Originally posted by Kattrup
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evidence of innocence
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by harry View PostCannot see your point Mr Barnett.He gave an alternate name to that of Lechmere, Cross,a name he has been known by for well over a hundred years.No error there.
You might say he should have given the name Lechmere,a given or baptisimal name.I say he had a choice and chose Cross.The evidence proves my point.
The man, of course, has also been known as Lechmere for over a hundred years. Ask his descendants - the ones who had never heard of Charles Cross until it was discovered that the real name of the witness was CAL.Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-27-2021, 10:17 AM.
Comment
-
1- "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"
(First premise)
2- Cross made a suspicious statement to the police (contradicted Mizen)
(Second premise)
3- Enquiries were made into the history and accounts given by Cross!
(Conclusion)
Simple deductive logic!
And no amount of bumbling buffoonery can change this logic.
And on top of this, we have Dew:
"Thoroughly Honest man"
This is more than enough to completely destroy this misguided theory beyond recognition.
The Baron
Comment
-
Let’s compare the 1861 census use of Cross to the 1869 use of Lechmere on Emily’s death cert.
Who in 1861 can we be sure would have been aware that CAL had been recorded by the name of Cross?
Whoever completed the household schedule and whichever census officials processed it. In other words, no one who knew the family beyond Thomas Cross or possibly Maria.
Who in 1869 can we be sure would have aware that Emily’s real name (and by extension that of her brother) was Lechmere? Obviously the family themselves who provided the information and the registrar who knew bugger all about the family. Then there was Mrs Marshall and, unless she was the soul of discretion, anyone she discussed the matter with. The only copy of Emily’s death cert I’ve seen is heavily cropped, but there must have been a Dr involved at some point. There’s no mention of a PM, so perhaps a local doctor who had been treating her?
We should also remember that in 1859, the year after TC and Maria married, Charles snd Emily were baptised. Their father’s full name, John Allen Lechmere, was entered into the baptismal register and was no doubt also recorded on the baptismal certificates provided to Maria. Do we can add the local vicar to the list.Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-27-2021, 10:51 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
The man, of course, has also been known as Lechmere for over a hundred years. Ask his descendants - the ones who had never heard of Charles Cross until it was discovered that the real name of the witness was CAL.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
You’re going to be in trouble with Kattrup with your categorical statement that he didn’t have to give the name Lechmere in court. If Lechmere was the name he was generally - or exclusively - known by, he did have to give it. And we have no evidence whatsoever that in 1888 he was known by anyone as Charles Cross.
I wouldn’t worry too much, though, yours is an anti-Lechmerian error and they seem to go unchallenged.
I don't think that anti-lechmerian errors go unchallenged; what is challenged is dubious assertions of fact and baseless speculation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Baron View Post1- "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"
(First premise)
2- Cross made a suspicious statement to the police (contradicted Mizen)
(Second premise)
3- Enquiries were made into the history and accounts given by Cross!
(Conclusion)
Simple deductive logic!
And no amount of bumbling buffoonery can change this logic.
And on top of this, we have Dew:
"Thoroughly Honest man"
This is more than enough to completely destroy this misguided theory beyond recognition.
The Baron
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Baron View Post1- "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"
(First premise)
2- Cross made a suspicious statement to the police (contradicted Mizen)
(Second premise)
3- Enquiries were made into the history and accounts given by Cross!
(Conclusion)
Simple deductive logic!
And no amount of bumbling buffoonery can change this logic.
And on top of this, we have Dew:
"Thoroughly Honest man"
This is more than enough to completely destroy this misguided theory beyond recognition.
The Baron
By simple deductive logic, I have come to the conclusion that Baron has a beef and cannot be relied upon to be objective.Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-27-2021, 10:58 AM.
Comment
-
So MrBarnett, you are convinced CAL was Jack the Ripper.
Edit, you answered already.
Last edited by Paddy Goose; 09-27-2021, 11:03 AM.
Comment
-
No. It's a Suspect Thread. Not a Monty Python sketch.
Edit: that's why I edited my post. Because you had already answered when I asked the second time.
Okay so finally you say he is a interesting subject. Thank you for being honest. Because, and please forgive me if this is incorrect usage of the UK vernacular, but after all you used this phrase - you MrBarnett have been "banging on" about the name topic daily for some time. I was perplexed as to why you would do that. Now I know. You consider him an interesting subject with a fair number of points in his favour, to quote you exactly.
There is no sense in me repeating anything I've posted because you and Fisherman have mocked me at every turn.
Goodbye on the Lechmere Suspect threads.Last edited by Paddy Goose; 09-27-2021, 11:21 AM.
Comment
Comment