Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

These are established facts which clearly you do not accept for obvious reasons and would I be foolish enoght to say I had a convesration with Scobie if I did not?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Would you be foolish enough not to document it? After all, the one thing you are going on about is how the information Scobie was given was not documented - and then you donīt document the conversation you claim to have had with Scobie.

Tell me Trevor, if it is all fine that you claim that James Scobie was misled by the film team and/or me - then. why is it NOT fine if I question that you ever spoke to Scobie? Why would the honor of somebody who casts the kind of accusations you do be more likely to be a fact than that of the film team?

If you throw that kind of **** on people, you should not expect them bow and say thank you.

[Fisherman]

I did not debate the significance of the word "found", as a "sharp observer" such as yourself would have noticed. But I should have realised that every time you clearly make a mistake for all to see, it would be merely "tongue in cheek".

There was no mistake. I pointed out the foolishness of the matter in an ironic manner. But of course, if you desperateky need to score SOME sort of little point, why would I deny you that?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
In what way did the police not do their job,as you claim.?

How many times have I told you, Harry, that the coroner pointed out that they failed to question all the dwellers of Bucks Row? Every time you have "forgotten" about it?

Cross gave evidence,as did other witnesses,before an inquest .Neither the inquest jury,the police and press who attended the inquest,raised any question of guilt against Cross.All heard the same testimony.All treated him as a witness of good faith,a person who found a body.

Many killers have lied about their exploits without the police picking up on it. In other words, Harry, and listen real hard now: The police thinking A is no guarantee that B does not apply.
It is a very hard exercise for some posters brain to do, I know. But I really must ask you to understand this point, because otherwise you will never be able to be part of an intelligible discussion

Did all not do their job properly?

Actually, no.

What medical evidence does even better,is to not rule out another person than Cross having killed Nicholls,which ,taken with the lack of any incriminating evidence,speaks well for Cross.

Maybe this is British English, but I canīt understand it. Sorry.

All else having failed,I suppose the police of that time not doing their job properly,might be be an expected excuse.Like Cross, they are in no position to answer that charge.

That is true. They cannot defend themselves. Nor did they make an effort to when Baxter reprimanded them. Explain to me, Harry: On account of how those involved cannot confirm or deny things, does that mean that we should not try and solve the case?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Just a brief note to make absolutely sure that there is no misunderstanding about my opinion of Mrs Lilley's absence from the inquest. I haven't changed any part of my opinion - though I totally accept that we don't know and cannot know the truth. I suspect that because the police were very slow to interview local residents, they hadn't interviewed Mrs Lilley by Sept 17th, that the coroner may have been aware of this which prompted his questions to Abberline and Spratling - he might even have been hoping to have her as a witness but didn't because the police hadn't seen her to verify her account. We simply don't know. One thing is clear, and that is that there is no evidence which suggests that the police checked her out and rejected her statement. So, for me her story is there for us to note and consider, we should recognise that it explains why others heard nothing, we recognise that it requires a very slight extension of the doctor's estimated ToD. But it is there to be considered. The "Lechmere is JtR" camp will reject it, others will leave it on the table as something which makes sense, and should be considered as a genuine possibility.

A small clarification. The so called Lechmere camp is supposedly me? If so, then I am not rejecting Harriet Lilleys testimony.

Letīs not make this an exercise in showing how you are openminded while I am not, shall we? What I am doing is not rejecting her testimony, because as you so succinctly pointed out yourself, I cannot prove that it was wrong.
What I am instead saying is that going by the developments in the case and what was said at the inquest - and Lilley COULD have been called to it, as I have shown - the police did not invest much in what she said.
Lilleys story broke on September 6, and so there would have been lots of time to put her alongside Emma Green and Walter Purkiss, both living closer to the murder site than Lilley.They both testified on the 17th to the effect that there was nothing to hear on the murder night. Green was a "very light sleeper" she said, and so any cries as per Lilley would not have gone unnoticed by her. Similarly, Walter Purkiss in the Essex Wharf heard not a iot, and as I remember it, his wife was probably pacing the bedroom as the murder occurred.

These are the bare bones of the matter. It all points in the direction of Harriet Lilley not being deemed trustworthy by the police, wherefore her testimony was left out. Once again, it does not mean - the way you would have it - that I "reject" it. I prefer to leave as many doors as possible open. But I do believe that the police actively dismissed Harriet Lilley, and I think they did so on very good grounds, as shown in my posts.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



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.

- Jeff

So tell me, Jeff: How are you sure about this? And how do you know what I consider sufficient or not?

With that kind of a stance, I donīt see why I should take any further interest in any of your posts.

[Fisherman]

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".

Paul .... "met" Lechmere? Does that not sound as something that was pre-planned? And please, now you are moving the goalposts again, I am not saying that Lechmere was found "with the body". I am saying that as Paul arrived outside Browns Stable Yard, he found Lechmere standing in the middle of the street there.

How can that be anything but true and correct? Furthermore, if I was to add that Paul found Lechmere standing not far from the body, how would THAT be anything but true and correct?
If you personally think it sounds bad, then maybe you should devote some little time to pondering about how it IS potentially bad to be found stading alone in the middle of the night, close to a freshly killed person?

We should not rewrite history, Harry. Robert Paul found Charles Lechmere standing in the middle of Bucks Row as he passed down the street in the early morning hours. Lechmere alerted him to the presence of the body on the pavement, meaning that Charles was standing close by a freshly killed murder victim as he did so.

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.

But he did. In both cases. And he is not a so-called suspect, he is a suspect in his own right, accepted as such on these boards and accepted as such by thousands of people. So why would we disallow me to say that Paul found him, while it is comme il faut for you to call Lechmere a "so-called suspect"?

Could you elaborate on that, please?

[Fisherman]

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...

Often? What legal documents are there where he used it, apart from the 1861 census - when his name was likely given by Thomas Cross?

You make it sound as if he signed a third of his legal documents Cross. Naughty, naughty!!

[Fisherman]

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.

Plus he seems to have ommitted to mention his address, not only at the Nichols inquest but also in combination with the run over boy. Once is a mistake. But twice is a habit.

[Mark J D]

But no answer?

Don't send me any more private messages.

Thanks.

M.

[MrBarnett]

Often? What legal documents are there where he used it, apart from the 1861 census - when his name was likely given by Thomas Cross?

You make it sound as if he signed a third of his legal documents Cross. Naughty, naughty!!

And not only legal documents. If you register your kids at school as X, then their teachers and school friends know them as X, and if the school serves a local area, then the name X spreads locally. And if you advertise businesses as X, what name might you display above the door?

To go back a few years, prior to getting married in a CofE church, three notifications of the intended nuptials (banns) are published, giving both the bride’s and groom’s full names. The name Lechmere appears on CAL’s marriage cert. And as we know, while TC was still alive a neighbour in Mary Ann Street was given the responsibility of informing the registrar of the death of CAL’s sister and she registered the death in the name of Lechmere.

In 1888, two decades after the death of Thomas Cross, when CAL had moved away from the area where he had lived as Cross’s stepson, what is the likelihood that he was known solely by the name Cross and only used Lechmere for form-filling?

As you say, Fish, 12-year-old CAL is unlikely to have filled out the census form himself. Either TC or Maria would have provided that info.

He certainly didn’t provide the coroner with the ‘whole truth’ when it came to his name.

[Abby Normal]

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

hi Jeff and Harry D
I believe the argument is he used his less commonly known name Cross, because he wanted to keep his whole involvement as secret as possible (if the killer) so perhaps friends and associates who may have some dirt on him or suspicion about him wouldnt put two and two together.

[Abby Normal]

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.

yeah but it was probably him. not proven but more than likely. I mean what other carman named Charles Cross was working at Pickfords at the time?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Don't send me any more private messages.

Thanks.

M.

Hi Mark, you seem to be confused by my comments. In #1404 you ignored my questions, and wrote "Fake incredulityand synthetic shock noted". That is why I asked whether you actually had an answer. No other reason. I wasn't feigning surprise, I was interested in your opinion, which I didn't get.

[Mark J D]

Hi Mark, you seem to be confused by my comments.

No. I'm just not interested.

M.

[Trevor Marriott]

Would you be foolish enough not to document it? After all, the one thing you are going on about is how the information Scobie was given was not documented - and then you donīt document the conversation you claim to have had with Scobie.

Tell me Trevor, if it is all fine that you claim that James Scobie was misled by the film team and/or me - then. why is it NOT fine if I question that you ever spoke to Scobie? Why would the honor of somebody who casts the kind of accusations you do be more likely to be a fact than that of the film team?

If you throw that kind of **** on people, you should not expect them bow and say thank you.

Its not ***** its the truth and the sooner you come to terms with it the better ripperology will be, but I wont be holding my breath on that score.

Your theory is flawed and the content used to show Lechmere was the killer in the documentary was totally misleading

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk