Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
    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
    There were hundreds and hundreds of Pickfords carmen. That makes for a rather anonymous crowd, where many would have worked for many years.

    As for whether or not he had been hired as "Cross" once upon a time, we simply cannot be certain either way. But that is not where the problem lies. The problem lies in how - even if he WAS hired as Cross and even if he WAs called Cross at Pickfords - ne otherwise always used the name Lechmere when in contact with any authority.

    This, I have explained thousands of times, but it seems it just will not sink in. I find that utterly amazing.

    It is, by the way, the reason why I keep "banging on" about it. In case you were wondering.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

      Once again, I was making the point that he almost certainly would have volunteered the point that he had worked at Pickfords for over twenty years. I doubt that would be a question the coroner would ask . Why didn't he just say - Charles Cross , carman at Pickfords . Yes, there are people who work in the same job/place all their lives but over twenty years and in particular in Victorian times where there was a higher mortality rate from serious illnesses and a lower life span . I would like to guess not too many of the work force. So the over twenty years info would make it a lot easier for people at Pickfords to guess who he is. Not too clever for Lech to say that if he is trying to hide his ID within the confines he was put in
      Why would anybody say "Oh, heīs worked for Pickfords for twenty years, so that Charles Cross must in fact be Charles Lechmere"? Charles Cross is Charles Cross. Not Charles Lechmere.

      If you yourself had been working for Sainsburys - who also have hundreds and hunreds of employees - for twenty years, and somebody read about a Darryl Wiggins in the papers, who had also been working for Sainsburys for twenty years, how likely would that somebody be to go "Must be Darryl Kenyon"?

      In fact, it is always good to change the perspective, so letīs mive with this scenario a little longer. Letīs say that you once had a stepfather who was named Wiggins, and letīs assume that this stepfather of yours got you into Sainsburys in the year 2000, under the name of Darryl Wiggins.

      Letīs further assume that you actually always used the name Darryl Wiggins when working at Sainsburys. You have the name on your name tag on your Sainsburyīs jacket and your colleagues shout out "Hey, Wiggins!" when they need to speak to you.

      However, when it comes to filling out forms, speaking to authorities and such matters, you always use the name of Darryl Kenyon. Your dentist has you registered by the name of Darryl Kenyon, you vote as Darryl Kenyon, your children in school are named Kenyon and their father is registered with the school authorities as Darryl Kenyon, you answer census takeres who ask you for your name "Darryl Kenyon", you write the name Darryl Kenyon on your mortgages, you are registered as a Darryl Kenyon owning a vehicle for which you tax, all other taxations are sent to you with the name Darryl Kenyon on the envelope etcetera.
      Then, all of a sudden - or all of two suddens - we find out that although you otherwise only call yourself Darryl Wiggins at work and nowhere else, you are on record twice as calling yourself Darryl Wiggins. And it is not in combination with a visit to the dentist, it is not something that has to do with your taxation, and it is not a name you have written on a lease of a new car.
      It is instead - in both cases - used in instances where you are involved in inquiries into cases of violent death.

      How would that NOT be an anomaly?

      How would it NOT be something the police needed to look into?

      Why would it NOT require an explanation?

      How would the explanation "I use the name at work" suffice to answer the questions that arise? When we know that these two errands are both examples of authority contacts, where you otherwise consistently call yourself Darryl Kenyon?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        Why would anybody say "Oh, heīs worked for Pickfords for twenty years, so that Charles Cross must in fact be Charles Lechmere"? Charles Cross is Charles Cross. Not Charles Lechmere.

        If you yourself had been working for Sainsburys - who also have hundreds and hunreds of employees - for twenty years, and somebody read about a Darryl Wiggins in the papers, who had also been working for Sainsburys for twenty years, how likely would that somebody be to go "Must be Darryl Kenyon"?

        In fact, it is always good to change the perspective, so letīs mive with this scenario a little longer. Letīs say that you once had a stepfather who was named Wiggins, and letīs assume that this stepfather of yours got you into Sainsburys in the year 2000, under the name of Darryl Wiggins.

        Letīs further assume that you actually always used the name Darryl Wiggins when working at Sainsburys. You have the name on your name tag on your Sainsburyīs jacket and your colleagues shout out "Hey, Wiggins!" when they need to speak to you.

        However, when it comes to filling out forms, speaking to authorities and such matters, you always use the name of Darryl Kenyon. Your dentist has you registered by the name of Darryl Kenyon, you vote as Darryl Kenyon, your children in school are named Kenyon and their father is registered with the school authorities as Darryl Kenyon, you answer census takeres who ask you for your name "Darryl Kenyon", you write the name Darryl Kenyon on your mortgages, you are registered as a Darryl Kenyon owning a vehicle for which you tax, all other taxations are sent to you with the name Darryl Kenyon on the envelope etcetera.
        Then, all of a sudden - or all of two suddens - we find out that although you otherwise only call yourself Darryl Wiggins at work and nowhere else, you are on record twice as calling yourself Darryl Wiggins. And it is not in combination with a visit to the dentist, it is not something that has to do with your taxation, and it is not a name you have written on a lease of a new car.
        It is instead - in both cases - used in instances where you are involved in inquiries into cases of violent death.

        How would that NOT be an anomaly?

        How would it NOT be something the police needed to look into?

        Why would it NOT require an explanation?

        How would the explanation "I use the name at work" suffice to answer the questions that arise? When we know that these two errands are both examples of authority contacts, where you otherwise consistently call yourself Darryl Kenyon?
        So you are telling me that no one but no one would ask any questions whatsoever at Pickfords on who found the dead body and no one but no one knows that lech 's stepfather was a policeman by the name of Cross and would not put two and two together. Absolute rubbish
        It would be the talk of the works on who appeared at the inquest and who found the dead body a week after another woman [ Martha ] was horribly killed.
        And no one but no one read the star who knew that lech lived now at doveton street. Talk about three monkeys . Again, absolute rubbish.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

          So you are telling me that no one but no one would ask any questions whatsoever at Pickfords on who found the dead body and no one but no one knows that lech 's stepfather was a policeman by the name of Cross and would not put two and two together. Absolute rubbish
          It would be the talk of the works on who appeared at the inquest and who found the dead body a week after another woman [ Martha ] was horribly killed.
          And no one but no one read the star who knew that lech lived now at doveton street. Talk about three monkeys . Again, absolute rubbish.
          It was the Lechmere name, and any identification that relied solely on it, that was concealed. It’s pretty simple: anyone who knew him only by the name of Lechmere may not have recognised him from even the Star report.




          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

            So you are telling me that no one but no one would ask any questions whatsoever at Pickfords on who found the dead body and no one but no one knows that lech 's stepfather was a policeman by the name of Cross and would not put two and two together. Absolute rubbish
            It would be the talk of the works on who appeared at the inquest and who found the dead body a week after another woman [ Martha ] was horribly killed.
            And no one but no one read the star who knew that lech lived now at doveton street. Talk about three monkeys . Again, absolute rubbish.
            I cannot remember having told you a single one of those things. When did I do that?

            PS. You forgot to comment on the Darryl Kenyon/Darryl Wiggins issue. Maybe it was all rubbish…?
            Last edited by Fisherman; 10-29-2021, 02:23 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              It was the Lechmere name, and any identification that relied solely on it, that was concealed. It’s pretty simple: anyone who knew him only by the name of Lechmere may not have recognised him from even the Star report.
              It warms my heart not to have everybody telling me that my thinking is rubbish. If Darryl rubbishes you too, you can rely on me understanding what you are talking about, Gary.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                I cannot remember having told you a single one of those things. When did I do that?

                PS. You forgot to comment on the Darryl Kenyon/Darryl Wiggins issue. Maybe it was all rubbish…?
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                It warms my heart not to have everybody telling me that my thinking is rubbish. If Darryl rubbishes you too, you can rely on me understanding what you are talking about, Gary.
                Right here goes - With the carriage accident years before he used the name Cross ok. Now not many people might remember that but someone may have. 2 - Someone may have known his Stepfather Policeman Cross and put two and two together and realised that Charles Allen Lechmere may just be Charles Allen Cross especially since this guy Cross started at 4 am the morning that Lechmere started at 4 am after the body was discovered and that this guy Cross has worked for this company for over 20 yrs, just like Lechmere. 3 - This guy Cross has appeared at the inquest on the day Lechmere isn't in work and Lechmere must have told his, at least one manager/boss that he would not be in work that day, and would have to have given a reason why. 4 - Nobody but nobody at Pickfords would even ask "Who is the guy who found that dead woman in Bucks row ?" It doesn't matter if I was called Wiggins, Boris Johnson or went by the nickname turbo , tango man or whatever. When I worked at Bury Pdo with 150 other people , if I had come across a dead body of a murdered woman on the way to work. It would soon be round the whole office like wildfire, [ even if they knew my name or not ] . " Who found the body ?", " Him with the long hair on Ramsbottom section" [for those who didn't know my name ] or "Tudor "[ for those who only knew my nickname ] . Only one person at the company, yes just one person , that Lech was Cross and the game would be up.
                Ps That's also not forgetting that nobody at Pickfords read The Star, and didn't know that Lech had moved recently to Doveton st.
                Regards Darryl

                Comment


                • He still hasn’t got it, Fish.

                  To paraphrase Don McLean, ‘Perhaps he never will.’


                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oxHnRfhDmrk
                  Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-29-2021, 05:03 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    He still hasn’t got it, Fish.

                    To paraphrase Don McLean, ‘Perhaps he never will.’


                    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oxHnRfhDmrk
                    Pray tell, got what? Who exactly did Lech hide his ID from ?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      It was the Lechmere name, and any identification that relied solely on it, that was concealed. It’s pretty simple: anyone who knew him only by the name of Lechmere may not have recognised him from even the Star report.



                      That is what you are saying is it not ? So come on who ? The police knew who he was . People knew his address , Anyone could have recognised him at the inquest . And the idea that no one at Pickfords knew that lech was Cross is far fetched as far as I am concerened. So who is left ?

                      Comment


                      • You are perfectly correct, Gary - he still hasn’ t got it.

                        It is interesting to see how he tries to shift the focus from Lechmere’ s effort to try and conceal his name into a discussion about to which degree it was likely to work. As if that had anything to do with the real issue.

                        Will he ever get it? Of course not. It would predispose a mindset that was never there and won’ t be there in the future either. To him, we will always be monkeys that he has rubbished. And to be frank, I really don’ t think it would be worth the effort to enlighten him any further. Starless nights ahead, I’ m afraid.


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          You are perfectly correct, Gary - he still hasn’ t got it.

                          It is interesting to see how he tries to shift the focus from Lechmere’ s effort to try and conceal his name into a discussion about to which degree it was likely to work. As if that had anything to do with the real issue.

                          Will he ever get it? Of course not. It would predispose a mindset that was never there and won’ t be there in the future either. To him, we will always be monkeys that he has rubbished. And to be frank, I really don’ t think it would be worth the effort to enlighten him any further. Starless nights ahead, I’ m afraid.

                          Again , Fish you tell me who Lechmere hid his name from with the use of Cross ?

                          Comment


                          • You concede yourself that he wouldn't give the police a wrong address in case it cast suspicion on him. He appeared at the inquest were anyone could have recognised him. He gave his workplace . What do you think the police would do if for some reason they wanted to question Lech further at his workplace ?
                            " Cross, never heard of him " they would go away quietly ?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                              That is what you are saying is it not ? So come on who ? The police knew who he was . People knew his address , Anyone could have recognised him at the inquest . And the idea that no one at Pickfords knew that lech was Cross is far fetched as far as I am concerened. So who is left ?
                              Hi Darryl,

                              You may have missed it, but it was in an earlier post. Let me clear it up for you.

                              Gary theorized that an unidentified person, who knew Lechmere by the name Lechmere but not Cross, suspected him of having committed an earlier murder. (Tabram, Smith, take your pick--we don't know which victim). Thus, it was necessary for Lechmere to use the name 'Cross' at the Nichols inquest, so his birth name wouldn't be publicly connected to another killing, and thus have the Met come crashing down on his head like a ton of bricks.

                              I think that's how it goes, but I will be corrected if I have it wrong. So somewhere in the distance past we have a witness to a murder or torso case with a connection to Charles Allen Lechmere, and we must merely await this revelation.

                              Hope that helps.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                You are perfectly correct, Gary - he still hasn’ t got it.

                                It is interesting to see how he tries to shift the focus from Lechmere’ s effort to try and conceal his name into a discussion about to which degree it was likely to work. As if that had anything to do with the real issue.

                                Will he ever get it? Of course not. It would predispose a mindset that was never there and won’ t be there in the future either. To him, we will always be monkeys that he has rubbished. And to be frank, I really don’ t think it would be worth the effort to enlighten him any further. Starless nights ahead, I’ m afraid.

                                It didn't work, full stop. He appears at an inquest, His address appears in a popular newspaper , the police knows who he is . And yet despite this we are led to believe that only a few days later he murders poor Annie by using the same ruse IE On his way to Pickfords [ known, were he works, freely given info by himself ] , from his address [ known, thanks to The Star ] .

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X