Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evidence of innocence
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
The important thing is not that the Star was able to publish his address. The importnt thing is that Lechmere seemingly TRIED to conceal it. And it was not as if there were a large number of various methods to do so - the one thing he was able to do was to withhold it when he testified. Saying that he did not do a very good job of it is a bit disingenous, is it not? What was he to do? Contact all the papers and murder anybody who said that he had gotten the address and aimed to publish it?
Comment
-
And before you start banging on Fish about Lech cleverly concealing his true ID by using the name Cross. How do you know for sure that when he was first employed there , that wasn't his name on the employment record ? Plus the fact that he said himself that he had been in their employ for over twenty years would narrow the field down considerably to who he was
Comment
-
If the name Lechmere was tied to criminal\court records and he used the name Cross that could be concealment or evading. But if not not.Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
M. Pacana
Comment
-
Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post>>Please explain<<
Amongst many other similar quotes over the years across the boards and Facebook groups,
"... given the absence of comments about others, there must have been something uniquely different about his attire to generate comment."
"The coroner, however, on this occasion was Mr. Wynne Baxter, who, fresh from his Scandinavian tour, appeared at the inquest in a pair of black and white checked trousers, a dazzling white waistcoat, a crimson scarf and a dark coat."
"The Father of the Murdered Woman, an old, grey-headed, and grey-bearded man, who, with head lowered and hands behind his back, came slowly up to the table and gave the name of Edward Walker."
"John Neil, the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial."
"Dr. Llewellyn,152, Whitechapel-road, quiet and sedate, as befitted a man who had just come fresh from the unpleasant ordeal of making a post-mortem examination."
"The husband of the woman - William Nicholls - is a printer's machinist, and he came to the mortuary dressed in a long black coat, with a black tie, trousers of dark material, and a tall silk hat. He carried an umbrella, and looked very quiet and very gentlemanly. He is very pale, with a full light brown beard and moustache."
"The first witness called was Inspector John Sparling [Spratling], a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard, dressed in the regulation blue of the force."
"Henry Tomkins, a rough looking man, was next called."
"Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford & Co. for some years."
"William Nicholls, of 20, Coburg-road, Old Kent-road, next came from his seat near the police, dressed as on Saturday in his long black coat, black tie, and dark coloured trousers, and looking exceedingly pale."
"Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet, whose naturally pale face was flushed with excitement, and who gave her address in a frightened manner, which necessitated the coroner frequently urging her to speak up, was then called."
"Mary Ann Monk - a young woman with a flushed face and a haughty air, who wore a long grey ulster - was the last witness."
"The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostHow is it a personal interpretation of mine that Nichols clothing covered the wounds to the abdomen as Paul arrived at the site, when we have it on record?
"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul
"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen." - Surgeon Henry Llewellyn
These facts have been presented to you before. Since you have no way of answering these inconvenient facts, you continue to ignore them.
"The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer
Comment
-
>>Why would we expect the reporters to comment on how he did not give his address, Dusty? <<
Because, apparently, it was supposed to be a unique situation according to some.
>>And why would the Star treat a rather minor effort in a trivial matter on behalf of the reporter as a scoop?<<
Precisely, why would the reporter go looking for such a trivial matter when his deadline was pressing.
The theory defeats itself.Last edited by drstrange169; 10-28-2021, 11:05 PM.dustymiller
aka drstrange
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
It is not me Fish nor others who say that Lech tried concealing his ID. All I am pointing out is that if you are correct , to my mind he didn't do a good job of it. For instance, off the top of my head most newspapers reported Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. Why volunteer that info
At the end of the day, it is NOT a good thing for him that he gave an alternative name. It is NOT a good thing for him if he tried to coenceal his address from the inquest. Those are the exact kinds of things that Scobie commented on by saying "A jury woud not like that". And we both know it, you and I alike, donīt we?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post>>Why would we expect the reporters to comment on how he did not give his address, Dusty? <<
Because, apparently, it was supposed to be a unique situation according to some.
It is an important factor when researching him as a suspect, but it was no important factor to the reporters back then. If you want to prove your point, you need to find examples of reporters commenting on how amateur witnesses did not give their addresses in other inquests.
>>And why would the Star treat a rather minor effort in a trivial matter on behalf of the reporter as a scoop?<<
Precisely, why would the reporter go looking for such a trivial matter when his deadline was pressing.
The theory defeats itself.
However, it is not likely to any degree at all that the reporter wold reccomend his editor to treat the matter as a scoop and even less likely that the editor would agree to any such proposition. Therefore, there would be no footprint of it, and it is not reasonable to suggest there would have been.
You are often trying to make things look a lot harder to understand than they actually are. Donīt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
Once again, he did as good a job of it as he possiby could when it comes to not giving the address. There was nothing more he could do about that matter. As for why he volunteered his middle name, keep in mind that he garnished it with the surname Cross. Charles Allen Cross. Not Charles Allen Lechmere. WHy would anybody who knew him as Lechmere only think "Thatīs him"?
At the end of the day, it is NOT a good thing for him that he gave an alternative name. It is NOT a good thing for him if he tried to coenceal his address from the inquest. Those are the exact kinds of things that Scobie commented on by saying "A jury woud not like that". And we both know it, you and I alike, donīt we?
Comment
Comment