Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    There is at least one very remarkable thing about Lechmere´s finding Nichols: she would go on to bleed for many minutes afterwards.

    That means that Lechmere ends up in the crosshairs of the murder timing.

    Otherwise you are correct: It is not his finding he body that is remarkable. It is instead the many things that do not seem right about him:

    He used another name than his registered one with the police, althoug he never did so with any other authorities.

    He disagreed with the police about what was said and done on the murder morning.

    He walked right through the area where the murders occurred, at roughly the relevant hours.

    THIS is where he becomes really remarkable. These things should not be there if he was innocent. If he told the police my name is Charles Lechmere, if he said the same things about the events as Mizen did, if he walked to work along routes that were not close to where the murders occurred, I would echo your take on things: he was seemingly innocent.

    But as it stands, there are numerous things that are very awkward for hi,. We may add the covered wounds, the refusal to touch a woman he had already touched when Paul asked him to help prop Nichols up, the fact that Paul only noted him as he arrived outside Browns - there are way too many things that should not have been there. And that means that we must check for geography, and when we do, we find that he fits the bill on that score too. Although he COUD have worked anywhere in London, he instead had a path that took hin right through the killing fields. And to boot, the two only murders that were NOT in Spitalfields, were also committed in places he can be linked to.

    He is the archetypical police prime suspect. They could not have asked for more. And STILL they failed to identify him as their man, which is deplorably incompetent.
    Can you do anything but repeat the same old disproven points?

    * You "blood evidence" proves nothing. Your experts said they had little or no data and disagreed with each other on time.

    * Charles Allen Lechmere did not try to hide his identity from the police. Using his stepfather's surname as unusual, but he gave his first and middle names, his home address, his work address and scheduled shifts. He came forward on his own, even though neither PC Mizen or Robert Paul knew who he was.

    * He agreed with the police on when events happened. He disagreed with PC Mizen. Robert Paul also disagreed with PC Mizen and agreed with Charles Lechmere.

    * Robert Paul also "walked right through the area where the murders occurred". So did hundreds of other men. Charles Lechmere did not walk through the area "at roughly the relevant hours" - the timings of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes fit very poorly with Lechmere's known schedule.

    * The wounds were covered by Robert Paul. They are not evidence against Charles Lechmere or anyone else.

    * Refusing to prop up Nichols points towards Lechmere's innocence. A guilty man would have jumped at the chance to have an innocent explanation for blood on his hands and clothes.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      It was Paul who decided to go for the police, and so Lechmere seemingly had no saying in it. We may of course reason that he could have treied to persuade Paul not to do it, but that would not have looked good with the police if it was discovered at a later stage. As it happens, we know that Paul gave an interview that made Lechmere look dodgy. Adding the kind of persuasion attempt you suggest would not have made him look better.
      Paul's newspaper interview did not make Lechmere look dodgy, it made PC Mizen look dodgy.

      And a clever cunning psychopath would have agreed to look for a policeman, but suggested they split up to improve their chances. After all, the actual killer would have wanted to avoid being seen by a policeman and would have wanted to ditch Robert Paul as soon as he could.

      But your Shroedingers Suspect is simultaneously cunning and stupid because your theory requires him to be both simultaneously.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        Paul's newspaper interview did not make Lechmere look dodgy, it made PC Mizen look dodgy.

        And a clever cunning psychopath would have agreed to look for a policeman, but suggested they split up to improve their chances. After all, the actual killer would have wanted to avoid being seen by a policeman and would have wanted to ditch Robert Paul as soon as he could.

        But your Shroedingers Suspect is simultaneously cunning and stupid because your theory requires him to be both simultaneously.
        Yeah, none of it really adds up when you think about it. I already anticipate how Fisherman will respond. He’ll say something along the lines of Lechmere wanted to control the situation, and didn’t want Paul going alone, just in case Paul tried to implicate him. However, given the choice between approaching a copper with possible bloodstains and a murder weapon on him vs letting Paul report the crime and disappearing into the night, I think a killer would choose the latter, but Fisherman has developed a fantastical image of Lechmere as this Hannibal Lecter-style villain, so he’ll back the former.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          It was Paul who decided to go for the police, and so Lechmere seemingly had no saying in it.
          Your statement contradicts what Robert Paul actually said.

          "They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.
          By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen."

          This is far from the first time you've completely ignored what Robert Paul actually said. He's a very inconvenient witness for your theory.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Of course, psychopaths will not panic.
            Why do you keep making false claims like this?

            "The researchers found individuals who scored high on the measure of Fearless Dominance tended to have less fear of pain, anxiety, and stress. Individuals who scored high on the measure of Impulsive Antisociality, on the other hand, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and stress." - PsyPost





            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              The Lechmere theory is by far the most debated and many net discussions on numerous forums bear witness to how the carman is the number one candidate for lots and lots of people. And here you are, thinking that nobody believes in it...?
              You have completely misrepresented Trevor's position. He did not say that no one believed CAL was the Ripper. He said that you don't have any facts to back your position.

              And that's the important thing - facts - not how many people believe something.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                Yes, that’s the report I mentioned in post 2800.

                However, there was another I posted which said the very opposite.
                The article about Pickford's not using van guards is from 1903.

                The article about Pickford's always using van guards is from 1883.

                Old Bailey records show that Pickfords was still using van guards in the late 1890s.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                  And if you really need evidence that Smithfield market dealt primarily in raw meat, then you need to do a bit more Googling.
                  Congratulations, you have refuted something I never said. Again.

                  Perhaps you should start addressing people's actual points instead of putting words in their mouths.

                  As to the Smithfield Meat Market, did you miss that Smithfield was build above a railway station?

                  "The building for the market covers an area of 620 feet by 240 feet, and beneath the floor of this large building there is a world of railways, and sidings, and cranes, and lifts, designed to facilitate the supply of the market with its thousands of tons of meat and poultry. The Metropolitan Railway will provide access to this market for the meat-laden trains of the Great Western, Midland, Great Northern, South-Western, and Chatham and Dover Lines; and by this system of underground communication will relieve to a great extent the street traffic. " - 3 November 1868 Morning Post.

                  Unloading meat at the Broad Street Station and transporting it by van to Smithfield would make no sense at all.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                    You imagine the two shops were occupied by rival businessmen? Extremely unlikely I would have thought.
                    I imagine nothing - I'm just not making assumptions.

                    And they were sheds, not shops. You know the difference.

                    We know from what you found, that "on 10th October, 1887, a Mr Golding, one of Booth’s researchers, visited Backchurch Lane as part of an economic survey of St George in the East. On page 120 of notebook 29 he recorded his findings in respect of nos 6 and 8 Backchurch Lane: “Catsmeat vendor - shed only”"

                    We don't know who owned either shed in 1887. We don't know if either shed was rented out. We don't know if they were even in use.

                    We definitely don't know any of that for 1889, let alone what they were being used for that year.

                    An 1888 Street Directory posted on the other thread does not list anything for 6 or 8 Backchurch Lane, which implies they were not in active use at that time.

                    If we found that the Lechmere family had a lock-up cat's meat shed less than a minute's walk from the Pinchin Street arch all that would prove is that the Lechmere family had a lock-up cat's meat shed less than a minute's walk from the Pinchin Street arch. It would not prove that the shed had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso. It would not prove that any member of the Lechemre family had anything to do with the Torso Killings. It would not prove that any member of the Lechemre family had anything to do with the Ripper Killings. It would not prove the Torso killer was the Ripper.



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      Can you do anything but repeat the same old disproven points?

                      * You "blood evidence" proves nothing. Your experts said they had little or no data and disagreed with each other on time.

                      * Charles Allen Lechmere did not try to hide his identity from the police. Using his stepfather's surname as unusual, but he gave his first and middle names, his home address, his work address and scheduled shifts. He came forward on his own, even though neither PC Mizen or Robert Paul knew who he was.

                      * He agreed with the police on when events happened. He disagreed with PC Mizen. Robert Paul also disagreed with PC Mizen and agreed with Charles Lechmere.

                      * Robert Paul also "walked right through the area where the murders occurred". So did hundreds of other men. Charles Lechmere did not walk through the area "at roughly the relevant hours" - the timings of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes fit very poorly with Lechmere's known schedule.

                      * The wounds were covered by Robert Paul. They are not evidence against Charles Lechmere or anyone else.

                      * Refusing to prop up Nichols points towards Lechmere's innocence. A guilty man would have jumped at the chance to have an innocent explanation for blood on his hands and clothes.

                      The argument contrary to this point is that it would render naked the wounds to her neck and belly.

                      The wounds were never apparent to Paul - the lighting of course was poor. They were certainly not displayed in full Ripper style, and there was also the neck wound. If Paul, in an act of decency attempted to cover a bit more her thighs, that doesn't change the atypical manner in which JtR left the body.

                      But an interesting point here, that people again have missed:

                      Nowhere in the description of Lechmere's actions does he take a passive course: he advances to meet and stop Paul; he apparently chooses to be the one to go up to PC Mizen and do the explaining; he decides to approach the police once Paul's story goes to the press; he even refuses to prop up the body - assuming that that happened. The only passive thing he does in the whole course of affairs is let Paul be the one to examine the body. Why? He was the first one to encounter it....why doesn't he take charge here and be the first one to examine it. It really doesn't make sense. Now one can speculate that he was squeemish about broken bodies found lying on the street, etc. - that is possible. Another explanation is that he already had a good look at the body. If he was the killer, he might have contemplated the opportunity to slash Paul's throat. I would guess Paul, out of precaution, kept one eye on Lechmere during his examination of the body. At any rate, it is at variance to his typical behavior within his involvement in this incident.
                      Last edited by Newbie; 10-13-2021, 10:42 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        You have completely misrepresented Trevor's position. He did not say that no one believed CAL was the Ripper. He said that you don't have any facts to back your position.

                        And that's the important thing - facts - not how many people believe something.
                        Facts are things to be combined and interpreted, correctly or incorrectly, towards some attempt at a rational explanation. The central fact here is that no one was ever brought to trial on evidence of being the Ripper. Case closed, lets all go home.

                        Comment


                        • Sneaking away from Paul was never an option for Lechmere: whether or not he was the killer. Paul - a fellow carman - could quite possibly have identified the vocation of Lechmere, and eventually they would find him. If Lechmere was not the killer, he still would want to go along with Paul and make certain Paul didn't embellish anything.

                          It was Paul, however, who proposed seeking a PC - not Lechmere.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                            Yeah, none of it really adds up when you think about it. I already anticipate how Fisherman will respond. He’ll say something along the lines of Lechmere wanted to control the situation, and didn’t want Paul going alone, just in case Paul tried to implicate him. However, given the choice between approaching a copper with possible bloodstains and a murder weapon on him vs letting Paul report the crime and disappearing into the night, I think a killer would choose the latter, but Fisherman has developed a fantastical image of Lechmere as this Hannibal Lecter-style villain, so he’ll back the former.
                            Paul would not just possibly report the crime, he would report the guy who was already there when he arrived. He had a good look at him and his clothing: possibly/probably he knew his vocation. I would guess there weren't too many businesses open at 4:00 am within the vicinity.

                            I actually can sympathize with Lechmere's plight: it would scare the hell out of me to be discovered alone with a dead body early in the morning.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                              Sneaking away from Paul was never an option for Lechmere: whether or not he was the killer. Paul - a fellow carman - could quite possibly have identified the vocation of Lechmere, and eventually they would find him. If Lechmere was not the killer, he still would want to go along with Paul and make certain Paul didn't embellish anything.

                              It was Paul, however, who proposed seeking a PC - not Lechmere.
                              Not to belabour the point, but Lechmere did not know if his clothing was bloodstained, and apparently he was carrying a bloody knife. In that situation, the killer is always going to favour flight. Only in the realms of Hollywood would the killer agree to go looking for a policeman. The Lechmerians have to cloak their suspect in the mantle of Hannibal Lecter and other fantastical villains for this to be a working theory. If Lechmere was the killer, he never would've engaged with Paul in the first place. He would've stood up and walked away, taking one of several escape routes at his disposal. *IF* Paul had even stopped to examine Nichols, and *IF* he had discovered her injuries, by the time he alerted a policeman, Lechmere would be home and dry, and no one would ever know who he was. Instead, he engaged the first witness on the scene, searched for a copper, then voluntarily attended a murder inquest. These are not the actions of a guilty party.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                                It was Paul, however, who proposed seeking a PC - not Lechmere.
                                Maybe I missed something, Newbie, but as far as I can see, it's far from clear that Paul was the one who proposed seeking a PC.

                                In 2 versions of his statement he said: "I sent the other man for a policeman", but most of them say something like: "They agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met."

                                On the other hand, some versions of Lechmere's statement have him say, in response to Paul's suggestion to prop/sit Nichols up something like: "No, let's go and tell a policeman".
                                The Echo of 3 September: "He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."
                                Evening Standard, Morning Advertiser of 4 September: "He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman.""
                                Star or 3 September: "He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."
                                So, to me, it reads as if Lechmere is the one who proposes to (not loose any more time and) leave things to the first policeman they see.

                                The best,
                                Frank



                                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X