Jon
I agree that when he gave his details to the police he may not have anticipated being called to the inquest.
However it is exceptionally unlikely given the timescales available that the coroner independently went through his statement and called him.
Theory and practice in the calling of witnesses to inquests were two different things as has been demonstrated several times on various threads on this forum.
It is only really conceivable that Lechmere was in effect legally summonsed to the inquest immediately after his statement was given
You seem to be suggesting that giving a statement to the police following the brutal murder of a woman is 'regular stuff' and not legal? (and that is without the summons to the inquest which must have followed swiftly afterwards).
That is novel.
More 'legal' than entering his name in a Trade Directory?
More legal than a baptism?
More legal than entering your name as a parent for your kids at school (attendance was a requirement, entering a legal name was not).
The inability for people here to just concede and say 'OK it can be seen as odd that he used Cross' is truly remarkable.
I agree that when he gave his details to the police he may not have anticipated being called to the inquest.
However it is exceptionally unlikely given the timescales available that the coroner independently went through his statement and called him.
Theory and practice in the calling of witnesses to inquests were two different things as has been demonstrated several times on various threads on this forum.
It is only really conceivable that Lechmere was in effect legally summonsed to the inquest immediately after his statement was given
You seem to be suggesting that giving a statement to the police following the brutal murder of a woman is 'regular stuff' and not legal? (and that is without the summons to the inquest which must have followed swiftly afterwards).
That is novel.
More 'legal' than entering his name in a Trade Directory?
More legal than a baptism?
More legal than entering your name as a parent for your kids at school (attendance was a requirement, entering a legal name was not).
The inability for people here to just concede and say 'OK it can be seen as odd that he used Cross' is truly remarkable.
Comment