Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • 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 ?
    Anyone - who - ONLY - knew - him - as - Lechmere.

    Do you see how that might work? They knew a man named Charles Lechmere but had no idea that he also used the name Cross (if he did). They or may not have known where he lived or where he worked. The name Charles Cross would not have registered as belonging to someone whom they knew.

    The name Charles Allen Lechmere seems to have been unique to the man we are talking about (with the exception of two of his sons). If you saw the name Charles Smith in the papers, you might say ‘I know a Charlie Smith.’ If you saw the name Charles Allen Lechmere in the papers and you recognised it, you’d be inclined to think it was the person you knew with that unusual name.’






    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      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.

      It’s close, RJ. Doesn’t have to have been a murder, though, who knows, he might just have got a bit rough with a woman or women who was/were aware of the name Lechmere but knew little else about him.

      Of course, as you know, I consider it possible that the reason he omitted the name Lechmere may have had as much to do with not wanting that name to pop up on the breakfast tables of people in Hereford - especially not in conjunction with the name Cross.

      What I’m hoping to achieve is an acknowledgement that there are perfectly plausible reasons while concealing his ‘real’ name might have been a deliberate act.







      Comment


      • Darryl, you still have not answered the questions I asked in combination with the Kenyon/Wiggins scenario.

        Why is that?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          Anyone - who - ONLY - knew - him - as - Lechmere.

          Do you see how that might work? They knew a man named Charles Lechmere but had no idea that he also used the name Cross (if he did). They or may not have known where he lived or where he worked. The name Charles Cross would not have registered as belonging to someone whom they knew.

          The name Charles Allen Lechmere seems to have been unique to the man we are talking about (with the exception of two of his sons). If you saw the name Charles Smith in the papers, you might say ‘I know a Charlie Smith.’ If you saw the name Charles Allen Lechmere in the papers and you recognised it, you’d be inclined to think it was the person you knew with that unusual name.’
          Its even better - if Darryl saw the name Charles Cross in a paper, he would immediately know that the name referred to a Charles Lechmere. He’ s one step ahead of us monkeys.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            Its even better - if Darryl saw the name Charles Cross in a paper, he would immediately know that the name referred to a Charles Lechmere. He’ s one step ahead of us monkeys.
            So who suspected Lech of foul deeds from his past then, who only knew him as Lechmere and not Cross ? Please answer. Certainly not someone who knew him well because they would probably know that he had worked at Pickfords for a number of years and would possibly put two and two together. Certainly not a woman in the street he may have assaulted a few months prior [ like Ada Wilson ] , they wouldn't know what name he used . Almost certainly no one from Pickfords or the police force since they both would know who he was. Certainly not anyone who knew he lived at 22 Doveton st , So who ? You freely admit that Lech did not want to give his address but it was found out by The Star . How do we know that, say the same newspaper wouldn't do a little digging and find out that Cross was also Lech and publish it. And more to the point how did he not know that, and would he take that chance ?
            As far as I am aware Lech lived in the area all his life [ apologies if I am wrong on that ], yet no one came forward with any evidence, or suspicions against Lech whatsoever [ as far as we know ]. Even though as a carman he would be known in the area dropping and picking up goods etc. Take a look at Pizer and the fact that he was known as Leather apron. Didn't take the police long to figure out who he was .
            Lech would have to have been scared by some info from someone who he didn't know personally well or probably someone who didn't know he worked at Pickfords or lived in Doveton st. But who knew he was known as Lechmere and never heard of him ever using the name Cross or probably that his stepfather had the name Cross.
            So who Fish ? Who was he trying to conceal the fact that Lechmere was Cross from ?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Darryl, you still have not answered the questions I asked in combination with the Kenyon/Wiggins scenario.

              Why is that?
              How do you know that Cross was not the name he officially started work with. So since the police knew he worked at Pickfords , info he volunteered freely he felt obliged to use that surname. Personally I think is reasonable enough but I don't see smoke and mirrors in everything

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                So who suspected Lech of foul deeds from his past then, who only knew him as Lechmere and not Cross ? Please answer. Certainly not someone who knew him well because they would probably know that he had worked at Pickfords for a number of years and would possibly put two and two together. Certainly not a woman in the street he may have assaulted a few months prior [ like Ada Wilson ] , they wouldn't know what name he used . Almost certainly no one from Pickfords or the police force since they both would know who he was. Certainly not anyone who knew he lived at 22 Doveton st , So who ? You freely admit that Lech did not want to give his address but it was found out by The Star . How do we know that, say the same newspaper wouldn't do a little digging and find out that Cross was also Lech and publish it. And more to the point how did he not know that, and would he take that chance ?
                As far as I am aware Lech lived in the area all his life [ apologies if I am wrong on that ], yet no one came forward with any evidence, or suspicions against Lech whatsoever [ as far as we know ]. Even though as a carman he would be known in the area dropping and picking up goods etc. Take a look at Pizer and the fact that he was known as Leather apron. Didn't take the police long to figure out who he was .
                Lech would have to have been scared by some info from someone who he didn't know personally well or probably someone who didn't know he worked at Pickfords or lived in Doveton st. But who knew he was known as Lechmere and never heard of him ever using the name Cross or probably that his stepfather had the name Cross.
                So who Fish ? Who was he trying to conceal the fact that Lechmere was Cross from ?
                He lived in the East End for most of his life, but in different parts of it. As a Pickfords carman working out of Broad Street he could have made deliveries anywhere in London.

                Comment


                • Leather apron is an interesting comparison. The women of Spitalfields had one view of his character, his family, seemingly, another altogether. The family claimed not to know he was ever called Leather Apron. William Thick, however, who had lived near by the Pizer family knew him by both names.

                  LA is a perfect example of a man known by two different names in two different environments.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                    So who suspected Lech of foul deeds from his past then, who only knew him as Lechmere and not Cross ? Please answer. Certainly not someone who knew him well because they would probably know that he had worked at Pickfords for a number of years and would possibly put two and two together. Certainly not a woman in the street he may have assaulted a few months prior [ like Ada Wilson ] , they wouldn't know what name he used . Almost certainly no one from Pickfords or the police force since they both would know who he was. Certainly not anyone who knew he lived at 22 Doveton st , So who ? You freely admit that Lech did not want to give his address but it was found out by The Star . How do we know that, say the same newspaper wouldn't do a little digging and find out that Cross was also Lech and publish it. And more to the point how did he not know that, and would he take that chance ?
                    As far as I am aware Lech lived in the area all his life [ apologies if I am wrong on that ], yet no one came forward with any evidence, or suspicions against Lech whatsoever [ as far as we know ]. Even though as a carman he would be known in the area dropping and picking up goods etc. Take a look at Pizer and the fact that he was known as Leather apron. Didn't take the police long to figure out who he was .
                    Lech would have to have been scared by some info from someone who he didn't know personally well or probably someone who didn't know he worked at Pickfords or lived in Doveton st. But who knew he was known as Lechmere and never heard of him ever using the name Cross or probably that his stepfather had the name Cross.
                    So who Fish ? Who was he trying to conceal the fact that Lechmere was Cross from ?
                    Jeffrey Jones, 48 Heneage Street, Whitechapel. Flat 6, second floor.

                    Or, to be more to the point: there can be no knowing. Does that mean that we must accept that Lechmere couldn’ t have wanted to conceal his identity? If I cannot specify who he wanted to conceal it from?
                    I sometimes think that Kafka would have preferred his own life to mine, given the choice.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                      How do you know that Cross was not the name he officially started work with. So since the police knew he worked at Pickfords , info he volunteered freely he felt obliged to use that surname. Personally I think is reasonable enough but I don't see smoke and mirrors in everything
                      Why did you qoute my post on the questions I put to you if you were not going to answer them, Darryl?

                      I have no problem with him using the name Cross, but I have all sorts of problems with him NOT using the name Lechmere. That is where the problem lies, and not giving it to the police is exactly what the expression smoke and mirrors are about.
                      I didn’ t introduce that element into the picture. Charles Lechmere did.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 10-29-2021, 08:12 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                        Leather apron is an interesting comparison. The women of Spitalfields had one view of his character, his family, seemingly, another altogether. The family claimed not to know he was ever called Leather Apron. William Thick, however, who had lived near by the Pizer family knew him by both names.

                        L[eather] A[pron] is a perfect example of a man known by two different names in two different environments.
                        -- And Liz Stride is a perfect example of a victim who lived and worked in two different environments: she'd been living up in Lechmere's killing zone, north of the High Street, and was murdered where she worked in Lechmere's childhood/family/recent neighbourhood, south of the High Street. You want someone with a bit of education who might have known both his names; who knew what he was like; and who had to be silenced...? As I said somewhere else the other day, it's not for nothing that the Stride killing is very anomalous; and not for nothing that the Eddowes rush job was crammed in as the distraction -- the 'genuine' Ripper murder -- immediately afterwards...

                        Pardon my scenario, Gary... That's #132, I think...

                        M.

                        (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

                        Comment


                        • To think that what is being suggested here is that whatever it was that lay behind his ommitting to say that his name was Lechmere, the one thing it could not have been was a wish to hide his identity from somebody.

                          These things only happen in ripperology. Truly!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            No matter what the name Lechmere was tied to, not giving it is ALWAYS concealing it.
                            No it is not. He had the option to use either name without consequence, he was known by both. There had to be a compelling reason like I said a court\criminal record to have a suspicious reason.
                            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


                            • It was not a case of concealing his identity. It's maybe that he(Cross) was concerned only that he had to give some identification,and if the police wished to question him at a later time,the best place would be at his works where he was known by the name Cross.Why at work?,well that was the location where most of his daytime was spent,and was a usual time for police to conduct enquiries.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                                No it is not. He had the option to use either name without consequence, he was known by both. There had to be a compelling reason like I said a court\criminal record to have a suspicious reason.
                                Again, this is prime ripperology, the one science where it is claimed that hiding something away is actually showing it off.

                                It does NOT matter if he ”had the opportunity” to choose from a variety of names, this one for monday, that for tuesday, and on wednesday I’ ll call myself Mr Cheeky, it IS concealing your registered name if you don’ t mention it to the police when asked for it. Until that name is disclosed, it remains concealed.

                                The idea that there was no concealing involved should be matched agaist the question why we were not able to research the carman until a hundred years after he gave a full and truthful account for his name in the Working Lads Institution in Whitechapel on the 3rd of September 1888 - as some will have it.

                                Only in ripperology. ONLY there!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X