Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

So, it’s your unsupported ‘standard procedure’ claim again?

The only evidence of any kind we have are the surviving police reports where there is mention of investigation into some witnesses but not into Lechmere. If the ‘cursory’ investigation you speak of was just a matter of calling at Pickfords to see whether they had a driver named Cross who turned up for work at 4.00 each morning, why would that necessarily have revealed the name Lechmere?

I fail to understand how it can be considered controversial to suggest the police actually checked into the witnessess. Perhaps you have a different idea of what it is the police did in 1888 than I do? But yes, unless you can substantiate that checking into the witnesses was not something the police did in 1888, then I see no reason to presume that such a basic procedure would not have been done. Clearly, we differ on that premise, but as you've not stated what you think the police did typically do, it's impossible for me to compare your idea with mine, which means there's no basis for me to change my view. I also find it strange that it is only the arguments for innocence that require substantiation, while arguments for guilt may throw about as many unsubstantiated claims as necessary to get to the goal.

But that's fine.

If the police checked at Pickfords for a driver named Cross, etc, then, if they ddin't come across the name Lechmere, that would mean he used the name Cross at work, which means he gave the name he goes by. If he didn't use that name, then when they asked for Cross, either they would be told there was no such driver (in which case they would have to ask further questions, and the name Lechmere would come up as a result - as they had details of his home address, the day and time he worked, etc). Or, if there did happen to be a driver named Cross, it would become apparent it wasn't "their man" when the address didn't match up. These would be things that would raise their suspicions.

So either it would reveal that Cross was indeed the name he used, and so was the name by which he was identified, or through pretty basic questioning, they would have to get to the name Lechmere. It's not a hard problem to solve, given the amount of information they have (first name, middle name, address, etc).

Why do you think this would be unlikely?

- Jeff

[Darryl Kenyon]

Hi Darryl,

The name Lechmere wasn’t known. The Star called him Carman Cross. If so much investigative work was done on Lechmere, why is it not mentioned in the surviving police reports?

And if they had gone back to Pickfords after the Chapman murder what would they have been told - ‘he was out on his horse and cart’? So they’d then have had to check when he arrived at his early delivery points and whether he had the opportunity to leave his cart for any length of time. Do you really believe all this investigative work took place and it didn’t warrant a mention in the summarised police reports?

Gary

My mistake, his address was known, rushing to work
Regards darryl

[harry]

Mr Barnett,
Yes there is.A person becomes a suspect when he is told by someone,normally a law enforcement officer,thaat he/she is suspect of an offence,and a caution is given.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Darryl,

The name Lechmere wasn’t known. The Star called him Carman Cross. If so much investigative work was done on Lechmere, why is it not mentioned in the surviving police reports?

And if they had gone back to Pickfords after the Chapman murder what would they have been told - ‘he was out on his horse and cart’? So they’d then have had to have checked when he arrived at his early delivery points and whether he had the opportunity to leave his cart for any length of time. Do you really believe all this investigative work took place and it didn’t warrant a mention in the summarised police reports?

Gary

If when he gave his statement to the police in the first instance they were happy with his account and his explantion with regards to the name issue, why would there be a need to place him as a suspect, and clearly they felt no need to, and that is why there is no mention of any suspciion falling on him in any police reports, or anything to show he was investigated. The police back then could not document every witness statement that they took or document negative lines of enquiry.

You have to accept that he gave his statement in good faith, and what he said was accepted by both the police and the coroner. Whether he wasnt fully investigated as you suggest is for you to prove. All the facts and the evidence points to the belief that he wasnt investigated, because there was nothing to investigate him for.

You should know that during the ripper crimes many people were arrested and taken to police stations for a variety of reasons which at the time made them a suspect. We have no surving records to show who they all were but we do have surviving records to show that this is what the police did back then so if the police had have had any suspicion they could have arrested him on suspcion.

Playing devils advocate if they had have investigated or arrested him where would it have taken them -------no where

There is absolutley nothing to make him a suspect

He finds a body on his way to work at a time and a location where he would have passed by 7 days a week every week.

Policemen do not always record conversations accuratley. I have just dealt with a case where an officer recorded a statement allegedly made by a suspect at a crime scene, it turned out to have been made by the suspects son.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

If when he gave his statement to the police in the first instance they were happy with his account and his explantion with regards to the name issue, why would there be a need to place him as a suspect, and clearly they felt no need to, and that is why there is no mention of any suspciion falling on him in any police reports, or anything to show he was investigated. The police back then could not document every witness statement that they took or document negative lines of enquiry.

You have to accept that he gave his statement in good faith, and what he said was accepted by both the police and the coroner. Whether he wasnt fully investigated as you suggest is for you to prove. All the facts and the evidence points to the belief that he wasnt investigated, because there was nothing to investigate him for.

You should know that during the ripper crimes many people were arrested and taken to police stations for a variety of reasons which at the time made them a suspect. We have no surving records to show who they all were but we do have surviving records to show that this is what the police did back then so if the police had have had any suspicion they could have arrested him on suspcion.

Playing devils advocate if they had have investigated or arrested him where would it have taken them -------no where

There is absolutley nothing to make him a suspect

He finds a body on his way to work at a time and a location where he would have passed by 7 days a week every week.

Policemen do not always record conversations accuratley. I have just dealt with a case where an officer recorded a statement allegedly made by a suspect at a crime scene, it turned out to have been made by the suspects son.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What explanation re the name issue? Why do you imagine there was one?

[MrBarnett]

I fail to understand how it can be considered controversial to suggest the police actually checked into the witnessess. Perhaps you have a different idea of what it is the police did in 1888 than I do? But yes, unless you can substantiate that checking into the witnesses was not something the police did in 1888, then I see no reason to presume that such a basic procedure would not have been done. Clearly, we differ on that premise, but as you've not stated what you think the police did typically do, it's impossible for me to compare your idea with mine, which means there's no basis for me to change my view. I also find it strange that it is only the arguments for innocence that require substantiation, while arguments for guilt may throw about as many unsubstantiated claims as necessary to get to the goal.

But that's fine.

If the police checked at Pickfords for a driver named Cross, etc, then, if they ddin't come across the name Lechmere, that would mean he used the name Cross at work, which means he gave the name he goes by. If he didn't use that name, then when they asked for Cross, either they would be told there was no such driver (in which case they would have to ask further questions, and the name Lechmere would come up as a result - as they had details of his home address, the day and time he worked, etc). Or, if there did happen to be a driver named Cross, it would become apparent it wasn't "their man" when the address didn't match up. These would be things that would raise their suspicions.

So either it would reveal that Cross was indeed the name he used, and so was the name by which he was identified, or through pretty basic questioning, they would have to get to the name Lechmere. It's not a hard problem to solve, given the amount of information they have (first name, middle name, address, etc).

Why do you think this would be unlikely?

- Jeff

I believe the police investigated anyone against whom there was some suspicion but not necessarily those who on the face of it were simply witnesses.

Do you imagine that Pickfords were aware of what name his kids were known by at school, what name was on his marriage cert etc etc? Surely all the police would have done would have been to confirm that Pickfords had a driver named Cross on their books whose starting time was 4.00 am. At what point in that process would the idea of his having a second name have been raised?

[MrBarnett]

Mr Barnett,
Yes there is.A person becomes a suspect when he is told by someone,normally a law enforcement officer,thaat he/she is suspect of an offence,and a caution is given.

And how is that enshrined in law?

[Trevor Marriott]

What explanation re the name issue? Why do you imagine there was one?

I dont know, it would depend on what he told the first police officers who interviewed him and what name he chose to give for his statement, I can only assume it was the same name that he gave at the coroners court otherwise questions would have been asked when he was sworn in at the inquest and those questions and his reply would have been reported in the press.

This name issue is nothing but a smokescreen created by Fish and as a resut he has sucked you into beliveing him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe the police investigated anyone against whom there was some suspicion but not necessarily those who on the face of it were simply witnesses.

Why would they investigate every witness statement that they took, they would not have had the time or the resocurces to do that. If after taking a witness statement and after it had been fed into the system and been read by a seniort officer, if anything further was required then that would have been actioned and acted upon.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

I dont know, it would depend on what he told the first police officers who interviewed him and what name he chose to give for his statement, I can only assume it was the same name that he gave at the coroners court otherwise questions would have been asked when he was sworn in at the inquest and those questions and his reply would have been reported in the press.

This name issue is nothing but a smokescreen created by Fish and as a resut he has sucked you into beliveing him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not at all, Trevor. I have my own independent take on the name issue. Initially, I was of the same mind as you and many others, but as I’ve researched CAL’s background my opinion has changed.

Do you think that if he had only given the name Cross to the police and the coroner, and that was a name that checked out at Pickfords, the police would have kept digging until they discovered his real name?

[MrBarnett]

Why would they investigate every witness statement that they took, they would not have had the time or the resocurces to do that. If after taking a witness statement and after it had been fed into the system and been read by a seniort officer, if anything further was required then that would have been actioned and acted upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you Trevor. That’s exactly how I see it. Others consider that view ‘unreasonable’.

To a large extent, Paul and Lechmere corroborated each other - two carmen on their way to work, using their normal route at the usual time, who came across something unpleasant. Of the two, the police probably had a more negative view of Paul.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not at all, Trevor. I have my own independent take on the name issue. Initially, I was of the same mind as you and many others, but as I’ve researched CAL’s background my opinion has changed.

Do you think that if he had only given the name Cross to the police and the coroner, and that was a name that checked out at Pickfords, the police would have kept digging until they discovered his real name?

The use of two names is irrelevant. It only becomes relevant when those actions amount to "with intent to deceive" and no one can prove that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I believe the police investigated anyone against whom there was some suspicion but not necessarily those who on the face of it were simply witnesses.

Do you imagine that Pickfords were aware of what name his kids were known by at school, what name was on his marriage cert etc etc? Surely all the police would have done would have been to confirm that Pickfords had a driver named Cross on their books whose starting time was 4.00 am. At what point in that process would the idea of his having a second name have been raised?

If what you say were true, then it shows he used the name Cross in day to day life (at work, as you suggest above), which then just goes to prove he did not hide his identity. In that case, the name Lechmere might not have come up, but then, why would it - he goes by the name Cross, except, apparently, on some gov't forms. In short, what you suggest is that by using the name Cross he did not conceal his identity, apart from how he signs some gov't forms, but not one he actually uses, etc. Which in turn negates your previous suggestion of hypothetical people who didn't know the name Cross; if anything, what you're suggesting now implies people would know him by Cross, and are more likely to be unaware of the name Lechmere.

But your previous argument was the polar opposite - that it was the name Cross by which he would remain unrecognized, and Lechmere was the one the hypothetical people would know him by.

So, which is your position? That the name Lechmere wouldn't come up if the police asked about a driver called Cross because Cross was the name he was commonly known by, and few were aware of the name Lechmere? Or that Lechmere was the name he was commonly known by, so he used the relatively unknown name Cross so the hypothetical people wouldn't recognize him.
.

- Jeff

[harry]

It is/was a requirement of the common law,Mr Barnett.If it is not given as I stated,then a judge can refuse evidence given by law enforcement personnel.It is primarily used so that an offender need not self-incriminate.

[Fisherman]

At least Christer attempts to stay true to his theory, by shoe-horning the Chapman murder into a time slot where it didn’t occur.

Hi R J!

Weren´t you supposed to bring the world clarity on the Lechmere issue, keeping you away from the boards? And yet, here you are, picking another fight you cannot win?

You are a man of the written word, but actually, so am I - by trade, at least. So what if I say that the timing has never been shoe-horned in to an early time, it has been crowbarred out of it.

The police and authorities at the time put very little trust in the unholy witness trinity, and wisely so: It was evident, not that Phillips was spot on but that he could not be that spot off.

And so Swanson told us that it was to be regretted that Longs testimony was in all likelihood wrong, just as the Home Office estbalished that "unreliable witness testimony" was what spoke for a later time, whereas the medical evidence (not described as unreliable) spoke for the early version.

Which, by the way, was the only version that put the Chapman murder on par with the other murders, commited in darkness.

There have been a few "facts" that have been "established" over the years, and the reliability of Long, Cadosch and Richardson is one of them. Another one would be how Nichols was first cut in the throat and only thereafter in the abdomen - because that was what happened in the other cases. Mundus vult decipi.

What do the ones speaking for a very late time of death have? Apart from a b ody that was all cold but for some little remiaing heat in the abdomen, under the intestines?

The have Long, who said she did. ot pay much notice to the couple she saw but was nevertheless sure that the woman was Chapman. Long, who said that she saw her couple outside 29 Hanbury Street ten minutes AFTER they were supposedly entangled in a struggle ending with Chapman getting her throat cut, as per poor old Albert Cadosch.

Cadosh, who told the police in his initial interview that he heard it all, the quarrel, the tussle and the fall against the fence, the womans voice, all of it coming from EXACTLY where Chapman was later found. Cadosh who at the inquest, after having seen how Richardson was treated, diluted his story totally to how he had heard someone, woman or man, spekaing from somewhere, not necessarily in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street and then he had heard somthing "touching the fence".
His FIRST story could only be about Chapman getting killed. His second was only abvout getting the hell out of any responsibility his testimony could come with.

And Richardson! On the steps? Not on the steps? Depends on who you ask, and when you do the asking.

Every high profile murder case attracts "witnesses" like a fire attracts moths.

Or like how simple solutions attracts ripperologists who are too lazy to weigh the full evidence together.