Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

Why do we imagine that Pickford’s drivers were so notorious for their reckless driving?

Could it have been because when they were late in delivering something or returning to their depot they got in trouble?

It sure wasn't because they were all busy leaving their cart unattended so they could go murder prostitutes.

But they were never late, were they? At least not according to 5r, and he’s Googled it extensively.

You aren't just putting words in my mouth here, you are saying the exact opposite of what I actually posted. The best interpretation I can put on that is you aren't understanding what I said.

Here it is for the umteenth time.

"Pickford's drivers were given a schedule of pickups and deliveries. Those pickups and deliveries were witnessed and signed for. Strange time gaps would be noticeable. And every pickup and delivery would be a chance for one, possibly several people, to notice unexplained bloodstains on the driver. Pickfords was a general goods service, not a slaughterhouse.

Even if one of their drivers had been a psychopathic serial killer he wouldn’t have dared be half an hour late back to his depot.

There’s your ‘evidence of innocence’.

Again you put words in my mouth. I never said that. I never implied that. You are attacking a position I do not hold.

"Pickford's drivers were given a schedule of pickups and deliveries. Those pickups and deliveries were witnessed and signed for. Strange time gaps would be noticeable. And every pickup and delivery would be a chance for one, possibly several people, to notice unexplained bloodstains on the driver. Pickfords was a general goods service, not a slaughterhouse.

[MrBarnett]

Fiver,

Perhaps you’d like to comment on this report from 1903.

[MrBarnett]

Here’s another interesting case. A Pickford’s driver diverting from his route to offload a chest of stolen tea.

Poor old Fiver, his rather simplistic view of the work routines of Pickfords drivers seems not to have been true.

[Fiver]

Fiver,

Perhaps you’d like to comment on this report from 1903.

Last I checked the murders took place in 1888, not 1903.

Pickfords was using van boys in 1883.

Pickfords was using van boys in 1889.

Pickfords was using van boys in 1891.

Pickfords was using ban boys in 1893.

Pickfords was using van boys in 1899.

[Fiver]

Here’s another interesting case. A Pickford’s driver diverting from his route to offload a chest of stolen tea.

Poor old Fiver, his rather simplistic view of the work routines of Pickfords drivers seems not to have been true.

Poor old Barnett, putting words in my mouth again so he can refute something I never said.

This drop of stolen goods would have taken only a minute or two, which would not be a noticeable delay to the schedule.

Finding a prostitute, persuading her you were safe to go with, going somewhere with her, killing and mutilating her, cleaning up afterwards, and hurring back to the cart could have taken half an hour or more, which would have left a noticeable delay to the schedule.

[harry]

Well yes Mr Barnett.we are making progress.For the first time,yourself and Fisherman,in your last posts,did not declare my use of the name Cross was incorrect.Well done both of you

[MrBarnett]

Last I checked the murders took place in 1888, not 1903.

Pickfords was using van boys in 1883.

Pickfords was using van boys in 1889.

Pickfords was using van boys in 1891.

Pickfords was using ban boys in 1893.

Pickfords was using van boys in 1899.

Ah, so perhaps Pickfords discontinued the use of van guards between 1899 and 1903? Or perhaps the magistrate completely misunderstood the facts of the case being presented to him?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, the use of van guards was never universal. It might depend on the value/portability of the cargo being carried for instance.

What do you think?

[MrBarnett]

Poor old Barnett, putting words in my mouth again so he can refute something I never said.

This drop of stolen goods would have taken only a minute or two, which would not be a noticeable delay to the schedule.

Finding a prostitute, persuading her you were safe to go with, going somewhere with her, killing and mutilating her, cleaning up afterwards, and hurring back to the cart could have taken half an hour or more, which would have left a noticeable delay to the schedule.

‘would have taken only a minute or two’?

Read the constable’s evidence again. What he describes couldn’t have occurred within a ‘minute or two.’

‘Could have taken half an hour or more’?

Indeed, and could have taken considerably less time.

Given London traffic conditions, Pickfords drivers could not have stuck rigidly to a timetable. Your ‘alibi’ is a figment of your imagination based on a simplistic interpretation of what you have googled about Pickfords.

[MrBarnett]

Well yes Mr Barnett.we are making progress.For the first time,yourself and Fisherman,in your last posts,did not declare my use of the name Cross was incorrect.Well done both of you

The first time? Really?

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,

Yes, of course, Lechmere is a name he uses, the documents being referred to show that. But we're dealing with a "rose by any other name" situation, meaning has he failed to identify himself by using the name Cross? If the police ask someone their name, and they fail to give their middle name (for example), have they failed to identify themselves? Or have they identified themselves even though the information is incomplete. Our "identity", though, is more than just our "name", and things like his address and workplace, are part of his "identity". He may have had some nicknames as well, would failing to mention those also be failing to "identify himself"? Would failing to mention his favorite local pub be "failing to divulge his complete identity"? I know names are special sorts of information, so I'm being a bit pedantic here, but again, the information he gave was more than sufficient for the police to find him, and therefore can only be seen as identifying himself fully. The fact that some people in the world might not know him sufficiently to recognize him from how a newspaper story presents him is not material to the point of identifying himself to the police.

And no, I've not seen anything that shows he disclosed the name Lechmere to the police and/or the coroner. However, we do know that police procedures of the day involve the verification of people's accounts for themselves (we see reference to this in the police files for other people brought to police attention), which, when appropriate, involved talking to the person's family (i.e. Pizer - his brother verified his whereabouts). We therefore have evidence that police procedures involved what has been suggested, that the police would have verified Cross/Lechmere's account of his movements on the day Nichol's body was discovered (and, for completeness, would have done the same for Robert Paul). While we do not have it recorded that they did this, it would be a gross bit of negligence on their part if that were the case. In short, we do have recorded evidence upon which to build that hypothesis - it would correspond to standard police procedures which makes it an evidenced based suggestion that is both plausible and reasonable.

What follows from the police performing what would be standard procedure is a questioning of his wife and/or workplace. And, it is unreasonable to presume that upon questioning his wife/family and/or workplace, that they would not have come across the name Lechmere if he did indeed use that in anything other than gov't documentation. Given there were no known consequences forthcoming due to his use of the name Cross at the inquest, it is hard to see the basis for this being considered by the police at the time that he was being "deceptive". So either they already knew of the name Lechmere (as in he told them), or it was not considered problematic. And if they didn't come across it in their questioning of his family and/or workplace, then that would suggest he did not use it other than in the types of documents we have, and his use of Cross at the inquest was because as a witness it was important for the police to be able to find him again (or ask questions about him) and Cross was the name he was generally known as.

My questions about his background in Hereford is trying to establish if we have anything similar for what is offered as an alternative line of reasoning, because to my knowledge we do not have any evidence either for the hypothesized people from which he is hiding, or any evidence to suggest there might even be such people. Therefore the alternative suggestion is a hypothetic built upon another hypothetic, requiring us to both imagine the evidence that then allows us to imagine his motive. That reduces it to something in need of evidential support before it can be considered a real alternative.

But there is documented evidence that he disclosed sufficient information for the police to track him down (and so uniquely find him, which is for all intents and purposes to identify him) at any time in the future should they wish to. And that is, by definition, not concealing his identity from them, and they are the ones who will be investigating the murder.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I’ve been looking long and hard for evidence of the ‘standard procedure’ of checking out witnesses identities and finding it very elusive. I’ve reached the conclusion that there was no such ‘standard procedure’ and that most witnesses’ identities were taken at face value.

Witnesses like Bowyer, Reeves and Davies barely get a mention in police reports. Swanson, in his report of 19th October lists the specific actions that had been taken by the police in their investigation of the Chapman but makes no mention of having checked out Davies or any other witness for that matter.

So I don’t believe Lechmere was checked out and I think the fact that his real name doesn’t appears in any police report supports that view. There’s nothing whatsoever to support the opposite view.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Hi Jeff,

I’ve been looking long and hard for evidence of the ‘standard procedure’ of checking out witnesses identities and finding it very elusive. I’ve reached the conclusion that there was no such ‘standard procedure’ and that most witnesses’ identities were taken at face value.

Witnesses like Bowyer, Reeves and Davies barely get a mention in police reports. Swanson, in his report of 19th October lists the specific actions that had been taken by the police in their investigation of the Chapman but makes no mention of having checked out Davies or any other witness for that matter.

So I don’t believe Lechmere was checked out and I think the fact that his real name doesn’t appears in any police report supports that view. There’s nothing whatsoever to support the opposite view.

Gary

Was Bowyer checked out? There’s no mention of it in police reports.

He found the body; he was in and out of the court at all hours; he was a ‘shopman’ (muscle) of the notorious John McCarthy to whom the victim was deeply in debt; he’d only recently arrived in Spitalfields after having been discharged from the army where he had a rather patchy record…

Where’s the evidence that the police looked into his army record or spoke to his wife? It’s nowhere to be found, and I think the reason for that is that he was never checked out. It’s not even clear if the police discovered he was an ex-soldier.

[Fisherman]

What name did he use at work?

All the best

We do not know. The thing is, though, that as he spoke to the police and inquest, he was not at work. And when he was not at work, but instead communicated with various authorities, he always called himself Lechmere. Unless, that is, he was involved in cases of violent death.

[harry]

Usually,a person who gives a name in association with his employment,gives the name he uses at that employment.

[Doctored Whatsit]

We do not know. The thing is, though, that as he spoke to the police and inquest, he was not at work. And when he was not at work, but instead communicated with various authorities, he always called himself Lechmere. Unless, that is, he was involved in cases of violent death.

We know that CAL used his birth name for things like marriage, birth of children etc, because presumably he felt that this was the correct thing to do. What we do not know is the name that he normally used day by day, at work, and with friends. Both sides of the argument are making assumptions. It is not proven that we can argue or suggest that he only used the name "Cross" in "cases of violent death".

[Fisherman]

Usually,a person who gives a name in association with his employment,gives the name he uses at that employment.

His employment was not about finding dead women in the East End streets, Harry.