Evidence of innocence

[FrankO]

I think you may be referring to how I often say that the carman could not give a false address since that would have the police rasing their eyebrows, whereas his link to the Cross name ensured that he COULD use that.

While I was thinking about that, too, what I mainly remember is you and Caz discussing the matter using odd names like Wigglebottom and you always ending by saying that it was, obviously, much better using the name Cross, as he had a link to that name, etc..

I donīt think I have changed all that much if at all.

As I implied, I can't remember you actually saying during these discussions with Caz that you thought using Cross would have been quite risky, as you do now, and maybe, by leaving that open, I just "remember" you implying that it wouldn't be a problem for a guilty Lehmere. But, anyway, I'm glad to now know your correct view on this.

There are other pointers in the carmans direction that are more damning evidence than. the name business, and I stand by what I have said many times: I do not rule out that he DID use the name Cross while at work, nor do I think that such a thing could clear him.

If he wasn't known by the name Cross at work or anywhere else, using it all the same would have been a huge risk and, therefore, not too intelligent, which is why I think he was known by that name in at least one social circle of his life.

On a different note, I donīt think it is necessarily a bad thing to change your mind about different matters. The world is never the same from day to day, and ideally, that is reflected in our choices.

Completely agreed.

[MrBarnett]

If Tomkins had been checked out, it would have been mentioned in Swanson’s report, surely?

So why wasn’t he?

The slaughtermen came under a certain amount of suspicion at the time, an accusation against them was daubed on the slaughterhouse gates. And the fact that Swanson emphasises that they were interviewed separately ‘withthout any means to communicate with each other’ suggests that to some extent they were considered persons of interest rather than just simple witnesses. Enquiries at the slaughter yard would have revealed that Tomkins was a newcomer and relatively unknown there - although Alfred Barber may have been aware that the Tomkins family had moved to Manchester after Henry’s father had been caught stealing horse fat from John Harrison in Islington. Added to which his inquest testimony was all over the place, Wynne Baxter eventually gave up on getting a straight answer from him.

If despite all of that the police didn’t call at Tomkins’ home address to investigate him further, why would they have done so at CAL’s?

[MrBarnett]

Incidentally, Swanson’s description of the finding of the body doesn’t mention that ‘Cross’ was the discoverer and Paul arrived slightly later. He says the body was found by ‘Charles Cross and Robert Paul carmen, on their way to work’.

There is nothing in his report to suggest that as the finder of the body Lechmere was singled out for particular attention.

[rjpalmer]

If Tomkins had been checked out, it would have been mentioned in Swanson’s report, surely?

So why wasn’t he?

The slaughtermen came under a certain amount of suspicion at the time, an accusation against them was daubed on the slaughterhouse gates. And the fact that Swanson emphasises that they were interviewed separately ‘withthout any means to communicate with each other’ suggests that to some extent they were considered persons of interest rather than just simple witnesses. Enquiries at the slaughter yard would have revealed that Tomkins was a newcomer and relatively unknown there - although Alfred Barber may have been aware that the Tomkins family had moved to Manchester after Henry’s father had been caught stealing horse fat from John Harrison in Islington. Added to which his inquest testimony was all over the place, Wynne Baxter eventually gave up on getting a straight answer from him.

If despite all of that the police didn’t call at Tomkins’ home address to investigate him further, why would they have done so at CAL’s?

Swanson report, 19 October 1888:

"The absence of the motives which lead to violence and of any scrap of evidence either direct or circumstantial, left the police without the slightest shadow of a trace consequently enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surrounding suspicion was cast in statements made to police.

"Amongst such are the three slaughtermen, named Tomkins, Britton and Mumford employed by night at Messrs. Harrison Barber & Coy. premises Winthrop Street."

Swanson then gives the detail that the three men were questioned separately "without means of communication."

No, Swanson doesn't spell out in black & white that they were visited at home, or their neighbors were interviewed, etc., but he's already stated that "enquiries were made into the history" of such persons.

A file dated the previous day, 18 October, containing Swanson's signature, has the following notation:

"Persons suspected - upwards of 300 whose movements were enquired into."

We do not know the names of those 300 people. In Swanson's subsequent report, he states that individual files were kept on 80 men. We do not know the names of those persons, either.

All of this goes back to Jeff's point about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Swanson is writing a report to the Home Office giving a general outline of the investigation. 300-380 men were investigated. He doesn't spell out every detail, but it certainly appears that the history of those interviewed by the police were looked into.

[MrBarnett]

Swanson report, 19 October 1888:

"The absence of the motives which lead to violence and of any scrap of evidence either direct or circumstantial, left the police without the slightest shadow of a trace consequently enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surrounding suspicion was cast in statements made to police.

"Amongst such are the three slaughtermen, named Tomkins, Britton and Mumford employed by night at Messrs. Harrison Barber & Coy. premises Winthrop Street."

Swanson then gives the detail that the three men were questioned separately "without means of communication."

No, Swanson doesn't spell out in black & white that they were visited at home, or their neighbors were interviewed, etc., but he's already stated that "enquiries were made into the history" of such persons.

A file dated the previous day, 18 October, containing Swanson's signature, has the following notation:

"Persons suspected - upwards of 300 whose movements were enquired into."

We do not know the names of those 300 people. In Swanson's subsequent report, he states that individual files were kept on 80 men. We do not know the names of those persons, either.

All of this goes back to Jeff's point about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Swanson is writing a report to the Home Office giving a general outline of the investigation. 300-380 men were investigated. He doesn't spell out every detail, but it certainly appears that the history of those interviewed by the police were looked into.

Ah the old ‘absence of evidence’ trope - I wondered how long it would take for that to surface. What do you imagine Swanson meant by ‘history’? A detailed background/genealogical check, or a look to see whether any of the suspicious people had previous for violence against women?

Tomkins had been living in Manchester for over a decade and it seems he had only been in London for a few months. So perhaps the Met sent a team of detectives up to Manchester to check him and his brothers out. Or perhaps not, given that the 3 knackers corroborated each other’s statements and a couple of coppers had seen them at their place of work during the evening.

[Trevor Marriott]

Swanson report, 19 October 1888:

"The absence of the motives which lead to violence and of any scrap of evidence either direct or circumstantial, left the police without the slightest shadow of a trace consequently enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surrounding suspicion was cast in statements made to police.

"Amongst such are the three slaughtermen, named Tomkins, Britton and Mumford employed by night at Messrs. Harrison Barber & Coy. premises Winthrop Street."

Swanson then gives the detail that the three men were questioned separately "without means of communication."

No, Swanson doesn't spell out in black & white that they were visited at home, or their neighbors were interviewed, etc., but he's already stated that "enquiries were made into the history" of such persons.

A file dated the previous day, 18 October, containing Swanson's signature, has the following notation:

"Persons suspected - upwards of 300 whose movements were enquired into."

We do not know the names of those 300 people. In Swanson's subsequent report, he states that individual files were kept on 80 men. We do not know the names of those persons, either.

All of this goes back to Jeff's point about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Swanson is writing a report to the Home Office giving a general outline of the investigation. 300-380 men were investigated. He doesn't spell out every detail, but it certainly appears that the history of those interviewed by the police were looked into.

That should now silence Fish and the others who support this misguided theory of his

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah the old ‘absence of evidence’ trope - I wondered how long it would take for that to surface. What do you imagine Swanson meant by ‘history’? A detailed background/genealogical check, or a look to see whether any of the suspicious people had previous for violence against women?

Tomkins had been living in Manchester for over a decade and it seems he had only been in London for a few months. So perhaps the Met sent a team of detectives up to Manchester to check him and his brothers out. Or perhaps not, given that the 3 knackers corroborated each other’s statements and a couple of coppers had seen them at their place of work during the evening.

You are so negative !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Swansons report has to be accepted and the inference being from thatis that Lechmere and his statement were scrutinized along with all the others.

Lets not dwell on this issue now accept it and move on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

You are so negative !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Swansons report has to be accepted and the inference being from thatis that Lechmere and his statement were scrutinized along with all the others.

Lets not dwell on this issue now accept it and move on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

OK, OK!

I’ll accept Swanson’s report - the one where he specifically describes the investigation of Piser and the slaughtermen and says nothing about Lechmere beyond describing him as one of the two carmen who found the body.

Happy now?

[MrBarnett]

Here’s a question for Trevor.

What’s the standard procedure now? If a witness to a major crime comes forward, do the police investigate his/her ID in depth? Would they for instance knock at his neighbours’ doors to confirm what his name was, and if it turned out that he was a new kid on the block and the neighbours knew very little about him, would they (did you) go across town to his old address and start knocking on doors there?

[The Baron]

Swanson report, 19 October 1888:

"The absence of the motives which lead to violence and of any scrap of evidence either direct or circumstantial, left the police without the slightest shadow of a trace consequently enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surrounding suspicion was cast in statements made to police.

"Amongst such are the three slaughtermen, named Tomkins, Britton and Mumford employed by night at Messrs. Harrison Barber & Coy. premises Winthrop Street."

Swanson then gives the detail that the three men were questioned separately "without means of communication."

No, Swanson doesn't spell out in black & white that they were visited at home, or their neighbors were interviewed, etc., but he's already stated that "enquiries were made into the history" of such persons.

A file dated the previous day, 18 October, containing Swanson's signature, has the following notation:

"Persons suspected - upwards of 300 whose movements were enquired into."

We do not know the names of those 300 people. In Swanson's subsequent report, he states that individual files were kept on 80 men. We do not know the names of those persons, either.

All of this goes back to Jeff's point about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Swanson is writing a report to the Home Office giving a general outline of the investigation. 300-380 men were investigated. He doesn't spell out every detail, but it certainly appears that the history of those interviewed by the police were looked into.

Thankyou!

I was digging the ground for this very report!

Any big mouthed who claims that the police was just a bunch of imbeciles and Lechmere wasn't investigated further has to prove it.


Swanson is my hero!



The Baron

[MrBarnett]

Thankyou!

I was digging the ground for this very report!

Any big mouthed who claims that the police was just a bunch of imbeciles and Lechmere wasn't investigated further has to prove it.


Swanson is my hero!



The Baron

So, was Lechmere one of the 300 ‘persons suspected’? Swanson may have been one of the earliest Lechmerians.

[Abby Normal]

You are so negative !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Swansons report has to be accepted and the inference being from thatis that Lechmere and his statement were scrutinized along with all the others.

Lets not dwell on this issue now accept it and move on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

and where does this say lech was checked out?

[MrBarnett]

and where does this say lech was checked out?

It doesn’t, Abby.

[Greenway]

It doesn’t, Abby.

Would it be accurate, given the information we have, to say that he didn't give his correct name to the police? Or that he withheld his true identity from the authorities?

All the best

[MrBarnett]

The full wording of Swanson’s report:


‘…about 80 persons have been detained at the different police stations in the Metropolis & their statements taken and verified by police and enquiry has been made into a number of persons estimated at upwards of 300 respecting whom communications were received by police and such enquiries are being continued.’

Was Lechmere detained in a police station somewhere in the Metropolis?

Did the police receive a communication about him?

I hope this was an error on your part, RJ.

Baron, a word of advice: engage your brain before issuing insults.