Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Yet - if Lechmere was JtR - it worked!! He concealed his real name for over a hundred years - and didn't get caught!

Whether he was JTR or not, he made a conscious decision to withhold his real name and it remained unknown for a century.

[MrBarnett]

Your last sentence answers your first. There are objective people who do not think Lechmere was the Ripper. There are very unobjective people who think Lechmere was the killer. Not that anyone would know that from your last sentence.

Back on form. Did someone hack your user name for post 1977?

[JeffHamm]

Hi rj,

It was John Richardson. “There was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him.” —Swanson, 19 October 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C

Robert Paul was also investigated. Deeply shocking, I know.

Ah, yes, that's it! Not Davies, but Richardson. Thanks for that.

Where's the suggestion that Robert Paul was investigated from? If they investigated Paul then that would suggest they also investigated Cross/Lechmere. While I suspect both were looked at, is there a statement recorded to that effect? I don't recall seeing it mentioned in this thread, but it tends to grow so quickly I could have missed the post.

Again, much appreciated.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Hi rj,



Ah, yes, that's it! Not Davies, but Richardson. Thanks for that.

Where's the suggestion that Robert Paul was investigated from? If they investigated Paul then that would suggest they also investigated Cross/Lechmere. While I suspect both were looked at, is there a statement recorded to that effect? I don't recall seeing it mentioned in this thread, but it tends to grow so quickly I could have missed the post.

Again, much appreciated.

- Jeff

Yes, if there’s evidence that Paul’s ID was checked out, it would be very interesting to see it.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Gary,

Yes, if there’s evidence that Paul’s ID was checked out, it would be very interesting to see it.

Yes, there's so little information surviving with regards to witnesses and the police handling of them once they came forward or were located. We tend to mostly just have the witness statements in some form, and occasionally pointers towards how reliable the police may have viewed those statements. But, we lack the specifics of how and why the police formed their opinions with regards to that reliability. Unfortunately, we'll never get the full run down on what they did, what questions they asked, how the verified answers, and so forth, so there's always the option of "they might not have checked this, or they might not have asked that." Regardless, the more information we compile together, the closer we come to getting a working idea of what was likely to happen, and what was unlikely. Often that's the best we can do.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,



Yes, there's so little information surviving with regards to witnesses and the police handling of them once they came forward or were located. We tend to mostly just have the witness statements in some form, and occasionally pointers towards how reliable the police may have viewed those statements. But, we lack the specifics of how and why the police formed their opinions with regards to that reliability. Unfortunately, we'll never get the full run down on what they did, what questions they asked, how the verified answers, and so forth, so there's always the option of "they might not have checked this, or they might not have asked that." Regardless, the more information we compile together, the closer we come to getting a working idea of what was likely to happen, and what was unlikely. Often that's the best we can do.

- Jeff

Equally, though, there’s the option of ‘they might have checked this or they might have checked that’ and when that is stretched to ‘they would have checked this or they would have checked that’ and we start to talk about standard procedures we’ve left the available evidence way behind.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Gary,

Equally, though, there’s the option of ‘they might have checked this or they might have checked that’ and when that is stretched to ‘they would have checked this or they would have checked that’ and we start to talk about standard procedures we’ve left the available evidence way behind.

I suppose it depends upon how one views the phrase standard procedure. In my view, standard procedures are things that may not always be followed even though they are expected to be and so we have reason to expect them to have been, even if we cannot be sure they were. In other words, making the claim "investigating a witness statement" was a standard procedures isn't quite the same thing as saying "they must have done this", rather, it's just more along the lines of saying "in the absence of evidence, the probabilities are in favour of them having done this". It's like when we try to estimate where the various PC were on their beats based upon knowing where they were at a particular time by using the standard patrol speed set out in the regulations (2.5 mph). We can't know for sure that was the speed the actual PC was patrolling at, so there will be some error in our estimate, but without anything specific to guide us (like another location point and time), it gives us something we have a supportable basis to work from.

One can, of course, debate whether or not verifying aspects of a witness was indeed the standard procedure and so forth. It strikes me as odd to consider that not to be the case, but that's me. I find it hard to conceptualize a police force, tasked with investigating a murder, with very little tools to work with beyond statement gathering (there wasn't a whole lot of forensic ability at the time after all), who wouldn't use their primary investigative tool (questioning people) to try and sort through the reliability of the other statements they've been given.

If there are surviving documents outlining police procedures of the day, for example, that would be a very useful source to start from, as then we would know what was expected. After that, it comes down to debating if the expected (i.e. standard) procedures were followed in this instance, or not. And that's often something that cannot be resolved evidence-wise because we often don't have the evidence to resolve it. But we're still left with one explanation that has a higher probability than the other, which is, in my view, the only way to compare theories we have given our lack of more conclusive evidence to work with.

- Jeff

[harry]

It also requires Jeff,an understanding of the laws that governed police powers.Any police policy would have to be framed within those laws.That principle applies even today.In short,the police in 1888 were limited in their interaction with the public.

[MrBarnett]

It also requires Jeff,an understanding of the laws that governed police powers.Any police policy would have to be framed within those laws.That principle applies even today.In short,the police in 1888 were limited in their interaction with the public.

That’s a good point, Harry. And what we shouldn’t forget is how new the concept of a police force was in 1888. Nor how difficult it would have been for such a force to apply standard procedures in the teeming East End.

[JeffHamm]

Hi harry,

It also requires Jeff,an understanding of the laws that governed police powers.Any police policy would have to be framed within those laws.That principle applies even today.In short,the police in 1888 were limited in their interaction with the public.

Yes, of course. Then, as now, the police were expected to operate within the constraints of the law. While we can always suggest they may have actually acted otherwise, the laws in place would define "standard procedure", meaning unless we have specific evidence to the contrary, those constraints would be considered to have been followed.

What those constraints were in 1888, however, is well beyond my knowledge. I can't recall anyone pointing out how investigating a witnesses statement (or anything else that's been discussed) would be hindered by the laws of the time though. That doesn't mean it's not possible there were constraints we don't have today of course. If there are laws that we should be bearing in mind, though, I think that would be a great topic for its own thread, and probably something we all should be more versed in.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

The law would obviously set boundaries to ‘standard procedures’ but beyond that it wouldn’t define them.

Howard Vincent’s Police Code is probably the closest there is to a codification of Victorian police procedures, but I doubt it was prescriptive on how witnesses’ identities should be investigated.

https://mangobooks.co.uk/products/si...lice-code-1889

[Greenway]

Hi Greenway
Yes I understand alot of your points. Just a few more things if I may. The geographical info is circumstantial of course-but circumstantial evidence is valid in court. Its lead to the conviction of many a criminal. And the geographical nature of it is similar to how detectives use a cell phone pinging to see how close suspects are to murder sights, dumping sights etc. except back then if any of the coppers were suspicious of lech they could have set up one of those boards with pins and strings and seen that his route to work and his mums place were very near to the murders, it would have me go hmmmm. add to that he was actually seen near a freshly killed victim alone. For me this and the geographical evidence is very compelling. And I have studied alot of true crime and I cant remember when an innocent "witness" was ever in this type of circumstance.
Full disclosure-I also lean toward torsoman and the ripper being the same man and lech is one of the only suspects that agewise fits that bill, so thats another (small) check mark against him for me.
Full disclosure number two-Like you I think more than not he was just a man on his way to work who found a body... and gun to head, if asked if he was the ripper, Id say no, but id squinch my face as I did.
I think all the suspects are weak, some just less weak than others, and I put Lech in that category.

I agree there isn't a good suspect. I first got interested in the case after watching the TV documentary on Lechmere - having learned a bit more about the case he's fallen back into the pack for me. Other than the fact he found a body there is nothing to connect him to the murders, and I've not seen anything to suggest he was capable of the crimes. For me a good suspect needs to show evidence that they are capable of such violence.

All the best

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi harry,

Yes, of course. Then, as now, the police were expected to operate within the constraints of the law. While we can always suggest they may have actually acted otherwise, the laws in place would define "standard procedure", meaning unless we have specific evidence to the contrary, those constraints would be considered to have been followed.

What those constraints were in 1888, however, is well beyond my knowledge. I can't recall anyone pointing out how investigating a witnesses statement (or anything else that's been discussed) would be hindered by the laws of the time though. That doesn't mean it's not possible there were constraints we don't have today of course. If there are laws that we should be bearing in mind, though, I think that would be a great topic for its own thread, and probably something we all should be more versed in.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
I think it is wrong for anyone to suggest that the police in 1888 were negligent in their standard procedures of both investigating suspects and witnesses and any ambiguities in witness statements Its basic common sense police procedure even in 1888. When an officer on the ground takes a witness statement in such an investigation it is then channeled to the senior officer investigating who reads it and then directs any other enquiries that should be carried out from that statement.

Swanson was brought in following the murder of Nicholls

He was freed from all other duties and given his own office at Scotland Yard from which to co-ordinate inquiries. He was given permission to see "every paper, every document, every report [and] every telegram" concerning the investigation. As subsequent murders were committed in the series Swanson remained ‘in situ’ - gaining a mass of knowledge and information about the killings.

We have many police officers from the day Swanson being but one who either gave interviews later on or penned their memoirs who mention a number of persons of interest/likely suspects. No one mentions anything about Lechmere being a suspect or anything suspicious being connected with the two names he used, which according to Fish and his small band of followers in their eyes make him a prime suspect.

I cannot believe for one moment that as a follow up enquiry he was not asked to clarify why he used two differnet names, and that he gave an explantiion which was accepted and no suspicion fell on him.

This name issue on here has been blown up out of all proportion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Yet - if Lechmere was JtR - it worked!! He concealed his real name for over a hundred years - and didn't get caught!

Hi Great Aunt,

That he concealed his name is obviously up for debate, and whether that constitutes concealing his identity is more so debatable. Did he get away with it for over a century? That would depend on both his intention and the efforts of those attempting to discover his 'true' identity. That it took a hundred years for anyone to investigate his name doesn't allude to his cunning, just that he wasn't seriously looked at by the likes of us until recently. It's not like he was Kasper Hauser or the man in the iron mask.

If Chuck was Jack, it took a whole lot more than fudging his name to get away with his crimes for as long as he must have.

Just my view...

[Fisherman]

I quite clearly didn't say he needs a lawyer.

All the best

Apologies if I misunderstood you - but the sheer fact that we do have a barrister that says that he would warrant a trial puts him lightyears before any other suspect. Thatīs the point I am making.