Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Paddy Goose View Post
    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!


    Yes, I said exactly that. And the reason is that I don’ t think they did.

    If they wanted to investigate him, they would not go to Pickfords only. And they would have picked up on his name sooner or later.

    Do you presume that they visited all the given working sites? To confirm that the witnesses were truthful in that respect?

    Me, I would expect them to check out the ones they suspected, if they indeed DID suspect anybody. Including visiting the work places given.

    But they never suspected Lechmere, and so they would not visit Pickfords. He even appeared in a carmans clothing, so why would they not believe him? Mizen said he looked like a carman, so why would they check that he actually WAS one, if they never suspected him of anything? To check out his name? Really? They could do that by looking at his address - IF they felt the need, which they would not have.

    It’s just another example of the old ”the police would never miss out” mantra. And we all know - or SHOULD know - how much weight that argument carries.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

      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.
      well if you find a body, you have to be next to it to do so its not rocket science

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        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!
        There is no case to be made against anyone who found a body, someone had to be that person. Lechmere was one of those persons

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          There is no case to be made against anyone who found a body, someone had to be that person. Lechmere was one of those persons

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          You really were ... a policeman...?

          I'm right, aren't I...?

          I mean ... you actually *were*...?

          A real copper...?

          M.
          Last edited by Mark J D; 11-17-2021, 08:02 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            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 it´s 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 won´t change. The name change is and remains an anomaly, full stop.

            Of course I expect you to "stick to your guns" - we all know that you will do that! Unfortunately, so will I so it is pointless repeating ourselves!

            CAL used the name Lechmere on all matters which he believed "officially" required it - no disagreement. What his definition of "official" might have been, we can only guess. The point I made was that the very slightest investigation of the accident in 1876 should surely have resulted in the identification of his birthname, if CAL was Lechmere at work, and then he would have been Lechmere and not Cross at the inquest. CAL presumably regarded the accident as a work related incident, and if he was Cross at work, he would then be Cross at the inquest too. The name he used at work was then the name that he used for a huge chunk of his life.

            We have no evidence to confirm either way, so we must choose what we, as individuals, consider to be the more likely, and we have both done that.

            Comment


            • I find the whole debate over Lechmere astonishing. We have our killer, this mystery has been solved. It’s completely obvious who JTR is and the mental gymnastics required not see it is at times both tragic and amusing.
              JTR hid in plain sight all along. Just waiting to be discovered. Somehow being missed at the time and later by a generation of researchers. Once somebody had a closer look at the carman found “standing where the woman was” (I believe Chris Scott may have been the first to do so) it became clear as day who JTR was. No Masonic conspiracy, no royal mistress, no famous artist, no Russian spies or harmless jewish schizophrenics. Just an ordinary local man, the kind of man you wouldn’t look twice at as he walked past you on his way to work.
              I believe we owe it to Lechmere’s victims to name their killer. Even after all this time we can give these poor women at least that.
              It’s now time for Ripperology to come together and do the right thing.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                I find the whole debate over Lechmere astonishing. We have our killer, this mystery has been solved. It’s completely obvious who JTR is and the mental gymnastics required not see it is at times both tragic and amusing.
                JTR hid in plain sight all along. Just waiting to be discovered. Somehow being missed at the time and later by a generation of researchers. Once somebody had a closer look at the carman found “standing where the woman was” (I believe Chris Scott may have been the first to do so) it became clear as day who JTR was. No Masonic conspiracy, no royal mistress, no famous artist, no Russian spies or harmless jewish schizophrenics. Just an ordinary local man, the kind of man you wouldn’t look twice at as he walked past you on his way to work.
                I believe we owe it to Lechmere’s victims to name their killer. Even after all this time we can give these poor women at least that.
                It’s now time for Ripperology to come together and do the right thing.
                Ridiculous.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                  Once somebody had a closer look at the carman found “standing where the woman was” (I believe Chris Scott may have been the first to do so) it became clear as day who JTR was.

                  Chris Scott, 8-16-2012:

                  Originally posted by Chris Scott View Post
                  Charles Cross and Charles Lechmere were indeed one and the same person. And he wasn't deliberately lying or using a false name. Cross was his stepfather's name which was adopted in one census and after he married and set up his own household he reverted to the name Lechmere in the census records. He may have used the name in a murder inquiry as his stepfather was actually a police officer.
                  It doesn't appear that the solution suddenly 'became clear as day' once Chris realized Lechmere was Cross's birth name. His attitude appears to have been considerably more circumspect.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                    ... he believed ... should surely have resulted in ... would have been ... presumably regarded ... he would then be ...
                    <*boggle*...>

                    M.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                      I find the whole debate over Lechmere astonishing. We have our killer, this mystery has been solved. It’s completely obvious who JTR is and the mental gymnastics required not see it is at times both tragic and amusing.
                      JTR hid in plain sight all along. Just waiting to be discovered. Somehow being missed at the time and later by a generation of researchers. Once somebody had a closer look at the carman found “standing where the woman was” (I believe Chris Scott may have been the first to do so) it became clear as day who JTR was. No Masonic conspiracy, no royal mistress, no famous artist, no Russian spies or harmless jewish schizophrenics. Just an ordinary local man, the kind of man you wouldn’t look twice at as he walked past you on his way to work.
                      I believe we owe it to Lechmere’s victims to name their killer. Even after all this time we can give these poor women at least that.
                      It’s now time for Ripperology to come together and do the right thing.
                      Some of us look for evidence before reaching conclusions. I mean genuine evidence and not supposition based on possibilities.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                        <*boggle*...>

                        M.
                        Yes, logical inferences based on information. Unlike some people, I try to make it clear that some things are known facts, and some things are possibilities or probabilities. Where there is doubt, I say so.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                          ... Some of us look for evidence before reaching conclusions. I mean genuine evidence and not supposition based on possibilities...

                          ... Yes, logical inferences based on information. Unlike some people, I try to make it clear that some things are known facts, and some things are possibilities or probabilities. Where there is doubt, I say so...
                          In view of which claim, I repeat the essential content of my astonished posting from this morning:

                          "CAL used the name Lechmere on all matters which he believed "officially" required it - no disagreement. What his definition of "official" might have been, we can only guess. The point I made was that the very slightest investigation of the accident in 1876 should surely have resulted in the identification of his birthname, if CAL was Lechmere at work, and then he would have been Lechmere and not Cross at the inquest. CAL presumably regarded the accident as a work related incident, and if he was Cross at work, he would then be Cross at the inquest too. The name he used at work was then the name that he used for a huge chunk of his life."

                          M.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                            The point I made was that the very slightest investigation of the accident in 1876 should surely have resulted in the identification of his birthname, if CAL was Lechmere at work, and then he would have been Lechmere and not Cross at the inquest.
                            Yes, this seems obvious enough.

                            Imagine if--heaven forbid--you accidently killed someone at work and when you showed up for the inquest you used the name 'Richard Roe.' Do you think your employers would have been impressed? Would they have still employed you after you lied at the inquest?

                            The only explanation I've seen offered is that 'Cross' was allowed to use a false name because the parents of the boy were outraged and felt 'Cross' had been negligent.


                            But I've never seen an example of this sort of thing in the real world. Why would the Coroner have allowed it? Why would Pickford?

                            And then--of course--the alleged 'alias' he uses just happens to be the same name that is in the 1861 Census!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                              In view of which claim, I repeat the essential content of my astonished posting from this morning:

                              "CAL used the name Lechmere on all matters which he believed "officially" required it - no disagreement. What his definition of "official" might have been, we can only guess. The point I made was that the very slightest investigation of the accident in 1876 should surely have resulted in the identification of his birthname, if CAL was Lechmere at work, and then he would have been Lechmere and not Cross at the inquest. CAL presumably regarded the accident as a work related incident, and if he was Cross at work, he would then be Cross at the inquest too. The name he used at work was then the name that he used for a huge chunk of his life."

                              M.
                              Which part of the above does not fit in with my attempt to infer possiblilities and probabilities from known information, and which part does not make it clear that I am making inferences and not stating facts?

                              Comment


                              • Hi SuperShodan, all,

                                Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                                I find the whole debate over Lechmere astonishing. We have our killer, this mystery has been solved. It’s completely obvious who JTR is and the mental gymnastics required not see it is at times both tragic and amusing.
                                JTR hid in plain sight all along. Just waiting to be discovered. Somehow being missed at the time and later by a generation of researchers. Once somebody had a closer look at the carman found “standing where the woman was” (I believe Chris Scott may have been the first to do so) it became clear as day who JTR was. No Masonic conspiracy, no royal mistress, no famous artist, no Russian spies or harmless jewish schizophrenics. Just an ordinary local man, the kind of man you wouldn’t look twice at as he walked past you on his way to work.
                                I believe we owe it to Lechmere’s victims to name their killer. Even after all this time we can give these poor women at least that.
                                It’s now time for Ripperology to come together and do the right thing.
                                we have a theory that is partly unconvincing and a number of other murders before and after Polly where the only "evidence" for Lech's guilt is that his way to work lies within the murder territory.

                                It's not that I'd find the other suspects named so far promising but for the Lech theory to become the be-all and end-all of Ripperology, it needs a lot more meat on its bones in my opinion. Apart from the events in Buck's-row, there really is not much else to say, the mere possibility that Lech could have been near the crime scenes when the other murders were committed and the name change shenanigans doesn't cut it.

                                Grüße,

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X