Evidence of innocence

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The case against Lechmere doesn’t exist imo.

Your argument that it would have been impossible for someone sitting inches from the body not to have noticed it was the one I was using with ever-increasing incredulity at my adversary's obstinance.

The counter to that is that he did not originally mention the incident.

When arguing with Lechmere's accusers (who for some reason I cannot fathom are called things such as pro-Lechmere or Lechmere Lovers), I do rely on the alternative arguments - i.e. either the murder occurred before he left for work or when he was already at work.

I agree with you that there is (and was) no case for him to answer.

[Fiver]

My questions would have to be - after he’d begun work that morning would Lechmere really have left his cart to go off and pick up a victim? Firstly it would have meant leaving a cart full of meat unattended in the street for however many minutes in an area of such poverty and crime (how could he have explained any missing goods from his cart to his superiors?) And secondly, would he really have been so reckless as to have left a cart with the name Pickford’s emblazoned on the side so that any number of people might have come forward to tell the police that they’d seen an unattended Pickford’s wagon parked nearby? One question to those in charge would have told them which driver(s) had business in that location.

It probably would not have been a cart full of meat. And that meat would have been tightly sealed in barrels or other packaging. But the contents would have been valuable, so leaving them unattended would have been incredibly reckless. Plus, dressed as a carman, he stood out in the crowd. And there would be no credible explanation for fresh blood on his clothes or hands, which risked being seen by random passersby as well as every client he picked up from or delivered to. And if he somehow provided a credible explanation, most receivers would still be spending a lot more time examining their goods to see if blood had soaked onto them, and many shippers would refuse to do the pick up for fear of their goods being ruined in transit by blood.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't want to have an argument about it, either.

I did have an argument once with someone and I took your position, but changed my mind.

The evidence of rigor mortis (a completely unreliable method that the experts tell us to a man not to rely on) last meal (an even more unreliable method - plus we only know her last known meal…..this might not have been her last actual meal so this method is meaningless), last sighting (completely irelevant, how can it matter when she was last seen when we haven’t a clue where she went any way?) and partial digestion (connected to her last meal so irrelevant, it’s an even less reliable method than rigor), when taken together, points to no later than 2.30.

A doctors unreliable estimation which every single modern day expert tell us not to rely on versus three witnesses (one of who was in the yard and didn’t see an horrendously mutilated corpse which would have been about a foot from his left boot!) Only one conclusion…it simply wasn’t there….later TOD. I just don’t get it when some go for the Doctors estimate. It just makes no sense when the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly against it? Your opinion is your own though of course.



In the event that a Lechmere accuser accepted the coroner's adjudication, the case against Lechmere is no stronger.

The case against Lechmere doesn’t exist imo.

[Fiver]

I have this theory that he carried horse flesh on his cart and would have made deliveries to the East End, possibly Islington and to certain locations south of the river. If so, the road closures in question would probably not have affected him beyond there possibly being some extra diverted traffic on his route. As I say, in anticipation of that his shift might have been altered.

Pickfords was a general goods service, not a slaughterhouse. They did occasionally carry horseflesh, but as the article you linked shows, it was packaged and tightly sealed. Six hundredweight of putrid horseflesh was only detected when the barrels was opened and inspected by the intended recipient.

[Fiver]

All that is saying is that in a case where a woman remarried after having not seen her husband and not having any knowledge of him still being alive for seven years, she would not have committed the felony of bigamy even if her husband was indeed still alive.

And there is no evidence that Maria Lechmere thought John Allen Lechmere was still alive,

However, if her husband was still alive, her subsequent marriage/marriages were legally invalid and children of a subsequent marriage would be illegitimate.

Existing records from the Old Bailey do not support your position. Neither does the law. If a previous spouse was believed dead for at least seven years, the second marriage was considered valid.

And if she was aware that her husband was still alive when she went through a form of marriage with someone else, she would be guilty of the felony of bigamy.

A felony so serious that courts often imposed only token punishment. Haven't examples been given of sentences of a hour or so?

Shortly before Maria ‘married’ Tom Cross a cousin of her very much alive husband arrived in Hereford and joined the police force there. I suspect that was one of the reasons she and Tom moved to the East End. That and small town disapproval of her second (potentially bigamous) marriage.

Hereford was crawling with Lechmeres and their relatives. Why would one more matter? And Maria Lechmere didn't marry until years after she moved to London, so disapproval of a marriage that hadn't happened yet could not be the reason. Far more likely would be escaping the stigma of being an abandoned woman, whose husband was a failure, likely an alcoholic, blamed for the death of a policeman, and possibly a thief. Starting over away from all that baggage and the gossip that would surround it would be tempting.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I am referring to the Hanbury Street murder. We have three witnesses all pointing to a later TOD and against a Doctor’s estimate. Forensic medical knowledge tells us that a Victorian Doctors estimate can’t be relied upon as being accurate. Even Phillips himself admitted the possibility that he could have been wrong. His estimation is of no use. All modern experts tell us this. Although I don’t want to get into this TOD debate as it has been gone over at great length on other threads.

I don't want to have an argument about it, either.

I did have an argument once with someone and I took your position, but changed my mind.

The evidence of rigor mortis, last meal, last sighting, and partial digestion, when taken together, points to no later than 2.30.

In the event that a Lechmere accuser accepted the coroner's adjudication, the case against Lechmere is no stronger.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can't seen the earlier comments which gave rise to yours, but are you referring to the Hanbury Street murder?

I put forward similar arguments to yours quite a while ago elsewhere, but since then have come to the conclusion, based on medical evidence, that the murder took place no later than 2.30 a.m., which was an hour before Lechmere would have set out for work.

So, either he was at home or at work, and it is far-fetched to have him in Hanbury Street at the time of the murder.

I am referring to the Hanbury Street murder. We have three witnesses all pointing to a later TOD and against a Doctor’s estimate. Forensic medical knowledge tells us that a Victorian Doctors estimate can’t be relied upon as being accurate. Even Phillips himself admitted the possibility that he could have been wrong. His estimation is of no use. All modern experts tell us this. Although I don’t want to get into this TOD debate as it has been gone over at great length on other threads.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

My questions would have to be - after he’d begun work that morning would Lechmere really have left his cart to go off and pick up a victim? Firstly it would have meant leaving a cart full of meat unattended in the street for however many minutes in an area of such poverty and crime (how could he have explained any missing goods from his cart to his superiors?) And secondly, would he really have been so reckless as to have left a cart with the name Pickford’s emblazoned on the side so that any number of people might have come forward to tell the police that they’d seen an unattended Pickford’s wagon parked nearby? One question to those in charge would have told them which driver(s) had business in that location.

I can't seen the earlier comments which gave rise to yours, but are you referring to the Hanbury Street murder?

I put forward similar arguments to yours quite a while ago elsewhere, but since then have come to the conclusion, based on medical evidence, that the murder took place no later than 2.30 a.m., which was an hour before Lechmere would have set out for work.

So, either he was at home or at work, and it is far-fetched to have him in Hanbury Street at the time of the murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My questions would have to be - after he’d begun work that morning would Lechmere really have left his cart to go off and pick up a victim? Firstly it would have meant leaving a cart full of meat unattended in the street for however many minutes in an area of such poverty and crime (how could he have explained any missing goods from his cart to his superiors?) And secondly, would he really have been so reckless as to have left a cart with the name Pickford’s emblazoned on the side so that any number of people might have come forward to tell the police that they’d seen an unattended Pickford’s wagon parked nearby? One question to those in charge would have told them which driver(s) had business in that location.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do you somehow imagine the whole of London shut down for the day to accommodate a parade through a small section of the City?

Stow is correct in what he says. He should have gone on to say that the closure of a few roads between the Law Courts in the Strand and the Mansion House would not have impacted Broad Street.

Are you familiar with London?

I don't think your comment - made with unwarranted condescension - merits a reply, any more than the ludicrously-overbearing and insulting Stow's comments do.

I told Stow that only a person with a king-sized inferiority complex would behave in the way he does - and I stand by that.

[Dickere]

I'm tempted to suggest "cradle snatcher" but as that's in no way gender specific, I think you're right.

I don't think there is a specific pejorative term for men who date much younger women.

That's presumably because it's regarded as perfectly normal (commendable even) and unworthy of comment.

That said, we get called "cougar" which I wouldn't say is a pejorative as it has, to my mind, quite a nice predatory ring to it!!

Still the fact that there's a name for it and not for the male equivalent tells a story in itself.



Edit: Sorry! Just saw Mr B got to cradle snatcher before me.

You get called a cougar eh. I thought that was just a porno term, so a friend told me

[MrBarnett]

I don’t think this what I found before, but it gives the general gist. The Embankment was closed from 10.am and the Strand and Fleet were also closed. These were (are) the two main E-W arteries of central London. But they were by no means the only ones. If CAL’s delivery schedule was disrupted by these closures, perhaps he started his deliveries a bit earlier that day.

I have this theory that he carried horse flesh on his cart and would have made deliveries to the East End, possibly Islington and to certain locations south of the river. If so, the road closures in question would probably not have affected him beyond there possibly being some extra diverted traffic on his route. As I say, in anticipation of that his shift might have been altered.

[MrBarnett]

I seem to remember the details of the road closures were posted and discussed some time ago. I’ll see if I can find them. From memory, I think the Embankment, the route from the Strand along Fleet Street and Cheapside to the Mansion House were closed as were a few contiguous streets, but that’s nowhere near Broad Street. And the closures were for a limited period only.

[MrBarnett]

"Provided always, that neither this Act, nor anything therein contained, shall extend to any person or persons whose husband or wife shall be continually remaining beyond the seas by the space of seven years together, or whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the space of seven years together, in any parts within his Majesties Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that time.' - Bigamy Act of 1603

All that is saying is that in a case where a woman remarried after having not seen her husband and not having any knowledge of him still being alive for seven years, she would not have committed the felony of bigamy even if her husband was indeed still alive.

However, if her husband was still alive, her subsequent marriage/marriages were legally invalid and children of a subsequent marriage would be illegitimate.

And if she was aware that her husband was still alive when she went through a form of marriage with someone else, she would be guilty of the felony of bigamy.

Shortly before Maria ‘married’ Tom Cross a cousin of her very much alive husband arrived in Hereford and joined the police force there. I suspect that was one of the reasons she and Tom moved to the East End. That and small town disapproval of her second (potentially bigamous) marriage.

[MrBarnett]

Taking account of the roads that were closed, is it reasonable to think that his ability to travel in the vicinity of Broad Street would have been affected?

No. Our posts crossed.