Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

That is not quite right. The dates of death are as follows (avoiding trying to suggest TOD):

Mary Ann Nichols - the early hours of Friday 31 August 1888
Annie Chapman - the early hours of Saturday 8 September 1888
Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes - the early hours of Sunday 30 September 1888
Mary Jane Kelly - the early hours of Friday 9 November 1888

All but Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed on what might have been a normal working day for Charles Lechmere. Sundays were considered a holy day and people were not expected to work. This possibly supports your theory as the double event did not occur on a normal working day and that may be why Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were attacked away from Lechmere's working route if he had gone to visit his mother and why it was an earlier time than the other murders. (I have not included Martha Tabram - killed at the end of a bank holiday - as not a canonical victim).

However, if the killer did kill on his way to work - why did he only kill at weekends? Here is how Supershodan answers that question


I'm not entirely convinced that supply of suitable victims during the week would be a barrier for the killer (though Supershodan may of course be correct). I'm more inclined to think the murder timings had something to do with when the killer had opportunity and was in the area.

And then that leads us to consider the murder of Mary Jane Kelly which I think challenges that the killer was on his way to work. Given the time taken to mutilate the victim it has been estimated the killer was at Miller's Court for around an hour. That does not fit with Lechmere leaving for work and arriving at work at his usual times. So could it be Lechmere was not working that day (in which case his work journey is not relevant) or was it the case the killer was not killing on his way to work?

One last point about this. The killer removed organs from some victims, presumably to keep as trophies. Would he take these to work with him? I think that is unlikely.

What we need not do is to accept that Lechmere left home at 3.20 precisely every day. If he left home with a mindset to kill, he needed to add time to the schedule unless he was willing and ready to be late for work.

[Fisherman]

Hi Trevor,



Absolutely. We have to remember the doctor's at the time were operating under the incorrect assumption that ToD could in any way be estimated by touch. It was thought that was possible, but we now know that is just not the case. Chapman could easily have been murdered at a time quite different from that given by medical opinion, either much earlier or much later. When we evaluate the evidence we have to work with on this matter we must look to other sources of information upon which to base our interpretations, recognizing of course that we too can only make probabilistic inferences.

- Jeff

It IS possible, it is just a question about how exact the method is. A warm body WILL be recently dead, a cold body will not be recently dead. Thatīs the starting point, and then you take it from there. Even today, professionals like policeman and firefighters check for body warmth if they are first on a spot and a medico cannot reach that spot quickly.
In discussions with Ingemar Thiblin, one of the experts commening on the case in my book, he said that the fact that there was warmth inside the body while it was all cold on the outside was indicative of Phillips being correct. Plus the rest of the evidence was in line with this in Chapmans case.

The Marriott approach (the medicos were simply guessing) should be taken with a truckload of salt.

[Fisherman]

But, Christer, one might argue, there are also indications – and independent of anything Lechmere said or did or didn’t do – that Lechmere was NOT the liar amongst the two.

Mizen is completely responsible for that all on his own. If we are to believe exactly what Mizen said and nothing more or less, then he paints a picture of a copper who didn’t wonder about anything at all. If we are to believe him at face value, he was told very little indeed when he was approached by the two carmen. When you’re told so very little, the logical, sort of instinct reaction would be to ask questions - or to completely ignore what you’re told. Since we know Mizen didn’t completely ignore what he was told (as he did go to Berner Street), the logical thing would have been to ask some questions. Yet, other than “What’s the matter?”, he asked nothing.

Moreover, Mizen was being called away from his beat, so also from that point of view some questions would have been in order (how seriously should he take the person(s) who called him away or how serious was the woman’s situation?). Yet, nothing from Mizen.

Questions like: “Where, exactly, is she lying in Buck’s Row?”, “Was the PC already with her when you arrived?”, “Did you see/take a good look at the woman yourself?”, “Did the woman move?”, “Could she speak?”, “Did she seem drunk?”, “Was she wounded in any way?”, “Did the PC tell you what was the matter with the woman?”, “Did the PC take your name & address?”, “From where are you coming and where are you headed now?”, things like that. Yet, he asks nothing.

In fact, he doesn’t even seem to verbally respond at all to what he has been told, other than perhaps a rather meaningless “Alright”.

And then, after having arrived at the crime spot expecting to find an either drunk or perhaps fainted woman or otherwise unserious situation, his surprise couldn’t have been any bigger when he found out that the woman in question was actually dead and had her throat deeply cut. Yet, he still doesn’t seem to have wondered about a thing. Still no questions from Mizen, who did have the opportunity to speak to Neil, only if he wanted to. After all, together with sergeant Kirby, Neil and he himself brought the ambulance with Nichols on it to the mortuary and so, he would have had several minutes to talk to Neil. Yet, nothing. Or so it seems.

In this sense, I find the fact that he only said at the inquest that Lechmere didn’t say anything about murder or suicide rather striking. It has always sounded to me like a weak sort of complaint, (too) long after the fact.

I think Mizen was told that there was a drunk woman on her back in Bucks Row and that another PC was in place, plus that this PC had told the carmen to send over any fellow PC they may find on their way.

After that, Mizen would have no reason to ask any questions at all.

To what - if any - degree Mizen wondered about matters remains unknown to us. He may simply have thought that he must have misheard Lechmere for all we know. And, once again, it took 125 years for anybody to see the potential explosive power in the Mizen scam. And those 125 years involve millions of people missing out on it, so it is not as if can say that any idiot would have made the connection, Frank.

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank,

You would think that if Cross had lied to Mizen about a policeman being at the scene requesting his attendance, Mizen would at the very least have said something to Neil, such as: "The two carmen said you sent for me, so I came straight here."

Love,

Caz
X

But WHY, Caz? From Mizens point of view, why would he tell Neil something Neil already knew? Lechmere said that there was another PC in Bucks Row, and to Mizen, it must have seemed a sealed deal that this PC was Neil. So why would he say "I heard you sent the two carmen to fetch me"? The one reason I can think of for Mizen saying such a thing would be if he suspected foul play. If he didnīt, he would not want to waste Neils time, and Neil was probably all over himn like a rash when he arrived: "Hereīs a woman who has had her neck cut, get me an ambulance double quick!"

Would that make Mizen run for the ambulance or engage in small talk about the carmen - who he already know had been sent for him?

[Fisherman]

Interesting. What is your source for claiming a carman was required to carry a knife at all times?

It was stated out here many years ago by somebody who knew about it. And it is of course completely logical, since it would serve to protect the transportersīassets, the horses.
The claim is that a carman would be required to wear a knife when on duty, by the way, not necessarily at all times.

[Fisherman]

So who are these "round half a dozen earlier victims" of the Ripper? There's a definite case for Tabram as a Ripper victim and a possible case for Millwood, but where do you get your other 3 to 5 alleged victims.

From the Thames Torso cases.

[Fiver]

It was stated out here many years ago by somebody who knew about it. And it is of course completely logical, since it would serve to protect the transportersīassets, the horses.
The claim is that a carman would be required to wear a knife when on duty, by the way, not necessarily at all times.

In Post #39 you said "A carman was required to carry a knife at all times, so that he could cut the harness in the event of an accident." not "carman would be required to wear a knife when on duty."

The requirement makes sense, though if a carman had to cut the horses free of their harness, it would because the horses and/or cart were already damaged. And if it was required, it would make sense for a carman to carry a knife with him on the way to work.

But so far, no one has provided any evidence that carmen were required to carry knives while on duty. There's also the question of, if such a regulation existed, was it ever enforced? The average carman would probably never have to cut the horses free of their harness.

[Fisherman]

In Post #39 you said "A carman was required to carry a knife at all times, so that he could cut the harness in the event of an accident." not "carman would be required to wear a knife when on duty."

The requirement makes sense, though if a carman had to cut the horses free of their harness, it would because the horses and/or cart were already damaged. And if it was required, it would make sense for a carman to carry a knife with him on the way to work.

But so far, no one has provided any evidence that carmen were required to carry knives while on duty. There's also the question of, if such a regulation existed, was it ever enforced? The average carman would probably never have to cut the horses free of their harness.

I was kind of banking on how you may have counted out that carmen only were at risk to have to cut harnesses when they were on duty. But I may have been overestimating you.

The evidence has been provided for how carmen were required to carry knives so as to be able to cut the harness. You were not around at that time, though, but that is not equal to no evidence having been provided. If you want to see it, you need to go looking for it yourself; it is there.

As for carmen skipping over the duty, I thinbk you need to consider that it would lead to very grave consequences in the event of an accident. A knife would be a healthy and cheap enough insurance to stay away from that kind of trouble. But as always, we are free to reason any way we like!

[Fiver]

I think Mizen was told that there was a drunk woman on her back in Bucks Row and that another PC was in place, plus that this PC had told the carmen to send over any fellow PC they may find on their way.

After that, Mizen would have no reason to ask any questions at all.

You are ignoring Robert Paul, who was also there when Lechmere talked to PC Mizen.

If Lechmere had said there was another PC in Bucks Row, Robert Paul would have immediately known Lechmere was lying.

If Lechmere had said this nonexistent PC had told Lechmere and Paul to send other PCs to Bucks Row, Robert Paul would have immediately known Lechmere was lying.

Which should have raised lots of questions for Paul.

To what - if any - degree Mizen wondered about matters remains unknown to us. He may simply have thought that he must have misheard Lechmere for all we know. And, once again, it took 125 years for anybody to see the potential explosive power in the Mizen scam. And those 125 years involve millions of people missing out on it, so it is not as if can say that any idiot would have made the connection, Frank.

If Lechmere scammed PC Mizen, then Robert Paul would have been a full participant in the scam. Your theory fails unless you can find a motive for Robert Paul participating in the scam.

[Fisherman]

You are ignoring Robert Paul, who was also there when Lechmere talked to PC Mizen.

If Lechmere had said there was another PC in Bucks Row, Robert Paul would have immediately known Lechmere was lying.

If he heard Lechmere telling the lie, yes - but there is reason to believe he never did. Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him. And of course, even if Paul DID hear what was said, who is to say that Lechmere had not told Paul beforehand that he would tell a little white lie to any PC he found, so that the carmen could get to work in time? Paul was not going to be likely to admit such a thing in retrospect.
So no, I am not ignoring Paul. In actual fact, I am not ignoring anything. But you seem to have forgotten a number of possibilities offered up by the evidence itself.

If Lechmere had said this nonexistent PC had told Lechmere and Paul to send other PCs to Bucks Row, Robert Paul would have immediately known Lechmere was lying.

Which should have raised lots of questions for Paul.

Read the above. Carefully.


If Lechmere scammed PC Mizen, then Robert Paul would have been a full participant in the scam. Your theory fails unless you can find a motive for Robert Paul participating in the scam.

Once again, read the above. Once again, carefully. I have explained this numerous times, to numerous posters, some of them very well read up. Once they digested what I say, they rarely come back with that same argument. I trust you are able to see why.

A question for you: If Robert Paul was together with Charles Lechmere as Mizen was approached, then why did the PC not say so? Why did he persist in saying that ONE man came up to him and told the story? Thoughts, ideas?

[Fiver]

I was kind of banking on how you may have counted out that carmen only were at risk to have to cut harnesses when they were on duty. But I may have been overestimating you.

I know English is not your first language, but is your reading comprehension level really that low? This sentence of yours has nothing do with anything I said.

Here is my previous post in full.

In Post #39 you said "A carman was required to carry a knife at all times, so that he could cut the harness in the event of an accident." not "carman would be required to wear a knife when on duty."

The requirement makes sense, though if a carman had to cut the horses free of their harness, it would because the horses and/or cart were already damaged. And if it was required, it would make sense for a carman to carry a knife with him on the way to work.

But so far, no one has provided any evidence that carmen were required to carry knives while on duty. There's also the question of, if such a regulation existed, was it ever enforced? The average carman would probably never have to cut the horses free of their harness.

The evidence has been provided for how carmen were required to carry knives so as to be able to cut the harness. You were not around at that time, though, but that is not equal to no evidence having been provided. If you want to see it, you need to go looking for it yourself; it is there.

* You made the claim - the burden of proof is on you.
* You have previously stated things that were incorrect, so I have no reason to assume your memory is correct this time.

[Fisherman]

I know English is not your first language, but is your reading comprehension level really that low? This sentence of yours has nothing do with anything I said.

Donīt try to be sarcastic, Fiver. I am fully capable of following you all the way and beyond on that route in Swedish, English, French and German. Take your pick.

Here is my previous post in full.

In Post #39 you said "A carman was required to carry a knife at all times, so that he could cut the harness in the event of an accident." not "carman would be required to wear a knife when on duty."

The requirement makes sense, though if a carman had to cut the horses free of their harness, it would because the horses and/or cart were already damaged. And if it was required, it would make sense for a carman to carry a knife with him on the way to work.

But so far, no one has provided any evidence that carmen were required to carry knives while on duty. There's also the question of, if such a regulation existed, was it ever enforced? The average carman would probably never have to cut the horses free of their harness.



* You made the claim - the burden of proof is on you.
* You have previously stated things that were incorrect, so I have no reason to assume your memory is correct this time.

If you cannot understand that the requirement for a knife was tied to the duties of the carmanīs job, then that is your problem. If you want to find the material about how carmen were required to carry knives so as to be able to cut the harness, you will have to dig it out yourself. There are others I would have done the work for, I can assure you. But you do not belong to that group, and that is entirely your own doing.

I think we are done now.

[Fiver]

If he heard Lechmere telling the lie, yes - but there is reason to believe he never did. Mizen said that ONE man spoke to him. And of course, even if Paul DID hear what was said, who is to say that Lechmere had not told Paul beforehand that he would tell a little white lie to any PC he found, so that the carmen could get to work in time? Paul was not going to be likely to admit such a thing in retrospect.
So no, I am not ignoring Paul. In actual fact, I am not ignoring anything. But you seem to have forgotten a number of possibilities offered up by the evidence itself.

PC Mizen mentioned one of the two men speaking to him, but he said the two men were together, which indicates that Robert Paul was close enough to hear the conversation. Robert Paul also testified that he traveled together with Lechmere, which indicates that Paul was close enough to hear.

The rest of your post is speculation that requires Lechemer and Paul to act in a poinlessly stupid manner. Lechmere and Paul conspiring to lie to PC Mizen, would not be "a little white lie" - giving a false report to a police officer is serious. Deliberately, unnecessarily lying to PC Mizen when he would know the truth in a few minutes would be be the height of stupidity for both Lechmere and Paul, especially for Lechmere, since he found the body.

If Charles Lechmere deliberately lied to PC Mizen, coming forward of his own accord to testify would have been even more stupid. Neither Mizen nor Paul knew who Lechemere was. Yet that Charles Lechmere came forward to testify of his own accord.

It would be even more stupid to continue the lie at the Inquest, since perjury is a crime. Lechmere would have no reason to expect Paul to perjure himself for Lechmere, so the safest action would have been to admit the "white lie" instead of committing perjury. Yet your theory has both Lechmere and Paul commit perjury.

And lying to PC Mizen in the way you speculate is a bad idea even without the perjury angle. A drunk person already being watched by another PC is something PC Mizen would need to respond to, but it was not urgent. Saying the victim appeared to be ill or injured would get Mizen moving much faster.

[Fiver]

Donīt try to be sarcastic, Fiver. I am fully capable of following you all the way and beyond on that route in Swedish, English, French and German. Take your pick.

I wasn't being sarcastic - your statement that "I was kind of banking on how you may have counted out that carmen only were at risk to have to cut harnesses when they were on duty. But I may have been overestimating you" was given in reply to one of my posts, yet it has nothing to do with anything I said. that either means you did not read what I said or you did not understand it.

[Fiver]

If you cannot understand that the requirement for a knife was tied to the duties of the carmanīs job, then that is your problem.

Again you completely fail to understand what I said. I very clearly said "The requirement makes sense...". so it should have been obvious that I understood the requirement for a knife was tied to the duties of the carmanīs job. It should have been even more obvious when I added "...though if a carman had to cut the horses free of their harness, it would because the horses and/or cart were already damaged."

And yet you interpreted what I said to mean the exact opposite of what I said. Your own post provides further evidence that you either did not read or did not understand what I said.