Evidence of innocence

[Trevor Marriott]

I have spent my life as a journalist. It is not as if I am not aware of how documentaries are made. I have good friends who make them.

As I keep saying, my narrative is the exact same as James Scobies. I am not the one claiming that there is another story to tell, you are. Therefore it lies on you to present the evidence for your stance, or to accept that Scobies and my version is likely the correct one.

Of course you are going to say you are correct for you to not take that stance you would have to accept that Scobie was not given the full facts because if he had have he would not have made those comments which as they aired you seek to heavily rely on to prop up your theory.

The question is did you know what Scobie had said in his interview before the program aired?

I suspect not because you admit that you had no contact with Scobie. so you could not have been aware of what the final edit was made up of until it aired and as I have previoulsy stated the remit of Blink films was to make a documentary to show that Lechmere was the killer from what you and Edward had provided them with.

We know your theory and the supporting evidence you seek to rely on has proved to be flawed on all fronts. So Blink films had to deliver an edited program that would not show those flaws, which we know about and knew about at the time, and had some of those experts not come up to what was expected of them and what Blink films wanted to hear the final edit and what was aired was in my opinion thus edited to give a false picture from an evidential perspective.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Are you and Gary trying to imply that Pickford’s wouldn’t have been aware that one of their own employees had been involved in a fatal accident in 1876 and had used the surname of his stepfather at the inquest?

No. I was merely asking if it had been established by what name he was known at Pickfords.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

What was written is what I quoted:

"... a couple of abdominal slashes..."

Think of me as someone who cares about your soul more than you do.

M.

Try reading what I was responding to and what I wrote in full. I was replying to Abby who asked about the possible scenario if Harriet Lilley was correct, and the murder was committed at about 3. 30 am. He wondered if I thought that JtR could have been interrupted by the arrival of CAL, obviously thus restricting the mutilations, or as he said, "gashes stomach" and clearly not the full evisceration as in later cases. So I was referring to the restricted mutilations compared only to the appalling murders which followed, which was the point of the original question I was posed.

If you want me to take the trouble to state the "bleeding obvious", that the wounds were nevertheless horrendous, of course they were. No-one, least of all me, has ever suggested otherwise.

But thank you for your unexpected concern about my soul.

[Mark J D]

You wrote:

This was the first of the canonical five, so maybe JtR hadn't set out with the intention of disembowelling his victims at this point. Maybe that came later, possibly because his bloodlust wasn't satisfied by a couple of abdominal slashes and he wanted more next time..

This is a serious misrepresentation of what was done to Nichols' abdomen. Why not admit it?

Tell the truth and shame the Devil.

M.

[Doctored Whatsit]

As you say, we cannot be 100 per cent certain either way. But it is you, not me, who has to add in parameters that are not there in the descriptions we have.

The descriptions we have are hardly complete. It isn't as if Paul, for example, actually said "I felt her hands without moving them even slightly from the ground". And I repeat that PC Neil could raise her hands to check pulse/temperature and claim he hadn't moved her body. It is easy for someone to imagine that body means the main torso only, and that the hands are separate. I would also suggest that he could even have moved her body, and claimed that he hadn't - but I won't, bacause I don't suppose that he did. But his statement is not necessarily 100% truth.

[Doctored Whatsit]

You wrote:



This is a serious misrepresentation of what was done to Nichols' abdomen. Why not admit it?

Tell the truth and shame the Devil.

M.

What exactly do you want, Mark? I have already said that the wounds were "nevertheless horrendous", but also that they may not have been sufficient to satisfy JtR's bloodlust. There are no circumstances in which I would wish to belittle the terrible injuries sustained by Nichols and the other victims. But they may not have been sufficient to satisfy JtR's bloodlust, which may be why the mutilations got even more severe in subsequent murders. That was the point I was trying to make - he wanted more!

Now I really think we have exhausted this point, which has never had anything to do with "Evidence of Innocence".

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

The idea that Cross/Lechmere was trying to deceive, or hide, his identity is simply at odds with the facts.
1) The name Cross is his stepfathers' name, therefore it is a name that is connected to him directly.
2) He gives his full first and middle name, so no attempt to hide this.
3) He gives his correct address. There is no way for him to know what the police will do once he goes to them to make his statement. There is every reason to believe the police would have spoken to his wife to confirm the details of his statement (the time he left for work). It is beyond reasonable to suggest that they would not do this, and as a result, would no doubt have become aware of the name Lechmere as well. To suggest otherwise is to ignore basic police procedures. We see all sorts of surviving references to the police "verifying someone's account", and to suggest they did not do this for Cross/Lechmere is irrational.
4) He gives his correct workplace.
5) All of these details were unknown until he went to the police. He had not given his name to Paul, and PC Mizen had not taken it either. All that was known is that he was a carman, but not for whom he worked, or where he lived, or even what his first name was. If Cross/Lechmere wished to hide his identity from the police then he would not have gone to give his statement to them, because by doing so he revealed his identity to them - the complete antithesis of concealing it.

We can compare Cross/Lechmere's actions with an example of someone who actually was trying to deceive the police as to their identity, Kate Eddowes. When she was arrested for public drunkeness she:
1) initially refused to give her name ("nothing")
2) when discharged she gave a fake name (Marry Anne Kelly)
3) when discharged she gave a fake address (Dorset Street)

We can see, when someone is trying to deceive the police, they give entirely fake information, not only about their last name, but all parts of their name, and they do not reveal where they live, they give a false address. This is so basic it is bizarre it appears it even has to be stated.

As rj continues to point out, what is recorded in documents, and what the reality was in terms of how someone was known in their day-to-day life, do not always correspond. There is no direct evidence either way which name Cross/Lechmere used in his day-to-day life amongst friends and co-workers, but given the totality of his actions, Cross appears to be one he did use.

In short, when one does not ignore the vast majority of the information we have, the only rational conclusion one can come to is that Cross/Lechmere was not attempting to conceal his identity in any way. It is, therefore, not evidence of him being guilty, and cannot be seen as "one of the pointers" towards his guilt.

Moreover, unless someone can show he was charged with using a false name, given it is unreasonable to conclude the police were actually unaware of the name Lechmere, arguing that he committed a crime or that his use of the name Cross at the inquest was considered a crime, is also unfounded.

- Jeff

blah blah blah. he told police his name was cross. it was really lechmere. it took us over a hundred years to find out his real name. end of story. jeff i respect you greatly as you know, but i find your strict adherence to the status quo very strange.

[MrBarnett]

It’s quite simple: if CAL had been known to anyone by the name of Lechmere only (i.e. not Cross) and they were unaware that he had just moved to Doveton Street, they would not have recognised the person they knew as the finder of Nichols’ body. Pickfords carmen were ten a penny, but Charles Allen Lechmeres - Lechmeres of any sort - were rather thin on the ground.

Why he felt the need to go to the police and provide them with a partial identity in the first place is a mystery. But he did, and his omission of his real name when he did is an anomaly that just won’t go away. When RJ has the decency to provide the details of Lord Orsam’s IOW delivery driver, we will be able to judge whether that is somehow ‘evidence of innocence’ against CAL or whether in fact it highlights the anomaly even further.

[harry]

That last post by Abby Normal,in reply to the well thought out and excellent posts by Jeff and RJ, do show why the case against Cross is non existent.Really,a hundred years or so to come up with his real name,changes the evidence?I ask again ,what is a real name?From a legal point of view ,it would still amount to the man who found Nichols body,whatever the name used,and as that is the only,and noncriminal activity that can be attributed to Cross,no case,of any nature exists against him.

[MrBarnett]

Any family men/women out there?

Have you ever moved to a new area and found that your children were the chief agents of your integration into the local community?

With their large brood of children registered at school in the name of Lechmere, Charlie and Lizzie would have become known as the Lechmeres within a very short time of moving to MEOT, just as they probably had been in James Street. We know for certain that as early as 1869 at least one of their neighbours knew that CAL’s sister and father (and therefore he himself) were Lechmeres. And unless Polly Marshall was sworn to secrecy on the matter, her husband and anyone she cared to gossip with in the street would also have known.

Now remind me, where are we with evidence that CAL was known by anyone as Cross? Ah yes, the two inquests, which must be representative of how he was known to all and sundry in his daily life. And it would be disrespectful of us not to refer to him by his ‘inquest’ name rather than his:

‘Birth cert/Christening/Census (6)/Marriage/Children’s birth/Children’s christening/Children’s school registration/Children’s marriage/Trade directory/Electoral register (multiple addresses)/Death cert/Burial/Funeral/Probate …’ name.

[MrBarnett]

That last post by Abby Normal,in reply to the well thought out and excellent posts by Jeff and RJ, do show why the case against Cross is non existent.Really,a hundred years or so to come up with his real name,changes the evidence?I ask again ,what is a real name?From a legal point of view ,it would still amount to the man who found Nichols body,whatever the name used,and as that is the only,and noncriminal activity that can be attributed to Cross,no case,of any nature exists against him.

Have a look at the numerous press reports where the concept of a ‘real name’ is mentioned. The concept was well understood in Victorian times.

[harry]

In Victorian times,and even recent times,it was not unusual for persons to enter messages in newspapers stating that from a certain date they wished to be known by a different name.Not illegal,but it did give that person an additional name,and in doing so posed the question of what was that persons real name.Also many stage and screen stars adopt a second name,which is recognised as a real name.The description'real' therefor,is ambiguous,and has no clear definition in English law when applied to names.You are at liberty,Mr Barnet,to prove me wrong if you can,by quoting a law which does define 'Real',and shows that Cross did commit an offence by using the name Cross.
That invitation also include Fisherman,Abby Normal ,or any other person who maintain Cross lied about that name.

[MrBarnett]

In Victorian times,and even recent times,it was not unusual for persons to enter messages in newspapers stating that from a certain date they wished to be known by a different name.Not illegal,but it did give that person an additional name,and in doing so posed the question of what was that persons real name.Also many stage and screen stars adopt a second name,which is recognised as a real name.The description'real' therefor,is ambiguous,and has no clear definition in English law when applied to names.You are at liberty,Mr Barnet,to prove me wrong if you can,by quoting a law which does define 'Real',and shows that Cross did commit an offence by using the name Cross.
That invitation also include Fisherman,Abby Normal ,or any other person who maintain Cross lied about that name.

Who is talking about a legal definition? We are talking about the reality. People understood that their real name was their biological father’s name - the one assigned to them at birth. If for any reason they assumed/adopted another name, their ‘real/proper/whatever’ name remained.

Have you never heard anyone ask, ‘What was John Wayne’s real name?’ The concept is alive and well today and would have been even more so in Victorian times.

Check it out! Google ‘Titchborne’ and ’real name’ if you want to see a high profile Victorian example. If that fails to enlighten you, then attempting to address your wilful rejection of the facts will be pointless.

[MrBarnett]

In Victorian times,and even recent times,it was not unusual for persons to enter messages in newspapers stating that from a certain date they wished to be known by a different name.Not illegal,but it did give that person an additional name,and in doing so posed the question of what was that persons real name.Also many stage and screen stars adopt a second name,which is recognised as a real name.The description'real' therefor,is ambiguous,and has no clear definition in English law when applied to names.You are at liberty,Mr Barnet,to prove me wrong if you can,by quoting a law which does define 'Real',and shows that Cross did commit an offence by using the name Cross.
That invitation also include Fisherman,Abby Normal ,or any other person who maintain Cross lied about that name.

And Harry, Harry, HARRY, for the hundredth time the point is not that he lied about the name Cross (although he may have done) but that he omitted the name Lechmere. A name you seem unable to bring yourself to utter.

[MrBarnett]

I had to smile at the example of Kate Eddowes being put forward as someone who used multiple names. Yes, she mumbled a drunken ‘nothing’ and gave the cops a false name, used a false name in a pawn shop and even appeared on a census in the name of her boyfriend. But when she died, did anyone even consider that it would be more respectful to call her ‘nothing’, ‘Kelly’ or ‘Conway’? She even had TC tattooed on her arm, for God’s sake and insisted she was married to Conway - but you’re all happy to disrespect her memory by calling her Eddowes. Disgraceful!