The Nature of Evidence

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That was back in February 2015 though. He book wasn't out then and I'd never said a word about anything he'd ever published. In fact, we were on reasonably good terms at the time he posted that comment, so it was quite baffling.

I assumed at the time it was because he'd made a couple of mistakes in the same thread while asking me questions about my schedule of reporters and became angry. In fact, the chain of posts started with him complimenting my schedule (he said "Nice work" and asked if one of the reporters could have been from a press agency).

You can see the thread here, starts at #27 and ends with his outburst at #69. Quite amusing looking back at it.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8492&page=3

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

Regards

Herlock

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

In the newspaper source here on the forum we have this from Paul:

"The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."

Did Paul and Lechmere "see a policeman, i.e. meet him together?

Or did Paul and Lechmere "see a policeman", i.e. spot him from Montague-Street?


They met him as he came out of old Montague street, where it meets Hanbury and Bakers Row


Did Paul walk away after he had seen the PC and the PC had seen "a carman who passed in company with another man..."?

No the sources for , Lechmere say they walked down Hanbury street togeather. Mizen also says they both went down Hanbury street.

Is there any source at all for Paul having spoken to Mizen?

If you discount the Lloyds account, we still have Lechmere's inquest testimony.

Do you know where Paul worked?


Patrick has given you an answer but I am afraid it is wrong. Sorry Patrick.
He worked at corbets court northern side of Hanbury just before junction with commercial street.
Some reports did say Covent Garden but the sources say this was his actual place of work or at least where he started work that day.

I canīt ask Fisherman these questions since he systematically ignores me. Good for him, perhaps.

Cheers, Pierre

No problem.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

That was back in February 2015 though. He book wasn't out then and I'd never said a word about anything he'd ever published. In fact, we were on reasonably good terms at the time he posted that comment, so it was quite baffling.

I assumed at the time it was because he'd made a couple of mistakes in the same thread while asking me questions about my schedule of reporters and became angry. In fact, the chain of posts started with him complimenting my schedule (he said "Nice work" and asked if one of the reporters could have been from a press agency).

You can see the thread here, starts at #27 and ends with his outburst at #69. Quite amusing looking back at it.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8492&page=3

Hi David,

Just heading out but I'll have a look at that thread tomorrow. I'm up to around page 430 of Simon's book by the way. Then it's onto your articles by which time a certain book on the Islington Murder should have arrived.

Regards

Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi, Herlock. I agree. Cross is an unlikely killer for many reasons.

We're told he was a psychopath because he killed Nichols and if he killed Nichols he was Jack the Ripper and that Jack the Ripper was clearly a psychopath. Of course, we've no evidence he killed Nichols. And there's nothing we know of his life outside of Buck's Row to indicate psychopathy.

For instance, men incarcerated for violent crimes have a higher incidence of psychopathy. Likely 20-30% of such men are thought to be psychopaths. Thus, if we had some evidence suggesting that Cross had been violent and/or incarcerated for a violent crime, we'd have a reason to suspect that an increased likelihood of psychopathy might be possible. Alas, we've no records that Cross was ever violent, arrested, incarcerated, etc. On the contrary, the records show he resided, consistently, throughout his life, at addresses that place him outside of any prison.

As well, I'm always confused when proponents of "the carman" as Jack the Ripper discuss the time that Cross may or may not have left his home, if he had time to commit the crime, etc. We're to believe he was a psychopath, Jack the Ripper, but he was truthful about the time he left for work on the morning Nichols was killed?

Further, are we to believe that Cross - as the Ripper - arose for work each day like any man would, allowing sufficient time to get to work, allowing only a few moments to ensure he'd not be late due to unforeseen circumstances, while planning to commit murder - should the opportunity arise - on his way to work? So, he was a psychopath, Jack the Ripper, but only when his daily schedule allowed him the time?

Cross testified at the inquest that he left 22 Doveton Street in Bethnal Green around 3:30am. If one believes him to have been Nichols' killer, isn't it more likely he left home at midnight? 2am? Was his desire to kill such that he could take it or leave it? That is to say, if the opportunity arose to kill a prostitute situated along his route to work, during the thirty minutes or so he allowed for his work commute, then he would happily do so and his bloodlust would be satiated. And if not, well, that's okay, too....there's always tomorrow?

This seems hard to believe, based on what we know of the murders. For instance, if we believe in the Double Event then we believe the killer pursued another victim because he'd failed to achieve a satisfactory outcome with Stride due to the arrival of Deimshutz in Dutfield's Yard. Thus, he seeks out another victim, and we get Eddowes in Mitre Square. As well, are we to believe that he left for work earlier, on just that night? It's evident the killer spent far more time with her than he did the other victims. So, if his MO was to kill women he propositioned along his route to work while he made his way to work, during the time allotted for his commute to work, how does Kelly fit? He broke the MO and left earlier for her, on the just the right night. The night he met a woman with her own room. And in having that extra time he was able to fully indulge his fantasies? Lucky day, that! He did all that to poor Mary and still made it to work on time? Or, are we to also believe that he might have cut the carnage in Miller's Court short because he was due at work?

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