Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Hi Frank,

    Sometimes the simplest explanations, and our initial assumptions, are the best.

    I spent a little time digging around in newspaper archives last night trying to find other examples of men who were said to look like carmen, and found four.


    The first is from 1860, and he looked like a carman because of his white frock.


    Next up is an account from 1912. In a road accident, the victim was thought to be a carman because of an apron was found in the road (it was actually a mail bag).


    In an 1870 case, a thief merely put on an apron and was assumed to be a brewery worker and/or carman, allowing him to steal a horse and cart.


    Finally, an 1851 case.


    I take it a "fustian" is a type of tunic over the shoulders, perhaps more like a Victorian cabman than a carman.

    Your belief that Cross and/or Paul were wearing their work aprons is the best answer. It may have helped them keep warm during those 3.30 a.m. commutes.

    It makes sense that someone picking up goods for transport would require some sort of identification--a company hat or apron or badge--but I'm failing to find any explicit conformation of this.

    Cheers.
    Thanks for all that digging, Roger. And for sharing your findings, of course. Good to see the results are in line with what we were/are thinking.

    And maybe in the near future you get lucky and find that Pickford's people did indeed wear company caps and aprons.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Hi Frank,

    Sometimes the simplest explanations, and our initial assumptions, are the best.

    I spent a little time digging around in newspaper archives last night trying to find other examples of men who were said to look like carmen, and found four.


    The first is from 1860, and he looked like a carman because of his white frock.

    Click image for larger version Name:	Example 1 1860.jpg Views:	0 Size:	108.5 KB ID:	833408

    Next up is an account from 1912. In a road accident, the victim was thought to be a carman because of an apron was found in the road (it was actually a mail bag).

    Click image for larger version Name:	Example 2, 1912.jpg Views:	0 Size:	49.7 KB ID:	833409


    In an 1870 case, a thief merely put on an apron and was assumed to be a brewery worker and/or carman, allowing him to steal a horse and cart.


    Click image for larger version Name:	Example 3. 1870.jpg Views:	0 Size:	157.0 KB ID:	833410

    Finally, an 1851 case.

    Click image for larger version Name:	Example 4. 1851.jpg Views:	0 Size:	60.3 KB ID:	833411


    I take it a "fustian" is a type of tunic over the shoulders, perhaps more like a Victorian cabman than a carman.

    Your belief that Cross and/or Paul were wearing their work aprons is the best answer. It may have helped them keep warm during those 3.30 a.m. commutes.

    It makes sense that someone picking up goods for transport would require some sort of identification--a company hat or apron or badge--but I'm failing to find any explicit conformation of this.

    Cheers.
    Fustian is a type of heavy coarse cloth. I suspect it refers to the apron.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Hi Frank,

    Sometimes the simplest explanations, and our initial assumptions, are the best.

    I spent a little time digging around in newspaper archives last night trying to find other examples of men who were said to look like carmen, and found four.


    The first is from 1860, and he looked like a carman because of his white frock.

    Click image for larger version Name:	Example 1 1860.jpg Views:	0 Size:	108.5 KB ID:	833408

    Next up is an account from 1912. In a road accident, the victim was thought to be a carman because of an apron was found in the road (it was actually a mail bag).

    Click image for larger version Name:	Example 2, 1912.jpg Views:	0 Size:	49.7 KB ID:	833409


    In an 1870 case, a thief merely put on an apron and was assumed to be a brewery worker and/or carman, allowing him to steal a horse and cart.


    Click image for larger version Name:	Example 3. 1870.jpg Views:	0 Size:	157.0 KB ID:	833410

    Finally, an 1851 case.

    Click image for larger version Name:	Example 4. 1851.jpg Views:	0 Size:	60.3 KB ID:	833411


    I take it a "fustian" is a type of tunic over the shoulders, perhaps more like a Victorian cabman than a carman.

    Your belief that Cross and/or Paul were wearing their work aprons is the best answer. It may have helped them keep warm during those 3.30 a.m. commutes.

    It makes sense that someone picking up goods for transport would require some sort of identification--a company hat or apron or badge--but I'm failing to find any explicit conformation of this.

    Cheers.
    Absolutely brilliant post!


    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post

    No worries, RD - can happen to the best.
    Hi Frank,

    Sometimes the simplest explanations, and our initial assumptions, are the best.

    I spent a little time digging around in newspaper archives last night trying to find other examples of men who were said to look like carmen, and found four.


    The first is from 1860, and he looked like a carman because of his white frock.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Example 1 1860.jpg Views:	0 Size:	108.5 KB ID:	833408

    Next up is an account from 1912. In a road accident, the victim was thought to be a carman because of an apron was found in the road (it was actually a mail bag).

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Example 2, 1912.jpg Views:	0 Size:	49.7 KB ID:	833409


    In an 1870 case, a thief merely put on an apron and was assumed to be a brewery worker and/or carman, allowing him to steal a horse and cart.


    Click image for larger version  Name:	Example 3.  1870.jpg Views:	0 Size:	157.0 KB ID:	833410

    Finally, an 1851 case.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	Example 4. 1851.jpg Views:	0 Size:	60.3 KB ID:	833411


    I take it a "fustian" is a type of tunic over the shoulders, perhaps more like a Victorian cabman than a carman.

    Your belief that Cross and/or Paul were wearing their work aprons is the best answer. It may have helped them keep warm during those 3.30 a.m. commutes.

    It makes sense that someone picking up goods for transport would require some sort of identification--a company hat or apron or badge--but I'm failing to find any explicit conformation of this.

    Cheers.

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    Ah yes, my apologies, I completely missed that!
    No worries, RD - can happen to the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    We don't know that, RD. See Roger's post #6278. He writes: "I haven't been able to confirm this was the case in 1888, but the account below suggests that by 1911 Pickford's men wore company aprons and caps."
    Ah yes, my apologies, I completely missed that!



    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    We know he had a Pickford's uniform
    We don't know that, RD. See Roger's post #6278. He writes: "I haven't been able to confirm this was the case in 1888, but the account below suggests that by 1911 Pickford's men wore company aprons and caps."

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Mizen's testimony according to the 4 September 1888 Western Daily Press
    The Coroner: Them was another man in company with Cross?
    Witness: Yes. I think he was also a carman.​
    This is from the Morning Advertiser of same date:
    "Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.
    The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
    The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman."

    And the Echo of the day before has it like this:

    "Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
    The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

    By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

    - Frank


    PS Just saw that I missed your post #6281, Roger.​​
    Last edited by FrankO; Yesterday, 07:50 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Why are you assuming that Lechmere wasn't wearing his cap and apron that morning?
    Was he?

    I have no idea

    I would assume he must have been unless he put on his work attire once he got to work?

    I think it's an important point that doesn't seem to have been addressed.

    If he was wearing his Pickford's gear, he would have been more noticeable and identifiable as a Carman.

    And yet it doesn't seem to be discussed

    For those Lechmerians it's an important point because it would then imply he would have been wearing the same attire on his way to work for the other murders

    But as far as I am aware, there were no sightings of any Carman close to the other murder sites around the time of the murders.

    In other words, if he WAS wearing his Pickford's uniform in Bucks Row, it reduces the likelihood of Lechmere having been the killer even moreso

    If he wasn't wearing his Pickford's gear in Bucks Row, then the question would be...

    Well, why not?

    He was running late and on his way to work...

    That would mean he must have left his uniform, including cap at his workplace...

    But I would imagine that such items like a cap and apron would be kept on his person rather than leaving them on site.

    The question is...

    Where was the standard place for a Pickford's Carman to leave their cap and apron out of hours?

    If the answer is that the Carman kept their own cap and apron with them, then that would surely indicate he must have had those items with him in Bucks Row.

    Consider this...

    If he turns up to the inquest wearing his work attire, that shows he was permitted to take his cap and apron with him outside of work hours.

    That then begs the question...

    If he had the apron and cap in Bucks Row, then why was it never highlighted?

    He never carried a bag

    And he was on his way to work apparently.



    The Pickford uniform is a key aspect of this Lechmere candidacy, and it's always the finer details that are usually more important.


    We know he had a Pickford's uniform

    We know he went to the inquest wearing his work gear, which was perfectly normal

    That must then mean he wore his Pickfords gear in Bucks Row?

    If not, then why not?

    And where then was his uniform on the night Nichols was murdered?


    RD
    Last edited by The Rookie Detective; Yesterday, 07:21 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    If Lechmere wore a Pickford's cap and apron for his work, then why wasn't he wearing that attire on his way to work on the morning of the murder of Nichols in Bucks Row?

    After all, he went to give evidence in his work clothes.


    Then why was he not wearing them on the morning of the murder?


    RD
    Why are you assuming that Lechmere wasn't wearing his cap and apron that morning?

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Mizen's testimony according to the 4 September 1888 Western Daily Press
    The Coroner: Them was another man in company with Cross?
    Witness: Yes. I think he was also a carman.​

    The Western Daily Press is a little removed from the action for my liking (Gloucestershire, etc.) but the same statement can be found in the Morning Advertiser (London)

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    I haven't been able to confirm this was the case in 1888, but the account below suggests that by 1911 Pickford's men wore company aprons and caps.

    This is from a case involving a stolen van of goods.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Pickford's cap and apron 1911.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	125.6 KB
ID:	833366
    If Lechmere wore a Pickford's cap and apron for his work, then why wasn't he wearing that attire on his way to work on the morning of the murder of Nichols in Bucks Row?

    After all, he went to give evidence in his work clothes.


    Then why was he not wearing them on the morning of the murder?


    RD

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    I may be forgetting a source, but I don't recall Mizen explicitly stating that the two men looked like carmen, though it can be inferred that he thought one of the two men did.
    Mizen's testimony according to the 4 September 1888 Western Daily Press
    The Coroner: Them was another man in company with Cross?
    Witness: Yes. I think he was also a carman.​

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post
    I wonder if the statements that (paraphrasing) "... he looked like a carman..." adds to that? What would a carman look like? What would be the identifying markers that said, "That fellah is probably a carman"?
    I haven't been able to confirm this was the case in 1888, but the account below suggests that by 1911 Pickford's men wore company aprons and caps.

    This is from a case involving a stolen van of goods.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Pickford's cap and apron 1911.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	125.6 KB
ID:	833366

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by A P Tomlinson View Post

    Hi rj,
    I have often considered that myself. Would he have been wearing it on the way to work?
    I think it's probably a subconscious thing, based on the continuing argument that he would have been wearing a BLOODY apron while wandering the streets.

    I wonder if the statements that (paraphrasing) "... he looked like a carman..." adds to that? What would a carman look like? What would be the identifying markers that said, "That fellah is probably a carman"?
    Hi A P,

    I may be forgetting a source, but I don't recall Mizen explicitly stating that the two men looked like carmen, though it can be inferred that he thought one of the two men did.

    Someone here can correct me if there is a source I'm forgetting, but wasn't it Lechmere who said that about Paul?

    Daily News version of Mizen's deposition:

    "Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.

    A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

    Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person."



    As I say, at most Mizen is saying that one man was a carman; he doesn't say anything about the other man. At worst, he only knows Cross was a carman because he is now in court in his sack apron, ie., Mizen learned that he was a carman after-the-fact and is not describing what he believed in the moment.

    Here's the Star version:

    " Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there."


    Meanwhile, as I say, it was Cross who claimed Paul had the appearance of a carman.

    "The other man left witness soon afterwards. He appeared to be a carman, but the witness had never seen him before." --Charles Cross deposition.

    I suppose if one put it all together they both looked like carmen, but it seems a little vague and uncertain to me. As I say, I could be forgetting a more explicit source.

    RP​

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X