Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.


    You didn't notice what is going on here, did you?!

    The team Lechmere are pushing the idea, that Lechmere has a case to answer, and , if there is no strong evidence of his innocence, then he will be convicted as Jack the Ripper.

    You see Herlock, why it is important to read up on the subject at hand before you rush to post?!


    And no matter what you bring for his defence, no matter what you think clear evidence of his innocence, they are denying and rejecting everything you come up with.


    They want to hang Lechmere.


    You won't receive a 'like' from me. Do better next time.



    The Baron
    Last edited by The Baron; 10-25-2021, 06:26 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Summing up, we can see that Lechmere does claim in some sources that he was the instigator, and that he in no paper says that Paul was the instigator.

      We may also see that Robert Paul in some sources claim that HE was the instigator and that he in no case claims that Lechmere was the instigator.

      In my ears, being the suspicious old cynic that I am, this is not good news for Charles Lechmere. In a perfect world, the two carmen would agree about who was the instigator. But here, this is not so.
      Your assumption of guilt is noted. You ignore the possibility that the differences in different newspaper accounts are the fault of the newspapers. You ignore the fact that crime witnesses often disagree without any of them having committed the crime.

      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Of course, one man say that it is just as likely that Paul was the one misrepresenting the matter as Lechmere. And on the surface of things, that’s true. But when we look at how Lechmere also disagrees with PC Mizen, another picture emerges, that of a carman who disagrees with BOTH the other people who were present on the murder morning.
      There were three people who disagreed with both the other people who were present on the murder morning.

      PC Mizen disagreed with both Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul.

      Robert Paul disagreed with both Charles Lechmere and PC Mizen.

      Charles Lechmere disagreed with both Robert Paul and PC Mizen.

      You ignore 2/3rds of these facts because you know they disagree with your theory. You never reply to these facts, because you have no answer for them.





      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        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.
        Yes, you are correct, Harry - Charles Lechmere is the one and only source there was for his own late arrival outside Browns Stable Yard. To you, that means that we HAVE a source and therefore the information must be correct, not least since the court - who did not have the faintest chance to prove or disprove Lechmere on the point - did not object to what the carman said.
        To me, it means that what information we have comes from a man under suspicion of murder.

        Yours is undoubtedly the easiest and most comfortable choice. If you are satisfied with it, congratulations. Just donīt forget that you have nothing to go by but the words of a suspected killer.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



          You didn't notice what is going on here, did you?!

          The team Lechmere are pushing the idea, that Lechmere has a case to answer, and , if there is no strong evidence of his innocence, then he will be convicted as Jack the Ripper.

          You see Herlock, why it is important to read up on the subject at hand before you rush to post?!


          And no matter what you bring for his defence, no matter what you think clear evidence of his innocence, they are denying and rejecting everything you come up with.


          They want to hang Lechmere.


          You won't receive a 'like' from me. Do better next time.



          The Baron
          I don’t need to ‘read up’ on anything. I was making a general point which was absolutely correct. Annoying as it might be there are very few ripper suspects that can be proven not to have been the ripper. Cream and PAV immediately come to mind because they can be proven to have been elsewhere at the time of the murders. Even the most fringe of suspects like Lewis Carroll can’t be categorically exonerated even though I know of no one on here who would support him as a candidate.

          As far as I’m aware ‘team Lechmere’ on Casebook comprises of Fish. Are there other posters who believe him to have been the ripper or are there just posters who are open to the suggestion that he might have been the ripper and believe him worthy of consideration? I don’t know.

          This isn’t a court case. No matter how any debate on any thread goes, no one is going to be convicted and no one is getting hanged. So I don’t need to ‘do better.’ Unless you or someone else discovers some new evidence then you’re not going to get Fish to change his mind because he’s looked at what is known and believes that it points to a guilty Lechmere. You can agree or disagree but you won’t prove anything.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
            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.

            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.

            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.

            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.

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

            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
            Since you are uncertain that you will respond, I will settle for just a few points:

            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.

            No, I am saying that since Mizen at the time of the inquest knew that Neil must have concluded as he found the body that Nichols had either committed suicide or been murdered, those two options cover the matter and exclding both means that Mizen excluded that Lechmere spoke of death at all. I think it is wishful thinking to suggest he may have.

            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.

            He DID tell the inquest about how Lechmere said nothing about suicide or murder. He DID tell the inquest about how the carman said that a woman had been found in Bucks Row. He DID tell the inquest that Lechmere spoke of another PC.
            But the inquest did not pick up on the explosive potential. And it was never self-evident that they would have. Before the Mizen Scam was brought up to the surface some years ago, we were all seemingly unaware of the same thing.

            On your "list of luck", yes he was lucky. Although, to a degree he helped that luck on itīs way, but overall I agree. That, however, does nothing to diminish the huge list of coincidences that must be swaloowed down before we can speak of a possible innocence.


            Comment


            • I would still very much like for somebody (else than Fiver) to comment on the matter whether or not it is a proven thing that Paul told PC Mizen that he thought that Nichols was dead. First and foremost, I would like for Steve Blomer, who made the claim, to prove that point.

              To me, it is of vital importance that peoples beliefs are not elevated into facts before there is a genuine reason to do so. Not least if you are going to make use of invented facts to question other peoples take on things.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                It has - of course also been claimed that Mizen was as likely to be the one not telling the truth as Lechmere. But once we have a reoccurring pattern, the weight of the evidence shifts. Or it SHOULD shift, at least.
                Recurring pattern? What recurring pattern?

                The only recurring patterns in Lechmere's statements is that none of them are provably false and almost all of them agree with Robert Paul's statements.

                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                My last point: Frank says that Lechmere would not be likely to take the risk of gainsaying Paul because the latter could turn up and tell a story that did. Ot match Lechmeres. And lo and behold - he DID!
                "...but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman." - Charles Lechmere
                "...as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road." - Robert Paul

                "He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down." - Charles Lechmere
                "As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him." - Robert Paul

                "The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." - Charles Lechmere
                "He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here."" - Robert Paul

                "They both went across to the body..." - Charles Lechmere
                "Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway." - Robert Paul

                "...and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp...." - Charles lechemre
                "Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold." - Robert Paul

                "...and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." - Charles Lechmere
                Robert Paul neither confirmed nor denied this.

                "Then he touched her face, which felt warm. "- Charles Lechmere
                Robert Paul disagreed, saying that Nichols face was cold.

                "The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." - Charles Lechmere
                "While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul

                "He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright." - Charles Lechmere
                Robert Paul neither confirmed nor denied this.

                "The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her." - Charles Lechmere
                Robert Paul neither confirmed nor denied this.

                "The woman's legs were uncovered." - Charles Lechmere
                "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

                "Her bonnet was off, but close to her head." - Charles Lechmere
                "Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. - Robert Paul

                "The witness did not notice that her throat was cut, as the night was very dark." Charles Lechmere
                "It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood." - Robert Paul
                "He could not see whether the clothes were torn..." - Robert Paul

                "He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw the last witness [PC Mizen] whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row." - Charles Lechmere
                "Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street...." - Robert Paul

                "The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." - Charles Lechmere
                "...and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul

                "The policeman answered, "All right." - Charles Lechmere
                Robert Paul neither confirmed nor denied this.

                "I saw no one after leaving home, except the man that overtook me, the constable in Baker's row, and the deceased. There was nobody in Buck's row when we left. " - Charles Lechmere
                "He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away." - Robert Paul

                "He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time. I was behind time myself." - Charles Lechmere
                "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on...." - Robert Paul

                So where is the part where Robert Paul's story did not match Lechmere's?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  The thing is, we already have another example where Lechmere told a story that did not match the evidence - the so called Mizen scam.
                  Another? You don't have any examples where Lechmere told a story that did not match the evidence.

                  And the Mizen scam exists only in your imagination. PC Mizen and Robert Paul both gave statements that contradict your speculation.

                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  And I don’t think we can rue out that Lechmere lied since he would not take the risk of being gainsaid by Jonas Mizen. As a matter of fact, if he did lie to Mizen on the murder morning, then he HAD to misrepresent what was said at the inquest. It would have been a case of mending things as best as he could as he went along. In Bakerīs Row, he could not tell Mizen that he was the sole finder of the body, because that would make Mizen detain him. So he lied, if I am correct. But that lie would reappear at the inquest, and so he had to deny it - which he did. And got away with, it would seem.
                  Your idea that "he could not tell Mizen that he was the sole finder of the body, because that would make Mizen detain him" is easily shown to be false.

                  John Reeves was the sole finder of Martha Tabram's body. The police did not detain John Reeves.

                  Albert Cadosch was the sole finder of Annie Chapman's body. The police did not detain Albert Cadosch.

                  Lewis Deimschutz was the sole finder of Elizabeth Stride's body. Twenty-eight people in Dutfield's Yard were were searched and questioned, but neither Lewis Deimschutz nor any of the others were detained.

                  PC Edward Watkins was the sole finder of Catherine Eddowes' body. The police did not detain PC Watkins.

                  Thomas Bowyer was the sole finder of Mary Jane Kelly's body. The police did not detain Thomas Bowyer.


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    The exact same thing would apply to the issue of who instigated the search for a PC. Lechmere would look good if he did it, and so he may have suggested that there was a discussion and that his line in it was that they should find a PC. It can be read as if Paul said ”If I was not so late, Iīd go in search of a PC”, whereupon Lechmere said ”You know, I am late myself. Why don’t we go on together and we may find a PC along the way!”.

                    The problem is that Pauls version of events does not support that take. And that is where we need to get cautious. At any rate, if we had a situation where it was discussed which course to take, something that Pauls suggests, then it would not be very hard for Lechmere to say ”I was the one suggesting keeping an eye out for a PC”, and if Paul objected, then how was the inquest to know who was right?

                    Lechmere does not allow for any such discussion having taken place - in his version it is clear cut; as Paul suggested that they should prop Nichols up, Lechmere instead said that they needed to go and find a PC.
                    Lechmere does allow for a discussion to have taken place. Paul's version of events supports Lechmere.

                    "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 Fisherman View Post
                      I am once again going to bring up the matter of whether or not it is a proven fact that Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he thought that Polly Nichols was dead. I mentioned in in an earlier post, but apart from Fiver, whose posts I do not comment on for reasons given, nobody has answered the question as far as I can see.
                      You don't comment on my posts because they provide inconvenient facts that you cannot answer.

                      Robert Paul claimed that he told PC Mizen that "she was dead."

                      "I had told him the woman was dead." - Robert Paul, 2 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly

                      "..he thought she was dead." "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, 18 September 1888 Times

                      Charles Lechmere supported Paul's claim.

                      "The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." -Charles Lechmere, 4 September 1888 Daily News

                      That leaves one of two possibilities - either Robert Paul told PC Mizen that he thought that Polly Nichols was dead or Robert Paul lied under oath at the Inquest about what he said to PC Mizen.



                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        Another? You don't have any examples where Lechmere told a story that did not match the evidence.

                        And the Mizen scam exists only in your imagination. PC Mizen and Robert Paul both gave statements that contradict your speculation.



                        Your idea that "he could not tell Mizen that he was the sole finder of the body, because that would make Mizen detain him" is easily shown to be false.

                        John Reeves was the sole finder of Martha Tabram's body. The police did not detain John Reeves.

                        Albert Cadosch was the sole finder of Annie Chapman's body. The police did not detain Albert Cadosch.

                        Lewis Deimschutz was the sole finder of Elizabeth Stride's body. Twenty-eight people in Dutfield's Yard were were searched and questioned, but neither Lewis Deimschutz nor any of the others were detained.

                        PC Edward Watkins was the sole finder of Catherine Eddowes' body. The police did not detain PC Watkins.

                        Thomas Bowyer was the sole finder of Mary Jane Kelly's body. The police did not detain Thomas Bowyer.

                        A word in your shell-like, 5r. Gainsaid means contradicted, not detained. And keeping the club members on the premises and searching and questioning them is ‘detaining’ them isn’t it?
                        Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-25-2021, 10:55 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                          Another? You don't have any examples where Lechmere told a story that did not match the evidence.

                          And the Mizen scam exists only in your imagination. PC Mizen and Robert Paul both gave statements that contradict your speculation.



                          Your idea that "he could not tell Mizen that he was the sole finder of the body, because that would make Mizen detain him" is easily shown to be false.

                          John Reeves was the sole finder of Martha Tabram's body. The police did not detain John Reeves.

                          Albert Cadosch was the sole finder of Annie Chapman's body. The police did not detain Albert Cadosch.

                          Lewis Deimschutz was the sole finder of Elizabeth Stride's body. Twenty-eight people in Dutfield's Yard were were searched and questioned, but neither Lewis Deimschutz nor any of the others were detained.

                          PC Edward Watkins was the sole finder of Catherine Eddowes' body. The police did not detain PC Watkins.

                          Thomas Bowyer was the sole finder of Mary Jane Kelly's body. The police did not detain Thomas Bowyer.

                          So, it was Cadosch who found Chapman’s body?

                          Do you really wonder why Christer doesn’t respond to your questions?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                            So, it was Cadosch who found Chapman’s body?

                            Do you really wonder why Christer doesn’t respond to your questions?
                            I’m still waiting for you to tell me how you would have moved fruit and veg from Spitalfields to Covent Garden by goods train.

                            Comment


                            • Cross was never a suspected killer,Fisherman.He was a witness whose evidence,given under oath,was never challenged.Yes he could have lied,as could any other witness,but it would have had to be shown,by evidence,that he lied,and that evidence has never been forthcoming.He can be placed at the murder scene,but not at the time Nichols was attacked. I suspect either Cross or Paul mentioned the prospect of Nichol's being dead,as I see no other reason why Mizen should go to Bucks Row,where he did find a dead woman.
                              So prove that Mizen wasn't informed there was a woman in Bucks Row who could be dead,and prove it wasn't Paul who informed Mizen.With your kind of reasoning it should be easy.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                                You didn't notice what is going on here, did you?!

                                The team Lechmere are pushing the idea, that Lechmere has a case to answer, and , if there is no strong evidence of his innocence, then he will be convicted as Jack the Ripper.

                                You see Herlock, why it is important to read up on the subject at hand before you rush to post?!


                                And no matter what you bring for his defence, no matter what you think clear evidence of his innocence, they are denying and rejecting everything you come up with.


                                They want to hang Lechmere.


                                You won't receive a 'like' from me. Do better next time.



                                The Baron
                                I am not Fisherman; nor am i on any team.
                                Why some would consider me Fisherman (and verbalize it) illustrates a rather negative and condescending attitude that they bring to this forum.
                                They probably should reevaluate how they go about doing things here.
                                Those who have no absolute conviction on this affair are my favorite posters.

                                Personally, I have not been trying to 'hang' Lechmere; and if Lechmere was alive today, that would be a very serious charge.
                                Some people take an absolutist position: for some, it is just a matter of looking at a problem from one angle and seeing if it bares fruit.
                                That does not necessarily mean that you are totally on board with a train of argumentation.

                                I've been pushing for people to consider oddities about his testimony & conduct on two separate occasions where we have direct knowledge about his behavior. I never liked the 'he would have just walked away argument'; nor the 'he is an honest family man, and we know those types would never, ever...'; and quite frankly, i thought the level of rudeness towards Fisherman, and the complete obtuseness of some towards his arguments was off-putting.

                                When i say 'if Lechmere is the killer', i am forming a hypothetical: that does not mean that i am 100% convinced of his guilt. It actually suggests some level doubt.

                                Now, considering Lechmere to be the Ripper, i have to ask myself why he failed to know that Paul routinely passed through Buck's row at about 3:40 am. He had two months to scope out that route and learn about the most advantageous time for mayhem; and i also have to ask myself why he was just getting to the disembowelment part, given that he had to get to work in 20 minutes. How long would that process take?

                                On the torso murders, i pretty much ruled out the possibility that Lechmere was involved, given his lack of a privacy in being able to slice up his victims. Someone recently seemed to come up with some interesting findings concerning the Lechmere's cat food business...so for me, that is back on the table.

                                Cheer up!
                                Last edited by Newbie; 10-26-2021, 12:41 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X