Evidence of innocence

[MrTwibbs]

Letīs begin by clearing up the other matter first: Why did you leave out the second sentence in the book and portray it as if I had claimed for a fact that Lechmere was the Ripper and the Thames Torso killer? Did you miss out or leave out?

Just curious, you see.

I apologize for that. Hope you can accept my error down to a mistake rather than malicious.
I am curious about Lechmere and wondered if you as the author felt it was established he was JTR as per your opening hypothesis in your book.

[Fisherman]

I apologize for that. Hope you can accept my error down to a mistake rather than malicious.
I am curious about Lechmere and wondered if you as the author felt it was established he was JTR as per your opening hypothesis in your book.

Apology accepted, of course!I am a bit touchy when it comes to the right of not being misrepresented, so that was why I asked.
If you have read my posts out here, you will be aware that I am convinced about the carmans guilt. And it would be odd if I didn’ t think that is reflected in the book. I have on occasion said that what is typical of the general suspect is that it can be him who did it, whereas I think that in Lechmeres case, it cannot not be him. And I base that on the existing circumstantial evidence - there is way too much of it for it all to be coincidental. Once again, this is reflected in James Scobies statement that in Lechmeres case, it becomes one coincidence too many.

So yes, the material I present in the book is in my view sufficient to conclude that Lechmere was the Ripper and the Torso killer. Luckily, I do not have to answer the question ”So you think that you, out of all people, have solved the Ripper riddle?”, since others came before me; Osborne, Connor and, not least, Edward Stow, who put me on the track of Lechmere.

It would be odd if I said that the killer has been found, only to then say that the book doesn’ t establish it. It does, in my world. I anticipated that it would not do so in a number of other worlds, since the evidence for the carmans guilt is circumstantial throughout.

I hope that answers your question.

[Fiver]

Folks, that's what Nichols' mutilations are now being turned into.

Just as, the other day, the killer hadn't covered them up.

The killer did not cover up Nichols' wounds.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards." - Dr Llewellyn

[Mark J D]

The killer did not cover up Nichols' wounds.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards." - Dr Llewellyn

Not playing.

[Fiver]

One of the very few issues Christer and I nearly agree on is the mutilations to Mary Ann Nichols.
She suffered terrible wounds.The killer had completed or nearly completed the wounds to allow disembowlment.
In short, there is a major wound from sternum to privates, and a 2nd major wound from her privates to her left hip.

That is not what Dr Llewellyn testified.

"On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards."

Do you have a source that supports the idea that Nichols had "a major wound from sternum to privates"?

[Fiver]

When I say that a renowned barrister has concluded that the points of accusation against Charles Lechmere would be enough to take him to a modern day trial, I am told that the barrister was probably misled to such a degree by Blink Films that he got it all wrong.

That is an inaccurate summary of what you were told. Scobie, as quoted by the "documentary", stated a mix of opinions and provably false statements as if there were facts. Specific examples have been repeatedly given. You ignoring inconvenient facts does not make them go away.

When I say that it is not proven that Robert Paul ever spoke to PC Mizen, it is claimed that it IS proven - since he stated it in a very dubious interview that he was part of, and since a man under suspicion of murder (and who would likely have read said interview) claimed the same thing. Which was incidentally something that would exonerate him to some degree if it was true.

You have theorized that Robert Paul not only never spoke to PC Mizen, but wasn't even close enough to hear the exchange. There is no evidence that supports your speculation.

Funny how you consider the newspaper article "very dubious" when Paul claimed he spoke to PC Mizen, but you think it is 100% accurate when that same article says "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row". But that is your standard method - different parts of the same source are believed or disbelieved based on whether they fit your theory.

You also ignore Robert Paul's actual Inquest testimony, since it would be inconvenient for your theory. "Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen."

PC Mizen's testimony doesn't help your theory, either. "Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."

[harry]

Well no fisherman,you haven't corrected me on anything.For every accusation of murder made against a person,is the right of that person to present a defense to the charge.A Prima Facia hearing is where a decision is made by a magistrate ,on the evidence submitted,both for and against.Not all hearings result in a trial.
We know that no such charge was made against Cross.That is because there was no evidence of guilt for the police to submit.The police.the real police acknowledged this.
Over a hundred years later television tecs,alledged there was a suspect and there was evidence.new evidence in the form of a name which had been,alledgeedly ,deliberately hidden from the authorities at an inquest by a man giving himself the name Cross.This,these television tecs submitted,changed everything.It was in itself evidence of guilt.It made Cross a liar and a murderer.
And,poor uneducated person that I am,I question why,because these televion tecs will not tell me.

[Fisherman]

Well no fisherman,you haven't corrected me on anything.For every accusation of murder made against a person,is the right of that person to present a defense to the charge.A Prima Facia hearing is where a decision is made by a magistrate ,on the evidence submitted,both for and against.Not all hearings result in a trial.
We know that no such charge was made against Cross.That is because there was no evidence of guilt for the police to submit.The police.the real police acknowledged this.
Over a hundred years later television tecs,alledged there was a suspect and there was evidence.new evidence in the form of a name which had been,alledgeedly ,deliberately hidden from the authorities at an inquest by a man giving himself the name Cross.This,these television tecs submitted,changed everything.It was in itself evidence of guilt.It made Cross a liar and a murderer.
And,poor uneducated person that I am,I question why,because these televion tecs will not tell me.

A prima facie hearing is not the same as a prima facie case.

There, corrected you again. No need to thank me.

[Trevor Marriott]

But you are perfectly correct in saying that there is reasonable doubt item for item - until the coincidences mount up. It was the exact same thing that James Scobie said about the case, of course: It becomes one coincidence too many.

And no one has ever been convicted on a coincidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrTwibbs]

Apology accepted, of course!I am a bit touchy when it comes to the right of not being misrepresented, so that was why I asked.
If you have read my posts out here, you will be aware that I am convinced about the carmans guilt. And it would be odd if I didn’ t think that is reflected in the book. I have on occasion said that what is typical of the general suspect is that it can be him who did it, whereas I think that in Lechmeres case, it cannot not be him. And I base that on the existing circumstantial evidence - there is way too much of it for it all to be coincidental. Once again, this is reflected in James Scobies statement that in Lechmeres case, it becomes one coincidence too many.

So yes, the material I present in the book is in my view sufficient to conclude that Lechmere was the Ripper and the Torso killer. Luckily, I do not have to answer the question ”So you think that you, out of all people, have solved the Ripper riddle?”, since others came before me; Osborne, Connor and, not least, Edward Stow, who put me on the track of Lechmere.

It would be odd if I said that the killer has been found, only to then say that the book doesn’ t establish it. It does, in my world. I anticipated that it would not do so in a number of other worlds, since the evidence for the carmans guilt is circumstantial throughout.

I hope that answers your question.

It does indeed and thank you for clearing that up. Best wishes to you

[Doctored Whatsit]

The fact that there are flaws in his book is one of the reasons why I would not present his weighing up of Lechmeree and Paul as evidence. That is part of the reason why I disliked your claim that I did. I VERY clearly pointed out that there is a POSSIBILITY that his take on Lechmere helps explain how the carman was looked upon by Dews colleagues.

Just donīt misrepresent what I say, and we will be perfectly fine.

I did say that this point was trivial and not worth pursuing, but now the issue has been escalated by an accusation of misrepresentation, and I cannot let that allegation stand without a simple defence.

Christer, I would never knowingly misrepresent anything of yours, or anyone else on these pages. But misunderstand you, yes certainly that is possible, as you have also misread my items on occasions.

So, to explain, you wrote "... the shocking thing is that Lechmere was seemingly not investigated. Have you read Dew on the matter .... I think that is a helpful thing to digest." That seemed crystal clear to me at the time. Dew's view on "the matter" had to relate to Lechmere not being investigated, because there was nothing else in the paragraph for it to refer to, and this was consolidated by the final comment that this was a "helpful thing to digest". So, yes, I admit I thought you were suggesting that we should consider Dew's view in relation to the issue.

Now you say that you would not present Dew's views as evidence because of known flaws in his recollections. That did not seem to be the case in the item of yours which I quoted above. If his views were known to be flawed as you correctly say, then I am not sure why you felt it appropriate to introduce them, and to seem to stress their helpfulness.

Hopefully you can see why I believed what I did, and also that my interpretation was perfectly understandable.

[harry]

Then please,Fisherman,do tell us what is the difference between a Prima Facia hearing,and a prima facia case? In case some may think i am labouring the issue,it is because fisherman uses the term as a mainstay to his arguements that Cross was JTR,because two professionals said the evidence pointed that way, and a Prima facia situation was established.Perhaps he would then detail the steps neccessary to get Cross to a Prima Facia hearing,and explain why the police in 1888 failed to do so.Not much to ask.

[MrBarnett]

Then please,Fisherman,do tell us what is the difference between a Prima Facia hearing,and a prima facia case? In case some may think i am labouring the issue,it is because fisherman uses the term as a mainstay to his arguements that Cross was JTR,because two professionals said the evidence pointed that way, and a Prima facia situation was established.Perhaps he would then detail the steps neccessary to get Cross to a Prima Facia hearing,and explain why the police in 1888 failed to do so.Not much to ask.

If the police had had suspicions about him and had checked him out, it wouldn’t have been Cross who appeared before a magistrate, it would have been Lechmere.

Perhaps you should rephrase your question. Not much to ask.

[FrankO]

Do you have a source that supports the idea that Nichols had "a major wound from sternum to privates"?

Hi Fiver,

You'll find the sources in (the second half of) this dissertation by Tom Wescott:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-old-wounds.html

All the best,
Frank

[MrBarnett]

The Ultimate has an index of the papers contained in the Nichols police file. It is date-stamped 25th October, 1888 and it lists the enquiries made by the police:


at Common Lod: Hos:

at Coffee stall keepers

Prostitutes

Night Watchman

Slaughtermen

John Piser alias “Leather Apron”


No mention of either Lechmere or Paul. So almost two months after the murder of Polly Nichols, no papers evidencing any investigation into Lechmere’s background were in the police file. Why might that have been?

The details of the enquiries into the slaughtermen are contained in Swanson’s summary report of 19th October. They were interviewed separately and they ‘satisfactorily accounted for their time, being corroborated in some portions by Police on night duty near the premises.’ Doesn’t sound like they paid a visit to Henry Tomkins’ residence. If they had they might have come across his brother, Thomas, a few years younger than Henry and presumably similar in appearance and with a similar Mancunian accent. Thomas was also a horse slaughterer and the family were relatively new to Whitechapel.