Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

    Certainly, old bean. The lines start at Buck's Row (though I myself would go all the way back to Doveton Street...), and from that point they show plausible alternative walking routes to the southernmost entrances to Broad Street Station. The two places that are not linked by lines are the sites of the Stride and Eddowes killings, which took place early on a likely non-work day and therefore are left unconnected with Lechmere's logical shortest home-to-work routes. Along the path/s shown we see the murder sites of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, all of whom were murdered early in the morning, and one of whom bled for several minutes after Lechmere 'found her' in the street, yeah right.

    I understand perfectly well -- and I have the print-outs to prove it -- that other entrances to the huge Broad Street site are available, and that lots of us are working to discover the best, likeliest way of getting to wherever a Pickfords shift probably started. Had I been producing the documentary, I'd have run the graphic a few more times, taking us all the way up to Worship Street; but who the hell cares what I think?

    Now, Gary, you know that I consider you an all-round good egg, so I would never for a moment suspect you of setting a trap. So you must have had a decent reason for asking that question. What's the problem, bro?

    Bests,

    M.
    Of course it was a trap.

    The only evidence we have of CAL’s work route/timing doesn’t fit closely with any murder other than that of Polly Nichols.

    If we have to resort to alternative ‘logical’ routes and times when we don’t even know where Lechmere entered his workplace or what shifts he worked, all we are saying is that he may have been roughly where the murders took place at roughly (within an hour or two) of when they took place.



    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      Yes, that is true, I can take any view I wish to. However, I ground what views I take on the evidence, and the evidence tells us that Neil said, having been explicitely asked about it by the coroner, that he did not disturb the body.

      If you do not understand what disturbing the body means, I will lay it out for you. To disturb the body means to move it in any way. Touching it is not disturbing it, but raising an arm is. This is on account of how that arm cannot be placed back exactly as it lay from the outset. And so "moving the hand a few inches" IS disturbing the body, contrary to what you claim. So would turning the head be, so would turning the body upside down be, so would crossing the legs be: ANY moving of ANY part of the body IS disturbing it.

      Now, these matters are understood by the police. Neil knew what Baxter asked him about, and he gave a clear answer - he had NOT disturbed the body. Meaning that he had NOT raised the arm. Nor did he have to, Nichols was on her back with the arm alongside the body, and her clothing was not tight fitting but instead it allowed for reaching in under it. This is on record, so we know it.

      Ergo, regardless of what you personally think, this is what is on record. Neil says he "felt" the arm, not that he grabbed the arm, rasied it and put it back down again.

      You say that it would be "odd in the extreme" if the hand was not raised to make a check for temperature, but you do not expand on why this would be so. Personally, I donīt think it would be odd at all, least of all since the police would know that they were not to disturb the body of a murder victim if it could be avoided. Maybe you would care to expand on how and why it would be odd in the extreme to put your hand against the arm while it rests on the ground?

      You list a fair few people who you think pumped Nicholsī arm up and down throughout the murder morning, but you fail to list the only important one, Jonas Mizen. If Lechmere, Paul and Neil raised her arm - and although you claimed it as a fact, there is no such fact present, or is there? - it would be of little consequence to the blood evidence question, unless you think that Neil first pumped the arm up and down and then looked at the wound and found blood running from it.

      The real issue is Mizen and how he said that the blood was STILL running (meaning that he anticipated an unbroken period of bleeding starting when Polly was cut and bleeding throughout up until the time when he saw it), that it looked fresh (meaning that he did not think the blood had been running for a very long time or was old blood, set in motion by pumping the arm up and down) and that the blood in the pool under her neck was partially congealed (meaning that some of the blood had exited the body around four minutes or more before he looked at the pool, whereas that pool was still being fed with fresh, uncoagulated blood).

      I guess it is possible that Lechmere and/or Paul may have raised the arm of Nichols, although neither man says he did, but such a thing would not impact what Mizen saw many minutes later. To introduce Llewellyn to the picture is a bit odd, since he only arrived AFTER Mizens first visit to the area outside Browns Stable Yard. And a medico would not necessarily be as cautious about not disturbing the body as a PC would.

      Summing things up, we should not invent any new facts although the old ones are scarce - what we have is what we have and what we go by. And what we have is an assertion on Neils behalf that he did not disturb the body. Any suggestion to the contrary is to tamper with the facts as we know them. If you wnat to go down that path, feel free to do so, but I will point it out.

      I am far from sure that in 1888 a PC would be quite as careful as you claim to not move the hands in the slightest, especially when, as you correctly point out, a few minutes later the doctor would take whatever action he thought appropriate with the body. This does make it totally pointless for Neil to check temperature etc without moving the hands at all, does it not?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post


        I am far from sure that in 1888 a PC would be quite as careful as you claim to not move the hands in the slightest, especially when, as you correctly point out, a few minutes later the doctor would take whatever action he thought appropriate with the body. This does make it totally pointless for Neil to check temperature etc without moving the hands at all, does it not?
        When Llewellyn examined Nichols, a number of PCs had already established the position of the body. Neil was first to see the body after the killer left (such, at least was the belief of the police at this stage), and so he was the one who could have altered the position in which the body was left by the killer.
        If, as you seem to think, it mattered not to which degree Neil tampered with the body, why do you think Baxter asked about the matter?

        Goodnight, Doctor.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          The kids were registered at school in the name of Lechmere.

          Perhaps their form teacher was told, ‘We’ve registered these children in the name of Lechmere, but their parents have asked us never to refer to them by that name. Instead, they are to be spoken of as the Cross boys.’

          Genealogists would find that a rather absurd idea. Ripperologists find it perfectly plausible - after all a couple of months later the kids’ father would discover (or whatever) a dead prostitute on his way to work and tell the police his name was Cross. That was the most significant event in his entire life, and even if he’d told the police his name was Michael Mouse, we should always refer to him by that name.
          I haven’t the faintest idea why you think this is such a compelling argument.

          It was CAL who was abandoned by his father and raised by the constable Thomas Cross. He was the one who evidently wished to honor his stepfather and may have held a grudge against his birth father. (Similar to my nephew). The children came later and there is no indication that CAL disliked the wider Lechmere family as a whole or would demand that his own children not take that name.

          Further, as the years passed, CAL’s attitudes may have softened. I have no idea what my nephew may name his children, if he ever has any, I just know that he personally rebuffed the name of his own father.

          I’m also not convinced every genealogist on the planet would agree with you, Gary. Chris Scott studied Lechmere and stated flatly that Cross was not a false name. He quite rationally concluded he took the name of his stepfather, and pointed to the 1861 census—and common sense—as evidence. Scott was aware of the later records that refer to him as Lechmere.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            When Llewellyn examined Nichols, a number of PCs had already established the position of the body. Neil was first to see the body after the killer left (such, at least was the belief of the police at this stage), and so he was the one who could have altered the position in which the body was left by the killer.
            If, as you seem to think, it mattered not to which degree Neil tampered with the body, why do you think Baxter asked about the matter?

            Goodnight, Doctor.
            This was 1888, and not CSI 21st Century. Nobody took photographs of the crime scene from various angles, or took detailed careful notes, measurements and sketches. It was all rather nominal compared to what is done these days. The doctor pronounced her dead, did his basic job, and gave instructions she should be taken to the mortuary. He didn't even notice the abdominal mutilations. In no time at all, before 4. 30 am, and before Inspector Spratling even arrived at the crime scene, they had removed the body and were hosing down the site to remove the blood. We must not pretend that these people were remotely meticulous compared to modern standards.

            Goodnight, Christer.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              Where would you file Charles Lechmere’s birth/christening/marriage/kids’ various records etc etc? Under C or L?
              Under L, of course.

              (assuming these records are alphabetized, of course, often they’re filed chronologically)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                Under L, of course.

                (assuming these records are alphabetized, of course, often they’re filed chronologically)
                And here I thought you might Cross reference it.

                ;-)

                Comment


                • The Lechmere crowd still hasn’t explained what harm would have occurred if CAL had used the name Lechmere at the inquest.

                  This cunning, cold-blooded psychopath had already bluffed his way past Paul and Mizen. The danger had passed.

                  So he’s now going to risk it all by clumsily using an assumed name?

                  Why wouldn’t our calculating and overconfident psychopath have merely grinned and said, “my name is Charles Allen Lechmere, officers, how may I help you?”

                  His employers at Pickford’s, if no one else, would obviously have picked up on the name Cross when it appeared in the newspapers. The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever from the standpoint of deception.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post

                    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
                    Scobie states he never met Christer, and Christer agrees so that point alone confims my telephone conversation with him. It would not be in my interest to make things up because it seems that Scobie according to what he said was only provided with what he describes as bullet points about the case from Blink films, which it must be assumed originated in the first instance from either Christer or Edward from what was their original theory.

                    As soon as the program aired it became apparent thatScobies opinion and what he stated was tainted because based on what was known at the time there is no way on gods earth that there was sufficient evidence to bring Lechmere to court, and there was certainly no prima facie case against him then as is still the case today, hence the reason for my contacting him.

                    For information purposes I have again tried to contact Scobie for clarification but to date he has not replied. now I wonder why? perhaps having seen the end result as it aired he felt misrepresented with his final 2-3 minutes having given 30-45 mins of an interview.

                    I personally dont apportion any blame against Christer or Edward. I believe all they did was provide Blink films with the full facts surrounding Lechmeres viablity as a suspect, what Blink films did thereafter is highly questionable in my opinion having seen the final edited program and having first hand experience in how prograns are edited to suit a specific agenda.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-17-2021, 10:26 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      When Llewellyn examined Nichols, a number of PCs had already established the position of the body. Neil was first to see the body after the killer left (such, at least was the belief of the police at this stage), and so he was the one who could have altered the position in which the body was left by the killer.
                      If, as you seem to think, it mattered not to which degree Neil tampered with the body, why do you think Baxter asked about the matter?

                      Goodnight, Doctor.
                      If Neil moved the body in any way it might give rise to further blood flow as Dr Biggs points out

                      "it is not unusual for a body that has been dead for some time to ‘bleed’ from a knife wound when you start moving it"

                      This impacts on your theory, that the blood was still flowing suggesting that she had recently been killed


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                        But how did this serve Lechmere, if he was the killer?I

                        I've never seen a credible argument for how "Charles Allen Cross" of Pickford and Co. at 22 Doveton Street was somehow going to bamboozle the authorities about Charles Allen Lechmere of Pickford and Co. at 22 Doveton Street.

                        I could understand Lechmere perhaps giving the name "Cross" because he wanted to keep his family name out of the newspapers, but that's about it.
                        Hhmm - I've said this before but I'll say it again ... I cant help thinking that using his ex-policeman step-father's surname might in some way give him some credibility with the police. Clutching at straws I would most definitely do the same in a tight situation.

                        Comment


                        • It would be a question of what Neil believed disturbing the body amounted to.Lifting an arm is lifting a part of the body.As no other body part would be affected,I cannot see an objection to a description of the body as not being disturbed.
                          Cross,in giving the name of his employer,associated the employer with that name.As he had been employed at the firm for 20 years,it means that for 20 years Cross had been known by the name of Cross at Pickfords.So another indication he(Cross) desired to be known by that name to others, outside of his family and official records.
                          I see now,the stakes has been shifted,and the evidence claimed to be strong enough get Cross to trial. Before it was only enough to place before a magistrate,who would consider whether a trial was warranted Prima Facia,as it is known.Strange,giving that the police of 1888,didn't even class Cross as suspect.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            except paul directly contradicts himself by saying he thought he could detect breathing and that she must have been dead and was so cold etc. but yes the rest is sound reasoning and good stuff.

                            so if i get this right-the ripper (not lech) is with nichols in bucks row, Lilly hears them and possible initial attack, ripper murders Nichols around 3:30 as the train passes by, cuts throat and gashes stomach but is scared off as lech approaches around 3:35 say? is this the idea?
                            Hi Abby,

                            I too viewed "the post of the week' with a little bemusement.
                            "This makes perfect sense - JtR uses the noise of the passing train to cover his deed, and no-one, except Mrs Lilley hears anything."

                            I've tried to imagine the conversation with Nicols" - Hang on a minute darling. I've consulted the rail timetable and there's a train about to pass so we need to wait so the noise will cover ...Ummm.... our business...yeah, that's it.

                            Cheers, George

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                              Hi Abby,

                              I too viewed "the post of the week' with a little bemusement.
                              "This makes perfect sense - JtR uses the noise of the passing train to cover his deed, and no-one, except Mrs Lilley hears anything."

                              I've tried to imagine the conversation with Nicols" - Hang on a minute darling. I've consulted the rail timetable and there's a train about to pass so we need to wait so the noise will cover ...Ummm.... our business...yeah, that's it.

                              Cheers, George
                              lol. exactly. like the ripper was timing a kill to a train. lol. what nonsense. what else kind of bs would you expect from a diary defender though?

                              "hold on my dear while we pause for a moment. im waiting for a train to pass shortly. hold on. yes i hear it. here it comes. quiet any minute now." lol

                              yeah perfect sense to an idiot maybe.


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                                The Lechmere crowd still hasn’t explained what harm would have occurred if CAL had used the name Lechmere at the inquest.

                                This cunning, cold-blooded psychopath had already bluffed his way past Paul and Mizen. The danger had passed.

                                So he’s now going to risk it all by clumsily using an assumed name?

                                Why wouldn’t our calculating and overconfident psychopath have merely grinned and said, “my name is Charles Allen Lechmere, officers, how may I help you?”

                                His employers at Pickford’s, if no one else, would obviously have picked up on the name Cross when it appeared in the newspapers. The whole thing makes no sense whatsoever from the standpoint of deception.
                                Do I count as one of the ‘Lechmere crowd’, RJ?

                                I have put forward plausible reasons why Lechmere might have been reluctant to disclose his real name in a situation where that name might be reported on in the press - especially where it might have been connected to the name Cross.

                                The ‘Cross crowd’, however, just cannot bring themselves to be objective about anything Lechmere-related.





                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X