Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

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.

However, by 11th September, the police, or Arnold at least, had discounted the use of a cart, saying ‘ there is no doubt that it was either carried there by Barrow or by some person on his back.’ It’s possible that someone walked a mile or two pushing a barrow with a decomposing torso on it or with the torso slung across his shoulder. Just aimlessly wandering the streets perhaps looking for a dark corner to drop it off and not finding anywhere suitable until he reached Pinchin Street. Far more likely, I would have thought, that he had the remains stored close by and was familiar with the arch - Swanson certainly thought the arch was a ‘selected spot’. He says that enquiries were made ‘to find any shed, place or house within that limit (250 yards from the arch) so as to ascertain who what, and how the occupier was engaged, but more especially to find the missing parts.’ They also focussed their attentions on local butchers.

Can anyone think of a more promising premises than the two lock-up cats meat shops just 30 yards or so from the arch?

Horse flesh was apparently in short supply in August/September, 1889 because of an upsurge in volume of it being exported to the continent. And as we know, Lechmere’s father had been ill throughout 1889, being admitted to the infirmary in February and eventually dying in December. So, if the Lechmeres were in occupation of the cats meat sheds, it’s by no means certain that Maria would have been there on the day before the torso was deposited.

[MrBarnett]

However, by 11th September, the police, or Arnold at least, had discounted the use of a cart, saying ‘ there is no doubt that it was either carried there by Barrow or by some person on his back.’ It’s possible that someone walked a mile or two pushing a barrow with a decomposing torso on it or with the torso slung across his shoulder. Just aimlessly wandering the streets perhaps looking for a dark corner to drop it off and not finding anywhere suitable until he reached Pinchin Street. Far more likely, I would have thought, that he had the remains stored close by and was familiar with the arch - Swanson certainly thought the arch was a ‘selected spot’. He says that enquiries were made ‘to find any shed, place or house within that limit (250 yards from the arch) so as to ascertain who what, and how the occupier was engaged, but more especially to find the missing parts.’ They also focussed their attentions on local butchers.

Can anyone think of a more promising premises than the two lock-up cats meat shops just 30 yards or so from the arch?

Horse flesh was apparently in short supply in August/September, 1889 because of an upsurge in volume of it being exported to the continent. And as we know, Lechmere’s father had been ill throughout 1889, being admitted to the infirmary in February and eventually dying in December. So, if the Lechmeres were in occupation of the cats meat sheds, it’s by no means certain that Maria would have been there on the day before the torso was deposited.

Of course that should be ‘stepfather’. His mother’s second bigamously acquired husband.

[Newbie]

But it's already been pointed out that propping up Nichols would've given Lechmere the perfect alibi if blood was detected on him.

I mean, at that point Lechmere is standing there with a bloody murder weapon on his person no? The knife was never found at the crime-scene, and surely Paul would've heard it clang to the ground if Lechmere ditched it along the way.

So, after slitting Nichols' throat and rearranging her abdomen, Lechmere cannot be confident of being stain-free.

Nevertheless, he accompanies Paul with possible bloodstains on him and goes looking for a policeman?

There was a murder case in the UK where a man's foster-daughter was murdered in the patio. The foster-dad was an obvious suspect from the start. He took his biological daughters and went for a circuitous drive around the neighbourhood, then drove to the DIY store before realising he'd forgotten his wallet. When he came back to find his dead foster-daughter, he went and sat in his car until the emergency services arrived. It's been theorised that the reason he did this is because he was creating an alibi if any forensic evidence was found in the car.

It seems to me that Lechmere's mind would be operating along similar lines if he was indeed the killer. You will argue that the "Mizen scam" put him in the clear but there was never any guarantee that Mizen wouldn't have taken both carmen back to the scene of the crime instead of carrying on knocking up. Why not take advantage of the situation like Billie-Jo Jenkins' (probable) killer did?

And let's not stop there. Paul thought that Nichols was still alive. This was another opportunity put on a plate for Lechmere. Agree with Paul that she's probably alive and just another old soak sleeping in the gutter. Then the two carmen could be on their merry way and Lechmere would have no need to interact with the police.

The contrary argument to all this is that once strangulated, Polly Nichol's heart stopped beating...and her blood would ooze out of wounds only with the aid of gravity...there being no blood pressure. The neck wound would not drench the knife and from the wounds to the abdomen, blood would have to fight against gravity to exit to the surface: blood from the abdomen region being more likely pulled towards the vacancy left from the blood leaving the wound in her neck. Slashing the neck might have been to achieve this purpose. And with the disembowelment being disturbed in its early stages, its probable that whatever blood he had fit comfortably with the spots and blotches (some of them animal blood) on his coat.....one doubts that he went to work spotless like an IBM executive. Jack the Ripper probably had a towel that he used to wipe off his hands, and then deposited within his clothing.

No need for an alibi to need to explain those giant damp swaths of blood covering his clothing. And no reason why he wouldn't want to go along with Paul's request, since he asked Paul to help him with the situation in the first place.

[harry]

I have no problem Fisherman.Your sarcasm apart,the inquest depended on the evidence given.It was that Cross arrived at the murder scene less than a minute before Paul.Cross provided that evidence.Now you show evidence given at the inquest,that shows Cross was there much longer.

[Newbie]

Your 'evidence' boils down to Cross's (his adolescent surname) testimony at the inquest giving his departure time at around 3:30 am, as recorded by various newspapers (save one). This means that Cross was either telling the truth here or lying. Why are we obligated to believe him? His alibi was essentially that he arrived too near to Paul's arrival time to have done anything. His departure time is a statement of innocence, but by itself does not constitute evidence. Generally, police investigations require evidence that supports someone's alibi and do not accept an alibi at face value. For Cross, there is nothing to support his 3:30 am departure, and plenty to suggest that he is not being truthful.

Again, there were two people who could have confirmed his 3:30 am departure:

1. Paul, who notably fails ever to mention hearing a person walking 50-60 yards in front of him....even though someone walking ahead of you on tough streets and then suddenly stopping should be of great interest.

2. Lechmere's wife, who seems to have been kept in the dark. Let's imagine Lechmere's wife was functionally illiterate or didn't read newspapers. She still would most probably learn the fact that her husband, Charles Lechmere, testified at the Polly Nichols murder inquest from neighbors or acquaintences. How many of these people could identify Charles Cross as Charles Lechmere? And why would Lechmere not avail himself of his wife's support?

I think Lechmere evaded suspicion because he was a family man with a long employment history at a reputable company, and he had a reason to be there. Victorian society could not imagine such a person as a psychotic murderer.

Where i differ with Fisherman is on the 3:20 am departure time that one newspaper records as his testimony.
Lechmere was evidently a very smart guy; if he was the killer, he wouldn't be so stupid as to give a departure time that does not accurately fit the rest of his narrative.

[Newbie]

The irony of Lechmere's statement "I will not touch her", is that he (by his own admission) had already touched her.
Its understood that his intention was to communicate that he would not join Paul in repositioning the body.

Why he suddenly had an aversion to physical contact with the woman is unknown.

[JeffHamm]

Your 'evidence' boils down to Cross's (his adolescent surname) testimony at the inquest giving his departure time at around 3:30 am, as recorded by various newspapers (save one).

Which is still more evidence than you you have.

This means that Cross was either telling the truth here or lying. Why are we obligated to believe him?

You're not, but if you wish to present an evidence based case, you need to supply evidence that he should not be believed. As you say, he was either telling the truth, or he was lying. There is nothing recorded, in deed or in word, to suggest that his testimony was considered unreliable at the time. So, either you fall back on the unsupported notion that the police simply accepted any old tale at face value by those who found bodies (and why should anyone be obliged to believe that?), or you need to make another assumption to go against the grain of what the information we do still have naturally points to, namely, his testimony was deemed reliable at the time by people who were in a far better position than we are to evaluate such things. You would have to make the assumption they did suspect him - but if you make that assumption, again I ask, where is your evidence to support making it and why should anyone be obliged to agree with you?

His alibi was essentially that he arrived too near to Paul's arrival time to have done anything. His departure time is a statement of innocence, but by itself does not constitute evidence.

Nor does your speculative line of reasoning constitute evidence. It simply constitutes a series of speculative questions that exist only to call into question the obvious interpretation that follows from our limited data set. If the purpose is to simply point out that we have insufficient data to draw definitive conclusions, then I doubt anyone will really disagree. That's the nature of this case, there's just not enough information available to us to "prove" much of anything. So we're left to examine the direction in which the information we do have "leans", if you will, and it does not "lean" towards Cross/Lechmere being involved. It can, of course, be spun to look that way through the use of pejorative descriptions and imposing our own selection of motivations for his actions, but neither of those are facts or evidence, they're signs of marketing.

Generally, police investigations require evidence that supports someone's alibi and do not accept an alibi at face value. For Cross, there is nothing to support his 3:30 am departure, and plenty to suggest that he is not being truthful.

Generally, police investigations require evidence that supports somone's involvement before accusing them of being guilty of a crime. For Cross/Lechmere there is noting to support his involvement in any of the murders, and yet he stands accused of nearly every unsolved murder within a 20 mile radius over the previous 20 or so years (ok, I may have exaggerated that a bit; it's probably only a 10 mile radius).

I am curious, however, upon what basis you make the claim there is "plenty to suggest that he is not being truthful"? I agree there are plenty of people making that suggestion now, but that's not evidence. We don't "vote on truth". Point to one fact on record that we have that indicates what Cross/Lechmere said could not have happened the way he said it did. If you can't prove what he said was impossible, then upon what basis are claiming he must be lying? Why must he be lying if what he said fits with what could happen? Most agree he claims to have left at 3:30, that it would take him around 7 or so minutes to get to Buck's row, and an arrival time of 3:37 is not at odds with anything Paul says and gives enough time for them to eventually arrive at PC Mizen at 3:45. Given what he says is entirely possible without any requirement to stretch belief, upon what basis are you making the claim there is "plenty to suggest that he is not being truthful?"

Again, there were two people who could have confirmed his 3:30 am departure:

1. Paul, who notably fails ever to mention hearing a person walking 50-60 yards in front of him....even though someone walking ahead of you on tough streets and then suddenly stopping should be of great interest.

At the inquest. What makes you so positive that he didn't completely confirm Cross/Lechmere's version during his talks with the police? He had to give a statement prior to the inquest, during which they would have questioned him. We can see this in the comments with regards to other witnesses, like Schwartz, where it is clearly stated they questioned the witness closely on aspects important to the investigation. It is clearly of importance to the investigation to ensure the person who found the body was not involved.

Note, I'm not claiming it's proven he did. I'm just wondering how you can be so sure the police didn't do, I don't know the word, "police things" lets call them, where they do stuff like investigate, and ask questions, and that sort of stuff. Maybe it would be easier if you just told us what is it you think the police did instead when someone reports finding a body and they're alone at the time?

2. Lechmere's wife, who seems to have been kept in the dark. Let's imagine Lechmere's wife was functionally illiterate or didn't read newspapers. She still would most probably learn the fact that her husband, Charles Lechmere, testified at the Polly Nichols murder inquest from neighbors or acquaintences. How many of these people could identify Charles Cross as Charles Lechmere? And why would Lechmere not avail himself of his wife's support?

Upon what basis have you decided that she was in the dark about any of this? Where is your proof that he did not, upon his arrival home from work that evening, tell his wife about finding a woman in the street that might have been dead? How can you be so sure that he didn't go to the police upon her insistance? What is the evidence that his neighbors were unaware of his use of both Cross and Lechmere as his names? Other than mere speculation, what is the evidence either of these names were unknown to be associated with him?

I think Lechmere evaded suspicion because he was a family man with a long employment history at a reputable company, and he had a reason to be there. Victorian society could not imagine such a person as a psychotic murderer.

And yet, they had no problem imagining a doctor being involved; a profession which was held in high regard.

Where i differ with Fisherman is on the 3:20 am departure time that one newspaper records as his testimony.
Lechmere was evidently a very smart guy; if he was the killer, he wouldn't be so stupid as to give a departure time that does not accurately fit the rest of his narrative.

Again, where is the evidence, or proof, of Cross/Lechmere being of any particular level of intelligence? Why should we imagine him to be anything other than average? You cannot come to the conclusion you start out with as a premise "If he was the killer ..." means everything that follows cannot then be used to suggest he was the killer (that's circular - if he was the killer he was highly intellegent to avoid detection and so he was highly intelligent and therefore the killer; and round and round we go. That's not logic, that's a logical error in the presented argument).

Given there is no evidence of his involvement in this, or any, of the crimes, there is no need for any evidence of innocence because there is no case. Once the events of the day are stripped of the decorative language used in their presentation, they are seen for what they are, which is a bunch of fairly normal behaviours during a very unusual situation, all of which are devoid of any indication of him being guilty of anything.

Sure, it's fun to stretch the creative side of our imaginations. We can come up with all sorts of clever ways to make night seem like day, up to be down, and left becomes right. But that's not going to solve this case, or any of the smaller mysteries that exist within it. It will provide hours of entertainment for some, and that's not an entirely worthless objective. It's just one that sits at cross purposes (sorry, couldn't resist) to sorting out what actually happened all those years ago.

- Jeff

[Newbie]

But I'm more concerned with a reasonable explanation of what Lechmere hoped to achieve by giving a 'false name,' while still giving his address and his place of employment. Especially if he came forward in such a belated manner, which would have led to a certain amount of friction with the authorities. The enormity of the risk would have greatly outweighed any benefits. It seems more compatible with a clumsy ruse by a low-level flunkey, than the brainstorm of the psychopath that Lechmere supposedly was. When you give a false name but your correct place of business there is inherently a great risk that someone will notice. And that is one of the weaknesses of their argument, as I see it.

Best wishes.

Did he give his address at the inquest? Some witnesses gave their home addresses at the inquest and Lechmere/Cross seems to only have given his place of employment.

Here is my theory: Lechmere said at the inquest that he left home at around 3:30 am....which seems to fit the time needed to make it to Buck's row at 3:38 am. However, what if he was lying and that he was actually leaving home at 3:15 am? Assuming that his wife got up with him to make his meal and send him off, if she learned that he made it no farther than Buck's row by 3:38 am, she might wonder what the hell was going on. If his wife was illiterate, and/or didn't read the newspapers, she still likely would find out the particulars through one of her acquaintances/neighbors that would recognize the name of her husband, Charles Lechmere, in the newspaper. It is more than likely that none of his neighbors knew him as Charles Cross.

This would also explain why he showed up at the inquest dressed as a carman, instead of in his best digs. It is quite likely he didn't go to work that day, having to pay someone to take his place at Pickford's.

[Newbie]

Which is still more evidence than you you have.


You're not, but if you wish to present an evidence based case, you need to supply evidence that he should not be believed. As you say, he was either telling the truth, or he was lying. There is nothing recorded, in deed or in word, to suggest that his testimony was considered unreliable at the time. So, either you fall back on the unsupported notion that the police simply accepted any old tale at face value by those who found bodies (and why should anyone be obliged to believe that?), or you need to make another assumption to go against the grain of what the information we do still have naturally points to, namely, his testimony was deemed reliable at the time by people who were in a far better position than we are to evaluate such things. You would have to make the assumption they did suspect him - but if you make that assumption, again I ask, where is your evidence to support making it and why should anyone be obliged to agree with you?

Nor does your speculative line of reasoning constitute evidence. It simply constitutes a series of speculative questions that exist only to call into question the obvious interpretation that follows from our limited data set. If the purpose is to simply point out that we have insufficient data to draw definitive conclusions, then I doubt anyone will really disagree. That's the nature of this case, there's just not enough information available to us to "prove" much of anything. So we're left to examine the direction in which the information we do have "leans", if you will, and it does not "lean" towards Cross/Lechmere being involved. It can, of course, be spun to look that way through the use of pejorative descriptions and imposing our own selection of motivations for his actions, but neither of those are facts or evidence, they're signs of marketing.

Generally, police investigations require evidence that supports somone's involvement before accusing them of being guilty of a crime. For Cross/Lechmere there is noting to support his involvement in any of the murders, and yet he stands accused of nearly every unsolved murder within a 20 mile radius over the previous 20 or so years (ok, I may have exaggerated that a bit; it's probably only a 10 mile radius).

I am curious, however, upon what basis you make the claim there is "plenty to suggest that he is not being truthful"? I agree there are plenty of people making that suggestion now, but that's not evidence. We don't "vote on truth". Point to one fact on record that we have that indicates what Cross/Lechmere said could not have happened the way he said it did. If you can't prove what he said was impossible, then upon what basis are claiming he must be lying? Why must he be lying if what he said fits with what could happen? Most agree he claims to have left at 3:30, that it would take him around 7 or so minutes to get to Buck's row, and an arrival time of 3:37 is not at odds with anything Paul says and gives enough time for them to eventually arrive at PC Mizen at 3:45. Given what he says is entirely possible without any requirement to stretch belief, upon what basis are you making the claim there is "plenty to suggest that he is not being truthful?"


At the inquest. What makes you so positive that he didn't completely confirm Cross/Lechmere's version during his talks with the police? He had to give a statement prior to the inquest, during which they would have questioned him. We can see this in the comments with regards to other witnesses, like Schwartz, where it is clearly stated they questioned the witness closely on aspects important to the investigation. It is clearly of importance to the investigation to ensure the person who found the body was not involved.

Note, I'm not claiming it's proven he did. I'm just wondering how you can be so sure the police didn't do, I don't know the word, "police things" lets call them, where they do stuff like investigate, and ask questions, and that sort of stuff. Maybe it would be easier if you just told us what is it you think the police did instead when someone reports finding a body and they're alone at the time?

Upon what basis have you decided that she was in the dark about any of this? Where is your proof that he did not, upon his arrival home from work that evening, tell his wife about finding a woman in the street that might have been dead? How can you be so sure that he didn't go to the police upon her insistance? What is the evidence that his neighbors were unaware of his use of both Cross and Lechmere as his names? Other than mere speculation, what is the evidence either of these names were unknown to be associated with him?


And yet, they had no problem imagining a doctor being involved; a profession which was held in high regard.



Again, where is the evidence, or proof, of Cross/Lechmere being of any particular level of intelligence? Why should we imagine him to be anything other than average? You cannot come to the conclusion you start out with as a premise "If he was the killer ..." means everything that follows cannot then be used to suggest he was the killer (that's circular - if he was the killer he was highly intellegent to avoid detection and so he was highly intelligent and therefore the killer; and round and round we go. That's not logic, that's a logical error in the presented argument).

Given there is no evidence of his involvement in this, or any, of the crimes, there is no need for any evidence of innocence because there is no case. Once the events of the day are stripped of the decorative language used in their presentation, they are seen for what they are, which is a bunch of fairly normal behaviours during a very unusual situation, all of which are devoid of any indication of him being guilty of anything.

Sure, it's fun to stretch the creative side of our imaginations. We can come up with all sorts of clever ways to make night seem like day, up to be down, and left becomes right. But that's not going to solve this case, or any of the smaller mysteries that exist within it. It will provide hours of entertainment for some, and that's not an entirely worthless objective. It's just one that sits at cross purposes (sorry, couldn't resist) to sorting out what actually happened all those years ago.

- Jeff

I'll cut this short for now with a few points:

1. Lechmere claiming at the inquest that he left home at 3:30 am is not evidence...it is factual only in the sense that it is something he said. Did you read what i wrote?

2. I ran across someone who claimed to be a descendant of Lechmere's and he said that the family lore concerning Charles Lechmere was that he was very intelligent, and a bit of an odd duck. i have encountered nothing to assume the opposite.

3. The very notion of this thread is for people to come up with proof that Lechmere was not the Ripper. That is what police investigators do, they focus in on a suspect and look for evidence that disproves their guilt. If you don't like the premise, create your own thread.

4. I'm not a fan of someone who analyzes and attempts to rebuke each and every paragraph: choose the most important points you wish to rebuke. A lot of the stuff you write appears as if you read very little of what i wrote, or you fly off on some tangent. Why should i bother?

[The Baron]

3. The very notion of this thread is for people to come up with proof that Lechmere was not the Ripper.

Newbie,


Speaking of 'proof'


Nichols was not cut when Cross and Paul examined her.

I challenge you to prove otherwise.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t think that Lechmere was the ripper but it appears that the words ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ are getting confused here. We cannot ‘prove’ that Lechmere was or wasn’t the ripper. We can only interpret and come to our own conclusions. The thread title doesn’t ask anyone to ‘prove’ that he was innocent but just to present ‘the case for the Defence.’

[JeffHamm]

I'll cut this short for now with a few points:

1. Lechmere claiming at the inquest that he left home at 3:30 am is not evidence...it is factual only in the sense that it is something he said. Did you read what i wrote?

2. I ran across someone who claimed to be a descendant of Lechmere's and he said that the family lore concerning Charles Lechmere was that he was very intelligent, and a bit of an odd duck. i have encountered nothing to assume the opposite.

3. The very notion of this thread is for people to come up with proof that Lechmere was not the Ripper. That is what police investigators do, they focus in on a suspect and look for evidence that disproves their guilt. If you don't like the premise, create your own thread.

4. I'm not a fan of someone who analyzes and attempts to rebuke each and every paragraph: choose the most important points you wish to rebuke. A lot of the stuff you write appears as if you read very little of what i wrote, or you fly off on some tangent. Why should i bother?

You've just repeated yourself in point 1. Given my post was responding to your statements, I think it odd I have to point out that requires that I read what you wrote. What you wrote was devoid of evidence that what he said was not true. You have no proof, or even evidence to suggest, that what he said was not true. From the evidence we do have, what he said is entirely possible, and therefore, there is evidence to suggest it could be true. Therefore, there is more evidence on the side of innocence, given what he said is consistent with the facts we know, and what he said clears him of involvement. You have no evidence to the contrary, you only have speculation. Did you not understand that, or did you not integrate the content of 2nd paragraph with the first?

As for 2, see your own point 1

The notion of this thread has been debated at times. But, the trend has been to reject anything suggested by simply invoking unsubstantiated alternatives while demanding iron clad proof of the evidence suggested to point to innocence. And, I do like the premise, it's the presenting speculation as if it's a rebuttal and the lopsided demands for proof that distract from discussions that attempt to remain on topic.

You don't have to be a fan. The problem was, each and every paragraph had points worth addressing. If you don't see the relationship between my response and what you wrote, that's a shame. As for why you would bother, I don't know, that's for you to decide so it's odd you would request input on that.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

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.

You may well be right about Paul being the first to suggest going for the police, Christer, or you may not. There’s very little to go on to support either way. And for it being an instrumental matter to the reporters of the day for Lechmere be the one suggesting it first (and Paul then declining) or not, I don’t think we are in a position to know that.

I have offered an alternative option in days gone by: that Paul tells Lechmere to do the talking when they find Mizen.

That’s an interesting alternative, (which, unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find elsewhere and, so, I don’t know your reasoning behind it), although, like the possibility I offered, it’s not supported by the evidence.

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.

Okay, so you’re saying that Mizen thought that Neil could only have sent the two carmen for Mizen with the knowlegde of murder or suicide, but that Neil would or could not have mentioned death. Or something alike.

What is suggested by Mizens statement is that nothing at all was said about the potential gravity of the errand.

All the more reason for Mizen then to be very surprised when he found out it was a case of murder or suicide. And perhaps to wonder about and act on it.

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.

Reported by 2 versions, while 4 others reported it as “A woman is lying there”.

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?

You have somewhat of a point here, but why couldn’t they have both: lose little time with a copper, while still getting him to take care of the affair?

And, by the way, what about lying your way past a P.C. with murder on your hands? I’m sure that – if discovered – would render a significantly more severe punishment.

... And so we could discuss the discussion between the two carman for ages. But I don’t see any good reason why we should do so. When you start putting words into my mouth (the thing you dislike so much when being done to you), implying that I’m not just blind, but severely blind (as if there’s a difference) if I don’t accept Lechmere as the likely killer, then it’s time to leave things as they are.

Although I think you already know this, but I don’t think Lechmere’s a bad suspect or that he even shouldn't be considered as a suspect, it’s just that many of the coincidences you always mention don’t convince me. Perhaps also because I see a number of oddities and very lucky strikes on the part of a guilty Lechmere.

- He was very lucky that Paul didn’t hear or see him when he first moved around the body to make it look as if she had just gone off in a swoon and then move to take his position in the middle of the street.
- He was very lucky that Paul acted precisely as Lechmere needed him to, when Paul might just as well have tried to sit Nichols up or move her by himself, shake her by the shoulders or slap her face before Lechmere would have known it.
- He was very lucky that they didn’t walk into the arms of Neil, as pulling a “Neil scam” wouldn’t have been as easy as a “Mizen scam”.
- He was very lucky that Mizen acted precisely as Lechmere needed him to, when it wouldn’t have been odd if Mizen had asked a question or two or had been a tad more critical/interested.
- He was very lucky that neither Mizen nor Paul told the inquest that Paul walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen. If Mizen is supposed to have told it, Lechmere was very lucky that he did it in such an awkwardly vague manner at best.
- He was very lucky that Neil was already in place when Lechmere arrived.
- He was very lucky that Mizen didn’t speak to Neil, arriving at the crime scene expecting to find a drunk or passed out woman, but instead discovering that she was actually dead with her throat severely cut.
- He was very lucky that Mizen didn’t act upon all of Lechmere’s lies being revealed to him. Not then, not a week later after Chapman was killed, nor after the other murders.
- He was very lucky that Paul didn’t act upon Lechmere’s lie about their discussion.
- He was very lucky that the police didn’t notice the contradictions between the statements of the man who found the body and not one, but two witnesses in direct connection to the crime.
- He was very lucky the police didn’t come to the conclusion there was an 8 minute gap or so between the timing Lechmere gave and the time he was found standing in Buck’s Row by Paul.
- He was quite lucky that the police didn’t check at Pickford’s or at his home.
- Odd that he didn’t let Paul pass him, when it was clear that this was just what Paul had wanted to do.
- Odd he stated that he left home “about 3.30” when he could have known this could have got him into serious trouble with the police.
- Odd that he cut her throat not once, but twice when that would only mean losing precious seconds.
- Odd that he didn’t hide the knife under Nichols’s clothes in case he might have needed to use it on Paul, seeing that he could have known that the only solid thing the police might have to arrest him for murder would be the knife.
- Odd that he killed Nichols on precisely the one & only street he just had to traverse on his way to work at around the time that he should be there.

I’m not saying that all of these things carry the same weight in my view, but they’re there nonetheless. You may, of course, reply to this post (who am I to tell you not to?), but I don’t know if I will respond.

All the best,
Frank

[The Baron]

I don’t think that Lechmere was the ripper but it appears that the words ‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ are getting confused here. We cannot ‘prove’ that Lechmere was or wasn’t the ripper. We can only interpret and come to our own conclusions. The thread title doesn’t ask anyone to ‘prove’ that he was innocent but just to present ‘the case for the Defence.’

I was going to give your post a 'like', not because I liked it, not at all, only to encourage you to do better in the future, but then I retreated.

Lechmere doesn't need to be proven innocent, he IS innocent until proven guilty.

Plain simple.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was going to give your post a 'like', not because I liked it, not at all, only to encourage you to do better in the future, but then I retreated.

Lechmere doesn't need to be proven innocent, he IS innocent until proven guilty.

Plain simple.


The Baron

Being condescended to by a man who’s posted more drivel on this Forum than anyone else by an absolute mile is hardly something that I’m going to worry about.

No suspect has been proven to have been guilty therefore every suspect has be considered technically ‘innocent.’ If you’re going to take it to silly extremes then we have to ask why bother discussing any suspect?

The fact remains that we cannot categorically prove him innocent.

And you really should stop trying to be clever Baron. You’re like a workman with an empty toolbox.

PS, You slipped up Baron. I made an innocuous post, you had a pointless dig and yet you forgot to follow your usual script by mentioning Druitt.