Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Ben]

This alone tells us that the police, in spite of knowing that Lechmere was first on the spot, did not in any manner rule out guilt on behalf of Paul - at least this is what Dew seems to tell us.

This tells us nothing about what the police thought at the time, and as a collective, Fisherman.

This is just Dew, yet again offering his own personal, independent thoughts on the matter, just as he was in the case of the Goulston Street Graffiti, where he opined that that it was unrelated to the murders, in contrast to the views of his senior police colleagues, which were expressed at the time of the murders, as opposed to the late 1930s. Perhaps if he hadn't confused himself and his readers into believing that Paul was already loitering on the opposite side of the road at the time of Cross' discovery, he wouldn't have considered the former so suspicious.

Of course it would not have helped Paul's credibility that he did not come forward, but that would not have obfuscated the reality that he was the second man at the scene of the crime, and not the first.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Posted on wrong thread.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There is no good reason to think that his work route ever took him there."

... other than that is was the swiftest route to his job. Which is not a bad reason at all, come to think of it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

But what nonsense is it that I've been reading about the murders being uncannily in line with Cross's journeys to work?

Hi Caz,

Just playing catch-up here, but nonsense it most certainly is!

Setting aside the complete absence of any good reason to think that a mutilating serial killer would kill and dispose of his victims en route to work (and accordingly, the complete absence of any examples of it happening), the claim is simply false. Cross' workplace was in the Liverpool Street area, and his home - which he'd recently moved into - was just to the northeast of Buck's Row. This would necessitate a work-route that traversed the general murder region, but of course, there's nothing remotely noteworthy about this when there a potentially thousands of ripper "candidates" actually living in that region

His only known work-route is the one he reportedly took on the morning of the Nichols' murder: via Hanbury Street, and since he was a relatively recent arrival at Doveton Street, the reasonable assumption is that he had always used this obvious, crow-flies route and hadn't bothered exploring alternatives. Certainly, he didn't do what modern day Cross-fanciers do now, i.e. look at an old map of London on the internet and note that Old Montague Street was a minute or two shorter! Amazingly, if you look at some of the older Cross threads, you'll even spot the false claim that he had taken a different route from his "usual" on the morning of the murder. No evidence for this at all, of course. There is no evidence that he had ever taken Old Montague Street, let alone that it was his "usual" route. Hence "30 yards from Old Montague Street" is completely meaningless. There is no good reason to think that his work route ever took him there.

After Buck's Row, the only crime scene-to-be that he passed was Hanbury Street, but then if Cross the Ripper was supposed to be deflecting suspicion away from himself, how clever was it of him to advertise to the newspaper reading public that his work route continued to Hanbury Street, and then commit a murder ON Hanbury Street a week later?

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I was in the area and had some spare time so I thought it would be a useful exercise to do some timings (with a stop watch!)
The distances are all short so differences in pace or length of legs etc would only account for a few extra seconds either way.

22 Doveton Street to Brown’s Stable Yard (direct route) at a brisk pace (Charles Lechmere was supposed to be late for work).
6 minutes and 10 seconds.

22 Doveton Street to Brown’s Stable Yard (indirect route via Whitechapel Road and Court Street) at a brisk pace up to Whitechapel Underground Station and then a slow pace round to Brown’s Stable yard.
9 minutes seconds.

30 Foster Street to Brown’s Stable Yard at a brisk pace (Robert Paul was supposed to be late for work).
2 minutes.

Brown’s Stable Yard to the junction of Hanbury Street with Vallance Road (PC Mizen’s location) at a brisk pace (Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul were supposed to be late for work).
2 minutes 45 seconds.

Dr Llewellyn’s residence at 152 Whitechapel Road to Brown’s Stable Yard at a medium pace.
2 minutes and 25 seconds.

My estimation for the time it took for PC Thain to get from Brown’s Stable Yard to 152 Whitechapel Road is 2 minutes 25 seconds, plus the the tyime it would have taken to cut back up Winthrop Street to retrieve his cape and have a chat with the three jolly butchers. The extra walk would have taken in excess of a minute and the chat how long – at least 2 minutes to tell them the gory details?
That probably means he took around six minutes to get from Brown’s Stable Yard to 152 Whitechapel Road.

[Fisherman]

Hi Moonbegger!

The inquest days were paid for, one shilling per day.

Robert Paul got two shillings, since he attended two inquest days.

The day following him being fetched up in the middle of the night, he was "obliged to lose a day´s work, for which he got nothing."

You were paid for attending inquest days. In this instance, Paul was not paid. Therefore, it was not an inquest day. The reason he speaks of the "next day" would be that he was dragged out of his bed in the NIGHT, and the day after that night would be "the next day" - and that would reasonably be a day directly connected to the Chapman murder.

If he had been dragged out of his bed on the Sunday night, a mere two days after the Nichols murder and hours only after the article in Lloyd´s Weekly, and obliged to attend the Monday inquest, then why would Dew say that the police spent time searching for and appealing to Paul to come forward? Why look for a man that was already found?

And why pay him for two day´s of inquest attendance - if he attended three days?

No, Moonbegger, there is nothing "fireproof" about your assertion that Paul attended the inquest on Monday the 3:rd. At that stage, the police would only just have started looking for him.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day.

This quote in Lloyds is sure fire proof that Paul attended the inquest on the Monday ! Day 2 .. Also days 3 and 4

"and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing"

This is Obviously referring to the Monday inquest .

And then ,

"He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day"

This would be referring to the last two hearings including the one in which he gave his evidence .

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Morning Advertiser, 18 Sep 1888:

Police-constable John Thain, 96 J, said ... I was signalled by another constable in Buck's-row. I went to him and found him standing by the body of a woman. He said to me, "Run and fetch the doctor," and I went. Dr. Llewellyn returned with me.I stayed in the street when they took the body to the mortuary.

The best, Dave
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Ah yes of course Thain testifies he accompanied the doctor back to the crime scene where he found Neil with two workmen...

Cheers

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Do you suppose Thain waited on the doctor's doorstep, or having delivered his message, returned alone to the crime scene leaving the doctor to follow?"

Then why would it take him ten minutes to get to Buck´s Row, Dave - as he did tell the inquest? If he took off immediately, why did he not get back in three minutes sharp?

And if he took off immediately after having informed the doctor, then we must accept that he took ten minutes to get back - at around 4.10, following the time Llewellyn gave ... does this mean that he found Llewellyn in place as he arrived? The latter would have been in place no sooner than 4.05 according to your maths.

Me oh my - it´s getting weirder by the minute.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Neil has said he found the body at 3.45 am and it is to this time that hithertofore you and Christer have stuck"

We have done no such thing - we have said from the outset that PAUL would be the better judge of times, meaning that Niel could NOT have been at the body at 3.45. Read up! I have myself EXEMPLIFIED that even IF Neil had been there at 3.45, it is beyond belief that Llewellyn could have been in Buck´s Row at before four o clock, which was a popular suggestion with some posters some time ago. But that´s not professing to Neil having been correct, it´s just showing that these posters were wrong - either way.

the best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Ed

Cog
May I point out that the Doctor's estimation for time of death was WITHIN 30minutes which, and I will spell this out to you as I think I need to in your case, means less than 30 minutes.

I don't think any Late Victorian medic could estimate a time of death THAT accurately...I'm far from convinced the average GP could today. I'll ask mine next time I have an appointment...that'll surprise him!

Also you need to factor into your timings the fact that the doctor says he was called on at 4 am and then had to get dressed and walk to Bucks Row which makes 4.10 a very reasonable estimate for the time of his arrival.

See the posting above to Christer - was 4am the time he was called, the time he left, or the time he attended the scene (which the coroner asserts is roughly a quarter of an hour after the body was touched by Neil)? If Thain was knocking at the door at 4am, what on earth were the two policemen doing between 3.45am and say 3.58pm...it's a long time to signal and converse over a body, when Cross and Paul, did the same AND reached Mizen in 4 minutes isn't it?

In your eageness to engage in shrill denunications you seem also to ignore that Paul felt the last signs of life (at about 3.45) and Neil found the blood freshly flowing (at about 3.50).

"Shrill denunciation" you say...well I know who's spouting rhetoric here, and I'm glad to say it's not me...Neil has said he found the body at 3.45 am and it is to this time that hithertofore you and Christer have stuck, despite my, I think, valid assertions that there's too much going on at this time. I might equally validly ask you now, why you suddenly want to shift it to 3.50pm...

Oh but perhaps Neil found the body at 3.45 and the doctor was there by 4 and the you can have a time of death of 3.30.

Perhaps Ed...perhaps...because 3.45 am WAS the time he said wasn't it? Though I think Dr Llewellyn arriving 0402 to 0405 is quite early enough to fit in with the limited evidence we have...

If we re-wind a little, a nay-sayer (I forget who) was trying to imply that the timings prove that Charles Lechmere didn’t do it.
They do not.
Of course there is a degree of imprecision and flexibility in all the timings, but it can very easily be demonstrated that a conservative reading of the timings puts Charles Lechmere over the body as the throat was being cut.

And an equally conservative reading, which fits in with the Lilley statement too, puts Cross and Paul on the scene after the murderer's well gone...It's tantalising isn't it?

By the by, a couple of interesting questions (and nothing tricky...just a couple of points that intrigue me) :-

1) Where do you think Neil was between 3.15am and 3.45 (seems a long interval if his beat was a 12 minute one)?

2) Do you suppose Thain waited on the doctor's doorstep, or having delivered his message, returned alone to the crime scene leaving the doctor to follow?

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"Policemen" instead of "Policeman" was a simple mistype so please don't make more of it than that..."

Sorry, Dave - but it was the second time over you suggested a two-man trek to Llewellyn. That´s why I reacted.

"what time do you think Thain set off"

Around 3.54-3.55.

"Did they between them spend 0345 to 0358 over the body"

Sounds strange, does it not? - which is why I say that Robert Paul was the best source for the time. He said that he walked down Buck´s Row at EXACTLY 3.45. That puts Neil on the spot at around 3.50. He then examines the body, checks the door to the yard, notices Thain (and we don´t know that this came immediately after the other duties, do we), awaits his arrival, speaks to him and instructs him, after which Thain takes off. Therefore, I think that Neil and Thain spent time over the body at around 3.53-3.54, which sounds very much less strange, which means that Thain took around five minutes to reach Llewellyn, the cape-fetching included. And it tallies with what Llewellyn said - Thain arrived at around four.

"was Llewellyn actually called at four or is this simply his euphemism for leaving the house at four, or arriving at the scene at four?"

A "euphemism" for having arrived in Buck´s Row at four ....? Wow ...! read and read carefully:
"Mr. Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, of 152, Whitechapel-road, stated that at 4 o'clock on Friday morning he was called by the last witness to Buck's-row. The officer told him what he was wanted for."

So, Dave, he was called by the last witness (Thain) to Buck´s Row at 4.

He proceeds to say that "On reaching Buck's-row he found deceased lying flat on her back"

That is after having been called out. That´s how it goes: You are called out, you respond, you set off and you arrive. It´s not a question of me "making it sound easy" - it IS easy.

"the coroner himself asserts the good doctor saw the body "about a quarter of an hour afterwards""

The coroner was not there, Dave. What he does is to try and make the ends fit, nothing else.

"if the train went by at 0330 approximately then an estimate of 0331 to 0335 is far from unreasonable..."

It´s nothing of the sort. Lilley said that what she heard, she heard in connection with a train passing. And that was 3.30, not 3.35.

"there is still nothing so far as I can see that precludes a killing within that bracket, unless one interprets Neil's "oozing" to mean more than he probably did at the time..."

Oh! And what would Neil "probably" have meant at the time? That the blood had seized to flow, and congealed? Was that what he "probably" meant when he said that the blood was still oozing from the wounds in the throat?

"which is to assert no more than that he came across the body with blood welled up in the wounds, very soon after death..."

Ah - he said that the blood that had welled up in the wounds was "oozing" from the wounds. He lied, thus. And you know this how?

"and we know that Cross and Paul had already been, conferred and gone before Neil arrived, making it doubly unlikely the throat was actively exuding blood when Neil arrived.."

Not at all - the blood would have flown freely for perhaps two or three minutes, and then it would have tapered off into an oozing, just as Neil said. It tallies exactly with a strike around the time Lechmere was first seen in the street, and totally not with a 3.30-3.35 strike.

"I'm neither getting it wrong nor warping the evidence to suit my own ends..."

You are ruling Neil wrong when he said the blood was oozing as he saw her - and this is not warping the evidence to suit your ends...?

Tell me, Dave, how does that work?

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

No, I don´t think that the doctor took ten minutes to walk to Buck´s Row. I think that it took around ten minutes from the time Thain knocked on his door until he was there. And them ten minutes encompassed not only the walking, but also Llewellyn being awakened, getting out of bed, going to the front door, being informed by Thain what had happened, getting dressed and getting his bag, AND walking to Buck´s Row.

Good because that's how I had it figured...I'm afraid your posting seemed abiguous to me..."Policemen" instead of "Policeman" was a simple mistype so please don't make more of it than that...Two minute run to the doctor's house, ten minutes to arouse him, get him out and "on site"...what time do you think Thain set off? Positing an 0410 arrival, 0358? Did they between them spend 0345 to 0358 over the body? I think not...Let's be flexible...Allowing for time spent, signalling, explaining etc, perhaps Thain set off 0350, putting the doctors arrival at 0402...

So was Llewellyn actually called at four or is this simply his euphemism for leaving the house at four, or arriving at the scene at four? It is not quite as simple as you make out because the coroner himself asserts the good doctor saw the body "about a quarter of an hour afterwards"...at best, there is some doubt as to exact timings...so I'm happy with the doctor arriving between 0402 and 0405...that ties in roughly with the inquest evidence...

And in connection with timings, no I'm not bottling out...if the train went by at 0330 approximately then an estimate of 0331 to 0335 is far from unreasonable...I'm allowing for the approximation of peoples timings when they're not in possession of a timepiece...And there is still nothing so far as I can see that precludes a killing within that bracket, unless one interprets Neil's "oozing" to mean more than he probably did at the time...which is to assert no more than that he came across the body with blood welled up in the wounds, very soon after death...and we know that Cross and Paul had already been, conferred and gone before Neil arrived, making it doubly unlikely the throat was actively exuding blood when Neil arrived...

As regards Lilley, like it or not, she's there...and as the only witness to timing we ought to pay her some heed. As far as I can see I'm neither getting it wrong nor warping the evidence to suit my own ends...

Dave

[Lechmere]

If we re-wind a little, a nay-sayer (I forget who) was trying to imply that the timings prove that Charles Lechmere didn’t do it.
They do not.
Of course there is a degree of imprecision and flexibility in all the timings, but it can very easily be demonstrated that a conservative reading of the timings puts Charles Lechmere over the body as the throat was being cut.