Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[curious]

Perhaps he just simply never wanted to prop someone up that was not alert since they tend to fall over and crack their head open.

that's one reason.

Another is that this was a prostitute. Maybe he really just didn't want to touch her. In that day and age, women of Polly's class were shunned.

and thirdly, moving someone around can create more damage if you don't don't what the problem is in the first place. Frankly, if I came upon anyone lying down and I have no idea what the problem is, I would not prop them up or twist them around for fear of perhaps doing further damage.

curious

[curious]

Yes he could have been diberately softly spoken as well.
In the dark with Paul distracted by the body Charles Lechmere could have touched her with his spare hand and while Paul tried to pull the dress down maybe he secured it more safely. Maybe the knife was one reason he refused to prop her up.

some people are very soft spoken and difficult to understand. They don't project at all. We have no idea what Lechmere's voice was like. What we do have is some indication that people had difficulty understanding him. We have not just Mizen, but perhaps also reporters in the courtroom. . .

[harry]

We do not know that Polly entered Bucks Row with anyone,or from which direction she entered,or at what time she arrived there.What information we do have is that Holland,about 2.30 am that morning,offered Nicholls a place to sleep.Therefor from that time on,she did not need to prostitute herself to find the money for accomodation,which had been her stated reason for being on the streets.The fact that she at that time turned down the opportunity,did not mean it was not available at a later hour,and lack of information to the contrary,appears to suggest she did not pursue her previous intentions.The odd factor,in Polly's case,is that of the suspected ripper victims,she is the only victim not seen with a prospective customer the morning of her death.

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"Not necessarily. He could have been very soft spoken, therefore it was difficult for the reporters to hear in the noise and distance of the courtroom.
And his being soft spoken can also account for the Mizen misunderstanding."

Since the rest of his testimony is one long, logically connected story, it would seem that his soft-spoken period was restricted only to when he gave his address. The rest was picked up on by the many journalists reporting from the inquest.

I would not say that it is impossible that they reporters all failed to hear it - but for the Star reporter - I am only saying that the very nefarious interpretators belonging to the dreaded Lechmere accusers seem always to be the ones who do not need to change anything in the evidence in order for the story to fit their suggestion.

The address is not recorded in the inquest reports given by the papers. The logical thing to guess is that this was because he never mentioned it. That´s our stance.
The stance of the opposite camp would seem to be that he DID mention his address, but he was so soft-spoken or the crowd so noisy that none of the papers managed to hear it, and the coroner did not ask him to raise his voice and repeat it.
You see, you have to ADD an element before you get it right. I don´t.

The Mizen scam - I say that Jonas Mizen claimed that Lechmere had told him that a PC awaited him in Buck´s Row, and that he never led on that he himself had found Nichols, instead opting for a passive version.
You say that Lechmere was probably so soft-spoken that Mizen only THOUGHT he heard him saying that a PC awaited him in Buck´s Row, whereas he in fact said something else.
You ADD an element, that of a misheard statement, whereas I change not a iota, and go with the evidence as it is, because - as ususal - I don´t have to make any changes to have the story fit a malicious intent.

Same thing for the passive version. No mishearing, I say.

And after all, you may be right here. It may be that you propositions all are correct, and that Lechmere not only was misheard, misunderstood or not heard at all due to noise. If so, he had the very bad luck of getting the evidence recorded in a manner that lends itself eminently to an interpretation of guilt. Still, this could be so.

If we add the element of the geographical correlation between his road to work and the murder sites, we can be looking at more of the same. It could be that the murder site just happened to drop in at addresses that fit his working route and the route to his mother´s house.
Myself, I think that if a guy has all that bad luck with the mishearings and all - then why could not destiny have granted him at least ONE murder site that did NOT correlate with his own routes and timings? Why could not one of the murders have happened on, say, Newgate Street, thus clearing him in this respect? But no, they ALL had to happen along his routes.

Meaning, of course, that I don´t have to change one single thing there either, whereas others need to find another alternative explanation. Which should not bother them too much, since they can be dug up and presented by the thousands ...

The collected weigth, Curious - that is what matters here. Says I.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious:

"What we do have is some indication that people had difficulty understanding him. We have not just Mizen, but perhaps also reporters in the courtroom. . ."

But where is the indication that Mizen had any trouble att understanding him? It is only when we work from the assumption that he could not have said what Mizen adamantly claimed that he said, that we can start speaking of any indication that mizen had had any difficulties in understanding him.

The same goes for the inquest. It is only when we assume that he MUST have given his address on the stand, that we can speak of any shortcomings in Lechmere´s manner of expressing himself.

If things were what they were recorded to be, then the problem never surfaces, does it? And why would NOT things be the way they were recorded? Because, perhaps, they would in such a case potentially point to guilt?

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

The address is not recorded in the inquest reports given by the papers. The logical thing to guess is that this was because he never mentioned it. That´s our stance.
The stance of the opposite camp would seem to be that he DID mention his address, but he was so soft-spoken or the crowd so noisy that none of the papers managed to hear it, and the coroner did not ask him to raise his voice and repeat it.

The address is recorded, it's recorded in the Star. Obviously its been mention at the inquest. Clearly, there is something wrong with your logic, if you think that the fact his address appears in print directly after he has given his testimony proves that he didn't say it.

He describes when he left home and the route he took to Bucks Row.

The press are interested in the story of the men who find the body, they're not interested in his address.

[Cogidubnus]

And if he had been genuinly scared for his family don't you think that he would have warned his wife to try and be on her guard ? He didn't, because his family never knew.

His descendants didn't know...fair enough...Pray how do you know about what his wife knew or didn't know? Went back and asked her did you?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

So once again, we have a detail that lends itself very much to an interpretation of fould play on Lechmere´s behalf - just as we can find alternative explanations. No matter how we look upon it, I think it applies that the more of these things that keep cropping up, the more we need to be wary of Charles Lechmere.

So the same sort of reasoning that lends itself towards Lechmere's guilt, cannot be used to point towards his innocence? Now THAT is interesting logic...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

If he was granted anonymity it is pretty inconceivable that a policeman who knew the details would blurt them out to a reporter - even given the level of incompetence shown by the police in this case.

What an interesting volte-face...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

"Now if that ain't a blatantly obvious reason, right there, why Charlie Boy the Whitechapel carman might not particularly want the posh side of the family knowing about his lowly stature and his recent connection with a foully murdered street walker, or alternatively - if he looked up to his Lechmere 'betters' - not want the good family name all over the papers in such a connection, then I don't know what would be".

Now that, Caz, is quite a good thought...possibly pressure was brought to bear? Perhaps both ways?

All the best

Dave

[harry]

I would suggest that because we only have press reports to guide us,that a little latitude be given.The estimated time of death, what Cross and Paul are reported to have said to Mizen.The fact appears to have been that information was given to Mizen that a body had been found in Bucks Row,and he responded by going there.The time of death being up to Half an hour prior to the first medical examination,which appears so casual,that the greatest extent of the injuries were missed.Could that half an hour be extended to45 minutes?

[Cogidubnus]

It is slightly laughable how the 'nay sayers' have jumped on the remote and convoluted possibility that he opted for Cross to save the old family name from the dishonour of his reduced circumstances.

So suddenly those arguing that Lechmere/Cross might well be perfectly innocent, and that the case against him is far from conclusive, are presented as "nay sayers"...what kind of balanced logic does this represent?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

As Caz said, he gave his place of residence and place of work so if he really had something to hide it was hidden in plain sight and could have been easily rumbled. Might I suggest that the reason that he gave the name Cross was for some personal reason that we don't yet know, but probably not to save the family name? And if it was to save him being treated as a suspect it was a very transparent subterfuge, i.e., no real protection, IMHO.

Just as plausible as anything else I've read Chris!

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Why not just extend it to an hour and also claim that Neil wasn't walking his beat properly.
That is in line with the sort of reasoning expressed in the above posts.

Mr lucky - it is not at all obvious that Charles Lechmere gave his address in open court as only the Star reported it. They could easily have obtained it by asking a policeman in the lunch recess.

[Lechmere]

Cog
There is no volte face - to suggest it is a little silly.
A beat copper not doing his job right or failing to get evidence properly is one thing. Giving immunity over an address at an inquest and telling a journalist that address at the same Inquest is quite another.
Or am I being unreasonable here?

We can deduce his wife didn't know (for the umpteenth time) because Sge died in 1940 and her great grand children some of whom are still alive would have known her and none knew anything about the case - there is no passed down family tradition and most East End families relish Ripper connections - if they have one (see Toppy).
This is reinforced by charles Lechmere turning up at the inquest in his workclothes - so his wife will have thought he was going to work. He was not that poor and would have had other clothes and in any case he was also wearing his apron.
It is also reinforced as he used the name Cross and seems to have avoided giving his address in open court.

Who put pressure on him to use Cross in preference to Lechmere? Do you have anything at all to back such an outlandish claim up?
Was it the Lechmere family secret police? Tell me how the rich Lechmere's found out before the inquest appearance that Charles Lechmere was going to be a witness? The next suggestion will no doubt be that the Russian Seccret Police told them - or were they secret Fenians?