Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

I knew I would get jumped on for that post, but I try and be fair and look at it from all angles. So yes Gary there is the possibility that he may have asked the court, and given a privacy reason why he didn't want his address to be read out in court. But the point is, as Fish says the police knew his address , they knew his workplace as well . He appeared at the inquest and a popular newspaper printed his address . So if he was trying to conceal his ID with smoke and mirrors say, he wasn't doing a very good job of it.
Regards Darryl

The important thing is not that the Star was able to publish his address. The importnt thing is that Lechmere seemingly TRIED to conceal it. And it was not as if there were a large number of various methods to do so - the one thing he was able to do was to withhold it when he testified. Saying that he did not do a very good job of it is a bit disingenous, is it not? What was he to do? Contact all the papers and murder anybody who said that he had gotten the address and aimed to publish it?

[Darryl Kenyon]

The importnt thing is that Lechmere seemingly TRIED to conceal it.

Conjecture on your part Fish

[Darryl Kenyon]

The important thing is not that the Star was able to publish his address. The importnt thing is that Lechmere seemingly TRIED to conceal it. And it was not as if there were a large number of various methods to do so - the one thing he was able to do was to withhold it when he testified. Saying that he did not do a very good job of it is a bit disingenous, is it not? What was he to do? Contact all the papers and murder anybody who said that he had gotten the address and aimed to publish it?

It is not me Fish nor others who say that Lech tried concealing his ID. All I am pointing out is that if you are correct , to my mind he didn't do a good job of it. For instance, off the top of my head most newspapers reported Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. Why volunteer that info

[Darryl Kenyon]

And before you start banging on Fish about Lech cleverly concealing his true ID by using the name Cross. How do you know for sure that when he was first employed there , that wasn't his name on the employment record ? Plus the fact that he said himself that he had been in their employ for over twenty years would narrow the field down considerably to who he was

[Varqm]

If the name Lechmere was tied to criminal\court records and he used the name Cross that could be concealment or evading. But if not not.

[Fiver]

>>Please explain<<

Amongst many other similar quotes over the years across the boards and Facebook groups,

"... given the absence of comments about others, there must have been something uniquely different about his attire to generate comment."

The 8 September 1888 East London Observer was full of comments about others. The only witnesses who don't get comments are Inspector Joseph Helson and Police-constable Mizen

"The coroner, however, on this occasion was Mr. Wynne Baxter, who, fresh from his Scandinavian tour, appeared at the inquest in a pair of black and white checked trousers, a dazzling white waistcoat, a crimson scarf and a dark coat."

"The Father of the Murdered Woman, an old, grey-headed, and grey-bearded man, who, with head lowered and hands behind his back, came slowly up to the table and gave the name of Edward Walker."

"John Neil, the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial."

"Dr. Llewellyn,152, Whitechapel-road, quiet and sedate, as befitted a man who had just come fresh from the unpleasant ordeal of making a post-mortem examination."

"The husband of the woman - William Nicholls - is a printer's machinist, and he came to the mortuary dressed in a long black coat, with a black tie, trousers of dark material, and a tall silk hat. He carried an umbrella, and looked very quiet and very gentlemanly. He is very pale, with a full light brown beard and moustache."

"The first witness called was Inspector John Sparling [Spratling], a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard, dressed in the regulation blue of the force."

"Henry Tomkins, a rough looking man, was next called."

"Charles A. Cross, a carman, who appeared in court with a rough sack apron on, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford & Co. for some years."

"William Nicholls, of 20, Coburg-road, Old Kent-road, next came from his seat near the police, dressed as on Saturday in his long black coat, black tie, and dark coloured trousers, and looking exceedingly pale."

"Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet, whose naturally pale face was flushed with excitement, and who gave her address in a frightened manner, which necessitated the coroner frequently urging her to speak up, was then called."

"Mary Ann Monk - a young woman with a flushed face and a haughty air, who wore a long grey ulster - was the last witness."

[Fiver]

How is it a personal interpretation of mine that Nichols clothing covered the wounds to the abdomen as Paul arrived at the site, when we have it on record?

That is not a personal interpretation - it is a false statement on your part.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen." - Surgeon Henry Llewellyn

These facts have been presented to you before. Since you have no way of answering these inconvenient facts, you continue to ignore them.

[drstrange169]

>>Why would we expect the reporters to comment on how he did not give his address, Dusty? <<


Because, apparently, it was supposed to be a unique situation according to some.


>>And why would the Star treat a rather minor effort in a trivial matter on behalf of the reporter as a scoop?<<

Precisely, why would the reporter go looking for such a trivial matter when his deadline was pressing.
The theory defeats itself.

[drstrange169]

Not to mention, where would a clerk of the court get the information from if Cross didn't give it?

[Fisherman]

Conjecture on your part Fish

It is a very reasonable conclusion, based on the fact that just the one paper had his address. We can go on for an eternity speaking about what is conjecture and what is fact, but to what avail?

[Fisherman]

It is not me Fish nor others who say that Lech tried concealing his ID. All I am pointing out is that if you are correct , to my mind he didn't do a good job of it. For instance, off the top of my head most newspapers reported Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. Why volunteer that info

Once again, he did as good a job of it as he possiby could when it comes to not giving the address. There was nothing more he could do about that matter. As for why he volunteered his middle name, keep in mind that he garnished it with the surname Cross. Charles Allen Cross. Not Charles Allen Lechmere. WHy would anybody who knew him as Lechmere only think "Thatīs him"?

At the end of the day, it is NOT a good thing for him that he gave an alternative name. It is NOT a good thing for him if he tried to coenceal his address from the inquest. Those are the exact kinds of things that Scobie commented on by saying "A jury woud not like that". And we both know it, you and I alike, donīt we?

[Fisherman]

If the name Lechmere was tied to criminal\court records and he used the name Cross that could be concealment or evading. But if not not.

No matter what the name Lechmere was tied to, not giving it is ALWAYS concealing it.

[Fisherman]

>>Why would we expect the reporters to comment on how he did not give his address, Dusty? <<


Because, apparently, it was supposed to be a unique situation according to some.

It is an important factor when researching him as a suspect, but it was no important factor to the reporters back then. If you want to prove your point, you need to find examples of reporters commenting on how amateur witnesses did not give their addresses in other inquests.

>>And why would the Star treat a rather minor effort in a trivial matter on behalf of the reporter as a scoop?<<

Precisely, why would the reporter go looking for such a trivial matter when his deadline was pressing.
The theory defeats itself.

The most likely reason would be that he wanted to make as good an article as possible, the way most reporters try to do. Maybe he wanted to point it out to his editor afterwards and say "Look what I got, that the others didnīt. Can I have a raise?"

However, it is not likely to any degree at all that the reporter wold reccomend his editor to treat the matter as a scoop and even less likely that the editor would agree to any such proposition. Therefore, there would be no footprint of it, and it is not reasonable to suggest there would have been.

You are often trying to make things look a lot harder to understand than they actually are. Donīt.

[Fisherman]

Not to mention, where would a clerk of the court get the information from if Cross didn't give it?

Iīll leave you to work that one out by yourself. Let me just say that it is easy enough.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Once again, he did as good a job of it as he possiby could when it comes to not giving the address. There was nothing more he could do about that matter. As for why he volunteered his middle name, keep in mind that he garnished it with the surname Cross. Charles Allen Cross. Not Charles Allen Lechmere. WHy would anybody who knew him as Lechmere only think "Thatīs him"?

At the end of the day, it is NOT a good thing for him that he gave an alternative name. It is NOT a good thing for him if he tried to coenceal his address from the inquest. Those are the exact kinds of things that Scobie commented on by saying "A jury woud not like that". And we both know it, you and I alike, donīt we?

Once again, I was making the point that he almost certainly would have volunteered the point that he had worked at Pickfords for over twenty years. I doubt that would be a question the coroner would ask . Why didn't he just say - Charles Cross , carman at Pickfords . Yes, there are people who work in the same job/place all their lives but over twenty years and in particular in Victorian times where there was a higher mortality rate from serious illnesses and a lower life span . I would like to guess not too many of the work force. So the over twenty years info would make it a lot easier for people at Pickfords to guess who he is. Not too clever for Lech to say that if he is trying to hide his ID within the confines he was put in