Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    When he found (or whatever) Nichols he was closer to home than work. We don’t know which police station he presented himself at - it could’ve been Bethnal Green. But perhaps he was wearing his Pickfords apron when he gave his statement and whenever he donned that he immediately forgot he was Charles Allen Lechmere.
    Yes, perhaps. Or maybe a horse passed outside the window of the cop shop, and the smell of the steed was what triggered the Cross response?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      If a witnesses’ name and address are taken at a crime scene, it may we’ll be that he/she gets a call at home from the police who then take a statement there.

      But if a witnesses’ address is not taken at the scene and he voluntarily calls in at his local nick to give a statement, do the police take him back to his home to take the statement? Or do they take it there and then at the police station. Only Trevor, our resident expert on such matters, will knows the answer to this.
      A lot would depend on the circumstances to which the witness was a witness to

      In this day and age statements can be taken at the time, officers now have the capabilty and technology for doing just that

      If the witness attends the station voluntarily one of three things could happen

      1. He would be seen and a statement taken there and then

      2. His details would be obtained and he would then be visitted at his home at a later time

      3. He might be asked to come back at a later time to speak to officers directy involved in the investigation

      If a witness statement is not taken at the scene one of two things can then happen.

      1. The witness would be invited to attend the police station for the purpose of providing a statement

      2. Arrangements would be made for the witness to be visited at his home address for the purpose of making his statement

      when a witness becomes an integral part of a police investigation there full details and antecednets are always checked

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        A lot would depend on the circumstances to which the witness was a witness to

        In this day and age statements can be taken at the time, officers now have the capabilty and technology for doing just that

        If the witness attends the station voluntarily one of three things could happen

        1. He would be seen and a statement taken there and then

        2. His details would be obtained and he would then be visitted at his home at a later time

        3. He might be asked to come back at a later time to speak to officers directy involved in the investigation

        If a witness statement is not taken at the scene one of two things can then happen.

        1. The witness would be invited to attend the police station for the purpose of providing a statement

        2. Arrangements would be made for the witness to be visited at his home address for the purpose of making his statement

        when a witness becomes an integral part of a police investigation there full details and antecednets are always checked

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Maybe, Trevor, these rather rigorous measures are the result of how it in the olden days was too loosely regulated?

        And of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that Lechmere ever became an integral part of any police investigation. Which will be why his full details - such as the name - was not checked.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          A lot would depend on the circumstances to which the witness was a witness to

          In this day and age statements can be taken at the time, officers now have the capabilty and technology for doing just that

          If the witness attends the station voluntarily one of three things could happen

          1. He would be seen and a statement taken there and then

          2. His details would be obtained and he would then be visitted at his home at a later time

          3. He might be asked to come back at a later time to speak to officers directy involved in the investigation

          If a witness statement is not taken at the scene one of two things can then happen.

          1. The witness would be invited to attend the police station for the purpose of providing a statement

          2. Arrangements would be made for the witness to be visited at his home address for the purpose of making his statement

          when a witness becomes an integral part of a police investigation there full details and antecednets are always checked

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Their ‘antecedents’ are checked?

          Really? Do you mean their genealogy or just whether they or any of their family have previous convictions?

          I suppose nowadays it’s just a matter of keying the name into the PNC. But cast your mind back to pre-computerised days, would you trawl through electoral rolls and pay a visit to Somerset House to make sure your witness was really Mr X as he claimed?

          Why was I never visited at home when I gave evidence in connection with the assault of my neighbour?


          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

            We know that he did not state his real name at the inquest. Unless, of course, the press missed it.
            It's correct that he did not state his other name, but that does not make your categorical assertion true.

            Conceal - an active process; we do not know that Cross concealed his other name. There was no reason to divulge it, he was not obliged to and it served no purpose to do so.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              Last time I looked, he had gone from "The name is taken in the witness´ home!" to "Most names are taken in the witness´ home". So we are getting there.

              The truth will out, as the saying goes. Let´s see what Trevor has to say about your scenario, and let´s press him a little further: If an important witness turned up at the threshold of an inquest room in the Working Lads Institute as the inquest he was relevant to was about to start - would the police tell the coroner to hold his horses while they took the witness back to Doveton Street for identification purposes? Or to Bow? Or to Swansea, Ulan Bator or Antananarivo?
              Or would they be flexible enough to take the witnesses details where they stood?
              Yes, of course it’s possible that Lechmere turned up at the court having read about the inquest the previous day.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                It's correct that he did not state his other name, but that does not make your categorical assertion true.

                Conceal - an active process; we do not know that Cross concealed his other name. There was no reason to divulge it, he was not obliged to and it served no purpose to do so.
                Kattrup,

                How can someone actively conceal their name? By not giving it? By giving another name in its place?

                Is there any another way?

                Gary

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  Their ‘antecedents’ are checked?

                  Really? Do you mean their genealogy or just whether they or any of their family have previous convictions?

                  I suppose nowadays it’s just a matter of keying the name into the PNC. But cast your mind back to pre-computerised days, would you trawl through electoral rolls and pay a visit to Somerset House to make sure your witness was really Mr X as he claimed?

                  Why was I never visited at home when I gave evidence in connection with the assault of my neighbour?
                  You are taking this suspicious witness scenario to its extreme

                  Lechmere gave his account, and in that account he would have told the police where he lived, where he worked, what time he left for work and most importantly what his name was.

                  All of those details would have been checked, and any ambiguity would have first come to light when the police checked with his employers so why would he have given a different name to that which he was known by with his employers, because when the police would have visited his employers and asked about his other name the employers would say we dont have anyone working here under that name.

                  If 20 years previous when he first started working at Pickfords he used the name Cross then that is the name he would still be known under at Pickfords. That is a logical conclusion to arrive at


                  As to why you were not visited at home I would suggest your evidence was taken down in the form of a statement which formed part of the case. The police do not have the time after taking down statements to go and visit every witness who makes a statement there is no need. The time and the place for the witnesses evidence to be tested is in court.

                  Again I refer back to the coroners court inquest and the fact that there is nothing in the records to show there was any questions put to him about his identity and that the statement he tendered in the first instance was accepted by both the police and the coroner.

                  Its time to knock on the head this unfounded suspicion surrounding his use of the two names

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    You are taking this suspicious witness scenario to its extreme

                    Lechmere gave his account, and in that account he would have told the police where he lived, where he worked, what time he left for work and most importantly what his name was.

                    All of those details would have been checked, and any ambiguity would have first come to light when the police checked with his employers so why would he have given a different name to that which he was known by with his employers, because when the police would have visited his employers and asked about his other name the employers would say we dont have anyone working here under that name.

                    If 20 years previous when he first started working at Pickfords he used the name Cross then that is the name he would still be known under at Pickfords. That is a logical conclusion to arrive at


                    As to why you were not visited at home I would suggest your evidence was taken down in the form of a statement which formed part of the case. The police do not have the time after taking down statements to go and visit every witness who makes a statement there is no need. The time and the place for the witnesses evidence to be tested is in court.

                    Again I refer back to the coroners court inquest and the fact that there is nothing in the records to show there was any questions put to him about his identity and that the statement he tendered in the first instance was accepted by both the police and the coroner.

                    Its time to knock on the head this unfounded suspicion surrounding his use of the two names

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    So there we have it. From the horse’s mouth. The checking out of Lechmere’s real name is highly unlikely to have been ‘standard procedure’ and was probably not done.

                    Progress at last!


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      We know that he did not state his real name at the inquest. Unless, of course, the press missed it.
                      Luckily, we have the 'Star', the evening paper whose reporter clearly consulted a source the others didn't (no doubt data-gathering in advance because his deadline was hours before anyone else's: I've been there). Not only did he print Lechmere's address (which evidently wasn't stated in court), and get his full wrong name right (the 'Times', for example, had him as 'George Cross'), but there's no sign of the name Lechmere in his report. Are we meant to think the 'Star' reporter's source presented that information and he omitted to do something with it? Or do we conclude that the source merely presented 22 Doveton St as the address of Mr Cross...?

                      M.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        Kattrup,

                        How can someone actively conceal their name? By not giving it? By giving another name in its place?

                        Is there any another way?

                        Gary
                        Concealing one's name means deciding to conceal it. Thus, an active proces. We do not know that Cross deliberately withheld his Lechmere-name.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          So there we have it. From the horse’s mouth. The checking out of Lechmere’s real name is highly unlikely to have been ‘standard procedure’ and was probably not done.

                          Progress at last!

                          No I didnt say that stop misrepsenting what I said,

                          What I did say was that the police would have checked out his account and gone to his employers for that purpose

                          and the fact that at no point at the time or the years that followed did anyone question his identity

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                            Luckily, we have the 'Star', the evening paper whose reporter clearly consulted a source the others didn't (no doubt data-gathering in advance because his deadline was hours before anyone else's: I've been there). Not only did he print Lechmere's address (which evidently wasn't stated in court), and get his full wrong name right (the 'Times', for example, had him as 'George Cross'), but there's no sign of the name Lechmere in his report. Are we meant to think the 'Star' reporter's source presented that information and he omitted to do something with it? Or do we conclude that the source merely presented 22 Doveton St as the address of Mr Cross...?

                            M.
                            One of the papers had his middle name as ‘Andrew’ I believe. And one journalist misheard Bath Street as Parson Street.

                            I’ve often wondered whether CAL spoke softly and the Star man had the sharper hearing or was closer to the witness box.

                            That the Star man checked out the facts with a court official is perfectly plausible.




                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              No I didnt say that stop misrepsenting what I said,

                              What I did say was that the police would have checked out his account and gone to his employers for that purpose

                              and the fact that at no point at the time or the years that followed did anyone question his identity

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Just to his employers? By what name do you believe he was known to them?

                              Comment


                              • No matter where I am fisherman,the answer will always be the same.What evidence, circumstantial or otherwise,places Cross at any murder site,at the time the crime was committed.Except of course the Nichols murder.Do not be shy,we understand your predicament.Without evidence there would be no charge.No charge no Prima facie case.and that was the situation in 1888.You have committed yourself,you are in the bog yourself and you can't get off to wipe yourself. I can.What a mess you are in,but then the Cross as murderer always had a smell to it.
                                He did not state his alternate name.He didn't have to.Cross only had to identify himself,and that is what he did.No offence was committed,no participation was concealed.No policeman or authority was mislead,and no wrong done.No arguement can change that.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X