Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    The one and only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Charles Lechmere was an unknown entity to the police on the evening of Sunday the 2nd, 1888.
    That is not the "one and only conclusion", it is only more speculation on your part.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      A young Pickfords driver giving evidence in court in 1897 said he worked from 8.30 am until 11.00 pm each day. And during his shift he was allowed and hour and a half break for dinner (lunch) and two hours for tea (dinner).

      Your ‘alibi’ just doesn’t exist. The drivers had breaks, they didn’t always have van guards and their delivery times varied according to traffic conditions.

      Alibi? My eye!
      Please provide a link to your source.

      If your summary is correct that would make Lechmere's alibi weaker. OTOH, few people take a break for dinner 1/2 an hour after starting work.

      Comment


      • I’m sure the comparison has been made been already but this topic is basically the “One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary” but for Lechmere?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
          There is a press report from the day of (or the day after) the discovery of the torso which speaks of a cats meat shop being at that location.

          The Lechmere family were in the cats meat business and lived in that area - had lived at 2 addresses in Pinchin Street.
          That is true, but irrelevant.

          Isn't the first mention of the anyone in the Lechmere family being in the cats meat business his mother in the 1891 Census? That's 2 years after the Pinchin Street Torso was deposited and 4 years after 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane were being used as catsmeat vendor shed.

          CAL hadn't lived on Pinchin Street for over 18 years when the Pinchin Street Torso was deposited.

          At least so far
          * There is no evidence that numbers 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane have anything do with the Pinchin Street Torso.
          * There is no evidence about who used 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane as a “Catsmeat vendor - shed".
          * There is no evidence about what 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane were being used for in 1889.

          So it's an interesting bit of trivia, but it gets us no closer to knowing who the Ripper or the Torso Killer was and it may have nothing to do with the killings at all.


          Comment


          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
            I think Inspector Barnett has you there, Fiver. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

            It’s difficult to believe this is not the same cat’s meat shop alluded to in the PMG, and, remarkably, he and PS Linford even deduced these sheds were the likely location of the shop before Gary tracked down Booth’s notebook.

            Very nifty detective work. Back in the day, he probably would have been promoted from divisional C.I.D. to Scotland Yard for such dogged determination.
            That is not our point of disagreement.

            At least so far
            * There is no evidence that numbers 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane have anything do with the Pinchin Street Torso.
            * There is no evidence about who used 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane as a “Catsmeat vendor - shed".
            * There is no evidence about what 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane were being used for in 1889.

            So it's an interesting bit of trivia, but it gets us no closer to knowing who the Ripper or the Torso Killer was and it may have nothing to do with the killings at all.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              That is not our point of disagreement.

              At least so far
              * There is no evidence that numbers 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane have anything do with the Pinchin Street Torso.
              * There is no evidence about who used 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane as a “Catsmeat vendor - shed".
              * There is no evidence about what 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane were being used for in 1889.

              So it's an interesting bit of trivia, but it gets us no closer to knowing who the Ripper or the Torso Killer was and it may have nothing to do with the killings at all.
              Perhaps it would be more productive if I stuck my fingers in my ears and repeated ‘Alibi, Alibi, Alibi’ ad nauseam.
              Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-02-2021, 07:33 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                Is there any exculpatory evidence? I thought that was what Fish asked for at the outset and as yet there’s been none put forward.
                There's no evidence of guilt, and as Fisherman tells us, innocent behaviour is just a guilty man pretending. So, effectively, there can be no evidence of innocence. This is what, presumably, makes it possible to convict Cross/Lechmere despite the total absence of any evidence that he is involved. If any evidence were to be uncovered, whether it looks to favour innocence or guilt, it all gets put through the meat grinder and comes out guilty.

                Everything being called guilty evidence is misnamed. It's all innocent behaviours subjected to tortured logic in order to force it into a guilty story.

                - jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  And you haven’t been able to come up with any evidence that he was innocent.

                  So Lechmere remains a potential suspect. And being found with one of the victims shortly after she was attacked gives him a head start on other suspects. And not providing his full identity in court gives him another leg up.

                  Let me ask you this Trevor: if you’d been doing a cold case review of the WM and it had come to your attention that there was a lock-up cats meat shop just a few yards away from the Pinchin Street arch, that the Charles Cross who had allegedly ‘found’ Nichols’ shortly after her death and whose walk to work took him past Hanbury Street in the early hours was actually named Charles Lechmere, that he had lived in Pinchin Street and that his family ran a cats meat business, would you have paid him a visit?
                  No, because there is no specific evidential link that connects the torsos to the Whitechapel murders. The torsos and their alleged connection to ther WM is just another misguided theory invented by Fish

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Here I was ,fisherman,sitting back thinking you weren't going to answer my posts,then up you pop with a lot more nonsense.You take me seriouslly,that is obvious,or you would't continually break your word and answer my posts.But hey!,how serious are you taken?
                    What I deny,is Scobies,and your contention ,there was evidence of a prima facie case.there is no such evidence.The police in 1888 knew it,most posters know it and declare it .Your problem is you do not understand evidence.
                    In post 2653 I laid out several conditions that proved innocence.You would be better trying to answer that post,than remarking about my character.
                    I do not wish for the thread to be closed.It would save you from further embarassment if it was.
                    So let's keep any further discussion to evidence,and here is a question on that. What eye witness statements place Cross at any murder site,other than the Nichols site.A simple question,but an important one in any case against Cross.
                    Now I know you will be back Fisherman,answering me,You surely have positive proof on that question.Or Mr Barnett,or Abby can answer for you.Then again,they do not believe Cross to have been JTR,they have declared so.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      No, because there is no specific evidential link that connects the torsos to the Whitechapel murders. The torsos and their alleged connection to ther WM is just another misguided theory invented by Fish

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      You’re kidding???

                      If you had found something potentially linking CAL to the Pinchin Street case and you were aware that he was the ‘finder’ of Nichols whose route to work took him past Hanbury Street each morning not even a tiny alarm bell would have started ringing?

                      No wonder the Ripper was never caught.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by harry View Post
                        Here I was ,fisherman,sitting back thinking you weren't going to answer my posts,then up you pop with a lot more nonsense.You take me seriouslly,that is obvious,or you would't continually break your word and answer my posts.But hey!,how serious are you taken?
                        What I deny,is Scobies,and your contention ,there was evidence of a prima facie case.there is no such evidence.The police in 1888 knew it,most posters know it and declare it .Your problem is you do not understand evidence.
                        In post 2653 I laid out several conditions that proved innocence.You would be better trying to answer that post,than remarking about my character.
                        I do not wish for the thread to be closed.It would save you from further embarassment if it was.
                        So let's keep any further discussion to evidence,and here is a question on that. What eye witness statements place Cross at any murder site,other than the Nichols site.A simple question,but an important one in any case against Cross.
                        Now I know you will be back Fisherman,answering me,You surely have positive proof on that question.Or Mr Barnett,or Abby can answer for you.Then again,they do not believe Cross to have been JTR,they have declared so.
                        Your post 2653 proved nothing.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          There's no evidence of guilt, and as Fisherman tells us, innocent behaviour is just a guilty man pretending. So, effectively, there can be no evidence of innocence. This is what, presumably, makes it possible to convict Cross/Lechmere despite the total absence of any evidence that he is involved. If any evidence were to be uncovered, whether it looks to favour innocence or guilt, it all gets put through the meat grinder and comes out guilty.

                          Everything being called guilty evidence is misnamed. It's all innocent behaviours subjected to tortured logic in order to force it into a guilty story.

                          - jeff
                          Of course, there could be evidence - proof even - of innocence. A genuine alibi for instance.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                            Please provide a link to your source.

                            If your summary is correct that would make Lechmere's alibi weaker. OTOH, few people take a break for dinner 1/2 an hour after starting work.
                            I will do. Could you in return remind me of your source for claiming that Pickfords drivers worked 18 hour shifts. The press report about the strike meeting.

                            Your ‘alibi’ claim seems to be based on the idea that Pickfords drivers jumped out of bed onto their carts and were under constant supervision for 18 hours, and at the end of their shift they would have been too knackered to even pay a visit their old Ma a visit.
                            Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-03-2021, 08:52 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              Of course, there could be evidence - proof even - of innocence. A genuine alibi for instance.
                              Hi Gary
                              There isn't proof of a genuine alibi , but there could be what is termed negative evidence of one . As myself and others have pointed out the police seem to have taken no interest in Lech as a suspect, but we do know they interviewed the three slaughterhouse workers separately for instance. Did they not interview Lech ? Or at the very least have someone go to Pickfords to check him out ? And if they did, this would explain their virtual non existence regarding him as a person of interest if he did have some form of alibi.
                              Regards Darryl

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                                Of course, there could be evidence - proof even - of innocence. A genuine alibi for instance.
                                The evidence we have is limited, and we cannot gather more in terms of checking out individual people through direct questioning. There is a partial alibi for Cross/Lechmere with regards to Chapman. From what we know, he would have been at work at the time she was killed. What we can't do is check how solid that alibi is. Alibi's are not always rock solid, meaning, there are circumstances where what appears to clear the person turns out not to. So, of course, it is within the realm of possibility that he diverted from his work and murdered Chapman, that is, as an argument, far weaker and less probable than he was somewhere else entirely. As such, the weight of the evidence that we have points to him not being involved. If this were being investigated now, of course one would want to gather more information and locate exactly where he was at that time, and get that information independently verified. But we cannot do that today. Regardless, if you don't agree with that reasoning, which is fine, and require that for this to be considered evidence of his innocence that it requires proving he was somewhere else at the time, then the same rules applies for it to be evidence of his guilt - it must be proved he was in the backyard of Hanbury Street with Annie Chapman. If that cannot be done, then the argument that he "could have ..." is as unacceptable as "he couldn't have ...", and so it doesn't point to guilt. And if there is no suggestion of guilt, there is nothing to divert us from the starting point for any individual, which is that they are innocent.

                                The entire thread, though, is far longer than it should be. But, as, Fisherman has stated earlier on this thread, anything that looks like innocence will simply be argued to be proof of his guilt, because it shows Cross/Lechmere is trying to look innocent! So, for some at least, there is nothing that could be presented that would be evidence of his innocence, and certainly not proof. The stronger the evidence for his innocence, the more cunning and clever his deception will be painted.

                                His alerting of Paul, then seeking a police officer, are both actions that would be characterized as the acts of an innocent person - guilty people flee the scene when someone approaches. But no, with no supporting evidence, it is claimed that Cross/Lechmere's thoughts were to stick around and play games. That's because those actions are evidence of his innocence, that's what innocent people do when they don't realize what it is they're dealing with. They don't run away, they ask for help. And once they get involved (many innocent people don't even do that; for all we know, someone had passed down Buck's Row shortly before Cross/Lechmere and either didn't see Nichol's body, or just walked passed it - as per Tabram's murder). These have been presented many times, but unsubstantiated claims that Cross/Lechmere was a conniving psychopath get thrown around with no supporting evidence. Those "alternatives" are not worth consideration unless those claims of psychopathy can be supported. And using the very evidence those claims are trying to dismiss as proof of the reason for dismissing them is unsound reasoning. It's circular. Circular reasoning is unsound - that's not a bias, that's just a basic fact of how logic and reasoning work.

                                His correction of PC Mizen's claim he said there was a policeman in Buck's Row that wanted him is not evidence of anything, other than perhaps, PC Mizen presuming that when he was told he was needed in Buck's Row, and then arrives to find PC Neil, who needed his assistance, that Cross/Lechmere and Paul meant he was needed by PC Neil. This has been spun into some sort of indication that Cross/Lechmere is now lying, and that he actually did tell PC Mizen there was a police officer who needed him. That's just bizarre, and completely unsupported by any actual evidence. It's just pulled out of thin air and presented as if it has substance. It doesn't, it's vacuous. Rather, his correcting, for the record, what he and Paul told PC Mizen, and clarifying that he hadn't seen any police until PC Mizen, would be the actions of an innocent man - one who is doing their bit to ensure accurate information is before the inquest. But, as indicated above, anything that looks innocent is taken as further proof of his guilt, and gets woven into a complex tale, for which there is no evidence.

                                By all accounts, Cross/Lechmere went to the police to give them his information. Paul appears to have been more difficult to locate, and was more reluctant to get involved. And yet, that too has been turned around and again, without any evidence, it is stated that it was Paul's grandstanding in the Loydd's article that somehow forced Cross/Lechmere to come forward! There's no proof, or even hint, that was the case, and it is far more plausible that Cross/Lechmere came forward once he heard of the murder and realised the woman they found was not only dead, but horribly mutilated at that. His coming forward is again, evidence of innocence. It's the actions of someone who feels they have information that would be important for the police to have if they are to solve the crime. But it's been subverted through unsubstantiated story telling to be some sort of sinister plot.

                                His being on his walk to work is presented as if that is evidence of guilt. It's not. He's where he should be. If he was in a location he had no valid reason to be in, sure, then that would be suspicious. But being on his walk to work, at the appropriate time, means there is nothing suspicious about his being where he was. Sure, that's not evidence of innocence, and I'm not saying it is, but it is not evidence of guilt either.

                                Anyway, the entire thread demands rock solid, documented, proof for innocence, but allows for any creative writing exercise to be accepted as evidence of his guilt. It has long ceased to be a discussion, and is rapidly become a farce. And that's a shame. It is always a good idea to examine the people who find a body. But just because it's a good idea does not mean one has to find them guilty. The whole point of examining them is to determine if there is, or is not, anything that points to guilt. And for Cross/Lechmere, there isn't. There's only empty stories.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X