Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by bolo View Post
    Hi Newbie,



    Polly was rated as the third victim in the Whitechapel murders series after Emma Smith and Martha Tabram so there must have been quite a bit of concern and fear when news of yet another murder appeared in the morning papers, of course on a much lower level than the later hysteria starting with Annie Chapman's murder and the Leather Apron scare that got kicked off by The Star on 5 September.

    With "Baker's Row" you surely mean Buck's Row? Other than that I mostly agree with your points.



    While this statement may be true on a general level, its increasing use by Lechmere theorists as a simple explanation for the perceived inability of the police to direct their enquiries into the right (i.e. Lechmere's) direction is a slippery slope in my opinion. Kosminski was named by Swanson in corroboration of Anderson's recollections of the Ripper case who tells us that Kosminski had been identified by a Jewish witness who refused to testify. Now, I don't want to kick off yet another Anderson debate but if what he wrote is true, the poor Polish Jew wasn't just your typical zeitgeist-y choice but a viable suspect that deserves being researched in tandem with the Anderson/Swanson/Macnaghten complex. There just isn't enough evidence available as of yet to come to a verdict here so I think it's too early to drop Kosminski and others from the list, specially if its done to further another suspect.

    Grüße,

    Boris
    Yes, i meant Buck's row.....i could not go back and change it. Yes, i was aware of the previous murders.

    I am not exonerating suspects who were recognized to be insane by authorities; the issue at the moment for me is why Lech never seemed to have been a suspect.
    It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other why the police ignored him. Actually, all the better for the Lechmerites: we can't then be accused of ignoring the investigations of trained professionals far closer to the situation then we can ever pretend to be.

    I'm not dropping any paranoid schizophrenic with a hatred for woman and who lived close to several murders as a suspect.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

      My opinion is that Paul being there was completely unexpected. Paul was running late and used Bucks Row, perhaps for the first time in months, to make up time. Paul wasn’t supposed to be there. This was the curveball that caught Lechmere unawares.
      Lechmere moved to Doveton Street in June and he would have walked along Bucks Row 6 days a week for nearly 3 months prior to the murder. Criminals spot opportunities during their day to day activities and Bucks Row would always have been deserted on Lechmere’s usual commute.
      Bucks Row is not a great place to commit a murder, and only somebody familiar with it would attempt a murder there. There are no obvious escape routes west until you get past the board school, none at all east until you got to Brady Street. The poor location for the murder is borne out by the fact Lechmere did actually get caught red handed.
      If Lechmere is not the murderer, i still do not understand why JtR would choose that location. He would either be sloppy and lucky, or would have known a great deal about the comings and goings at that location around the time of the murder. It had to have been a very dark night. Some almanac would have information on whether the moon was out that night.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

        There is no great mystery to JTR’s identity anymore. Polly Nichols wounds being concealed tells us everything. This is the evidence that tells us who JTR is.

        Imagine if Robert Paul finds Lechmere standing near Nichols horribly mutilated body, with the intestines protruding, her many wounds clearly visible, it’s a different ball game. Paul would be in a panic, and he’d realise he’d just stumbled on a murder.

        Lechmere is the only individual in our drama who would benefit from concealing the wounds. Nobody, not even if JTR was some unknown 3rd party who ran off, would benefit from such a course of action. So if Nichols wounds have been covered up, and I think it’s very clear that they have, then Lechmere is JTR. By examining the crime scene, we can see that JTR never left Bucks Row.

        Moving on, Lechmere has been alone with Nichols and lied about it. This is irrefutable if you look at the geography of Bucks Row. Lechmere’s statement to the inquest about finding Nichols body just as Paul arrived on the scene about 40 yards away is demonstrably false. It’s 140m from the Brady Street entrance to the body. Just to double underline in case you didn’t catch that - Lechmere lied to the inquest. There is a time when Paul is walking up Bucks Row that he has no awareness of Lechmere being there. How can this be - where is Lechmere while Paul walks up Bucks Row ? Paul couldn’t miss anyone walking ahead, or in the middle of the road. He could miss somebody crouched in the dark by the body. Paul is a good distance up Bucks Row before he sees Lechmere - why is that ?
        I think the theory that 2 men walking up Bucks Row could be unaware of each other is nonsense. It couldn’t happen (it’s so quiet that a neighbour can hear a whispered conversation). Lechmere is creating an alibi whereby he has never been alone with the body. This is just not possible. We have caught him in a lie. At a minimum Lechmere is alone with the body from the time Paul enters Bucks Row to the time he first sights Lechmere “standing where the woman was”.

        Then there’s the timing evidence. Time isn’t synchronised, it doesn’t have to be. Lechmere’s usual time for leaving is around 03.20. He is found in Bucks Row around 03.45. Let’s say it’s a 6 minute walk to Bucks Row. He should normally get there about 03.26. We can say conclusively that on this particular morning, the morning he is found “standing where the women was” Lechmere is very, very late. Agreed ?

        He’s approximately 19 minutes late getting to Bucks Row compared to his usual commute. This has got to ring alarm bells. This has to be a red flag. Even if you’re not particularly fast on the uptake you have to see the timing hurts Lechmere. He is found near a recently killed dead body by a witness, and its just a coincidence he 19 minutes or so later than usual.

        This is just a brief look at a few of the issues that crop up when looking at Bucks Row. I don’t see how anyone can look at the crime scene and not see that Lechmere is JTR.
        At the inquest, a jurist asked Lechmere if he heard the possible footsteps of the murderer leaving the scene; Lech responded by saying no, and that he could have heard footsteps all the way to the opposite end of Buck's row. Some hear have said that Lech would have invented hearing footsteps if he was the murder. Once again, this would be placing himself at unnecessary risk, if a future witness happened to be standing at the opposite end at that moment. Lie as little as possible, and tell as little as possible is always the best tactic.

        Lets say Lech is not the killer. Has anyone tried to narrow the time frame in which the murder could have taken place, while avoiding Lech at 3:37 & PC Neil leaving Buck's row heading up Brady at maybe 3:17 am?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

          Except that Polly's throat had been cut twice and that was not covered up . Paul failed as did Lech to notice this. If Lech did cover Polly's abdomen injuries up as some suggest why on earth did he ask Paul [ The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, inquest testimony ] to look at poor Polly ? It does not make any sense whatsoever, and basically he wouldn't . Because if I looked at a body and saw blood flowing from a very recently cut throat [ which some people on here allege ] , which it must have been doing if said throat had only just been cut , then I would immediately suspect the person behind me and be fearful for my own safety.
          Regards Darryl
          Ps The covering up , as alleged by some to hide Lech's involvement, yet leaving her throat exposed proves that the so called hiding of the abdomen injuries is a complete nonsense.
          It was my understanding that the throat was partially covered up. In the Victorian era, woman's dresses pretty much covered up the neckline anyhow; and even if the throat slashing was noticed...that by no way means the jig was up for Lech. Testimony at the inquest is often ambiguous or contradictory; but it seems like Lech first got down and grabbed Polly Nichol's hand(s), and felt her forehead. Paul said that he first stood over them, and I don't think Paul would have gotten down if Lech was standing over him. With Lech remaining in that position, I do not think Paul would be in a good position to have a look at the throat and it of course was very dark. Paul got down and felt her chest for a pulse or breathing of some type, with Lech on his left, still probably holding the hand (basically accomplishing nothing)

          PC Neil used a flashlight to view the body and said that the victims eyes were wide open. Paul missed that one too: it must have been very dark in that particular location. That is why the location was chosen.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
            If Polly had been strangled manually beforehand, the blood would probably seep out rather than squirt but the point is there would still be blood. As Dr Llewellyn says - I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. And - On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence.
            Hard to say, in my opinion, that Lech would take the chance of only half doing a job with injuries like those to poor Pollys neck . And leave those exposed
            There wasn't a lot of blood on Buck's row, and initially the doctor imagined that the body was dragged from another location and dumped there. I think the generally accepted method for the Ripper's victims was strangulation, and then the carotid artery would be cut. The heart would stop beating (from what i read here) after the strangulation, so the neck wounds wouldn't provide a large blood flow to the exterior.

            As for the neck wound being so severe, that Lechmere wouldn't chance it that Paul might see the wounds.
            Well, they did and Paul didn't: Lech appeared to coincidently (sarcasm) hover over the head/neck area and left available the torso region for Paul.
            The killer, of course, was no shrieking violet.

            Comment



            • >>No need to attempt to resort to saying that his actions were due to his psychopathic nature (I don't think anyone is claiming that). <<

              I may be misrepresenting him, but I believe Christer has put forward that theory.


              >>1. Lech was at least 100 meters, either way, from leaving Buck's row...<<

              The corner of the Board School was 46 yards away.


              >>If you are Lech, you weren't anticipating anyone coming at that time - having scoped out the street traffic over the course of two months;<<

              If he had “scoped out” the street traffic over the course of two months” he would have known he could escape without fear of bumping into a policeman.


              >>Considering the alignment of Polly Nichols body (her head was pointed eastward), the murderer would have been aligned likewise<<

              Not according to Ed Stow’s theory of how the throat slitting was done.


              >>Running would attract the interest of the PCs nearby who would be curious as to what could prompt someone to flee somewhere at 3:38 am. <<

              You’ve already claimed the beats were “scoped out” for two months. Why then, by your theory, would he not know exactly where Neil was? And if he didn’t, why did he waste time “scoping out”. The argument is circular and defeats itself.



              >>… leave in the opposite direction; or just say to hell with it, and prepare the body so that the depraved murder which just took place is not so apparent while bluffing your way out of trouble. <<

              To leave meant transversing about the 46 yards to the board school corner. To stay meant transversing the same distance towards Paul, to be found by the Brown and Eagle gateway. How did he get there unseen and heard? And why would he do that, when the same distance took him to safety?


              >>I don't know why you insist he was at that point home free, or that he could just lay low while still going to work. If the police were motivated to find this person they quite possibly would have. <<

              And if they did, what could they do? Check his fingerprints or DNA? What did they do with Alfred Crow? The fact is, once away from the scene, the killer was scot free. Even if the police caught up with him later there was no proof of any kind against him.


              >>Leaving to locate Mizen was a very small risk. <<

              If he was carrying a bloodied knife it was a massive risk. He would have no idea how a policeman would react.


              >>Paul testified that he was first aware of Lechmere by sight, instead of by hearing him march steadily ahead of him up Brady and then Buck's row<<


              Since Cross was standing still, 50 yards away from the body and Paul was "hurrying" to work, why would Paul hear Cross "march steadily ahead of him"?


              >>Lech gave the court a name only immediate family members would recognize<<

              Plus, employers, work colleagues, clients and ex neighbours and acquaintances in St Georges ‘s East and who knows who else.


              >> Lech showed up at the inquest in a carman's outfit<<

              So what? Tompkins did too. How many other Eastenders have turned up in work clothes? Is there a a dress code for inquests? Given that the inquest didn't start till 10, Cross appearing just before lunch, is it perfectly reasonable that he he earned close to a full day's pay before appearing at the inquest.


              >>Lech did not offer his address to the jury when most likely asked<<

              Baxter was legally obliged to illicit the name, address and occupation of each witness and furnish it to the jury. (See coroner's handbook)


              >> there was no recognition by his descendants that Lech was the first to find Polly Nichol's body<<

              So what?


              >>To someone biased like me, it sure seems like he left well before 3:30 am, and was trying to keep information from his wife concerning the inquest.<<


              How on earth could he possibly have done that?
              Last edited by drstrange169; 11-07-2021, 05:56 AM.
              dustymiller
              aka drstrange

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                If Lechmere is not the murderer, i still do not understand why JtR would choose that location. He would either be sloppy and lucky, or would have known a great deal about the comings and goings at that location around the time of the murder. It had to have been a very dark night. Some almanac would have information on whether the moon was out that night.
                Weren't all the murders carried out on dark (wet ?) Nights, which to be fair is most in UK. A clear night is the exception.

                I think we all struggle now to imagine how dark dark was then, very different to today no doubt.

                Lech approaching Paul in those circumstances must have been pretty unnerving. He'd have been very relieved it was 'only' to look at Polly laying in the street.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  The best excuse imaginable - relish them while you have them!
                  Even though it’s a bit harder to do so from a great distance, I am relishing them the best I can, while I still can!

                  I reckon some were harder to wake up than others, and so I think he may have knocked once but with no response. If he had not done so, why would he not set off for Bucks Row immediately? Tending to one errand while leaving the rest aside seems an odd thing to do. And I think that Mizens denial that he proceeded his knocking up business tells us that there were customers he left sleeping as he took off.
                  I agree!

                  The logical thing would perhaps be to do what he did - a quick finishing of the ongoing knocking up errand and then off to Bucks Row. Regulations or not, not responding to what may potentially be a grave errand on account of waking people up would not look good.
                  "Why did you choose not to assist PC X-son, leaving him to deal with a horrendeous case of murder on his own? If you had responded, maybe the culprit could have been caught!"
                  "Ehrm - I was waking people up and thought X-son would have to make do on his own, Sir. Regulations, you know."
                  I agree that, if Mizen was told that a PC wanted him and it was clear the errand was grave, it wouldn’t have been difficult for Mizen to choose between continuing to knock up or go off to Buck’s Row. With what he claimed he had been told, it would be something more of a dilemma, the way I see it. On the one hand, he was told a PC was wanted him, on the other hand he didn’t know how serious the situation was and he still had people to knock up. So, although he could have asked some questions to get a better picture of the situation, he perhaps hesitated, thinking it was probably just another common drunk and there was no need to hurry, but then changed his mind along the lines you suggest.


                  Yes, there seems to have been no great commotion caused by the message, and no real rush. So, just as you say, this points to the carman (not the carmen, mind you...) either not being aware of the gravity of the errand - or not wanting Mizen to get to know it.
                  Indeed!

                  As always, once I make my choice which applies, I look at the rest of the affair - were there more deviations from the ordinary, such as name swaps, covered up wounds and suchlike, and, more pertinently, how does Lechmere fit in geographically and chronologically with the rest of the victims?
                  If he is innocent, there will be no further anomalies, and he will have trodden other paths that the ones traversing the killing fields. But if he is instead guilty ...
                  Don't worry, Christer, I know where you're coming from...

                  "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                  Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                  Comment


                  • Dr Strange 169:

                    >>No need to attempt to resort to saying that his actions were due to his psychopathic nature (I don't think anyone is claiming that). <<


                    I may be misrepresenting him, but I believe Christer has put forward that theory.

                    The question is a tad more complex. What I am saying is not that only a psychopathic killer would have stayed out at the murder site. There are too many unknown elements involved to allow for any certain interpretation. For example, a lot rides on when Lechmere first noticed Paul. If he noticed him from very far off and nevertheless decided to bluff it out, we have other implications than we would have if he only noticed Paul when he had drawn much nearer.

                    What I AM saying is that once we look at the whole murder series involved in the traditionally accepted Ripper deeds, then we cannot reasonably doubt that the perpetrator of the deeds would have been of a psychopathic nature. There is a total lack of empathy involved in the murders, and it seems the killer simply claimed the bodies of the victims as his possessions.

                    So that is where the psychopathy enters the picture, at least to my mind. Once we have accepted this, it follows that whoever the killer was, he was of a psychopathinc nature. Ergo, if Charles Lechmere was the killer, then he was also a psychopath.

                    It is only after that I approach the behaviour in Bucks Row on Lechmeres account. Here, we have a ripperological watershed, because many people are saying that no killer would choose to stay put at a murder site. I disagree, and I base much of that disagreement on how the elements involved in staying put at a murder site although you may have had the possibility to run, are in line with a number of the Hare criteria for psychopathy:
                    -Psychopaths have a sense of great self-worth, meaning that they are believe that they can achieve more than the regular people in the street. For example, it is likely that a psychopath who decides to bluff somebody believes that he will easily get away with it.
                    -Psychopaths often have an excess need for stimulation, meaning that they will not always use the boringly common solutions to problems.
                    -Psychopaths are pathological liars, and often very good at it, meaning that coupled with the wiah for a less boring life, they are likely to try and dupe people, somethies just for the hell of it.
                    -Psychopaths are conning and manipulative. The implications should be clear when looking at how it applies to our case.

                    So, all in all, I find that the behaviour of Lechmere in Bucks Row if he was the killer is something that compares quite well to a number of psychopathic criteria. The overall reason, though, for my saying that the killer was a psychopath lies in how he showed a total disrespect and lack of empathy for other peoples lives in his murders.



                    I also took some little interest in this exchange in your post:

                    >> there was no recognition by his descendants that Lech was the first to find Polly Nichol's body<<

                    So what?

                    I thought your question was a bit disingenuous; it should be perfectly clear why Newbie mentioned this. Many of the descendants of many of the people involved in the Ripper saga are quite aware of how their ancestors were somehow part of the business. Which is not strange at all; people who shook hands with "the Boston Strong Boy", John L Sullivan, the heavyweight boxing champion of the world in the beginning of the 20:th century, developed a habit of saying "Shake the hand that shook the hand of John Sullivan!", when they shook hands with others. Those of us who are not very interesting ourselves are often enough prone to try and increase our attractin power in that department by invoking the help of others, more famous persons. The mechanism should be well know to us.
                    Therefore, it would not be strange if one or more of the descendants of Charles Lechmere were aware of his involvment in the Ripper affair. Myself, I happen to think that is would be stranger if nobody in his family knew about it at all. Of course, there is no way of proving such things either way, but I do think that if the carman had called himself Charles Lechmere at the inquest, a good many of his descendants would be aware of his involvment today.

                    Which, I believe, is the valid and logical point of Newbies you answered with "So what?"


                    I will leave the rest of your points for Newbie to answer.

                    Comment


                    • Frank O:

                      The best excuse imaginable - relish them while you have them!
                      Even though it’s a bit harder to do so from a great distance, I am relishing them the best I can, while I still can!

                      Good on you!

                      I reckon some were harder to wake up than others, and so I think he may have knocked once but with no response. If he had not done so, why would he not set off for Bucks Row immediately? Tending to one errand while leaving the rest aside seems an odd thing to do. And I think that Mizens denial that he proceeded his knocking up business tells us that there were customers he left sleeping as he took off.
                      I agree!

                      The logical thing would perhaps be to do what he did - a quick finishing of the ongoing knocking up errand and then off to Bucks Row. Regulations or not, not responding to what may potentially be a grave errand on account of waking people up would not look good.
                      "Why did you choose not to assist PC X-son, leaving him to deal with a horrendeous case of murder on his own? If you had responded, maybe the culprit could have been caught!"
                      "Ehrm - I was waking people up and thought X-son would have to make do on his own, Sir. Regulations, you know."

                      I agree that, if Mizen was told that a PC wanted him and it was clear the errand was grave, it wouldn’t have been difficult for Mizen to choose between continuing to knock up or go off to Buck’s Row. With what he claimed he had been told, it would be something more of a dilemma, the way I see it. On the one hand, he was told a PC was wanted him, on the other hand he didn’t know how serious the situation was and he still had people to knock up. So, although he could have asked some questions to get a better picture of the situation, he perhaps hesitated, thinking it was probably just another common drunk and there was no need to hurry, but then changed his mind along the lines you suggest.

                      It would be nice to know what applies, would it not...?

                      Yes, there seems to have been no great commotion caused by the message, and no real rush. So, just as you say, this points to the carman (not the carmen, mind you...) either not being aware of the gravity of the errand - or not wanting Mizen to get to know it.
                      Indeed!

                      As always, once I make my choice which applies, I look at the rest of the affair - were there more deviations from the ordinary, such as name swaps, covered up wounds and suchlike, and, more pertinently, how does Lechmere fit in geographically and chronologically with the rest of the victims?
                      If he is innocent, there will be no further anomalies, and he will have trodden other paths that the ones traversing the killing fields. But if he is instead guilty ...

                      Don't worry, Christer, I know where you're coming from...

                      I know you do, Frank! Stay well and take care.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Newbie View Post
                        I guess we will never know how much effort the police put in to investigating Lechmere. By all appearances, next to none.
                        Why should they?
                        I don’t know if they really should, Newbie, but there was at least one thing regarding Lechmere that might have interested the police. While the "a policeman wants you" would have been Mizen's word against Lechmere's, this isn’t true of Lechmere not telling Mizen that he and Paul had examined the body. From both Lechmere’s and Paul’s statement the police knew that they did do so before going off for a PC and they knew from both Lechmere's and Mizen's statement that Lechmere didn’t tell this to Mizen. One might think that this is something that would have stood out and that they would have wanted to have it cleared up.
                        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          It would be nice to know what applies, would it not...?
                          As with many if not all things Ripperish, it would be very nice indeed, thank you very much!

                          I know you do, Frank! Stay well and take care.
                          You stay well, too, Christer.

                          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                            It had to have been a very dark night. Some almanac would have information on whether the moon was out that night.
                            For the outdoor murders, the killer very obviously avoided the brightest, fullest moons of every month, quite apart from the variable nightly cloud cover...

                            Tabram and Nichols:
                            https://www.moongiant.com/calendar/august/1888/

                            Chapman, Stride and Eddowes:
                            https://www.moongiant.com/calendar/september/1888/

                            I think the odd timetable (7/31/8/30/9) is largely explained thereby. Note also how this fits the profile of a man who for years has walked to work six nights a week, and sees the moon gradually offering or removing optimal conditions for killing unseen...

                            M.

                            Comment


                            • 'Shake the hand,that shook the hand,of the man that shook the world.I give you Chrles A Lechmere'
                              Nice rememberance Fisherman.

                              Comment


                              • >>I thought your question was a bit disingenuous<<

                                Not at all.

                                What you write is quite correct, but it is not exclusive to him being a killer. As you wrote, "of course, there is no way of proving such things either way".

                                That is the point, it's not proof of guilt or innocence, that taken with the other four bullet points Newbie made, which were wrong on three counts and irrelevant on the forth, the "so what" is one part of the answer to the question he posed at the start of that paragraph.
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X