Evidence of innocence

[harry]

Lie number two by Fisherman.
It was not I that introduced the prima facia situation.It's been a cornerstone of your case fisherman,and trotted out at regular intervals since Scobie mentioned it ages ago.You have used it constantly since.
Yes Trevor,you are correct,it was and maybe still is reffered to as a commital process,but as fisherman and Scobie used the term prima facie.I use those words to show what i was referring to.
So lets take the latest claim by Fisherman,that in which he says Scobie talked of a 'Pattern of offending,and an area of offending' As it is used to support evidence against Cross. a pattern is something that is repeated,and the subject matter is the jtr murders and torso murders, what Scobie and Fisherman are claiming,is that there is a pattern of incriminating evidence showing Cross to be the offender in all those crimes.They haven't of course detailed that evidence,but it is Fisherman claims, clear and unmistakable to those that seek it.In addition,the evidence is so strong,they say, it would result in a trial bringing in a verdict of guilty.
I am as sure as I sit here writing,Aberline himself would be convincedby those two.

[Fisherman]

Lie number two by Fisherman.
It was not I that introduced the prima facia situation.It's been a cornerstone of your case fisherman,and trotted out at regular intervals since Scobie mentioned it ages ago.You have used it constantly since.
Yes Trevor,you are correct,it was and maybe still is reffered to as a commital process,but as fisherman and Scobie used the term prima facie.I use those words to show what i was referring to.
So lets take the latest claim by Fisherman,that in which he says Scobie talked of a 'Pattern of offending,and an area of offending' As it is used to support evidence against Cross. a pattern is something that is repeated,and the subject matter is the jtr murders and torso murders, what Scobie and Fisherman are claiming,is that there is a pattern of incriminating evidence showing Cross to be the offender in all those crimes.They haven't of course detailed that evidence,but it is Fisherman claims, clear and unmistakable to those that seek it.In addition,the evidence is so strong,they say, it would result in a trial bringing in a verdict of guilty.
I am as sure as I sit here writing,Aberline himself would be convincedby those two.

So it was ME who brought up the prima facie ”situation”? Absolutely true. I DID! And why would it come as a surprise to me? Any particular reason?

You will excuse me for not being able to make heads or tails of your ramblings. The last time I heard something similar it came from a person who could not even remember his own name, bless his soul.

Oh, and do forgive me for lying again, Harry. I know it’ s a bad thing, but since you have all the strong arguments and are so sharpwitted, what else can I do? To think, after all those years, the Lechmere theory is brought down in flames by none other than you, Harry!

Who would have thought it? Not me, certainly.

PS. Did I manage to squeeze a third lie in here? Yes? No?

Do tell!

[MrBarnett]

These hypothetical people who knew him as CAL and did not know he had moved to Doveton Street are irrelevant.

CAL gave his work and home addresses at the Inquest. Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity from the police. They knew where to find him.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity from his wife, mother, or children. They were the people most likely to know if he was lying in his to the police or acting suspiciously.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity from his neighbors at Doveton Street. While less likely to know than CAL's immediate family, they would have a decent chance of knowing if he was lying or acting suspiciously.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity from his employers. While less likely to know than CAL's immediate family, they would have a decent chance of knowing if he was lying or acting suspiciously.

Using the name Charles Allen Cross did not hide CAL's identity his coworkers that knew him. While less likely to know than CAL's immediate family, they would have a decent chance of knowing if he was lying or acting suspiciously.



CAL had no need to go to the police if he was the killer. He knew that neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul had gotten his name and both could be easily avoided in the future by changing his route to work.

CAL's use of his step-father's surname in court is unusual, but he was doing it a decade before the Ripper started killing. Using the name Cross would not have hidden his identity from the police nor from the people most likely to know if he was lying - his immediate family, his Doveton Street neighbors, his employers, or the coworkers who knew him.

Thanks for your very well reasoned response, Fiver. I can go along with much of it - the main exception being the irrelevance of the hypothetical people. Perhaps they didn’t exist, in which case they would be totally irrelevant. But if they did exist, they might be extremely relevant. They might explain why CAL omitted to use his real surname and his motivation for doing so could range from trying to avoid social embarrassment to trying to avoid detection as a murderer.

If I’d written this yesterday, I would probably have added the rider that I don’t consider myself to be any kind of a Lechmerian. But overnight I made an interesting discovery that is tempting me to become a fully-fledged member of the CAL is guilty brigade. I’ve found a plausible ‘chop-shop’ just yards away from the Pinchin Street arch. More on that over on JTRForums in due course.

[MrBarnett]

So it was ME who brought up the prima facie ”situation”? Absolutely true. I DID! And why would it come as a surprise to me? Any particular reason?

You will excuse me for not being able to make heads or tails of your ramblings. The last time I heard something similar it came from a person who could not even remember his own name, bless his soul.

Oh, and do forgive me for lying again, Harry. I know it’ s a bad thing, but since you have all the strong arguments and are so sharpwitted, what else can I do? To think, after all those years, the Lechmere theory is brought down in flames by none other than you, Harry!

Who would have thought it? Not me, certainly.

PS. Did I manage to squeeze a third lie in here? Yes? No?

Do tell!

Fish,

You will have noticed the subtle substitution of your ‘brought up’ with Harry’s ‘introduced’.

This guy’s sharp, you’ll have to have your wits about you to fend off his attacks.

Gary

[Fisherman]

Fish,

You will have noticed the subtle substitution of your ‘brought up’ with Harry’s ‘introduced’.

This guy’s sharp, you’ll have to have your wits about you to fend off his attacks.

Gary

He’s really something extra, no doubt about it! And now I’ ll go looking for that chop shop of yours - sounds decidedly intriguing!

[etenguy]

Thanks for your very well reasoned response, Fiver. I can go along with much of it - the main exception being the irrelevance of the hypothetical people. Perhaps they didn’t exist, in which case they would be totally irrelevant. But if they did exist, they might be extremely relevant. They might explain why CAL omitted to use his real surname and his motivation for doing so could range from trying to avoid social embarrassment to trying to avoid detection as a murderer.

Dear MrBarnett

It seems the Lechmere as Ripper theory highlights the name used as suspicious and an indicator that Lechmere was trying to hide something - indeed, the fact he was a murderer.

I wonder why this line of reasoning persists? I agree with Fivers' reasoning and in addition to that, the research carried out by Mr Barratt which identified a number of people who had done precisely the same thing as innocent witnesses. It appears to be common practice.

There may be reason to consider Lechmere as a strong candidate for JtR, but the name use, I think, is not one of those.

[MrBarnett]

Dear MrBarnett

It seems the Lechmere as Ripper theory highlights the name used as suspicious and an indicator that Lechmere was trying to hide something - indeed, the fact he was a murderer.

I wonder why this line of reasoning persists? I agree with Fivers' reasoning and in addition to that, the research carried out by Mr Barratt which identified a number of people who had done precisely the same thing as innocent witnesses. It appears to be common practice.

There may be reason to consider Lechmere as a strong candidate for JtR, but the name use, I think, is not one of those.

What Mr Barrat highlighted was a number of people who used alternate names. Something most of us were completely unaware of until his Lordship educated us. :-)

And how was he able to do that? Because there were records of both names being divulged.

The line of reasoning persists because it is a perfectly logical one. You may have come to the conclusion that CAL was the sort of man to who wouldn’t have thought it appropriate to give his real name in court and under oath, I have come to the opposite conclusion. And the more I look into his background, the more of an anomaly his omission seems.

[Fisherman]

Dear MrBarnett

It seems the Lechmere as Ripper theory highlights the name used as suspicious and an indicator that Lechmere was trying to hide something - indeed, the fact he was a murderer.

I wonder why this line of reasoning persists? I agree with Fivers' reasoning and in addition to that, the research carried out by Mr Barratt which identified a number of people who had done precisely the same thing as innocent witnesses. It appears to be common practice.

There may be reason to consider Lechmere as a strong candidate for JtR, but the name use, I think, is not one of those.

Since Gary has not yet responded, I can give you my take on things, perhaps?

There can be no doubt that the name change can be due to something else than Lechmere being the killer. As Gary Barnett himself has suggested, it may boil down to the carman wanting to shield the Lechmere family, for instance.

However, the matter as such belongs to the compiled accusation act. In it, all of the points of accusation may, taken one by one, have innocent explanations. But to me, there is no realistic chance of them ALL being innocent. Nobody amasses such a pile of evidence against himself as the outcome of an endless series of unfortunate coincidences.

Others will have to stand for their takes. I will stand by mine.

Ps. Gary got his answer in before me!

[Harry D]

He just happened to find Nichols.

Yes, he did.

As Dimeschutz just happened to find Stride.

Both of them were going about their business when they crossed paths with the aftermath of a serial killer.

There is no evidence that either of them were anything more than bystanders.

[rjpalmer]

And how was he able to do that? Because there were records of both names being divulged.

This strikes me as a particularly sly answer, Gary.

In Barrat’s case studies, did the subjects feel the need to ‘divulge’ both names, or is it rather a case where various records—census returns, obituaries, the testimony of others, etc.—-‘divulged’ this fact?

I’ll answer for you. It’s the latter, even though you have constantly tried to imply that it’s the former.

[Fisherman]

Yes, he did.

Absolutely. I just said so.

As Dimeschutz just happened to find Stride.

Absolutely. What tells him apart from Lechmere, though, is that he does not have the pilce of other indicators pointing in his direction; the name, the disagreements with the police, the refusal to help prop the body up, the matter that someone who should have seen and/or heard him did not do so, the established reason to traverse Spitalfields in the mornings, the clothing pulled up over the wounds - Diemschitz has nothing of that attaching to his person, and so it becomes intellecually corrupt to suggest that the two are on equal terms.

Both of them were going about their business when they crossed paths with the aftermath of a serial killer.

See the above.

There is no evidence that either of them were anything more than bystanders.

There is enough circumstantial evidence for James Scobie to conclude that it would warrant a modern day trial, suggesting that Lechmere was the killer. Does that apply for Diemschitz too? Think long and hard about that one, Harry.

[MrBarnett]

This strikes me as a particularly sly answer, Gary.

In Barrat’s case studies, did the subjects feel the need to ‘divulge’ both names, or is it rather a case where various records—census returns, obituaries, the testimony of others, etc.—-‘divulged’ this fact?

I’ll answer for you. It’s the latter, even though you have constantly tried to imply that it’s the former.

Were there no examples where the individuals or their family members voluntarily divulged both names?

And how about Kattrup’s excellent trawl through court records, did that not provide examples of both names being divulged by people who seemingly believed it was the correct thing to do?

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for your very well reasoned response, Fiver. I can go along with much of it - the main exception being the irrelevance of the hypothetical people. Perhaps they didn’t exist, in which case they would be totally irrelevant. But if they did exist, they might be extremely relevant. They might explain why CAL omitted to use his real surname and his motivation for doing so could range from trying to avoid social embarrassment to trying to avoid detection as a murderer.

If I’d written this yesterday, I would probably have added the rider that I don’t consider myself to be any kind of a Lechmerian. But overnight I made an interesting discovery that is tempting me to become a fully-fledged member of the CAL is guilty brigade. I’ve found a plausible ‘chop-shop’ just yards away from the Pinchin Street arch. More on that over on JTRForums in due course.

hi Gary
interesting-but why over on the other site? why not here too?

[MrBarnett]

hi Gary
interesting-but why over on the other site? why not here too?

To keep it all in one place. I’m hoping to have some input from others.


Here’s a link:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/584235-charles-lechmere’s-lair

[Harry D]

What tells him apart from Lechmere, though, is that he does not have the pilce of other indicators pointing in his direction

Neither does Lechmere. Anyone can appear guilty if you scrutinize them enough.

the name

A familial name used officially before, attached to his home address and business. Not an indicator of guilt or someone hiding their identity.

the disagreements with the police

Disagreements shared with Robert Paul. Was this a two-man job?

the refusal to help prop the body up

As Fiver pointed out, touching the body would have given Lechmere an alibi for any blood found on him.

who should have ssen and/or heard him did not do so

Citation needed.

the established reason to traverse Spitalfields in the mornings

Yeah, he was earning a living. Like hundreds of men traversing Whitechapel in the wee hours.

cothing pulled up over the wounds

Nichols was still dishevelled and Paul had to pull down her clothing. It is not a pointer of guilt as it is a pointer to someone interrupted by Lechmere. And of course, you will retort "but why add someone else to the mix when Lechmere is already here!" Because Lechmere was a carman on his route to work. He had a perfectly valid reason for being in Buck's Row at that hour. And because murderers don't tend to loiter at crime scenes, approaching passers-by and certainly not policemen.

If Lechmere had enough time to stop what he was doing and back up into the middle of the street, he had enough time to skulk off into the shadows. By the time Paul would have raised the alarm, Lechmere would be long gone. And that's assuming Paul didn't keep walking. He was trying to give Lechmere a wide berth, he could've just let his fellow carman carry on by. Paul even supposed that Nichols was still alive, which would've gave Lechmere another out that he refused to take. You have cooked up a Hollywood-esque scenario where the dastardly psychopath Lechmere narcissistically hoodwinks the law with his mindgames instead of slipping off into the night when he had plenty of chance.

There is enough circumstantial evidence for James Scobie to conclude that it would warrant a modern day trial

Scobie wasn't fed the full facts of the case, therefore his opinion should be taken with a pinch of salt.