Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Click image for larger version

Name:	DD411536-ACAD-4AED-A7B9-E61FEC8DC9D1.jpeg
Views:	235
Size:	136.7 KB
ID:	769300

    While Maria was living in Tiger Bay with the boy constable she had bigamously married, the executor of her father’s will, the Reverend Archer Clive*, was entertaining Lord Palmerston, the Prime Minister, at Whitfield, which had been Maria’s childhood home.

    The Rev. A. C. was one of those in Hereford who would have instantly recognised the unique name of Charles Allen Lechmere.

    *Archer Clive was very much alive in 1876 when, it seems, a certain Pickfords carman withheld his unique name in court. He had sadly passed by 1888, but the Lechmere name would have still resonated in Herefordshire.

    (Did someone mention the son of a plasterer named Jones?)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      We seem to be on the same page, Trevor. Neither of us believe it is likely that the police would have dug into Lechmere’s background and discovered his real name.

      That’s what some believe.
      Whether they did or didn't is irrelevant - there is nothing suspicious in the name change.

      If they did find it suspicious they've still got to find evidence he committed the murder. What matters now is what evidence we have against him, which to my mind is zero.

      All the best.

      Comment


      • I once saw a list of the newspapers that were read by the denizens of Tiger Bay in the 1850s/60s(?). I wish I could find it again to see if it included the Hereford Times.

        The HT was full of the doings of the Lechmeres and the Clives, two of the most prominent families in the county. I’m sure a few Jones’s got a mention too, it being such a common name and Herefordshire being on the Welsh border.


        TTFN

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

          Whether they did or didn't is irrelevant - there is nothing suspicious in the name change.

          If they did find it suspicious they've still got to find evidence he committed the murder. What matters now is what evidence we have against him, which to my mind is zero.

          All the best.
          All the best!

          Comment


          • It is established that the police were investigating and questioning and watching many individuals during the curse of the crimes!

            It is established that Lechmere, who was alone with the victim, contradicted a police officer in front of the coroner and the jury!

            Yet Lechmerian's starting point is: Cross was not looked onto or investigated by the police!


            This is Fisherman 2021 ladies and gentelmen! He had now many things in common with the diary defenders, defend at any cost! Even if your case was proven wrong, defend, fight, stay strong, don't give up, stand up!


            This is the bumbling buffoon age of ripperology!



            The Baron

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
              It is established that the police were investigating and questioning and watching many individuals during the curse of the crimes!

              It is established that Lechmere, who was alone with the victim, contradicted a police officer in front of the coroner and the jury!

              Yet Lechmerian's starting point is: Cross was not looked onto or investigated by the police!


              This is Fisherman 2021 ladies and gentelmen! He had now many things in common with the diary defenders, defend at any cost! Even if your case was proven wrong, defend, fight, stay strong, don't give up, stand up!


              This is the bumbling buffoon age of ripperology!



              The Baron
              Yes, we know. Swanson tells us the categories of people being investigated and names those who were singled out for special attention. Lechmere doesn’t fit any of the categories and only gets a mention in passing as one of the two carmen who found the body.

              Unfortunately for Ripperology you are not a ‘one-off’. Or perhaps you are, in the mid-nineteenth century meaning of the term.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                Yes, we know. Swanson tells us the categories of people being investigated and names those who were singled out for special attention. Lechmere doesn’t fit any of the categories and only gets a mention in passing as one of the two carmen who found the body.

                Swanson:


                "enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surrounding suspicion was cast in statements made to police"


                Cross denied telling Mizen he was wanted in Bucks row by another policeman, and contradicted a police officer statement in front of the coroner and the jury!


                Only you and Fisherman find this suspicious, but not the police huh?!





                Dosen't fit any of Swanson category huh?!






                I truly advice you to engage your brain before commenting.




                The Baron

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  Gary Ridgway killed again three days after he had been questioned by the police at the day of a woman disappearance, a woman who was subsequently found murdered - by Ridgway.


                  How desperate! Try harder..


                  Cross contradicted a police officer and went to kill again (as you claim) in 5 days


                  No one is talking about a merely questioning by the police.


                  CONTRADICTED


                  That example you brought tell it to your company they may support you.




                  I think other posters have established the full value of that "point", so I won´t bother.


                  Yes don't bother, because you can't.




                  The Baron

                  Comment


                  • Par for the course Baron nonsense. He makes a dumb post on the Druitt thread which I responded to by showing him categorically to be biased and completely lacking in reason to which he had no response (of course) so he moves onto here.

                    What a complete joke. Nothing better to do than to post childish, mocking, baseless nonsense.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                      Strangely eloquent, Mr B!

                      Excellent use of emojis!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        The anti-Lechmerians seem to completely miss the point about the name thing.
                        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.

                        Hello

                        If it doesn't mean he was JTR why are we discussing it on a Suspect Thread? If there is some hidden agenda in his using a different name, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the murders, then yes please by all means explain it to us in a cogent fashion.

                        If what you are getting at goes straight over my head, allow me to apologize in advance for my profound ignorance. You seem to have made an in depth study of geneology of Lechmere/Cross and, and you know something we don't.

                        What is it please?

                        Because for my purposes, Charles Cross and Robert Paul were regular swell fellows who did the right thing. What people do in a community.

                        Paddy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          But many did, and the concept of a’ real’ name that it was appropriate to bring out in court was amply demonstrated by your and David’s research.

                          Perhaps Lechmere didn’t read the newspapers and was unaware of the zeitgeist.

                          Or perhaps he was so used to being referred to as Charlie Cross by all and sundry that the had forgotten what his real name was.

                          This is nothing short of amazing, Gary. Kattrup just tried to point out that David B's research showed no such thing, and then you double-down and insist once again that it did.

                          Is it possible that you entirely misread and misunderstood his research, and thus you keep misstating it?

                          I don't wish to step into the middle of a long standing and bitter feud, but you should be made aware that, by an odd quirk, 'Lord Orsam' published two new editions of "Lord Orsam...Speaks" a few days ago, and he addresses this directly. If you go to his website and click on the "News" tab it will provide a link to Part 17, or I will provide it below. Scroll down to the last 15% of the article, and you can find where he discusses this matter at length. He then touches on it again under the sub-heading "Bad Legal Takes." But let me warn you. Due to your bitter feud, you won't find it pleasant.

                          You have written several times on this site, and at least once on Howard's site, that Victorians "often thought it appropriate to disclose their 'real' names alongside their assumed ones. Why should we imagine that Charles Allen Lechmere would have felt otherwise?"

                          You then keep citing David B's research as evidence.

                          He states in his article that this is a blatant misrepresentation. He provided 17 case studies of men who, evidence shows, used two names during their lifetime. In 16 of the 17 cases, there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever felt the need to disclose this to the 'authorities,' or in court, etc. You are claiming something that is not in David B's research, and doing so repeatedly.

                          He then goes through the 17 case studies again to demonstrates this.

                          Finally, he states that although you keep repeating that this was 'understood' in Victorian times, and they 'often' did so, you have failed to provide a single example of anyone doing this. Is this true?

                          Perhaps you can clear the air and show where in the archives you HAVE provided examples? Or perhaps you can supply some examples now?

                          I have cited one of Orsam case studies, more than once, of a man in Ryde who gave his name as 'Jones' in one court case and 'Taylor' in another, and never felt the need to disclose that he used two different names. Strangely, you tried to accuse me of deception, waving this example away because his father was a prominent businessman.

                          Why on earth would that make a difference? If this was an understood legal practice, wouldn't be all the more reason for the man to disclose that his 'real' name was not his step-father's? The name that appears in the census reports, etc? Your objection makes no sense. The man did not disclose his use of alternative names.

                          I'll leave it up to you whether you wish to address this. I can't post Orsam's rebuttal without his permission, or without the permission of the administrators on this website, but I felt you should be aware that he has denied that his research shows what you claim it shows. Others here will have probably read his latest articles.

                          https://www.orsam.co.uk/17thorsam.htm


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                            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
                            yes. absolutely given all the evidence we have.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

                              Because you might find out something that was suspicious. Him finding a dead body on his route to work isn't intrinsically suspicious if he walks that route at that time every day.

                              All the best.
                              hi greenway
                              people who discover a dead body are always a suspect until they are cleared. in todays cop world anyway, apparently maybe not then.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
                                It is established that the police were investigating and questioning and watching many individuals during the curse of the crimes!

                                It is established that Lechmere, who was alone with the victim, contradicted a police officer in front of the coroner and the jury!

                                Yet Lechmerian's starting point is: Cross was not looked onto or investigated by the police!


                                This is Fisherman 2021 ladies and gentelmen! He had now many things in common with the diary defenders, defend at any cost! Even if your case was proven wrong, defend, fight, stay strong, don't give up, stand up!


                                This is the bumbling buffoon age of ripperology!



                                The Baron
                                all your hyperbole aside theres no evidence lech was investigated by police. all the knee jerk anti lechers claiming he was are just speculating. and thats a fact

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X