Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • RJ,

    I was hoping you had come up with evidence of Paul having been checked out. Did you forget about that?

    Gary

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      RJ,

      I was hoping you had come up with evidence of Paul having been checked out. Did you forget about that?

      Gary
      Changing the subject, Gary?

      You've posted that Dew was attempting to cast Paul in a 'bad light' because he criticized the police. Yet it's obvious from his memoirs that Dew doesn't even remember Paul's identity, nor the fact that he was ever identified.

      So can you please explain how that is supposed to work?

      That Paul would have been investigated is obvious--just as we know that Richardson was investigated, due to the circumstances he found himself in. Dew remembers suspicions against the 2nd man in Buck's Row, and we know from a contemporary report that Paul was eventually dragged out of bed in the night. The police investigate such people.

      You see, not being a Lechmere accuser, I'm not a reductionist. Not everything has to be spelled out in black and white. It's okay to use logic when the historical evidence is incomplete.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

        Fisherman, I've noticed this phrase of yours (or something similar) crop up in a lot of your Bury dismissal lectures over the years - she was a 'domestic/not a prostitute'. I think this is irrelevant and naive. JtR hated women and accessed his victims through their vulnerability. By far the most vulnerable women on the streets in the early hours were prostitutes, so that is who he attacked. But he could just as easily attacked any other women in a vulnerable position (e.g., walking home alone, in need of help assistance, looking for someone to trust). If you have seen the BBC documentary about the police mistakes concerning the Yorkshire Ripper, you are ploughing the same naive furrow. 'He hates prostitutes/he only attacks prostitutes' only for him to attack university students walking alone at night.

        Ellen Bury was one of the most vulnerable women in this whole saga - under the control of her brutal husband - and it is simply irrelevant that she was a 'domestic' as you put it.
        Have a look at how many married serial killers do away with their spouses, and you may change your mind. I agree that it is not an absolute, but it is nevertheless a rare thing.

        Sutcliffe did kill prostitutes and non-prostitutes although his focus predominantly was on the former group. But he didnīt kill Sonia, his wife, did he? So I fail to see how he is a point in favour of your reasoning. He seems instead very much to bolster what I say, would you not agree? There are others, who have married women who prosituted themselves and who killed non-prostitutes but not their prostituted wife, like Fred West.

        So, all in all ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          If it had been, the honest answer may have included something along the lines of ‘I only use the name Lechmere in formal situations.’
          But we dont know if in fact he did ever give an answer to whenever that question was put to him. you are all inferring that he was never asked to clarify

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

            OK Christer, let's suppose for a minute that the police did interview Lechmere and asked him ‘Is Cross your real name?’ and following that question up with, ‘Did you not feel it was appropriate to disclose your real name to us?’. And let's suppose Lechmere would have answered those questions with what you have in mind for Lechmere to have answered in case he was asked these type of questions.

            Would you also say that this would have been disastrous for Lechmere, regardless of whether not disclosing his birth name had a sinister reason gehind it or not?
            Yes, I would. Of course, if he could provide a good reason for why he left out his real and registered name in favour of his stepfathers name, that would help his cause. But overall, I would say that he had compromised himself rather badly in the eyes of the jury, not least if they were provided with the whole truth. Meaning that they were informed that he otherwise never used the name Cross in officialdom.

            It can never be a good start for a man under suspicion of a crime.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              A thread devoted to offering space where those who think there is evidence pointing to innocence on Charles Lechermeīs behalf can provide their thoughts and ideas. ...

              Anybody who can master this debate without descending into disrespectfulness is welcomed to the thread.
              Thank you for the invitation, Fisherman,

              Cross and Paul were regular swell guys who did their part as citizens. What people in a community do.

              Paddy


              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Elamarna;n769003]
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                I now note that you seem to have edited your post, Steve, writing:

                There clearly were two stories ( probably with a common source , but significantly different)...

                Since you speak of a common source, that source must be Robert Paul, who delivered what you perceive as a second story.

                Now, if Paul WAS the sole source, why would he change his story?

                Here are my five cents:

                Robert Paul played a part in a sensational case of murder. He did not know this as he stood outside Browns Stable Yard, but the word on the street will have made him realize it as the day passed by. When he found out, he also found out that he had a story to tell that would make people lift an eyebrow or two. And so he told his story during the Friday, to all and sundry. He was a carter, and so he would have come in contact with all sorts of people.
                Pauls story will have spread like wildfire, and it will have been picked up on by reporters among other people. A Lloyds reporter would then have been dispatched to try and find Paul in the evening, and succeeded. Another reporter, from the Star, was not so lucky, and was forced to rely on second hand accounts, accounts that didnīt have the story correct, but worked from the idea that the PC that was said to be the finder was also the PC that was supposedly directed to the murder site.

                We are getting somewhere now. The same source, you say, and you will be right - to a degree. Itīs more like the same story, and from two sources, one of them being Paul and the other one/s remaining unidentified.

                Anyways, this is much better than the suggestion that two unrelated stories about two men directing a PC to the murder site would have done the rounds, the first one being pure invention and the second one being true.

                It surely must have been the other way around if your suggestion was correct: Pauls story could have inspired false stories, but not until Paul had told his version. The notion that Pauls version was not spread before the 2nd, in Lloyds Weekly, is contradicted by how a similar story is out there on the 31st.

                There was never anything wrong with logic.[/QUdOTE]

                Progress of a sort, I agree.
                The Star account is a corrupted version of part of the Lloyds account, there are too many similarities for it to be independent.

                It would be a VERY odd coiuncidence if it was, so yes, I agree.

                I agree, it seems highly probable that knowledge of the Lloyds account was in circulation, even if limited, before the 2nd.

                Everything is limited. The question is how limited, but neither of us will be able to establish that. As long as we agree that the story did probably not break first in Lloyds, but instead on the streets of the East End.

                So back to Neil's statement, What is being denied is that two men took Neil to the body. Can we agree on that?

                In the Daily News, the wording goes like this when they describe "Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body..." and his exploits:

                "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."

                So in that version, it says nothing about the two men following him to the body. They "called him" to it, and that would either mean that they stood by the body, calling out to Neil, or that they sent him to it, unless I am mistaken? You are the Brit, not me. I havent invested time in making a more thorough search, but I can honestly say that even if it had been reported as Neil saying that two men followed him to the body, it would still belong to the same conglomerate of different versions of Pauls story. And since Lloyds say that Paul asked Neil to "come" (arguably meaning "come along to the body), it is all becomes muddled. My conclusion is that it is impossible to know for certain which story it was that annoyed Neil. The Star mentions his name, but if he interpreted the Lloyds story as him being pointed out again, who could blame him? And I also think that the Lloyds story, with a named interviewee, would have been what toppled the matter over. I donīt think it is a coincidence that Neil - on a Sunday - is called in by his superiors to deny the story, on the very same day that Pauls story broke in Lloyds.
                Iīm sure this can be discussed in absurdum, and so I am happy to have had my say before anybody accepted that it was as easy a matter as your original post implied.


                There is no indication that the account as published in Lloyds is being disputed in Neil's statement.
                See the above.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  Changing the subject, Gary?

                  You've posted that Dew was attempting to cast Paul in a 'bad light' because he criticized the police. Yet it's obvious from his memoirs that Dew doesn't even remember Paul's identity, nor the fact that he was ever identified.

                  So can you please explain how that is supposed to work?

                  That Paul would have been investigated is obvious--just as we know that Richardson was investigated, due to the circumstances he found himself in. Dew remembers suspicions against the 2nd man in Buck's Row, and we know from a contemporary report that Paul was eventually dragged out of bed in the night. The police investigate such people.

                  You see, not being a Lechmere accuser, I'm not a reductionist. Not everything has to be spelled out in black and white. It's okay to use logic when the historical evidence is incomplete.
                  No, asking for clarification of a previous subject.

                  Dew seems to have got the ‘suspicious’ behaviour completely a about f, doesn’t he? Why would Dew have had to have recalled Paul’s identity to recall the negative impression his reluctance and accusations had left behind?

                  Is ‘the police investigate such people’ the best you can do? Was Lechmere one such person? Because that’s what we’re discussing here, whether Paul was investigated and whether it therefore follows that Lechmere was.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                    We will disagree I am afraid, I have certainly not be rash in my assesment and conclusions.

                    No facts have been invented.

                    The claim that Lloyds is probably the primary concern for Neil, is simply your opinion.

                    And the claim that it must have been the Star article that Neil alluded to is simply YOUR opinion.

                    To attempt to link Paul saying that Mizen should come to the body, to the Star account and thus to Neil's statement is not surprising, if in no way convincing, given the Lloyds account makes it clear that the men did not take Mizen to the body
                    That you wish to perpetuate the claim that the police disbelieved the Lloyds account is your choice, it's not supported by the facts.

                    We won't agree, such is life.
                    You really should not make claims about what is supported by facts, Steve. The last time over, you stated as a fact that Robert Paul told Mizen that Nichols was dead. That too was inventing facts on your behalf.

                    I wonīt do, and I will point it out when it happens.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                      I agree that you are basically right - Dew's recollections have been a bit approximate at best. However, he did give Lechmere a rather glowing report, and not just an "OK" one, and Christer seems to want to quote this as evidence that Lechmere was not investigated, and really there is no evidence to back this. It is an assumption. I could equally validly argue that if the police considered Lechmere to be so "clean" then they must have investigated him thoroughly, and found nothing! However, I don't make any such assumption from Dew's account, because, as I said previously, his memory is not always reliable.
                      Why do you say that I want to quote Dew as evidence?
                      You point out that it is an assumption. Have I said anything else? I have pointed out that it is a matter that seems to possibly lend itself to in part explain why Paul was raked over the coals while Lechmere was not, and I stand by that. Quote: If Dews view mirrors that of the contemporary police, then it offers a possible explanation for why Paul was investigated while Lechmere was seemingly not.

                      How is that claiming the matter as evidence?

                      Can we please not make up things that are not true?
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 09-22-2021, 02:41 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        Come on, Gary, this is getting ridiculous. You are so eager to make a point against Lechmere that you aren't even making sense. Dew doesn't even remember Paul--so how does he remember Paul criticizing the police? Please explain.
                        How and why does it follow from how Dew did not name Paul in his book that he must have forgotten about how Paul painted the police in an unflattering light in the Lloyds interview?
                        Why would it need explaining? If I forget Hamletīs name, does it automatically follow that I forget the story...? Amazing!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          No, asking for clarification of a previous subject.

                          Dew seems to have got the ‘suspicious’ behaviour completely a about f, doesn’t he? Why would Dew have had to have recalled Paul’s identity to recall the negative impression his reluctance and accusations had left behind?

                          Is ‘the police investigate such people’ the best you can do? Was Lechmere one such person? Because that’s what we’re discussing here, whether Paul was investigated and whether it therefore follows that Lechmere was.

                          Let me again re iterate what I said in an earlier post as to how the chain of command works with the asssesment and evaluation of witness statements.

                          1. The statemet is taken by usually a PC or in the case of major investigations an experienced Detective

                          2. The statement is then read by a supervisor who will decide if further action is required to clarify any ambiguities. So it is at this point the witness would be revisited and perhaps another statement taken from him to clear up any ambiguities.

                          3. In the Ripper case as previoulsy stated all the completed statements were subsequewntly forwarded to Swanson to review after the above process had been completed. It is at this point I would suggest that if there were any doubts surrounding Lecmheres account Swanson would have intervened and no doubt either re interviewed Lechmere himself or asked a more senior officer to do it. It should be noted thereafter Swanson makes no mention of any suspicion falling on Lechmere or the account he gave,

                          4. We know a statement was taken from him for the purposes of the inquest and so any ambiguites regarding his names would have been cleared up before the inquest.

                          5. The fact that there is no mention in the inquest by the coroner or anyone else raising a question mark over the two names suggests the police and the coroner were happy with his account,

                          I hope now this will satisfy those who still support Lechmere as a suspect, whose only argument seems to be that there is no evidence to show Lechmere using two names was ever closely scrutinized. You can bet your life he was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Let me again re iterate what I said in an earlier post as to how the chain of command works with the asssesment and evaluation of witness statements.

                            1. The statemet is taken by usually a PC or in the case of major investigations an experienced Detective

                            2. The statement is then read by a supervisor who will decide if further action is required to clarify any ambiguities. So it is at this point the witness would be revisited and perhaps another statement taken from him to clear up any ambiguities.

                            3. In the Ripper case as previoulsy stated all the completed statements were subsequewntly forwarded to Swanson to review after the above process had been completed. It is at this point I would suggest that if there were any doubts surrounding Lecmheres account Swanson would have intervened and no doubt either re interviewed Lechmere himself or asked a more senior officer to do it. It should be noted thereafter Swanson makes no mention of any suspicion falling on Lechmere or the account he gave,

                            4. We know a statement was taken from him for the purposes of the inquest and so any ambiguites regarding his names would have been cleared up before the inquest.

                            5. The fact that there is no mention in the inquest by the coroner or anyone else raising a question mark over the two names suggests the police and the coroner were happy with his account,

                            I hope now this will satisfy those who still support Lechmere as a suspect, whose only argument seems to be that there is no evidence to show Lechmere using two names was ever closely scrutinized. You can bet your life he was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            So your guess would be that the witness calling himself Cross was possibly not investigated and if he was it was to clarify any discrepancies in his evidence?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Let me again re iterate what I said in an earlier post as to how the chain of command works with the asssesment and evaluation of witness statements.

                              1. The statemet is taken by usually a PC or in the case of major investigations an experienced Detective

                              2. The statement is then read by a supervisor who will decide if further action is required to clarify any ambiguities. So it is at this point the witness would be revisited and perhaps another statement taken from him to clear up any ambiguities.

                              3. In the Ripper case as previoulsy stated all the completed statements were subsequewntly forwarded to Swanson to review after the above process had been completed. It is at this point I would suggest that if there were any doubts surrounding Lecmheres account Swanson would have intervened and no doubt either re interviewed Lechmere himself or asked a more senior officer to do it. It should be noted thereafter Swanson makes no mention of any suspicion falling on Lechmere or the account he gave,

                              4. We know a statement was taken from him for the purposes of the inquest and so any ambiguites regarding his names would have been cleared up before the inquest.

                              5. The fact that there is no mention in the inquest by the coroner or anyone else raising a question mark over the two names suggests the police and the coroner were happy with his account,

                              I hope now this will satisfy those who still support Lechmere as a suspect, whose only argument seems to be that there is no evidence to show Lechmere using two names was ever closely scrutinized. You can bet your life he was !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              ...but during this thorough checkout, the police just happened to miss out on his real name. Or they felt they should save ink by calling him Cross.

                              If any ambiguities about his name were cleared up before the inquest, why is not his real name in the material, Trevor?

                              I donīt think that the police can always be relied upon, and I think the police of 1888 was much less unreliable than todays unreliable police. To be frank, Iīve seen to many dumb policemen to put much faith in them.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                                So your guess would be that the witness calling himself Cross was possibly not investigated and if he was it was to clarify any discrepancies in his evidence?
                                Ouch!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X