Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    You are still making a series of assumptions, starting with where Paul was a carman.

    "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market." - Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, 2 September, 1888."

    "Robert Baul, 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road." - The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 18 September, 1888."

    The two accounts differ about where Paul worked. You're trying to combine the two while not taking the second a face value. Cobbett's Cort is near Spitalfields Market. It is not Spitalfields Market. Paul could have said Spitalfields Market if he meant it. And there was a Tobacco Manufactory at Hanbury and Corbett's Court. People normally deliver produce from where it was grown to a market or from a market to a home or restaurant, not between markets. And if they did, they could have used a goods train.

    You've laid into other people for making far fewer assumptions than you did here.
    So, enlighten us, 5err - how would you have moved fruit and veg from Spitalfields Market to Covent Garden in a goods train?
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-15-2021, 09:55 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
      They would have had a description, occupation (perhaps), and a street, direction & time by which he walked to work.
      If half motivated, they'd stake an agent out along Buck's road or Whitechapel around 3:45 am and pickup anyone fitting the description.
      If completely motivated, Pickford's would be one of the first places they' go to, checking employees with Paul in tow for identification.

      Lechmere had to go to work; whether innocent or guilty, following Paul was his best option.
      Lechmere following Paul? So now you've flip-flopped again and contradict your idea that Lechmere was the active one?

      If Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul split up after finding Nichols body, the police would not have the information you claim.

      "On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head." - 2 September, 1888 Lloyds Weekly.

      Description provided - none.
      Occupation provided - none.
      Street provided - yes.
      Direction provided - no.
      Time provided - yes.
      Knowledge that Lechmere was on his way to work - no.
      Knowledge of where Lechemere worked - no.

      That's not enough to stake out an agent anywhere and the police had no way of getting more information until they found Robert Paul.

      It took the police about two weeks to find Robert Paul. Paul would be able to provide no more than a half-remembered description of a complete stranger that he saw for a few moments in poor lighting. The police might even think that Paul made up the second man.

      If Lechmere was the killer, going with Paul to meet a policeman would have been stunningly stupid. A killer with even a tiny particle of brain would have ditched Paul as soon as he could, never met PC Mizen, ditched the bloody knife, and found somewhere to wash off inconvenient blood stains.













      Comment


      • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
        So we are in agreement that determining the vocation was easy: very good. The 150,000 carmen figure is impressive - but dishonest; one would not be searching all of England for the guy - just Whitechapel; and then they would narrow that down to the direction he seemingly was going, Broad Street & the Railroad station: the numbers would settle down.
        It would only be dishonest if I had claimed there were "over 150,000 carmen" in Whitechapel. I clearly said "the 1891 Census lists over 150,000 carmen in England".

        It is not deceptive to assume the average person knows that Whitechapel is smaller than England.

        Until the police found Robert Paul, they would only know the second man was on Bucks Row around 3:45am. Once they found Robert Paul, they would know a direction - west - and an occupation - carman. They would not know the second man was headed for Broad Street Station. Robert Paul wasn't and he also walked Bucks Row to Hanbury Street.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
          Sneaking away from Paul would have been stupid. If Paul went to the police, he would have mentioned the first witness to have arrived at the body, and they would end up wondering about the guy, and why he never approached a P.C. (as you would have him promise to do if he was the killer).
          Congratulations on attacking something I did not say.

          As I said, sneaking away from Paul was an option before Paul reached Nichols body. You do understand the meaning of the word "before"? There is a good chance Paul wouldn't even notice him. Even if Paul did see him, he'd be able to provide much less of a description than if Lechmere stopped Paul, talked to him, examined the body with him, sought out a policeman with him, and continued to walk with Paul almost as far as Spitalfields market.

          Sneaking away before Paul reached Nichols body would have been the smart thing for the killer to do. Lechmere's actions were either those of an innocent man or a stunningly stupid killer.

          Sneaking away after stopping Paul, talking to him, and drawing attention to Nichols body would have been stupid. But I did not suggest that, as should be obvious to anyone with average reading comprehension skills. As I said before, separating from Paul before they found a police officer would have been easy - Lechmere would have just had to say it would improve their chances of finding a policeman sooner. You do understand the difference between persuading Paul to go separate directions and just sneaking off?

          Agreeing to go separate ways would have been the smart thing for the killer to do. It meant he would not have to come face-to-face with and talk to a police officer while covered in bloodstains and carrying the bloody murder weapon. A police constable's lamp would reveal all sorts of things the darkness concealed. And a killer would have no reason to expect that PC Mizen was an incompetent who didn't even take the time to get the names and addresses of witnesses.

          If Lechmere and Paul had separated after finding Nichols body, neither Paul nor PC Mizen would have any idea if Lechmere had also approached a constable. Over the next few days, Paul might suspect that the other man had not contacted the police, but he might just have assumed the other man had found a bigger incompetent than PC Mizen and that constable had not bothered to check out the report of a body. PC Mizen might suspect the same things, but he might also suspect that Robert Paul had made up another man in order to deflect suspicion from himself.

          Also, I did not suggest any promises would be made by Lechmere to Paul. You do understand the difference between a suggestion and a promise?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
            You would expect a stranger to provide an accurate accounting of an event where you were discovered next to a dead woman at 4am? Bully for you...most people wouldn't.
            Congratulations on attacking something I did not say. Again.

            As I said, Lechmere, innocent or guilty, would have no reason to suspect Paul would embellish the incident. And the killer would have been just fine with Paul embellishing the incident - the more false things that Paul said, the harder it would be for the police to determine the truth.

            Originally posted by Newbie View Post
            By saying it, I was just fleshing out alternate motives for Lechmere (if not the killer) to follow Paul.
            You were not just fleshing out alternate motiveves. You said "If Lechmere was not the killer, he still would want to go along with Paul and make certain Paul didn't embellish anything." That's not even a skeleton, let alone a fleshed out idea.

            And you continued to falsely claim that Lechmere followed Paul.

            "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. " - Robert Paul

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
              You being so triggered by any and everything, you imagined it was another means to implicate the guy....and you say that i'm biased. That is funny.


              You repeatedly misrepresenting what I and other posters say is no more than mildly annoying. It clearly shows you are unable to refute our actual points.




              Comment


              • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                "back in Post #2905 you said that Lechmere "apparently chooses to be the one to go up to PC Mizen and do the explaining".

                It's Schroderingers Suspect again - you simultaneously believe Lechmere did and did not take the lead about contacting a police constable and you assume both of these contradictory views prove Lechmer was guilty."


                is in the 'what the hell are you trying to say?'category.
                Attempting to read your mind, i'm guessing that what you are trying to say is that by Lechmere being inclined to take the lead and then not making the decision to go off for a PC is a contradiction. Why the hell would the killer want to fetch the police? You can't possibly mean this?
                I guess in need to use smaller words.

                Post #2905 you said that Lechmere "apparently chooses to be the one to go up to PC Mizen and do the explaining".

                Post #2907 you said that "It was Paul, however, who proposed seeking a PC - not Lechmere."

                In the first post, you assume Lechmere took the lead - and assume that is evidence of Lechmere's guilt.

                in the second post, you assume Paul took the lead - and assume that is evidence of Lechmere's guilt.

                You aren't even agreeing with yourself - you simultaneously believe Lechmere did and did not take the lead about contacting a police constable.

                Your bias is blatant - you assume both of your contradictory views prove Lechmere was guilty.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                  As for touching the hands and feeling the forehead, and calling that an examination of the body....that is laughably insufficient.
                  Then Lechmere moves out of the way and lets Paul do the serious work, checking for a pulse and breathing.
                  And now you try to move the goalposts.

                  In Post #2905 you said "The only passive thing he does in the whole course of affairs is let Paul be the one to examine the body."

                  And when I show you that Lechmere did examine the body. you say it was "insufficient".

                  Your original claim is still false. Charles Allen Lechmere did examine Polly Nichols body.

                  And your double standard is obvious. Both Lechmere and Paul felt her hands and face - you interpret this as Paul checking for a pulse and Lechmere not checking for a pulse.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    I guess in need to use smaller words.

                    Post #2905 you said that Lechmere "apparently chooses to be the one to go up to PC Mizen and do the explaining".

                    Post #2907 you said that "It was Paul, however, who proposed seeking a PC - not Lechmere."

                    In the first post, you assume Lechmere took the lead - and assume that is evidence of Lechmere's guilt.

                    in the second post, you assume Paul took the lead - and assume that is evidence of Lechmere's guilt.

                    You aren't even agreeing with yourself - you simultaneously believe Lechmere did and did not take the lead about contacting a police constable.

                    Your bias is blatant - you assume both of your contradictory views prove Lechmere was guilty.
                    That is what i guessed as to what you meant and responded accordingly. You are asking me to restate my position?

                    You are assuming that Lechmere wanted to go to a cop. If he was the murderer, with the murder instrument on him, he most probably would not and it would be a matter of initiating something he did not want to do. He would be fine with a quick look over of the body to convince Paul that he was just a passer by and then everyone head off on their merry way. Propping up the body signified a turn towards a more thorough check-up of the woman's condition, which among other things would take more time. The idea to get a cop was most probably Paul's: once refused help from Lechmere in propping up the body, he had a what the hell moment and announced his leaving with the caveat that he would seek a policeman. To me, that seems like the only possible response at that point from Paul. The whole post murder scene again went off script for Lechmere, and again he had to improvise. Stay behind and wait for a cop with the murder knife on him was a dangerous option (he could have tossed it somewhere and then waited); not following Paul was a dangerous option - Paul would have given the police enough info about the fellow carman to pick him up later; following Paul was a dangerous option - the PC might take them back to the murder scene. He had three options, each problematic. If Lechmere was innocent, Staying with the body was what one would have expected from someone who seemed concerned enough by the woman's condition to physically block the way of Paul; they still wouldn't have known if she was dead.

                    Was Lechmere the murderer? I don't know. Like i previously said, he most probably arrived earlier to Nichols body than he claimed. If not the murderer, than still one would be concerned that people might accuse you of being one. So, you go through the process of looking over the body again - with you doing not much, damn well knowing what her state is. Of course, one's question at this point would be that without the murder weapon 'why didn't he concede to a more thorough exam.'

                    Comment


                    • Both Lechmere and Paul seemed to be on schedule and Lechmere had been taking this route for 2 months. On the morning of the Polly Nichols murder, according to Lechmere, they missed each other by some 30 seconds - give or take a few seconds. Being fellow carmen, if one was spotted a bit ahead of the other, they most probably would have joined up and chatted....most mornings having better light than that night.

                      My question is why were they complete strangers? It is possible that they kept on just barely missing each other over those two months?
                      Maybe Lechmere was heading out earlier than he stated.

                      Comment


                      • I don't think it's a contradiction to say that Lechmere didn't want to look for a bobby but volunteered to speak to him when they did find one. He might have not wanted to involve the police but preferred to control the conversation when they did. Makes perfect sense to me.

                        Comment


                        • Here once again is why i think Lechmere makes a very good suspect, based just on the morning of the Polly Nichols murder and the inquiry.

                          1. Paul appearing not to hear the footsteps of Lechmere's hobnailed boots hitting the pavement just ahead on a dark night while walking down a dangerous street:

                          "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was."
                          - that when indicates that he was not aware of Lechmere's presence until the sighting;
                          Lechmere mentions first hearing Paul's footsteps in his testimony to the inquest.

                          2. His aggressive behavior in getting Paul to stop, and then his subsequent seeming indifference, leaving the body with out determining Nichol's state.
                          - very few people would approach someone that way at that time unless you are deeply concerned for someone's health and need help.

                          3. The issue with PC Mizen and what was said (which has been discussed add infinitum)

                          4. Coming forward only after reading Paul's account in the newspaper.

                          he seems to want to keep his wife & family in the dark by ..

                          5. Reverting back to his childhood name on a matter that does not involve Pickford's, despite being a 38 year old man (& not a 21 year old kid)

                          6. Appearing at court in his work clothes
                          - most probably, he paid for someone to take his place that day and didn't go to work; but if he did, it was a 7 minute trip back home to change.

                          7. There being no family narrative of Lechmere being the first one to encounter Polly Nichols body.
                          - generally, families pass these type of stories on.

                          I suggested the possibility that Lechmere was leaving for work earlier than he mentioned (i don't think much can be gathered from the conflicting times mentioned by reporters at the inquest; if Lechmere was the murderer, he would have chosen a time that matched PC ONeil's)

                          8. Other detailed matters....never chancing to run into Paul on previous walks to work; describing walking on the side of the street that is opposite to custom & the flow of traffic (an attempt to exaggerate his distance from the body?); the passive aggressive dichotomy in his behavior;....

                          Alternate possibilities: Lechmere being in the habit of patronizing prostitutes (like on the morning of Polly Nichols murder - where Lechmere should have been well passed Buck's row at that time). Having come across the body, looked it over to determine its state and then surprised by the new pedestrian, he went through his song & dance to alleviate suspicion)

                          I have questions about why a 38 year old man suddenly takes up to being a serial killer.
                          i have some questions about how a domineering mother by itself could be a driving force....unless the mother was emotionally abusive.
                          I have some questions about the time of some of the murders.
                          There seems to be some issue whether he actually handles or carved up meat.

                          I do not have issue with not slipping off into the night after murdering Polly Nichols.
                          I do not have issues with coming home with blood Sunday morning - cut his hand on some glass while drinking; got into a fight, etc.
                          I do not have issue with there being no record of violent behavior: spousal abuse was more common back then and a lot of bizarre behavior on the part of serial killers is identified after the fact: for example, the Golden State killer torturing animals. If the Golden State killer wasn't caught, and was a suspect 100 years from now, no one would be the wiser about him torturing animals. If someone mentioned that he was divorced, others rightly would say that half of California should then be suspects.
                          Last edited by Newbie; 10-18-2021, 09:06 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Great Aunt View Post
                            I don't think it's a contradiction to say that Lechmere didn't want to look for a bobby but volunteered to speak to him when they did find one. He might have not wanted to involve the police but preferred to control the conversation when they did. Makes perfect sense to me.
                            No, it isn't. If you want to be in control, and then someone throws you a curve ball, you have to adjust.




                            Comment


                            • Hi, Newbie.

                              Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                              ... On the morning of the Polly Nichols murder, according to Lechmere, they missed each other by some 30 seconds - give or take a few seconds.... [Is it] possible that they kept on just barely missing each other over those two months? Maybe Lechmere was heading out earlier than he stated.
                              Given identical 4am clocking-on times, and assuming identical walking speeds along a shared route, Paul and Lechmere would normally have been as far apart as were their clocking-in places. In other words, Lechmere, who definitely had considerably further to go (though we aren't sure yet about his specific Broad Street entrance), should always have been way ahead of Paul, and, given the bends in Hanbury Street, would likely never, ever be visible to him.

                              Yet, weirdly, the only day we know of the two meeting is one when Paul is running late: by rights, that should have caused there to be an even greater than normal distance between them at 3:40/3:45 ... yet we are expected to believe that Lechmere was mere seconds ahead of Paul as they approached the end of Buck's Row. If Lechmere's 'I was behind time myself' is meant to mean more than 'stopping with Paul by the woman delayed me', then he was very significantly late at the point Paul saw him standing there looking like a mugger. Seems to me that we're back to the question of what the hell did Lechmere do with all the time that should have separated him from, as it were, the late Robert Paul...

                              M.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                                You are assuming that Lechmere wanted to go to a cop.
                                That is not what I said.

                                I said that if Lechmere was the killer the smart thing would have been to avoid contact with police and other possible witnesses. Since Lchmere clearly did not do that, he was either a very stupid criminal or he was innocent.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X