Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Would it be accurate, given the information we have, to say that he didn't give his correct name to the police? Or that he withheld his true identity from the authorities?

All the best

Let’s be charitable and say ‘full’ identity, Greenway.

[MrBarnett]

Here’s a question for Trevor.

What’s the standard procedure now? If a witness to a major crime comes forward, do the police investigate his/her ID in depth? Would they for instance knock at his neighbours’ doors to confirm what his name was, and if it turned out that he was a new kid on the block and the neighbours knew very little about him, would they (did you) go across town to his old address and start knocking on doors there?

I wouldn’t mind an answer to this, Trevor.

Once, many years ago, I gave evidence in court myself. It wasn’t a murder case, but it was an unpleasant assault and I had witnessed the perpetrator acting suspiciously towards his victim on a couple of occasions prior to the attack.

I went along to the police station, gave my details and made a statement. A short while after I received a summons to give evidence at a magistrates court, which I duly did.

The police didn’t call at my home and as far as I’m aware they didn’t attempt to check out my identity with family or neighbours. The neighbours wouldn’t have been much help anyway, I don’t think any of them even knew my surname.

What I’d like to know, Trev, is what was going on in the background that I wasn’t aware of.

[Trevor Marriott]

I wouldn’t mind an answer to this, Trevor.

Once, many years ago, I gave evidence in court myself. It wasn’t a murder case, but it was an unpleasant assault and I had witnessed the perpetrator acting suspiciously towards his victim on a couple of occasions prior to the attack.

I went along to the police station, gave my details and made a statement. A short while after I received a summons to give evidence at a magistrates court, which I duly did.

The police didn’t call at my home and as far as I’m aware they didn’t attempt to check out my identity with family or neighbours. The neighbours wouldn’t have been much help anyway, I don’t think any of them even knew my surname.

What I’d like to know, Trev, is what was going on in the background that I wasn’t aware of.

In minor cases they would not bother, but in murder investigations statements are checked and cross referenced and any ambiguiues identified and actioned for officers to go and try to clarify.

Witnesses are only human two persons can witness the same event and when asked to make statements days later make statements that conflict with each other. It doesnt mean to say they are lying it is that we all can see things differently and cannot always repeat verabtim what was said days later.

https://www.trevormarriorr.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

In minor cases they would not bother, but in murder investigations statements are checked and cross referenced and any ambiguiues identified and actioned for officers to go and try to clarify.

Witnesses are only human two persons can witness the same event and when asked to make statements days later make statements that conflict with each other. It doesnt mean to say they are lying it is that we all can see things differently and cannot always repeat verabtim what was said days later.

www.trevormarriorr.co.uk

And you would check out the ID of a witness in a murder case to ensure they were using the correct name? How would you go about that?

[The Baron]

Henry Cox:

"We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes."



Lechmerians want you to believe three things:

-That Lechmere lied to Miszen and denied what he actually told him that night in front of the coroner and the jury!

-That he went to kill again in 5 days after contradicting Mizen at the inquest!

-And That this man was not investigated or watched by the police!






The Baron

[MrBarnett]

[MrBarnett]

Henry Cox:

"We had many people under observation while the murders were being perpetrated, but it was not until the discovery of the body of Mary Kelly had been made that we seemed to get upon the trail. Certain investigations made by several of our cleverest detectives made it apparent to us that a man living in the East End of London was not unlikely to have been connected with the crimes."



Lechmerians want you to believe three things:

-That Lechmere lied to Miszen and denied what he actually told him that night in front of the coroner and the jury!

-That he went to kill again in 5 days after contradicting Mizen at the inquest!

-And That this man was not investigated or watched by the police!






The Baron

Do they? I think they may be right on the last point.

But perhaps this is another one for Trevor: do the police today routinely ‘watch’ every witness in a murder case?

[MrBarnett]

In minor cases they would not bother, but in murder investigations statements are checked and cross referenced and any ambiguiues identified and actioned for officers to go and try to clarify.

Witnesses are only human two persons can witness the same event and when asked to make statements days later make statements that conflict with each other. It doesnt mean to say they are lying it is that we all can see things differently and cannot always repeat verabtim what was said days later.

www.trevormarriorr.co.uk

You’ve sort of missed the point, Trevor. We’re not talking about officers investigating discrepancies in witness statements, we’re effectively talking about officers checking out the ancestry of witnesses to make sure they are using the right names.

Would you knock on every door in witness Smith’s Street to make sure he wasn’t really witness Jones?

[MrBarnett]

The anti-Lechmerians seem to completely miss the point about the name thing. As far as I’m concerned, and I suspect some pukka Lechmerians might agree with me, the point isn’t that his use of the name Cross is in itself suspicious, it’s that he used that name only and didn’t mention the name Lechmere - and that is at least odd.

Why didn’t he conform to the pattern painstakingly identified by Kattrup and David Barrat and disclose both names?

Did it just not occur to him that when he stood up in court and took an oath to tell the ‘whole truth…etc’ he should have at least mentioned in passing the name that in all his other dealings with officialdom he clearly believed was the appropriate one to use?

It’s an anomaly that just won’t go away I’m afraid.

Does it mean he was JTR? Of course it doesn’t. Does it suggest he may have been trying to hide something from someone? Of course it does.

[harry]

I do not need to rephrase anything Mr Barnett.We do not know under what name Cross would have been charged if the police at the time had need to charge him.The idea I get from you and Fisherman is that the name Lechmere was deliberately hidden ,so I presume they,the police. would have used the name Cross,which was given at the inquest.They would charge him under the name Lechmere,only if they knew it was his name.So which is it,did they know or didn't they?

[MrBarnett]

I do not need to rephrase anything Mr Barnett.We do not know under what name Cross would have been charged if the police at the time had need to charge him.The idea I get from you and Fisherman is that the name Lechmere was deliberately hidden ,so I presume they,the police. would have used the name Cross,which was given at the inquest.They would charge him under the name Lechmere,only if they knew it was his name.So which is it,did they know or didn't they?

I don’t believe they did know his real name was Lechmere, that’s why as late as 19th October, they were still calling him ‘Cross’ (how stupid was that?).

If they’d remotely suspected him, they would have checked him out and discovered his real name. And that would have been the name under which he was charged, with your ‘Cross’ as an alias. But they obviously didn’t suspect him - to Swanson he was just one of two carmen who found Nichols’ body on the way to work.

[harry]

If the police obviously didn't suspect him,what matters that he used the name Cross?There is such an expression as 'Common usage'.Perhaps by the19th October they were still using the name because the name 'Cross' was common usage.

[MrBarnett]

If the police obviously didn't suspect him,what matters that he used the name Cross?There is such an expression as 'Common usage'.Perhaps by the19th October they were still using the name because the name 'Cross' was common usage.

Ah, so Swanson just passed the ‘common usage’ on to his superiors rather than showing how clever his team had been in discovering the man’s real identity?

In his defence, he was new to the job, so perhaps he didn’t know what was going on.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’ve sort of missed the point, Trevor. We’re not talking about officers investigating discrepancies in witness statements, we’re effectively talking about officers checking out the ancestry of witnesses to make sure they are using the right names.

Would you knock on every door in witness Smith’s Street to make sure he wasn’t really witness Jones?

No, nor would the police in 1888 that not how investigations are conducted.

It is not a crime for a person to use an alias unless its with intent to deceive,or defraud someone

In the case of Lechmere it is neither and so I fail to see why you are making such a big issue out of this.

It is his evidence that is the important factor that would have been scrutinized and checked out and it is foolhardy to suggest it wasnt

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

to Swanson he was just one of two carmen who found Nichols’ body on the way to work.

and what is supicious about that, someone has to find a dead body when there is a body to be found

www.trevormarriott.co.uk