Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi erobitha,

Yes, Ted Bundy moved to new locations, set up a new residence, and so developed new home ranges and crime zones in his new territory. Sort of a "mobile marauder" if you look at his entire series. But, even when he did move, he often gravitated to university campuses, as he was comfortable around them, making them a sort of home away from home. While the majority tend to be of the marauder sort, there are some who would be considered commuters. Colin Ireland would travel quite far to go to a gay club where he would meet his victims and then kill them at their homes. He didn't live in the area, and his only reason for going there was to find victims. So, there was no real overlap between his home range and his crime range, or the main anchor point for his offenses (the gay club). As I recall, a geographical profile of where his victims were found does include the club in zone 1 (Dragnet, no buffer zone), zone 2 (Rigel; includes a buffer zone) or zone 3 (my own routines; each zone comprises 2.5% of the total crime zone area, so the analysis narrows the search space down to 2.5% to 7.5% of the total area, pending on which routines you go with; note, over a set of cases, the three routines do really similarly, so while Dragnet does best with this case, in another case it might be Rigel, or mine, etc), so even though he's commuting in, and otherwise has no association with the area, the club where he was finding victims (and so where his victims were going to from their homes) ends up being highlighted by the analysis). Hence, I try to point out that the anchor points are not always the residence, and if the offender is one of the rare commuters, then the analysis can still highlight areas of interest. But, it's just telling you "where to look", the real police work still has to be done to find actual evidence. This is not a substitute for actual evidence.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

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’.

Very informative!

[Fisherman]

Hi erobitha,

Yes, Ted Bundy moved to new locations, set up a new residence, and so developed new home ranges and crime zones in his new territory. Sort of a "mobile marauder" if you look at his entire series. But, even when he did move, he often gravitated to university campuses, as he was comfortable around them, making them a sort of home away from home. While the majority tend to be of the marauder sort, there are some who would be considered commuters. Colin Ireland would travel quite far to go to a gay club where he would meet his victims and then kill them at their homes. He didn't live in the area, and his only reason for going there was to find victims. So, there was no real overlap between his home range and his crime range, or the main anchor point for his offenses (the gay club). As I recall, a geographical profile of where his victims were found does include the club in zone 1 (Dragnet, no buffer zone), zone 2 (Rigel; includes a buffer zone) or zone 3 (my own routines; each zone comprises 2.5% of the total crime zone area, so the analysis narrows the search space down to 2.5% to 7.5% of the total area, pending on which routines you go with; note, over a set of cases, the three routines do really similarly, so while Dragnet does best with this case, in another case it might be Rigel, or mine, etc), so even though he's commuting in, and otherwise has no association with the area, the club where he was finding victims (and so where his victims were going to from their homes) ends up being highlighted by the analysis). Hence, I try to point out that the anchor points are not always the residence, and if the offender is one of the rare commuters, then the analysis can still highlight areas of interest. But, it's just telling you "where to look", the real police work still has to be done to find actual evidence. This is not a substitute for actual evidence.

- Jeff

I suspect that there is a number of serial killers out there who move inbeteen their strikes, who use various methods of killing - and who will never get caught, mainly due to how there will not be any suspicion that there is a seriak killer on the loose.

[rjpalmer]

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.

No, no; not so fast, Fish.

Whether or not Lechmere's schedule deviated from the schedule he had on 31 August is irrelevant. It is an unknown and will likely remain an unknown.

But that is hardly the point. The point it that your theory is internally inconsistent.

The theory that impressed Scobie was based on the remarkable 'coincidence' that women were being murdered along Lechmere's route-to-work and at the time he was supposedly passing through: 3-4 a.m. Anyone who watched the documentary will remember this was the crown jewel in the supposed case against Lechmere.

Indeed, I believe one of your colleagues even calculated the odds of this happening by sheer chance alone as over a million to one.

But anytime someone challenges this timetable--suggesting, for instance, that it doesn't work for the Chapman murder, etc.---your well-wishers chime in that there is not a jot of evidence that Lechmere actually commuted to work with an ETA of 4 a.m.!! Or you reappear and suggest that he took a day-off that particular morning or that his shift had changed, etc.

Which, as I say, is fine. It's lovely. Lechmere has no 'alibi' for any particular murder. Indisputable.

But it's a bit embarrassing, is it not, to still argue--sometimes in nearly the same breath--that the 3 a.m.-4 a.m. timetable is strong evidence against him?

It's the inconsistency of the argument that is troubling, not that the timetable is proven, or disproven.

The timetable is promoted as both convincing evidence against Lechemere---but also something that is unknown and should be immediately and conveniently abandoned if it doesn't fit the theory of his guilt.

[rjpalmer]

P.S. to the above. To be fair, I acknowledge that you don't abandon the timetable in regards to the Chapman murder; it is unclear whether those defending your theory do or do not. From their comments they seem to acknowledge the generally accepted 5.30 a.m. time-of-death as the correct one.

[Fisherman]

No, no; not so fast, Fish.

I am not the one with an oversized foot on the gas pedal, R J.

Whether or not Lechmere's schedule deviated from the schedule he had on 31 August is irrelevant. It is an unknown and will likely remain an unknown.

The likely thing is that he started work at 4 AM, though.

But that is hardly the point. The point it that your theory is internally inconsistent.

The theory that impressed Scobie was based on the remarkable 'coincidence' that women were being murdered along Lechmere's route-to-work and at the time he was supposedly passing through: 3-4 a.m. Anyone who watched the documentary will remember this was the crown jewel in the supposed case against Lechmere.

There was a whole sack of crown jewels, R J.

Indeed, I believe one of your colleagues even calculated the odds of this happening by sheer chance alone as over a million to one.

You may need to re-read that section in my book to see what was calculated.

But anytime someone challenges this timetable--suggesting, for instance, that it doesn't work for the Chapman murder, etc.---your well-wishers chime in that there is not a jot of evidence that Lechmere actually commuted to work with an ETA of 4 a.m.!! Or you reappear and suggest that he took a day-off that particular morning or that his shift had changed, etc.

No, I consistently say that Phillips will have been correct, and so Chapman was murdered at the approximate same time as Nichols. Furthermore, I say that even if this was not so, and even if the witnesses were correct, that does per se not exclude Lechmere as the killer. Go back and check, and you will see.

Which, as I say, is fine. It's lovely. Lechmere has no 'alibi' for any particular murder. Indisputable.

I am not sure that you think it is ”fine”, but it is nevertheless true.

But it's a bit embarrassing, is it not, to still argue--sometimes in nearly the same breath--that the 3 a.m.-4 a.m. timetable is strong evidence against him?

No, it is not, given the above. Although I would add that he may well have added time to enable himself to kill.

It's the inconsistency of the argument that is troubling, not that the timetable is proven, or disproven.

There is no inconsistency. Once again as per the above.

The timetable is promoted as both convincing evidence against Lechemere---but also something that is unknown and should be immediately and conveniently abandoned if it doesn't fit the theory of his guilt.

That is as wrong as it is ridiculous. For the third time, as per the above.

[Fisherman]

I´ll go through what applies once again, so as to clear away any misunderstandings (as if that would happen...):

- Charles Lechmere said at the inquest that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30 (both times occur, and that is perhaps because he said that he normally started out 3.20 but on the 31st of August, he was late and so he only got away at 3.30. He was due at his work a 4 AM).

- This indicated that his normal working hours began at 4 AM on workdays. However, it is not proven that this was always so. We only have this information about the 31st of August, but if Lechmere said that he normally started out at 3.20, then this is a strong indicator of consistency on the point.

- Anybody who wants to speculate about Lechmeres whereabouts on the mornings of Monday to Saturday will have nothing at all to show for their speculations if they do not work from the assumption that Lechmere started work at 4 AM. It is the only indicator we have, and there is nothing at all strange about it. It would have been a very common thing for a working man to have a fixed working day schedule that meant that he started out at the same time every day.

- Martha Tabram was, according to Dr Killeen, killed at around 2.30 - 2.45. Polly Nichols was likely killed at approximately 3.40 - 3.45. Annie Chapman was, according to Dr Phillips, killed at the very latest 4.30, but probably earlier than that. Mary Kelly made the doctors disagree, but the call of "Murder" seems to have been consistent with a TOD of around 4 AM or shortly before. What this information tells us is that there is uncertainty involved, but on the whole, these women may all have perished at times that are consistent with Lechmere being their killer.

- In view of how there is a large number of circumstantial evidence pointing in Lechmere´s direction, the logical step to take is to check his whereabouts and chronology for the murder mornings, and our best bet is that he was on his way to work at the approximate times of the deaths of the victims. A correlation is suggested, both geographically and chronologically. We must however keep in mind that the TODs of the victims are not written in stone. Similarly, it is not written in stone that Lechmere left his home at 3.20 every morning - if he was the killer, he would perhaps be likely to improve on his odds to both kill and arrive at work in time, and so he may have left home earlier on days when he set out to kill.

- Finally, it applies that even if Annie Chapman was killed at around 5.30 - something I do not believe for a split second - that does not mean that Lechmere could not have been her killer anyway. He was a carman, and he may have had reason to be in Hanbury Street at any hour of the day. I do however not favour the suggestion of a late morning murder, but it is not as if such a thing would clear Lechmere in any way.

How these things can be construed as "internally inconsistent" or as something simply serving to "fit the theory of guilt" is beyond me. What we do know about Lechmere and the murders does serve a theory of guilt, but there is no fitting up involved whatsoever, other than the tight fit the facts supply all on their own.

[Fisherman]

P.S. to the above. To be fair, I acknowledge that you don't abandon the timetable in regards to the Chapman murder; it is unclear whether those defending your theory do or do not. From their comments they seem to acknowledge the generally accepted 5.30 a.m. time-of-death as the correct one.

I do not wish to be held accountable for what others say or think. I am prepared to answer any criticism of my own thoughts and the theory I subscribe to, but that´s as far as it goes.

[Columbo]

And another thread down the toilet.

[Fisherman]

And another thread down the toilet.

A famous Swedish ethnologist wrote his doctor´s thesis under the title "Three failed investigations". He realized that although he did not get the resuts he wanted, there was just as much to learn from failure as there was from success.

Maybe that is the approach we need to use here too. I find that there are snippets of great usefulness surfacing every now and then, and so I´m not all that disappointed. I´ve seen much worse over the years.

[Columbo]

A famous Swedish ethnologist wrote his doctor´s thesis under the title "Three failed investigations". He realized that although he did not get the resuts he wanted, there was just as much to learn from failure as there was from success.

Maybe that is the approach we need to use here too. I find that there are snippets of great usefulness surfacing every now and then, and so I´m not all that disappointed. I´ve seen much worse over the years.

I did pick up a few things as well. here's one that I found intriguing.

I was reviewing the inquest and a few news articles on this site about the Nichols inquest. what's interesting is the inquest and articles I saw indicated Cross wanted to prop Nichols up not Paul. maybe it's the wording or phrasing that's throwing me, but I don't know where it says specifically that Paul wanted to sit Polly up and Cross refused. Of course I didn't search all of them and I'm sure it says specifically who did what but isn't that interesting the difference on such a clear matter?

[Dickere]

I´ll go through what applies once again, so as to clear away any misunderstandings (as if that would happen...):

- Charles Lechmere said at the inquest that he left home at 3.20 or 3.30 (both times occur, and that is perhaps because he said that he normally started out 3.20 but on the 31st of August, he was late and so he only got away at 3.30. He was due at his work a 4 AM).

- This indicated that his normal working hours began at 4 AM on workdays. However, it is not proven that this was always so. We only have this information about the 31st of August, but if Lechmere said that he normally started out at 3.20, then this is a strong indicator of consistency on the point.

- Anybody who wants to speculate about Lechmeres whereabouts on the mornings of Monday to Saturday will have nothing at all to show for their speculations if they do not work from the assumption that Lechmere started work at 4 AM. It is the only indicator we have, and there is nothing at all strange about it. It would have been a very common thing for a working man to have a fixed working day schedule that meant that he started out at the same time every day.

- Martha Tabram was, according to Dr Killeen, killed at around 2.30 - 2.45. Polly Nichols was likely killed at approximately 3.40 - 3.45. Annie Chapman was, according to Dr Phillips, killed at the very latest 4.30, but probably earlier than that. Mary Kelly made the doctors disagree, but the call of "Murder" seems to have been consistent with a TOD of around 4 AM or shortly before. What this information tells us is that there is uncertainty involved, but on the whole, these women may all have perished at times that are consistent with Lechmere being their killer.

- In view of how there is a large number of circumstantial evidence pointing in Lechmere´s direction, the logical step to take is to check his whereabouts and chronology for the murder mornings, and our best bet is that he was on his way to work at the approximate times of the deaths of the victims. A correlation is suggested, both geographically and chronologically. We must however keep in mind that the TODs of the victims are not written in stone. Similarly, it is not written in stone that Lechmere left his home at 3.20 every morning - if he was the killer, he would perhaps be likely to improve on his odds to both kill and arrive at work in time, and so he may have left home earlier on days when he set out to kill.

- Finally, it applies that even if Annie Chapman was killed at around 5.30 - something I do not believe for a split second - that does not mean that Lechmere could not have been her killer anyway. He was a carman, and he may have had reason to be in Hanbury Street at any hour of the day. I do however not favour the suggestion of a late morning murder, but it is not as if such a thing would clear Lechmere in any way.

How these things can be construed as "internally inconsistent" or as something simply serving to "fit the theory of guilt" is beyond me. What we do know about Lechmere and the murders does serve a theory of guilt, but there is no fitting up involved whatsoever, other than the tight fit the facts supply all on their own.

Whilst I'm leaning in your direction Fish, I do have a problem with the timings being used in all sorts of scenarios.

The general starting point is Lechmere left home for work at 3.20 normally. But then we have Tabram killed at 2.30 and Kelly maybe 4.00.

So it becomes that he left home much earlier for Tabram, did he ever sleep ?, And Kelly and Chapman were after he started work. That becomes something he did during his working day, and so on.

The point that he could have committed all the killings because they were on his route to work then becomes irrelevant.

It feels here that it's open season on Lechmere, regardless of time of day or night you seem to pin things on him. He may be guilty, but the use of timings feels like it weakens the case.

[The Baron]

I did pick up a few things as well. here's one that I found intriguing.

I was reviewing the inquest and a few news articles on this site about the Nichols inquest. what's interesting is the inquest and articles I saw indicated Cross wanted to prop Nichols up not Paul. maybe it's the wording or phrasing that's throwing me, but I don't know where it says specifically that Paul wanted to sit Polly up and Cross refused. Of course I didn't search all of them and I'm sure it says specifically who did what but isn't that interesting the difference on such a clear matter?

Yes, Paul refused to help the woman, not Lechmere.

Lechmere wanted to help Nichols, he stoped Paul for this very reason, but Paul didnt want to, instead they went to fetch a policeman.


What would you expect more from an innocent man?


But of course, Fisherman will tell you not to believe that report.

He will do anything to draw a guilty Lechmere out of the blue.


The Baron

[Columbo]

If you look at the testimony of Charles Cross and PC Neil, it shows an animation of a map with their testimony, under victims/polly nichols. it also says cross wanted to prop her up. on this site of course. should've mentioned that.

[Columbo]

So if it's true that it was Paul who refused to help Cross prop her up, what else could be misconstrued? would that point to evidence of innocence now or will it be categorized as insignificant since Paul refused and he's not accused of being the killer? Just throwing out the inconsistency.