Evidence of innocence

[Mark J D]

... If he was called Cross at Pickfords, which the evidence seems to suggest...

... If he was Cross at Pickfords, which evidence suggests he was...

A measure, there, of Hallie Rubenhold's impact on both the methods and the ethics of Ripperology.

M.

[John Wheat]

A measure, there, of Hallie Rubenhold's impact on both the methods and the ethics of Ripperology.

M.

No serious Ripperologist regards Lechmere as anything other than a witness.

[Mark J D]

No serious Ripperologist regards Lechmere as anything other than a witness.

"... serious..."

LOL

M.

[drstrange169]

>>A measure, there, of Hallie Rubenhold's impact on both the methods and the ethics of Ripperology.<<

Since the main objection people have to Rubenhold's ripper related claims, is that she claims that there is no evidence, when, in fact, evidence does exist, that's one really poor analogy.

[drstrange169]

>>As I previously wrote, official records catalogue a tiny portion of a life, but persist, whereas almost the entire ordinary everyday life, more than 95%, has no official record.<<

Yes, sorry I should have also referenced your post, which was also well put.

[Fisherman]

Before I go again, just a brief reflection about the farce going on here. We now have Dusty celebrating ten thousand Cross signatures, turning the 100 Lechmere dittos into so meagre a catch that they are not even worth mentioning.

And we have Doctored Whatsit agreeing; in his world the Lechmere signatures do not even represent 5 per cent of the carmans actual life. There is 95 per cent unaccounted for, and reasonably, those 95 per cent would be Cross per cents, each and every one of them.

We should agree about this, because if we don´t, then we have an agenda.

But it is not an example of any agenda at all to invent a brave new world where the Lechmere days is only represented in a fraction of what the colossal amount of Cross days in the carmans life stand for. Oh no, working from THAT angle is as sound as it is simple. No agenda to see here, Sir, none whatsoever!

Let´s go back and see what has changed (except for what is allowed to reason before you are pushing an agenda) shall we?

There is one definitive (1) and likely two (2) examples of when the carman used the name Cross.

There are around a hundred of examples of when he used the name Lechmere. (Dusty points put that he did not sign all of these examples himself, but that is yesteryears news - it has been pointed out innumerable times. And it is not as if the ones who signed for him were told that he was called Cross but mischiveously signed Lechmere instead, is it...? So that argument is - also - bonkers.)

All of the one hundred signatures where he called himself Lechmere are examples of contacts with various kinds of authorities. The police and an inquest are ALSO examples of authorities. It is therefore an anomaly that he only used the name Cross when in contact with these two authorities, whereas he used the name Lechmere in all other authority contacts.

So, as you may see, nothing has changed a iot in this respect. Regardless of how many dreams anybody has had, where bulky sacks of documents and payrolls containing the signature Charles Cross are found. It remains and WILL remain an anomaly when you pick legal authorities to make your only known exceptions from how you otherwise sign authority papers. Full stop.

Now, let´s assume that the carman signed for his paycheck every week, the way Dusty suggests. And let´s assume that he was known as Charles Cross at work.
How does that even begin to guaranteee that he did not sign his paychecks Lechmere?
Surely you can be called one name by your work mates and sign by another one on your paychecks?

This is an argument that Dusty and Doctored Whatsit should embrace - it would tell us that REGARDLESS if he signed every paper throughout his life with the name Lechmere (but for one or two, connected to violent death/s), he may STILL have been Cross at work, and so he would be totally entitled to call himself Cross when addressing inquests and police forces.
Of course, it would not make it any less of an anomaly, but then again, that damage is already there: we know that it IS an anomaly that he did so at the inquest and with the police.

So for all the blustering out here about a river of Cross signatures and how the ones promoting the Lechmere theory are basing their thinking on a minuscule sliver of the carmans life, it seems the ones who do that blustering have nil (0) signatures to show for their take on things. Which really is nothing much to hang a hat on.

It will inevitably fall to the floor.

It´s not that I am not interested in the rest of his life. It´s more like how I am unwilling to base a theory on a total lack of facts. Once we have the evidence that goes to prove that he DID call himself Cross at work and that he DID sign his paychecks by that name, I am all for incorporating that evidence into the picture.

But before the evidence is there, my take on things is that it is very premature to speak about me having an agenda for using the evidence there is, instead of basing myself on the non existant ditto.

Maybe Doctored Whatsit can tell me how I am supposed to do things in order not to be stamped a biased, agenda-ridden guy and still be able to present the evidence at hand and point out what it suggests?
Perhaps the solution to the riddle is that I should NOT point to the evidence we have, but instead accept that it is instead the evidence he suggests is there - albeit out of reach to us - that should govern our thinking?

And perhaps somebody can explain why it is, if the carman WAS known as Cross and not as Lechmere (which would only have been a name he signed official documents by), how come we have not a single example of that practice? Why is the name not on the funeral ad, for example, like Mark asked? Surely, all of those who had no idea that he also carried the name Lechmere should be entitled to know that he had passed?
Or is it a question of how he left the Cross name behind as he left the carmanship, like a worn out shirt? And started calling himself Lechmere in public too, not only on official documents?

It is the same as always, of course - against the fact based theory stand the fantasy based innocent alternative explanations. The ones, you know, that have no evidence at all to bolster them. Not a iot. The ones, you know, that emanate from the same sources, over and over again. The ones, you know, that take inventive minds, willing to claim that when Dr Llewellyn said he "was called to Bucks Row at 4 AM", he actually MEANT that he left home at that time.

When such lofty speculations are aired, why is it that nobody speaks about "having an agenda"? Maybe Doctored Whatsit can answer that too, being the qualified judge of such matters that he is?

As for myself, I once again take my leave.

Let the farce begin. Again. Who knows, if it becomes too fanciful, I may feel the need to once again step in and do some cleaning up. But I wouldn´t bet on it - there are so many better things to do than to correct these kinds of shenanigans.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Christer has a theory, and he has written a book about it and is using these pages to advertise and defend his theory, and he says he doesn't have an agenda! We've heard everything now. I don't criticise him for writing his book, or defending it, but pretending he isn't doing that, or that doing it isn't an agenda.....

And the rest of us are expected to "embrace " his argument, whilst he ignores ours. For example he insists that CAL lied to PC Mizen, whereas as I pointed out to him the "official" evidence, Abberline's report of the incident, after questioning everyone, was that CAL did nothing of the sort. Abberline had the evidence, Christer has none, but Christer just says Abberline got it wrong. He refuses to embrace not just our argument, but the facts too!

I "retired" once before because, although I wished to discuss these issues seriously, I felt it was pointless. It surely is!. I have always said that Lechmere is a person of interest, but the evidence is not as strong as some will claim it to be. It is a pity that when clear evidence is presented to Christer, it is rejected, even when it is "official", and rejected without evidence.

Now I really must go and stay gone!

[The Baron]

Abberline had the evidence, Christer has none, but Christer just says Abberline got it wrong. He refuses to embrace not just our argument, but the facts too!

Abberline had the evidence, Christer has none...

Beautifully written verdict!




The Baron

[SuperShodan]

I have to say that Dusty inventing hundreds of Cross signatures to counter balance the 100 or so genuine Lechmere signatures uncovered by researchers is truly remarkable. It’s classic ripperology. And then to further underline the point by reducing Lechmere signatures by half down to 50 is stunning. So we have fictitious signatures that only exist in Dusty’s imagination against actual documentary evidence (see pics below).

The fact that this is applauded as some sort of argument speaks volumes for the standard of debate Christer has had to lower himself to deal with.

Moving on, here’s what any normal person would think if a man is found standing next to a freshly killed body down a deserted back street at 03.45 in the morning. It’s also the opinion of an experienced murder squad detective.




Dr Andy Griffiths

Former head of Sussex Murder Squad.


“If the Polly Nichols murder was being handled today Charles Lechmere would come under intense scrutiny.”


“From a police point of view the person who finds a body in circumstances like this is always going to be significant to an enquiry”


“Certainly in the modern age you couldn’t prosecute anyone else without eliminating him (Lechmere) first...because obviously you’ve got somebody who’s been with the body very close to the point of death, and possibly is the person who causes the death, so he is definitely a very significant person in terms of the investigation”

[Trevor Marriott]

I have to say that Dusty inventing hundreds of Cross signatures to counter balance the 100 or so genuine Lechmere signatures uncovered by researchers is truly remarkable. It’s classic ripperology. And then to further underline the point by reducing Lechmere signatures by half down to 50 is stunning. So we have fictitious signatures that only exist in Dusty’s imagination against actual documentary evidence (see pics below).

The fact that this is applauded as some sort of argument speaks volumes for the standard of debate Christer has had to lower himself to deal with.

Moving on, here’s what any normal person would think if a man is found standing next to a freshly killed body down a deserted back street at 03.45 in the morning. It’s also the opinion of an experienced murder squad detective.


Dr Andy Griffiths

Former head of Sussex Murder Squad.


“If the Polly Nichols murder was being handled today Charles Lechmere would come under intense scrutiny.”


“From a police point of view the person who finds a body in circumstances like this is always going to be significant to an enquiry”


“Certainly in the modern age you couldn’t prosecute anyone else without eliminating him (Lechmere) first...because obviously you’ve got somebody who’s been with the body very close to the point of death, and possibly is the person who causes the death, so he is definitely a very significant person in terms of the investigation”

You have to be aware of how these documentaries are made and how witnesses are prompted to say what the tv company want them to say

The witness is prompted by off screen leading questions from tv producer

i.e Off screen question to witness along the lines of "Would you say that If the Polly Nichols murder was being handled today Charles Lechmere would come under intense scrutiny"

Answer witness would be asked to give answer along the lines of "I would say that if the Polly Nichols murder was being handled today Charles Lechmere would come under intense scrutiny"

This is how documentaries are made and so on and so on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[/QUOTE]

[drstrange169]

>>A measure, there, of Hallie Rubenhold's impact on both the methods and the ethics of Ripperology<<

An incredibly poor analogy as it was originally, but perfectly apt now.

We see in Christer's post an attempt to derail serious discussion and ignore the evidence. To put forward some very questionable methods. The ethics of his post I'll leave for others too decide.



>>There are around a hundred of examples of when he used the name Lechmere. <<

So you keep saying, but refuse to show us. How many were actually signed by him? How many were 1888 or earlier? What is the exact number?

But you don't do answers do you, you just accuse others of practicing your own evasions.



>>(Dusty points put that he did not sign all of these examples himself, but that is yesteryears news - it has been pointed out innumerable times.<<

It has indeed been a few years since David Barrat called you out for passing them off as signatures. Yet here you are doing yet again. Hence the need to call your misinformation out yet again. All this has been "pointed out innumerable times", but here you are, still doing it and now even admitting you know it's wrong.

This all can easily be fixed, provide the evidence, but that's not going to happen is it? For some reason you seem desperate to hide it. Why is that?



>>All of the one hundred signatures where he called himself Lechmere are examples of contacts with various kinds of authorities.<<

Ok, let's make it easier for you, supply us with just fifty, 1888 or earlier, Charles Lechmere signatures, signed by the man himself.



>>How does that even begin to guaranteee that he did not sign his paychecks Lechmere? This an argument that Dusty and Doctored Whatsit should embrace<<

And of course we do "embrace" it, which is why in post #3644 I wrote,

"Of course, there is a chance that he signed himself Lechmere on those slips."

But because you can't actually fault our posts you need to alter what we wrote in them to avoid the issues they raise. Just as you alter the english language and the actual evidence to make Lechmere appear guilty.


>>And perhaps somebody can explain why it is, if the carman WAS known as Cross and not as Lechmere (which would only have been a name he signed official documents by), how come we have not a single example of that practice? <<

An excellent example of the disingenuousnessof some of your posts. It has been explained to you numerous times, just like the non-signatures have been explained to you, but still you continue to avoid admitting the facts.


>>It is the same as always, of course - against the fact based theory stand the fantasy based innocent alternative explanations.<<

If you have a "fact based theory" you've yet to share it with us. All you offer is claims you can't or won't back up, personal reinterpretations of what the people involved actually said, evasions and altered meanings of words in the English language.


>>Dr Llewellyn said he "was called to Bucks Row at 4 AM"<<

Great example of my above comments.

Four quotes claiming Llewelyn gave an approximate time BEFORE four o'clock.

"he says he was called to Buck's-row about five minutes to four"
"he says he was called to Buck's-row about five minutes to four"
"he says he was called to Buck's-row about five minutes to four"
"he says he was called to Buck's-row about five minutes to four"


Two giving only an approximate time.

"He deposed that on Friday morning about four o'clock"
"deposed that on Friday morning about four o'clock"

And three giving a "DIRECT" quote from Llewellyn giving only an approximate time.

"I was called by the last witness to Buck's-row at about four o'clock":
"I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock"
"I was called to Buck's row at about four o'clock.

Ignoring the overwhelming evidence, you chose to cherrypick the almost certain misquote in The Times and present it as a "fact".

"stated that at 4 o'clock on Friday morning"

And thus is the quality of Lechmerian "fact based theorising".


>> I may feel the need to once again step in and do some cleaning up. But I wouldn´t bet on it <<

l will bet you'll step in, but I guarantee you won't clear any of your mess up.

[drstrange169]

>>I have to say that Dusty inventing hundreds of Cross signatures ...<<

Invented? So it's your claim pay packets weren't signed for and delivery drivers never signed dockets?


>>... to counter balance the 100 or so genuine Lechmere signatures uncovered by researchers is truly remarkable<<

Good! So you have "100 or so" of these so elusive "signatures". Perhaps you could share them with us as Christer won't.



>>And then to further underline the point by reducing Lechmere signatures by half down to 50 is stunning. <<

Boy am I going to look stupid when you produce these "100 or so" "signatures" aren't I?

Except, of course, you aren't going to produce them because you haven't got them have you?. But you still feel it's ok to denigrate us for questioning their existence.


>>So we have fictitious signatures that only exist in Dusty’s imagination against actual documentary evidence (see pics below).<<

It says four photos, but I can only see three, of those three only one is a "signature" so what exactly are you claiming? Is this the truth about these signatures? That they don't really exist?


>>Moving on, here’s what any normal person would think if a man is found standing next to a freshly killed body down a deserted back street at 03.45 in the morning. It’s also the opinion of an experienced murder squad detective. <<

Except he wasn't found standing next to a freshly killed body and it wasn't 3:45 But, hey, who cares about the actual available facts, when we can make things up?



>>“If the Polly Nichols murder was being handled today Charles Lechmere would come under intense scrutiny.”<<

And where is the evidence that he wasn't subjected to police scrutiny?

What we know is that if Griffiths wants his comments to be taken seriously about this case he needs to explain a number of the claims he made in the tv show.

[SuperShodan]

This is a quote that I think sums up this thread. I honestly think one or two people on here are away with the fairies.

There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.

If anyone doesn’t consider that Lechmere is a suspect in the Polly Nichols murder, then I the best I can say is they are in the later class.

[John Wheat]

This is a quote that I think sums up this thread. I honestly think one or two people on here are away with the fairies.

There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.

If anyone doesn’t consider that Lechmere is a suspect in the Polly Nichols murder, then I the best I can say is they are in the later class.

When you say away with the fairies do you mean the tools that believe that Lechmere a clearly innocent man to be Jack the Ripper?

[rjpalmer]

[B]There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.[B]

There’s a fourth class: those who see what isn’t there.