Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

And of course it is also true that these hundred documents, as you call them, don’t date to the 1850s, 60s, and 70s. They are generally comprised of electoral roles, etc., from a much later date, and thus could also be misleading.

[rjpalmer]

Your aim is obviously to paint me out as unreliable and choosing small ice patches over icebergs, but the truth of the matter is that this is EXACTLY what we have, no more, no less. I would be grateful if you acknowledged that instead of trying to dream up some sort of scenario where I dabble with the evidence. I donīt. The icebergs are mirages of YOUR mind, not mine.

One last thing, Fish.

Let me apologize for how I worded my original post. I should have written 'provided one is willing to ignore...'; or 'provided we are willing to ignore..."

By using the word 'you'--which is a common way of writing, but should probably be avoided---it did make my comment sound accusatory, but that's not what I intended.

I don't see you a dishonest theorist. Not at all. I think you are approaching what might be called 'the evidence' as you believe it should be approached.

I also appreciate that you are willing to openly discuss your ideas, which is rare these days, even with people that might not agree.

[Fisherman]

And of course it is also true that these hundred documents, as you call them, don’t date to the 1850s, 60s, and 70s. They are generally comprised of electoral roles, etc., from a much later date, and thus could also be misleading.

I said I was leaving, and I am. But not before I have pointed out why this post of R J is not a very good one on any level.

Lechmere was born in 1849. Of course, he would not fill in public enquiries, censuses, election rolls etcetera when he was ten or so. So pointing to how there are not many signatures by his hand in the 50:s is simply dumb. Why would there be? How COULD there be? The 60:s saw him turning 15 in 64, so it is not until well after that date that we should perhaps require signatures by his hand on official papers. And lo and behold, that is when they begin to surface.

To say that the signatures we DO have "donīt date from the 70:s" is qualified balderdash. Lechmere married in July of 1870 - as Lechmere, not as Cross. That was half a year after Thomas Cross died. He lived in Mary Ann Street at this stage, just as he did at the time of the 1871 census. Where he called himself Lechmere although he lived with his mother. She called herself Maria Louisa Cross at the time, just as she did in 1872, when she married Joseph Forsdyke. But her son called himself Lechmere when marrying, when giving his name to the census takers in 1871 and when acting as a marriage witness at his mothers marriage to Joseph Forsdyke.

Maria Louisa called herself Cross. Charles called himself Lechmere. So who thinks he SIGNED himself Lechmere but called himself Cross, hands up! If he DID, then why would he not sign himself Cross - the way his mother did? Because, perhaps, while his mother took on the Cross name, he never did? And maybe this was linked to how Maria Louisa Cross and Thomas Cross baptized Maria Louisas two kids by John Allen Lechmere as LECHMERE the year after she wed Thomas Cross?

Joseph Forsdike died in 1889. The informant was Charles Lechmeres daughter M Jane Lechmere. Lechmere, not Cross. Born in 1875. By the Lechmere name. That, and many other entries where Charles Lechmere gives his name as Charles Lechmere are available from the 1870:s, in sharp contrast to what R J will have us believe.

The fact of the matter is that ever since the carman grew up and started filling out the kind of paperwork that is associated with growing up, he ALWAYS called himself Lechmere. And far from the 1870:s not being part of that, the decade is brimming with Lechmere signatures by the carman. Plus a lot of the signatures predate the 1876 incident when he ran over and killed a young boy. And called himself Cross.

Now, can I please have a break from this without you making claims like the ones above when I am gone, R J? I wouldnīt want to have to return and correct you. And you wouldnīt want me to either, I believe.

So please?

PS. Noted your post 3632. Thank you for that. Gotta go now.

[Mark J D]

The question ... to what extent it delved into whether or not the carman was actually called Cross is another matter. He was clearly a carman, he would have driven a cart that was in all probability marked ”Pickfords” and so why would the police suspect he used an alternative name? Would they send somebody to Pickfords to check that out? ”We have this carman, working for you and driving your goods on your cart. Can you tell us if he is called something else than what he says?”

A point I've not seen elaborated sufficiently is the way turning up in his carman get-up -- rather than a formal suit -- in the middle of his working day was only a little bit of the total *performance art*... "Excuse me, Constable. As you can see, I'm a busy working man, and I'm needed at the inquest that's being held in this building. Could you possibly keep an eye on my PICKFORD'S CART while I'm inside -- because I'll be in big trouble with, you know, PICKFORD'S if anything happens to the stuff on it... Thanks! My late stepdad was a copper, you know. Yeah. Wonderful man. You all do a great job. I often think, if only I was five inches taller. Yes, that's the cart. The one with PICKFORD'S on it....."

We KNOW that he used the name Lechmere frequently over a very long period of years.
And we know that he used the name Cross twice. Both of them in combination with him being involved in violent deaths, by the bye.
That is what we know.

Then there's the little matter of his own death. We can see that the printed card referred to Lechmere the stiff in only the 'official' way -- which must have been a bit confusing, not to mention *excluding*, for all the thousands of people who'd supposedly known him as Cross all those years...

Just as was the case at the inquest, it would have been *the easiest thing in the world* for the family to have put *both names* on it, had both names been, uh, equally relevant...

.................................................
...........IN LOVING MEMORY............
......................of........................
........Charles Allen Lechmere..........
.............("Charlie Cross")..............
................................................
................Funeral at...................
.....St. Hypocrite's Church, Bow......
.........11am, 4 January 1921..........
........Beer and sandwiches at.........
........The Stuck Pig, Mile End.........
..............2pm to closing...............
..........No Juwes. No whores..........
........ Bring cutlery and apron.........
................................................

M.

[Mark J D]

I find the whole debate over Lechmere astonishing.

Indeed. And what disgusts me most about it is the amount of further investigation of records and reports that *still isn't happening* because so many Lechmere rejectionists are screaming "Stop thinking about Lechmere! He's just a man who discovered a body!" -- and decent people are going back and fighting them over *that*...

M.

[Mark J D]

Joseph Forsdike died in 1889. The informant was Charles Lechmeres daughter M Jane Lechmere. Lechmere, not Cross. Born in 1875. By the Lechmere name. That, and many other entries where Charles Lechmere gives his name as Charles Lechmere are available from the 1870:s, in sharp contrast to what R J will have us believe.

We note also that Lechmere's kids were registered as Lechmeres when they switched schools following the move to Doveton Street in mid-1888. So, still no indication that he despised the Lechmere name -- and no chance of any nosey teacher wanting to know if the little'uns were related to the suddenly famous 'Mr Cross' who found a ripped-up whore in Buck's Row...

... unless, of course, the teacher bought The Star and knew about the address:

"My newspaper said this man Cross lives at number 22. Won't that have been your daddy?"

"No. My daddy's name is Lechmere. Same as mine."

"But the newspaper said 22 Doveton Street..."

"Daddy says the papers are run by Jews and get everything wrong..."

M.

[John Wheat]

Indeed. And what disgusts me most about it is the amount of further investigation of records and reports that *still isn't happening* because so many Lechmere rejectionists are screaming "Stop thinking about Lechmere! He's just a man who discovered a body!" -- and decent people are going back and fighting them over *that*...

M.

Ridiculous

[Harry D]

If Lechmere was the killer, he had a simple binary decision to make in a very short time, and this time he’d made the wrong decision.

As the killer he would have had nothing to lose in walking on, and everything to lose in staying and incriminating himself.

The actual killers previous successful stalking and assault experiences would have shown him he was correct in taking the casual speed and stealth approach.

Just walk on.

Ah, but not only did Lechmere remain at the scene of crime, he approached the first witness on the scene, who was trying to avoid him, and took him to inspect the body! He also pulled some smoke & mirrors to make sure Paul never saw the freshly-made mutilations or the throat gash of his latest prey before agreeing to go and look for a copper.

I've never heard of anything so stupid in my life.

[The Baron]

But not only that, he also attended voluntarily the inquest and stood there contradicting the copper in front of all the police and the coroner and the jury and the journalists of all kind, and went killing again in 5 days!

Never heard of anything so blatantly stupid, no theory had ever degraded to that low level



The Baron

[Harry D]

But not only that, he also attended voluntarily the inquest and stood there contradicting the copper in front of all the police and the coroner and the jury and the journalists of all kind, and went killing again in 5 days!

Never heard of anything so blatantly stupid, no theory had ever degraded to that low level



The Baron

And don't forget he testified that he saw no one else at the scene of the crime.

Apparently it was too risky for Lechmere to lie and say he saw someone else, just in case a witness emerged who contradicted him.

And we all know that Lechmere the psychopath wouldn't take any unnecessary gambles.

Hang on...

[paul g]

“ And once the murders left Whitechapel, they instead took place in two other spots that he could be closely linked to. On a Saturday nIshtar.

what is the close link and the supporting evidence/opinion to confirm the close link.

thanks

[Dickere]

A point I've not seen elaborated sufficiently is the way turning up in his carman get-up -- rather than a formal suit -- in the middle of his working day was only a little bit of the total *performance art*... "Excuse me, Constable. As you can see, I'm a busy working man, and I'm needed at the inquest that's being held in this building. Could you possibly keep an eye on my PICKFORD'S CART while I'm inside -- because I'll be in big trouble with, you know, PICKFORD'S if anything happens to the stuff on it... Thanks! My late stepdad was a copper, you know. Yeah. Wonderful man. You all do a great job. I often think, if only I was five inches taller. Yes, that's the cart. The one with PICKFORD'S on it....."



Then there's the little matter of his own death. We can see that the printed card referred to Lechmere the stiff in only the 'official' way -- which must have been a bit confusing, not to mention *excluding*, for all the thousands of people who'd supposedly known him as Cross all those years...

Just as was the case at the inquest, it would have been *the easiest thing in the world* for the family to have put *both names* on it, had both names been, uh, equally relevant...

.................................................
...........IN LOVING MEMORY............
......................of........................
........Charles Allen Lechmere..........
.............("Charlie Cross")..............
................................................
................Funeral at...................
.....St. Hypocrite's Church, Bow......
.........11am, 4 January 1921..........
........Beer and sandwiches at.........
........The Stuck Pig, Mile End.........
..............2pm to closing...............
..........No Juwes. No whores..........
........ Bring cutlery and apron.........
................................................

M.

Lol very good.

A separate service for whores at 3.45AM perhaps ?

[FrankO]

Furthermore, looking at the picture below of Nichols wounds, for these wounds to be concealed, I would suggest that Lechmere’s statements about the dress being pulled down to thighs / knees is accurate. I would add that this wouldn’t happen naturally from the lying down position.

It does seem, however, that the “lying down position” caused the dress to get stuck under the body in such a way that Paul wasn’t able to pull it down more than some 20 cm at most. Seeing that this, too, happened in the only case where the killer left the abdominal wounds covered and where he hadn’t pulled or cut out any intestines or organs, I find it interesting.

[drstrange169]

>>... speak of signing ”a few documents” when speaking of around a hundred documents, as if it was of no significance. While using another name two (2) times is somehow decisive…?<<


R.J. used the iceberg analogy and it’s a good one.

When anyone is asked for exact details of these “signings” things always become vague as do the numbers, which have decreased over the years as people found out some of these supposed “signings” were actually civil servants simply duplicating government paperwork and nothing to do with Lechmere’s “signing” anything. The number of actual “signatures” seems to be between 50 and 100. My guess is closer to 50 than 100, but if anyone wants to provide a list, I’m happy to revise my opinion.

The claim is often used that the name Cross was signed twice, but is that so?

If he was called Cross at Pickfords, which the evidence seems to suggest, how many times would he have signed the name Cross?

I’m old enough to remember getting a pay packet at the end of each week with real money in it, which we had to sign for. Allowing for holidays and sick days lets assume he signed Cross 50 times in a year. Already, we are close to the amount of Lechmere signatures, but by 1888 he claimed to have worked at Pickfords for 20 years. That’s 1,000 Cross signatures. Carmen had to sign for their loads, assuming he only did one delivery a day, which is highly unlikely, we are looking at around 300 signatures a year, times 20 that’s 6,000!
Realistically, there could be easily over 10,000 Cross signatures waiting to be found.
That’s some iceberg!

Of course, there is a chance that he signed himself Lechmere on those slips. That’s the problem, we don’t know until we find some. So, to claim a conclusion about how he most commonly signed his name when the vast bulk of his signatures are undiscovered is simply another unscientific fabrication to make him look guilty isn’t it?

How can any serious researcher draw a firm conclusion about something when they don’t have the vast majority of the evidence?

[Doctored Whatsit]

>>... speak of signing ”a few documents” when speaking of around a hundred documents, as if it was of no significance. While using another name two (2) times is somehow decisive…?<<


R.J. used the iceberg analogy and it’s a good one.

When anyone is asked for exact details of these “signings” things always become vague as do the numbers, which have decreased over the years as people found out some of these supposed “signings” were actually civil servants simply duplicating government paperwork and nothing to do with Lechmere’s “signing” anything. The number of actual “signatures” seems to be between 50 and 100. My guess is closer to 50 than 100, but if anyone wants to provide a list, I’m happy to revise my opinion.

The claim is often used that the name Cross was signed twice, but is that so?

If he was called Cross at Pickfords, which the evidence seems to suggest, how many times would he have signed the name Cross?

I’m old enough to remember getting a pay packet at the end of each week with real money in it, which we had to sign for. Allowing for holidays and sick days lets assume he signed Cross 50 times in a year. Already, we are close to the amount of Lechmere signatures, but by 1888 he claimed to have worked at Pickfords for 20 years. That’s 1,000 Cross signatures. Carmen had to sign for their loads, assuming he only did one delivery a day, which is highly unlikely, we are looking at around 300 signatures a year, times 20 that’s 6,000!
Realistically, there could be easily over 10,000 Cross signatures waiting to be found.
That’s some iceberg!

Of course, there is a chance that he signed himself Lechmere on those slips. That’s the problem, we don’t know until we find some. So, to claim a conclusion about how he most commonly signed his name when the vast bulk of his signatures are undiscovered is simply another unscientific fabrication to make him look guilty isn’t it?

How can any serious researcher draw a firm conclusion about something when they don’t have the vast majority of the evidence?

That is absolutely crystal clear, Dusty, to anyone who doesn't have an agenda. As I previously wrote, official records catalogue a tiny portion of a life, but persist, whereas almost the entire ordinary everyday life, more than 95%, has no official record. It is the 95% plus that is relevant here. If he was Cross at Pickfords, which evidence suggests he was, then he was Cross for the vast majority of his life up to and including 1888.