Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    When Charles Booth’s researcher visited 20, James Street in 1887, he described the family of the carman living there as ‘v. decent’. He didn’t award too many other v. decents to the poor folk of STGITE.

    Of course, what we don’t know is when Marshall had last seen CAL. They may not have been in contact for a number of years. The fact that Mrs Marshall had been present at Emily Lechmere’s death in 1869 and that she had been entrusted with officially reporting the death suggests the families were fairly close at that time.
    Thanks for the additional information, Gary!
    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      The other interesting ‘error’ is the addition of the word deceased next to the father’s name. John Lechmere was still very much alive at the time. Did Mrs Marshall guess that too, or had she been told that John Lechmere was dead?
      Interesting, indeed. The notion that Mrs. Marshall 'guessed' it, seems unlikely to me. More probable seems the idea that Ma Lechmere told (some) acquaintances that her husband was dead to save her the shame that she may have felt or that she told them he was "dead to her" or something similar. Another possibility is, as you say, that she'd told her that he was dead. Who knows?
      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        Darryl, Have you not picked up on the suggestion that Sunday may have been Lechmere’s one day off in the week, so on Saturday evenings he may have visited his old Ma and his daughter who were living near Berner Street?
        Is there a reason it had to be him visiting Ma Lechmere? When I first heard about the case being built against Lech, I automatically interpreted the night of Stride-Eddowes as beginning with Ma Lechmere being 'safely' walked back home in the late evening by her son after *a visit to his place*. That puts him on the street at a time later than 'normal' visiting times, and even allows the old bag to have wound him up face-to-face during the hour's walk together...

        (Worth adding, perhaps, that the fact that his eldest daughter stayed living with her grandma has always had me thinking that there could have been something going on that meant Lech didn't visit that address often...)

        M.
        Last edited by Mark J D; 09-17-2021, 10:52 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          Almost certainly - but…

          The Working Lads Institute wasn’t too far way from where the horse meat wholesalers were located. I’m not putting this forward as a theory, but it’s possible that CAL might have left his cart while it was being unloaded at H,B’s or somewhere and turned up at the inquest still in his working garb. Who knows how long he had to wait to give his evidence. He might have been in and out within half an hour, or he may have been there much longer.

          Of course, once the fact that a Pickford’s man had found the body appeared in the papers they would probably have worked out who it was.

          A slim chance they may not have known in advance, next to no chance they never found out, I’d say.
          Cheers, Gary.

          If CAL did fail to notify the boss that he had to take time off to attend the Nichols inquest, it would have been awkward if he was kept waiting around for ages, but he'd have had no idea in advance how long his absence might be.

          With next to no chance that Pickfords never found out, or worked out which of their employees was involved, would it be fair to assume that there were no raised eyebrows over the name he gave - apart from the misreporting of his middle name, IIRC?

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            If CAL had used the name Lechmere in court, what difference would it have made? How would it have hurt him?
            I'd also ask how much difference it would have made to those who suspect him of serial murder!
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              Note that I didn't write that Christer suggested Lechmere was a terrible communicator. I 'very clearly wrote' that his theory suggests this - in that Lechmere tried to communicate a message that the ripper and torso cases were the work of one man, but must have communicated it very poorly for nobody to have 'got' it during his lifetime.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              You wrote that my theory suggests that he was a terrible communicator.

              If my theory suggests this, the the one making the suggestion is me.

              You probably cannot see how that works. But I can.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                Hi Christer,

                The man at the Bricklayers Arms wore a Billycock hat. Marshall saw a round peaked cap,...and no flower. Packer saw a Wideawake hat and a flower, Smith saw a hard felt deerstalker, which is not the same as a soft fabric detective deerstalker, and a flower. A Billycock, a Wideawake and a hard felt deerstalker are all brimmed hats, not peaked caps. IMO Marshall saw a different couple.

                I too think that the Ripper cut his hand during the Eddows murder, and used the apron as a bandage. A detour to Pickfords would explain the time delay to the apron being found at Goulston Street and, if the wound was serious and maybe became infected, the time gap to the next murder(s).

                Cheers, George
                Could be that MArshall saw a different couple, yes. What I´m saing is not that he must have seen the man from Bricklayers Arms, but instead that I find that man a reasonably good candidate. Hats and such things are often enough mistaken.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Scobie was not provided with the full facts. I had a telephone call with him discussuing the full facts with him and went trhrough with him the full facts many of which he openly stated he had not been made aware of, had he done so he would not have made the statement Fisherman seeks to prop up his theory with.

                  He also stated that his interview with the production company was around 30 mins, yet we only see a couple of minutes of that interview in the finished program. I wonder what was edited out?

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  The problem is, Trevor, that when anyone has an agenda in either direction, and holds fairly extreme views compared to the majority, whether it's your good self or Christer, we don't know which of you to believe on matters like this, assuming one of you is faithfully representing Scobie's current position.

                  In that respect, it would be so much better if we could get a direct statement from the horse's mouth, for Scobie's benefit if nothing else, so he has the opportunity to defend the professional opinions he gave in that interview, based on what he was given, or to amend them if he thinks he was misled.

                  You and Christer are doing Scobie no favours, all the while you are posting different versions of his position.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post


                    This is one of the most astonishing statements I have read on these pages! There is absolutely no evidence whatever that Lechmere killed anyone. There are lots of allegations, possiblities, assumptions and alleged coincidences, but no evidence. He is therefore a Person of Interest, but until there is something tangible, that is all he can be.

                    Whenever I read about the Polly Nichols murder, I am reminded of the Sherlock Holmes' short story "Silver Blaze" and the much quoted "curious incident of the dog in the night-time" dialogue. I won't repeat it, but I will adapt it -

                    Inspector Spratling: Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
                    Holmes: To the curious incident of what was heard by the policeman, the nightwatchman, and several residents who were awake in the night.
                    Spratling: They heard nothing in the night-time.
                    Holmes: That was the curious incident.

                    A police officer on duty 50 yards away heard nothing, the night watchman nearby heard nothing, Mrs Green, living opposite was up and heard nothing, and a Mrs Perkis also heard nothing. No-one heard anything - but then all was explained by Harriet Lilley at number 7. She heard whispers, a moan, some gasps and then nothing, but all sounds were almost drowned out by the sound of a passing luggage train. She couldn't offer a time, but this was easily and accurately calculated, as the train had to be the 3. 07 am from New Cross, which passed by within a minute or so of 3.30 am.

                    This makes perfect sense - JtR uses the noise of the passing train to cover his deed, and no-one, except Mrs Lilley hears anything. This is reasonably within the range of the doctor's estimated ToD, it gives time for the muscles of the eyes to relax in death and for the eyes to pop open as they were by the time PC Neil found the body. It explains the cold hands etc whilst the body was still warm under the clothing. Remember Paul's account as in Lloyd's Weekly, "I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. I saw a policeman in Church Row ... I told him what I had seen ... I told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead for some time." I think this report may well have been embellished by the journalist, but Paul must have said something similar to allow for this enhancement. I suspect that Paul was slightly embarassed by it, and other comments within the article which were critical of the police, and he softened his tone a great deal at the inquest. Obviously the Lechmere camp claim Mrs Lilley was a lying attention seeker, but to use one of Christer's favourite words, is it a "coincidence" that the train time matches up with all of the other facts so well, and explains why no-one else heard anything?

                    This timing doesn't exonerate Lechmere absolutely, but in view of all that was done to Eddowes in a few minutes, and the relatively nominal mutilations on Nichols, we must ask ourselves if he was JtR, what on earth was he doing for the 10 - 15 minutes before Paul arrived?

                    I guess that this is a cue for the possibilities, assumptions and alleged coincidences to be listed again, but we have all read them before. I would welcome any genuinely new information, whether it tends to clear Lechmere, or to elevate him to a true suspect. Until I see something new and tangible, I regard Lechmere as a Person of Interest, and that the murder occurred at about 3. 30 am.

                    I wonder whether James Scobie QC was briefed about Harriet Lilley's statement. If she made such a statement at a trial, it would establish reasonable doubt immediately.
                    Post of the week, Doctored Whatsit. Deserves more than just 3 likes.

                    Christer thinks there is enough to bring Lechmere into court on a charge of murder, while I think there is enough reasonable doubt in the Nichols case for any balanced and objective jury to acquit. And without Buck's Row the prosecution would have nothing.

                    "Not guilty!"

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                      Except Abby has been a Lechmere apologist throughout this thread.

                      Nice try.
                      You forgot to answer the question, Harry: If I speak of you as a Druitt denier, does that make me a Druittist?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                        Annie Chapman was the only other victim found along one of Lechmere’s work routes, and her TOD puts that in jeopardy.
                        How do you know that Lechmere only used Hanbuty Street as his work route? Where is it established? And where is Chapmans TOD established at a time that puts the suggestion that Lechmere killed her en route to work in jeopardy? I was always undere the impression that Bagster Phillips suggested a TOD around 4.30 or earlier.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post


                          All those of us, for whom this thread was started,... have had to put up with being sneered at and insulted.

                          Caz
                          X
                          Yes, that really has been a very one-sided thing from the outset. I and anybody who sees Lechmere as a worthy suspect are sneering and insulting, while you and all the rest who dislike Lechmere as a suspect are kindhearted, soft spoken and mild-mannered.

                          Give me a break, will you?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            Hi Darryl,

                            You make some good points here too.

                            But my own point was more about a situation equivalent to the one in Buck's Row, where the 'finder' is on his own, close to where the victim is actually lying, when someone else comes along.

                            So the equivalent in Hanbury Street would be some unlucky bastard being found in the back yard, when Annie Chapman has just been murdered and mutilated. How would the killer bluff his way out of that one, even if he'd got away from Buck's Row unseen?

                            In short, he'd have had his work cut out.

                            Buck's Row was the ONLY situation that would have given a guilty Lechmere that luxury, but it would still have been a close call.

                            The next four murders were committed in places where Lechmere could not have explained his presence.

                            Isn't it a fortunate coincidence that in Buck's Row, at the one crime scene where he had to contend with an approaching witness, he was where he would have been anyway?

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X

                            Or could it be that he too realized that Bucks Row was the only pit stop where he could pull a bluff?

                            Ever seen a two-sided coin, Caz? ( I only associate with you out here, and so my question is genuine).

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                              I'd have to pull you on this, Fisherman. It's slightly disingenous.

                              Lechmere was not found doing anything.

                              HE approached the next person on the scene.

                              The police would not even know this man's identity if he hadn't approached Paul AND voluntarily attended the inquest.

                              Again, not the actions of a guilty man.
                              Not normally, Harry, so Lechmere's character has had to be imagined and built up in such a way as to make it inevitable that he would have behaved in precisely this way, even though he was keen to get going again and up his game the very next weekend.

                              Naturally our Supervillain will have got it covered by wearing his dastardly cloak of invisibility in future, so no pesky witness can happen along and say "Oh look, it's the Buck's Row carman up to his armpits in innards".

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • My instinct on the name given at the inquest is that it was to keep his employer in the dark if possible. If he wants to deceive the authorities he gives a false address too, or doesn't appear at all.

                                Giving a false name is likely to be enough for the newspaper and therefore employer not to notice him.

                                Just my opinion.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X