Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

i may have worded it poorly. all im saying is serial killers have been known to target and murder victims very near where they live. i dont know percentages but i would agree with you they probably kill victims out side a close range of there home. and strides murder wasnt where he lived anymore any way.

did marshall definitely know lech? and vice versus? because if they did i would admit it would be check mark against lech as a suspect as he would be wary of someone who knew him seeing him with a victim, hence making it less likely he would go on to kill her. he would be scared marshal would tell police he saw lech with stride.

Thanks, Abby.

Did Marshall know Lechmere? It seems highly likely, they had lived a few doors from each other for a number of years and it seems his wife may have nursed Lechmere’s sister on her deathbed. She was certainly given the task of reporting Emily’s death - in the name of Lechmere - presumably to the local registrar.

[Fisherman]

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.

Nope. A witness SAID she saw a woman she beleived to be Chapman at 5.30. Once the story had been checked out, the Home Office said that "doubtful witness evidence" pointed to a late TOD, whereas medical evidence refuted it.

You are welcome to your view, but you are not welcome to claim that it must be correct.

Once again, no alibi can be presented for Lechmere in any of the cases.

[Fisherman]

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.

"Clearly"? If you had read my posts, you would knpow that I say that Hanbury Street AND Old Montague Street were the two shortest and most direct routes, and so I do not believe what you claim. A safe way to find out what I actually DO beleive is to ask me or read up before you make flawed claims.

I'm not seeing anything that says Lechmere continued with Paul along Hanbury or if he ducked back to Montague...

Read the Times, for example.

[Fisherman]

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.

You beat me to it, Gary. With some margin too.

[erobitha]

To add to Jeff’s excellent post on serial killer behaviours and their geographical footprints, it must also be noted that arguably the most famous of all serial killers aside from Jack was Ted Bundy. He stayed in areas for long periods and killed within range of his ‘anchor point’ but the total geographical spread was hugely wide.

The irony is JTR could as easily be a visiting killer attracted to that specific area, but is often cited by psychologists as a classic example of being a local serial killer.

[Fisherman]

If Scobie had not agreed there was a case to answer would that portion of the documentary still be included ?

Unless he agreed becasue he dearly wanted to be in the documentary, I don´t see how that question is useful. The fewest will fail to see that the documentary deliberately chose to present evidence that pointed to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf. That, however, does. ot mean that we can predispose that important evidence of innocence was suppressed - as far as I can tell, there IS no such decisive evidence.

We have to ask better questions than this one, if you don´t mind me saying so. Let´s not oversimplify things.

[Fisherman]

To prove someone innocent,that person would have had to have been previously proven guilty.

If you CAN prove someone innocent, then he cannot have been proven guilty before. Proof is unshakable. You probaly meant to say "To prove someone innocent, that person must have been previously convicted of a crime".
Whichever way, you can of course prove someone innocent even if there has been no legal process.

There are cases where this has happened,but not so in the case of Cross.

Very, very true! Lechmere could not be subsequently proven innocent after having been proven guilty or convicted, because as each and every one out here are aware of, Lechmere was never proven guilty or convicted during his lifetime.

So from the beginning,any suggestion that the thread has any relevence to guilt is sadly lacking.It has descended,as one poster suggests,into just another attempt by Fisherman to revive interest in Cross.Would book sales have any part in it i wonder?

No poster has suggested what you say. Columbo said that the thread has desended into a pissing contest. As for your suggestion that my only reason to post here is to sell my book, I may need to remind you that I had posted thousands of posts for thirteen years before I wrote the book.

[Fisherman]

According to Fisherman's twisted logic, All the supects that we have in this case are guilty, all of them are Jack the Ripper, until one of them is proven innocent, then we take him out, and the rest will remain forever the Jacks the Rippers, and we hang them all...

I don´t think the twists are on my side. But if you can prove your claim by posting a quotation of mine verifying your idea, then do so, please!

[Fisherman]

And the response:



Well, that’s fine, but that means that the case against Lechmere collapses.

The major thrust of the Lechmere documentary was that he supposedly killed his victims while on his way to work between 3 & 4 a.m.—a remarkable set of ‘coincidences’ of both time & place, we are told.

If it's now admitted that there is, in fact, no evidence that these were Lechemere's work hours (and thus he had no alibi after 4 a.m.) then the whole point of documentary--and the circumstantial case that Scobie supposedly found so compelling--can be sent to the rubbish bin.

One can't have it both ways--arguing that the alleged timetable works against Lechmere, but must be disregarded if it works for him.

Any evidence pointing to how Lechmere´s work schedule deviated from the one he had on the 31:st of August 1888 is welcomed. Once we have that, we can perhaps start to speak of a collapsed case.

But not before.

The reasoning you do is not as dramatic as you seem to try and lead on. We have all known throughout that if Lechmere was for example sick and bed bound on one of the murder mornings, then he was not the killer. Similarly, if he was abducted by aliens on the 9th of November and only returned the day after, then he was not the killer of Kelly. Such "ifs" must always be given at least some attention, because - to a degree - they may happen. The exact same thing applies to the work hours. If Lechmere started work at 4 PM on the 9th of November, then he is a poor fit for the Kelly murder.

But before any of these matters, aliens and all, can be proven to be factual and not yet another innocent alternative explanation, the implication is that Charles Lechmere walked to work in the time leading up to 4 AM on workdays.

[Trevor Marriott]

To add to Jeff’s excellent post on serial killer behaviours and their geographical footprints, it must also be noted that arguably the most famous of all serial killers aside from Jack was Ted Bundy. He stayed in areas for long periods and killed within range of his ‘anchor point’ but the total geographical spread was hugely wide.

The irony is JTR could as easily be a visiting killer attracted to that specific area, but is often cited by psychologists as a classic example of being a local serial killer.

I have said all along that we should not discount the fact that the killer may have come into Whitechapel to find his victims and left afterwards.

The crime scenes were all near to main thoroufares

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

No poster has suggested what you say. Columbo said that the thread has desended into a pissing contest. As for your suggestion that my only reason to post here is to sell my book, I may need to remind you that I had posted thousands of posts for thirteen years before I wrote the book.

and now you have sold that book are you going to write another one

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

and now you have sold that book are you going to write another one

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Like you did, you mean?

[MrBarnett]

No poster has suggested what you say. Columbo said that the thread has desended into a pissing contest. As for your suggestion that my only reason to post here is to sell my book, I may need to remind you that I had posted thousands of posts for thirteen years before I wrote the book.

You’ve clocked up over 22,000 posts, Fish, the majority of them about Lechmere, I would imagine, and only a tiny % of them since your book was released.

People who piss so carelessly tend to end up with wet boots. And then they get really CROSS.

[Fisherman]

You’ve clocked up over 22,000 posts, Fish, the majority of them about Lechmere, I would imagine, and only a tiny % of them since your book was released.

People who piss so carelessly tend to end up with wet boots. And then they get really CROSS.

The Danish version of that proverb is worded "It is but a short warmth to piss in your pants". I find both versions equally colour- and useful.

[MrBarnett]

The Danish version of that proverb is worded "It is but a short warmth to piss in your pants". I find both versions equally colour- and useful.

There used to be a piece of graffiti on the wall above the urinal in almost every pub, ‘While you are reading this, you are pissing on your boots’.