Evidence of innocence

[Darryl Kenyon]

Would Lech take the chance of killing Annie where and when he did ? It was only five days after he appeared at the inquest, Annie was murdered. Would he not have a cooling off period after being nearly caught by Paul ? And would he take the chance that no one in the police force didn't suspect him and shadowed his movements ? Or at work for that matter, bloody apron [ again ] just after a murder and what did he do with the missing body parts ? The murder was not far from were Robert Paul worked as well, suppose he spotted Lech ? Again would this man who is a cool psychopath who thinks on his feet really risk that murder so soon after the other and having been in a coroners court and probably [ at least ], given a statement to the police in the meantime . It is not impossible but i doubt it .

The time gap between the rippers killing spree nights is the least between Polly and Annie. That suggests to me that he was extremely confident that no one suspected him and there wasn't the slightest description of him with no one seeing him in the vicinity of Bucks Row, so there was no need for him to lay low for at least a few weeks.
That to me doesn't apply to Lech

Just a few thoughts Darryl .

[Lewis C]

Surely if the horse drawn cart was going up and down Hanbury Street at silly o'clock in the morning it would have been 'noticed.' I can't remember reading any witness statements confirming a cart in Hanbury Street around the required time. Unless he parked it somewhere else making it more risky to lose stock.

I believe about a week ago, someone quoted Stow as saying that if the Chapman murder occurred around 5:30, Cross could have parked the cart a considerable distance from where the murder occurred, and would have had someone guarding the cart while he was gone. Of course that raises the problems involved with the person guarding the cart being a witness.

[Fiver]

"Wearing bloodstained overalls [sic], his job potentially placed him near four of the killings at the time they occurred..." Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence

Yet more nonsense from the "documentary". Carmen wore aprons, not overalls. Carmen were delivery drivers, not slaughtermen. His job placed him one killing at around the time it occurred.

But why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good theory.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Roger,

I've always pictured both Lechmere and Paul wearing their aprons, or, otherwise, how could Mizen have said that they appeared to be carmen?

Cheers,
Frank

"Wearing bloodstained overalls [sic], his job potentially placed him near four of the killings at the time they occurred..." Jack the Ripper: The Missing Evidence


Hi Frank,

Fair enough and you could be correct, but if it was me, I'm trying to imagine why I would walk 20-25 minutes to work over dark, uneven London pavements wearing a somewhat restrictive apron down to my mid-ankles, particularly if I had to outrun the occasional street gang roaming the streets at 3.30 a.m. Then again, maybe the apron would be a calling card of sorts: "don't bother mugging me, mate, I'm clearly broke until Friday."

What was his method of operation? If he picks up a woman wearing this long, blood-stained apron down past his knees, and goes with her into a back alley, does she expect him to loosen it and heave it over one shoulder while he unbuttons his trousers?

Was he so dressed when he picked up Mary Kelly at 3:45 a.m., and would she have invited him into her room if he was wearing "bloodstained overalls"?

I suppose if she's drunk and desperate enough.

[Geddy2112]

Surely if the horse drawn cart was going up and down Hanbury Street at silly o'clock in the morning it would have been 'noticed.' I can't remember reading any witness statements confirming a cart in Hanbury Street around the required time. Unless he parked it somewhere else making it more risky to lose stock.

[FrankO]

I'm still not seeing why he would have brought his work apron back & forth, though it is possible.

Hi Roger,

I've always pictured both Lechmere and Paul wearing their aprons, or, otherwise, how could Mizen have said that they appeared to be carmen?

Cheers,
Frank

[The Rookie Detective]

Not sure we could pin that one on Lech .

Another Cross prehaps ?

No, Fiver is correct.

Charles Cross was 100% involved in the 1876 incident in Islington.

If I recall the boy clipped the back wheel and was drawn under it. I need to check my notes on that one.

Cross tried to either stop and/or avoid the boy, but there was no time.

It is evident from the many witness statements that it was a dreadful accident and Charles was not to blame for the boy's death whatsoever.

It would have certainly been a traumatic experience for all concerned at the time.


RD

[John Wheat]

The idea that Lechmere killed at all is laughable.

I would say the idea that Lechmere was a murderer is laughable.

[FISHY1118]

Actually, Charles Lechmere probably did kill someone. In December 1876, in Islington, two children darted in front of the cart of Pickford's driver Charles Cross. Cross called out and tried to brake. One child pulled back in time. The other, a four year old boy named Walter Williams, either didn't hear or slipped and went under the wheel of the cart. The child died of internal injuries after being taken to the doctor. Several witnesses testified in Cross' defense and it was ruled an accidental death.

Not sure we could pin that one on Lech .

Another Cross prehaps ?

[Fiver]

Would you walk to work through the slums at 3.30 am wearing that apron?

"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." - Firefly

[Fiver]

The idea that Lechmere killed at all is laughable.

Actually, Charles Lechmere probably did kill someone. In December 1876, in Islington, two children darted in front of the cart of Pickford's driver Charles Cross. Cross called out and tried to brake. One child pulled back in time. The other, a four year old boy named Walter Williams, either didn't hear or slipped and went under the wheel of the cart. The child died of internal injuries after being taken to the doctor. Several witnesses testified in Cross' defense and it was ruled an accidental death.

[rjpalmer]

Lechmere looks pretty flash here and again the seat is very high above the horse.

Would you walk to work through the slums at 3.30 am wearing that apron?

[drstrange169]

Lechmere looks pretty flash here and again the seat is very high above the horse.

[FISHY1118]

The idea that Lechmere killed at all is laughable.

[Fiver]

Especially if his son was his van guard... Regardless if it comes out Crossmere had a work buddy it's game over for the theory..

In 1888, 11 year old Thomas Lechmere was enrolled in the Essex Street school. If Lechmere had a van guard, then that would be a witness who would notice if Lechmere disappeared at the time of the murder and returned covered in fresh bloodstains. If he didn't have a van guard, he'd be leaving a cart full of goods unattended for an extended time, hoping that nothing got stolen. And either way, every customer would have a chance to notice fresh bloodstains on his hands or clothes. Most would have a chance to see them in broad daylight. If he was delivering meat, the customer would be worried about the meat being improperly packaged and having gone bad, so they would be spending extra time checking the product and noting its condition. If he was delivering anything besides meat, the customer would have been worried about the leaking blood ruining their goods, so they would be spending extra time checking the product and noting its condition.

The idea that Lechmere killed while he was at work is laughable.