Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Columbo View Post
    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.
    Hi Columbo,

    How do you know what Lechmere carried on his cart?

    How do we know there was anything at all on it at the time Chapman was killed?

    As far as I’m aware there’s no hard evidence of what he carried, but there are some indications that it may have been horse flesh - cat’s meat. If so, there were a limited number of places where that commodity might have been delivered in bulk, some of which were in the East End. It’s feasible that he could have made deliveries from Broad Street to Whitechapel/Mile End and been on his way back to load up again within an hour or so.

    Gary
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 07-14-2021, 03:19 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

      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
      I disagree with that. Iīd say that there is not conclusive proof to say he did it, but there IS circumstantial evidence enough to say he was the perpetrator, and that evidence is of course based on the facts. Plus I have James Scobie agreeing that there is enough to warrant a trial that would suggest that he was the killer.

      Of course there must be learoom to disagree otherwise, there would be no need for these boards in the first place. All we can do is to present our respective cases as best as we can, and to comment on material we feel is not portraying the case in the best way possible.

      And that, basically, is exactly what you and I are doing.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        Hi Columbo,

        How do you know what Lechmere carried on his cart?

        How do we know there was anything at all on it at the time Chapman was killed?

        As far as I’m aware there’s no hard evidence of what he carried, but there are some indications that it may have been horse flesh - cat’s meat. If so, there were a limited number of places where that commodity might have been delivered in bulk, some of which were in the East End. It’s feasible that he could have made deliveries from Broad Street to Whitechapel/Mile End and been on his way back to load up again within an hour or so.

        Gary
        Hi Gary,

        Good point. We don't know what kind of meat exactly, and possible he could make all his deliveries. but given that most of the murders attributed to JTR happened before Cross was expected at work indicates to me he probably had a rigorous delivery schedule. Stopping to look for someone to kill and doing the killing seems a bit out of character to me and time consuming. Since he worked at the same location for so many years indicates to me he was very fastidious about his work. But what you describe is a possible scenario. Thanks for that.

        Columbo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          I disagree with that. Iīd say that there is not conclusive proof to say he did it, but there IS circumstantial evidence enough to say he was the perpetrator, and that evidence is of course based on the facts. Plus I have James Scobie agreeing that there is enough to warrant a trial that would suggest that he was the killer.

          Of course there must be learoom to disagree otherwise, there would be no need for these boards in the first place. All we can do is to present our respective cases as best as we can, and to comment on material we feel is not portraying the case in the best way possible.

          And that, basically, is exactly what you and I are doing.
          Absolutely agree with that. I was hoping, though that this thread would shed new opinions, but it's turned into another typical p**sing contest on who's right or wrong. I'm just offering up suggestions. I'll start on how guilty sickert is next time.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Columbo View Post

            Absolutely agree with that. I was hoping, though that this thread would shed new opinions, but it's turned into another typical p**sing contest on who's right or wrong. I'm just offering up suggestions. I'll start on how guilty sickert is next time.
            Well, the best of luck with that one. Although he IS of course already revealed as the proven Ripper by way of DNA.

            Not.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              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 donīt 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.
              Possibly the 'hiding in plain sight' approach too. Oh yes, we know Charlie boy, he's often around and he wouldn't kill anyone. What's his surname ? Lechmere, something like that. Not Cross, no. Different bloke then. Nothing to see here.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                I disagree with that. Iīd say that there is not conclusive proof to say he did it, but there IS circumstantial evidence enough to say he was the perpetrator, and that evidence is of course based on the facts. Plus I have James Scobie agreeing that there is enough to warrant a trial that would suggest that he was the killer.

                Of course there must be learoom to disagree otherwise, there would be no need for these boards in the first place. All we can do is to present our respective cases as best as we can, and to comment on material we feel is not portraying the case in the best way possible.

                And that, basically, is exactly what you and I are doing.
                Is Scobie talking about the Nichols case alone though ? That I can see as being one to take to court, but there's no actual evidence for any of the others as I see it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  It is not just about finding a body, Erobitha. Very, very far from it. Lechmere becomes a red hot bid when we look at the bleeding, and once he has been heated up to that stage, we must add:
                  -The disagreement with Mizen, where Mizen says that Lechmere claimed that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row, something that allowed the carmen to passa the PC without even having their names taken.
                  -The fact that Mizen said that there was no talk of murder or suicide; he does not acknowledge that Lechmere spoke of a possible death.
                  -The fact that Paul never said that he saw or heard Lechmere a mere 30-40 yards in front of himself.
                  -The fact that Lechmeres walk to work took him right through the killing fields of Whitechapel at times that seem roughly consistent with the murders.
                  -The fact that the wounds of Nichols were covered up by her clothes.
                  -The fact that Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up.
                  -The fact that Lechmere said he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, which would have had him in Bucks Row at 3.27-3.37, not at 3.45.
                  -The fact that Lechmere called himself Cross when involved in a case of murder, whereas he always otherwise called himself Lechmere in authority contacts.
                  One of these things only would be bad for the carmans claims of innocence. Two would be catastrophic. Taken all together, they make for a very good accusation act. If he is not guilty, these were all coincidences and flukes. Accepting that is being incredibly naive in my book. And thatīs the only book I can answer for.

                  So anyways, itīs not just about finding a body, is it?
                  I see you continue to have no idea what the word "coincidence" means.

                  * Based on your time estimates on bleeding, PC Neil is the most likely killer, not Lechmere.

                  * Robert Paul also disagreed with PC Mizen, but you don't claim Paul was the Ripper.

                  * As had been repeatedly pointed out to you - Paul did say he saw Lechemere in front of him. We don't know how far that distance was because nobody asked Paul. We don't know if Paul heard Lechmere before he saw him - nobody asked Paul that, either.

                  * As had been repeatedly pointed out to you - Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman killing.The timing for the Stride and Eddowes is not "roughly consistent" with Lechmere's walk to work, they occurred hours before Lechmere normally left for work.

                  * As had been repeatedly pointed out to you - Paul testified that he pulled down Nichols clothing.

                  * Refusing to prop up Nichols is not suspicious. A guilty man would have jumped at the chance to have an excuse for any blood on his clothing.

                  * Lechmere said he left home at 3:30am. Virtually every source agrees on that time. Leaving at 3:30am would put Lechmere at the murder site around 3:40am. That doesn't fit your theory, so you focus on the couple of papers that incorrectly said 3:20am.

                  * Lechmere always called himself Cross when he appeared in court. The 1876 case not not a case of murder. Lechmere used the Cross name over a decade before the Nichols murder.

                  When it comes to your theory, one alibi would be bad for your claims of Lechmere's guilt. Two would be catastrophic. Lechemere had three alibis, four if we count the Pinchin Street Torso killing that you sometimes tack on.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    As for Chapman, I never thought that she died at 5.30. I think Phillips is spot on and that would place Annie in the same time frame as Nichols, more or less. And even if she DID die at 5.30, how does that disenable Lechmer to have killed her?
                    A witness saw Chapman alive at 5:30. Dr Philips estimated the time of death as around 4:30am, but he also qualified that by saying "it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood".

                    And Lechmere started work at 4am. He had an alibi.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                      What I then find perculiar is that, after passing Mizen, Lechmere chose to accompany Paul to Paul's workplace. Lechmere was running very late for work but passed up the quicker route on Old Montague Street. Why? If Lechmere was innocent he may just have been shaken up and needing company. If not, was Lechmere anxious to find out exactly how much Paul had seen? Did he want to know as much about Paul as possible, including where he worked, to deflect suspicion from himself to Paul should the necessity arise. Or did he want to fit Paul up for the next murder, again to deflect suspicion from himself?
                      Fisherman clearly believes that Hanbury was Lechmere's normal route to work - thus his claim that Chapman was killed on Lechmere's route to work.

                      According to PC Mizen, he encountered Lechmere and Paul "at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row." I'm not seeing anything that says Lechmere continued with Paul along Hanbury or if he ducked back to Montague, but there are a lot of newpaper accounts. If Lechmere was far enough down Hanbury when he met PC Mizen, it would have been shorter to continue along Hanbury than to double back to Montague.




                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                        Possibly the 'hiding in plain sight' approach too. Oh yes, we know Charlie boy, he's often around and he wouldn't kill anyone. What's his surname ? Lechmere, something like that. Not Cross, no. Different bloke then. Nothing to see here.


                        William Marshall gave evidence at the Stride inquest. He stated that he had seen her at 11.45 talking to a man a few yards from his front door at 64, Berner Street. The man had his back to Marshall, so he was unable to provide a description of him, but he did hear him speak.


                        In 1869, Marshall’s wife Mary Ann was the informant recorded on the death certificate of Charles Lechmere’s sister, Emily. Mary Ann had been present at Emily’s death and she and her husband lived a few doors away from the Lechmere/Cross family.

                        At the time of Emily’s death, although Charles Lechmere’s stepfather, Thomas Cross, was still alive, Mary Ann Marshall reported her surname as Lechmere. Obviously she and her husband knew the family by both names. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that if one neighbour in an East End Street was aware of the Lechmere name, others would have been too.

                        In 1871, the Marshalls were still living in Mary Ann Street, as were Charles Lechmere and his wife and Lechmere’s mother, Maria. On the census, Charles and his wife are shown with the surname Lechmere, his mother with the surname Cross.

























                        Last edited by MrBarnett; 07-14-2021, 10:12 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                          A witness saw Chapman alive at 5:30. Dr Philips estimated the time of death as around 4:30am, but he also qualified that by saying "it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood".

                          And Lechmere started work at 4am. He had an alibi.
                          Yep, he was in plain sight on that factory floor for the following twelve hours.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                            Fisherman clearly believes that Hanbury was Lechmere's normal route to work - thus his claim that Chapman was killed on Lechmere's route to work.

                            According to PC Mizen, he encountered Lechmere and Paul "at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row." I'm not seeing anything that says Lechmere continued with Paul along Hanbury or if he ducked back to Montague, but there are a lot of newpaper accounts. If Lechmere was far enough down Hanbury when he met PC Mizen, it would have been shorter to continue along Hanbury than to double back to Montague.




                            Nope, Fisherman suggests Lechmere had two routes to work, one via Hanbury Street, one via Old Montague Street.

                            Lechmere and Paul parted company when they reached the western end of Hanbury Street and Paul turned into Corbett’s Court.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by paul g View Post
                              Factual Reasons for Lechmeres innocence
                              1 He found a body.
                              1. He had an alibi for Chapman's murder.
                              2. He probably had an alibi for Stride's mruder.
                              3. He probably had an alibi for Eddowes murder.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                                1. He had an alibi for Chapman's murder.
                                2. He probably had an alibi for Stride's mruder.
                                3. He probably had an alibi for Eddowes murder.
                                Possibly, but there’s no evidence to support 1, 2 or 3.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X