Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
    Because I don't consider the name Lechmere germane to the investigation nor do I think Charles Cross was engaged in deception of any type.

    In my opinion, this member of the working classes did everything right. He stopped to notice the victim. He didn't have to, he had a job to show up to. He called over the next passerby, Robert Paul, and they both had a look see. Together they informed the policeman. These are all traits of a good citizen. And this is the key - he uses the name Cross in his dealings with the authorities. With the police and at the inquest. Why? This workingman thinks, "of course" since he is known at Pickford's as Cross he will identify as Cross to the authorities. No need to confuse things. In his mind there is no deception. He is being honest. Because on the way to work, he is "Charles Cross." In fact, I bet he never gave it a second thought. It came naturally for him just as he had identified as Cross at Pickford's all those years.

    Do you think his mates at Pickfords knew him as Charles ALLEN Cross? The Allen element of his name wasn’t just a random forename picked out of a hat by his parents, it held considerable significance for the Lechmere family.

    Who knows whether the name Lechmere was germane to the investigation? For all we know, if he’d revealed it, people might have come forward and given incriminating evidence against him.

    All we do know is that he omitted it and that many other people in a similar situation thought it appropriate to reveal both their names.




    Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-26-2021, 11:36 PM.

    Comment


    • I don't know about Allen.

      We agree he was known as Cross at work.

      We agree his legal name was Lechmere.

      I have given my interpretation of his actions and motivations. I respect you think otherwise, that there may be another interpretation. Yet you don't seem particularly enamored of him as a suspect for the Ripper murders, if I understand you correctly.

      Comment


      • Cross:

        1-gave his first name
        2-gave his father name
        3-gave a last name he used before
        4-gave his career
        5-gave his place of work
        6-gave his Address
        7-gave his route to work
        8-gave his time of work
        9-talked to Paul willingly
        10-went to a policeman and talked to him willingly
        11-came to the inquest willingly


        And we have some posters who claim:

        "There is absolutely no question that Lechmere concealed a major aspect of his identity (i.e. his real name)"






        The Baron

        Comment


        • In answer to your post 2212 Fisherman,I have no catching up to equal you or Scobie,I am well ahead. What significance in the other murders does Scobie have,since you mentioned it?What evidence have you or him presented that shows Cross was present at any of the other murders? Absolutely none.All you and Scobie quote equals nothing but suspicions,and those suspicions have never been proven. Suspicion in itself is usefull,it may point a direction for police to seek evidence,but without being prooven,suspicion is useless.You are not behind in the race,you haven't even started.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post
            Cross:

            1-gave his first name
            2-gave his father name
            3-gave a last name he used before
            4-gave his career
            5-gave his place of work
            6-gave his Address
            7-gave his route to work
            8-gave his time of work
            9-talked to Paul willingly
            10-went to a policeman and talked to him willingly
            11-came to the inquest willingly


            And we have some posters who claim:

            "There is absolutely no question that Lechmere concealed a major aspect of his identity (i.e. his real name)"






            The Baron
            Hilarious as it may seem to you, a person’s name is an aspect of their identity.



            Comment


            • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
              I don't know about Allen.

              We agree he was known as Cross at work.

              We agree his legal name was Lechmere.

              I have given my interpretation of his actions and motivations. I respect you think otherwise, that there may be another interpretation. Yet you don't seem particularly enamored of him as a suspect for the Ripper murders, if I understand you correctly.
              Can you imagine any situation in which the giving of his stepfather’s name might have prevented someone identifying him from press reports of the Nichols case?
              Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-27-2021, 06:32 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
                We agree he was known as Cross at work.
                I asked this question before and was attacked by RJ Palmer as being in some sort of conspiracy with another poster. I am not in a conspiracy with anyone, but just pose the simple question:

                Has it been ascertained that Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords?

                Cheers, George

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  I asked this question before and was attacked by RJ Palmer as being in some sort of conspiracy with another poster. I am not in a conspiracy with anyone, but just pose the simple question:

                  Has it been ascertained that Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords?

                  Cheers, George
                  And I thought I had already answered - no it hasn’t.

                  It is merely assumed to have been.

                  Any objective questioning of the anti-Lechmerian position is likely to receive an hysterical response.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by The Baron View Post


                    telling him he was wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row


                    The Baron
                    What was the exact wording here? I thought it was 'you are wanted in Buck's Row'?

                    There is a world of difference between the two.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                      What was the exact wording here? I thought it was 'you are wanted in Buck's Row'?

                      There is a world of difference between the two.
                      Mizen claimed it was the former, Lechmere the latter.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        And I thought I had already answered - no it hasn’t.

                        It is merely assumed to have been.

                        Any objective questioning of the anti-Lechmerian position is likely to receive an hysterical response.
                        Hi MrBarnett,

                        Thank you for that confirmation. And yet it continues to be presented as fact. Might I ask that those who continue to claim that Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords present their evidence, or forever hold their peace?

                        Cheers, George

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                          There is absolutely no question that Lechmere concealed a major aspect of his identity (i.e. his real name)
                          Sorry, this is just completely wrong. We do not know that he concealed anything.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Hi MrBarnett,

                            Thank you for that confirmation. And yet it continues to be presented as fact. Might I ask that those who continue to claim that Lechmere was known as Cross at Pickfords present their evidence, or forever hold their peace?

                            Cheers, George
                            They will point to the fact that going by Lechmere’s evidence he had secured his job at Pickfords while his stepfather was still alive and therefore probably used his stepfather’s name at work. That’s plausible, of course, but it’s by no means certain.

                            Around the same time as CAL started work at Pickfords his sister Emily died. A neighbour who had been present at the death was given the task of registering the death. She registered it in the name of Emily Lechmere.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                              Sorry, this is just completely wrong. We do not know that he concealed anything.
                              We know that he did not state his real name at the inquest. Unless, of course, the press missed it.



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
                                The Lechmere suspect theory throws both the Metropolitan police, and the London working class under the bus. Or under the lorry as you say.

                                Charles Cross and Robert Paul were walking to work in the dark. People today have a hard time wrapping their head around that. But in fact, workmen walking to work in the wee hours was not uncommon. There were a number of police on foot throughout the district, which had a population density then three times that of today's.

                                Cross and Paul did the right thing. They notified the nearest policeman. Absolutely the police checked out the employment status of Charles Cross at Pickford's. That's common sense. All of the police notebooks are gone. Stewart Evans told us that right here on Casebook if you were paying any attention. These notebooks contained the intricate details of their investigations.

                                It requires a historical understanding of Metropolitan London in the Late Victorian Period to put these events in context.

                                Not guilty.

                                Paddy
                                Then I shall have to read up on Metropolitan London in the late victorian period, of course. Should be interesting, so thanks for the tip!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X