Evidence of innocence

[caz]

My real name is Gary, but I am known to some as Gazz. When I run over small children or find dead prostitutes in the street I use another name altogether.

Funny you should mention Hallie, I bet she approves of the false accusations of misogyny flying around on this thread.

‘Ah, so you think Maria’s relationship with Tommy might not have gone down well in Victorian Hereford, do you? That means you you consider her a hussy who couldn’t keep her knees together!’

’Hallie! Hallie! You were right all along - they really do hate women.’

I think you need to direct this one to those making the false accusations, Gazz!

I'm only your friendly purveyor of rotten rhymes, by yours truly Cazz.

When I'm not behaving disgracefully I might use one of the nicknames my mother had for me - Fairy Fay.

But I'll answer to any, including That Meddlesome Ratbag.

Free the Pickfords One!

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

We’ve clarified the ‘bigamy’ thing haven’t we? Maria’s second and third marriages were in fact bigamous. Whether she had acted criminally would have depended on whether she had evidence that JAL was still alive when she went through with them. That is not a moral judgement from me, just a statement of fact.

But whether she did or not, those two marriages were not legally valid. Any children she might have had with Cross or Forsdike would have been illegitimate and any assets she had outside of her father’s legacy which was seemingly held in trust by the Rev. Archer Clive were accessible to JAL.

That legacy appears to been in the form of income from investments were not touchable by JAL.

The reasons why she might have wanted to leave her native Herefordshire where she had a connection to Clive, a man, it would seem, with considerable influence over the local constabulary, and settle down in Tiger Bay seem obvious to me. Of course, even at that distance from Hereford she was vulnerable. Her son’s unique real name was a potential give-away.

And we’ve clarified that JAL almost certainly didn’t make off with Maria’s legacy, right?

[MrBarnett]

I think you need to direct this one to those making the false accusations, Gazz!

I'm only your friendly purveyor of rotten rhymes, by yours truly Cazz.

When I'm not behaving disgracefully I might use one of the nicknames my mother had for me - Fairy Fay.

But I'll answer to any, including That Meddlesome Ratbag.

Free the Pickfords One!

Love,

Caz
X

I answer to Gal, Dal, Gaff, Gare, Garr Gazza and G.

I did once give evidence in court. When I was asked to give my name, Gazz the Lad crossed my mind, but for some unknown reason I settled on Gary Edward Barnett.

[Fiver]

And we’ve clarified that JAL almost certainly didn’t make off with Maria’s legacy, right?

Married women didn't have rights to their own money until 1870.

[Fiver]

We’ve clarified the ‘bigamy’ thing haven’t we? Maria’s second and third marriages were in fact bigamous.

We have clarified that Maria's second and third marriages were not bigamous.

"Provided always, that neither this Act, nor anything therein contained, shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall be continually remaining beyond the seas by the space of seven years together, or whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of seven years together, in any parts within his Majesties Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time." - Bigamy Act of 1603

You repeatedly ignoring the evidence doesn't make the evidence go away.

That legacy appears to been in the form of income from investments were not touchable by JAL.

Married women didn't have any right to their income until the Married Womens Property Act of 1870.

The reasons why she might have wanted to leave her native Herefordshire where she had a connection to Clive, a man, it would seem, with considerable influence over the local constabulary, and settle down in Tiger Bay seem obvious to me. Of course, even at that distance from Hereford she was vulnerable. Her son’s unique real name was a potential give-away.

Why would a women with an independent income move to Tiger Bay?

[FISHY1118]

Whats this got to do with showing Evidence of Lechmere that he was /wasnt Jack the Ripper ?

[John Wheat]

Whats this got to do with showing Evidence of Lechmere that he was /wasnt Jack the Ripper ?

Nothing Fishy. Not that there is any evidence Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Cheers John

[FISHY1118]

Nothing Fishy. Not that there is any evidence Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Cheers John

I,d say your right on both accounts there John.

[MrBarnett]

Married women didn't have rights to their own money until 1870.

If it was held in trust, they did.

[MrBarnett]

We have clarified that Maria's second and third marriages were not bigamous.

"Provided always, that neither this Act, nor anything therein contained, shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall be continually remaining beyond the seas by the space of seven years together, or whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of seven years together, in any parts within his Majesties Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time." - Bigamy Act of 1603

You repeatedly ignoring the evidence doesn't make the evidence go away.



Married women didn't have any right to their income until the Married Womens Property Act of 1870.



Why would a women with an independent income move to Tiger Bay?

You’ve seen the evidence, but choose to ignore it.

[MrBarnett]

We can't be 100% certain, but the 1861 Census lists his birthplace as Kenchester, which is the place that John Allen Lechmere was christened. Both men were bootmakers. One man disappears from the records at about the same time the other appears.

A 4 year age discrepancy is nothing. In one record, Thomas Cross' birth is off by 10 years.

Using the Allen middle name was fairly distinctive, and John Lechmere had a lot of reasons to not be easy to find. He had gone bankrupt and abandoned a wife and small children, possibly after stealing the first wife's inheritance and definitely after getting a local constable so drunk that the man died. He probably didn't want wife number 2 finding out about wife number 1, either.

Of course, his first wife’s inheritance was in the form of income from investments, so he couldn’t have stolen all of it without maintaining contact with her. And the terms of her father’s will protected her inheritance from her husband:

And from and after her decease then in trust to pay out equal third part or share of the dividends interest and produce of the said trust stock funds and securities to such person or persons in such manner as each of my three daughters shall notwithstanding her (7) by any writing or writings from time to time but not in the way of anticipation direct or appoint (9) for want or in default of such appointment then in trust to pay out equal third part or share of the said interest dividends or product unto cash of my said daughters for her own sole and separate use free from the debts contracts control or engagements of her husband

We have seen modern and contemporary opinions that confirm that assets held in trust to provide income for a married woman were safe from her husband.

Trustee property in England cannot be diverted from its original purpose. If a married woman has an income under a deed of trust, it is hers only. (1859)


Some years ago Meghan James, a JTRF poster with a legal background, gave this opinion:

Generally, prior to the Married Women's Property Law Act 1882, women’s property right were dependent upon their marital status – once married, based upon the common law principal of coverture, under which a married woman’s legal status was known as ‘feme covert', ‘property’ could neither be inherited or owned to the exclusion of their husbands, hence the maxim: ‘husband and wife were one person and that person was the husband’. However, in reality, it wasn’t quite as simple as that. Deeds of Settlement provided for married women to own money in trust and annuities to provide income separate from the husband. It was possible to make explicit bequests in the form of trusts to married daughters to the exclusion of their husbands but that was dependent upon the complexities of the trust. So in answer to your question, yes, these bequests were protected. (2021)


’It wasn’t quite as simple as that.’

[Fiver]

You’ve seen the evidence, but choose to ignore it.

I have seen your opinion.

Opinions are not evidence.

[MrBarnett]

Not my opinion. Expert opinion. Plus evidence from the wording of Thomas Roulson’s will. That trumps your googling I’m afraid.

[Fiver]

Of course, his first wife’s inheritance was in the form of income from investments, so he couldn’t have stolen all of it without maintaining contact with her. And the terms of her father’s will protected her inheritance from her husband:

And from and after her decease then in trust to pay out equal third part or share of the dividends interest and produce of the said trust stock funds and securities to such person or persons in such manner as each of my three daughters shall notwithstanding her (7) by any writing or writings from time to time but not in the way of anticipation direct or appoint (9) for want or in default of such appointment then in trust to pay out equal third part or share of the said interest dividends or product unto cash of my said daughters for her own sole and separate use free from the debts contracts control or engagements of her husband

See, you do understand transcription of records.

It is obvious that Thomas Roulston wanted to protect his daughters financial legacies from their husbands. In the case of John Allen Lechmere, this concern appears justified. But we don't know if that was enough to legally keep the husbands from getting control of the money.

We have seen modern and contemporary opinions that confirm that assets held in trust to provide income for a married woman were safe from her husband.

Trustee property in England cannot be diverted from its original purpose. If a married woman has an income under a deed of trust, it is hers only. (1859)

What is your source? According to Google, this quote has appeared only in this post of yours.

Some years ago Meghan James, a JTRF poster with a legal background, gave this opinion:

Generally, prior to the Married Women's Property Law Act 1882, women’s property right were dependent upon their marital status – once married, based upon the common law principal of coverture, under which a married woman’s legal status was known as ‘feme covert', ‘property’ could neither be inherited or owned to the exclusion of their husbands, hence the maxim: ‘husband and wife were one person and that person was the husband’. However, in reality, it wasn’t quite as simple as that. Deeds of Settlement provided for married women to own money in trust and annuities to provide income separate from the husband. It was possible to make explicit bequests in the form of trusts to married daughters to the exclusion of their husbands but that was dependent upon the complexities of the trust. So in answer to your question, yes, these bequests were protected. (2021)


’It wasn’t quite as simple as that.’

"With a legal background"? What does that even mean? Is Meghan James an expert in mid-19th century British trust law?

[Fiver]

Not my opinion. Expert opinion. Plus evidence from the wording of Thomas Roulson’s will. That trumps your googling I’m afraid.

So you are now claiming that Meghan James is an expert in mid-19th century British trust law? Feel free to provide her credentials.

And a source for your alleged 1859 quote.