Evidence of innocence

[Mark J D]

So in other words he achieved absolutely nothing by this so called ruse. The police knew his address and were he worked . They could question/arrest him anytime in the future if they so required. Glad we are clear about that.

Folks, we already know from several earlier postings that it's not true to say 'he achieved absolutely nothing by this so called ruse': more than one highly interesting likely achievement has been outlined in this thread, and more than once, too. No, I'm not going to go through them. I'm simply going to say that this sort of denialism reminds me of what we get when we try and explain Darwinism -- or, to be more precise, the so-called 'modern synthesis' -- to someone who's either too religious or too dim to get it. When you're explaining the first of three points to them, they insist that it has to be all wrong. You tell them it's not fully comprehensible until you've got through points two and three. But by the time you've got to point three, they've forgotten point one. And when you go through point one again, you find they've forgotten point two. This is motivated forgetting; and there's no way through it. My view is that anyone who wants it so much that they'll embarrass themselves in public should just be left to enjoy it...

M.

[Dickere]

Lechmere’s marriage certificate, and his kids registered at school as Lechmere’s. He was married in 1870 and clearly his name has been Lechmere since 1870 and possibly earlier. Likely the moment his stepfather died he changed back to his baptised name which is interesting in itself. He appears to have only been Cross while his stepfather was around, before and after it’s Lechmere. His kids were all registered at school as Lechmere.
The point being that by 1888 Lechmere hadn’t used the name Cross anywhere for nearly two decades. The only 2 times in his adult life we find the name Cross is when he’s at an inquest.
I would add that anyone who still calls him Cross is incorrect. It suggests to me that those who do so have a refusal to face any facts about Lechmere, even the basics like his name.

It doesn't make him a killer of course but it is a good clear point that it feels ludicrous to be open to debate.

On two occasions, and nowhere else we know of, he uses a name that isn't really his at an inquest.

Maybe just to attempt to improve his credibility, maybe not. We'll never know. But it is an untruth as the average person would see it.

[Fisherman]

So in other words he achieved absolutely nothing by this so called ruse. The police knew his address and were he worked . They could question/arrest him anytime in the future if they so required. Glad we are clear about that.
You are seeing smoke and mirrors were there are none

As Mark pointed out already, it is not true that he could have achieved nothing from his withholding the address. If you put your mind to it, I think you can see that providing an address as opposed to not providing an address actually has different implications.

[Paddy Goose]

Fish alert! Come in Fisherman!

I think Christer doesn't need to reply to this endlessly repeated garbage -- which, to be frank, no longer seems honest. I shyly suggest that he should ignore it and do other things instead...

Christer, notice that Mark suggests you should ignore the posts on Lechmere threads. That's right. Ignore us.

Please consider his suggestion to ignore all of us. Because if you ignore all of us, we will go away from Lechmere threads. We will all stop posting on Lechmere threads. Fish, the only reason we are here on these threads is because you are here every single day. You have been doing yeoman work, no - Herculean work singlehandedly keeping these Lechmere threads alive for years. Or is it decades.

[Fisherman]

Fish alert! Come in Fisherman!



Christer, notice that Mark suggests you should ignore the posts on Lechmere threads. That's right. Ignore us.

Please consider his suggestion to ignore all of us. Because if you ignore all of us, we will go away from Lechmere threads. We will all stop posting on Lechmere threads. Fish, the only reason we are here on these threads is because you are here every single day. You have been doing yeoman work, no - Herculean work singlehandedly keeping these Lechmere threads alive for years. Or is it decades.

Wait a second. The only reason you are here is because I am here ”every single day”?

Then what would it matter if I ignored posters? I would still be here. And a reason for you being here.

Maybe what you are asking/hoping is for me to go away?

Me, I think the main reason for the discussion about Lechmere is because he is such an outstanding suspect. The suggestion that Van Gogh was the Ripper, for example, was defended with some heat. But that didn’ t generate any lasting interest, did it? And that was, if you ask me, because the Dutchman was a poor suspect.

Very good and interesting suspects will always generate interest. And nobody more so than Lechmere.

But we cant have that, can we?

[FrankO]

Fact 2.

Nichols dress had been pulled down to her knees, confirmed by Lechmere himself.

No, Paul pulled them down to just above her knees. He couldn't get them any further. It seems that her clothes just about covered her lower abdomen until the very upper part of her thighs before Paul pulled them down further. For Paul to pull the dress down he seems to have reached for the brim, which was on her chest and it was then that he laid his hand there and thought he felt a movement.

Fact 4.

Lechmere usually left for work around 03.20 (from press reports of the inquest).

Again, this is no fact. There's no press report whatsoever that says that Lechmere usually left for work around 3.20. None.

which is well before Paul even leaves home. When Lechmere turns into Bucks Row Paul hasn’t even left the house.

All the more reason for a guilty Lechmere to have stated that he left home "around 3.35" instead of "about 3.30".

[Fisherman]

No, Paul pulled them down to just above her knees. He couldn't get them any further. It seems that her clothes just about covered her lower abdomen until the very upper part of her thighs before Paul pulled them down further. For Paul to pull the dress down he seems to have reached for the brim, which was on her chest and it was then that he laid his hand there and thought he felt a movement.

Lechmere did mention the knees, but only to say that the clothing was up over them. Admittedly, so are the ears too. But to me, it seems that the logical solution is that the clothing was up somewhere over the thighs, leaving the abdomen unexposed.

Again, this is no fact. There's no press report whatsoever that says that Lechmere usually left for work around 3.20. None.

Completely true. Both 3.20 and 3.30 are mentioned, and we don’ t know what applies. However, if 3.20 was mentioned, it should logically be in combination with his leaving home. But as you say, there is no certainty.

All the more reason for a guilty Lechmere to have stated that he left home "around 3.35" instead of "about 3.30".

As I have pointed out, ”around 3.30” works well if Lechmere assumed that Neils and Mizens timings would be accepted.

[drstrange169]

>>Fact 1.Lechmere very clearly states that he saw or heard nobody else. There is nobody else around. <<

Yes, a great pointer to his innocence. Can you tell us of any murder where jtr made a lot of noise?

>>Fact 2. Nichols dress had been pulled down to her knees, confirmed by Lechmere himself. The wounds to the abdomen had been covered up. And this was the scene Lechmere found, prior to Paul or anyone else arriving.<<

You seem to struggle with what a fact is. It is your speculation that the dress was "pulled" down. Show me where it has been stated that Mrs Nichols dress was "pulled" down to her knees. and, apart from the killer, how would anybody know the dress was "pulled" down?


>>Fact 3. Lechmere was found standing “where the woman was” by witness Robert Paul. We can place Lechmere at the scene of the crime close to the time it happened. <<

OK so you really have no idea what a "fact" is. I'm stopping read this post now as it's a waste of everybody's time.

[bolo]

Okay, here's some unsolicited bitching about 'housekeeping issues.'

Is it just me, or is it only on the Lechmere threads that some people don't bother to use the quote function in any coherent way? I don't recall seeing this elsewhere.

If the responding poster makes the effort to copy the original poster's message onto his clipboard, and then cut-and-pastes the appropriate section of the quote each time he responds, it makes it a heck of a lot easier for the casual reader to follow along and realize who is saying what. Otherwise, some of these long exchanges become too convoluted to follow.

But I'm howling at the moon.

No, it's not just you. These makeshift quotes with colours and text attributes and whatnot not only make reading posts difficult but you also can't reply in a proper way because the quote function does not catch on replies directly written into the quote of another user. Very annoying.

[drstrange169]

>>Even if - and thatīs one of the biggest ifīs ever - the customers woken up at the wrong time or not woken up at all DID go to the cop shop to reclaim their money, do you really think that we woud know about that today? Would it have made headlines? Or any lines at all? I donīt think so.<<


Clearly you have no understanding of police orders, but it's interesting you are know suggesting Mizen was dodgy and unreliable after claiming his record was spotless.

"It is better to be at the end of a straight line than to be at the beginning of a circle”

[drstrange169]

>>So you include all the things Llewellyn did AFTER being called to Bucks Row, like gtting out of bed, getting dressed and going downstairs as if they happened BEFORE he was called to Bucks Row?<<

Ummm ... Yes, absolutely!

As noted and explicitly explained in my post 3538, but of course you'll try and claim I didn't mention it. You really are getting desperate or perhaps you aren't actually read any of these posts before replying.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Folks, we already know from several earlier postings that it's not true to say 'he achieved absolutely nothing by this so called ruse': more than one highly interesting likely achievement has been outlined in this thread, and more than once, too. No, I'm not going to go through them. I'm simply going to say that this sort of denialism reminds me of what we get when we try and explain Darwinism -- or, to be more precise, the so-called 'modern synthesis' -- to someone who's either too religious or too dim to get it. When you're explaining the first of three points to them, they insist that it has to be all wrong. You tell them it's not fully comprehensible until you've got through points two and three. But by the time you've got to point three, they've forgotten point one. And when you go through point one again, you find they've forgotten point two. This is motivated forgetting; and there's no way through it. My view is that anyone who wants it so much that they'll embarrass themselves in public should just be left to enjoy it...

M.

So what did he achieve ?
The police not finding out were he lived to avoid further questioning ? nope
His work mates not finding out that Cross and Lechmere were the same person to avoid suspicions ? almost certainly not [ as explained why by myself and others in the past ]
Not having to turn up at the inquest ? nope
Answers please

[Doctored Whatsit]

Lechmere’s marriage certificate, and his kids registered at school as Lechmere’s. He was married in 1870 and clearly his name has been Lechmere since 1870 and possibly earlier. Likely the moment his stepfather died he changed back to his baptised name which is interesting in itself. He appears to have only been Cross while his stepfather was around, before and after it’s Lechmere. His kids were all registered at school as Lechmere.
The point being that by 1888 Lechmere hadn’t used the name Cross anywhere for nearly two decades. The only 2 times in his adult life we find the name Cross is when he’s at an inquest.
I would add that anyone who still calls him Cross is incorrect. It suggests to me that those who do so have a refusal to face any facts about Lechmere, even the basics like his name.

One way of looking at this issue would be to consider the known facts very carefully, and then develop logical conclusions.

We know that CAL's birthname was Lechmere, and so did he, and as an adult he used it whenever he thought it was appropriate, such as marriage, registration of his children, the census etc. Exactly what he thought was and was not appropriate, we cannot ever know. We do know that his step-father started to call him Cross, but we do not know for certain how he felt about the names Lechmere and Cross. We can certainly assume that he had absolutely no reason whatever to have any respect for the name Lechmere, the father who abandoned him and his mother when he was an infant. Cross was the only father-figure he ever knew.

At the 1876 inquest CAL gave his evidence on oath as Cross. This is important, and must be considered seriously when we wonder what name he normally used. His cart hit and killed a child, and there would have been an investigation by the police, which must surely have required them to contact Pickfords. So when he gave his evidence as Cross, and no-one, not the police nor the coroner, queried this, then he would surely have been Cross at work with Pickfords. It is totally inconceivable that the police investigated his employment and didn't discover his name was Lechmere, if he was using that name at work.

So if he was Cross at work in 1876, then he had probably always been Cross at Pickfords since he started there, so he was probably using the name Cross from choice as a child, then as a youth, and then as an employee. So very possibly he was still Cross at work in 1888. All assumptions, but totally logical. There is no evidence that he wasn't Cross at Pickfords, and Christer says that he doesn't dispute this.

So, if we accept the strong possibility - and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary - we should accept that CAL was very possibly - I think almost certainly - Cross at work with Pickfords. Once we accept that possibility, we realise that CAL was probably Cross as a child, Cross as a youth, Cross to his neighbours, Cross to his school friends, and Cross at Pickfords, Cross to the management, Cross to his workmates, Cross to his numerous customers, over twelve hours a day, six days a week for over twenty years. In fact, once we consider the evidence carefully, we can see that CAL might have only been Lechmere when he thought it was a legal necessity such as marriage etc. We actually don't even know that he didn't say to Pickfords and the police that his birthname was Lechmere but that he had taken his step-father's name as a child and retained it since. Then there should be no issues whatever with the use of the name. I am not suggesting that he did, but there is no evidence that he didn't either. Absence of evidence is, as always, the problem.

In my mind, I am only wondering which issues he felt required the use of his birthname up to 1888. If he was predominantly Cross, I understand that he would use the name routinely. Although I have made several assumptions here, they are totally plausible. Giving evidence on oath as Cross in 1876, if he was working as Lechmere, is not plausible in my opinion.

I am aware that he used the surname Lechmere in later life, but that is not, and never has been the issue. The simple truth is that we don't know what name CAL used most of the time up to 1888, and it is perfectly accurate to point out that there is absolutely no evidence that CAL was not using the name Cross in everyday life, and perfectly plausible that he was doing so.

[drstrange169]

>>Baxter very clearly says in the summary that the finding of the body cannot have been far off 3.45, meaning that we cannot rule out 3.45 or any of the minutes adjacent to it. <<

What is it with Lechmerians and there total inability to understand facts and basic english grammar?

“In LESS than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead …”

Less does not in anyway shape or form mean adjacent.

"Less definition
determiner a smaller amount of; not as much."

"Adjacent adjective
next to or adjoining something else."

Your above sentence is complete and utter nonsense. Read it again and tell me you still stick by it and my, and any sensible persons estimation of you will sink to zero. I know we've had our disagreements but this is the lowest level of sheer ridiculousness I've seen.



>I have already pointed out that Baxter speaks of MANY data, and I believe it was true that there was. Since Baxter never lists them, I canīt say how many they were ...<<

But he does list them and I've pointed them out several times now. What you mean is you can't list anything that supports your theory, that's a very different thing.

The rest of your post is just silly verbal gymnastics without actually saying or proving anything.


>>you may want to ponder that before you try selling this kind of misinformation again.<<

Given the utter nonsense about "less" meaning "adjacent", everyone can now see who really is trying to sell "this kind of misinformation". Even the most hardened Lechmerians must be squirming after reading these claims of yours.

[drstrange169]

But, don't worry Christer, I going away for the next 4 days and I don't think there will be any internet connections. For your sake though, I'd advise you think a little more seriously and perhaps take some advice from others on how your post are coming across.