Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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


  • Hi Fisherman,

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    Trevor cannot even verify that he did speak to Scobie, I´m afraid.
    I'm sure he could if he chose to, but I suspect anything short of a video recording, with signed depositions, will not be considered sufficient. Personally, I wouldn't bother trying if I were Trevor, knowing that there is nothing he could present that would be accepted of proof of something that needs to be swept under the carpet.


    It has been pointed out before that what Scobie would have done was to assess whether the points of accusation would have been enough to take Lechmere to trial. I beleive it was Paul Begg who said that such an approach is entirely kosher. If Scobie was to be provided with all the information available, it would take him years to assess it. And who would we choose to provide the information? Steve Blomer? Trevor Marriott? Me? You?
    Perhaps you can see the problems linked to the suggestion?
    It would not take years. The sum total of actual evidence, stripped of conjecture and speculation, is relatively little compared to the cases he would work on in "real life". As to who should present it to him, anybody could, provided they presented only factual information, and not coloured by their own personal interpretation of it. There would be the inquest transcripts, obviously. A map showing the relevant locations (i.e. Cross/Lechmere's home, Robert Paul's home, their places of work, where PC Mizen was, the police beats, and their likely locations at 5 minute intervals, Dr. Llewellyn's home, where the horse slaughterers worked, and so forth). I believe there's enough to suggest a route he took to work that day, when he accompanied Paul. Nowhere is it actually recorded what his normal route was, so while we could present the one mentioned in the paper, we could not present other routes as being his routes because those are not factual knowledge but speculative suggestions.

    Details about Cross/Lechmere's name, simply presented that his name was officially Lechmere, but he used the surname of his step father at the inquest. Also, that he had used the name Cross 20 years prior in another court appearance with regards to the accident where the child was killed.

    If we were trying to cover all the JtR crimes, then our above map would also include any previous locations he lived and worked in, and also his mother's residence. That couldn't include speculations that he was there, say, on the night of the double event unless that is actually documented somewhere.

    In other words, once we strip things down to what we can actually document, it wouldn't take him long to go over it. It would only take years if we pile on all of the speculations and conjectures that have been built upon a pretty sparse foundation.


    What Scobie did was to look at the points of accusation. He found them enough to take Lechmere to a murder trial that suggested that he was the killer. If anybody thinks that is uninteresting because Scobie may have been unaware that there is a controversy about when Chapman died, then they need to think again. Not least do they need to ask themselves which other suspect there is who would warrant a murder trial, going on the existing evidence against them.

    Any suggestions on that one, Jeff?
    On what one? Scobie was presented with a biased set of information, biased because it left out pertinent information. As such, his conclusion is more likely to reflect the bias then it is the case as it actually stands. Therefore, his claim that the case was good enough to go to court is meaningless. Not because he isn't qualified to offer an opinion, but because he was asked to make an opinion based upon only a subset of the information. That means, his previous opinion is not worth much because it is tainted by the bias inherent in the show's information packet they gave him.

    Even you, above, agree that Scobie doesn't have the full details, though you think it would take him years to digest all of the information. But even if that were true, that only makes my point stronger. If there is that much information that needs to be taken in, then his opinion is clearly not sound because he clearly is woefully underinformed. My view is that there is very little information of a factual nature, and if he were presented with just the facts, it would take him very little time to digest them, and I'm sure he would say something along the lines of "there's not enough here to work with."

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      If we should try and ban the word "found" from the discussion, what would we put in its place? When Robert Paul arrived outside Browns Stable Yard, he ......... Lechmere standing there. Be my guest, which is the better word? Confirmed?
      How about "met?" Paul met Lechmere at the crime scene. Lechmere approached him, brought him into his awareness and directed him to the body. This has far less sinister undertones than "Lechmere was found with the body".

      Your so-called suspect would not even be known to you had he not alerted the next person on the scene and voluntarily attended the inquest.

      Comment


      • Presumably Charles Lechmere gave his evidence under oath. Something like this:

        "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

        And then he said, ‘My name is Charles Allen Cross…’

        The truth? That’s questionable.

        The whole truth? Definitely not.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          Presumably Charles Lechmere gave his evidence under oath. Something like this:

          "I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

          And then he said, ‘My name is Charles Allen Cross…’

          The truth? That’s questionable.

          The whole truth? Definitely not.
          But how did this serve Lechmere, if he was the killer?

          I've never seen a credible argument for how "Charles Allen Cross" of Pickford and Co. at 22 Doveton Street was somehow going to bamboozle the authorities about Charles Allen Lechmere of Pickford and Co. at 22 Doveton Street.

          I could understand Lechmere perhaps giving the name "Cross" because he wanted to keep his family name out of the newspapers, but that's about it.

          Comment


          • Hi MrBarnett,

            Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

            I have no idea in what terms Trevor imparted his ‘full facts’ to Scobie. I doubt they were the ‘full’ facts though. So Scobie has twice been provided with selective facts by people hoping he will confirm their take on things, and he seems to have obliged on both occasions.
            That's a good point. But if he's so easily swayed to the view of whomever he is talking with at the moment (presumably limited to JtR topics of course), then doesn't that call into question the value of his original agreement with the case as presented in the show?


            I wonder if a third person were to give him the actual ‘full facts’ (as far as we know them) about the name issue whether he would think a jury would have viewed that in a positive or negative light?
            The facts are, he gave his step-father's surname at the inquest. While he doesn't appear to have used it often on legal documents, he has used it in a past court appearance. Along with his proper first name, he also gave his proper place of work and address.

            Given that, it still baffles me how his use of his step-father's surname is supposed to make him Jack the Ripper? I don't understand how using his step-father's surname, as he did previously in court, is supposed to be a pointer to him being guilty? How does this make him guilty? What is sinister or devious about him using his step-father's surname? I know it gets a lot of mentioning "He didn't use his name Lechmere, so he's clearly guilty"? But I don't see how the first part leads to the second, at all?

            - Jeff


            Comment


            • Hi Harry D,

              Originally posted by Harry D View Post

              But how did this serve Lechmere, if he was the killer?

              I've never seen a credible argument for how "Charles Allen Cross" of Pickford and Co. at 22 Doveton Street was somehow going to bamboozle the authorities about Charles Allen Lechmere of Pickford and Co. at 22 Doveton Street.

              I could understand Lechmere perhaps giving the name "Cross" because he wanted to keep his family name out of the newspapers, but that's about it.
              I see I'm not the only one confused about how the link is made.

              Anyway, a few days ago a random thought popped into my head similar to what you suggest (keep the family name out of the newspaper). I was thinking along the lines of, he's a carman. He makes deliveries, and probably has a set of regular stops. He may have wanted to avoid his customers being aware he had to attend a murder inquest. Maybe he thought it bad for business, or maybe he just didn't want to talk about it, etc. So, he used a name he has a legal claim to, but one by which his customer's won't recognize him.

              Of course, I have no proof of that, and it's just some random idea that drifted through my head. Your post made it pop back in for a return visit though, so I thought I would share it so it has some company.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                The facts are, he gave his step-father's surname at the inquest. While he doesn't appear to have used it often on legal documents, he has used it in a past court appearance. Along with his proper first name, he also gave his proper place of work and address.

                Given that, it still baffles me how his use of his step-father's surname is supposed to make him Jack the Ripper? I don't understand how using his step-father's surname, as he did previously in court, is supposed to be a pointer to him being guilty? How does this make him guilty? What is sinister or devious about him using his step-father's surname? I know it gets a lot of mentioning "He didn't use his name Lechmere, so he's clearly guilty"? But I don't see how the first part leads to the second, at all?

                - Jeff
                Well said Jeff . I totally agree

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  At what point did I say it was a completely false name? You seem to be reading all sorts of stuff into my post that wasn’t there.

                  We have evidence of Lechmere’s neighbours being aware of the name Lechmere while Thomas Cross was still alive. Two decades after his stepfather’s death, having moved to a new area and registered his children at school in the name of Lechmere, is it remotely plausible that he was only known by the name Cross? Clearly not, so by not revealing that his real name was Lechmere CAL was not giving the coroner the ‘full facts’. Is that the sort of thing that would impress a jury if they had been made aware of it?

                  We have no idea how selective Trevor was in providing Scobie with the ‘full facts’.


                  Apologies Mr B , reading your post again, I see that you didn't say it was a completely false name.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                    Hi Harry D,



                    I see I'm not the only one confused about how the link is made.

                    Anyway, a few days ago a random thought popped into my head similar to what you suggest (keep the family name out of the newspaper). I was thinking along the lines of, he's a carman. He makes deliveries, and probably has a set of regular stops. He may have wanted to avoid his customers being aware he had to attend a murder inquest. Maybe he thought it bad for business, or maybe he just didn't want to talk about it, etc. So, he used a name he has a legal claim to, but one by which his customer's won't recognize him.

                    Of course, I have no proof of that, and it's just some random idea that drifted through my head. Your post made it pop back in for a return visit though, so I thought I would share it so it has some company.

                    - Jeff
                    Hi Jeff
                    A thought popped into my head as well. I am just wondering since Lech used the name Cross in his past court appearance. He thought he was legally bound to use that name again.
                    Regards Darryl

                    Comment


                    • Hi Darryl,

                      Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                      Hi Jeff
                      A thought popped into my head as well. I am just wondering since Lech used the name Cross in his past court appearance. He thought he was legally bound to use that name again.
                      Regards Darryl
                      That's a possibility too. In the end, all we know as a fact is that he used his step-father's name at the inquest. We also can show it was not done to avoid identifying himself as he gives his proper first and second name, and he gives his proper address and place of work. He is also using a surname connected to him, via his step-father, and one he has used in court before. What his reason was for doing so is not recorded, and human creativity being what it is, we can make up any story, be it one saintly or sinister. But those stories are not facts.

                      Given it is impossible to build a rational case around "he was attempting to prevent the police from identifying him", I really don't understand how the name thing is a point against him. I mean, it doesn't prove his innocent either, it's more of a non-thing, but it gets stated a lot as if it is clear how it is damning of him. But it's not clear, at least not to me. Rather, quite the opposite, and I'm left befuddled trying to understand the point that's being made when it is said "He called himself Cross!", and yes, he did, but so what?

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        Hi Darryl,



                        That's a possibility too. In the end, all we know as a fact is that he used his step-father's name at the inquest. We also can show it was not done to avoid identifying himself as he gives his proper first and second name, and he gives his proper address and place of work. He is also using a surname connected to him, via his step-father, and one he has used in court before. What his reason was for doing so is not recorded, and human creativity being what it is, we can make up any story, be it one saintly or sinister. But those stories are not facts.

                        Given it is impossible to build a rational case around "he was attempting to prevent the police from identifying him", I really don't understand how the name thing is a point against him. I mean, it doesn't prove his innocent either, it's more of a non-thing, but it gets stated a lot as if it is clear how it is damning of him. But it's not clear, at least not to me. Rather, quite the opposite, and I'm left befuddled trying to understand the point that's being made when it is said "He called himself Cross!", and yes, he did, but so what?

                        - Jeff
                        But what if he was known by the name of Lechmere to some who didn’t know his address? Just for the sake of argument, and to dispel the suggestion that the omission of the name Lechmere couldn’t have in any way assisted him to avoid detection as the murderer, how about this scenario: Lechmere was known to local prostitutes as Lechmere and not Cross - a violent customer who bragged about his wealthy family in Herefordshire.

                        Personally I lean towards his having omitted the Lechmere name because it might have been inconvenient for his mother. I’m convinced it was a deliberate omission and not just an oversight. Nothing to do with him being JTR, but it lead to him telling less than the ‘whole truth’ at Nichols’ inquest.




                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                          Hi Darryl,



                          He is also using a surname connected to him, via his step-father, and one he has used in court before.

                          - Jeff
                          Just a reminder that the incident with a Charles Cross accidentally running a child over has, as far as I know, not been connected to ‘our’ Charles Cross.

                          It may have been him, but it could be someone else. We don’t know yet.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                            Just a reminder that the incident with a Charles Cross accidentally running a child over has, as far as I know, not been connected to ‘our’ Charles Cross.

                            It may have been him, but it could be someone else. We don’t know yet.
                            That’s correct, Kattrup. When it was first discovered a lot of effort was put into trying to disprove it was him, but we weren’t able to come up with a better alternative to CAL. From memory there was one other carman named Charles Cross, but he had no definite connection to Pickfords, he was based south of the river and he appeared to be somewhat more affluent than you might expect a Pickfords carman to have been.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              That’s correct, Kattrup. When it was first discovered a lot of effort was put into trying to disprove it was him, but we weren’t able to come up with a better alternative to CAL. From memory there was one other carman named Charles Cross, but he had no definite connection to Pickfords, he was based south of the river and he appeared to be somewhat more affluent than you might expect a Pickfords carman to have been.
                              I should add that there was no mention of a van guard during the inquest into the child’s death - and that the incident took place a few streets away from John Harrison’s knacker’s yard, which would eventually become the headquarters of Harrison, Barber.

                              Comment


                              • A rather rambling thread, but it contains some interesting stuff:

                                https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...-charles-cross

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X