Evidence of innocence

[Greenway]

Apologies if I misunderstood you - but the sheer fact that we do have a barrister that says that he would warrant a trial puts him lightyears before any other suspect. Thatīs the point I am making.

No problem.

All the best

[Fisherman]

You haven't read the item, Christer. When you do, you will realise that it was the 1876 inquest being discussed.

Checking it, I find you are correct, so my bad. Anyways, we know next to nothing about any procedures preceding the inquest, and I do not share your conviction about how Pickfords representatives must have been involved. The options are endless, more or less - which is NOT the case when it comes to bleeding times and suchlike. Moreover, I have always saud that the carman MAY have been called Cross at work, itīs just that we have no evidence of it and his everyday calling himself Lechmere in officaldom speaks against it. There is even the possibility that he called himself Lechmere at work, that he spoke to his superiors at Pickfords and told them that he was goint to attend the inquest as Cross since he didnīt want his family name to get involved.
As I keep saying, the name is one iof many matters that MUST be added to the list, but it is not the most damining ingredient. It is but one of many things that make him look suspicious, as Scobie said. A jury would not like him, and the name issue is one of the reasons why.

[MrBarnett]

Checking it, I find you are correct, so my bad. Anyways, we know next to nothing about any procedures preceding the inquest, and I do not share your conviction about how Pickfords representatives must have been involved. The options are endless, more or less - which is NOT the case when it comes to bleeding times and suchlike. Moreover, I have always saud that the carman MAY have been called Cross at work, itīs just that we have no evidence of it and his everyday calling himself Lechmere in officaldom speaks against it. There is even the possibility that he called himself Lechmere at work, that he spoke to his superiors at Pickfords and told them that he was goint to attend the inquest as Cross since he didnīt want his family name to get involved.
As I keep saying, the name is one iof many matters that MUST be added to the list, but it is not the most damining ingredient. It is but one of many things that make him look suspicious, as Scobie said. A jury would not like him, and the name issue is one of the reasons why.

Just imagine a barrister asking him, ‘Is Cross your real name?’ And following that question up with, ‘Did you not feel it was appropriate to disclose your real name to the court?’

Not a good start.

[Fisherman]

Once again I see the errerroneous caim that on the 2nd September the police were denying the lloyds/Paul account.

You know, Steve, you do no have any sort of monopoly when it comes to decideing what is erroneous or not. You are carrying too heavy a rucksack of obvious errors for that, although you are not very interested in discussing them.

Let's look at what was actually said..


The Times reported

"It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and flashing his lantern to examine it, he was answered by the lights from two other c2onstables at either end of the Street."


Daily News 3rd

"It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the Street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete."


Now nowhere in the Lloyds account does it claim or even imply that the two carmen took or even spoke to Neil. The report cannot therefore logically be refering to the Lloyds account, which never says, what the police deny.

So what does this denial refer to?

Clearly it's refering to the Star account of 31st, reprinted in regionals on 1st, which claimed that two men had found the body, and then found PC Neil( mentioned by name) and taken him to the body.

It's therefore clear that the Times and Daily news reports 3rd, refers to the Star story, which was untrue, and not to the Lloyds account of Robert Paul, which NEVER mentions two men contacting Neil.

You if anybody should be aware of what confusion is. There were all sorts of rumours afloat after the murder, among which could be found Pauls claims in Lloyds Weekly. The wording you speak of in the Star seems to be built on insufficient information, but it nevertheless mirrors what Paul said in Lloyds Weekly. Paul did not name the PC he spoke to, but since Neil was recorded as the PC who found the body from the 31st on, it would be completely logical if the Star connected the dots as if HE was the PC contacted by the carmen.
You have a dodgy habit of taking your own ideas as gospel when they really cannot be. Itīs not the first time we can see this. I would advice anybody reading anything by your hand and starting out "It is therefore clear..." to take it with a barrel of salt.

Did it never occur to you that the idea that the idea that there were TWO stories about, both of them speaking about two men helping the police to find the body, is somewhat over the top?

[Fisherman]

It was John Richardson. “There was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him.” —Swanson, 19 October 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C

Robert Paul was also investigated. Deeply shocking, I know.

Actually, the shocking thing is that Lechmere was seemingly NOT investigated. Have you read Dew on the matter, where he describes Lechmere as a rough but thouroughly honest man, whereas he paints a picture of Paul as a man trying to avoid the law?

I think that is a helpful thing to digest.

[Fisherman]

Back on form. Did someone hack your user name for post 1977?

That was my impression too. I choked on my morning cuppa.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Actually, the shocking thing is that Lechmere was seemingly NOT investigated. Have you read Dew on the matter, where he describes Lechmere as a rough but thouroughly honest man, whereas he paints a picture of Paul as a man trying to avoid the law?

I think that is a helpful thing to digest.

The above is a rather confusing statement. Firstly you claim that Lechmere was not investigated, then say that Dew describes him as a "thoroughly honest man". This is an odd statement from an experienced police officer, desccribing a person as "thoroughly honest" when he has no evidence to back up such a committed comment.

[harry]

How could Dew Make any comment on anyone,without some form of investigation?

[Fisherman]

I've not seen anything to suggest he was capable of the crimes. For me a good suspect needs to show evidence that they are capable of such violence.

All the best

Checking suspects for a propensity of violence is a demand that should be ascribed to the third group of suspects, Greenway. Here are the suspect groups:

1. People who have been proven to be in place at one or more of the murder sites, who have no alibi and who would have been physically able to commit the murder. The top suspects in this group are the ones who produce inconsistencies, anomalies and contradictions as they are heard. There is no need whatsoever for them to be proven violent. If there are no person/s around who answer to this description, the police will move on to group 2.

2. People who have personal relations with the victim, mainly spouses, but also relatives, aquaintances, business associates etcetera. There is no need whatsoever for them to be proven violent. If the police cannot identify any person as belonging to groups 1 and 2, they will look for suspects in group 3.

3. People who have a history of violence, in particular violence that is of a similar nature as the violence recorded in the murder investigated.

Tghis is where ripperology has it backwards. Since no person from the first two groups were originally identified (although efforts were made to turn George Hutchinson into a suspect), the focus has long since been on group 3 instead. And over the years, it has become a contest of which violent "suspect" is the one most likely to be the killer. This is why for example William Bury has been much spoken for, because he did cut the belly of his wife open in Scotland, and he had lived in the East End (Bow) at the time of the Whitechapel murders.
Personally, I think he is a bad suspect; his murder was a domestic affair, and clearly the Ripper murders were not. Moreover, Bury was hanged in April of 1889, and so he could not have killed Liz Jackson and the Pinchin Street woman, and I am quite convinced that the Thames Torso murders had the exact same originator as the Ripper murders.

Anyways, a propensity for violence is not the first thing the police go looking for when searching out a killer. It is something they resort to only if they have to. Of course, if suspects in groups 1 and 2 are known to have a history of violence, that will make the police interested in them. But it is not required to produce a prime suspect.

[Trevor Marriott]

Apologies if I misunderstood you - but the sheer fact that we do have a barrister that says that he would warrant a trial puts him lightyears before any other suspect. Thatīs the point I am making.

But the barrister was not provided with the full facts so his opinion you seek to rely on is unsafe, this you keep being told but you cant seem to accept that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Just imagine a barrister asking him, ‘Is Cross your real name?’ And following that question up with, ‘Did you not feel it was appropriate to disclose your real name to the court?’

Not a good start.

A disastrous one, that would set the bar for the rest of a trial, regardless if had a sinister origin or not.

[Fisherman]

The above is a rather confusing statement. Firstly you claim that Lechmere was not investigated, then say that Dew describes him as a "thoroughly honest man". This is an odd statement from an experienced police officer, desccribing a person as "thoroughly honest" when he has no evidence to back up such a committed comment.

Dew made the comment fifty years after the inquest, and in the capacity of a retired policeman. He gave his opinion of how he perceived a witness whose name he had forgotten, and who he seemingly though was the epitome of a hard working man, a little rough around the edges but as honest as hardened Eastenders came. Pauls name, however, he remembered as that of a man seemingly trying to dodge the police.
If Dews view mirrors that of the contemporary police, then it offers a possible explanation for why Paul was investigated while Lechmere was seemingly not.

[Fisherman]

How could Dew Make any comment on anyone,without some form of investigation?

I havent investigated you, Harry.

[harry]

Quite true Trevor,that the police are sometimes blamed without justification.Anderson's reference to the different powers and resources of foreign police forces,to me,indicates he(Anderson) was saying that laws restrickting British policemen,and not the efforts of the police,were the cause of the Ripper not being identified.

[Fisherman]

But the barrister was not provided with the full facts so his opinion you seek to rely on is unsafe, this you keep being told but you cant seem to accept that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He was at the very least provided with the case facts that spoke for Lechmere being the killer, and he based his verdict on that. He found these facts enough to warrant a trial that suggested the carman was guilty.
If the carman at such a trial would be able to provide information that spoke against guilt, and if that information had not been available to Scobie, I am sure that the QC would have considered that too and he would perhaps have been inclined to free Lechmere.

That is how it goes, but it is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that there are enough points of accusation, suggesting that Lechmere was the killer, to warrant a trial.

How about Feigenbaum, do you think that any barrister today would say that you have enough to warrant a modern day trial against him?

How about Kosminski?

How about Levy? Druitt? Bury? Barnett? Tumblety?

Would any barrister waste any time at all on trying to take them to court?

No. Not a chance in hell.

Once we know this, we are able to put two and two together and find out who is the prime suspect. Itīs embarrasingly easy.