Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • >>And there are no records to show he was ever checked out. If the police had taken the stance that as the finder (the ‘found’ finder) of the body he needed a thorough check out, wouldn’t there be a hint of it in a report somewhere?<<

    Where's the hint of a report that Paul was the subject of a massive police hunt? Where's the report of him being questioned all night? Do you think they checked him out?
    Last edited by drstrange169; 01-14-2022, 10:48 PM.
    dustymiller
    aka drstrange

    Comment


    • >>why would the police interview him anyway ? He was just some random and his pal passing on a message. <<

      How about the fact that he turned up to the police station with a story that Neil was not the first to find the body?
      How about the fact that at that stage nobody could confirm his version?
      How about the fact that at the inquest a policeman gave a different version of what was said?
      How about the fact that another muder was committed where Cross claimed to have walked past.
      How about the fact that Paul was still in hiding and NOBODY could confirm Cross's story?
      Last edited by drstrange169; 01-14-2022, 10:49 PM.
      dustymiller
      aka drstrange

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        So what happened to all the reports of such checking out? Or would they have just remained as notes in PC’s notebooks?


        As he was not regarded as a suspect the police would have not needed to take a statement from his wife. Whatever officer was allocated to check his account would have recorded his visit in his pocket notebook and that she confirmed his account.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • >>We really must learn just to ignore all postings that reduce to "The police would surely have..."<<

          But let's not learn to ignore all the postings that reduce Lechmere to must have, left home early, must have a time gap, must have been seen by Paul, must have stayed instead of fleeing, must have been the killer, must have lied to Mizen, must have gone back to Hanbury St whilst he was working, must have walked past the other murder sites even though it wasn't on his route to work, must have broken inquest rules by not stating his address, Baxter must have broken inquest rules by not telling the jury that he supposedly didn't believe the policemen, three policemen must have lied under oath, etc, etc. and on and on ad infinitum.

          The ENTIRE Lechmere case is solely built on "must haves"! You win the award for this weeks most hypocritical post.
          Last edited by drstrange169; 01-14-2022, 10:57 PM.
          dustymiller
          aka drstrange

          Comment


          • Today on things that didn’t happen.

            How about the fact that he turned up to the police station with a story that Neil was not the first to find the body?

            Even by your standards Dusty this is complete drivel. I don’t know how you have the brass neck to just invent stuff.

            I actually know how you will try to weasel out of this. Probably you will say he had to contact the police to appear at the inquest. This is of course incorrect, although you still regularly cling on to it.

            So I hereby challenge Dusty, or anyone on this thread, to to prove ANY evidence of Lechmere contacting the police. Actual evidence, not just the usual speculation based on his inquest appearance. I’ll wait.
            Last edited by SuperShodan; 01-15-2022, 12:13 AM.

            Comment


            • And I hereby challenge you Bob to PROVE that there was a ‘gap.’ Not ‘might have been,’ not ‘could have been if x occurred,’ but proof that there was something there to raise suspicion against Lechmere in Bucks Row.
              Regards

              Herlock Sholmes

              Comment


              • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                >>You could have started your post, ‘A man was found standing near a recently killed body …’ and then gone on to tell us how the murders in Whitechapel and Spitalfields began almost as soon as he changed his work route to take him through Whitechapel and Spitalfields. Or pointed out that we only have his version of how long he was at the murder site, and that in any case the murder and injuries would only have taken a few minutes, so he had no ‘alibi’ for the Nichols murder.
                The same story can be told in different ways.
                I’d be interested to know how you know who his employers were after 1888. If we can look at the meagre evidence of two later censuses and draw conclusions about his character, why can’t we go back to his upbringing and draw conclusions about what his feelings towards prostitutes might have been.
                Gary <<


                The difference is, Herlock post was almost entirely composed of telling the known facts, your post was composed almost entirely of speculation and theres the rub.
                Well let’s have a look, shall we?



                According to Mike (sorry!),

                Lechmere finds a body (established fact?)

                He passes the spot 6 days a week (established fact?) at the same time (established fact?)

                He goes on to work for the same company for years (established fact?)

                Paul and Mizen see nothing suspicious in him (established fact?)

                Facts? They’re all stated as such.



                Then we have the avowedly conjectural:

                He lives what appears to be a reasonable life with a family.

                We don’t know if the police checked his alibi but it has to be a strong possibility.


                Then we have the ‘facts’:

                He has a legitimate reason for being in Buck’s Row at 3.45. on that morning. (We don’t actually know that, but let’s give him that one).

                A second man appears and they go for a constable. (Can’t argue with that one.)

                We have no way of knowing how long he has been with the body. (Certainly can’t argue with that one!)

                He makes no attempt to flee and he attends the inquest so, he’s not hiding away. (I’m in two minds here - Charles Cross wasn’t hidden, but Charles Allen Lechmere was.)

                Of course, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with Mike taking a view on things and calling it as he sees it. But for you to claim that his version of events is almost entirely factual and mine is … fantastical? … is bordering on dishonest.
                Last edited by MrBarnett; 01-15-2022, 12:37 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                  And I hereby challenge you Bob to PROVE that there was a ‘gap.’ Not ‘might have been,’ not ‘could have been if x occurred,’ but proof that there was something there to raise suspicion against Lechmere in Bucks Row.
                  Easy. We have the timings from the inquest. Our suspect himself says he leaves about 03.30 and the Coroner himself sets the time the body was found as being close to 03.45. So we have around a 15 minute gap. Its worth noting if you play around with the inquest times and witness statements it can actually make this gap even bigger. 15 minutes could actually be an under estimate, especially as a couple of news papers have Lechmere leaving at 03.20.
                  Now it’s your turn. Evidence of the police contacting Lechmere pls.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                    >>You could have started your post, ‘A man was found standing near a recently killed body …’ and then gone on to tell us how the murders in Whitechapel and Spitalfields began almost as soon as he changed his work route to take him through Whitechapel and Spitalfields. Or pointed out that we only have his version of how long he was at the murder site, and that in any case the murder and injuries would only have taken a few minutes, so he had no ‘alibi’ for the Nichols murder.
                    The same story can be told in different ways.
                    I’d be interested to know how you know who his employers were after 1888. If we can look at the meagre evidence of two later censuses and draw conclusions about his character, why can’t we go back to his upbringing and draw conclusions about what his feelings towards prostitutes might have been.
                    Gary <<


                    The difference is, Herlock post was almost entirely composed of telling the known facts, your post was composed almost entirely of speculation and theres the rub.
                    So my post was almost entirely speculative was it?

                    Perhaps you can tell me where:


                    Lechmere was found standing near a recently killed body.

                    The Spitalfields and Whitechapel murders started within a few weeks of CAL adopting a work route that took him through Whitechapel and Spitalfields.

                    We do not know how long he was with the body.

                    The murder and injuries would have taken minutes.


                    And my last point is to counter Mike’s conjectural assessment of CAL’s character post - 1888 with mine of how I imagine his mother would have warned him against the prostitutes of Tiger Bay.








                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                      Easy. We have the timings from the inquest. Our suspect himself says he leaves about 03.30 and the Coroner himself sets the time the body was found as being close to 03.45. So we have around a 15 minute gap. Its worth noting if you play around with the inquest times and witness statements it can actually make this gap even bigger. 15 minutes could actually be an under estimate, especially as a couple of news papers have Lechmere leaving at 03.20.
                      Now it’s your turn. Evidence of the police contacting Lechmere pls.
                      Mike has already answered that one:

                      “We don’t know if the police checked his alibi but it has to be a strong possibility.”



                      Comment


                      • Witnesses appear at an inquest at the request of the coroner via a summons. In criminal inquest cases the corner chooses the witness from the police investigations.

                        https://coronerscourtssupportservice...29317221_3.pdf

                        Points 5.3 and 6.

                        How about.

                        https://coronerscourtssupportservice...29317221_3.pdf

                        Perhaps this might help,

                        https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/5..._for_a_coroner

                        or,

                        https://www.roydswithyking.com/injur...e-to-inquests/

                        I can keep posting all day if you want, theres 100's more.

                        If you have information to the contrary feel free to post it.

                        Just because you fake evidence and think it's acceptable, doesn't mean everyone thinks it's ok to do it.

                        To date, people have disagreed with me, as is their right, but none have proven anything I've written is wrong. Sadly you can't say the same can you?
                        dustymiller
                        aka drstrange

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                          >>We really must learn just to ignore all postings that reduce to "The police would surely have..."<<

                          But let's not learn to ignore all the postings that reduce Lechmere to must have, left home early, must have a time gap, must have been seen by Paul, must have stayed instead of fleeing, must have been the killer, must have lied to Mizen, must have gone back to Hanbury St whilst he was working, must have walked past the other murder sites even though it wasn't on his route to work, must have broken inquest rules by not stating his address, Baxter must have broken inquest rules by not telling the jury that he supposedly didn't believe the policemen, three policemen must have lied under oath, etc, etc. and on and on ad infinitum.

                          The ENTIRE Lechmere case is solely built on "must haves"! You win the award for this weeks most hypocritical post.
                          Was there ever a ‘must have stayed’? If so, I must have missed it. I thought staying was claimed to be absurd, ‘suicidal’ and other hyperboles by one side and a plausible reaction by the other.

                          This is quite important, Dusty.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                            >>Why does Paul not see him before that ? It’s not possible to walk 80 or 90m up Bucks Row and not notice a man walking in front of you.<<

                            Not as impossible as Cross magically appearing in the middle of the road unnoticed. Now we are talking about "fantasy" as Gary defines it.
                            Really? Is that how I defined it?

                            Perhaps CAL had one of those rings. Perhaps the ring?

                            One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them; In the Land of Mordor where the shadows lie.
                            Last edited by MrBarnett; 01-15-2022, 12:52 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                              Witnesses appear at an inquest at the request of the coroner via a summons. In criminal inquest cases the corner chooses the witness from the police investigations.

                              https://coronerscourtssupportservice...29317221_3.pdf

                              Points 5.3 and 6.

                              How about.

                              https://coronerscourtssupportservice...29317221_3.pdf

                              Perhaps this might help,

                              https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/5..._for_a_coroner

                              or,

                              https://www.roydswithyking.com/injur...e-to-inquests/

                              I can keep posting all day if you want, theres 100's more.

                              If you have information to the contrary feel free to post it.

                              Just because you fake evidence and think it's acceptable, doesn't mean everyone thinks it's ok to do it.

                              To date, people have disagreed with me, as is their right, but none have proven anything I've written is wrong. Sadly you can't say the same can you?
                              It’s still early.

                              But your examples above aren’t. Are you trying to tell us that the way inquests functioned in the Victorian East End is the same as today?

                              Last edited by MrBarnett; 01-15-2022, 12:56 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                                Witnesses appear at an inquest at the request of the coroner via a summons. In criminal inquest cases the corner chooses the witness from the police investigations.

                                https://coronerscourtssupportservice...29317221_3.pdf

                                Points 5.3 and 6.

                                How about.

                                https://coronerscourtssupportservice...29317221_3.pdf

                                Perhaps this might help,

                                https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/5..._for_a_coroner

                                or,

                                https://www.roydswithyking.com/injur...e-to-inquests/

                                I can keep posting all day if you want, theres 100's more.

                                If you have information to the contrary feel free to post it.

                                Just because you fake evidence and think it's acceptable, doesn't mean everyone thinks it's ok to do it.

                                To date, people have disagreed with me, as is their right, but none have proven anything I've written is wrong. Sadly you can't say the same can you?
                                Copy and paste Dusty grabbing some stuff off Google that’s 130 years out of date. Researchers like Ed Stow and others have looked into this issue in great depth and established the protocol. You could actually present yourself. However, the coroner had no obligation to take your testimony.
                                Lechmere’s appearance at the inquest can’t be taken as evidence of police questioning.
                                I would add that on the first day of the inquest the police version was Neil finding the body, so it’s plainly obvious Lechmere HAD NOT been questioned by the time the inquest started. I would be interested in your explanation for that.
                                So I’m still waiting. Evidence that the police questioned Lechmere pls.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X