Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
    The idea that Lechmere killed at all is laughable.
    Actually, Charles Lechmere probably did kill someone. In December 1876, in Islington, two children darted in front of the cart of Pickford's driver Charles Cross. Cross called out and tried to brake. One child pulled back in time. The other, a four year old boy named Walter Williams, either didn't hear or slipped and went under the wheel of the cart. The child died of internal injuries after being taken to the doctor. Several witnesses testified in Cross' defense and it was ruled an accidental death.
    "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

    "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      Would you walk to work through the slums at 3.30 am wearing that apron?
      "A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." - Firefly
      "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

      "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        Actually, Charles Lechmere probably did kill someone. In December 1876, in Islington, two children darted in front of the cart of Pickford's driver Charles Cross. Cross called out and tried to brake. One child pulled back in time. The other, a four year old boy named Walter Williams, either didn't hear or slipped and went under the wheel of the cart. The child died of internal injuries after being taken to the doctor. Several witnesses testified in Cross' defense and it was ruled an accidental death.
        Not sure we could pin that one on Lech .

        Another Cross prehaps ?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
          The idea that Lechmere killed at all is laughable.
          I would say the idea that Lechmere was a murderer is laughable.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Not sure we could pin that one on Lech .

            Another Cross prehaps ?
            No, Fiver is correct.

            Charles Cross was 100% involved in the 1876 incident in Islington.

            If I recall the boy clipped the back wheel and was drawn under it. I need to check my notes on that one.

            Cross tried to either stop and/or avoid the boy, but there was no time.

            It is evident from the many witness statements that it was a dreadful accident and Charles was not to blame for the boy's death whatsoever.

            It would have certainly been a traumatic experience for all concerned at the time.


            RD
            "Great minds, don't think alike"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
              I'm still not seeing why he would have brought his work apron back & forth, though it is possible.
              Hi Roger,

              I've always pictured both Lechmere and Paul wearing their aprons, or, otherwise, how could Mizen have said that they appeared to be carmen?

              Cheers,
              Frank
              "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
              Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

              Comment


              • Surely if the horse drawn cart was going up and down Hanbury Street at silly o'clock in the morning it would have been 'noticed.' I can't remember reading any witness statements confirming a cart in Hanbury Street around the required time. Unless he parked it somewhere else making it more risky to lose stock.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                  Hi Roger,

                  I've always pictured both Lechmere and Paul wearing their aprons, or, otherwise, how could Mizen have said that they appeared to be carmen?

                  Cheers,
                  Frank

                  "Wearing bloodstained overalls [sic], his job potentially placed him near four of the killings at the time they occurred..." Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence


                  Hi Frank,

                  Fair enough and you could be correct, but if it was me, I'm trying to imagine why I would walk 20-25 minutes to work over dark, uneven London pavements wearing a somewhat restrictive apron down to my mid-ankles, particularly if I had to outrun the occasional street gang roaming the streets at 3.30 a.m. Then again, maybe the apron would be a calling card of sorts: "don't bother mugging me, mate, I'm clearly broke until Friday."

                  What was his method of operation? If he picks up a woman wearing this long, blood-stained apron down past his knees, and goes with her into a back alley, does she expect him to loosen it and heave it over one shoulder while he unbuttons his trousers?

                  Was he so dressed when he picked up Mary Kelly at 3:45 a.m., and would she have invited him into her room if he was wearing "bloodstained overalls"?

                  I suppose if she's drunk and desperate enough.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	image.png
Views:	177
Size:	26.3 KB
ID:	832983

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post


                    "Wearing bloodstained overalls [sic], his job potentially placed him near four of the killings at the time they occurred..." Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence
                    Yet more nonsense from the "documentary". Carmen wore aprons, not overalls. Carmen were delivery drivers, not slaughtermen. His job placed him one killing at around the time it occurred.

                    But why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory.
                    "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                    "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Geddy2112 View Post
                      Surely if the horse drawn cart was going up and down Hanbury Street at silly o'clock in the morning it would have been 'noticed.' I can't remember reading any witness statements confirming a cart in Hanbury Street around the required time. Unless he parked it somewhere else making it more risky to lose stock.
                      I believe about a week ago, someone quoted Stow as saying that if the Chapman murder occurred around 5:30, Cross could have parked the cart a considerable distance from where the murder occurred, and would have had someone guarding the cart while he was gone. Of course that raises the problems involved with the person guarding the cart being a witness.

                      Comment


                      • Would Lech take the chance of killing Annie where and when he did ? It was only five days after he appeared at the inquest, Annie was murdered. Would he not have a cooling off period after being nearly caught by Paul ? And would he take the chance that no one in the police force didn't suspect him and shadowed his movements ? Or at work for that matter, bloody apron [ again ] just after a murder and what did he do with the missing body parts ? The murder was not far from were Robert Paul worked as well, suppose he spotted Lech ? Again would this man who is a cool psychopath who thinks on his feet really risk that murder so soon after the other and having been in a coroners court and probably [ at least ], given a statement to the police in the meantime . It is not impossible but i doubt it .

                        The time gap between the rippers killing spree nights is the least between Polly and Annie. That suggests to me that he was extremely confident that no one suspected him and there wasn't the slightest description of him with no one seeing him in the vicinity of Bucks Row, so there was no need for him to lay low for at least a few weeks.
                        That to me doesn't apply to Lech

                        Just a few thoughts Darryl .

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lewis C View Post

                          I believe about a week ago, someone quoted Stow as saying that if the Chapman murder occurred around 5:30, Cross could have parked the cart a considerable distance from where the murder occurred, and would have had someone guarding the cart while he was gone. Of course that raises the problems involved with the person guarding the cart being a witness.
                          Hi Lewis C

                          I'm sure you know this but I'm going to say it anyway. What Stow is saying is incorrect. Cross didn't murder anyone. So the problems involved with a witness is immaterial. Stow seems to be getting desperate and coming up with more outlandish statements.

                          Cheers John

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                            Fair enough and you could be correct, but if it was me, I'm trying to imagine why I would walk 20-25 minutes to work over dark, uneven London pavements wearing a somewhat restrictive apron down to my mid-ankles, particularly if I had to outrun the occasional street gang roaming the streets at 3.30 a.m. Then again, maybe the apron would be a calling card of sorts: "don't bother mugging me, mate, I'm clearly broke until Friday."
                            Hi Roger,

                            Thanks for your reply. I don’t know if these aprons would actually be so restrictive; they don’t look very restrictive to me, but I may well be wrong.

                            What was his method of operation? If he picks up a woman wearing this long, blood-stained apron down past his knees, and goes with her into a back alley, does she expect him to loosen it and heave it over one shoulder while he unbuttons his trousers?

                            Was he so dressed when he picked up Mary Kelly at 3:45 a.m., and would she have invited him into her room if he was wearing "bloodstained overalls"?

                            I suppose if she's drunk and desperate enough.​
                            As to a guilty Lechmere wearing his apron while ‘going at it’, I agree with you that it doesn’t seem a particularly good idea to wear an apron, perhaps mostly in the sense that he would be quite recognizable as a carman, which is evidenced by Mizen's testimony.

                            Cheers,
                            Frank
                            "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                            Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                              I'm sure you know this but I'm going to say it anyway. What Stow is saying is incorrect. Cross didn't murder anyone. So the problems involved with a witness is immaterial. Stow seems to be getting desperate and coming up with more outlandish statements.
                              I believe him leaving a horse drawn cart unattended for 15 or so mins whilst he found Annie, taking her round back and slaughtering her to be absolutely absurd and beyond any reasonable reasoning. The one of the many straws that kept getting clutched.
                              I've now had two more straws to add today.

                              Lechmere naysayers state 'Lechmere only found the body end of story' so now Lechmere supports don't use that statement they use 'he was found near the body' NOT he 'found the body' Oh that makes all the difference in the world. Arguing semantics... how desperate.

                              Our learned friend also claims the video documentary is not misleading or biased showing Lechmere kneeling over the body as that could have happened as 'we' were not there to state otherwise, a crocodile 'could' have scuttled across the road but they did not depict that. None of the reports/evidence state he was over the body but actually in the middle of the road which BTW is getting narrower and narrower to make that particular gap smaller. They love the shrinking or widening of a gap when it suits.

                              For me this is just the latest two examples of how very desperate the theory has become, it's resorting to manipulating the facts, showing misleading bias, arguing about semantics and distorting anything to fit. Book sales must be dropping off...
                              Last edited by Geddy2112; 04-17-2024, 09:31 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

                                As to a guilty Lechmere wearing his apron while ‘going at it’, I agree with you that it doesn’t seem a particularly good idea to wear an apron, perhaps mostly in the sense that he would be quite recognizable as a carman, which is evidenced by Mizen's testimony.

                                Cheers,
                                Frank

                                Hi Frank,

                                I don't recall if Christer or Ed ever commented on this, but the same thought occurred to me. In both the 'Bible John' and the Yorkshire Ripper cases, as well as similar cases, the police spent a fair amount of time talking to either ballroom dancers or "working ladies," on the entirely reasonable assumption that there must have been times when the murderer failed to convince a woman to go with him, so there must have been living witnesses who could describe him. (In the Bible John case this was almost certainly the case; the women who share a cab ride with him).

                                Similarly, would the ladies of East London out on the street in the early hours not have recalled being approached or followed by an overly eager carman in a long white apron? Would not White Apron have entered local mythology, along with Leather Apron? Or, if even if this was not the case, would not have Crossmere wanted to lose his apron and present himself, as you suggest, in more anonymous attire?

                                As for the horse drawn cart with Pickford's name emblazoned on the side, to be fair to Christer, I think it is only his colleagues who have suggested this in response to the often-proclaimed criticism that Dark Annie was quite probably murdered closer to 5.30 a.m.; I don't recall Christer ever straying from his belief that the murder was committed much earlier, so he deftly sidesteps this embarrassment.

                                There have been cab driver murderers, but driving a cab is very different than being a city delivery driver where one is left hopping all morning. If Cross had a habit of cruising for unfortunates or wandering off a mere 90 minutes into his shift he wouldn't have lasted twenty years. In the accounts of Pickford drivers in road accidents, etc., we often see the managers assuring the public that their drivers are encouraged and required to drive slowly and safely, but I have my doubts. The Victorian businessmen were geniuses when it came to working their employees to the point of collapse, and I imagine these drivers had a very demanding work regime. The two busiest days in the delivery business are Mondays and Fridays, but in Victorian times I imagine Saturday mornings would have been particularly hectic, as goods needed to get to their destination prior to the Sabbath.

                                Cheers.

                                Last edited by rjpalmer; 04-17-2024, 01:20 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X