Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

Not that interesting, Fish. The IOW man’s father was still very much alive and a prominent local businessman. The stepson worked in his stepfather’s business, driving his carts I think, probably with his stepfather’s name emblazoned across them. How does that compare to CAL?

Ah, I see, Gary. So suddenly his “real name,” as you call it—the birth name that appears in all the census reports, electoral rolls,etc—didn't need to be mentioned in court?

How very consistent of you.

And though a boy might be raised by a stepfather for YEARS, and took his name, he is suddenly going to reject it the moment the old man’s heart stops beating, even if it has been established in the circle he moves in?

Sorry, I don’t accept your argument.

The many examples David Barrat posted are
devastating to the Lechmere agenda, because they show that average, everyday blokes in the Victorian era, who happened to be raised by their stepfather, very frequently took their names—even though the paper trail doesn’t necessarily reflect it.

But I don’t expect you to ever admit that, because you and Barrat have quarreled.

And climb down off your high horse, Gary. I don’t appreciate your attempt to imply I was being misleading. It appears the Lechmere crowd needs to fall back on abuse when they become frustrated that their ideas are not accepted. Now Fish is comparing Jeff Hamm’s thoughtful and well-reasoned post to a pile of manure.

That will certainly win a lot of converts!

Good-bye.

[Trevor Marriott]

Itīs a creepy world you seem to live in, Trevor. Really creepy. Hallucinatory, sort of.

Its a better world than the delusional world that you live in

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Lechmere is an attractive suspect for people simply for the fact he was at the crime scene.

As usual, the true and full picture is ”forgotten”. He is an attractive suspect for people for many, many reasons. But if we focus on him being at the crime scene only, you are forgettingthat he was there alone with the victim at a time that is consistent with when she would have died. THAT is why people like him as s suspect, and I can think of a million less appropriate reasons for suspicion.

The problem with most named suspects is there's no definitive way to tie them to the créme scene.

Yes, yes, yes! VERY well put! I say that Lechmere belongsto the first group of suspects, the ones who were there and who have anomalies, inconsistencies and possible lies clinging to their testimonies. The second group would be spouses, relatives, business associates etc. The third is the ones who are known for comparable crimes and/or violence. Which is where ripperology finds its candidates, because it has given up on finding candidates from groups one and two.

They might have lived in the area at the time, but without anything else connecting them to the murders they're often a dead end. Lechmere was there. He was stood near the victim not long after she'd been killed. After that, it's simply a matter of adding layer upon layer of defamation and idle speculation to frame him as a serial killer.

He did the adding by himself, Harry. He refused to help prop Nichols up on his own account. He did walk right through the killing fields. He did have his mother and daughtrr living in Mary Ann Street, close by Berner. He did have links to StGeorges. He did disagree with Mizen on a number of matters. He did say he left home at a time that does not fit with when he was outside Browns. He was alone with Nichols at a time that fits with him being the killer. Nichols did bleed for many minutes after he left.
I did not make these things up. They are no inventions of mine. Instead, they are the precise kind of material that elevates a person who is present at a murder site at the approximate time of death into a prime suspect!

There's a reason the killer was never caught. Because he was a shadow. He was never seen and never heard. To think he stood around in Buck's Row and approached the first guy on the scene in some kind of devilish mindgame is the work of a fantasist.

He was seen. And heard. And someone should have payed attention. To flatly deny this is to represent the real flight of fantasy.
That flight has crashlanded by now.

[Fisherman]

Its a better world than the delusional world that you live in

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Enjoy.

[JeffHamm]

Hi MrBarnett,

Here we go again…

No we don’t. They are hypothetical people used to demonstrate that there are circumstances in which the omission of ‘Lechmere’ could have hidden CAL’s identity. And these hypothetical people are necessary to counter the claims that their are no circumstances in which the omission of Lechmere could have misled anyone.

Do you have the names and addresses of anyone who knew CAL as Cross? All his workmates at Pickfords for instance.

Although I can’t provide individual names, there will have been people in Hereford who would have immediately recognised the unique name of Charles Allen Lechmere. Did they know he had been raised in the household of Thomas Cross? Were they aware he worked for Pickfords or had recently moved to Doveton Street?

There are perfectly plausible scenarios which might explain why he deliberately withheld his real name. When people accept that, perhaps we can move on and see if we can find anything further. I’ve put out some feelers to see if he was ever a member of the London Carman’s Trade Union. It may involve a trip to Warwick, though, so we’ll have to be patient.

Thanks. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some evidence out there that I was overlooking.

So, he's not worried about the police knowing his identity. Even if we accept the hypothetical people, doesn't that still mean he has nothing to hide from the police with respect to the murder of Nichols (which is the main issue), and so whatever his reason for hiding from the the hypothetical people, that motivation will fall into some sort of social motivation (or perhaps financial).

With regards to the plausibility of the existance of the hypothetical people and perhaps something that might make it of interest to the case per se, though. Is there any documented evidence that would suggest Cross/Lechmere had some sort of nefarious dealings going on in Hereford? Do we have a criminal record for him, for instance? We do have the accident from 20 years ago (though I've seen one poster suggest that it's not 100% established that it's the same person, but as you say, CAL is not a common name, so odds are that it is I would think), but is there anything that points towards Cross/Lechmere being actively engaged in any criminal activity from which he might have associates that he could be imagined trying to hide from? (wouldn't have to be crimes of a violent sort either, often in modern cases it is found that serial killers criminal background is not reflective of the murders they got away with over the years).

- Jeff

[Harry D]

He is an attractive suspect for people for many, many reasons.

If he hadn't discovered the body, would he still be an attractive suspect? That's right. No one would know of him if he hadn't stopped to flag down the next man on the scene. And for me, that is where the killer probably lies. He may have been one of countless individuals interviewed by police, he may appear in some old newspaper clipping for a misdemeanour, but he made sure to distance himself from the murders.

The third is the ones who are known for comparable crimes and/or violence. Which is where ripperology finds its candidates, because it has given up on finding candidates from groups one and two.

Problem is that serial killers rarely ever turn out to be witnesses, business associates or spouses of the victims. They are usually opportunistic strangers who target random victims. Therefore, looking for individuals with previous rap sheets is fair cop, but unfortunately all suspects come up short. This case will never be satisfactorily resolved, unless some groundbreaking evidence is discovered.

He refused to help prop Nichols up on his own account.

What does this prove? He was wise to leave the victim in situ. What if Nichols wasn't dead and bolted up and attacked them in her confusion? What if he thought it was some kind of ruse? What if he just didn't want to tamper with the body? Also, it was already pointed out that helping prop up Nichols might have given Lechmere a readymade alibi if any blood had sprayed on his clothing. So, choosing not to exploit that chance wasn't befitting our evil mastermind.

He did walk right through the killing fields.

As did hundreds of men. If Lechmere had not been in the process of walking to work, you might have a point.

He did have his mother and daughtrr living in Mary Ann Street, close by Berner

And Jacob Levy's brother lived in the Wentworth Model Dwellings where the apron rag & graffito were found in Eddowes' murder. He also had a cousin who was a witness in that case who was described as hiding something. But you're not about to become a Jacobite, are you?

He did disagree with Mizen on a number of matters.

As did Robert Paul.

He did say he left home at a time that does not fit with when he was outside Browns.

Does it? He said he left home at about half-past 3.

He was alone with Nichols at a time that fits with him being the killer. Nichols did bleed for many minutes after he left.

It's accepted that Nichols had not been dead long but it would be a grave miscarriage of justice to convict Lechmere based solely on that. Diemschutz was also alone with Stride at a time that fits with him being the killer. What if someone had happened to be leaving the club or entering the yard when they saw him standing over the body?

[Fisherman]

So, he's not worried about the police knowing his identity. Even if we accept the hypothetical people, doesn't that still mean he has nothing to hide from the police with respect to the murder of Nichols (which is the main issue), and so whatever his reason for hiding from the the hypothetical people, that motivation will fall into some sort of social motivation (or perhaps financial).

- Jeff

Let me try and help you out here, Jeff!

When you ask if his giving his address (or identity) to the police must not mean that Lechmere had nothing to hide from the police with respect to the murder, I believe you may be missing out on a small matter of homicide.

Think of it like this:

Would Lechmere - if he was the killer - perhaps harbour a suspicion that his coming forward and informing the police that he was the finder of Nichols could evoke some sort of interest on behalf of said police to check him out, not least if they found out that his claim to have been alone with the body for a few seconds only could not be verified?

If this was so, can we really buy the suggestion that his giving his real address was a surefire sign of how he had nothing at all to hide from the police? Orcould it possibly be him making sure that the police would not be handed a prime reason to send him to the gallows? The Cross name could be explained, althoug, depending on which name he actually used, it could also be a risky matter. But giving an address that was false could not.

Think twice. It helps.

[MrBarnett]

Hi MrBarnett,



Thanks. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some evidence out there that I was overlooking.

So, he's not worried about the police knowing his identity. Even if we accept the hypothetical people, doesn't that still mean he has nothing to hide from the police with respect to the murder of Nichols (which is the main issue), and so whatever his reason for hiding from the the hypothetical people, that motivation will fall into some sort of social motivation (or perhaps financial).

With regards to the plausibility of the existance of the hypothetical people and perhaps something that might make it of interest to the case per se, though. Is there any documented evidence that would suggest Cross/Lechmere had some sort of nefarious dealings going on in Hereford? Do we have a criminal record for him, for instance? We do have the accident from 20 years ago (though I've seen one poster suggest that it's not 100% established that it's the same person, but as you say, CAL is not a common name, so odds are that it is I would think), but is there anything that points towards Cross/Lechmere being actively engaged in any criminal activity from which he might have associates that he could be imagined trying to hide from? (wouldn't have to be crimes of a violent sort either, often in modern cases it is found that serial killers criminal background is not reflective of the murders they got away with over the years).

- Jeff

Jeff,

Do you accept that the name Lechmere was part of his identity?

Do you have any evidence that he disclosed that name to the police or the coroner?

Gary

[Fisherman]

If he hadn't discovered the body, would he still be an attractive suspect? That's right. No one would know of him if he hadn't stopped to flag down the next man on the scene. And for me, that is where the killer probably lies. He may have been one of countless individuals interviewed by police, he may appear in some old newspaper clipping for a misdemeanour, but he made sure to distance himself from the murders.

Well, if you are certain of that, then Lechmere could of course not be the killer. Congratulations on having debunked my theory.

Problem is that serial killers rarely ever turn out to be witnesses, business associates or spouses of the victims. They are usually opportunistic strangers who target random victims. Therefore, looking for individuals with previous rap sheets is fair cop, but unfortunately all suspects come up short. This case will never be satisfactorily resolved, unless some groundbreaking evidence is discovered.

And here I was thinking that being found alone with a freshly killed murder victim, thereafter disagreeing with the police and having all sorts of anomalies clinging to your person would count as groundbreaking evidence. It even fooled James Scobie, who said that the case would warrant a modern day murder trial that suggested Lechmere was guilty! Wow! We all had the wool pulled over or eyes, but you saw through it, Harry! Just when the poor sod is led to the proverbial gallows, who takes the stage, all fired up and outraged about the treatment the carman is subjected to? Why, Harry D, of course!

What does this prove? He was wise to leave the victim in situ. What if Nichols wasn't dead and bolted up and attacked them in her confusion? What if he thought it was some kind of ruse? What if he just didn't want to tamper with the body? Also, it was already pointed out that helping prop up Nichols might have given Lechmere a readymade alibi if any blood had sprayed on his clothing. So, choosing not to exploit that chance wasn't befitting our evil mastermind.

Oh, Iīm sorry. Did I forget to you tell you that a theory is not a collection of proven matters, but instead a suggestion based on the facts?

As did hundreds of men. If Lechmere had not been in the process of walking to work, you might have a point.

Exactly how many of these hundreds of men do we have on record as having been found alone where Polly Nichols lay recently killed, Harry? I know that question has been asked a zillion times, but I' ll be damned if I've ever seen it answered! So letīs hear it, please! Now!!!
Are you really too deaf, dumb and blind to see THE DIFFERENCE???

And Jacob Levy's brother lived in the Wentworth Model Dwellings where the apron rag & graffito were found in Eddowes' murder. He also had a cousin who was a witness in that case who was described as hiding something. But you're not about to become a Jacobite, are you?

And was Jacob Levy found alone where Polly Nichols lay recently killed, Harry?

As did Robert Paul.

Specify that, and we shall see. It could be good fun and informative for a number of people.

Does it? He said he left home at about half-past 3.

Which should have him in place at ABOUT 3.37.

It's accepted that Nichols had not been dead long but it would be a grave miscarriage of justice to convict Lechmere based solely on that.

And a grave mistake to throw it to the winds. What we do when such a thing is on record is to check if there are other matters clinging to his person, that can tell us which way to guess.
Did he for example give his real name to the inquest?
Did he for example disagree with the police about what was said?
Did he for example have paths and timings that seemed to fit with the other victims?

Such litte trifles, Harry, are what is used to pin down a suspect and point out the way to the gallows for him

Any idiot knows that finding a murder victim at a time that is consistent with the TOD is not something that necessarily points to guilt. Any idiot knows that the matter nevertheless means that the finder must be checked if no other culprit can be found. And any idiot knows that if the checkout turns up heaps of anomalies, inconsistencies and disagreements with what the rest of the involved people (not least PCs!) say about the events, the killer has very likely been identified.

Diemschutz was also alone with Stride at a time that fits with him being the killer. What if someone had happened to be leaving the club or entering the yard when they saw him standing over the body?

Then the police would have a duty to check out whether or not Diemschitz had a good explanation for being there. Itīs not as if they should just let him go, "Goodnight, Mr Diemschitz, and thank you!", is it?
What would YOU do if your best friend was strangled, and it was found out that a man had been found standing by his corpse, all alone, by somebody else who arrived later? Letīs assume that no other suspect was identified. Letīs further assume that the man called himself Johnson but was later found out to be named Brown, whereas Johnson was his mothers maternal name. Letīs then assume that a PC testified and said that the man had approached him afterwards and said that there was a man sleeping it off down the street, but another PC was already there, and that the man later claimed at the inquest after your friend that he never said such a thing at all. Letīs apply the whole ballet to your best friend, and lets ask you how you would feel if the man was never even investigated? Maybe it helps to try and put yourself in that situation instead of simply parroting "No! No! No!" whenever I say that the case is closed.

[MrBarnett]

Of course it’s baffling…and utterly absurd.

What’s absurd is that you two gents can’t seem to grasp the point I’m making.

[Abby Normal]

Ah, I see, Gary. So suddenly his “real name,” as you call it—the birth name that appears in all the census reports, electoral rolls,etc—didn't need to be mentioned in court?

How very consistent of you.

And though a boy might be raised by a stepfather for YEARS, and took his name, he is suddenly going to reject it the moment the old man’s heart stops beating, even if it has been established in the circle he moves in?

Sorry, I don’t accept your argument.

The many examples David Barrat posted are
devastating to the Lechmere agenda, because they show that average, everyday blokes in the Victorian era, who happened to be raised by their stepfather, very frequently took their names—even though the paper trail doesn’t necessarily reflect it.

But I don’t expect you to ever admit that, because you and Barrat have quarreled.

And climb down off your high horse, Gary. I don’t appreciate your attempt to imply I was being misleading. It appears the Lechmere crowd needs to fall back on abuse when they become frustrated that their ideas are not accepted. Now Fish is comparing Jeff Hamm’s thoughtful and well-reasoned post to a pile of manure.

That will certainly win a lot of converts!

Good-bye.

but its ok for the anti lechers to call people fantacists, delusional absurd etc and other insults. wheres your indignation then?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Au contraire. 'The truth' is something far too many people think they found years ago in the retirement-home drivellings of some failed copper. Which brings me to the important difference concerning the way *they are are left to get on with it*. Want to investigate Druitt? Be my guest. I don't feel diminished in the slightest by someone's attempt to build a case against a seemingly harmless man whose life and mind fell apart -- nor do I consider their efforts an Affront to Decency that needs to be quibbled to death as rapidly as possible in ways that then get mischievously re-painted as a search for 'evidence of innocence'.

M.

Sorry Mark, you've lost me completely. I am genuinely interested in whether anyone can find out anything new about Lechmere, whether it incriminates him or absolves him. So much has been said, but the case is not strong at all. I have said so several times. I wish it could be developed one way or the other.

I am not interested in Druitt, and never have been. The man who suspected him had studied the facts so thoroughly that he didn't even know his suspect's age or his profession. That reveals the reliability of his research!

[Mark J D]

Sorry Mark, you've lost me completely. I am genuinely interested in whether anyone can find out anything new about Lechmere, whether it incriminates him or absolves him. So much has been said, but the case is not strong at all. I have said so several times. I wish it could be developed one way or the other.

I am not interested in Druitt, and never have been. The man who suspected him had studied the facts so thoroughly that he didn't even know his suspect's age or his profession. That reveals the reliability of his research!

You are now off the list of people I read.

M.

[MrBarnett]

Ah, I see, Gary. So suddenly his “real name,” as you call it—the birth name that appears in all the census reports, electoral rolls,etc—didn't need to be mentioned in court?

How very consistent of you.

And though a boy might be raised by a stepfather for YEARS, and took his name, he is suddenly going to reject it the moment the old man’s heart stops beating, even if it has been established in the circle he moves in?

Sorry, I don’t accept your argument.

The many examples David Barrat posted are
devastating to the Lechmere agenda, because they show that average, everyday blokes in the Victorian era, who happened to be raised by their stepfather, very frequently took their names—even though the paper trail doesn’t necessarily reflect it.

But I don’t expect you to ever admit that, because you and Barrat have quarreled.

And climb down off your high horse, Gary. I don’t appreciate your attempt to imply I was being misleading. It appears the Lechmere crowd needs to fall back on abuse when they become frustrated that their ideas are not accepted. Now Fish is comparing Jeff Hamm’s thoughtful and well-reasoned post to a pile of manure.

That will certainly win a lot of converts!

Good-bye.

The ‘Lechmere crowd’ - who are they? You aren’t trying to mislead people by suggesting I’m one of them, are you?

Christer and Ed would be p…ing themselves at the suggestion.

[MrBarnett]

RJ,

Who are you addressing this to?

“And though a boy might be raised by a stepfather for YEARS, and took his name, he is suddenly going to reject it the moment the old man’s heart stops beating, even if it has been established in the circle he moves in?”

Presumably someone who knows bugger all about CAL’s relationship with his ‘stepfather’ but is susceptible to a bit of emotional blackmail?

‘The moment the old man’s heart stops beating…’

Disgraceful!

Once upon a time I had you pegged as a serious researcher.

Gary