show errors Fisherman made about it. Perhaps you shouldn't go making so many assumptions.

              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
              I believe I was also the first person to suggest that Pickford’s would most likely have had someone present at the inquest.
              Interesting double standard. You can speculate about Pickford's having a representative at the 1876 Inquest, but when Dr W does the same, you try to shut him down.

              It's also interesting that you tried to shut down Dr W for posting pro-Lechmere speculation, but you were totally silent when Fisherman made false statements about the Inquest.





              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                Hi Gary,



                No problem. As I say, it could be a wild goose chase, but I have this vague memory of there being some mention of the police initially looking into one of the witnesses from the Chapman case, and concluding they were not involved. Anyway, I don't recall what evidence was given for that, or if it was just a speculative idea at the time - it wasn't central to the discussion as I recall, but it's impression seems to have been left in my memory, just a bit smeared. But, as it's central to what we're exploring, the details are important so I'll try and track it down as well. Nice chatting with you.

                - Jeff
                It was John Richardson. “There was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him.” —Swanson, 19 October 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C

                Robert Paul was also investigated. Deeply shocking, I know.
                Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-21-2021, 07:50 PM.

                Comment


                • It could be that Lechmere told Robert Paul his name was Cross while walking to work that morning (in an attempt to stay anonymous) - and had to use that same name at the inquest he was compelled to attend due to Paul's interview. Just a thought.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    Dr W provided reasons why Pickford's would want to have a representative. You did not even attempt to address his points. Instead, you stated a true, but irrelevant point. We do not have a list of who attended. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



                    I am well aware that you posted the article. If you were paying attention, I used it to show errors Fisherman made about it. Perhaps you shouldn't go making so many assumptions.



                    Interesting double standard. You can speculate about Pickford's having a representative at the 1876 Inquest, but when Dr W does the same, you try to shut him down.

                    It's also interesting that you tried to shut down Dr W for posting pro-Lechmere speculation, but you were totally silent when Fisherman made false statements about the Inquest.




                    Oh dear. Have I said something to upset you?

                    Did Dr W speculate about a Pickfords representative, or state it as a fact?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Great Aunt View Post
                      It could be that Lechmere told Robert Paul his name was Cross while walking to work that morning (in an attempt to stay anonymous) - and had to use that same name at the inquest he was compelled to attend due to Paul's interview. Just a thought.
                      I find it hard to believe that Lechmere and Paul walked silently along Hanbury Street.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        It was John Richardson. “There was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him.” —Swanson, 19 October 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C

                        Robert Paul was also investigated. Deeply shocking, I know.
                        Why shocking?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Great Aunt View Post
                          Hhmm - I've said this before but I'll say it again ... I cant help thinking that using his ex-policeman step-father's surname might in some way give him some credibility with the police. Clutching at straws I would most definitely do the same in a tight situation.
                          By 1876, Thomas Cross had been dead for 7 years. By 1888, Cross had been dead for nearly 20 years. How many of the police were even on the force when Thomas Cross died? How many police who had known Thomas Cross had already retired, moved or died? Plus Thomas Cross is not an uncmomon name. I doubt that using the Cross surname would grant any credibility with the police.


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                            Do I count as one of the ‘Lechmere crowd’, RJ?

                            I have put forward plausible reasons why Lechmere might have been reluctant to disclose his real name in a situation where that name might be reported on in the press - especially where it might have been connected to the name Cross.

                            The ‘Cross crowd’, however, just cannot bring themselves to be objective about anything Lechmere-related.
                            Your last sentence answers your first. There are objective people who do not think Lechmere was the Ripper. There are very unobjective people who think Lechmere was the killer. Not that anyone would know that from your last sentence.


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              That last post by Abby Normal,in reply to the well thought out and excellent posts by Jeff and RJ, do show why the case against Cross is non existent.Really,a hundred years or so to come up with his real name,changes the evidence?I ask again ,what is a real name?From a legal point of view ,it would still amount to the man who found Nichols body,whatever the name used,and as that is the only,and noncriminal activity that can be attributed to Cross,no case,of any nature exists against him.
                              Yet - if Lechmere was JtR - it worked!! He concealed his real name for over a hundred years - and didn't get caught!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                                By 1876, Thomas Cross had been dead for 7 years. By 1888, Cross had been dead for nearly 20 years. How many of the police were even on the force when Thomas Cross died? How many police who had known Thomas Cross had already retired, moved or died? Plus Thomas Cross is not an uncmomon name. I doubt that using the Cross surname would grant any credibility with the police.

                                A very sensible post, 5r.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X