Evidence of innocence

[Abby Normal]

this is nuts. well maybe not considering how hysterical many of the knee jerk anti lechers can get. its now being asserted lech not being investigated is speculation.poppycock. as far as we know, he was not, and there is no evidence he was. and thats the fact.

and people wonder why im a lech apologist. its because of absolute nonsense like this.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

A witness is interviewed as part of an investigation, and a statement taken, and would you believe that the statement contains the witnesess name and address and is taken at his home address

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

A witness is interviewed as part of an investigation, and a statement taken, and would you believe that the statement contains the witnesess name and address

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And is a detailed investigation undertaken to make sure the witness has given the right name?

Did you ever do that, Trevor, take a statement from a witness and then pay a visit to his home and check with his neighbours that he had given the right name? Was that standard procedure?

[Trevor Marriott]

this is nuts. well maybe not considering how hysterical many of the knee jerk anti lechers can get. its now being asserted lech not being investigated is speculation.poppycock. as far as we know, he was not, and there is no evidence he was. and thats the fact.

and people wonder why im a lech apologist. its because of absolute nonsense like this.

But he was interviewed and a statement from him and would have been compared to the statement of Paul and any ambiguities would have been identified and acted upon.

Thats is common sense police procedures back then and now.

Do you and all the other Lechmerians out there in Lal La Land really beleive that when he came forward after that length of time they woud not have treated his actions with caution?

Its not satifactory to keep saying he was not investigated because you cannot prove that, but the inferences that can be drawn suggest he was.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And is a detailed investigation undertaken to make sure the witness has given the right name?

Did you ever do that, Trevor, take a statement from a witness and then pay a visit to his home and check with his neighbours that he had given the right name? Was that standard procedure?

A greater per cent of witness statements are taking at the witnesses home address !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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

[MrBarnett]

A greater per cent of witness statements are taking at the witnesses home address !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And how from that do you determine whether the witness has given you the correct name? Do you go up and down his street knocking on doors to find out what name his neighbours know him by?

In this case, of course, PC Mizen didn’t take down the witnesses names or addresses, so it wasn’t until Lechmere voluntarily (it would seem) presented himself at a police station that the police had any way of discovering his identity.

He had reported the finding of the body to a police officer within minutes of having done so and then a couple of days later called in to a police station to give a formal statement. And his account of events was corroborated by Paul. Where are the alarm bells there to start the police investigating his background?

[MrBarnett]

There is absolutely no question that Lechmere concealed a major aspect of his identity (i.e. his real name) and no reason to suspect that the police ever discovered that he had done so.

[Paddy Goose]

If Charles Cross is the name he was known at Pickford's, then Charles Cross is the "correct name." Because he was walking on his way to work at Pickford's, when he noticed the body and notified the policeman. The police would of course check with Pickford's that a Charles Cross was employed there. And of course Pickford's answers yes. And the circle is closed. The police are satisfied.

If the police knew that Charles Cross actually was Charles Lechmere legally, so what? It wouldn't change the fact that he came across the victim on his way to work, would it? At work where he was known as Charles Cross. No. it wouldn't change anything. Knowing that a working class man in London in the LVP was going by a different name would not change the police investigation at all, and why should it. It's a moot point.

Stewart Evans has explained right here on Casebook that the great many police notebooks with the investigative details are all lost to time. All that remains are the summary type police reports, inquests, memorandum, etc. which Stewart so kindly compiled for our use in the Ultimate. Christer knows this. If other people don't know it, and won't take my word for it, so be it.

[MrBarnett]

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

Your first sentence is one of the strangest I’ve ever read on here.

We have buses over here too. We don’t call them lorries. Guess what we call them. You might want to create a transport nomenclature sidebar to respond.

[The Baron]

There is absolutely no question that Lechmere concealed a major aspect of his identity (i.e. his real name)

The Baron

[Paddy Goose]

Your first sentence is one of the strangest I’ve ever read on here.

We have buses over here too. We don’t call them lorries. Guess what we call them. You might want to create a transport nomenclature sidebar to respond.

That's great, thanks for the correction, and for ignoring everything else I have posted.

Paddy

[MrBarnett]

Why do you keep banging on about police notebooks? Of course most people know they once existed but no longer do.

What we are left with are the summaries that detail the major points in the police investigations. Not one of them mentions an investigation into Lechmere’s background - not one of them even mentions the name Lechmere.

When Charles Lechmere first walked into a police station to give a statement, was asked ‘What’s your full name’ and responded ‘Charles Allen Cross’ he’d already made the decision to conceal a significant aspect of his ID. Then, when he took an oath to tell the ‘whole truth’ and again omitted to reveal his real name, he compounded the deception.

[Paddy Goose]

Because I don't consider the name Lechmere germane to the investigation nor do I think Charles Cross was engaged in deception of any type.

In my opinion, this member of the working classes did everything right. He stopped to notice the victim. He didn't have to, he had a job to show up to. He called over the next passerby, Robert Paul, and they both had a look see. Together they informed the policeman. These are all traits of a good citizen. And this is the key - he uses the name Cross in his dealings with the authorities. With the police and at the inquest. Why? This workingman thinks, "of course" since he is known at Pickford's as Cross he will identify as Cross to the authorities. No need to confuse things. In his mind there is no deception. He is being honest. Because on the way to work, he is "Charles Cross." In fact, I bet he never gave it a second thought. It came naturally for him just as he had identified as Cross at Pickford's all those years.