Evidence of innocence

[GUT]

He worked for Pickford’s in Broad Street delivering carcasses and such like to Butchers.

And you know this,,,,, how???

[SuperShodan]

It was his job. He was a carman for Pickford’s.

[MrBarnett]

He worked for Pickford’s in Broad Street delivering carcasses and such like to Butchers.

And where did you get that information from?

[MrBarnett]

It was his job. He was a carman for Pickford’s.

Pickfords were ‘universal carriers’ they transported just about everything.

There is nothing that tells us what Lechmere carried, although there are some indications that it might have been horseflesh.

[MrBarnett]

Indeed Caz, and when you're used to getting up early for work you've got to fill those hours somehow...

But the roads weren’t closed until 10 a.m. So perhaps he went into work a bit earlier that day to avoid the inevitable congestion on the roads that remained open. A 3.00 start, perhaps, or even 2.00?

[caz]

Pickfords were ‘universal carriers’ they transported just about everything.

There is nothing that tells us what Lechmere carried, although there are some indications that it might have been horseflesh.

My only personal experience of Pickfords is as a house removals firm, so my mind always wanders over to Mrs Schwartz, moving house on double event day and singing: "My old man said follow the van, and don't dilly dally on the way."

If she couldn't hold a tune in a bucket, I wonder if the van driver would have been Cross.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

That is definitely a bit of evidence of innocence I think. the two policemen didn't even discuss the cartmen as far as we know. A point in Cross' favor for honesty.

I don’t think Fisherman will see it that way, Columbo. And I can understand why. Because, however logical or in order such a conversation would seem, the notion that the 2 policemen didn’t have a conversation such as Caz has proposed, is no direct evidence that Cross didn’t lie. It can only be direct evidence of Mizen’s indifference or whatever you might like to call it.

Furthermore, Fisherman will undoubtedly let you know that, according to the newspapers, P.C. Neil was considered by the police to be the only finder of the body until, quite likely, Paul’s interview was printed in the Lloyd’s Weekly News of Sunday 2 September, more than 2 days after the murder. This would also mean that Lechmere could be quite confident that no such conversation had taken place between Mizen and Neil on the morning of the murder.

[Columbo]

I don’t think Fisherman will see it that way, Columbo. And I can understand why. Because, however logical or in order such a conversation would seem, the notion that the 2 policemen didn’t have a conversation such as Caz has proposed, is no direct evidence that Cross didn’t lie. It can only be direct evidence of Mizen’s indifference or whatever you might like to call it.

Furthermore, Fisherman will undoubtedly let you know that, according to the newspapers, P.C. Neil was considered by the police to be the only finder of the body until, quite likely, Paul’s interview was printed in the Lloyd’s Weekly News of Sunday 2 September, more than 2 days after the murder. This would also mean that Lechmere could be quite confident that no such conversation had taken place between Mizen and Neil on the morning of the murder.

This is true. and Fisherman will take me to task for it Still given that most of these theories are based on conjecture and what some might call "logical deduction", I could still see this as possibly happening. We just can't prove either way if the two discussed Paul and Cross. Just as we can't prove who the killer was. so I'll take this point away from evidence of innocence. It'll also lessen the punishment from Fisherman I'll be receiving.

Columbo

[The Baron]

This is true. and Fisherman will take me to task for it Still given that most of these theories are based on conjecture and what some might call "logical deduction", I could still see this as possibly happening. We just can't prove either way if the two discussed Paul and Cross. Just as we can't prove who the killer was. so I'll take this point away from evidence of innocence. It'll also lessen the punishment from Fisherman I'll be receiving.

Columbo

Don't take it hard on yourself

Cross talked to Mizen in company with Paul, he couldn't have been able to say such a thing like there is another policeman in Buck's Row calling for you.

You just need to read the Lechmerian's arguments to excute such a phrase inspit of Paul being there, to crack laughing.



The Baron

[AlanG]

A thread devoted to offering space where those who think there is evidence pointing to innocence on Charles Lecherme´s behalf can provide their thoughts and ideas. My personal take is that there is no genuine evidence at all that points to innocence on the carmans behalf, but since it has been led on that I ommitted to present such evidence in my book "Cutting Point", it would be interesting to see what that evidence consists of.

What this thread is not for is presenting alternative innocent explanations, like "Mizen may have made up the stuff about that other PC", because it would drown the thread totally - such alternative explanations can be provided en an endless stream, and although we must consider them, they are not genuine evidence of innocence but only "what if's".

What we do not need out here either are claims like "Lechmere is a useless suspect". Althoug anybody is entitles to entertain that idea, it is the evidence they can put behind it that counts.

So let´s not speak about how there may have been alternative innocent explanations at play, but instead start our contributions with "Charles Lechmere cannot have been the killer because..." and than add true and genuine evidence. Another starting point can of course be "Charles Lechmere is not likely to be the killer because..." - just as there can be circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt, there can also be circumstantial evidence speaking of innocence.

But is there?

Let me know.

Anybody who can master this debate without descending into disrespectfulness is welcomed to the thread. And I demand that attitude from everyone, myself included.

The blood stains '25 and 35' feet from the body as reported in the star at the time. 'Probably caused by something in the hand of the killer as he walked away'

How do you account for this if the killer were Lechmere?

[Columbo]

Pickfords were ‘universal carriers’ they transported just about everything.

There is nothing that tells us what Lechmere carried, although there are some indications that it might have been horseflesh.

I didn't know this about Pickfords. So depending on what Cross was delivering he could very well have a partner riding with him.

Columbo

[MrBarnett]

I didn't know this about Pickfords. So depending on what Cross was delivering he could very well have a partner riding with him.

Columbo

Yes, the use of van guards to protect goods at the rear of vehicles was very common, I believe.

Pickfords were the main agents for the LNWR, but the LNWR carried a lot of goods themselves.

[Columbo]

Yes, the use of van guards to protect goods at the rear of vehicles was very common, I believe.

Pickfords were the main agents for the LNWR, but the LNWR carried a lot of goods themselves.

That does put a different spin on things then. If even there is a hint of a possibility of a second person working with Cross, that puts a bit of a damper in his guilt of Chapmans death.

[IchabodCrane]

https://thepolicemagistrate.blog/tag/carman/

The day of Polly Nichols murder, an eleven-year old boy was charged with stealing a horse and cart from a carman while he was delivering goods in Lower East Smithfield

[Fiver]

Of course, we don’t know for certain what he carried on his cart or where and to whom, but there is a certain amount of circumstantial evidence to suggest it might have been horse flesh.

What is this obsession with Lechmere delivering horse flesh? Lechmere worked for Pickford's, not for a meat packing plant. As you stated in another thread "Pickfords were universal carriers, meaning they carried just about anything: consumer goods, foodstuffs, minerals, building materials, fuel...and more besides."

The 1863 All Year Round mentioned a sample cargo. "We observed a very miscellaneous collection of articles here - chairs, fenders, barrels, looking-glasses, pottery, and an open basket of Welsh mutton mere covered by an old newspaper."

Here's an 1883 account of a Pickford's carman from the Broad Street station who stole a bale of cloth. One of the witnesses against him was the van boy. Other Old Baily records show a large variety of goods carried by Pickfords - "six blankets and twenty pairs of leggings", "six bottles of wine", "eight carcases of pigs", "48 half-chests of tea", "31 dozen of kid gloves", "two hogsheads [of gin] and a puncheon', "five gallons of whisky and a jar", "five crates of tinware", "321 yards of silk and 49 yards of sateen", "112lb. of tartaric acid and other goods", "six pairs of boots and three pairs of slippers", "frozen sheep", "four cases of kidneys".

The nearest Market appears to have been Spitalfield's Market (fruit, vegetables, flowers), though plenty of other things were available there as well.

With over twenty years of service, Lechmere probably carried horse meat as part of his cargo on some days.