Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What happened to Lechmere......

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

  • Originally posted by John G View Post
    Hi David,

    I believe County Coroners in England were elected by freeholders until 1888, but then, by virtue of the Local Government Act 1888, the appointment was given to the county council, who could appoint any fit person, not being a county alderman or county councillor, to fill the office.
    That makes sense, thanks John.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
      In post 451, the quote from the Telegraph disproves Fisherman's point 7, in which Cross/Lechmere supposedly refused to prop up the woman he and Paul were examining.

      In the Telegraph article, they are quoting Cross/Lechmere as the "witness", and have him suggesting they prop her up, while "the other man" (presumably Paul) refuses to touch her.

      I've been told before that other newspaper accounts have it the other way round. Are the actual inquest documents available or not? If not, the newspaper accounts aren't the best source material to figure out what really happened.
      The actual inquest documents are not available, no - not in any of the Ripper cases.
      However, when it omes to a matter such as the one you are speaking about, I find it useful to look at the papers reporting ad verbatim, like The Morning Advertiser:

      Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said - On Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood.

      It appears that my point is anything but "disproven" - it is called into question, but it is easy enough to see which version applies.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        The actual inquest documents are not available, no - not in any of the Ripper cases.
        Apart from Eddowes and Kelly.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
          Without wishing to get sucked into the Lechmere/Cross debate, the plain fact, as has been discussed on here many times, is that some people in the 19th century, and beyond, legitimately had more than one name.
          What I am after here is what it was that made an alternative name legitimate. And how many such legitimate aliases could you have? Were they all legal to use when under oath? Was there such a thing as illegitimate alternative names?

          These are questions that have remained unanswered, for some reason. And the legislation in Britain seems to differ wildly from the one here in Sweden.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
            Apart from Eddowes and Kelly.
            Ha - thatīs right.

            I would have preferred to have Nichols and Chapman, though...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              What I am after here is what it was that made an alternative name legitimate. And how many such legitimate aliases could you have? Were they all legal to use when under oath? Was there such a thing as illegitimate alternative names?

              These are questions that have remained unanswered, for some reason. And the legislation in Britain seems to differ wildly from the one here in Sweden.
              The key is in the word "legitimate". If you have two legitimate names then either one can legitimately be used. At inquests, I don't think anyone actually cared which name a witness used, as long as it was not a false name. A false name is an illegitimate alternative name. There is a difference.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                The key is in the word "legitimate". If you have two legitimate names then either one can legitimately be used. At inquests, I don't think anyone actually cared which name a witness used, as long as it was not a false name. A false name is an illegitimate alternative name. There is a difference.
                But what made a name legitimate? Surely that is the pertinent question here?

                You write that nobody would have cared which name you used at an inquest, as long as it was not a false name. But what was a false name?

                Would the name Cross be legitimate to use, on account of the former connection Lechmere had to it? He was baptized Lechmere the year after his mother married Thomas Cross, so there was an apparent choice made, opting for the Lechmere name.

                To what - if any - extent would a name require having been formerly used by a carrier to count as legal?

                Putting it shorter: When the carman used the name Cross, was it a legal thing to do? Can it be established?
                Last edited by Fisherman; 01-30-2016, 09:48 AM.

                Comment


                • 'The Coroner is a public elective office, and the jurors are sworn to the just execution of their office' (3 (3)) ; 'The coroner's inquisition is in no case conclusive, and the inquiry is therefore preliminary only.' (3 (3)) 'Nor can there be any objection to receiving statements not on oath, which though not received in evidence, may assist the inquiry' (4 (1)) - it was a hasty reading of this that persuaded me witnesses were not on oath, in which I was wrong - they were not necessarily on oath as opposed to the jurors (who certainly were). 'The coroner shall examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts.' (4 (1)) - this refers to the viewing of the body and establishment of identity and cause of death. 'The jury shall state their verdict ... who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if by murder ... the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder.' (4 (3)) 'Where a coroner's inquisition charges a person with the offence of murder ... the coroner shall issue his warrant for arresting or detaining such person .. to appear at the next court of oyer and terminer, at which the trial is to be.' (5 (1)).
                  Coroners Act 1887.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    But what made a name legitimate? Surely that is the pertinent question here?

                    You write that nobody would have cared which name you used at an inquest, as long as it was not a false name. But what was a false name?
                    You gave the example of "Donald Duck" earlier so you know what a false name is.

                    Look at the example of Julia Venturney. That is how she signed her deposition when she gave evidence as a witness at the Kelly inquest. But was her real name Van Teurney? Or was it Vanternie? Both of which seem to have applied to her. Did anyone care? No.

                    Like I said earlier, I'm not getting sucked into the Lechmere/Cross issue. You'll to apply the principles yourself. I know what the answer is but I don't think it will satisfy you.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mirandola View Post
                      'The Coroner is a public elective office, and the jurors are sworn to the just execution of their office' (3 (3)) ; 'The coroner's inquisition is in no case conclusive, and the inquiry is therefore preliminary only.' (3 (3)) 'Nor can there be any objection to receiving statements not on oath, which though not received in evidence, may assist the inquiry' (4 (1)) - it was a hasty reading of this that persuaded me witnesses were not on oath, in which I was wrong - they were not necessarily on oath as opposed to the jurors (who certainly were). 'The coroner shall examine on oath touching the death all persons who tender their evidence respecting the facts.' (4 (1)) - this refers to the viewing of the body and establishment of identity and cause of death. 'The jury shall state their verdict ... who the deceased was, and how, when, and where the deceased came by his death, and, if by murder ... the persons if any, whom the jury find to have been guilty of such murder.' (4 (3)) 'Where a coroner's inquisition charges a person with the offence of murder ... the coroner shall issue his warrant for arresting or detaining such person .. to appear at the next court of oyer and terminer, at which the trial is to be.' (5 (1)).
                      Coroners Act 1887.
                      I hope none of that was posted to justify what you said in #477 because none of it does.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        But what made a name legitimate? Surely that is the pertinent question here?

                        You write that nobody would have cared which name you used at an inquest, as long as it was not a false name. But what was a false name?

                        Would the name Cross be legitimate to use, on account of the former connection Lechmere had to it? He was baptized Lechmere the year after his mother married Thomas Cross, so there was an apparent choice made, opting for the Lechmere name.

                        To what - if any - extent would a name require having been formerly used by a carrier to count as legal?

                        Putting it shorter: When the carman used the name Cross, was it a legal thing to do? Can it be established?
                        Hi Fisherman,

                        I don't know what the position would have been in the 19th century, but it does appear that, under current English Law, the use of fake identities in court is not illegal. Or at least that's what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner seems to think! See:http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/o...ake-identities

                        Comment


                        • Thanks to David Orsam and John G for their help!

                          On Davids "I know what the answer is but I don't think it will satisfy you.", I can only say that the truth will do nicely to satisfy me.
                          I respect your wish to stay out of the Lechmere debate, though.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 01-30-2016, 10:09 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by John G View Post
                            Hi Fisherman,

                            I don't know what the position would have been in the 19th century, but it does appear that, under current English Law, the use of fake identities in court is not illegal. Or at least that's what the Metropolitan Police Commissioner seems to think! See:http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/o...ake-identities
                            On notes the sentence "at the very least, the senior officers who are sending these undercover PCs into court to give evidence in this way are putting them at serious risk of straying into perjury."

                            Truly fake names will at any rate probably not be accepted when given by people not involved in undercover police work, as I understand it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              Because she was cut much later. And it was thirty minutes, not "less than 20".
                              Nichols could of course not still be bleeding thirtyfive minutes after Neil passed. And for that matter, she would not have been bleeding twentyfive minutes after that stage either.
                              The "thirty minutes" is Neil's story. If he was the killer, he'd have lied about it, don't you think? The murder occurred on his beat, and he admitted going through Buck's Row prior to Cross's arrival.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                And what other suspect compares?
                                Best of a dubious list? That's your point? I'm not conceding it, I'm just asking.

                                Let me just say that I have not taken the time to read the respective answers you give - I know full well that none of the points per se is decisive. What one should ask oneself is instead: Can all of these things point to somebody without that somebody being a very viable suspect?
                                Well drat, I had some pretty good zingers in there. I was on a bit of a tear last night. Let me repeat the more serious ones:

                                Originally posted by Clark View Post
                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
                                It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.
                                When did Neil tell him that he had found the body? I think I missed that.
                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nicholsī neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
                                Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?
                                Neil didn't see the blood until he turned on his lamp. Maybe it was dark?
                                Let me add, that neither Cross, Paul, nor Neil noticed a gash in Nichols' throat without the aid of a lamp, so perhaps not seeing a trickle of blood in the dark isn't all that suggestive.

                                So you're arguing that Smith & Tabram belong with the canonical cases? Even so, I'm not seeing the point here. Maybe Cross avoided the Old Montague route because two people had recently been killed along that way? Sounds pretty sensible to me.

                                I was in Washington DC once back in the late 1990s or early 2000s (I've been there twice, and I don't remember which visit it was when this incident occurred) and was staying in a hotel in Crystal City (across the Potomac from DC). I had stayed at a bar in DC until late at night, and when I got off the subway in Crystal City, I walked the few blocks back to the hotel. The next morning, I learned that I had missed a murder along that same exact route by about 15 minutes (just after I had passed by). You can bet that I took a different route back to the hotel the next few days that I was staying there. Sorry for the digression.
                                That last one wasn't all that serious, I just enjoy telling that story.

                                The same newspaper article (we don't have the inquest report), failed to list an address for Monk. Identifying the witnesses is standard procedure at an inquest, including address or place of employment. Either the coroner was slipshod, or more likely, the paper simply failed to report the address of two witnesses.
                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.
                                When did Cross say that? According to his inquest testimony, Cross did all of the talking. Paul doesn't contradict him at the inquest. The only time he contradicts Cross on this is when he claimed Cross's role in the affair when he made his statements to Lloyd's.
                                Last edited by Clark; 01-30-2016, 11:08 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X