Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

The Mizen episode is really a non-started for me.

But not for me.

if either lied it doesn't change Cross' actions at the time of the discovery.

Of course not.

It was established he spoke with Mizen. that's all we need to know.

No, that is not all we need to know, because simply speaking with Mizen has only benevolent imlications. What Mizen under oath claimed that Lechmere had said has very different implications, and so it must be weighed in. Mizen said that Lechmere had told him that another PC was in place in Bucks Row, to begin with. That wording is as useful a wording as anybody with a desire to slip past the police could construct. And it is not the only suspicious matter, if Mizen was on the money. It also applies that the seriousness of the errand was played down, by not saying to the PC that it was possibly, or even likely, a very grave errand. Finally, Lechmere did not tell Mizen that he himself was the finder of the body. These three statements are all perfectly in line with a wish to circumvent the police, and when there is such a consistency in the message given, the last thing we should do is to look away from it and only accept that Mizen was spoken to.

He went to the police. He didn't need to.

I think he would have made another call on that score, and for good reasons. He did not have to accompany Paul to find a PC, but it DID supply him with the possibility to find out about his fellow carman and it gave him somebody to walk with, making him look less viable as the culprit. When he went to the police the second time over, he would have done so to stem the tide after Pauls interview, so I think he judged it essential that he did so.

He didn't even have to go with Paul at all.

See the above.

The fact that he went with Paul to locate the police is another bit of evidence towards innocence. as a matter of fact it really indicates that Paul was the dominant personality between the two.

It is another of the many things that can be interpreted either way. The problem is that there are way too many things that look suspicious and need an innocent explanation. My take on things is that Paul was anything but the dominant force. Lechmere called upon his attention, and Paul was unwilling to comply, Lechmere suggested the examination, Lechmere denied to help prop her up, Lechmere took up with Paul when the latter wanted to leave and Lechmere was the one speaking to Mizen. That does not point to any dominance on Pauls behalf at all.

Paul wanted to sit Nichols up. Cross was just squeamish or scared to touch her.

Or he firmly said "I am not going to do that", and Paul was too squeamish to press the point.

This bit of info is used against his innocence, but why? whether they discovered she was murdered or not wouldn't matter.

It did matter a whole lot if Lechmere´s desire was to leave the spot with as little commotion as possible. If it was discovered that she was killed, and if a PC like Neil arrives hsortly after, then Paul would go "Officer, here´s a woman who has been killed" - at a stage when Lechmere in all probability had a bloody knife on his person. That means that it DID matter. Hugely so.

Paul didn't suspect Cross of anything when he came upon him.

He did suspect him of being a robber, actually. He was afraid of him. Which is another point against any dominance on Pauls behalf.

Most likely he wouldn't have suspected he killed nichols if they discovered she was dead. What if Paul decided to sit her up himself? Would Cross kill him? run? He could've run miles already.

Those are unanswerable questions. All I can tell you is that a psychopath will not doubt that he is going to run the show and come out on top. Which is why they are less inclined to run in the first place.

All these theories about how conniving and brilliant Cross was is just not really applicable because there is not one fact in the record to support guilt. I said fact not supposition.

There are many facts that suggest and support guilt. The fact that Mizen said that Lechmere told him that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row is one of them. That you think we should skip over.

[Harry D]

Problem is, Fish, that we do not know the truth of things between Lechmere and Mizen, and we should not should assume that coppers are above telling porkies, particularly if in hindsight they should’ve attended the crime scene instead of continuing their rounds.

Furthermore, *if* Lechmere did mislead Mizen, we don’t know if this was for nefarious reasons or because he didn’t want to be held up from work any longer than he had already.

[Fisherman]

Problem is, Fish, that we do not know the truth of things between Lechmere and Mizen, and we should not should assume that coppers are above telling porkies, particularly if in hindsight they should’ve attended the crime scene instead of continuing their rounds.

Furthermore, *if* Lechmere did mislead Mizen, we don’t know if this was for nefarious reasons or because he didn’t want to be held up from work any longer than he had already.

I keep saying it - there is never any problem to think up alternative innocent explanations, is there? You are of course right; when two people say different things, one cannot conclude that any of them must be telling the truth whereas the other must lie. To do so, there must be further indications. And that is why I say that Lechmere was the liar - there ARE such indications.

So how do I reason? Well, I check off a number of things on the list of possible guilt. Tag along, Harry, and I´ll show you:

1. For me to reason that Lechmere was probably the killer, I would predispose that it was indicated that he had time alonw with the victim - check.

2. I would further predispose that there were signs that the victim was very freshy killed as Lechmere was joined by Paul - check.

3. I would reason that Lechmere would probably present a story that seemingly told us that he had not had enough time to be the killer - check.

4. I would think that if Paul wanted to make a more thorough examination, Lechmere would try to stop it if it was likely to give away that it was a case of murder - check.

5. I would naturally predispose that Lechmere likely carried a knife - check.

6. I would predispose that instead of being in direct contact with the victim, he would see to it that he was distanced from it as Paul arrived - check.

7. If Lechmere was the killer, then he killed en route to work, and so it would be reasonable to expect that any other murders by his hand would occur in the early morning hours - check.

8. Of course, such murders would also need to be placed along or in close proximity to his morning work trek - check.

9. If instead murders occurred on days that were not likely to be his workdays, we would have to allow for such murders occurring not along his work trek and in the early morning hours - check.

10. It may well be that such murders had geographical links to his likely time off pathways and historically trodden routes - check.

11. If there was anything that pointed to him, then it is to be expected that he would deny it - check.

12. Since a serial killer would want to fly under the radar, he would be likely to give details surrounding his identity that were doubtful or outright false - check.

This is how I do my homework, Harry. Incidentally, it is the exact same way that the police do theirs - or should do it: Identify anomalies and/or lies, then check whether or not the suspect fits the geographical and chronological bill. If he does, you are likely to have identified the perpetrator.

And we have done just that, Harry, I have no doubt about that myself. I just gave you a list of 12 checking points. You will instead say that it is a list of 12 unlucky coincidences. But 12 such coincidences are way too many to be in any way likely. If it walks like a duck ...

This is where we differ, and we are, each of us, entitled to our respective views.

[harry]

Since it was Abby that introduced the subject,Fisherman,you should refer the answer to him.
I do not write from a position of what might have happened had Cross faced trial.As you are aware,my stance is there was never evidence to bring Cross to trial.Like others that post,I write in regard to the information that is available.
No,the innocence I ascribe to Cross,is from a reailsation there is no guilt proven against him.Some day,though I doubt you will admit it,the same realisation will occur to you

[Fisherman]

Since it was Abby that introduced the subject,Fisherman,you should refer the answer to him.

I was being pleasant and helping out,Harry.

I do not write from a position of what might have happened had Cross faced trial.As you are aware,my stance is there was never evidence to bring Cross to trial.Like others that post,I write in regard to the information that is available.

No, you write in regard to how you interpret the information available. You forgot that distinction, and it is vital.

No,the innocence I ascribe to Cross,is from a reailsation there is no guilt proven against him.Some day,though I doubt you will admit it,the same realisation will occur to you

That is, once again, the legal option. Scobie made another call.

[caz]

Yes, you CAN make something like that up. Read up on psychopathic killers and you will see that they have made a lot up historically.

How about a cure for the common cold? Perpetual motion? A previously undiscovered planet? You have to know a phenomenon exists, or have personal experience of it, in order to make it up and expect it to sound credible.

So I'll repeat my question, Fish, and then leave you to it.

What evidence have you found that by 1888 it was common knowledge that innocent people unexpectedly finding a dead or dying human being outdoors at night had reported seeing it initially as an inanimate object, until the grim reality became inescapable? Newspaper stories? Novels? Police magazines or reports? I'll take anything you've got.

Without that evidence, if it's all the same to you, I'll continue to use Lechmere's imagined tarpaulin as evidence of innocence. He was describing pretty much exactly what others do when they come across something completely unexpected and outside of their experience.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If Lechmere was the killer of Stride and hiding in the yard, just how likely would he be to get involved in another murder a month after his previous performance in Bucks Row? What would the police say:

Oh, such luck - it´s that helpful innocent carman again!

or

Now we´ve got you!

The fact that he stayed has been discussed too many times for me to reiterate my take on it, and I am sure you already know it. if I am wrong about that, just tell me and I will oblige!

This is what makes it so unlikely that Lechmere would have chosen to hang around in Buck's Row, making his presence felt by Paul, then PC Mizen, then again at the Inquest.

If he quite fancied the idea of doing it all over again but better, in Hanbury Street, Dutfield's Yard, Mitre Square and Miller's Court, he would be snookered if on any of those occasions he was seen, and his circulated description could identify him as the carman who 'found' Nichols. Even worse if he had no choice but to stay and bluff it out on a subsequent outing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

To further explain how I look upon the evidence linked to Charles Lechmere, let´s take the 12 points from my post 168 to Harry D and expand a bit further on them, the expansions in red:

1. For me to reason that Lechmere was probably the killer, I would predispose that it was indicated that he had time alone with the victim - check.

The alternative is of course that he did NOT have time alone with the victim, in which case he would not become a suspect. My take on things is that he claimed to have had Paul arriving seconds only after he had found Nichols, and so that would implicate that he never had the time to be the killer. It´s just unlucky that he is on record as having an unestablished amount of time together with the victim before Paul arrived, and that his own claim to have left home at 3.20 or 3.30 allows for him having had a number of minutes alone with the victim. If this was not so, we would have had evidence of innocence.

2. I would further predispose that there were signs that the victim was very freshy killed as Lechmere was joined by Paul - check.

Of course, if the blood under Nichols´neck had been observed as the carmen examined her, and if it had been found to be congealed, that would speak in favour of innocence on. Lechmere´s behalf. If furthermore Neil and Mizen had been able to confirm that the blood was congealed, it would go some way further to confirm a likely innocence. But just as in point 1, Lechmere does not get the break he needs. Is that coincidental only? Let´s move on and see!

3. I would reason that Lechmere would probably present a story that seemingly told us that he had not had enough time to be the killer - check.

Here we have that claim on Lechmere´s behalf that Paul arrived right on his heels. See point 1!

4. I would think that if Paul wanted to make a more thorough examination, Lechmere would try to stop it if it was likely to give away that it was a case of murder - check.

This is where it would have felt a lot better if Lechmere had freely joined Paul in an effort to prop up Nichopls and try to get her come around. If he had done so, the point that he was seemingly trying to keep Paul from realizing that Nichols had been murdered could not have been made. In other words, we could have a point of innocence here - but it once again illudes our unlucky carman.

5. I would naturally predispose that Lechmere likely carried a knife - check.

There were many jobs that did not require that you carried a sharp knife, but as fate woud have it, Lechmere´s job was not one of them. Bad luck?

6. I would predispose that instead of being in direct contact with the victim, he would see to it that he was distanced from it as Paul arrived - check.

The second Lechmere realized that he was looking at a woman lying on the pavement, he should have walked up to her and tried to help her. But as pointed out above, he says that Paul just happened to arrive at the very moment when he was pondering what to do. Possible? Absolutely. But he nevertheless ends up in a position away fromn the body that may implicate part of a ruse. Which is unlucky.

7. If Lechmere was the killer, then he killed en route to work, and so it would be reasonable to expect that any other murders by his hand would occur in the early morning hours - check.

I can name ten thousand London Streets that were not in line with Lechmere being the Whitechapel murderer, who did away with Tabram, Chapman and Kelly. But out of all the streets where the eviscerator could have chosen, he had to - each and every time he killed in Whitechapel - choose streets that lend themselves perfectly to point the carman out. That is incredibly unlucky, or a sign of guilt. It COULD have been a point of innocence, had the killer only managed to stay away from Lechmere´s paths. But no such luck!

8. Of course, such murders would also need to be placed along or in close proximity to his morning work trek - check.

If any one of the victims had been killed in the afternoon, the evening, the night, the late morning and so on, then that would have been a point in favour of innocence on Lechmer´s behalf. But guess what? He is once more unlucky in the extreme. As I said in another thread, it is almost as if somebody was hellbent on pinning the murders on the carman - or, of course, and incredibly much simpler: he was the killer.

9. If instead murders occurred on days that were not likely to be his workdays, we would have to allow for such murders occurring not along his work trek and in the early morning hours - check.

And what happens? We HAVE two more murders occurring, both on a working mans night off and neither of them in the early morning hours! Just how unlucky can a guy get? It all seems to fit his movements like a glove, instead of providing vital evidence of innocence, as it could have done.

10. It may well be that such murders had geographical links to his likely time off pathways and historically trodden routes - check.

And - oh, dear - one of these two murders occurs right next to his mothers address in his old stomping grounds, where he would be very familiar indeed. Why not in Knightsbridge? Or Bow? Or Clerkenwell? Or Southwark? or Lambeth? Or...
Why did it HAVE to happen a stone´s throw from where his mother lived. Isn´t that the unluckiest thing on earth?

11. If there was anything that pointed to him, then it is to be expected that he would deny it - check.

And indeed, he found himself in a position where a PC testifying under oath, claimed that Lechmere had spoken about a PC in Bucks Row. And he denied it. No matter who said what and who was truthful - is it not a total rot that Lechmere, already stricken by such a massive amount of unlucky coincidences, should now be plagued by this claim by Mizen? How very, very unlucky can a man get. Really? He did NOT need that, did he?

12. Since a serial killer would want to fly under the radar, he would be likely to give details surrounding his identity that were doubtful or outright false - check.

So here we have a carman, supposedly (or possibly) totally innocent according to a number of posters out here, who goes to an inquest to testify about his experiences on Polly Nichols´murder night. he is a man who we know has always filled out all sorts of forms and signed all sorts of papers, and every time he has done so with the name Lechmere. And now that he is involved in a murder case, where latter day investigators accuse hbim of being the killer himself, he comes up with the idea that this time, he will not be Charles Lechmere of 22 Doveton Street. This time he will be Charles Cross of no street at all, unless each and every paper bar the Star did not manage to pick up a single syllabe as Lechmere gave his address, whereas the Star reporter not only got it, but also got it exactly correct, implicating that the carman must have spoken loud and clear. And still, all the other papers failed to take any interest in what he said?
Now isn´t that a bummer?

So what was it all about? Why was he not able to get a single break when he really needed it? Was it becasue Lady Luck had sold him out totally and played cruel games with him? Or was it becasue a killer cannot produce a fireproof point of innocence, for the exact reason that he actually IS the killer?

I say that the later applies. And that is before other matters are added to the picture, like the covered up wounds, for example.

[Columbo]

There are many facts that suggest and support guilt. The fact that Mizen said that Lechmere told him that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row is one of them. That you think we should skip over.

True that Mizen said that. Not a fact that Cross told him that. It's disputed and therefore can't be called fact unless proven. Not proven.

Another small bit of evidence towards innocence. Paul was trying to avoid Cross out of caution in case of potential trouble. There's no record in interviews or inquest documents that Paul suspected or accused Cross of any wrong doing after he found out Nichols was murdered. As far as I know, there are no newspaper reports suggesting Cross was responsible. Paul apparently felt Cross was genuine in his concern for Nichols and they BOTH sought out a policeman. These are verifiable actions. Facts.

Also, as pointed out by several people in, or were in law enforcement, that back in 1888 they would almost need the killer to be caught in the act to catch them. Here we have Cross in that potential situation, but he's not mentioned in any surviving documentation as a suspect! Certainly with at least the documentation available in the 60's and 70's, before things were going missing, there would've been some mention of him. No mention in police memoirs, none in interviews with retired policemen, nothing about Cross. No mention he was a suspect in any of the early ripper books. We know there's none in the police files beyond the Nichols murder. But since these sources are mentioned as evidence of guilt, these are also evidence of innocence.

Columbo

[MrBarnett]

Stride being killed at an earlier hour than the other victims, when people were still up and about, in an area where Lechmere was well known supports his innocence in my book.

It might have been argued that although he had only recently moved from James Street and his mother, stepfather and daughter were still living in Mary Ann Street, he may not have been known to anyone in Berner Street. I say might have been, but now we know that an ex neighbour of his from Mary Ann Street, a man whose wife knew the Lechmeres well enough to have appeared as the informant on Charles’s sister’s death certificate, was not only living in Berner Street in 1888, but gave evidence of having seen Stride a few yards from his front door on the night she was murdered.

That for me provides a specific example of Lechmere having contacts in the area - in this case a contact living a few yards from the murder scene who presumably knew him as both Lechmere and Cross.

Repeatedly committing crimes in areas or at a time that were more likely to lead to his being identified if he had been the killer is an argument for Lechmere’s innocence, I feel.

[Fisherman]

True that Mizen said that. Not a fact that Cross told him that. It's disputed and therefore can't be called fact unless proven. Not proven.

I´m sorry, but what I said is that it is a fact that Mizen claimed that Lechmere told him that there was another PC in Bucks Row. It is on record, and so it IS a fact that this was Mizens view of things. It is another matter that Lechmere disagreed and that we can therefor not say whether the claim is a fact or not. It´s ither or, but that does not change that it IS factual that Mizen said so. And if you take a look at my post again, this is exactly what I am saying.

Another small bit of evidence towards innocence.

How can it be pro innocence if we have two diametrically opposite views? What we can say is that it suggest the possibility of innocence, just as Mizens claim suggests the possibility of guilt, strictly speaking.

Paul was trying to avoid Cross out of caution in case of potential trouble. There's no record in interviews or inquest documents that Paul suspected or accused Cross of any wrong doing after he found out Nichols was murdered. As far as I know, there are no newspaper reports suggesting Cross was responsible. Paul apparently felt Cross was genuine in his concern for Nichols and they BOTH sought out a policeman. These are verifiable actions. Facts.

No, it is not a fact that Paul felt that Lechmere was genuine in his concern for Nichols, for exampole. That is something you believe was so, perhaps, but that´s as far as it goes. Let´s try to be a bit wary about what facts are.

Also, as pointed out by several people in, or were in law enforcement, that back in 1888 they would almost need the killer to be caught in the act to catch them.

That has no bearing on the question of guilt, though.

Here we have Cross in that potential situation, but he's not mentioned in any surviving documentation as a suspect!

And that has no bearing on his potential guilt either. It only tells us that the legal authorities seemingly entertained no suspicions, but we must weigh in that there was a lot of prejudice tainting the picture of the killer, which to a degree probably owes to the prevailing "insights" into criminality offered by criminal anthropology. The point that he was not suspected really does not mean that he could or would not be guilty at all.

Certainly with at least the documentation available in the 60's and 70's, before things were going missing, there would've been some mention of him. No mention in police memoirs ...

Ooops - he IS mentioned by Walter Dew. As a rough but honest person, as I recall it. It was Dews picture of the standard Eastender.

... none in interviews with retired policemen, nothing about Cross.

Lechmere. He is named Lechmere.

No mention he was a suspect in any of the early ripper books. We know there's none in the police files beyond the Nichols murder. But since these sources are mentioned as evidence of guilt, these are also evidence of innocence.

Columbo

The only conclusion we can draw from the lack of mentioning about Lechmere is that he was not suspected at the time. Whether of not it was the correct thing to do not to suspect him is an entirely different matter. If we were to apply yur thinking to the hunt, we can call it off, since any suspect that is presented today must be crap if he was not mentioned then, right?

That is a very unhealthy approach to solving riddles. It would make for an interesting anomaly if we look at for example the Golden State killer, Joseph James de Angelo. With your logic, he could not be caught, because he was not caught back in the day (the 1970:s and 80:s). And he was not mentioned by a single policeman, author or armchair detective, until he suddenly was proven to be the killer by way of DNA.

That is how things work. Some things are cleared up fast, some take longer time, some are never cleared up. But there is no date beyond which a new suspect must be disallowed if he has not previously been mentioned. Unless you disagree with that?

[Columbo]

Another bit of evidence towards innocence. Anne Chapman was killed while Cross was working. Cross was a deliverer of meat. A desirable commodity. The witness to Anne Chapman's conversation with her customer did not report any meat wagon in the area. She said the man was dressed as shabby genteel, like a clerk. She also described him as a foreigner. She did not describe a cart man or butcher. These are documented facts. Certainly we can be positive, although not a fact, that Cross is not going to leave a wagon full of meat in Whitechapel unattended, while thousands of starving people are looking for something to eat.

[Fisherman]

Stride being killed at an earlier hour than the other victims, when people were still up and about, in an area where Lechmere was well known supports his innocence in my book.

It might have been argued that although he had only recently moved from James Street and his mother, stepfather and daughter were still living in Mary Ann Street, he may not have been known to anyone in Berner Street. I say might have been, but now we know that an ex neighbour of his from Mary Ann Street, a man whose wife knew the Lechmeres well enough to have appeared as the informant on Charles’s sister’s death certificate, was not only living in Berner Street in 1888, but gave evidence of having seen Stride a few yards from his front door on the night she was murdered.

That for me provides a specific example of Lechmere having contacts in the area - in this case a contact living a few yards from the murder scene who presumably knew him as both Lechmere and Cross.

Repeatedly committing crimes in areas or at a time that were more likely to lead to his being identified if he had been the killer is an argument for Lechmere’s innocence, I feel.

It can certainly be viewed that way. Then again, we know from experience that serial killers often employ a "comfort zone", meaning that they kill or find their victims in areas where they feel familiar. Ridgway, for example, sought out victims on the Sea Tac Strip of Seattle to a very large degree if I don´t misremember. And he was a familar face there. Still he used that ground to find prey. Of course, he killed mostly at home, but he would nevertheless have signposted himself rather heavily. In the Stride case, we seem to have a murder committed in a yard, so if he had been spotted by the person you speak of, that would have been it. An observation that he was in the street, perhaps at the right time.

I would suggest that brazenness is an alternative explanation for the Stride murder, if it was him. But I neverthless consider your take on it a logical one.

[Fisherman]

Another bit of evidence towards innocence. Anne Chapman was killed while Cross was working.

I´m afraid I never subscribed to that view, and it is very far from a fact. I believe Phillips was correct, and even if he was not, it may well be that Lechmere was around at the alternative time of 5.30. He was a carman.

Cross was a deliverer of meat.

We do not know that for sure, although it is possible that it was one of the commodities he freighted - or even the only one.

A desirable commodity. The witness to Anne Chapman's conversation with her customer did not report any meat wagon in the area.

Stands to reason if he was there at 3.30ish, as Phillips believed. And the police and Home Office alongside with him. And you DO like the police view, right?

She said the man was dressed as shabby genteel, like a clerk. She also described him as a foreigner. She did not describe a cart man or butcher. These are documented facts.

Yes, and the same type of facts that I spoke about in Mizens case - and which you said were not facts. So why are Longs statement facts and Mizens not? Lechere gainsaid Mizen. Phillps gainsaid Long. So why, Columbo?

Certainly we can be positive, although not a fact, that Cross is not going to leave a wagon full of meat in Whitechapel unattended, while thousands of starving people are looking for something to eat.

No, we can´t be positive, we can only guess. Many carters had helpers coming along for the ride, and such a person could tend to the cart when Lechmere was away. But if Lechmere killed Chapman at the time Phillips favoured, then he had not put his cart on the streets yet, and he had no helper accompanying him. And it would be a deed that tallied with the others time wise, carried out in protective darkness. It all fits that way.

[Columbo]

The only conclusion we can draw from the lack of mentioning about Lechmere is that he was not suspected at the time. Whether of not it was the correct thing to do not to suspect him is an entirely different matter. If we were to apply yur thinking to the hunt, we can call it off, since any suspect that is presented today must be crap if he was not mentioned then, right?

That is a very unhealthy approach to solving riddles. It would make for an interesting anomaly if we look at for example the Golden State killer, Joseph James de Angelo. With your logic, he could not be caught, becasue he was not caught back in the day (the 1970:s and 80:s). And he was not mentioned by a single policeman, author or armchair detective, until he suddenly was proven to be the killer by way of DNA.

That is how things work. Some things are cleared up fast, some take longer time, some are never cleared up. But there is no date beyond which a new suspect must be disallowed if he had not previously been mentioned. Unless you disagree with that?

Again, you started this thread and asked for evidence of innocence. I'm only participating because it's interesting and informative. I'm not going to debate because I'm not here to convince anyone of Cross' innocence or guilt. I could very well provide a debate on either side if that's the thread you wanted, but debating Cross has been done so many times, and it's so redundant that it's not interesting.

And as I've said in many posts, I support Cross as a good person of interest, nothing more. Very good points of supposition and some scant circumstantial evidence are interesting in favor of guilt, but no facts to say beyond a reasonable doubt he did it.

Columbo