Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Glenn Andersson, who wrote a book for the Swedish audience about the Ripper crimes, made that exact same mistake, putting George Yard buildings down as an old complex. Now I understand why.

Dew’s memoirs are littered with such errors. He was a lowly DC at the time, there’s no way he was personally involved in every single detail of the investigation or was kept abreast of it. Only a bumbling buffoon would think he was.

[harry]

There was no mention of Cross in any of the other murders Fisherman,so how could Scobie factor in evidence that didn't exist.A prima facie hearing deals in fact,not opinion or beliefs,and it is clear that Scobie was not stating facts.Neither are you.It is only opinion based on belief,that Cross was in the area of the other murders,at the time the murders were committed.It is certainly not proven that Cross was,and I am certain no magistrate would be prepared to remand for trial when only opinion is offered.Neither do I accept that police in 1888 would lie under oath to get a conviction.Seemingly, because we know no hearing took place in 1888,the police were carefull in what they considered evidence.Pity Scobie and yourself don't follow their example.

[The Baron]

The Victorian Doctors evidence to show the time of death (Freshly killed) which you and fish seek to rely on has now been dispelled by modern day medical experts opinions, so Nichols was probalby killed sometime before Lechmere even left his home

Dr Biggs commnets
In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours.

Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.

In addittion to negating this part of the Lechmere theory Dr Biggs has also commented on the blood flow also an integral part of this misguided theory and opines that blood flow could still occur from a dead body many hours after death

Its time to put this Lechmere theory to bed, the facts that you Fish and others seek to rely on are flawed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well said Trevor


This misguided theory has been proven now to be wrong on all aspects, it is the time to give Lechmere the respect that he deserves.





The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well said Trevor


This misguided theory has been proven now to be wrong on all aspects, it is the time to give Lechmere the respect that he deserves.





The Baron

It would be interesting to see if you reacted in the same positive way to Trevor’s thoughts on Kosminski as a suspect.

[Fisherman]

Theft is a possible motive yes, but how would that be a motive for Lechmere? Stealing meat for his mother's cat food business perhaps? I don't think so.

I want evidence that Lechmere had a motive to be 'cutting people open and digging a diverstity of innards out of their bodies'. He had no history of violence or mental instability throughout his life. And yet he committed around a dozen of the most gruesome murders in UK history in a very short space of time, whilst working long hours at a physically demanding job, having a family and running a coffee shop on the side?

All the evidence suggest to me he was a perfectly normal person.

All the best.

He has no RECORDED history of violence or mental instability that we are aware of. I hope you do not mistake that for any certainty that he was not affected by these traits at any time?

And no, not all evidence suggests that he was a perfectly normal person. Some of the evidence we have suggests that he was a serial killer.

There are two sides to all coins.

By the way, I was being ironical about the motive; the classical motive for a serial killer is a wish to kill. Not theft. Or jilted love. Or insurance fraud.

The killing IS the motive.

[Fisherman]

It would be interesting to see if you reacted in the same positive way to Trevor’s thoughts on Kosminski as a suspect.

I see what you mean, Herlock, but I am really genuinely disinterested in anything he has to say.

[Fisherman]

There was no mention of Cross in any of the other murders Fisherman,so how could Scobie factor in evidence that didn't exist.A prima facie hearing deals in fact,not opinion or beliefs,and it is clear that Scobie was not stating facts.Neither are you.It is only opinion based on belief,that Cross was in the area of the other murders,at the time the murders were committed.It is certainly not proven that Cross was,and I am certain no magistrate would be prepared to remand for trial when only opinion is offered.Neither do I accept that police in 1888 would lie under oath to get a conviction.Seemingly, because we know no hearing took place in 1888,the police were carefull in what they considered evidence.Pity Scobie and yourself don't follow their example.

If you havent yet discovered that Scobie commented on more than the Nichols murder, you have even more catching up to do than I originally thought.

[Fisherman]

Dew’s memoirs are littered with such errors. He was a lowly DC at the time, there’s no way he was personally involved in every single detail of the investigation or was kept abreast of it. Only a bumbling buffoon would think he was.

There’ s that bumbling buffoon again!

No, Dew was not any investigation bigwig in 1888. And so we should consider that before we use him as ironclad evidence.

[MrBarnett]

Theft is a possible motive yes, but how would that be a motive for Lechmere? Stealing meat for his mother's cat food business perhaps? I don't think so.

I want evidence that Lechmere had a motive to be 'cutting people open and digging a diverstity of innards out of their bodies'. He had no history of violence or mental instability throughout his life. And yet he committed around a dozen of the most gruesome murders in UK history in a very short space of time, whilst working long hours at a physically demanding job, having a family and running a coffee shop on the side?

All the evidence suggest to me he was a perfectly normal person.

All the best.

What evidence is there to suggest he was a ‘perfectly normal’ person? What do you even mean by that?

Is there any history of mental health issues in his family?

[Greenway]

He has no RECORDED history of violence or mental instability that we are aware of. I hope you do not mistake that for any certainty that he was not affected by these traits at any time?

I regard it as good evidence that he was stable and non-violent his whole life long.

How many hours a day, and how many days a week did a carman work? At least 12 hours a day, six days a week I would think. And he had a family with the responsibilities that go along with that.

I can't see it, but hopefully someone will come up with some new evidence.


Thanks for answering my questions - I'll leave you to it for now.

All the best.

[Greenway]

What evidence is there to suggest he was a ‘perfectly normal’ person? What do you even mean by that?

Not a homicidal maniac.

Is there any history of mental health issues in his family?

I don't know.

All the best.

[Fisherman]

I regard it as good evidence that he was stable and non-violent his whole life long.

Sadly, it is not good evidence. It is not even bad evidence. Its no evidence at all, other than evidence that we don’ t know.

How many hours a day, and how many days a week did a carman work? At least 12 hours a day, six days a week I would think. And he had a family with the responsibilities that go along with that.

I can't see it, but hopefully someone will come up with some new evidence.

Thanks for answering my questions - I'll leave you to it for now.

All the best.

Do you seriously believe that hard working men with families cannot be serial killers? Have you seen Robert Resslers description of the archetypical serial killer?

[The Baron]

I regard it as good evidence that he was stable and non-violent his whole life long.

How many hours a day, and how many days a week did a carman work? At least 12 hours a day, six days a week I would think. And he had a family with the responsibilities that go along with that.

Exactly!

Lechmere was a thoroughly honest man.




The Baron

[rjpalmer]

Dew’s memoirs are littered with such errors. He was a lowly DC at the time, there’s no way he was personally involved in every single detail of the investigation or was kept abreast of it. Only a bumbling buffoon would think he was.

This is a good example of reductio ad absurdum. The idea is to dismiss someone's position by deliberately oversimplifying it in a ridiculous way.

No one has argued that Dew was "personally involved in every single detail of the investigation," nor does Dew anywhere makes this claim or even imply it. It's a straw argument.

Dew was stationed in H-Division in Autumn 1888, and would have known about aspects of the investigation that are now lost. He will have correctly remembered some details, and misremembered others. When an elderly man is writing largely from memory after 50 years, it will be a very easy matter to poke fun at his memory and to treat his reminiscences in a childish way. More generously-minded people might try and see some good in them.

Dew's only relevance to this discussion is that he recalled there having being suspicions against Robert Paul, and Dew wrongly believed that Paul was never traced. But while we admit his errors, can we also admit that something meaningful might gleaned from them? Or is our only task to ridicule?

As with Dew misremembering Thomas Bowyer as a youth, could the mistake be traceable to something that had actually occurred at the time? (We know there were reports of a youth--John McCarthy, Jr. aka "Steve"--in Miller's Court that morning).

Elsewhere Gary claims Dew was 'probably' writing his account using contemporary press reports, but this is a dubious suggestion; even a cursory look at contemporary press reports of the Nichols murder would have reminded Dew that Paul WAS traced. One can hardly have it both ways, so I think we can safely ignore this guesswork.

In fact, according to an account that appeared in Lloyd's on Sept 2nd, Robert Paul was traced on the day of the murder, when he was returning home. Which is pretty darned interesting, as it doesn't appear that either he, nor Crossmere, gave their names to Mizen. It would appear that the two men from Buck's Row were very easily traced--probably because both men openly discussed their strange encounter to their coworkers, and news of it quickly spread when it was realized that Nichols had been murdered.





This sure makes it sound as if the reporter was able to quickly trace Robert Paul to his home address.

So is Dew's memory entirely poppycock?

Not necessarily. If Paul was so easily traced, it still begs the question why he never appeared at the inquest on Day #2, when Crossmere and others were giving their depositions. This would have been the appropriate time. Instead, his appearance before the coroner is curiously belated. It also leaves unanswered why Paul complained about being dragged out of bed and losing work when he was forced to attend the inquest. It certainly adds weight to the idea that--after initially being traced--the police had a difficult time in bringing Paul before the coroner.

Whether Dew was involved in dragging Paul out of bed is, of course, unknown and unknowable. He doesn't claim that he was--and, in fact, Dew doesn't remember the incident.

Dew wasn't in J-Division, but vaguely remembering the search for a 'Whitechapel' witness known to have been at the murder site and subsequently went missing is precisely something that a 'lowly' DC might recall, even 50 years later. Depending on the addresses of Paul's associates and friends and relatives, the police might have gone looking for him on H-Division turf, and this is just the sort of task that would be relegated to a 'lowly' DC.

Just because a source is problematic, doesn't mean we have to approach it in a low-level, superficial way. It's okay to have a more measured approach.

Dew's mistaken memory---even his bad memory on this point--could still help explain one of uncertainties of the case: the oddities surrounding Paul and the Nichols inquest.

Perhaps a more relevant question to ask is that if Paul was so easily traced on returning from work, why wouldn't this also be true of 'Charles Cross'? And if CAL was traced at work, or while returning from work, it would readily explain why his 'work name' was the one that stuck--if Cross was indeed his work name, which seems highly probable considering he began working at Pickford's during his step-father's lifetime--you know, Thomas Cross, the man who, by all appearances, raised him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see what you mean, Herlock, but I am really genuinely disinterested in anything he has to say.

No problem Fish