Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    So which of these matters are "personal interpretation", R J?

    - He did not give the name he otherwise gave to authorities, his registered one, when testifying at the inquest.
    - He was alone with the body of Polly Nichols for an undetermined amount of time.
    - He was found with the body at a remove in time that is entirely consisent with being the killer.
    - He walked through the killing fields of Whitechapel/Spitalfields on a daily basis.
    - His home in Doveton Street was situated so that not one but two bloodied rags found after Eddowesīmurder and the dumping of the Pinchin Street torso were found inbetween the murder/dumping sites and it.
    - He disagreed with PC Mizen about a number of things, and in a way that would be perfectly suited to take him past the police.
    - He did not tell PC Mizen that he himself was the finder of the body, but is instead recorded as having said that "a body has been found in Bucks Row".
    - The body of Polly Nichols had the wounds to the abdomen covered by her clothing when found.
    - He declined to help Paul prop Nichols up when asked.
    - He gave timings for his departure from home that do not fit with when he was present in Bucks Row.

    Are these matters "personal interpretations" from my side? Or do they belong to the recorded evidence in the case?

    If we are going to speak of personal interpretations, we must delve into the conclusions I draw from the material above: That Charles Lechmere was the (extremely) likely killer of Polly Nichols.

    If you can tell me how either of the points above -or all of them! - speak against that conclusion, then my personal interpretation needs to be questioned. But letīs not pretend that personal interpretation is all there is. There is a solid case, built on numerous factors. A prima facie case that suggests that Charles Lechmere was the killer. That, at least, was James Scobies "personal interpretation"...
    And the thing that often gets forgotten, the series of murders in Whitechapel and Spitalfields seemingly began within a few weeks of Lechmere moving to a new home which required him to walk through Whitechapel and Spitalfields in the early hours.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-23-2021, 01:38 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      You reject the comparisons to modern serialists and yet are happy to quote a population density quoted by Helena without having any idea of what period it relates to?
      You seem to be obsessed with this, Gary. As I said already, her number seemed a little low to me, as well, but you haven't given a better number. If you want to up it to 3 per room, I'd be delighted, because it makes my point all the better. Do you think I'd argue that it was an overcrowded district and then deliberately give a lower number? It's curious the way the Lechmerian mind works.
      Last edited by rjpalmer; 10-23-2021, 01:48 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        I’m pleased to see you acknowledge the neon light that flashed above the cats meat sheds.
        To the police, yes. To Ripperologists...possibly. To rational inquiry...not so much.

        Setting aside the improbability that Lechmere had anything to do with this shed, let alone the torso murders, the torso was found on a Tuesday morning, and the body had been in 'hiding' for a minimum of 24 hours.

        Are you suggesting Ma Lechmere spent all day Monday cutting up cat's meat and selling it to a parade of customers without noticing a dead woman on the floor?

        Comment


        • Frank O:

          Originally posted by Fisherman
          Hmm. I donīt see that at all, Frank. I agree that "fetched" seems to indicate getting a PC and returning with him, and I think you are right in pointing out that it would be a time-consuming exercise for Paul, who abstained from the idea for that reason.
          Hi Chirster,
          I looked it up in the dictionary and found that it indeed means “go for and then bring back (someone or something)”, so Paul undoubtedly abstained from the idea for the reason it was too time-consuming.

          Agreed. That is the inference.

          But where and how does the idea that it was Lechmereīs suggestion come into play?? If it was like that, why did not Lechmer say so: "I suggested that the other man should fetch a policeman, but he said he was behind in time and would not do so".
          Likewise, why, if Paul was actually the instigator, did he not say: “I suggested that the other man should fetch a policeman, but he said he was behind time, too” or something alike?

          The fact that it wasn’t reported as having been said doesn’t mean that Lechmere didn’t say anything about it. The fact that – out of a dozen or so - there are only two newspapers who included in his statement something like “Let us go on and alert the first policeman we see” supports this. And according to Paul’s statement he, Paul, also agreed that the best thing for them to do was to alert the first policeman they met. There’s nothing in Lechmere’s statement versions about this either. So, are we to believe either Lechmere or Paul (or anyone else for that matter) only said the things that we find in their statement versions? I, for one, don’t think so.

          Then, here’s what Lechmere said, again: “He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time.”

          If you read it like this “He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time.”, then you might conclude that it was Paul who suggested to go for the police. If, however, it’s supposed to be clear that it MUST be read like this, as you seem to suggest, this would be bad for a guilty Lechmere who wanted to look good. Because then, of course, it would be clear that Paul was the one who suggested to fetch a policeman. So, why say it at all?

          If, however, you’d read it like this “He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time.”, then you might conclude that it was Lechmere who suggested it and that Paul replied that he would have done so, if only he wasn’t behind time already.
          Since we, unfortunately, don’t know everything that was and wasn’t said and how, both your and my interpretation/reading are equally possible.

          I still donīt see any reason to conclude that Lechmere did the bidding, Frank. And I am of the meaning that it would not be skipped over in the papers if he had said that he asked Paul to get a PC. I cannot fopr the life of me see all papers missing out on such an instrumental matter. As for why Paul would not say that he asked Lechmere to fetch a PC, that will likely depend on how Paul himself was the one saying that HE was late and so he was unable to offer up the time it would take to fetch a PC. We have Lechmere saying "I was late myself" and I think he countered Pauls statement by saying so, whereupon the agreement to leave together in search of a PC was reached.

          Letīs begin from the end. I would say that the lie about the other PC is another matter than the lie about who instigated the search for a PC. The lie about the other PC has no discussion between Mizen and Lechmere behind it and it is a total contradiction. It cannot be missed, it stands out like a sore thumb.
          I agree that it’s quite different in that there was no discussion: Mizen said this and Lechmere said another thing.

          The matter about who made the first suggestion was something that was discussed, and so it is much easier to muddle.
          Indeed, it’s quite a bit more difficult to reconstruct what was said between them and who said what and at what point.

          This is what I mean:
          Paul: -What should we do?
          Lechmere: -I donīt know, maybe we...
          Paul: -Maybe we should get help?
          Lechmere: -The police, you mean?
          Paul: -Yes, why not! Letīs get a PC.
          And lo and behold, the one first mentioning the word "police" is not the one first suggesting to go and get them.

          I see what you mean (except that nothing of the discussion you suggest above is recognizable in their various statement versions - but that, probably wasn't your point).

          It wasnīt. But Iīm glad you see what I mean!

          As for cutting away parts of the testimony given that we feel make our points less good, Frank, I think you know where I am going. It is on record, and so we have it on record that Robert Paul in some sources claim that HE was the instigator and that he in no case claims that Lechmere was the instigator.
          If we take both of Paul’s ‘instigating’ phrases, then we immediately see that they neutralize each other. In the one case he says this, whilst in the other he says the opposite. Furthermore, we know for a fact that neither suggestion/action was actually taken: Paul didn’t go for a policeman on his own and he didn’t send Lechmere to go for a policeman on his own, either.

          Or do you really believe Paul sent Lechmere for a policeman? I, for one, don’t. Whoever ‘translated’ what Paul actually said as “I sent the other man for a policeman” clearly wasn’t doing the best job he could, so the only thing we can say about this quote is that Paul, at some point during the discussion, probably asked/proposed/suggested to Lechmere to go for a PC, but NOT necessarily that he was the instigator of the suggestion to begin with.
          And opposed to Lechmere’s phrase “You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him.”, we have two different versions of Lechmere saying “let us go on”, making it quite doubtful that he in reality said “You had better go on” or something alike.

          I tend to take what Lechmere says with a pinch of salt, for obvious reasons. He had numerous days to perfect his message if he was the killer (and he was, if you ask me). I donīt think that Paul necessarily asked Lechmere to go for a policeman at all. I have offered an alternative option in days gone by: that Paul tells Lechmere to do the talking when they find Mizen.

          All of these things are muddled, and much owes to the different press reports. At the end of the day, I stand by how I think it is not a good thing for Lechmere not to agree with Paul. If Paul had said "I asked the other man to help me prop her up, but he suggested tnat we instead should go in search for a PC together", I would have been much less inclined to crucify Lechmere. As it stands, he provides the nails himself.


          According to the PC, Lechmere only told him about how the woman was likely drunk.
          Actually, according to the evidence, Mizen never said Lechmere only told him about how the woman was likely drunk. According to Mizen’s statement versions Lechmere told him there was a woman lying in Buck’s Row (or even, that a woman had been found, if you prefer that) - and nothing more. What he furthermore stated is that Lechmere didn’t say anything about a murder or suicide. What sticks out like a sore thumb is that Mizen didn’t use the word “death”. Might it suggest that Lechmere did, in fact, tell Mizen the woman may have been dead?

          No, it does not suggest such a thing at all. The fact that Mizen states that Lechmere said nothing about any suicide or murder owes to how he reasons that if there was another PC in place, and if that PC had asked the carmen to get help, then it would havce been obvious that it was a case of either murder or suicide. What is suggested by Mizens statement is that nothing at all was said about the potential gravity of the errand. And it goes hand in hand with how Lechmere was reported to have said "A woman has been found in Bucks Row" - as if somebody else had done the finding.
          The pieces of the puzzle only fit in one way.


          Both of these matters sit extremely well with an intention of getting past the police unsearched and uninvestigated. Further to this, it seems very apparent that Lechmere never once said that he (or, for that matter, he and Paul) were the finders of the body, leaving Mizen to - very naturally - feel that the phantom PC was the man who did it.
          True, but this would also go quite well with two innocent carmen not wanting to arrive at work too late and, perhaps, risking loosing their job.

          I always thought that "explanation" a very weak one. Lying their way past the poilice could - if discovered - render the pair some severe punishment. Plus, of course, if they were really afraid to loose their jobs, then why not pass Mizen by without a word? Because they were stand up citizens? Stand up citizens enough to lie to the police?

          Once we see how Lechmere also finds it very hard to agree with Paul about the proceedings in Bucks Row, it would be foolhardy not to go and fetch some really red cloth and start sewing up a really big flag. Can we agree on that? We donīt have to agree on how Lechmere was the killer, but surely you must agree that there is more than ample reason to point a finger in his direction?
          Only if you put a disproportionate amount of stock, the way I see it, in the questionable quotes by Paul and Lechmere, then we might see how Lechmere and Paul contradict each other. Otherwise, I don’t see that, Christer. I stand by my view that lying about who first suggested to go for the police seems too unimportant to me to take such a huge risk. I see too great an imbalance between what Lechmere is supposed to have gained by telling such a lie and the risk he took by telling it. After all, he had already come forward of his own volition, that way already gaining a fair amount of credibility. So, why take the additional risk in order to only possibly gain just a tad more of it? I don’t see it.

          All the best,
          Frank

          Okay, Frank. Then you regard it as a mere coincidence that Lechmere passed through the killing fields every morning, that the wounds were covered up by Nichols clothing, that Paul did not hear or see Lechmere before Browns Stable Yard, that Lechmere just happened to be at the site at a time that is consistent with being the killer, that the tinmings he gave are out of sync, that the two bloody rags found in combination with the Eddowes murder and the Pinchin Street torso were placed between the murder /dumping sites and 22 Doveton Street, that the Berner Street deed was committed in close proximity to his mothers place and in the exact area where he had spent many years of his life, that he disagreed with Mizen in a number of matters, that he disagreed with Paul, I take it?

          So what you must be proposing is another killer, who sneaked away before Lechmere arrived outside Browns.

          Can you even begin to see how unlikely it is that Lechmere in such a case would be so extremely unlucky as to rack up such a wealth of pointers towards his own person?

          Those two bloody aprons could have been dropped anywhere in London, for example, and still, they BOTH end up inbetween the murder/dumping sites and Doveton Street. Fascinating stuff. I mean, what are the odds....? Astronomical!

          And out of all the victims, only one had the damage hidden by her clothes. And guess what: Itīs Nichols! A one in five shot. Boom!

          And to think how Lechmere could have worked anywhere in London, walking to his job along a southern, an eastern, a northern or any other route - but as destiny would have it, he walked right through Whitechapel and Spitalfields! Tens of thousands of streets to choose from, but he nails it. Well done, that man!

          And look at the many scenarios we can think of for finding the body! He could have found it when she was all cold, he could have found it when it was in the process of cooling off, but no - he had to find it when it would go on to bleed for many minutes! Bulls eye!

          And how lucky was it not that Paul arrived at the slit seconds when he would give Lechmere an alibi but still not see his fellow carmans actions until he was upon him? VERY convenient, was it not?

          Then a torso victim is dumped in Ripper territory. And that territory covers more than a thousand streets in Whitechapel only, and hundreds and hundreds of streets if we add St Georges.
          So that torso could have ended up in any anonymous street. But instead, it ends up in the one street that is situated in the epicentre of Charles Lechmeres life. Mind-blowing! Well, it blows MY mind, but yours, it does not rattle.

          For these matters to even begin to look suspicious, one has to place a disproportionate amount of stock in a biased thinking, or so you tell me.
          I could not agree less, Iīm afraid, Frank. To me, it takes severe blindness not to accept that Lechmere is the likely killer. And thatīs why I am so very fond of how a barrister like Scobie agrees with me: A jury would not like him, and there is a prima facie case against him, suggesting that he was the killer.
          So it seems Scobie also put too much stock in these matters...?

          Iīm off for now. I need a break.

          Last edited by Fisherman; 10-23-2021, 01:59 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            The Pinchin Street murder, though, differs from the other torso murders. To begin with, it was seemingly the only one where the body was transported to the dumping site manually, with no cart involved.
            Not proven. You continue to misread Swanson's report. As I already stated some weeks ago, Swanson was setting at the perimeters of the search area. IF the torso was carried, it couldn't have been much more than X amount of yards away. If it was initially transported by cart, the police were screwed. That's what he was saying. The hardened earth near the arch didn't allow any conclusive evidence either way. I tend to agree with an old suggestion by Robert Clack that it was brought from the north, though I acknowledge that this is not proven.


            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            No, R J, the difficulty of getting away with it in Saint Georges or any other East End dsitrict would not increase with the stretch. If he put the body parts on a cart and covered them with a tarpaulin, then.
            Depends if he had a vanguard. Further, I find your reasoning here very curious. The 'torso' dump was another instance where the timing conflicts with your proposed work schedule for Crossmere, where he is arriving to work at 4 a.m. It's one instance where he would almost certainly have access to a cart. Yet, it's also the one torso case where he supposedly carried the body manually!

            Now I really must go.
            Last edited by rjpalmer; 10-23-2021, 02:08 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              To the police, yes. To Ripperologists...possibly. To rational inquiry...not so much.

              Setting aside the improbability that Lechmere had anything to do with this shed, let alone the torso murders, the torso was found on a Tuesday morning, and the body had been in 'hiding' for a minimum of 24 hours.

              Are you suggesting Ma Lechmere spent all day Monday cutting up cat's meat and selling it to a parade of customers without noticing a dead woman on the floor?
              Improbability? Why so? How many families in that part of STGITE are known to have had any connection to the horse flesh trade? It’s a bit like saying I found my grandfather recorded as a docker on the 1891 census but because he was at school in 1881, it’s highly unlikely he was working at the docks in 1889.

              There were two sheds side by side. Are you suggesting Ma sold cats meat out of both simultaneously?



              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                Improbability? Why so? How many families in that part of STGITE are known to have had any connection to the horse flesh trade? It’s a bit like saying I found my grandfather recorded as a docker on the 1891 census but because he was at school in 1881, it’s highly unlikely he was working at the docks in 1889.

                There were two sheds side by side. Are you suggesting Ma sold cats meat out of both simultaneously?


                Yes, they have a connect to the cat meat trade…by 1891, a year and a half after the Pinchin Street case. Possibly earlier, but this is still unproven. What is it about the torso that connects it to cat’s meat?

                If we want to resort to anecdotal evidence, Old Lady Hardiman’s husband was also a shoemaker, and after his death she continued in the trade, only later becoming a cat’s meat vendor. Ma Lechmere could have followed a similar trajectory; indeed, it would have been the most sensible course of action while husband #2 was still alive and presumably had a customer base to exploit. That is, if he didn’t require full time care from her. If he was as bad as you say, she could hardly have left him alone all day. It would make far more sense to soldier on with the shoes, where she could keep an eye on him

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  Not proven. You continue to misread Swanson's report. As I already stated some weeks ago, Swanson was setting at the perimeters of the search area. IF the torso was carried, it couldn't have been much more than X amount of yards away. If it was initially transported by cart, the police were screwed. That's what he was saying. The hardened earth near the arch didn't allow any conclusive evidence either way. I tend to agree with an old suggestion by Robert Clack that it was brought from the north, though I acknowledge that this is not proven.




                  Depends if he had a vanguard. Further, I find your reasoning here very curious. The 'torso' dump was another instance where the timing conflicts with your proposed work schedule for Crossmere, where he is arriving to work at 4 a.m. It's one instance where he would almost certainly have access to a cart. Yet, it's also the one torso case where he supposedly carried the body manually!

                  Now I really must go.
                  So you think it more likely that the torso was brought from the heavily populated north? Why would that be?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    You seem to be obsessed with this, Gary. As I said already, her number seemed a little low to me, as well, but you haven't given a better number. If you want to up it to 3 per room, I'd be delighted, because it makes my point all the better. Do you think I'd argue that it was an overcrowded district and then deliberately give a lower number? It's curious the way the Lechmerian mind works.
                    Obsessed? You presented us with the statistic, without seemingly knowing anything more than that it was something Helena had once mentioned.

                    It’s a pretty meaningless number really - even if it does relate to the period during which CAL’s personality was developing.


                    Comment


                    • If I do apply personnel interpretations Fisherman,they are based on the evidence given.
                      Lets take the claim Cross was with the victim an undetirmined amount of time.In evidence given to the court,under oath,and accepted by the court,it can be accepted that Cross was alone at the crime scene less than one minute before Paul arrived.Any alternative would need evidence to disprove what Cross claimed,and there is none.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                        No she doesn't. I think you'd have better luck in one of Fishman's books. It was just a number that stuck in my mind.

                        I would caution that immigrant 'replacement' of the native population doesn't invariably mean higher population density. It may or it may not.

                        But back to the original point. An average of 2 people per room is a very high density rate--6 people in a three-room house isn't my idea of spacious living--but if you want to raise it even higher, 3 per room or whatever number, then it supports my contention all the more. People growing up in overpopulated areas--and Lechmere falls into that category--are going to be less 'standoffish' than their modern counterparts, out of sheer conditioning and necessity. It's seems like a rather minor point; I was just wondering if our fellow poster who sees a man tapping a stranger on the shoulder as being odd or menacing wasn't seeing it from a different cultural perspective, and thus misinterpreting it. Paul admits that he was initially disturbed by 'Cross' waiting for him in the middle of the road at that hour, but he doesn't voice any disapproval of having been touched on the shoulder.

                        Further, commonsense would suggest that the higher the population density, the more unlikely it would be that someone is successfully abducting, murdering, and dismembering women in the district. Wainwright up in the Whitechapel Road got away with it, initially, but he was a middle class bloke with privacy. Living in SGE and being the Ripper would be a difficult juggling act in itself, but if a theorist is going to have our local yokel also chopping up women in his lodgings and them transporting them to Chelsea or wherever else, it starts to become difficult to take it seriously. Which I suppose is why the Lechmere theorists have a tendency to imply that Ma Lechmere was in-on-the-act. I see from an old post that Mr. Stowe evidently believes that she may have even murdered Thomas Cross. Or maybe he meant Charlie did it; not sure.
                        People growing up in overpopulated areas are going to have a reduced sense of private space in public, and are going to be more standoffish towards strangers -- not less.

                        However, I viewed it from the perspective of one walking down a dangerous, dark street early in the morning: gangs, murders and thefts were a reality there.
                        Mores for the types of situations involving personal preservation generally are constant across cultures. Not only was Paul on guard at the time (he said so), but Lechmere, who still was somewhat new to this route, also should have been on his guard: maybe the fallen woman was a ruse to rob him - not uncommon.

                        However, my suspicion does not reside in the fact that Lechmere accosted Paul (although unusual), which would indicate a concern for the woman, it resides in the fact that he abandoned Polly Nichols body without ascertaining her condition. I'm looking for consistency in his actions where on the surface there seemingly is none.

                        Of course, one could say why would Lechmere give a fig if Paul walked on by.
                        Last edited by Newbie; 10-24-2021, 07:12 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          If I do apply personnel interpretations Fisherman,they are based on the evidence given.
                          Lets take the claim Cross was with the victim an undetirmined amount of time.In evidence given to the court,under oath,and accepted by the court,it can be accepted that Cross was alone at the crime scene less than one minute before Paul arrived.Any alternative would need evidence to disprove what Cross claimed,and there is none.
                          We have no absolute way of knowing. We just have Lechmere's testimony on what time he left for work, and the news correspondents gave different accounts of the time he gave: one paper gave it at around 3:20 am & the others gave it at around 3:30 am. Paul & Lechmere's wife were the only ones who could have confirmed the 3:30 time and they failed to do so. That means Lechmere was either telling the truth under oath, or he was lying. How long he was alone with the body is speculative.
                          Last edited by Newbie; 10-24-2021, 07:01 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Newbie,
                            If you wish to be speculative,by all means do so,The police however tend to rely on evidence.The point I am making is that there was no evidence provided to show that Cross lied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              If I do apply personnel interpretations Fisherman,they are based on the evidence given.
                              Lets take the claim Cross was with the victim an undetirmined amount of time.In evidence given to the court,under oath,and accepted by the court,it can be accepted that Cross was alone at the crime scene less than one minute before Paul arrived.Any alternative would need evidence to disprove what Cross claimed,and there is none.
                              And now you explain what the court based their acceptance of Lechmereīs statement on, please?

                              A feeling that he was a good guy?

                              You say that there is no evidence that he was alone for a longer period of time with Nichols. Your problem - as always, Harry - is that there is no evidence that ha wasnīt either. Itīs hot air only, Iīm afraid. But if you want to do your sleuthing like that, you are of course welcome to it. Just donīt expect those who employ a more extensive thought process in their reasoning to buy it.
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 10-24-2021, 09:00 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                                Not proven. You continue to misread Swanson's report. As I already stated some weeks ago, Swanson was setting at the perimeters of the search area. IF the torso was carried, it couldn't have been much more than X amount of yards away. If it was initially transported by cart, the police were screwed. That's what he was saying. The hardened earth near the arch didn't allow any conclusive evidence either way. I tend to agree with an old suggestion by Robert Clack that it was brought from the north, though I acknowledge that this is not proven.

                                Regardless of whether it is proven or not, it remains that the Pinchin Street case was the one case where the torso may well have been carried manually to the dumping spot. and so it differs from the other cases in this respect. There is a further parameter involved that you seem to forget about; there were people sleeping in the adjacent archways who had not head any cart. Taken together, much points to how the not proven matter is a very well underbuilt case.

                                Depends if he had a vanguard. Further, I find your reasoning here very curious. The 'torso' dump was another instance where the timing conflicts with your proposed work schedule for Crossmere, where he is arriving to work at 4 a.m. It's one instance where he would almost certainly have access to a cart. Yet, it's also the one torso case where he supposedly carried the body manually!

                                Now I really must go.
                                The reasoning you describe as curious is sadly not one that is related to the issue at hand: transporting body parts will not be harder because the stretch increases. It is not more likely to be found out in street two than in street one, as I pointed out. The crucial points are the loading/unloading points. And vanguards were not employed for all transports as you well know.

                                The question of the timing is another matter altogether, and it seems to have been introduced only to steer away from the real issue.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X