Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    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.
    Of course he didnīt. But that, as so much else, cannot be acknowledged by some people. I find it amusing in a way; there was always a wish to demonize anybody with a suspect theory out here, and anyone who would not accept being told they were wrong would be painted out as a zealot.

    But the Lechmere theory has altered all that. Now it is the naysayers who have taken on the taliban role, denying the obvious as if it did not exist. And even refusing to call the suspect by his registered name, the name we know that he made himself known by back in the day.

    If it had not been so very sad, it would actually be funny.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      Of course he didnīt. But that, as so much else, cannot be acknowledged by some people. I find it amusing in a way; there was always a wish to demonize anybody with a suspect theory out here, and anyone who would not accept being told they were wrong would be painted out as a zealot.

      But the Lechmere theory has altered all that. Now it is the naysayers who have taken on the taliban role, denying the obvious as if it did not exist. And even refusing to call the suspect by his registered name, the name we know that he made himself known by back in the day.

      If it had not been so very sad, it would actually be funny.
      If, in late 1888, you had asked any of the kids from Essex Street school what little Tommy’s surname was, they would have said ‘Lechmere’. The days when Charles Lechmere was PC Cross’s stepson were long past. 133 years later some Ripperologists are still stuck in 1861.
      Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-13-2021, 05:03 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        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.
        You are in error again. Charles Lechmere gave his address at the Nichols Inquest, but most newpapers didn't bother to print it.

        "CARMAN CROSS was the the next witness. He lived at 22 Doveton street, Cambridge-road." - 3 September, 1888 Star

        In the 1876 Inquest, period reports do not mention Lechmere's home address. You assume the worst, ignoring the possibility that the newpapers didn't bother list his address.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          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.
          It's echoing in my head: "... inconvenient for his mother..."

          Gary, old bean, I'm still chilled by that unexpected image of Lechmere the known nasty punter (known and avoided by the women in the alleyways south of the High Street ... but in 1888 nowhere near as well known in those blocks up around Christ Church...).

          But, with that in mind, what do you reckon to the image of Ma Lechmere the Tiger Bay abortionist ... the well-spoken one, the educated, trustworthy one, the one that came from a big house a hundred miles away, and had the son, the short son with the creepy eye, the one who could always be relied upon -- and maybe it was only once every couple of years -- to do what was needed with the bungled cases, the ones that were too ill, or too far gone, and should never have asked; but they did, and they didn't make it...?

          There it goes again: "... inconvenient for his mother..."

          M.
          Last edited by Mark J D; 09-13-2021, 06:38 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            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?
            Where are you getting thousands from? Do you guys have an annual convention?

            I would say there's more in the Ripper community (hate that term but whatever) who treat Lechmere as a 'person of interest' at best.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              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.
              Hi Abby,
              ​​​​​​

              Thanks for that. You're the only one to answer.

              But if that's the usual argument, it would apply equally to innocent Lechmere as well. As I say, it's a non thing, but Fisherman and MrBarnet are now going through all the places he didn't use Cross, but not explaining why.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                Of course he didnīt. But that, as so much else, cannot be acknowledged by some people. I find it amusing in a way; there was always a wish to demonize anybody with a suspect theory out here, and anyone who would not accept being told they were wrong would be painted out as a zealot.

                But the Lechmere theory has altered all that. Now it is the naysayers who have taken on the taliban role, denying the obvious as if it did not exist. And even refusing to call the suspect by his registered name, the name we know that he made himself known by back in the day.

                If it had not been so very sad, it would actually be funny.
                But what does it matter? How does his use of his stepfather s surname at the inquest bear upon his guilt?

                You are going to great lengths to show he didn't use it on all sorts of forms, but so what? What is the point of this? All I've seen are vague references to "misleading the police", but he gives a name he is legitimately connected to, gives his place of work, gives his address, gives his real first and second name. There is no basis for saying he mislead anyone.

                So what is the point about establishing the rarity of him using Cross on documents?

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                  It's echoing in my head: "... inconvenient for his mother..."

                  Gary, old bean, I'm still chilled by that unexpected image of Lechmere the known nasty punter (known and avoided by the women in the alleyways south of the High Street ... but in 1888 nowhere near as well known in those blocks up around Christ Church...).

                  But, with that in mind, what do you reckon to the image of Ma Lechmere the Tiger Bay abortionist ... the well-spoken one, the educated, trustworthy one, the one that came from a big house a hundred miles away, and had the son, the short son with the creepy eye, the one who could always be relied upon -- and maybe it was only once every couple of years -- to do what was needed with the bungled cases, the ones that were too ill, or too far gone, and should never have asked; but they did, and they didn't make it...?

                  There it goes again: "... inconvenient for his mother..."

                  M.
                  My own take on things is far more prosaic, I’m afraid. I believe there were several reasons why Maria might not have wanted her son’s full - unique I believe - ‘real’ name to be linked with that of Thomas Cross in the press. Nothing to do with him being the Ripper or disposing of his mother’s deceased patients.

                  But keep up the good work. ;-)











                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                    Hi Abby,
                    ​​​​​​

                    Thanks for that. You're the only one to answer.

                    But if that's the usual argument, it would apply equally to innocent Lechmere as well. As I say, it's a non thing, but Fisherman and MrBarnet are now going through all the places he didn't use Cross, but not explaining why.

                    - Jeff
                    I thought I had answered on post 1421.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Hi Abby,
                      ​​​​​​

                      Thanks for that. You're the only one to answer.

                      But if that's the usual argument, it would apply equally to innocent Lechmere as well. As I say, it's a non thing, but Fisherman and MrBarnet are now going through all the places he didn't use Cross, but not explaining why.

                      - Jeff
                      He didn’t use the name Cross, presumably, because he didn’t believe that was the name it was appropriate for him to use on various occasions when he came into contact with officialdom. Except on one or two occasions where he stood up in court, took an oath to tell the ‘whole truth’ and was asked to give his name…
                      Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-13-2021, 07:21 PM.

                      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.
                        Oh, I thought that had been established, my mistake if it hasn't been.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          I thought I had answered on post 1421.

                          Ah, yes, you had responded. Sorry, I missed that post.

                          But I see your response suggests he was known to the local prostitutes as Lechmere, etc. That's not a fact, though. There's no evidence that shows he was known by the local prostitutes by any name. We can all offer our speculations, and stories, to make it look sinister or saintly, but none of these stories or lines of speculation are facts, so they don't establish his use of the name Cross at the inquest as being "a thing".

                          As for the "whole truth", given he has an association with the name Cross, even if he didn't use it, Darryl's suggestion might be worth considering; that he thought he was legally obliged to use it. Given his step-father's name is Cross, and he's in a court, he may have thought he had to use his step-father's name despite not using it for other situations. The use of names in Victorian times was looser than it is now (I'm basing that on posts by people more knowledgeable than I am on these things, but it's come up before) so the courts and police didn't see it as a problem, just what people do. It could be as simple as that.

                          Sure, I have no proof that's how he thought but your explanation has no proof he was known to prostitutes. I don't mean to be snarky there, just pointing out how our explanations are on equal footing evidence wise - and also that our footing is entirely shakey on both sides!. As I say, we can all spin tales, but that doesn't make our tales facts.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Hi Fisherman,

                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            So tell me, Jeff: How are you sure about this? And how do you know what I consider sufficient or not?
                            I'm sure because his phone records would document the call. Also, I'm sure because, if Trevor could be bothered to, he could ask Scobie to verify their conversation in written form.

                            Experience with how you view anything that goes against your story gives me insight into what you consider sufficient to change your mind, and nothing is sufficient.

                            In fact, you, yourself, have pretty much said as much earlier in this thread in post 816, where you say "... unless this act PROVED innocence, it could always be interpreted as an effort by Lechmere to clear himself."

                            And the wonderful thing is, it is impossible to PROVE innocence in this case because we cannot collect new facts that potentially could do so. In 816 you offer the idea that if Paul had seen Cross/Lechmere earlier in their journey (actually in 816 you required that Paul state he saw Cross/Lechmere the entire time) that might do it for you. But of course, there's no way to investigate that today. Basically, the only things you list are things impossible to investigate today, meaning you have stated that nothing is sufficient to change your mind because you will always view anything that points away from guilt as evidence of guilt via the "he's trying to look innocent". It's a perfectly self protective strategy.

                            So, basically, you are telling us that nothing is sufficient for you to change your mind when it comes to your theory. I see no reason why that self protective strategy would not be adopted here, when the threat to the theory is Trevor's phone call to Scobie which, based upon Trevor's comments, undermines one of the indirect supports you rely on - that Scobie said the case was sufficient to go to trial. If a simple phone call revealed to Scobie he was not in possession of all the facts, and he would then not have made that statement (as Trevor implies he said), then it tells us Scobie's "court ready" stance was easily shakable and so it's not the pillar of support you want to make of it. But, since Trevor hasn't PROVED that to you, you will be able to find a way to interpret it in a way that works for you (as per your quote above). Hence, you yourself tell me what you consider sufficient - which is basically nothing since one can always tell a story to get to the conclusion they want to get to.


                            With that kind of a stance, I donīt see why I should take any further interest in any of your posts.
                            I'm sure if you apply yourself you could come up with a reason, but it would require a change in strategy.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              Hi Abby,
                              ​​​​​​

                              Thanks for that. You're the only one to answer.

                              But if that's the usual argument, it would apply equally to innocent Lechmere as well. As I say, it's a non thing, but Fisherman and MrBarnet are now going through all the places he didn't use Cross, but not explaining why.

                              - Jeff
                              Hi Jeff
                              Thanks! IMHO there probably is an innocent explanation, but the fact remains he did give a name that it seems he didnt commonly use. but still a possible yellow flag that needs to be explained away. and I totally see the argument that if guilty, why Lech would employ this tactic.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                                Hi Fisherman,



                                I'm sure because his phone records would document the call. Also, I'm sure because, if Trevor could be bothered to, he could ask Scobie to verify their conversation in written form.

                                Experience with how you view anything that goes against your story gives me insight into what you consider sufficient to change your mind, and nothing is sufficient.

                                In fact, you, yourself, have pretty much said as much earlier in this thread in post 816, where you say "... unless this act PROVED innocence, it could always be interpreted as an effort by Lechmere to clear himself."

                                And the wonderful thing is, it is impossible to PROVE innocence in this case because we cannot collect new facts that potentially could do so. In 816 you offer the idea that if Paul had seen Cross/Lechmere earlier in their journey (actually in 816 you required that Paul state he saw Cross/Lechmere the entire time) that might do it for you. But of course, there's no way to investigate that today. Basically, the only things you list are things impossible to investigate today, meaning you have stated that nothing is sufficient to change your mind because you will always view anything that points away from guilt as evidence of guilt via the "he's trying to look innocent". It's a perfectly self protective strategy.

                                So, basically, you are telling us that nothing is sufficient for you to change your mind when it comes to your theory. I see no reason why that self protective strategy would not be adopted here, when the threat to the theory is Trevor's phone call to Scobie which, based upon Trevor's comments, undermines one of the indirect supports you rely on - that Scobie said the case was sufficient to go to trial. If a simple phone call revealed to Scobie he was not in possession of all the facts, and he would then not have made that statement (as Trevor implies he said), then it tells us Scobie's "court ready" stance was easily shakable and so it's not the pillar of support you want to make of it. But, since Trevor hasn't PROVED that to you, you will be able to find a way to interpret it in a way that works for you (as per your quote above). Hence, you yourself tell me what you consider sufficient - which is basically nothing since one can always tell a story to get to the conclusion they want to get to.



                                I'm sure if you apply yourself you could come up with a reason, but it would require a change in strategy.

                                - Jeff
                                id take anything that goes through trevor with a grain of salt Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X