Evidence of innocence

[Dickere]

I'm waiting to see this thread go back on topic.

How the devil Lechmere's status as a suspected serial killer can be played up or undermined by any old financial or marital irregularity, real or imagined, concerning other family members is quite beyond my own admittedly limited powers of reasoning.

Would it have helped them to nail Harold Shipman, I wonder, to find evidence that his auntie once held premium bonds, allegedly bought with ill-gotten funds that had been laundered by a lover?

Edited to add...

Free the Pickfords One!

Love,

Caz, One Not Remotely Angry Woman
X

Hanbury St's half-hour.

I'll get my cloak.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm afraid you'll be waiting awhile, Dearie. A once rigorous debate on evidence has devolved into a mashup of Ma Latchmere's bigamous marriages, wills & trusts et al ...

This is now The Mother of All Sidebars


{see what I did there}

I too am puzzled as to how that happened, with Edward Stow leading the character assassination of Lechmere's mother and labelling anyone who dares to question his case 'ignorant'.

But then, I was puzzled as to how he and Holmgren could have developed the Man from Pickfords, who murders women on his way to work, into the Torso Murderer.

By the way, Stow says he can't prove that Lechmere was on his way to work when the last four victims were killed, which is just about the only thing he has said with which I agree.

His case against Lechmere's mother rests on a misreading of the relevant law, which he claims specifically mentions 'death', which it doesn't, and his case against Lechmere hinges on a misreading of the inquest testimony, in which he preferred the testimony of one witness to that of three policemen.

He has admitted that it is uncertain that his case against Lechmere's mother would have stood up in court, and I would add to that that it is very uncertain that his case against Lechmere would even have reached court.

I am told that his wife is a descendant of Lechmere's, which makes me wonder about his wife's self-respect and his own sense of respect for his in-laws, now that he is pursuing both Lechmeres.

I think I read somewhere that Lechmere's descendants have been enthusiastically embracing Stow's bizarre claims, possibly because they seem unaware of the distinction between fame and notoriety, or perhaps they have been infected with a new strain of Stocholm Syndrome, which could be named Stow Syndrome.

[Paddy Goose]

I'm waiting to see this thread go back on topic.

I'm afraid you'll be waiting awhile, Dearie. A once rigorous debate on evidence has devolved into a mashup of Ma Latchmere's bigamous marriages, wills & trusts et al ...

This is now The Mother of All Sidebars


{see what I did there}

[caz]

I'm waiting to see this thread go back on topic.

How the devil Lechmere's status as a suspected serial killer can be played up or undermined by any old financial or marital irregularity, real or imagined, concerning other family members is quite beyond my own admittedly limited powers of reasoning.

Would it have helped them to nail Harold Shipman, I wonder, to find evidence that his auntie once held premium bonds, allegedly bought with ill-gotten funds that had been laundered by a lover?

Edited to add...

Free the Pickfords One!

Love,

Caz, One Not Remotely Angry Woman
X

[MrBarnett]

I’m still waiting to hear from Lady Godiver how his Googling trumps my sources.

[MrBarnett]

According to the link, Ms James handles modern corporate trust law. I have no doubt in her skill in her chosen specialty, but it does not make her an expert on the property rights of mid-19th century British women.



The source of the quote is the 25 November, 1859 Jersey Independent and Daily Telegraph.

That's a reporter, not a lawyer. And they're upset because a law court had decided that a husband did own his wife's trust income. Which contradicts your opinion.



Agreed. As I have already said, the wording is quite clear in wanting the trust income to go to Thomas Roulson's three daughters, not their husbands. (Perhaps John Allen Lechmere wasn't the only rotter in the bunch.)

But the law may not have allowed what Thomas Roulston wanted. Until the married women's property act of 1870, all of a married woman's property and income belonged to her husband.

‘May not have allowed what Thomas Roulson wanted’?

Do you imagine that Thomas Roulson, the Clive’s butler, worded the will himself? And the Rev. Archer Clive agreed to be a trustee of an estate based on his father’s butler’s imperfect knowledge of English law? Don’t be daft, the will would have been drawn up by a solicitor, most likely the Clives’ solicitor.

You have said that JAL ‘probably’ made off with Maria’s inheritance. Since it was in the form of an income from her father’s assets, perhaps you can explain how he could have done so without it being known that he was still alive.

[Fiver]

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/megan-james-733539b9

According to the link, Ms James handles modern corporate trust law. I have no doubt in her skill in her chosen specialty, but it does not make her an expert on the property rights of mid-19th century British women.

The source of the quote is on JTRForums.

The source of the quote is the 25 November, 1859 Jersey Independent and Daily Telegraph.

That's a reporter, not a lawyer. And they're upset because a law court had decided that a husband did own his wife's trust income. Which contradicts your opinion.

And the wording of Roulson’s Will is plain to see.

Agreed. As I have already said, the wording is quite clear in wanting the trust income to go to Thomas Roulson's three daughters, not their husbands. (Perhaps John Allen Lechmere wasn't the only rotter in the bunch.)

But the law may not have allowed what Thomas Roulston wanted. Until the married women's property act of 1870, all of a married woman's property and income belonged to her husband.

[Dickere]

Well, you get off lightly, Gary, if all you are falsely accused of is misogyny.

Poor old Lechmere is falsely accused of infinitely worse, and he has no right of reply from where he must be turning in his grave.

Much as I dislike bringing Hallie's comic into view again so soon [see what I did there?], I do so because Lechmere accusers are missing a powerful ally by dissing her 'sleeping rough' argument. If Polly Nichols was having forty winks in Buck's Row, when the ripper saw her and swiftly satisfied his Sleeping Beauty fetish, it would then make it plausible that Lechmere was that man, because she would indeed have looked to him from a distance like - drum roll - a tarpaulin! When he got close enough to hear the tarpaulin snoring softly, he'd have known his luck was about to change. Afterwards, he would have been able to say, from a lived experience, that when he first saw the baggage lying in the road, he took it to be a tarpaulin. Naturally he would not have added the small detail that she was alive and well at that point.

It's smart to mix truths with half truths and lies,
When you're pulling the wool over Mr Plod's eyes.

Lechmere could not have done this without Hallie's help, however. Had he seen Polly in life, looking like she was on her last legs, but walking upright if a bit unsteadily, he could not have unseen her as a human being in death, and then been able to picture what an innocent person would have seen instead, on their way to another twelve hour shift. We know Robert Paul would have preferred to give both the stranger and his tarpaulin a wide berth and not engage with either, had he not been asked over to inspect Lechmere's baggage for himself.

Free the Pickfords One! Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? Brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten! Is all this to be forgotten?

Love,

Cazanthony Aloysius Hancock
X

Just a pint please Polly, it's very nearly an armful. But I'll take it downstairs preferably. Damn, here's Paul...

[caz]

Funny you should mention Hallie, I bet she approves of the false accusations of misogyny flying around on this thread.

Well, you get off lightly, Gary, if all you are falsely accused of is misogyny.

Poor old Lechmere is falsely accused of infinitely worse, and he has no right of reply from where he must be turning in his grave.

Much as I dislike bringing Hallie's comic into view again so soon [see what I did there?], I do so because Lechmere accusers are missing a powerful ally by dissing her 'sleeping rough' argument. If Polly Nichols was having forty winks in Buck's Row, when the ripper saw her and swiftly satisfied his Sleeping Beauty fetish, it would then make it plausible that Lechmere was that man, because she would indeed have looked to him from a distance like - drum roll - a tarpaulin! When he got close enough to hear the tarpaulin snoring softly, he'd have known his luck was about to change. Afterwards, he would have been able to say, from a lived experience, that when he first saw the baggage lying in the road, he took it to be a tarpaulin. Naturally he would not have added the small detail that she was alive and well at that point.

It's smart to mix truths with half truths and lies,
When you're pulling the wool over Mr Plod's eyes.

Lechmere could not have done this without Hallie's help, however. Had he seen Polly in life, looking like she was on her last legs, but walking upright if a bit unsteadily, he could not have unseen her as a human being in death, and then been able to picture what an innocent person would have seen instead, on their way to another twelve hour shift. We know Robert Paul would have preferred to give both the stranger and his tarpaulin a wide berth and not engage with either, had he not been asked over to inspect Lechmere's baggage for himself.

Free the Pickfords One! Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? Brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten! Is all this to be forgotten?

Love,

Cazanthony Aloysius Hancock
X

[caz]

"With a legal background"? What does that even mean? Is Meghan James an expert in mid-19th century British trust law?

Hi Fiver,

Would this count?

I was once a solicitor's receptionist and accounts assistant, and my better half used to be a barrister's clerk. Oh the stories we could tell...

I haven't the foggiest what any of this discussion about trusts and legacies has to do with the title of this thread, which I'll address shortly.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

So you are now claiming that Meghan James is an expert in mid-19th century British trust law? Feel free to provide her credentials.

And a source for your alleged 1859 quote.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/megan-james-733539b9

And your credentials are?

The source of the quote is on JTRForums. And the wording of Roulson’s Will is plain to see.

[Fiver]

Not my opinion. Expert opinion. Plus evidence from the wording of Thomas Roulson’s will. That trumps your googling I’m afraid.

So you are now claiming that Meghan James is an expert in mid-19th century British trust law? Feel free to provide her credentials.

And a source for your alleged 1859 quote.

[Fiver]

Of course, his first wife’s inheritance was in the form of income from investments, so he couldn’t have stolen all of it without maintaining contact with her. And the terms of her father’s will protected her inheritance from her husband:

And from and after her decease then in trust to pay out equal third part or share of the dividends interest and produce of the said trust stock funds and securities to such person or persons in such manner as each of my three daughters shall notwithstanding her (7) by any writing or writings from time to time but not in the way of anticipation direct or appoint (9) for want or in default of such appointment then in trust to pay out equal third part or share of the said interest dividends or product unto cash of my said daughters for her own sole and separate use free from the debts contracts control or engagements of her husband

See, you do understand transcription of records.

It is obvious that Thomas Roulston wanted to protect his daughters financial legacies from their husbands. In the case of John Allen Lechmere, this concern appears justified. But we don't know if that was enough to legally keep the husbands from getting control of the money.

We have seen modern and contemporary opinions that confirm that assets held in trust to provide income for a married woman were safe from her husband.

Trustee property in England cannot be diverted from its original purpose. If a married woman has an income under a deed of trust, it is hers only. (1859)

What is your source? According to Google, this quote has appeared only in this post of yours.

Some years ago Meghan James, a JTRF poster with a legal background, gave this opinion:

Generally, prior to the Married Women's Property Law Act 1882, women’s property right were dependent upon their marital status – once married, based upon the common law principal of coverture, under which a married woman’s legal status was known as ‘feme covert', ‘property’ could neither be inherited or owned to the exclusion of their husbands, hence the maxim: ‘husband and wife were one person and that person was the husband’. However, in reality, it wasn’t quite as simple as that. Deeds of Settlement provided for married women to own money in trust and annuities to provide income separate from the husband. It was possible to make explicit bequests in the form of trusts to married daughters to the exclusion of their husbands but that was dependent upon the complexities of the trust. So in answer to your question, yes, these bequests were protected. (2021)


’It wasn’t quite as simple as that.’

"With a legal background"? What does that even mean? Is Meghan James an expert in mid-19th century British trust law?

[MrBarnett]

Not my opinion. Expert opinion. Plus evidence from the wording of Thomas Roulson’s will. That trumps your googling I’m afraid.

[Fiver]

You’ve seen the evidence, but choose to ignore it.

I have seen your opinion.

Opinions are not evidence.