Lawende was silenced

[David Orsam]

Yes IF she found this out. But that's the crux-if she did.

That's not the crux actually Abby because the point I was defending was that it was a weak attempt at deception. That is based on someone being aware of the information that was provided by Lechmere in the witness box.

I mean, had Lechmere said his name was "Charles Lechmere" in the witness box, Mrs Lechmere still might not have found out about this if she didn't read the papers and no-one told her about it. So would that mean that Lechmere had deceived his wife by giving his "Lechmere" name in the witness box? Of course not! So the outcome should not be confused with the attempt.

[Abby Normal]

I don't mind you answering Abby but if I may say so I find that answer quite bizarre. You are seriously suggesting that Mrs Lechmere did not know that her husband left the house in which they both living to go to work at about 4.30am in the morning? I have difficulty in computing this I'm afraid.

Well he left pretty early. Perhaps she was normally still sleeping when he got up?

[Elamarna]

Well he left pretty early. Perhaps she was normally still sleeping when he got up?

Abby

that may be very true, but are you really suggesting that his wife would not know what time he normally left for work?

steve

[Abby Normal]

Abby

that may be very true, but are you really suggesting that his wife would not know what time he normally left for work?

steve

Hi el
I was responding to David's post where he said she must have known that he left at 4:30. That's pretty specific.

But yes I think she probably did know what time he left work generally. But perhaps not. She might have slept through when he awoke and left and might not know exactly what time he left every morning, especially if it's a difference of only 15 minutes or so.

[Columbo]

Why would saying that he saw a man who looked like a sailor have been significant?

It wouldn't unless the police thought he would change his appearance. I'm late to this thread so if I'm repeating something I'm sorry, but it's not uncommon, even back then to hold back such testimony to weed out the crazies or to catch a criminal in a lie, etc. The police probably thought JTR might change his appearance. That's all.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Im not sure why this occurs constantly, but thread diversion in order to further ones personal premise is getting really tiring. No matter what the subject we inevitably end up with arguments between 2 or more folks about things that have nothing to do with the thread.

Can this be corrected?

Nope

[Columbo]

Another typical side step by you. We can always tell when you are rattled the black type comes out in force and the posts get longer and out comes the abuse. You are so predictable.

Lets deal in facts, not what you believe, or think, or simply made up. One final time is there any official sources that show Cross used two different names to the police or the coroner? which go to back up the part of your theory where you suggest he was deliberately misled the authorities in any way?

Where does he use the name Lechmere in all of this then if thats what you believe?

Oh and you asked for another nail in the coffin, lets not forget that the time of death of Nichols cannot be firmly established to coincide with the movements of Cross.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hey Trevor,

I'll get slammed for this but how do we know there wasn't any official sources? So much of the files have been lost. If the press sources are to be believed then it would be entirely possible at one time such documentation did exist. Much like the secret files you turned up.

As for timing, none of the murders have an iron clad established time of death. Stride is the closest but that's entirely suspect in my opinion.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Wow - I donīt even have to do the hijacking myself these days...

No kidding! I watched this grow from 8 pages of Lawende to 9 pages of Lechmere! The power you hold over people!

Columbo

[Fisherman]

No kidding! I watched this grow from 8 pages of Lawende to 9 pages of Lechmere! The power you hold over people!

Columbo

Amazing, isnīt it! And to think, most of them do not believe for a second that the carman couldīve been the killer...

[Fisherman]

So where do you actually say he used different names with the intent to mislead ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh dear, oh dear....

He regularly used the name Lechmere when tending to official business. There are a 100 + examples of it.

He used the name Cross in combination with official police business. It is the only example we have where the carman called himself Cross, in any walk of life. (The 1861 census would have been his stepfathers work)

It is therefore not controversial to suggest that he may have given the name Cross in order to mislead.

As I have stated before, he would NOT want to mislead the police, in case they checked him out. So the choice of the name Cross att the inquest would arguably have had the aim to mislead somebody else than the police.

That is as clear as I can be. Surely you can get it wrong too, though...?

[Fisherman]

Hi David and El
but certainly we don't know whether it was a weak attempt at deception do we? for all we know it could have been a masterful success of deception, no?

Now, now, Abby - surely thatīs for David to decide...?

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear, oh dear....

He regularly used the name Lechmere when tending to official business. There are a 100 + examples of it.

He used the name Cross in combination with official police business. It is the only example we have where the carman called himself Cross, in any walk of life. (The 1861 census would have been his stepfathers work)

It is therefore not controversial to suggest that he may have given the name Cross in order to mislead.

As I have stated before, he would NOT want to mislead the police, in case they checked him out. So the choice of the name Cross att the inquest would arguably have had the aim to mislead somebody else than the police.

That is as clear as I can be. Surely you can get it wrong too, though...?

But thats pure speculation on your part.

You are missing the point. It matters not when, or how he used the name Lechmere. What matters is that he gave the name Cross to the police, and to the coroner, a name which he was entitled to use. So as far as the murder was concerned he was not giving false information. He was not trying to avoid suspicion if he had committed the murder as you suggest.

So you have simply in the grand scheme of things in trying to prove he was the killer of Nichols created nothing more than a smokescreen. So that nail remains firmly in the coffin

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hey Trevor,

I'll get slammed for this but how do we know there wasn't any official sources? So much of the files have been lost. If the press sources are to be believed then it would be entirely possible at one time such documentation did exist. Much like the secret files you turned up.

As for timing, none of the murders have an iron clad established time of death. Stride is the closest but that's entirely suspect in my opinion.

Columbo

Hi
I suspect that there were no official sources in this matter. But there is nothing anywhere to suggest he gave the anything other than the name Cross to the police and to the coroner. Fisherman has tried to boost his suspect viability by suggesting a ruse involving the name Lechmere.

You are right about times of death, but again Fisherman being an expert forensic crime scene examiner and pathologist suggests his movements coincide with the death of Nicholls

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

That's not the crux actually Abby because the point I was defending was that it was a weak attempt at deception. That is based on someone being aware of the information that was provided by Lechmere in the witness box.

I mean, had Lechmere said his name was "Charles Lechmere" in the witness box, Mrs Lechmere still might not have found out about this if she didn't read the papers and no-one told her about it. So would that mean that Lechmere had deceived his wife by giving his "Lechmere" name in the witness box? Of course not! So the outcome should not be confused with the attempt.

Hi David
We don't even know if mrs. Lechmere knew her husband was a witness in the case let alone if she was deceived in any way. So how can we say what level of deception attempt it was?

For all we know he might have been pollys killer and jack the ripper and it was an absolute masterpiece of deception.

The "outcome" is unknown, so I don't see how we can judge any attempt.

We know the outcome of Parker's and violenias attempt at lying via the police so in there case we could say it was a weak attempt. But not knowing the outcome of lechs attempt, I don't see how we can judge how weak, or strong, for that matter it was. That's just how I see it anyway.

[Abby Normal]

I don't mind you answering Abby but if I may say so I find that answer quite bizarre. You are seriously suggesting that Mrs Lechmere did not know that her husband left the house in which they both living to go to work at about 4.30am in the morning? I have difficulty in computing this I'm afraid.

Hi David

Bizarre? Really?
Is there anything in the record where it states that mrs. Lech knew exactly when her husband left for work-at 4:30?

And as I replied to el, it's pretty early in the morning if she's still asleep she may not know exactly when he left for work. Yes she would generally probably know, but to the certainty down to the minute? I think that's a little unreasonable, especially if he may have changed the exact time he left every morning. If he leaves 15 minutes early or so, here and there, and she's asleep, what's the big deal? And any way I don't leave exactly the same time every morning, let alone my wife knowing exactly when I leave every morning.

Not sure why you and el are clinging to the idea she MUST have known he left for work every morning at some exact time.

Frankly, I find it rather bizarre.