Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    And, of course, Thomas Cross raised him. So, as far as we know, CAL could have utterly despised Pa Lechmere, the birth father who had abandoned him (which is hardly rare) and was 'all in' with his stepdad. Yet, these same attitudes could have softened later in life. There even could have been a reconciliation with Pa Lechmere later on. Who knows?

    Things often look strange when we don't have all the information. It's the main theme of detective novels...in the last chapters our early suspicions turn out to have been unwarranted.
    "Softened later in life"? At the ripe age of 39, perhaps, just after the inquest into the death of Polly Nichols? But wait a sec - the carman seems to have signed himself by the name he supposedly despised throughout his life. How strange!

    Maybe he just despised his old man in late December of 1876 and early September of 1888...?

    R J, if he had shunned his father, why is it that we donīt have him using the name Cross in ALL his contacts with authorities? Why did he do so ONLY in combination with two cases of violent death? If he could call himself Cross with the police, then why not with census takers? For example?

    I have nothing against the argument that there may be something we are unaware of that ruled the business. But until we have that evidence in hand, letīs not try and use it to bolster our suggestions.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 11-17-2021, 01:45 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      The doctor did not do a very good job? What do you require from doctors? X-ray vision? The wounds were covered by the clothes, and Llewellyn decided eaarly on that he did not want to make a further examination in situ as people were gathering there.
      I donīt think that amounts to a bad job. It amounts to doing what he could under the circumstances.

      The police were there in force to keep the crowds at bay

      As for the TOD given by Llewellyn, we all know that it is not a very safe thing to rely on. It is an indication, but no hard evidence. I donīt see myself having said otherwise.
      Is it not you that postulates that the TOD must have been around the time Lechemere was in the immediate location, to make out a case for him to be the killer

      When in fact it could have been before even Lechmere left for work, which I think is a better possibilty.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        ... the TOD ... could have been before even Lechmere left for work, which I think is a better possibility.
        Yes: we all saw your Feigenbaum documentary -- in which we get what must be the most historically accurate reconstruction ever broadcast of Lechmere calmly standing 'where the woman was' as Paul comes along, and the two men quietly talking about whether she is still alive and how best to proceed. Certainly brought the reality of the historical situation to life, there...

        https://youtu.be/zpQqMtVVkzY?t=229

        M.
        Last edited by Mark J D; 11-17-2021, 02:22 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          So why is it that your suggestion that we should go by ONE occasion when he gave his name to the authorities should be a better one than my suggestion that we should go with the name he NORMALLY and ON MANY OCCASIONS gave to the authorities?
          Hi Fish,

          It's really quite simple. Some people don't share your views about the Cross/Lechmere name conundrum because their own experience informs them that such things happen.

          My mother's best friend used her stepfather's name and was generally known by her stepfather's name, even though she was never officially adopted. Perhaps such a thing comes as a shock to an orderly society like Sweden, but over on my side of the pond people often resent the father who had abandoned them in childhood and treat their own step parent as their true parent. I assume you can appreciate this.

          Yet, this same woman always used her birth name on 'official' documents. She knew the truth about her upbringing.

          Now, that said, I have no idea whether she ever attended an inquest or a criminal trial, but my guess is that it would have been about a 50/50 split whether she would have used her birth name or her assumed ('stepfather') name. If it was a local case and she was simply a witness, I can easily see it having been the latter. The court doesn't expect her to go into her whole life story, does it? She's just telling what she's seen. Further, people are people. They don't always know what is expected of them.

          I hope that explains it. Enjoy your walk today. I'm off for a bit of a stroll myself.

          RP

          P.S. As a side note, would it be accurate to call someone like Rader a psychopath--not that you necessarily have? If the only evidence of his psychopathy is his string of murders, the reasoning is entirely circular. It wouldn't be any better than calling him a schizophrenic because of his string of murders. The diagnosis would have to be independent of the murders, or we would be engaging in circular reasoning. And since the very nature of psychopathy is erratic behavior, short term relationships, a bad work history, petty crimes, etc. etc., than any diagnosis along these lines is dubious at best. He is screwed-up on some level, but what evidence is there that it's psychopathy, particularly if he is otherwise living an orderly and respectable existence??
          Last edited by rjpalmer; 11-17-2021, 02:16 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Is it not you that postulates that the TOD must have been around the time Lechemere was in the immediate location, to make out a case for him to be the killer

            When in fact it could have been before even Lechmere left for work, which I think is a better possibilty.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            I chiefly rely on the two forensic pathologists who in my book agree that the likeliest period of bleeding for a woman with the kind of damage that Nichols had, would be 3-5 minutes. When Mizen saw the body, around nine minutes after Charles Lechmere had been in contact with it, it was nevertheless still bleeding. So she had already gone past the 3-5 minute bleeding period and was quickly approaching the 10-15 minute period that Arne Thiblin regarded as the maximum possible time of bleeding.

            Is it now you start speaking of Dr Whathisname again? If so, you can save your breath. Thiblin is a renowned authority, as is Jason Payne James.

            None of these men PROVE that Lechmere did it.

            But both of them tell us that he is an extremely likely candidate.

            And to be fair, there IS no other candidate. Noone was seen leaving the site or acting strangely in the vicinity.

            Again, that does not conclusiverly prove that no other killer was there. But regardless of who this Mr Ohantom Killer would have been, he would find Charles Lechmere very hard to compete with, having given an alternative name to the inquest, having disagreed with the police over crucial details, having "forgotten" to tell Mizen that HE was the finder of the body and having a morning trek that took him right past or close to the other murder sites in Whitechapel, just as he had a very clear link to the Berner Street area.

            How about that, Mr Phantom Killer? What have you got to offer to compete with that? Eh? Hello...?

            Mr Phantom Killer? Anyone there...? No?

            There will never be any other suspect who comes within a generously defined country mile of being able to compete with Charles Lechmere, Trevor. Hard to soak up as it is.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              Hi Fish,

              It's really quite simple.

              Oh, good! I love simplicity!

              Some people don't share your views about the Cross/Lechmere name conundrum because their own experience informs them that such things happen.

              What things? That people disagree? I agree. More than most, I dare say.

              My mother's best friend used her stepfather's name and was generally known by her stepfather's name, even though she was never officially adopted. Perhaps such a thing comes as a shock to an orderly society like Sweden, but over on my side of the pond people often resent the father who had abandoned them in childhood and treat their own step parent as their true parent. I assume you can appreciate this.

              Yes, I can. What I find baffling, though, is that Lechmere only shunned John Allen in late December of 1876 and early September of 1888. But maybe your motherīs best friend did that kind of thing too?

              Yet, this same woman always used her birth name on 'official' documents. She knew the truth about her upbringing.

              Again, see the above.

              Now, that said, I have no idea whether she ever attended an inquest or a criminal trial, but my guess is that it would have been about a 50/50 split whether she would have used her birth name or her assumed ('stepfather') name. If it was a local case and she was simply a witness, I can easily see it having been the latter. The court doesn't expect her to go into her whole life story, does it? She's just telling what she's seen. Further, people are people. They don't always know what is expected of them.

              And how do you gauge the possibility that she would only use her assumed name at criminal trials, whereas she would employ her birth name in all other capacities?

              I hope that explains it. Enjoy your walk today. I'm off for a bit of a stroll myself.

              RP

              Enjoy!

              P.S. As a side note, would it be accurate to call someone like Rader a psychopath--not that you necessarily have? If the only evidence of his psychopathy is his string of murders, the reasoning is entirely circular. It wouldn't be any better than calling him a schizophrenic because of his string of murders. The diagnosis would have to be independent of the murders, or we would be engaging in circular reasoning. And since the very nature of psychopathy is erratic behavior, short term relationships, a bad work history, petty crimes, etc. etc., than any diagnosis along these lines is dubious at best. He is screwed-up on some level, but what evidence is there that it's psychopathy, particularly if he is otherwise living an orderly and respectable existence??
              Various killers have scored variously high on psychopathy tests. Rader would absolutely tick the boxes of a lack of remorse or guilt just as the one of lacking empathy and being callous. Empathic people do not hang young girls from pipes in cellars and masturbate at their sides as they suffocate and die.

              Sexual serial killers have been defined as a group within which around 90 per cent are psychopaths. We are not able to test Charles Lechmere in retrospect, and so we can only say that statistically, there is a ninety per cent risk in his case if he was the killer. And we can say that although Rader was a callous man, the Ripper seems to have been even more so.

              Who knows, maybe there is a smallish hole through which Ripper could have passed, avoiding the psychopathy diagnosis. Until we know, what applies is that we are with great likelihood dealing with a psychopath. And the behavior linked to Charles Lechmere if he was the killer, seems very much in line with something a psychopath would be infinitely more likely to do than a normal person.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                What you refer to as evidence for him more likely calling himself Cross than Lechmere in his day-to-day life in the years leading up to 1888, is that he in 1876 answered a question from an authority (the inquest) about his name with "Cross".
                During the years between 1876 and 1888, however, he answered a lot MORE questions from authorities about his name by saying "Lechmere".

                So why is it that your suggestion that we should go by ONE occasion when he gave his name to the authorities should be a better one than my suggestion that we should go with the name he NORMALLY and ON MANY OCCASIONS gave to the authorities?

                The name Cross as being the carmanīs name first surfaced on the 1861 census listing, probably given by his stepfather. Two years before that, Charles had been baptized at the age of 9, together with his three year older sister Emily. The siblings were baptized the year AFTER Maria Louisa married Thomas Cross. If Thomas had insisted that the children should be named after him, it seems it was a battle he lost. Moreover, Emily and Charles would already have been listed as Lechmere in the school years before that. Their identities were fixed as Lechmere and it was given confirmation when they were baptized.

                And what about Charlesī own children? Well, they are registered at various shools as being named Lechmere. Never Cross. Every teacher they had, every friend they had, everyone who knew them would have known and accepted that the family they originated from was one called Lechmere. Are we to think that the members of this family were called Cross by their Doveton Street neighbors, or would the family have been known as the Lechmeres?

                Charles Lechmere differs from many other Eastenders, who pop up every now and then in registers and listings. The carman seems to have filled out just about every form there was, every voting form and every census list, every school list, every everything. He seems to have been a meticulous man, very eager to do things in a proper manner. In that respect, he reminds me of Dennis Rader, who was also a stickler for order.
                Would such a man, with a very high brow name, steeped in tradition, call himself Cross at work, but Lechmere in Doveton Street and when taking his kids to school?

                I really donīt think so.
                Same old repetition of the same old undisputed information which is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making! As I wrote previously, CAL was "officially" Lechmere, that has never been disputed, and he chose quite correctly to be Lechmere on many official documents. I was debating the different and important issue of what name he used in ordinary everyday life. I looked at the obvious implications of CAL being Cross at work, and the clear indication from the 1876 inquest that this seemed to be the case. The name CAL used at work would probably be the name he used for so much of his adult life, and this is therefore a very relevant issue.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                  There has never been any dispute from me that CAL was "officially" Lechmere. Of course he was. As I am quite sure that you realise, I was considering what name he used most of the time. As I clearly pointed out, if he was Cross when at work, and no evidence disputes this, then it appears he was probably Cross for most of his daily life up till 1888, so your contention that there was a "small sphere in which he was Cross" would then be massively inaccurate. I accept that much of what I have written is assumption, but I believe that it is all logical and totally plausible, and based on a known fact - the use of the name Cross at the 1876 inquest. As with all of our discussions, we have often insufficient data to get to the truth, but we can make reasonable inferences from what is known.

                  And Christer, I never suggested that accepting a possibility made it a certainty!!!
                  Again, Doc thank you for your excellent reasoning clearly stated. And I especially like this one word you make use of - inferences

                  we can make reasonable inferences from what is known
                  Inference. That is the word. We infer. We infer from the name Charles Cross which was stated in the 1876 accident and the name Charles Cross stated at the Nichols inquest - we infer he used the name Cross at work. This is not generally in dispute.

                  But here is the key - this is important: Why he gave the name Cross to the authorities in the Nichols investigation. Because we, as Charles Lechmere certainly did, we all infer that the police will check with Pickfords. And that Pickfords will reply to the police "Yes indeed we have a Charles Cross in our employ."

                  This is important because that is WHY he was walking through that street at that time. He was on his way to work. He is not there killing someone. He is there on his way to WORK. Just as Robert Paul came along the very same street on his way to work. Not an uncommon thing. Very normal. It's so normal it hardly warrants an inference, but there you go.

                  Again, thanks Doc





                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                    Same old repetition of the same old undisputed information which is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making! As I wrote previously, CAL was "officially" Lechmere, that has never been disputed, and he chose quite correctly to be Lechmere on many official documents. I was debating the different and important issue of what name he used in ordinary everyday life. I looked at the obvious implications of CAL being Cross at work, and the clear indication from the 1876 inquest that this seemed to be the case. The name CAL used at work would probably be the name he used for so much of his adult life, and this is therefore a very relevant issue.
                    And I answered the exact questions you raise. As I have answered them before, you should perhaps not be bafled by how I repeat myself.

                    I agree that the name Lechmere used at work is of great relevance. I just dont agree at all that the name was Cross.

                    You put a lot of trust in how using the name Cross in 1876 would implicate that this was what he called himself at the stage. Again, what he provided to the inquest was NOT the name he used at work, it was the name he used at the inquest! Whether or not he also used it at work is another matter, but we DO know that the inquest was an example of the carman giving his name to an authority. And we DO know that the name he always gave to authorities in all other contexts between the 1861 census (where his stepfather would have provided his name) and 1888. Therefore, when we are to conclude which was his name inbetween Decenmber of 1876 and mid 1888, we have ONE (1) example of him calling himself Cross with the authorities and a lot of examples where he called himself Lechmere with the authorities.

                    The inquest into the the matter of the run over boy was NOT an exercise where the participants were required to use the names they were known by at work, it was an event of a very official character, an authority doing itīs work. There was absolutely no reason why the carman should call himself Cross at the inquest, since he otherwisw never used that name with any authorities - or anything or anybody else, as far as we know.

                    If you dislike me sticking to my guns in this department, I can only say that it wonīt change. The name change is and remains an anomaly, full stop.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post

                      Inference. That is the word. We infer. We infer from the name Charles Cross which was stated in the 1876 accident and the name Charles Cross stated at the Nichols inquest - we infer he used the name Cross at work. This is not generally in dispute.

                      No? I very much dispute it, Iīm afraid. It is possible, but unlikely in my eyes.

                      But here is the key - this is important: Why he gave the name Cross to the authorities in the Nichols investigation. Because we, as Charles Lechmere certainly did, we all infer that the police will check with Pickfords. And that Pickfords will reply to the police "Yes indeed we have a Charles Cross in our employ."

                      That would only happen if they DID have a Charles Cross in their employ. If they didnīt, and if they WERE asked, then the police would ask the carman why he called himself Cross at the inquest. At which point he would quite likely say "because I honour my stepfather by doing so, and he was called Cross. I sometimes use that name." And a I have been told in so very generpous helpings, anybody was free to call himself anything he liked, right?

                      It would have been a calculated risk, weighed against having it revealed in the press that he was Charles Lechmere. And I think it was a caluclated risk he came away from with his hand uncalled. I don't think that Pickfords were asked about it, not in the first case 1876 and not in the second in 1888.

                      He very apparently never gave the name he was registered by and went by in all other officialdom. That is "the inference" of him being called Cross in the police reports.


                      This is important because that is WHY he was walking through that street at that time. He was on his way to work. He is not there killing someone. He is there on his way to WORK. Just as Robert Paul came along the very same street on his way to work. Not an uncommon thing. Very normal. It's so normal it hardly warrants an inference, but there you go.

                      Again, thanks Doc
                      But he didnīt give his name en route to work. He gave it at the inquest, THREE DAYS LATER. In a contact with the authorities. So he wasnīt in a context of work, was he?
                      That is probably also why he told census takers that he was a carman (see the "work" reference?) by the name of Lechmere. Not Cross.
                      Carman Lechmere.
                      Not carman Cross.


                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        I chiefly rely on the two forensic pathologists who in my book agree that the likeliest period of bleeding for a woman with the kind of damage that Nichols had, would be 3-5 minutes. When Mizen saw the body, around nine minutes after Charles Lechmere had been in contact with it, it was nevertheless still bleeding. So she had already gone past the 3-5 minute bleeding period and was quickly approaching the 10-15 minute period that Arne Thiblin regarded as the maximum possible time of bleeding.

                        Nothing more than guesswork on his part. he didnt see the body, he was not aware of the condition of the body, and not fully aware of the weather conditions all have a direct impact of how the body mechanism would have reacted to such injuries

                        As to bleeding out as you describe this is open to interpretation and not to be accepted as fact. The blood flow from such a wound and how long it would have flowed is dependanat on the position of the body. Such wounds on bodies have been know to still keep bleeding many hours after death.

                        Is it now you start speaking of Dr Whathisname again? If so, you can save your breath. Thiblin is a renowned authority, as is Jason Payne James.

                        Dr Biggs is also a renowed authority in the world of forensic pathology

                        Well as you know expert witnesses are inclined to disagree, but there is no direct disagreement other than by your creation all the experts give their professional opinions and you choose to accept the two you refer to who clearly have been pointed in the direction that suits your theory

                        But I dont see any of your experts referrring to the doctors evidence where he stated that in his opinion the body had been dead no more than 30 minutes whereas Dr Biggs quire rightly shows that to have been nothing more than guesswork


                        None of these men PROVE that Lechmere did it.

                        Those are the most profound words you have ever relied on

                        But both of them tell us that he is an extremely likely candidate.

                        No they dont, its you telling us that he was the likely killer

                        And to be fair, there IS no other candidate. Noone was seen leaving the site or acting strangely in the vicinity.

                        But if the killer had been and gone there would be no one else around when Lechmere was on his way to work

                        Again, that does not conclusiverly prove that no other killer was there. But regardless of who this Mr Ohantom Killer would have been, he would find Charles Lechmere very hard to compete with, having given an alternative name to the inquest, having disagreed with the police over crucial details, having "forgotten" to tell Mizen that HE was the finder of the body and having a morning trek that took him right past or close to the other murder sites in Whitechapel, just as he had a very clear link to the Berner Street area.

                        If the killer had left, whose to say that Rober Paul might have found the body or anyone else on their way to work?

                        How about that, Mr Phantom Killer? What have you got to offer to compete with that? Eh? Hello...?

                        We have preciseely that a phantom and unidentified serial killer.

                        Mr Phantom Killer? Anyone there...? No?

                        There will never be any other suspect who comes within a generously defined country mile of being able to compete with Charles Lechmere, Trevor. Hard to soak up as it is.
                        There are many other suspects based on your misguided theory, all the other persons who found the other bodies!!!!!!!!!!!

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Lechmere never knew his biological father who seems to have abandoned him in infancy. It was a proud family name though, the Lechmere’s had once been prosperous and a relative had been at Trafalgar with Nelson.

                          It was Lechmere and his mum until he was 9 years old when she at 32 she married a 23 year old. One can only imagine how this would affect his relationship with his mother. His new stepfather is in the age range of a big brother, and young Charles is now sharing his mother and his home with another young man.

                          It appears to me that Lechmere was only named Cross while his stepfather was alive and reverted back to Lechmere almost immediately after his stepfather died. In 1870 at 21 years old he is back to Lechmere on his marriage certificate. I would suggest changing name back so quickly tells its own story about his feelings for his stepfather. One can only speculate about this relationship, and how it made him feel about his mother, who seems to have been a key influence in his life. He stayed with her even after getting married, and stayed yards away until in summer 1888 something changed, and he moved out of her orbit for the first time in his 38 years.

                          So from 1870 at the latest he’s back as Lechmere, so using the name Cross in 1888 to me is noteworthy. It doesn’t mean he’s JTR, it’s just surprising.

                          Furthermore, using Cross at the earlier inquest in 1876 is also noteworthy. It’s worth remembering that Lechmere could have been blamed for the death at this inquest, so again deciding to use his stepfathers name, a name he doesn’t appear to have much time for, is fascinating.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            There are many other suspects based on your misguided theory, all the other persons who found the other bodies!!!!!!!!!!!

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            No. Other bodies were found by other witnesses but nobody was found “standing where the woman was”. There’s a big difference between finding a body and being found next to a body.

                            Comment


                            • Fisherman you said

                              "I don't think that Pickfords were asked about it"

                              referring to my inference that yes, of course the police checked with Pickfords to verify there was a Charles Cross in their employ.

                              This is part of your suspect "theory."

                              All I can say is -

                              Merry Christmas and to all a Goodnight!



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                There are many other suspects based on your misguided theory, all the other persons who found the other bodies!!!!!!!!!!!

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Same old, same old. You go and get John Davis and make a case against him. He DID find a body. Be my guest!
                                Oh, and the best of luck with Feigenbaum. It was a cracker of a docu, the one Mark refers too!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X