Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    And, as you say, the fact that it was in the information given to the police, indicates he was not trying to conceal his identity from them. Therefore, his use of the name Cross is not evidence he was trying to conceal his identity. He cannot both be trying to conceal his identity and not trying to conceal his identity - that is a paradox, which refutes the line of reasoning.

    Then again, I have never said that he tried to conceal his identity from the police. Maybe you have missed my pointing that out for a number of years and on numerous occasions? What I am saying is that he may have wanted to hide his identity from those who had to try and work it out from the papers.
    And, of course, to that end, he could not just leave out his adress, since he had so rare a name that he would be identifiable nevertheless - he had to hide BOTH his real name AND his address.
    And guess what?


    We can safely conclude, therefore, that the reason he went by the name of Cross at the inquest is something other than an attempt to conceal his identity.
    We can safely conclude no such thing, no, for reasons given above. All we can say is that he did not give information to the police that would keep them from finding him, and that was to be expected, since if he was looked into by the police, a false address would immediately have gotten him into trouble, whereas a name change could be provided with some sort of explanation about honoring his former stepfather.

    This, I have pointed out a hundred times or more by now, but it seems those who spend their days trying to diminish Lechmere´s value as a suspect and the likely killer are equipped with teflon brains; it just won´t stick.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 10-27-2021, 07:06 AM.

    Comment


    • 1. Why did he chose the name Cross?<<

      First you have to prove he "chose" to use the name Cross.

      There´s what over enthusiasm might do to you ...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        We can safely conclude no such thing, no, for reasons given above. All we can say is that he did not give information to the police that would keep them from finding him, and that was to be expected, since if he was looked into by the police, a false address would immediately have gotten him into trouble, whereas a name change could be provided with some sort of explanation about honoring his former stepfather.

        This, I have pointed out a hundred times or more by now, but it seems those who spend their days trying to diminish Lechmere´s value as a suspect and the likely killer are equipped with teflon brains; it just won´t stick.
        Yet again deriding people who disagree with you - Teflon brains.
        There are four options 1- He gave the police the wrong address [ which you admit is unlikely ] 2 - He gave the police his right address [ which you say didn' t happen ] 3 - The police didn't ask him for his address , likely because they had his work address . 4 - They asked him for his home address but he chose not to give it, which would immediately cast some suspicion on him. So come on Fish , which one is it ?
        And if the answer is 3 , Why is that dodgy , please explain they had his work address
        Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 10-27-2021, 07:55 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

          Yet again deriding people who disagree with you - Teflon brains.

          It has got nothing to do with disagreeing with me. Anybody is welcome to do that. It has got everything to do with how the ones I point to simply fail to understand - or choose to disregard - that I am saying that the ones Lechmere could possibly fool were NOT the police but instead the ones who could not make out who he was by reading the papers. I have said this for years, but I still have people who have been told this for years who fail to register it.

          There are four options 1- He gave the police the wrong address [ which you admit is unlikely ]

          It´s even impossible. We know from the police reports that he gave his correct address, 22 Doveton Street, to the police.

          2 - He gave the police his right address [ which you say didn' t happen ]

          You must have misunderstood it (whis is ironical, come to think of it) - I know quite well that he gave the police his correct address.

          3 - The police didn't ask him for his address , likely because they had his work address .

          Either the police asked him for his address or he volunteered it. Regardless of which applies, the police had his correct address, and I have never questioned that.

          4 - They asked him for his home address but he chose not to give it, which would immediately cast some suspicion on him.

          The police were given his address, so there is no such option in existance.

          So come on Fish , which one is it ?
          And if the answer is 3 , Why is that dodgy , please explain they had his work address
          As I have said four times now, the police had his address. However, as he took the stand at the inquest, all papers but one quote him as not stating his home address, and so it seems a very likely thing that he withheld his address from the ones attending the inquest. And, of course, the ones attending the inquest were to a large degree reporters. So if Lechmere withheld his adress, oit was NOT from the police but instead from the ones taking part of the inquest information via the newspapers.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

            Victorian propriety? Among working men in the East End?

            I can't find it at the moment, but somewhere I have a discussion by Wynne Baxter--the coroner at the Nichols' inquest--describing a common practice among East Enders.

            On Monday morning, the wife would pawn the husband's Sunday suit for some spare cash. By Saturday night she would hope to scrape together enough money to get it out of the pawnshop. During the week, he literally had no clothes, other than his 'work sack' as you call it.

            With half a dozen kids on a carman's salary, how do you know that Lechmere would even have a suit to change into, setting aside the inconvenience of racing home to put it on?

            The practice of pawning one's Sunday suit was common enough that it is not difficult to find many references to it:

            Click image for larger version

Name:	Sunday Suit 2.JPG
Views:	108
Size:	39.0 KB
ID:	771906

            Click image for larger version

Name:	sunday suit 3.JPG
Views:	105
Size:	68.7 KB
ID:	771907


            Click image for larger version

Name:	Sunday Suit.JPG
Views:	103
Size:	65.8 KB
ID:	771908


            What you’ve provided us with there, RJ is evidence of how even the poorest Eastender wanted to look smart when it was appropriate to do so.

            And yet ‘V. Decent’ Charles Lechmere didn’t even bother to remove his apron when giving evidence at an inquest - or to use his ‘Sunday best’ name.

            I wonder how many of those who had to hock their suits every week would end up running several businesses or had wealthy relatives dotted about the country?

















            Comment


            • Hi Fisherman, all,

              did they ask Crossmere about his home address at the inquest? I don't remember any comments to that effect from the inquest report as it appeared in various papers so the coroner and jury obviously were okay with it.

              I don't find that dodgy in any way. If I was to appear in court or at an inquest, I would answer all questions posed to me to the best of my ability but nothing more.

              I've read your book twice now and I'm still struggling with it. At the moment your theory seems like a wasp's nest to me, loads of small chambers, loads of detail, some maths and also nasty surprises, but even though it's an elaborate structure, it still hangs from a single stem. Cut it and the whole thing falls down.

              Maybe this will change on my third go, taking notes now, will get back to you if I may.

              Grüße,

              Boris
              ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

              Comment


              • Originally posted by bolo View Post
                I've read your book twice now and I'm still struggling with it. At the moment your theory seems like a wasp's nest to me, loads of small chambers, loads of detail, some maths and also nasty surprises, but even though it's an elaborate structure, it still hangs from a single stem. Cut it and the whole thing falls down.
                Ooooooo. I like that analogy. I'm saving that.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bolo View Post
                  Hi Fisherman, all,

                  did they ask Crossmere about his home address at the inquest? I don't remember any comments to that effect from the inquest report as it appeared in various papers so the coroner and jury obviously were okay with it.

                  I don't find that dodgy in any way. If I was to appear in court or at an inquest, I would answer all questions posed to me to the best of my ability but nothing more.

                  I've read your book twice now and I'm still struggling with it. At the moment your theory seems like a wasp's nest to me, loads of small chambers, loads of detail, some maths and also nasty surprises, but even though it's an elaborate structure, it still hangs from a single stem. Cut it and the whole thing falls down.

                  Maybe this will change on my third go, taking notes now, will get back to you if I may.

                  Grüße,

                  Boris
                  You´re always welcome, Boris!

                  On the address matter: I think there was a generalized question asked from all amateur witnesses entailing how they should state their names, addresses and places of work. Otherwise it would be odd if they all - but for Lechmere - felt that they should do so on their own ...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


                    What you’ve provided us with there, RJ is evidence of how even the poorest Eastender wanted to look smart when it was appropriate to do so.
                    Perspective. It is always about perspective.

                    A very good point, Gary!

                    Comment




                    • Thanks to RJ for providing evidence of the sense of propriety which even the poorest of Eastenders maintained:

                      “No working man who owns one [a Sunday suit] will appear out of doors on Sunday in his working clothes.”

                      When, in June, 1887, a Mr Dwane, one of Charles Booth’s researchers, called at CAL’s home at 20, James Street, he described the sole family occupying the 6 rooms there as ‘v. decent’. Many of the families he surveyed in STGITE were crammed into single rooms, the designation of ‘v. poor’ was vastly more common than that of ‘v. decent’.

                      There was clearly money in the family within a few years of the Nichols inquest, CAL’s mother ran at least three businesses and was probably in receipt of a certain amount of income through her father’s will. CAL himself ran businesses.

                      The photo is of Whitfield, the home of the Clive family for whom Lechmere’s grandfather worked (ultimately as the family butler) for over thirty years and where his mother was born and raised.

                      And yet Charles Allen Lechmere didn’t even remove his apron when giving evidence under oath before Wynne Baxter. Nor did he feel it appropriate to use his Sunday best name in that most formal of settings.



                      Comment


                      • Here’s the photo of Whitfield.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          You´re always welcome, Boris!

                          On the address matter: I think there was a generalized question asked from all amateur witnesses entailing how they should state their names, addresses and places of work. Otherwise it would be odd if they all - but for Lechmere - felt that they should do so on their own ...

                          I don’t know if there was a prescribed format, but something along the lines of ‘Can you please state your full name, address and occupation.’ I imagine.

                          Comment


                          • There is a photo somewhere of a group of the Lechmere children looking ‘v. decent’. This wasn’t a family whose children ran around barefooted, as many did in STGITE, and I doubt their mother had to pop her old man’s suit on a Monday to keep the wolf from the door.

                            I’m afraid this venture into the social conditions of the east end poor by RJ is about as meaningful as his suggestion that because an 1845 survey of part of STGITE gave an average occupational density of 2 people per room, CAL would have felt as comfortable as an Indian slum dweller would in approaching an unknown man on a dark and reputedly dangerous street.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                              Ooooooo. I like that analogy. I'm saving that.
                              Wasps nests are often glued to supporting structures.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                                It was maybe a year ago, in a different Lechmere thread. The subject of why Lechmere chose the name Cross at the inquest was at the forefront, and there were those coming up with alternate theories than that of simple evasion of legal authorities. I don't remember who proposed it: it was neither fiver, nor Hamm. I can go back and check if you really want it.

                                Someone put some work into it and i admired him/her for that. I don't exactly remember the details. It focused on whom I believe was the principal clergyman in the small parish where Ma Lechmere grew up, who had control over the dispensation of her father's trust. No monetary figures were given. He was asserted (speculatory) to have discretion in the amount he would hand out to Ma Lechmere, and that the family depended on the monthly-yearly installments from the trust. The intimation was that a scandal would tighten the purse strings of the trust, and so Lech was responding to the financial interests of the family by using Cross. Yes, it would be hard to match up the newspaper story Lechmere with Ma Lechmere; but only the threat would be sufficient. I would agree with that assertion.

                                Another idea was more vague: it involved Lech's long lost dad reading about Charles Lechmere in the newspaper, and then traveling to White Chapel in order to claim the trust money, or the inheritance, or assets of some kind.

                                My problem with each is that it doesn't explain why Lechmere showed up in a work sack at the inquest: the very opposite of Victorian propriety; nor why there is no hint of Lech's involvement in the Ripper case in family lore. Some claim he was caught up in a dragnet that morning by cops, and had to wait with the police until the inquest began. I highly doubt it. Officials would want to talk to Paul first, who originated the story of this other man, and who was known by the police. They'd want to check the story out first with him, instead of run off half cocked searching for this nameless, faceless character brought up in a newspaper story. If Paul and then Lech were caught in the dragnet, why no mention of Carman Paul's sack by reporters at the inquest?

                                For someone to come up with a good theory that explains the innocence of Lechmere at the inquest regarding the whole Cross affair, they need to cover the following:

                                1. Why did he chose the name Cross?
                                2. Why did he not mention his address to the inquest, when it is highly suggestive that the coroner asked for it, based on other responses?
                                3. Why did he come dressed up in his carman work outfit - given the absence of comments about others, there must have been something uniquely different about his attire to generate comment.
                                4. Why is there an absence of knowledge, among Lechmere's descendants, as to Lech being the first to discover the body of Polly Nichols: the first widely accepted Ripper . victim?

                                Now, i am pretty certain that there will be no takers; just people complaining about the conditions i have set up and arguing about adjectives & punctuation.
                                It was me, but I did not suggest that his mother’s income was at risk. And I did not ‘speculate’ that the executors of her father’s will had any kind of discretionary power over whether she received the money.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X