Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • >>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. <<

    Assuming it was one person who killed the five, Buck's Row was the second safest murder site.

    Hanbury was far more dangerous, Berner was bizarrely dangerous, Mitre was a massive risk.
    dustymiller
    aka drstrange

    Comment


    • Hey Christer, I had it mind for "so what", but wasn't sure, so I just checked ...

      This from Neal Sheldon's The Victims Of Jack The Ripper,

      "The first point I have to make to anyone that asks about the victims is that NONE OF THE DESCENDANTS KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THEIR MURDERED ANCESTOR! NO FAMILY LEGENDS, JUST SILENCE."

      Page 48 (My emphasis)


      So, not odd or unusual at all, indeed according to Neal, it was a common denominator for descendants with a far higher ripper profile not to know anything.
      dustymiller
      aka drstrange

      Comment


      • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
        Hey Christer, I had it mind for "so what", but wasn't sure, so I just checked ...

        This from Neal Sheldon's The Victims Of Jack The Ripper,

        "The first point I have to make to anyone that asks about the victims is that NONE OF THE DESCENDANTS KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THEIR MURDERED ANCESTOR! NO FAMILY LEGENDS, JUST SILENCE."

        Page 48 (My emphasis)


        So, not odd or unusual at all, indeed according to Neal, it was a common denominator for descendants with a far higher ripper profile not to know anything.
        That is interesting, of course. However, it represents another aspect of the crimes than that of Lechmere´s role as a witness. The victims were (sorry, Halle Rubenhold) all prostitutes and societal outcasts, and so it is to be expected that many relatives would have done their very best not to invest in them emotionally, instead forgetting about them as best as they could.

        I seem to remember that I once saw a documentary or TV show in which some people were informed that they had an ancestor (Polly Nichols) who had been killed by the Ripper. These people, as I remember things, did not even know about Nichols´ involvment in their family before they ones who made the show told them about it.

        If we instead look at people who were well integrated into the accepted parts of society and had a family life, I would suggest that we are looking at something very different. Such a character is much more likely to make a mark over generations.

        At the end of the day, we will not be able to establish the exact value of the information that none of Lechmere´s descendants knew of his rle as a Ripper case witness. I know that Edward Stow met the family and that he had not been forgotten by all of his relatives. But I also know that nobody remembered him as being named Cross and, again, nobody knew about his role in the Ripper drama.

        To me, that is interesting information, and I think it should be so to all of us who research the Ripper saga. Which is why I thought that "So what?" was a less than appropriate answer to Newbies information.

        Then again, I´m sure we may disagree about that too.
        Last edited by Fisherman; 11-08-2021, 07:27 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by harry View Post
          'Shake the hand,that shook the hand,of the man that shook the world.I give you Chrles A Lechmere'
          Nice rememberance Fisherman.
          What I described was the fifteen minutes of fame that comes from knowing somebody who is famous, not infamous. Consequentially, it was as a witness in the Ripper case I suggested that Charles Lechmere could have been remembered by his family, not as the killer. So you missed the point totally - but good on you for being able to write the name Lechmere!

          Comment


          • Fisherman,now I am Cross.
            The remembrance bit you misinterpreted.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              Fisherman,now I am Cross.
              The remembrance bit you misinterpreted.
              I sometimes wonder if you were born Cross, Harry.

              Comment


              • >>To me, that is interesting information ...<<

                Me too.

                Not because I want it to be proof of guilt or innocence, but because it is just plain interesting.

                How many family oral histories of witnesses descendants do we have? We are not talking about a unique situation with the Lechmere family. Be it victims or witnesses the stories were not, it seems, always passed down.

                I'm related to a minor player in this saga, a police inspector named Stockley (my mother's maiden name), yet when I asked, nobody in the family knew anything about his involvement.
                dustymiller
                aka drstrange

                Comment


                • What about the timing issue. Lechmere usually leaves for work at 03.20. He is found in Bucks Row at 03.45. It’s about 6 minutes walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row.
                  So on his usual commute Lechmere gets to Bucks Row about 03.26.
                  When Lechmere is found in Bucks Row on that fateful morning he’s around 15-20 minutes later than he usually is. There is time missing. The timing is clearly very off, and considering the circumstances it’s got to be a red flag

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                    When Lechmere is found in Bucks Row on that fateful morning he’s around 15-20 minutes later than he usually is. There is time missing. The timing is clearly very off, and considering the circumstances it’s got to be a red flag
                    I'm not strongly for Lechmere as a suspect, but I do see there are some compelling reasons for his suspicion. However, on the subject of time, if he was trying to avoid suspicion, would he not state a departure time more conducive to innocence by saying he was running late that day? Furthermore, he technically had enough time to scarper and avoid Paul altogether once he heard him approaching. Why would he remain standing over the victim running the risk that the approaching footfalls belonged to a constable? Even if he was simply brazen, any approaching person could ultimately turn witness and identify him. Then there's the problem of concealing a bloodstained weapon and (likely) hands. Additionally, the two men actively sought a policeman, adding even more risk to Lechmere being discovered. I could go on, but my point is, despite the reasonable argument for him being the Ripper, if you really look into his actions that morning, not much adds up regarding his supposed guilt.

                    Was the Ripper a risk-taker? - most certainly, but he was not foolhardy.
                    Geographically, Lechmere makes sense as a suspect. Making somewhat misleading statements is suspicious. But to kill and then literally invite witnesses to the scene of your crime? That's just ridiculous.






                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                      >>To me, that is interesting information ...<<

                      Me too.

                      Not because I want it to be proof of guilt or innocence, but because it is just plain interesting.

                      How many family oral histories of witnesses descendants do we have? We are not talking about a unique situation with the Lechmere family. Be it victims or witnesses the stories were not, it seems, always passed down.

                      I'm related to a minor player in this saga, a police inspector named Stockley (my mother's maiden name), yet when I asked, nobody in the family knew anything about his involvement.
                      If you find it interesting, then why did you write "So what?" in your response to Newbie? That´s what I fail to understand, Dusty.

                      Oviously, I don´t have any kinship of my own into the business. But I know Susan Clapp, Lechmere´s great granddaughter (I hope I got that correct, it could be great, great granddaughter), and she reckons that out of the people she grew up with, her grandmother (or was it great grandmother?) would have been the last person Susan knew herself to have met and known Charles Lechmere. Her grandmother married in around 1917, and most likely, Charles Lechmere will have been at the wedding, just as the newly-weds would have been at Charles Lechmere´s funeral a couple of years later. So that is how close in time the carman is to us today. However, Susan Clapp had no idea that she was related to the witness who found the body of Polly Nichols until his real name was revealed around the millennium.

                      What I am thinking is that the Ripper saga has always been a focal point of interest for many, many people. Not only that, it has been something that has been lucrative in many ways for many people. The papers back in 1888 made fortunes from it. People were ready to pay money to enter the House at 29 Hanbury Street and possibly get a glimpse of the proceedings in the backyard of the property in the early morning hours of September the 8th 1888. Back in the day, when I met with Martin Fido in the Ten Bells pub, it was named The Jack the Ripper. And there are people who sell fish and chips in a place called Jack the Chipper. Museums, walking tours, books, documentaries - there are lots and lots of interest, and people are willing to pay to get their ticket to embark the Ripper train.

                      Now, Charles Lechmere was not only a carman, he also had a shop and he had a coffee room. Why would he not use his attraction power as the victim who found the purportedly first Ripper victim? Why would he not call his coffe room "Jack the Sipper" ? Would not all the people who knew him as both Charles Cross, the Pickfords carman and Charles Lechmere entertain endless discusions about these things in his shop and his coffee room?

                      Well, not if there was not a living soul who knew about his claim to fame, they wouldn´t.

                      Anyways, it IS a very interesting matter, and I think it deserves attention.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Meet Ze Monster View Post

                        Was the Ripper a risk-taker? - most certainly, but he was not foolhardy.

                        Precisely how do we know this? Are you aware of how a very common reason for why serial killers get caught is because they get sloppy as they move along? Basically, they feel more and more convinced that they are impossiboe to catch, and when you reach that kind of self-deception level, you are prone to getting sloppy.
                        John Henry Browne, one of Ted Bundy´s attorneys, afterwards wrote about his client: "Ted believed he could lie his way out of anything and could charm the judge". We all know how that ended - there was overwhelming evidence that Bundy was a serial killer and he got the electric chair for it. Nobody but for one single person - Ted Bundy himself - was surprised by the outcome. This is a very good example of how serial killers perceive themselves and the odds that they will get caught or convicted. They laugh at the mere idea.


                        Geographically, Lechmere makes sense as a suspect. Making somewhat misleading statements is suspicious. But to kill and then literally invite witnesses to the scene of your crime? That's just ridiculous.
                        Yes, that would add up to taking a large risk. But what about other serial killers and murderers who have taken large risks? The ones who have injected themselves into police investigations? Aren´t they just ridiculous too?
                        The ones who have masqueraded as witnesses while being the perpetrators? How about them?
                        We have discussed Dahmer on this thread, who left his apartment and cooly walked up to the two policemen who were tending to a young boy he had tortured, but who managed to escape. Then Dahmer walks up to the police and tells them that the boy is his lover, and he asks the policemen to release the boy into his custody - which they did! And then Dahmer takes the boy back to his apartment and kills him.
                        Isn´t that just ridiculous too?

                        So maybe killers will sometimes act in what you and me - but NOT they - consider a ridiculous way although they have the option not to?

                        I think the Hare criteria for psychopathy is extremely interesting reading in this context, and I thoroughly recommend it.
                        Last edited by Fisherman; 11-08-2021, 02:06 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          And me pointing out that the neck wounds may well have been covered, makes that point somewhat less viable than you argue.
                          But of course Lech is guilty Fish , so the neck wounds must have been covered otherwise the supposed covering of the wounds on Polly's abdomen would go out the window .
                          As you say yourself - It would be odd if Lechmere covered the abdominal wounds but not the neck wound. Even though there is no evidence of this ,
                          PC Neil - I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. IE exposing the neck. And - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat
                          And as you say - Lechmere was part of the examination himself. He may well have guided Paul to an extent. If this was the case, I don´t see that he would have feared that Paul would undress Nichols.
                          Since when did you have to undress someone to see their neck ? . And, Oh wait a minute, Paul also said that Polly's clothes were disarranged and he helped to pull them down. So much for Lech doing it by himself.
                          Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 11-08-2021, 03:50 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Newbie View Post

                            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.

                            By the time the Doctor got there most of the blood possibly would have soaked into Polly's clothes . And Pc Neil noticed a pool of blood by Polly's throat.
                            As for Lech chancing that Paul wouldn't see the neck wounds . Would a killer really do that ? Really direct someone else to someone he had just killed and hope that the other person wouldn't notice any wounds whatsoever ?
                            How did Lech know, for instance that Paul didn't have some matches on him and strike one ? Or that PC Neil might have come round the corner a minute or two earlier and not shone his lamp on the body and then examined the two witnesses like you would expect him to ?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Meet Ze Monster View Post

                              I'm not strongly for Lechmere as a suspect, but I do see there are some compelling reasons for his suspicion. However, on the subject of time, if he was trying to avoid suspicion, would he not state a departure time more conducive to innocence by saying he was running late that day? Furthermore, he technically had enough time to scarper and avoid Paul altogether once he heard him approaching. Why would he remain standing over the victim running the risk that the approaching footfalls belonged to a constable? Even if he was simply brazen, any approaching person could ultimately turn witness and identify him. Then there's the problem of concealing a bloodstained weapon and (likely) hands. Additionally, the two men actively sought a policeman, adding even more risk to Lechmere being discovered. I could go on, but my point is, despite the reasonable argument for him being the Ripper, if you really look into his actions that morning, not much adds up regarding his supposed guilt.

                              Was the Ripper a risk-taker? - most certainly, but he was not foolhardy.
                              Geographically, Lechmere makes sense as a suspect. Making somewhat misleading statements is suspicious. But to kill and then literally invite witnesses to the scene of your crime? That's just ridiculous.








                              It makes sense for Lechmere to sneak away silently instead of staying at the scene and bluffing his way out. I see this argument a lot and staying at the crime scene does seem counter intuitive.

                              However, I believe Lechmere became aware of Paul’s arrival too late and had seconds to conceal the injuries. He had to make a snap decision on what course of action to take. He had no time to weight up the pro’s and con’s or the costs and benefits.

                              I think people assume he had plenty of time to decide what to do. I don’t think he did. He made an instinctive decision, with minimal thought going into it. Likely pulling down Nichols dress to cover her wounds, and stepping back out of the darkness, all happen in an instant.

                              I also feel the high degree of Psychopathy at the crime scenes that Lechmere would be a psychopath. He would be confident, he would take ownership, and his gut instinct would be to stay and bluff his way out. A normal person might run, a psychopath would stay. Dahmer and Sutcliffe are 2 examples of serial killers would got caught red handed and did the exact same.

                              Moving on, running away, or skulking away has its downside. Paul is probably quite close when Lechmere becomes aware of him. With the injuries in full view Paul would realise it’s a murder. If Paul raises the alarm Lechmere could be in trouble. Bucks Row is not a great place to commit a murder with few obvious escape routes until you get past the board school. And every route leads onto a larger street. I think that Lechmere staying at the crime scene makes sense when you look a little closer at Bucks Row.




                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                                But of course Lech is guilty Fish , so the neck wounds must have been covered otherwise the supposed covering of the wounds on Polly's abdomen would go out the window .

                                It seems it was a bitter blow for you to be told that the neck wounds may well also have been covered? And there you were, celebrating how you had finally dispelled the "nonsense"...

                                Let me tell you that even if the neck wounds were not covered, the act of covering up the abdominal wounds is and remains suspicious in itself. And that stands regardless of your personal convictions.


                                As you say yourself - It would be odd if Lechmere covered the abdominal wounds but not the neck wound.

                                He would reaasonably have strived for as efficient a hiding of the wounds as possible, yes. After that, it would have been a question of what he had time to do and what the clothing allowed for.

                                Even though there is no evidence of this.

                                No evidence means it was either way. The neck wounds were covered or they were not. My own take on things is that Paul would not be likely to miss a one or two inch wide gap in a white neck, with dark blood running from it. So my guess remains that they were covered. We certainly know that the abdominal wounds were.

                                PC Neil - I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. IE exposing the neck. And - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat

                                Yes, that is correct. And my guess is that Paul had revealed the neck wounds by pulling down Nichols´ dress. As I pointed out in my earlier post.

                                And as you say - Lechmere was part of the examination himself. He may well have guided Paul to an extent. If this was the case, I don´t see that he would have feared that Paul would undress Nichols.

                                Nor do I. And nor have I suggested such a thing.

                                Since when did you have to undress someone to see their neck ? . And, Oh wait a minute, Paul also said that Polly's clothes were disarranged and he helped to pull them down. So much for Lech doing it by himself.
                                I never said that Lech pulled the dress down, I´m afraid. It was Paul who did it. Why would Lechmere do it, risking to reveal the neck wounds?

                                It seems you may have misread or misunderstood me, Darryl.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X