Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

Two forensic physicians agree that the blood evidence likely puts Lechmere on the spot at the TOD.

That is a very inaccurate summation of what Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin said. Based on your posts, you appear to have never mentioned Lechmere to either man, so they could not have agreed to anything about Lechmere.

You asked some vague questions of the two and interpreted them the way you wanted to. You also don't appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Jason Payne James:
Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.
A. Yes
Q. Do you know of any examples?
A. No
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible. Not maximum - possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes, based on you suggesting those numbers.

If Thiblin's estimate is correct, then Lechmere could have been there at the time of death, but he also could have arrived several minutes after Nichols died.

If James' estimate is correct, then Lechmere could have been there at the time of death, but she probably died after Lechmere and Paul left, which would make PC Neil the most likely killer.

The estimates put Lechmere at the location around the time of death, but they knew that back in 1888.

[Fiver]

To claim that Scobie was misled takes evidence. Proof.

Evidence has been repeatedly provided that Scobie was misled. Scobie was clearly fed a mix of misinformation and speculation masquerading as fact.

"The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically, you add all those points together, piece it all together and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects. What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

* The timings only "really hurt" Lechmere if you fudge the timings for the Nichols murder. The timings for the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders help Lechmere.

* Charles Lechmere did not act in a suspicious manner. Everything he did makes sense for an innocent man to do and some of the things he did would have been quite stupid for a guilty man to do.

* There are no "coincidences' to mount up.

* There is no "pattern of offending" tied to Charles Lechmere.

* Charles Lechmere was no more "linked geographically" to the crimes than Robert Paul or hundreds of other men who lived and worked in the area.

* Charles Lechmere was only "physically" linked to the Nichols murder. This only happened because Lechmere chose to testify - neither Robert Paul nor PC Mizen knew who he was. There was no physical evidence that proves Lechmere killed Nichols.

As the old saying goes "Garbage in, garbage out."

[Fiver]

So far, the one thing established is that Trevor Marriott posts unestablished accusations as if they were facts.

You're not standing on the high ground on this point.

[Fiver]

Would you be foolish enough not to document it?

Did you record your conversations with Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin?

If you did, please make them publicly available so we can see if you accurately summarized what they said.

If you did not, you have no grounds for insulting someone for not recording their conversation with Scobie.

[MrBarnett]

I have. Repeatedly.

London?
N/S/E/W?
Can you narrow it down to a parish?
A Street?

[Fiver]

Is the idea that Lechmere was known by certain people just as Charles Lechmere, without their knowing where he lived or worked, really so implausible?

It's possible, but it's also only speculation.

It's also irrelevant. Charles Lechmere came forward to testify even though neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul knew him as Cross or Lechmere or any other name. Charles Lechmere gave his home and work addresses at the Inquest. He gave his first and middle names as well as his stepfather's surname.

Charles Lechmere's use of the Cross surname was unusual, but it was not an attempt to hide his identity from the police, his employers, his coworkers, his neighbors or his family.

[MrBarnett]

It's possible, but it's also only speculation.

It's also irrelevant. Charles Lechmere came forward to testify even though neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul knew him as Cross or Lechmere or any other name. Charles Lechmere gave his home and work addresses at the Inquest. He gave his first and middle names as well as his stepfather's surname.

Charles Lechmere's use of the Cross surname was unusual, but it was not an attempt to hide his identity from the police, his employers, his coworkers, his neighbors or his family.

Were his family in Herefordshire aware that he was using the name Cross, living in MEOT and working as a carman for Pickfords?

Were his neighbours in Doveton Street aware of his mother’s bigamous marriage to Thomas Cross 30 years previously?

You seem to have an amazing cache of secret knowledge.

[Fiver]

Any such person as described above is automatically a suspect if no other viable suspect can be found and if the person in question has no obstacle that nullifies him as a suspect.

Charles Lechmere is a suspect because he found Nichols' body. This is true whether or not other suspects can been found.

Several hundred other suspects have been found. They vary from the possible to the ridiculous.

Charles Lechmere is also one of the few suspects to have an alibi. He was at work when Chapman was killed. He has a weaker alibi for the Tabram, Strdie, and Eddowes murders - he would have been at home and in bed at those times. Alibis can be faked, of course, but usually they are true.

[Fiver]

After all, he had embarrased the police rather badly, setting what must have looked ike a shining example of what a good citizen should do.

Charles Lechmere did nothing to embarrass the police.

[MrBarnett]

Charles Lechmere is a suspect because he found Nichols' body. This is true whether or not other suspects can been found.

Several hundred other suspects have been found. They vary from the possible to the ridiculous.

Charles Lechmere is also one of the few suspects to have an alibi. He was at work when Chapman was killed. He has a weaker alibi for the Tabram, Strdie, and Eddowes murders - he would have been at home and in bed at those times. Alibis can be faked, of course, but usually they are true.

At work? Where?

[Fiver]

[B]You ARE aware that the Star was the only paper that had his address? You ARE aware that no other paper had it? You ARE aware that the papers all normally tried to get the adress, even though they could not hear or decipher it, often resulting in five papers giving five different versions of an address - but they at least tried? You ARE aware that the fact that the Star got the address 22 Doveton Street perfectly correct, and how that seems to imply that it was spoken in a loud, clear voice - and yet that other papers, all of them, missed out on it?

The one fact out of that whole rant is that Charles Lechmere did give his home address at the Inquest. He was not trying to hide his identitiy from the police, his employers, his coworkers, his neighbors or his family.

You ARE aware of how the 1876 carman Cross was the only part in the drama with the run over boy who did NOT give his address?

You are incorrect again.

Charles Lechmere's address was not recorded by the 29th December, 1876 Islington Gazette. It is only speculation that he did not give that address.

Witness George Porter's home address isn't given, either. Only a partial address is given for Dr Hindhaugh.

All in all, I donīt think we can claim that he gave his address. All we can say is that the Star somehow aquired it, but that may have been via a clerk. It is entirely plausibe that he ommitted to give his address on either occasion, in which case he would have been very hard to pin down for the readers, not least if he otherwise always called himself Lechmere - which seems to be a very probable thing.

If the Star got Lechmere's address from the clerk, then Lechmere gave his address.

Whether or not it would be hard for readers to pin down his identity is irrelevant. Charles Lechmere gave out his home and work addresses. He was not trying to conceal his identity from the police, his employers, his coworkers, his neighbors, or his family.

[MrBarnett]

At work? Where?

God, I envy 5r! Not only does he know exactly when Chapman was killed, he also knows where Charles Lechmere was at that very time.

[Fiver]

Instead, 19 out of every 20 are simply finding more and more desperate ways to shout "You've got nothing conclusive on Lechmere. So stop investigating him!"

That is a wildly inaccurate description of those criticizing the Lechmere theory. There are serious flaws in the theory. And the loudest, most desperate supporter of the theory has a track record of dodging questions and throwing insults instead of addressing the flaws.

[Fiver]

But the Lechmere theory has altered all that. Now it is the naysayers who have taken on the taliban role, denying the obvious as if it did not exist.

The Taliban? Really?

You are not making yourself look good.

[MrBarnett]

That is a wildly inaccurate description of those criticizing the Lechmere theory. There are serious flaws in the theory. And the loudest, most desperate supporter of the theory has a track record of dodging questions and throwing insults instead of addressing the flaws.

Is one of those flaws the ‘fact’ that Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman murder?

When (if) you finally acknowledge that he didn’t, your opinions might be worthy of consideration.