Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Neither does Lechmere. Anyone can appear guilty if you scrutinize them enough.



    A familial name used officially before, attached to his home address and business. Not an indicator of guilt or someone hiding their identity.



    Disagreements shared with Robert Paul. Was this a two-man job?



    As Fiver pointed out, touching the body would have given Lechmere an alibi for any blood found on him.



    Citation needed.



    Yeah, he was earning a living. Like hundreds of men traversing Whitechapel in the wee hours.



    Nichols was still dishevelled and Paul had to pull down her clothing. It is not a pointer of guilt as it is a pointer to someone interrupted by Lechmere. And of course, you will retort "but why add someone else to the mix when Lechmere is already here!" Because Lechmere was a carman on his route to work. He had a perfectly valid reason for being in Buck's Row at that hour. And because murderers don't tend to loiter at crime scenes, approaching passers-by and certainly not policemen.

    If Lechmere had enough time to stop what he was doing and back up into the middle of the street, he had enough time to skulk off into the shadows. By the time Paul would have raised the alarm, Lechmere would be long gone. And that's assuming Paul didn't keep walking. He was trying to give Lechmere a wide berth, he could've just let his fellow carman carry on by. Paul even supposed that Nichols was still alive, which would've gave Lechmere another out that he refused to take. You have cooked up a Hollywood-esque scenario where the dastardly psychopath Lechmere narcissistically hoodwinks the law with his mindgames instead of slipping off into the night when he had plenty of chance.



    Scobie wasn't fed the full facts of the case, therefore his opinion should be taken with a pinch of salt.
    Lechmere has a large pile of circumstantial evidence pointing in his direction, and no naysaying of yours can alter that fact. If it had not been there, there would have been no case for a trial, and we know there is, thanks to Scobie. Again, and a thousand times if needed, Scobie was NOT asked to see if the (non-existent) evidence for innocence could free Lechmere, he was asked to say if there was enough circumstantial evidence to warrant a modern day trial AGAINST him. And as you are aware of, he answered that question with a yes. And he could not have done so in Diemschitzī case, because there is nothing more than his finding the body at a time close to her death, and as you so eloquently have put it so many times: That in itself is not enough to make you a suspect!
    So there you are, you have many times handed me the reason why Diemschitz is no suspect. Now I am handing it back to you. Enjoy.

    Comment


    • Hi ya’ll.
      It should come as no surprise that this thread in recent days has had numerous posts reported for name calling.
      It goes both ways. You have some posters calling Fish a liar, then Fish- in his own way-calls other posters stupid. And back and forth and back and forth and back and forth.
      UNLESS everyone is capable of putting an end to the insult game themselves, we’ll just close this whole thing down.

      Please.

      JM

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        To keep it all in one place. I’m hoping to have some input from others.


        Here’s a link:


        https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...e’s-lair
        thanks gary-checking it out and its very interesting. Not only the location of the cats meat shop, but thats where they met the anon companion who made that very odd statement-which of course would apply to Lech!
        Thankfully you havent been deterred by the knee jerk anti lechers. this is the kind of stuff we need.
        good job!
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Excellent stuff! Hats off!

          M.

          (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

          Comment


          • If anyone wants to mouse around...

            https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5113...7i13312!8i6656

            This view shows the lock-ups and the railway arch in one single shot...

            https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5117...7i13312!8i6656

            M.
            (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
              If anyone wants to mouse around...

              https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5113...7i13312!8i6656

              This view shows the lock-ups and the railway arch in one single shot...

              https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5117...7i13312!8i6656

              M.
              Thatīs very helpful Mark - many thanks. It seems the sheds may have been fairly sizeable.

              Comment


              • Well , if the case is so watertight against Lech, lets look shall we

                Any blood found on my client - no
                Would he have had to have the murder weapon on his person if he was the killer - more than likely, since the police did a through search of the area trying to find the weapon [ ult sourcebook p 26 ]
                Would my client have been taking an enormous risk by keeping the knife upon his person when he spoke to Pc Mizen - yes
                Why would my client search out a Pc if he was guilty? Isn't that strange considering the Pc may [ and probably should ] have asked my client to accompany him back to the woman, since a woman was found murdered nearby just three weeks ago. Then search him ? Does this seem like the actions of a guilty man - no
                Anyone see my client with a knife threatening a woman let alone kill her - no
                Any forensic evidence against my client - no
                Any history of violence from my client against women - none that we know of
                Any of the police officers suspect my client back in 1888 - none that we know of
                Did my client act at all suspicious at the murder scene - Well since he called another man over and sought out a policeman with the other man - no
                Ahh but he used a false name - well, actually my client didn't, it is his step fathers name and we know he has used said name on at least one other occasion. So it is not false in the way the prosecution would have you believe
                Did my client have a reason for being at the murder scene - well yes he had left home a few minutes earlier and he was on his way to work
                Ahh but weren't all the other victims killed at a time when he could easily have been on his way to work - well, not really, there is decent evidence that one victim was killed at a time when my client would have been in work and of the night of the two murders he probably wasn't even in work.
                Ahh but couldn't he have been visiting his Mother on the night of the double murder - well he could, though there is no evidence of it, but even if he was, so could any one of hundreds of people have been visiting a relative or friend in either of the two areas on what was probably their day off next day.
                Did the police do a follow up on my client, even if it was just cursory - probably [ see ult sourcebook p27, top few lines ] - Enquires made from the locality, watchmen Pc's and in every quarter which it is thought any useful info may be obtained, not an atom of evidence can be obtained to connect anyone with the crime .
                What about the blood evidence - well different experts cannot agree on how long it would take for a body to bleed out, even the Pc who found the body says the blood was oozing and then later running. With such ambiguity the blood evidence is hardly compelling.
                Did my client give his correct work address instead of trying to hide his ID - yes
                Ahh but he may not have given his home address - well we don't know that for sure and even if he didn't, he didn't give a false one, plus my clients address is well known since it has appeared in The Star.

                Anything I have missed out, apologies. But would you convict Lech on the above ?
                I wouldn't

                Regards Darryl

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                  Excellent stuff! Hats off!

                  M.
                  Thanks Mark.



                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                    Well , if the case is so watertight against Lech, lets look shall we

                    Any blood found on my client - no
                    Would he have had to have the murder weapon on his person if he was the killer - more than likely, since the police did a through search of the area trying to find the weapon [ ult sourcebook p 26 ]
                    Would my client have been taking an enormous risk by keeping the knife upon his person when he spoke to Pc Mizen - yes
                    Why would my client search out a Pc if he was guilty? Isn't that strange considering the Pc may [ and probably should ] have asked my client to accompany him back to the woman, since a woman was found murdered nearby just three weeks ago. Then search him ? Does this seem like the actions of a guilty man - no
                    Anyone see my client with a knife threatening a woman let alone kill her - no
                    Any forensic evidence against my client - no
                    Any history of violence from my client against women - none that we know of
                    Any of the police officers suspect my client back in 1888 - none that we know of
                    Did my client act at all suspicious at the murder scene - Well since he called another man over and sought out a policeman with the other man - no
                    Ahh but he used a false name - well, actually my client didn't, it is his step fathers name and we know he has used said name on at least one other occasion. So it is not false in the way the prosecution would have you believe
                    Did my client have a reason for being at the murder scene - well yes he had left home a few minutes earlier and he was on his way to work
                    Ahh but weren't all the other victims killed at a time when he could easily have been on his way to work - well, not really, there is decent evidence that one victim was killed at a time when my client would have been in work and of the night of the two murders he probably wasn't even in work.
                    Ahh but couldn't he have been visiting his Mother on the night of the double murder - well he could, though there is no evidence of it, but even if he was, so could any one of hundreds of people have been visiting a relative or friend in either of the two areas on what was probably their day off next day.
                    Did the police do a follow up on my client, even if it was just cursory - probably [ see ult sourcebook p27, top few lines ] - Enquires made from the locality, watchmen Pc's and in every quarter which it is thought any useful info may be obtained, not an atom of evidence can be obtained to connect anyone with the crime .
                    What about the blood evidence - well different experts cannot agree on how long it would take for a body to bleed out, even the Pc who found the body says the blood was oozing and then later running. With such ambiguity the blood evidence is hardly compelling.
                    Did my client give his correct work address instead of trying to hide his ID - yes
                    Ahh but he may not have given his home address - well we don't know that for sure and even if he didn't, he didn't give a false one, plus my clients address is well known since it has appeared in The Star.

                    Anything I have missed out, apologies. But would you convict Lech on the above ?
                    I wouldn't

                    Regards Darryl
                    He is not convicted on the various innocent alternative explanations. He is convicted on the circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt. And of course, if any of the alternative innocent explanations are true obstacles to a conviction, he is not convicted.

                    It is up to anybody to assess it. My assessment says there is not a realistic chance that he was innocent. Yours may differ. Scobies assessment was that there is, based on the accusatory evidence, enough for a modern day trial. Regardless of whatever counterpoints there may or may not be, that is in itself a breakthrough in ripperology.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Think of it like this:

                      Would Lechmere - if he was the killer - perhaps harbour a suspicion that his coming forward and informing the police that he was the finder of Nichols could evoke some sort of interest on behalf of said police to check him out, not least if they found out that his claim to have been alone with the body for a few seconds only could not be verified?
                      That is a strong argument against Lechmere being the Ripper. A killer with any tiny particle of functioning brain would know that if he came forward the police would almost certainly check out his background and anything he said.

                      At the same time you make a couple errors. Lechmere never stated how long he was alone with the body. And if he hadn't come forward, there would be no claims for the police to verify.

                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      If this was so, can we really buy the suggestion that his giving his real address was a surefire sign of how he had nothing at all to hide from the police?
                      If Charles Allen Lechmere had anything to hide from the police, then coming forward would have been a rather stupid thing to do. That's true even if the something to hide had nothing to do with the Nichols murder.

                      Neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul knew CAL's name, or where he worked, or where he lived. The safe thing for a guilty man would have been to change the route he walked to work and never come forward.

                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      Orcould it possibly be him making sure that the police would not be handed a prime reason to send him to the gallows?
                      You are not just out in left field. You have left the stadium and driven a hundred miles down the road.

                      Lechmere came forward. Doing that meant that the police would get his home and work addresses. Lechmere's coming forward meant he was either a man with nothing to hide from the police or an exceedingly stupid criminal.

                      Confirming those work and home addresses in public meant Lechmere also wasn't worried about his employers, coworkers, neighbors, or immediate family knowing he had found Nichols' body. Again, they are the actions of either a man with nothing to hide or an exceedingly stupid criminal.




                      "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                      "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        What would YOU do if your best friend was strangled, and it was found out that a man had been found standing by his corpse, all alone, by somebody else who arrived later? Letīs assume that no other suspect was identified. Letīs further assume that the man called himself Johnson but was later found out to be named Brown, whereas Johnson was his mothers maternal name. Letīs then assume that a PC testified and said that the man had approached him afterwards and said that there was a man sleeping it off down the street, but another PC was already there, and that the man later claimed at the inquest after your friend that he never said such a thing at all. Letīs apply the whole ballet to your best friend, and lets ask you how you would feel if the man was never even investigated? Maybe it helps to try and put yourself in that situation instead of simply parroting "No! No! No!" whenever I say that the case is closed.
                        As always, you provide a selective view while leaving out key pieces of information.

                        * "Johnson" had used the name Brown before,
                        * The second man only stopped because "Johnson" got his attention.
                        * The second man also disagreed with the PC's testimony.
                        * The second man agreed with "Johnson"s testimony.
                        * The PC wasn't competent enough to get "Johnson" or the other man's names, let alone addresses or a full statement.
                        * "Johnson" choose to come forward and testify, even though the second man and the PC had no idea who he was.
                        * Not one shred of physical evidence implicated "Johnson".
                        * There were multiple victims. Most of them were killed at times that "Johnson" had an alibi for.

                        "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                        "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                          What follows from the police performing what would be standard procedure is a questioning of his wife and/or workplace. And, it is unreasonable to presume that upon questioning his wife/family and/or workplace, that they would not have come across the name Lechmere if he did indeed use that in anything other than gov't documentation. Given there were no known consequences forthcoming due to his use of the name Cross at the inquest, it is hard to see the basis for this being considered by the police at the time that he was being "deceptive". So either they already knew of the name Lechmere (as in he told them), or it was not considered problematic.
                          There is another possibility - that everyone that the police talked to knew him as Charles Allan Cross and the name Lechmere was never mentioned to the police by his family or coworkers.



                          "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                          "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                            So now you claim to know Lechmere’s motivation for using Cross and Cross only? It wasn’t to hide his identity from anyone in any way?
                            You do love putting words in my mouth.

                            I never claimed to know why he used the name Cross at the Nichols Inquest. I never claimed It wasn't to hide his identity from anyone in any way

                            Charles Lechmere's use of the Cross surname was unusual, but it was not an attempt to hide his identity from the police, his employers, his coworkers, his neighbors or his family. Charles Lechmere came forward to testify even though neither PC Mizen nor Robert Paul knew him as Cross or Lechmere or any other name. Charles Lechmere gave his home and work addresses at the Inquest. He gave his first and middle names as well as his stepfather's surname.

                            Whether his Doveton Street neighbors had ever heard of Thomas Cross is irrelevant to my point. You didn't need to know that to put together that Charles Allen Lechmere and Charles Allen Cross both lived and 22 Doveton Street, were carmen for Pickfords, worked at the Broad Street Station, started their shift at 4am, and had been with Pickford's for about 20 years.





                            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              In order for you state definitively that Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman murder you must know when Chapman was killed and where Lechmere was at the time.

                              Where was he?
                              You do delight in putting words in my mouth.

                              I never claimed to know exactly when Chapman was killed. I did show all the witnesses who put it after Lechemre would have been at work.

                              I never claimed to know exactly where Lechmere was every moment. I pointed out that he had an alibi for the time frame that Chapman was killed.

                              You trying to rewrite the definition of "alibi" does not change that.

                              "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                              "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                Fresh, raw meat arrived at Broad Street every day.
                                Fresh, raw, bleeding, unpackaged meat? Carried by Pickford's?

                                I'll be interested in seeing your evidence.

                                "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                                "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X