The Nature of Evidence

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I've just had a look through the thread (without reading every press report though I have to admit.) It was certainly a 'slow burner.' Very amicable to begin with but then they both seemed to take exception to you disagreeing with them (and annoyingly backing those disagreements up with evidence and reason!) whilst admitting that some things were impossible to be 100% sure of. Can't see where you went wrong to be honest.

Some people will just pursue a debate for ages. Not me off course

Yeah, thanks, I was really just trying to provide a helpful guide to anyone trying to compare the newspaper reports of the inquest and to avoid duplication. It doesn't particularly surprise me that there would have been a lot of journalists in court on the Monday (quite possibly significantly more than there had been on the Saturday) due to the build up of the story into a huge sensation over the weekend. But if I'm wrong, it was (and is) something that could be discussed calmly I think.

Anyway, back to the nature of the evidence.

[harry]

Did it matter what side of the steet was walked,Didn't a policeman carry a lamp that could be used to illuminate the other side.
As to arrival at work.No one seems to have taken into account that most workers then and now arrive early.The factory gate was not necessarily the place of work,and workers had to be at the place of work at starting time.

[Fisherman]

Hi All,

Christer has said that if Cross wasn't actually a psychopath, he would have to concede the man was innocent.

Now this is interesting, because it implies that the man's [suspected] psychopathy is key, and that without it, everything about Cross that made Christer suspicious of him in the first place must have had a perfectly innocent and natural explanation, just as gravity explains his stone falling "to the ground".

What I'd like to know from Christer is if he has any other concessions to make. In short, which, if any of his other suspicions about Cross would be a game changer, if he was wrong?

If Cross was known as Cross whenever dealing with people face to face?

If he told the police his real name and they allowed him to use Cross to spare Mrs Lechmere and all the little Lechmeres from unwanted attention?

If PC Mizen was mistaken and was only told he was "wanted" in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying on the pavement in an uncertain state?

If Paul heard everything that was said to PC Mizen and considered it to be a true picture?

If Christer is wrong about the blood evidence?

If Christer is wrong about anyone's timings, particularly how long Cross was in Buck's Row before he was aware of Paul's approach?

I think these cover the main issues but I'm sure I must have forgotten loads of more minor ones because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of substance here.

Must dash, as my lovely stepson is coming to stay tonight. Not sure when I'll be back to see Christer's response, if any.

Love,

Caz
X

Itīs all very easy: many things may be a gamechanger in this respect, to a smaller or larger degree. In fact, if Lechmere did not kill Nichols, then that will be a gamechanger in itself, Caz.

What you need to do is to look at how the Lechmere case differs totally from all other cases that can (not) be made.

If we compare Lechmere to - say - Aaron Kosminski, we find that there is a large number of anomalies and coincidences that must be explained away before we can clear Lechmere; the blood must have run for a long enough time to allow for another killer, the pulled down clothing must have been done by somebody who had nothing to gain from it, Mizen must have lied or misunderstood Lechmere, the carman must have had an innocent reason for giving the wrong name, there must be a reason why Paul said nothing about hearing or seeing Lechmere in front of him, it must be a coincidence that he walked through the killing fields, it must be a coincidence that his mother lived at 1 Mary Ann Street when Stride was killed, it must be a coincidence that the killer seems to have followed Lechmereīs old working trek up towards Mitre Square etcetera.

Bright and inventive that people out here are, a large number of alternative innocent explanations have been thought up, something I coud have done myself, and very little time has been wasted on contemplating how the odds look for a single man ending up with all of these matters pointing a finger at him and still not being guilty.

With Kosminisky, we have a much more comfortable task - there is nothing at all we need to disprove! Not a iot. There is no record at all of him ever having been within a mile of any of the victims - which of course allows for ANY scenario involving him as the killer. He may have arrived in Bucks Row in the kingīs carriage, he may have glide-flied into Mitre Square and he may have shared bed with Mary Kelly every second Friday of the month. Since we canīt tell, all opportunities are open to us. It is very convenient, and keeps the case strictly at a theoretical level.

Not so with Lechmere, though! For him to have been the killer, all things must fit, and we cannot place him anywhere at all, since we know where he was, what he said, what he did to a large degree on the Nichols murder night. We can therefore present a reasonably detailed case against him, or to put it like Scobie did - there is a prima faciae case against him that suggests that he was the killer.
Of course, once that happened, it was sais that Scobie should have been given information about all the other "suspects" and forced to read up extensively about them before he made any statements about Lechmere! However, the very temperate Paul Begg stepped in and said that of course a barrister can be asked to look at the case details relating to just the one man and from that point of view say whether a case can be made or not.

This of course resulted in speculation that Scobie had been lied to or given faulty material.

So you see, Caz, it seems that there is little I can do to make my case, and maybe it would be best to accept your bid that all the elements pointing to Lechmere should be discarded in favour of the alternative innocent explanations.

Then again, it can be argued that the only thing you are doing is to demand that Lechmere is treated as innocent until proven guilty. But if this is the case, you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble, since I agree and always did.

I am not saying that he is proven guity. I am saying that he is in all probability guilty, but that I cannot prove it conclusively.

And I am saying it in the face of people who range from saying that Lechmere is not a prime suspect to those who say he is the most ridiculous suspect ever presented.
Such is the quality of the critique.

I hope I have answered your question in a satisfying manner, Caz.

[Fisherman]

Yes, that is what I was trying to suggest. Only as a possibility, of course, but it's what I'd do.

Okay, Joshua. Thanks for clarifying!

[Fisherman]

To simplify my point. CL left home at 3.30 (I know that The Times said 3.40, but as per the documentary Fish I think that you accept 3.30 as likeliest time?) He was due at work at 4.00. I can't recall from Steve's research how long it would take to walk from Doveton Street to Broad Street but let's say 20 minutes for arguements sake. That leaves a spare 10 minutes.

10 minutes to deviate from his work route to a more promising hunting ground/ to find and engage with a prostitute/ to find a spot and kill her/ possibly to check himself over for incriminating bloodstains/ then to continue to work (from a location that could have been further away than on his original route.)

All in 10 minutes!

Surely we have to accept that this makes CL an unlikely killer?

Regards

Herlock

To a degree, yes. But we must accept that if Charles Lechmere was the killer, then he lied about what was said between him and Mizen, he lied about Paul having spoken to the PC, he lied about his real name, he lied about having stepped out into the street just before Paul arrived etcetera.

I am therefore thinking he may have lied about his time of departure too. I would warn against accepting it as gospel.

It seems clear to me that at any rate, he was in Bucks Row later than he shuld have been, and that in itself puts a question mark behind the timings he gave.

[Fisherman]

Hi Herlock

Before someone jumps all over you there is a typo there the Times is 3.20, not 3.40.

At a reasonable pace, not excessively fast between 27 and 28 minutes from door to door.

The argument which will be used against you is that Lechmere may have left earlier than even 3.20. Of course such cannot be disproved and is one of the tactics employed by the Pro Lechmere people.


Steve

"Tactics", Steve? Are you reasoning that I do not believe in what I am saying? Because if I do, then you are definitely not dealing with any tactics.
Can you elaborate?

[Fisherman]

Hi Steve,

That's a definate with the 3.40. Thanks for pointing it out. 2 or 3 minutes spare then rather than 10.

You're right of course that it could be said that he left home earlier but why would he end up back on Bucks Row? It's surely stretching it to posit that he left home earlier, found Nichols elsewhere and took her back to an area that passed every day on his away to work at around the same time! It's more likely by far that he simply found her in that spot.

Regards

Herlock

And he may well have. The idea that he went down to Whitechapel Street is based on our knowledge that he could find prostitution there, whereas he was less likely to do so in Bucks Row. But there is a large amount of time affordable in Nicholsī case, and she may well have found a punter before the killer arrived, taken the punter to Bucks Row, serviced him there and then waved farewell to him.
For example.
Equally, she may have failed to get any business and decided to sleep rough in the street. After all, she was drunk, and the pavement may have seemed a fair enough bed.

It is not until we can connect these dots that we can see the whole story, but I fail to see why Bucks Row would have been an unlikely place to kill for Lechmere. And it remains that the Nichols murder may have taken only the fewest of minutes to perform.

[Fisherman]

Hi Patrick,

As Steve has pointed out The Times said 3.20 and not 3.40.

I've never been too keen on the idea of someone killing on the way to work though I have to admit that it's not based on evidence. I've asked on here before if there are any precedents? Examples of a killer or killers committing a murder with terrible mutilations on the way to work. Or on the way to anything for that matter. I've always felt that the killer would have 'set aside' a time to kill. I don't mean 3.50 or 4 am of course. I mean a period. A period which allows him to indulge all of his fantasies (whatever they were) and not be thinking that he had to be somewhere else at a certain time. Time pressures that could lead to errors and possible capture.
I've encountered arguements that it's somehow ridiculous that CL would have been bothered about getting to work on time or providing for his family. I don't understand this view. CL did provide for his family and even if he was a murderer (and I don't think for a minute that he was) it still wouldn't preclude him from genuinely caring for them. Also, if he was a killer, he would have wanted the status quo, to allow him to continue. It's hard to be a serial killer from the workhouse.

Regards

Herlock

The points you make about Lechmere wanting to maintain a status quo are excellent, and I agree all over.

I have also pointed out that there are many examples of serialists who have been good providers and caring family men. One cannot work from the assumption that they will be evil in all contacts with other people - if they were, they would be easily caught.

You ask for examples of other killers, killing in the line of work, so to speak. I would point to some of the so called highway killers, some of whom were truck drivers and used their travelling to procure victims.

I believe many serialists are opportunistic and will make use of whatever comes their way. In that respect, I believe that if a serialist is offered a job that involves the opportunities to kill, he will gladly accept that job.

In Lechmereīs case, he was at work on daytime and at home on nighttime. That makes for poor hunting grounds timewise.

What he would have been looking for if he was a serialist, would have been time on his own, preferably during hours when he stood a good chance of killing undetected.

In that respect, the one and only opportunity that offers itself up is his trek to work. Some competition can be offered by when he was on his delivery rounds, but in that case, his employers would know where he went and what time he could be expected to return back.

So actually, if I was to vote for the likeliest period of time of killing, I would cast my vote on his trek to work.

[Fisherman]

Did it matter what side of the steet was walked,Didn't a policeman carry a lamp that could be used to illuminate the other side.
As to arrival at work.No one seems to have taken into account that most workers then and now arrive early.The factory gate was not necessarily the place of work,and workers had to be at the place of work at starting time.

The lamp could not feel door handles, though, Harry, so he needed to employ both pavements on his beat.
However, it matters very little on which side of the street he walked. Itīs a question that has been blown out of proportion.

What conditions prevailed when Lechmere arrived at Pickfords, we just donīt know.

[John G]

The points you make about Lechmere wanting to maintain a status quo are excellent, and I agree all over.

I have also pointed out that there are many examples of serialists who have been good providers and caring family men. One cannot work from the assumption that they will be evil in all contacts with other people - if they were, they would be easily caught.

You ask for examples of other killers, killing in the line of work, so to speak. I would point to some of the so called highway killers, some of whom were truck drivers and used their travelling to procure victims.

I believe many serialists are opportunistic and will make use of whatever comes their way. In that respect, I believe that if a serialist is offered a job that involves the opportunities to kill, he will gladly accept that job.

In Lechmereīs case, he was at work on daytime and at home on nighttime. That makes for poor hunting grounds timewise.

What he would have been looking for if he was a serialist, would have been time on his own, preferably during hours when he stood a good chance of killing undetected.

In that respect, the one and only opportunity that offers itself up is his trek to work. Some competition can be offered by when he was on his delivery rounds, but in that case, his employers would know where he went and what time he could be expected to return back.

So actually, if I was to vote for the likeliest period of time of killing, I would cast my vote on his trek to work.

But is there an example of someone killing on the way to work? It seems to me that's far more risky, particularly in respect of a Nichols-type murder, because he's unlikely to have enough time to clean off the blood and gore prior to arriving at his work place.

[Fisherman]

But is there an example of someone killing on the way to work? It seems to me that's far more risky, particularly in respect of a Nichols-type murder, because he's unlikely to have enough time to clean off the blood and gore prior to arriving at his work place.

That all lies in what happened afterwards, though - and we canīt tell how that worked out.

As I said in another post about much the same matter, I completely agree that if he had very little time, and if he was soaked in blood, and if his work had him arriving at a place where co-workers shared facilities with hem, then it would not onky be perilous in the extreme to kill in the fashion he did, it would make certain he got caught.

But was this what happened? Well, obviously not if he was the killer. He seems to have been able to go about his business, no questions asked no suspicion entertained. And that must have had itīs reasons.

We know from Jason Payne-James (and from other sources) that there is no reason to work from the idea that he gor discernable blood on his person in the Nichols case.

But that becomes of less importance when we look at the Chapman and Kelly cases - there, he must have gotten blood on his person to at least a discernable degree (the same goes for the Eddowes case, but he arguably did not go to work after that strike, so itīs a different matter).

I am therefore working from the assumption that he took precautions to hide the blood, either by shielding himself, wearing clothing he changed, having a bolthole on his way to work or by having the means to arrive unseen at his work, and being able to wash up/change there.

If this applies, it is problem solved. And as long as it cannot be in any way ruled out, the Lechmere bid stands.

As an aside, letīs remember that whoever it was that was the killer, that somebody will in all probability have walked away from the Chapman site with blood on his person - so THAT risk was taken, regardless of all of the rest of the matter. Somebody DID walk the East End streets with fresh blood in him- or herself, distacing him- or herself from Hanbury Street that September morning.

Apparently, that could be done without anybody noticing you.

As for examples of other people killing on their way to work, it is not the correct question to ask, I think. The better question is whether serialist will grasp whatever opportunities they come across, regardless if this means a risk or not.
I pointed out earlier that lorry drivers have sometimes evolved into so called highway killers (there are a number of them, like for example William Bonin), and these men seem to have taken advantage of their work as lorry drivers, insomuch as it presented them with a very useful means to pick up victims and kill them, after which they could dispose of the bodies anywhere their work took them. In many a way, it is the perfect cover for a serialist to have a work that gives you a private space inside the lorry and that gives you the chance to troll for victims plus it provides you with endless dumping opportunities. One victim in Idaho, the next in Oregon - who is to make the connection, if there is no signature?

Of course, the equivalent of todays lorry driver back in 1888 was the carman...

Finally, as for examples of serialists who killed on their way to work, I would say that every serialist case involves something that sets it aside from the rest. They are all unique in one way or another, and the same will go for the Ripper murders. Not finding examples of the exact same modus operandi is not the same as having made it less credible. Paul Ogorzow (hope I got the name right) killed eight women in the trains where he worked during WWII (normally on the same short stretch, even), and Iīll be damned if I can find another train worker who used the opportunities this gives you to kill. Sounds kind of risky to me.

[Fisherman]

I just looked up Bonin again, and it seems he used a van for his murders, so I am mistaking him for another highway killer, but the name escapes me for the moment.

However, this documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLcFfGuFPPQ

should go to make my point.

It seems there are at least twentyfive former truckers doing time in American prisons for serial murder... and there are around fivehundred cases of murders along the American highways. Most of the twohundred suspects in these cases are long-haul truckers.

So there are many examples of men using their working conditions as the perfect opportunity to kill. I find this immensely interesting. How about you, John?

[Elamarna]

"Tactics", Steve? Are you reasoning that I do not believe in what I am saying? Because if I do, then you are definitely not dealing with any tactics.
Can you elaborate?

Not at all Fish, it was one of the points I started this thread on.
Here I say tactics, one could use method. It the approach used of x cannot be disproved rather than x is proven. Such an approach while never establishing points as historical facts, is very effective at leaving the possibility open.
Hence why I said to Herlock it is impossible to disprove Lechmere did not leave home earlier than 3.20
It is certainly not about if the poster believes in something or not.

I did talk about it in post#1.


Steve

[Elamarna]

To a degree, yes. But we must accept that if Charles Lechmere was the killer, then he lied about what was said between him and Mizen, he lied about Paul having spoken to the PC, he lied about his real name, he lied about having stepped out into the street just before Paul arrived etcetera.

I am therefore thinking he may have lied about his time of departure too. I would warn against accepting it as gospel.

And of course if he was a liar is dependent on him being the killer. If not there are no lies other than his name, which is not a lie in itself, but could be a form of deception then again it may not be.

It seems clear to me that at any rate, he was in Bucks Row later than he shuld have been, and that in itself puts a question mark behind the timings he gave.

Yes he says he left later than normal which may put him a some minutes behind his normal time, however it appears he had approx 40 minutes to normally get to work and at a mad push it could be done in less than 20 (highly unlikely I agree) which may mean he was there not much later than normal a few minutes at most.
The real issue is surely the timing of Paul. Which basically comes down to do we accept Paul's timing or do we accept the 3 policeofficers timings.
That however is another long debate.

Steve

[Henry Flower]

That all lies in what happened afterwards, though - and we canīt tell how that worked out.

As I said in another post about much the same matter, I completely agree that if he had very little time, and if he was soaked in blood, and if his work had him arriving at a place where co-workers shared facilities with hem, then it would not onky be perilous in the extreme to kill in the fashion he did, it would make certain he got caught.

But was this what happened? Well, obviously not if he was the killer.

Fish, that's SUCH a classic example of purely circular reasoning I'm genuinely surprised you're letting yourself post it.

He seems to have been able to go about his business, no questions asked no suspicion entertained. And that must have had itīs reasons.

I can think of one.

But that becomes of less importance when we look at the Chapman and Kelly cases - there, he must have gotten blood on his person to at least a discernable degree (the same goes for the Eddowes case, but he arguably did not go to work after that strike, so itīs a different matter).

Or else he arguably did go to work after arguably not killing anyone that night.

I am therefore working from the assumption that he took precautions to hide the blood, either by shielding himself, wearing clothing he changed, having a bolthole on his way to work or by having the means to arrive unseen at his work, and being able to wash up/change there.

When you say 'shielding himself', are you suggesting that he had some cloak of invisibility? Did Paul note that the other carman was carrying a change of clothes with him? And now you're suggesting he earned enough as a carman that he had a little pied-a-terre where he changed into his work clothes after his murders? This, from a guy who coined the phrase 'phantom killer' about the idea that anyone other than Lechmere may have killed Nichols?

If this applies, it is problem solved. And as long as it cannot be in any way ruled out, the Lechmere bid stands.

That's some fairly relaxed standards there. I think 'stands' is generous. 'Totters'?

As an aside, letīs remember that whoever it was that was the killer, that somebody will in all probability have walked away from the Chapman site with blood on his person - so THAT risk was taken, regardless of all of the rest of the matter. Somebody DID walk the East End streets with fresh blood in him- or herself, distacing him- or herself from Hanbury Street that September morning.

Apparently, that could be done without anybody noticing you.

Easier to imagine that the killer slunk quickly back to his room via the shortest possible route through nearly deserted streets, blood unnoticed, than that he cheerfully turned up to work ten minutes later.

As for examples of other people killing on their way to work, it is not the correct question to ask, I think.

Go figure!

The better question is whether serialist will grasp whatever opportunities they come across, regardless if this means a risk or not.
I pointed out earlier that lorry drivers have sometimes evolved into so called highway killers (there are a number of them, like for example William Bonin), and these men seem to have taken advantage of their work as lorry drivers, insomuch as it presented them with a very useful means to pick up victims and kill them, after which they could dispose of the bodies anywhere their work took them. In many a way, it is the perfect cover for a serialist to have a work that gives you a private space inside the lorry and that gives you the chance to troll for victims plus it provides you with endless dumping opportunities. One victim in Idaho, the next in Oregon - who is to make the connection, if there is no signature?

Of course, the equivalent of todays lorry driver back in 1888 was the carman...

I don't imagine Peter Sutcliffe ever turned up to his truck depot covered in blood. He killed when he had plenty of time, not when he was on his way to work and was expected not to be late.

Finally, as for examples of serialists who killed on their way to work, I would say that every serialist case involves something that sets it aside from the rest. They are all unique in one way or another, and the same will go for the Ripper murders. Not finding examples of the exact same modus operandi is not the same as having made it less credible. Paul Ogorzow (hope I got the name right) killed eight women in the trains where he worked during WWII (normally on the same short stretch, even), and Iīll be damned if I can find another train worker who used the opportunities this gives you to kill. Sounds kind of risky to me.

Fair point.