Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Dave O]

Hi Lechmere and Curiosity,

Lechmere wrote:

"I suggested that the rules for summoning witnesses would necessarily have had a degree of flexibility as the inquests were invariably held quickly after the death. Such a case is Liz Stride's where she died in the early hours of Sunday morning and the inquest was on the Monday - and Whitechapel County court would have been shut on the Sunday. Clearly there were other ways of issuing a summonses - without a court actually sitting. The case mentioned by Dave illustrates this sort of Practise.
The witnesses were immediately in hand. This is quite different from the suggestion that a beat copper was told to look out for an unnamed carman in Bucks Row."

First, let me clarify in the case I mentioned, one of the witnesses wasn't the person reporting the body--this was a person who would have had to have been found. But in this case, the police had a name, address, and occupation for him. He wasn't an an unknown person and clearly had an acquaintance with the fellow reporting the case to the police, and they were able to produce him quickly, it can't have been more than a couple of hours after the body was reported that they're at the inquest. As I said, I don't think there would have been a coroner's summons involved as they moved so quickly and Macdonald must have been in the process of holding another inquest at the time. The body appears to have made a stop at a police station for a medical examination before making it's way to the tavern for the view and inquest, and I suspect that the witnesses must have been in tow.

I think practice varied, from coroner to coroner or from witness to witness. To be perfectly honest, it's not something I know a whole lot about. There could have been a formal summons or communication may have been more informal with no summons involved at all. Commentary in Jervis says that the usual practice was for the coroner to send a message to the witness that he or she would be wanted with a formal summons not issued unless the person wouldn't cooperate. A witness may have turned up to volunteer information. A juror already sworn could realize that he had information, and he could be sworn as a witness while still serving on the jury. Someone may turn up and brought to an inquest within the day (I'm unfamiliar with the powers of the police, but as I've said, I've got examples of this happening twice in a row on the same afternoon).

Now, Baxter appears to have been issuing summonses (according to the article Moonbeggar has referenced), but again procedure may have varied according to circumstances. Which was the case for Cross/Lechmere, I really don't know as we don't have specifics.

Best
Dave

[moonbegger]

Hello mr Lucky ,

two reporters commenced a watch in Buck's-row,

It was a couple of days after the murder of polly , you would have thought they would have known what was where ?

Fisherman ,

And it gets stranger! For Paul lived in Foster Street, leaving us very little doubt as to which way he chose to Buckīs Row - it would have been Bath Street. And therefore, he would have turned into Buckīs Row from the north, which is precisely the same route as Lechmere would have used In fact, much speaks for him having come by way of Bath Street too).
And when the two gentlemen rounded the corner of Brady Street and went into Buckīs Row, presumably having no more than some forty, fifty yards inbetween them, they did so under a lit gas lamp. And still, Paul did not see or hear Lechmere in front of him...?

I think this could be your strongest argument so far !

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Yep, Monty, I believe that Shaw was quoted in my first Ripper book (Don Rumbelows Jack the Ripper - facts in the case)as stating that while the authorities were not doing very much about the squalor of the East End, an "independent genius" had decided to take matters into his own hands.
Thanks for the Mitre Square information!

Mr Lucky:

"That brewery was nowhere near the murder site, it was on Bath Street, on the other side of Brady Street."

Yes, Mr Lucky - although it is understandable if the reporter thought Bath Street some sort of extension of Buckīs Row - they were almost in line. But no light would have travelled down Buckīs Row from the brewery - least of all down to the murder spot.

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

Moonbegger,

That brewery was nowhere near the murder site, it was on Bath Street, on the other side of Brady Street.

[Monty]

Christer has a point.

The deficient lamp in Mitre Square was not working on the Friday night, as recalled by a woman walking through the square with her young daughter.

By Sunday evening, less than 24 hours after Eddowes death, the lamp was fixed.

As Bernard Shaw pointed out, Jack did wonders for the areas he murdered in. Where there was darkness, he certainly brought light.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Here you go, Moonbegger, from the inquest, Neil speaking: " It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row."

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Oh, it was, Moonbegger. This article does no relate to the murder night, when Neill witnessed that there was just the one source of light functioning - a single gas lamp up at the corner of Brady Street.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Maybe Bucks row was not as dark as we think ?

This morning, at one o'clock, two reporters commenced a watch in Buck's-row, which terminated at eleven o'clock, It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime.

Buck's-row is a decently wide thoroughfare, running at right angles from Baker's-row to Brady-street. Buck's-row is in every sense thoroughly respectable, every tenant being an old inhabitant, and of good class. In addition to well-to-do artisans, the row contains a mission hall, the factor of Messrs. Schneider and Sons, and the factories and warehouses of Messrs. Torr, and Browne and Eagle, together with the private residence of the Rev. Henry North Hall, the curate of St. Mary, Whitechapel. There are watchmen at night at these factories, and many of the private residents were awake at the time the deceased was murdered, but none heard any cries for help on Friday morning.

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

In this context, it also needs to be said that the anomaly of none of the two men hearing each otherīs footsteps is reinforced by Lechmere being eager to point out that he had only just walked out into the middle of the street as he heard Paul. The Daily News:
"... walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row ..."
So it was "at the same time" - which, if Lechmere was guilty, is exactly what he would say. He would have been very eager to impress upon the inquest that he had only just arrived to the murder spot as Paul surfaced. No time, thus, to have done any cutting!

Problem is, if this was true, then Lechmere had Paul walking right behind him, perhaps thirty to fifty yards away, all the way down Buckīs Row, without noticing him. As Paul turned into Buckīs Row, Lechmere would have walked about one third of the way from the Brady Street corner down to Browns Stable Yard. And still he did not hear the hurrying Paul, a short distance behind him, until he walked out into the middle of Buckīs Row! And apparently, Paul did not hear Lechmere clippety-clopping right in front of him either.

And it gets stranger! For Paul lived in Foster Street, leaving us very little doubt as to which way he chose to Buckīs Row - it would have been Bath Street. And therefore, he would have turned into Buckīs Row from the north, which is precisely the same route as Lechmere would have used In fact, much speaks for him having come by way of Bath Street too).
And when the two gentlemen rounded the corner of Brady Street and went into Buckīs Row, presumably having no more than some forty, fifty yards inbetween them, they did so under a lit gas lamp. And still, Paul did not see or hear Lechmere in front of him...?

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Cog
It is rather more 'pathetic' to raise a criticism which is shown to be in slid and then failing to have the grace to admit it.

Frank
Fisherman beat me to the punch but I will reiterate.
A criminal engaging in crime for financial gain will, if sensible look left right, north south east and west and check while doing his bad deeds.
A psychopathic serial killer in the midst of his perverse passion is rather less likely to. This is credible isn't it?
I would suggest that Paul was actually 60 yards or more from Charles Lechmere when he really became aware.
But if Charles Lechmere woz innocent - he was rather unaware to let Paul get so close and Paul was also unaware to get so close (40 yards) both unaware of their surroundings on a still quiet night.

[Cogidubnus]

Funny? What I find is funny, looking at the first post in the thread, is how far we've all drifted off-topic...but nonetheless:

Leaving that aside you feel that the fact the two men walked on together "until they met a policeman" means they didn't necessarily talk to him together...and because of that I'm somehow off-topic...That's not worthy of you, and I'm sorry...there's only one word for it..."pathetic"

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"As regards "accompanied by" I think the Times at least (18th September 1888), reporting Pauls testimony, uses the phrase "walked on together"...which suggests a somewhat closer relationship than 20 yards, 10 yards, five yards or whatever apart does it not? "

This is quite funny, Dave! Letīs take a look at the WHOLE context, and you will see what I mean!

"Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street"

Aha! They walked on together between Buckīs Row and the corner of Bakerīs Row and Old Montague (should probably be Hanbury) Street. THAT was where they walked together, and I donīt see myself challenging that at any stage.

Then look at what is says, once again. They walked on together UNTIL they met the PC. Does that not sound to you as if they did NOT do so afterwards...? "We stayed until the light was put out", sort of. That iplies that we left afterwards, does it not?

I am not saying that this MUST imply that they were not together as they met Mizen - the interpretation can go either way - but I am VERY certain that this Times passage says absolutely nothing about the issue at hand: whether Paul accompanied Lechmere closely as he spoke to Mizen.

"You really do plumb the depths of the unlikely sometimes Christer!"

Do I? In this case, I find that I stay on topic and have a good case, whereas you try to challenge it by offering a quotation that does not belong to the issue at hand.

Anyway ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

"whenever I get more than 5 yards from my wife I count it an enormous victory! Sadly she counts it as an enormous relief (which is probably nearer the truth)..."

Isnīt that a bit like the Lechmere saga - could be anyway - although we all have our hunches...?

"So what did you expect to prove with this earth-shattering statement? Certainly nothing to do with Cross/Lechmere..."

Actually yes. I expected to prove that the phrasing "accompanied by" does not necessarily mean "in very close physical contact with", as proposed by other posters.

Hi Christer

How unfortunate for you to pick up on my facetious comment...My Missus (unlike the witness you seem to propound) always keeps me within earshot...she makes damn sure she always hears everything I say...I shouldn't be at all surprised (in this instance) if Paul were the same...

As regards "accompanied by" I think the Times at least (18th September 1888), reporting Pauls testimony, uses the phrase "walked on together"...which suggests a somewhat closer relationship than 20 yards, 10 yards, five yards or whatever apart does it not?

You really do plumb the depths of the unlikely sometimes Christer!

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Yes, Ruby, parenthood demands sacrifices. You should be proud of yourself!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Morninī, Ruby. And thanks! Had your tea?

Fisherman

Nope -got up late and am being very unhealthy drinking coffee and scoffing the kids' sugary synthetic cake (but it is Sunday !). At least I am saving them from all that bad sugar rush. very noble of Me.