Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Its far to easy to dismiss the points that negate what you want to believe.

As to respectabilty of railwaymen I would say that a person who is in full time work and support his family coiud be described as respectable, as against those who did not work and stole and robbed and lived of immoral earnings.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And it’s just as easy to blindly accept points from an unreliable source when they support what you want to believe.

As for your second point, you are making the same unsupported value judgement that I believe Dew made. It must be a copper thing.

[Astatine211]

Whilst I'm sure he was never investigated, I do think there could be a chance Lechmere was interviewed by Sergeant Wright and Godley before the inquest.

Since there's no mention of them being involved in the on-site interviews I presume they interviewed the inquest witnesses.

https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001652/18880903/052/0005

[Trevor Marriott]

And it’s just as easy to blindly accept points from an unreliable source when they support what you want to believe.

As for your second point, you are making the same unsupported value judgement that I believe Dew made. It must be a copper thing.

I keep and open mind and stick to the facts and assess and evaluate those facts in a professional manner, unlike you who by your posts would seem to be the bumbling buffoon referred to previous.

No wonder you are one of David Orsams favourite posters I can see why.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Whilst I'm sure he was never investigated, I do think there could be a chance Lechmere was interviewed by Sergeant Wright and Godley before the inquest.

Since there's no mention of them being involved in the on-site interviews I presume they interviewed the inquest witnesses.
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive....80903/052/0005

I suspect the interviews made by Wright and Godley were field interviews, not pre-inquest ditto. One must of course work from the presumption that it would have been established that Lechmere was who he said he was (alluding to his role here, rather than his name). It could have been done by asking him about the position of the body, for example. The obvious thing to do would be to have him ID:d by Mizen, but that only happened on day two of the inquest, indicating that there was no time to do it before. This seems to tell us that Lechmere only surfaced in direct combination with the second inquest day. He would have given a description to the police about what happened on the murder morning. Of course, he would have been asked about his personal details too - which was when he identified himself not as Lechmere but as Cross.
Apart from this, I see no evidence whatsoever that he was investigated. On the contrary, the lack of his true name in the police reports clearly indicate that he never was.

[Trevor Marriott]

Whilst I'm sure he was never investigated, I do think there could be a chance Lechmere was interviewed by Sergeant Wright and Godley before the inquest.

Since there's no mention of them being involved in the on-site interviews I presume they interviewed the inquest witnesses.
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive....80903/052/0005

Of course he would have been interviewed before the inquest fror those who suggest he was not is a case of plain stupidity and ignorance.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Of course he would have been interviewed before the inquest fror those who suggest he was not is a case of plain stupidity and ignorance.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As long as they are not stupid enough to think an interview is the same as an investigation, Trevor ….

[The Baron]

Of course he would have been interviewed before the inquest fror those who suggest he was not is a case of plain stupidity and ignorance.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Exactly Trevor!

Furthermore we have what makes us believe he was thoroughly investigated and cleared!

And no amount of bumbling buffoonery will change this.

Lechmere was a thoroughly honest man.




The Baron

[MrBarnett]

Of course he would have been interviewed before the inquest fror those who suggest he was not is a case of plain stupidity and ignorance.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Has anyone ever said that he wasn’t, Trevor?

Presumably he called into a police station (take your pick as to which one) and gave a statement.

You’ll know this, when a police officer takes a statement from a witness, does he start by asking, ‘Name?’ or ‘Full name’?

[MrBarnett]

Exactly Trevor!

Furthermore we have what makes us believe he was thoroughly investigated and cleared!

And no amount of bumbling buffoonery will change this.

Lechmere was a thoroughly honest man.




The Baron

Makes you believe that, Baron. I’d be surprised if anyone else believes that Dew’s use of the word ‘honest’ is evidence of Lechmere having been thoroughly investigated and cleared.

[The Baron]

Makes you believe that, Baron. I’d be surprised if anyone else believes that Dew’s use of the word ‘honest’ is evidence of his having been thoroughly investigated and cleared.

Not only Dew, but Swanson too!

The police were investigating many persons especially those who gave suspicious statements, we have this on record, and since Cross contradicted Mizen, and denied telling him he was wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row, then he must have been investigated and even watched, and cleared.


And no poster in the 21th century can change this in order to let a misguided theory pass.




The Baron

[Fisherman]

Not only Dew, but Swanson too!

The police were investigating many persons especially those who gave suspicious statements, we have this on record, and since Cross contradicted Mizen, and denied telling him he was wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row, then he must have been investigated and even watched, and cleared.


And no poster in the 21th century can change this in order to let a misguided theory pass.




The Baron

Since Lechmere contradicted Mizen he SHOULD have been investigated. Sadly, should have and must have are two different things.

You may be blissfully unaware of it, but history is full of things that should have been done but never were.

And no poster in the 21st century can change this.

[John Wheat]

Since Lechmere contradicted Mizen he SHOULD have been investigated. Sadly, should have and must have are two different things.

You may be blissfully unaware of it, but history is full of things that should have been done but never were.

And no poster in the 21st century can change this.

You have no idea if Lechmere was investigated or not this is pure speculation.

[Fisherman]

You have no idea if Lechmere was investigated or not this is pure speculation.

Oh, I certainly do have an idea, and I have the evidence to go with it in the shape of the lacking name of Lechmere in the September and October police reports.

[Paddy Goose]

The Lechmere suspect theory throws both the Metropolitan police, and the London working class under the bus. Or under the lorry as you say.

Charles Cross and Robert Paul were walking to work in the dark. People today have a hard time wrapping their head around that. But in fact, workmen walking to work in the wee hours was not uncommon. There were a number of police on foot throughout the district, which had a population density then three times that of today's.

Cross and Paul did the right thing. They notified the nearest policeman. Absolutely the police checked out the employment status of Charles Cross at Pickford's. That's common sense. All of the police notebooks are gone. Stewart Evans told us that right here on Casebook if you were paying any attention. These notebooks contained the intricate details of their investigations.

It requires a historical understanding of Metropolitan London in the Late Victorian Period to put these events in context.

Not guilty.

Paddy

[Paddy Goose]

I have the evidence to go with it in the shape of the lacking name of Lechmere in the September and October police reports.

I can't believe you are saying this Fisherman, you are an experienced student of the crimes and you know full well the September and October police reports are summaries. The reports are only a synopsis. The reports we read in the Ultimate were compiled and produced in heavily edited form in the central police office.

Underlying these reports there was a mass of investigative data, consisting of the activities conducted by policemen and detectives pounding the pavement, doing interviews, checking, verifying. This data was contained in the police notebooks.

You were here Christer, when Stewart Evans explained to us on Casebook that those police notebooks are now missing.

Paddy