Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

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.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/megan-james-733539b9

And your credentials are?

The source of the quote is on JTRForums. And the wording of Roulson’s Will is plain to see.

[caz]

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

Hi Fiver,

Would this count?

I was once a solicitor's receptionist and accounts assistant, and my better half used to be a barrister's clerk. Oh the stories we could tell...

I haven't the foggiest what any of this discussion about trusts and legacies has to do with the title of this thread, which I'll address shortly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

Well, you get off lightly, Gary, if all you are falsely accused of is misogyny.

Poor old Lechmere is falsely accused of infinitely worse, and he has no right of reply from where he must be turning in his grave.

Much as I dislike bringing Hallie's comic into view again so soon [see what I did there?], I do so because Lechmere accusers are missing a powerful ally by dissing her 'sleeping rough' argument. If Polly Nichols was having forty winks in Buck's Row, when the ripper saw her and swiftly satisfied his Sleeping Beauty fetish, it would then make it plausible that Lechmere was that man, because she would indeed have looked to him from a distance like - drum roll - a tarpaulin! When he got close enough to hear the tarpaulin snoring softly, he'd have known his luck was about to change. Afterwards, he would have been able to say, from a lived experience, that when he first saw the baggage lying in the road, he took it to be a tarpaulin. Naturally he would not have added the small detail that she was alive and well at that point.

It's smart to mix truths with half truths and lies,
When you're pulling the wool over Mr Plod's eyes.

Lechmere could not have done this without Hallie's help, however. Had he seen Polly in life, looking like she was on her last legs, but walking upright if a bit unsteadily, he could not have unseen her as a human being in death, and then been able to picture what an innocent person would have seen instead, on their way to another twelve hour shift. We know Robert Paul would have preferred to give both the stranger and his tarpaulin a wide berth and not engage with either, had he not been asked over to inspect Lechmere's baggage for himself.

Free the Pickfords One! Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? Brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten! Is all this to be forgotten?

Love,

Cazanthony Aloysius Hancock
X

[Dickere]

Well, you get off lightly, Gary, if all you are falsely accused of is misogyny.

Poor old Lechmere is falsely accused of infinitely worse, and he has no right of reply from where he must be turning in his grave.

Much as I dislike bringing Hallie's comic into view again so soon [see what I did there?], I do so because Lechmere accusers are missing a powerful ally by dissing her 'sleeping rough' argument. If Polly Nichols was having forty winks in Buck's Row, when the ripper saw her and swiftly satisfied his Sleeping Beauty fetish, it would then make it plausible that Lechmere was that man, because she would indeed have looked to him from a distance like - drum roll - a tarpaulin! When he got close enough to hear the tarpaulin snoring softly, he'd have known his luck was about to change. Afterwards, he would have been able to say, from a lived experience, that when he first saw the baggage lying in the road, he took it to be a tarpaulin. Naturally he would not have added the small detail that she was alive and well at that point.

It's smart to mix truths with half truths and lies,
When you're pulling the wool over Mr Plod's eyes.

Lechmere could not have done this without Hallie's help, however. Had he seen Polly in life, looking like she was on her last legs, but walking upright if a bit unsteadily, he could not have unseen her as a human being in death, and then been able to picture what an innocent person would have seen instead, on their way to another twelve hour shift. We know Robert Paul would have preferred to give both the stranger and his tarpaulin a wide berth and not engage with either, had he not been asked over to inspect Lechmere's baggage for himself.

Free the Pickfords One! Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain? Brave Hungarian peasant girl who forced King John to sign the pledge at Runnymede and close the boozers at half past ten! Is all this to be forgotten?

Love,

Cazanthony Aloysius Hancock
X

Just a pint please Polly, it's very nearly an armful. But I'll take it downstairs preferably. Damn, here's Paul...

[Fiver]

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/megan-james-733539b9

According to the link, Ms James handles modern corporate trust law. I have no doubt in her skill in her chosen specialty, but it does not make her an expert on the property rights of mid-19th century British women.

The source of the quote is on JTRForums.

The source of the quote is the 25 November, 1859 Jersey Independent and Daily Telegraph.

That's a reporter, not a lawyer. And they're upset because a law court had decided that a husband did own his wife's trust income. Which contradicts your opinion.

And the wording of Roulson’s Will is plain to see.

Agreed. As I have already said, the wording is quite clear in wanting the trust income to go to Thomas Roulson's three daughters, not their husbands. (Perhaps John Allen Lechmere wasn't the only rotter in the bunch.)

But the law may not have allowed what Thomas Roulston wanted. Until the married women's property act of 1870, all of a married woman's property and income belonged to her husband.

[MrBarnett]

According to the link, Ms James handles modern corporate trust law. I have no doubt in her skill in her chosen specialty, but it does not make her an expert on the property rights of mid-19th century British women.



The source of the quote is the 25 November, 1859 Jersey Independent and Daily Telegraph.

That's a reporter, not a lawyer. And they're upset because a law court had decided that a husband did own his wife's trust income. Which contradicts your opinion.



Agreed. As I have already said, the wording is quite clear in wanting the trust income to go to Thomas Roulson's three daughters, not their husbands. (Perhaps John Allen Lechmere wasn't the only rotter in the bunch.)

But the law may not have allowed what Thomas Roulston wanted. Until the married women's property act of 1870, all of a married woman's property and income belonged to her husband.

‘May not have allowed what Thomas Roulson wanted’?

Do you imagine that Thomas Roulson, the Clive’s butler, worded the will himself? And the Rev. Archer Clive agreed to be a trustee of an estate based on his father’s butler’s imperfect knowledge of English law? Don’t be daft, the will would have been drawn up by a solicitor, most likely the Clives’ solicitor.

You have said that JAL ‘probably’ made off with Maria’s inheritance. Since it was in the form of an income from her father’s assets, perhaps you can explain how he could have done so without it being known that he was still alive.

[MrBarnett]

I’m still waiting to hear from Lady Godiver how his Googling trumps my sources.

[caz]

I'm waiting to see this thread go back on topic.

How the devil Lechmere's status as a suspected serial killer can be played up or undermined by any old financial or marital irregularity, real or imagined, concerning other family members is quite beyond my own admittedly limited powers of reasoning.

Would it have helped them to nail Harold Shipman, I wonder, to find evidence that his auntie once held premium bonds, allegedly bought with ill-gotten funds that had been laundered by a lover?

Edited to add...

Free the Pickfords One!

Love,

Caz, One Not Remotely Angry Woman
X

[Paddy Goose]

I'm waiting to see this thread go back on topic.

I'm afraid you'll be waiting awhile, Dearie. A once rigorous debate on evidence has devolved into a mashup of Ma Latchmere's bigamous marriages, wills & trusts et al ...

This is now The Mother of All Sidebars


{see what I did there}

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'm afraid you'll be waiting awhile, Dearie. A once rigorous debate on evidence has devolved into a mashup of Ma Latchmere's bigamous marriages, wills & trusts et al ...

This is now The Mother of All Sidebars


{see what I did there}

I too am puzzled as to how that happened, with Edward Stow leading the character assassination of Lechmere's mother and labelling anyone who dares to question his case 'ignorant'.

But then, I was puzzled as to how he and Holmgren could have developed the Man from Pickfords, who murders women on his way to work, into the Torso Murderer.

By the way, Stow says he can't prove that Lechmere was on his way to work when the last four victims were killed, which is just about the only thing he has said with which I agree.

His case against Lechmere's mother rests on a misreading of the relevant law, which he claims specifically mentions 'death', which it doesn't, and his case against Lechmere hinges on a misreading of the inquest testimony, in which he preferred the testimony of one witness to that of three policemen.

He has admitted that it is uncertain that his case against Lechmere's mother would have stood up in court, and I would add to that that it is very uncertain that his case against Lechmere would even have reached court.

I am told that his wife is a descendant of Lechmere's, which makes me wonder about his wife's self-respect and his own sense of respect for his in-laws, now that he is pursuing both Lechmeres.

I think I read somewhere that Lechmere's descendants have been enthusiastically embracing Stow's bizarre claims, possibly because they seem unaware of the distinction between fame and notoriety, or perhaps they have been infected with a new strain of Stocholm Syndrome, which could be named Stow Syndrome.

[Dickere]

I'm waiting to see this thread go back on topic.

How the devil Lechmere's status as a suspected serial killer can be played up or undermined by any old financial or marital irregularity, real or imagined, concerning other family members is quite beyond my own admittedly limited powers of reasoning.

Would it have helped them to nail Harold Shipman, I wonder, to find evidence that his auntie once held premium bonds, allegedly bought with ill-gotten funds that had been laundered by a lover?

Edited to add...

Free the Pickfords One!

Love,

Caz, One Not Remotely Angry Woman
X

Hanbury St's half-hour.

I'll get my cloak.

[rjpalmer]

Well, you get off lightly, Gary, if all you are falsely accused of is misogyny.

I don't recall anyone calling the Lechmereans misogynists. Some have suggested they are haranguing a specific woman to 'get at' her son. That's not misogyny, but it might be a questionable technique in a criminal investigation.

Personally, I assume that Maria Lechmere and Thomas Cross’s marriage, rather than being untoward, was an ethical decision. They didn’t have to get married. They could have faked it indefinitely in a place like East London and no one would have been the wiser. Many people did. Since they involved the church, perhaps the couple genuinely assumed the long-gone John Lechmere was dead, or maybe they thought that---when it came to divorce--the law “was an ass,” and enough time had passed so it was more important to be married in the eyes of their God and in the presence of the children. Like I say, they didn’t have to be married. It’s not a very interesting biographical detail, but I suppose since Stow has few other skeletons in the Lechmerean closet to rattle, he must shake what he can out of a case of technical bigamy.

As for the difference in ages between Thomas and Maria, this is another topic of banter, but it might amount to little more than submerged male anxiety.

Queen Victoria’s favorite statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, married a woman twelve years his senior. I doubt anyone referred to him as “the boy Prime Minister.” The famous Victorian novelist Mary Ann Evans (‘George Eliot’) married a man two decades her junior—a man with the interesting name John Cross.

If you want to take a gander at a real Victorian wild child, look up Lady Randolph Churchill, if you haven’t already. She is rumored to have had an affair with, among others, a youthful friend of her son Winston.

But Winston didn’t go on to become a serial-killer. Just Prime Minister.

Human behavior is complex.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I don't recall anyone calling the Lechmereans misogynists. Some have suggested they are haranguing a specific woman to 'get at' her son. That's not misogyny, but it might be a questionable technique in a criminal investigation.

Personally, I assume that Maria Lechmere and Thomas Cross’s marriage, rather than being untoward, was an ethical decision. They didn’t have to get married. They could have faked it indefinitely in a place like East London and no one would have been the wiser. Many people did. Since they involved the church, perhaps the couple genuinely assumed the long-gone John Lechmere was dead, or maybe they thought that---when it came to divorce--the law “was an ass,” and enough time had passed so it was more important to be married in the eyes of their God and in the presence of the children. Like I say, they didn’t have to be married. It’s not a very interesting biographical detail, but I suppose since Stow has few other skeletons in the Lechmerean closet to rattle, he must shake what he can out of a case of technical bigamy.

As for the difference in ages between Thomas and Maria, this is another topic of banter, but it might amount to little more than submerged male anxiety.

Queen Victoria’s favorite statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, married a woman twelve years his senior. I doubt anyone referred to him as “the boy Prime Minister.” The famous Victorian novelist Mary Ann Evans (‘George Eliot’) married a man two decades her junior—a man with the interesting name John Cross.

If you want to take a gander at a real Victorian wild child, look up Lady Randolph Churchill, if you haven’t already. She is rumored to have had an affair with, among others, a youthful friend of her son Winston.

But Winston didn’t go on to become a serial-killer. Just Prime Minister.

Human behavior is complex.

Good post.

I would say EVERYTHING about the 'case' against Lechmere is evidence of questionable technique!

Everything he said or did is interpreted in such a way that he will look guilty.

For example, when he approached a policeman and told him that he was 'wanted' - according to that policeman by another policeman - at the murder site, this is explained as a ruse in order to 'get Lechmere past the policeman'.

If Lechmere had wanted to get past that policeman, he wouldn't have gone looking for him in the first place in Bakers Row and he wouldn't have approached him or engaged him in conversation.

As for the bigamy charge, it seems to be part of a character assassination of the whole family.

Anyone who challenges Stow to his face, as it were, gets the same treatment.

He has accused me of both ignorance and malice.

[Fiver]

If you want to take a gander at a real Victorian wild child, look up Lady Randolph Churchill, if you haven’t already. She is rumored to have had an affair with, among others, a youthful friend of her son Winston.

Jenny Jerome Churchill was 20 years older than her second husband, Gorge Cornwallis-West. No one called him the "boy soldier".

She was 23 years older than her third husband, Montagu Porch. No one called him a "boy toy."

[MrBarnett]

Jenny Jerome Churchill was 20 years older than her second husband, Gorge Cornwallis-West. No one called him the "boy soldier".

She was 23 years older than her third husband, Montagu Porch. No one called him a "boy toy."

The term is ‘toy boy’. Guess what it describes.