Evidence of innocence

[rjpalmer]

The only thing I can figure is that y'all are trying to get permanently banned from jury duty.

[drstrange169]

>>What about the timing issue. Lechmere usually leaves for work at 03.20. <<

The idea that Cross normally left for work at 3:20, is a fabricated story. It has NO FACTUAL BASIS.

No where, in either the newspapers or police reports is this claimed.

Only two, of all the numerous newspapers, mentioned a time of 3:20 and looking at the quality of reporting in one of them (The Times) we can see that their story is full of errors.

“Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 … George Cross, a carman, stated…”

It was a “J” Mizen not “G”.

His number was “55H”, not “56H”.

The meeting took place at “3:45” not “a quarter past four”.

Lechmere’s name is “Charles” not “George”.

This is the quality of evidence that the “3:20” time has been fabricated on.

Serious researchers need to move past these types of speculations presented as fact.



>>He is found in Bucks Row at 03.45.<<

Can we please dismiss this nonsense once and for all?

There are very few solid facts in this case, but one of them is that Cross was a NOT in Buck’s Row at 3:45!

He has a rock solid alibi that shows he was at the corner of Hanbury and Montague at 3:45. A policeman swore to it under oath. Not just any policeman, this particular policeman’s specific job, when Cross spoke to him, was to knock on peoples doors and tell them the correct time.

The evidence doesn’t end there, two other policeman independently, again under oath, corroborate Cross was not in the street at 3:45. Whereas, nobody that we know of swore under that he was.

[drstrange169]

>> Why would he remain standing over the victim …<<


Another fabricated story put out by a TV show. I’ve been told, by people involved in the show that the production company put this out to the world knowing it to be wrong.



>>Paul leaves for work some time after after Lechmere. Paul leaves about 03.45, around 15 minutes after Lechmere ...<<


To use that statement you need to show that Paul and Cross’s clock’s were synchronised. Can do you do that?

What we know, as I’ve demonstrated is that Paul’s time was either made up or his clock-time was different from all the other witnesses. Your theory doesn’t stand up to logic or scrutiny.


>>What exactly has Lechmere being doing ? <<

According to Mizen’s timing, he was exactly where he should have been at the time he should have been. There is NO missing time according to the actual sworn evidence.

[drstrange169]

>>I wonder if anyone has timed the walking of that orange route (minus the detour back to Bucks Row) and compared it to the Bucks Row route to see which would have been the faster of the 2 routes for Lechmere when walking to work.<<


Those and more possible routes have been timed and are available to read in the most comprehensive book on Row, “Inside Buck’s Row".

[drstrange169]

>>Let’s be generous to our Pickfords carman and say its a 7 minute walk. Lechmere should arrive in Bucks Row at 03.37.<<

He did, we know that because that gives him the right time to meet Mizen at 3:45. It also is the correct time for him to reach his work at 4:00.



>>Actually her abdominal wounds were so severe her intestines were protruding. However, PC Neil, PC Mizen and everyone else never noticed.<<

We have no way of knowing whether the intestines were protruding in situ or the protrusion was caused by Mrs Nichols being moved to the mortuary.

[drstrange169]

Hello Newbie,

>>I don't think anyone is claiming that<<

By now you should know they are.


>>And another 15 yards to get into Winthrop,…<<

That would still be half of what you claimed.



>> How the throat was slit is irrelevant, unless the killer decided to spin her like a top before leaving.<<

Not according to Llewellyn and perhaps Christer who have postulated the neck wounds came after the body wounds.




>>Neil would have been entering Buck's row from the East.<<


This will appear rude, I don’t meant it to be, I’m simply stating a fact …

clearly you have no idea what you are writing about on this particular matter.




>>Yes, once away from the scene, he was scot free. That was one of his options.<<

Thank you.



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

Cross would have no idea how a policeman would react and he would have no idea whether Mizen would be the first policeman they met. Paul could easily have seen Neil in Thomas St. and called him down. You have claimed that people walking Buck's Row would know where policemen were, have you not? If Cross was the killer he would have been well and truly stuffed.


>>Lechmere said at the inquest that he could hear all the way up the street.<<

No he didn’t.

He said,

“No; I did not see anyone at all around except the constable I spoke to. I don't think I met anybody after I left my house till I got to the body.”

Which brings us to the elephant in the room. Why would a guilty man say that? Obviously, it would be to a guilty man’s advantage to say he did he or see something and thus exonerate himself. Those are the words an innocent man is more likely to say.



>>The only clothing mentioned by any court reporter was Polly Nichols clothing, and Charles Cross’s.<<

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. It would be helpful if you actually read the full report first.

Inspector John Spratling, "a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard."
Tompkins, "Standing with his hands in his pockets the witness, a roughly dressed young fellow of low stature,

It's simply what The Star did to spice up its stories.



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

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



>>He evidently didn't bother to tell them about it. He had so many fascinating things going on in his life, it must have slipped his mind.<<


Can you list for us all the descendants of witnesses, victims, etc. that did know about their ancestors involvement in the case?



>>If his wife was illiterate…<<

Interesting point. Was she, does anybody know?

Certainly she came from an illiterate family, but she married into a fully literate one. Even her children could read and write. So was she still illiterate in 1888?



>>Care to venture an explanation for all this?<<

Already have, many times.


>>For the Lechmere is innocent group, they would have us believe that Lechmere had no idea where the PC's were, even though it would be kind of nice to have that kind of information when walking through tough crime ridden neighborhoods.<<

By which logic, Paul would know exactly where the policemen were and a killer Cross would be in deep trouble. Another circular argument that defeats itself.

[drstrange169]

More Witness descriptions,

"William Nicholls - is a printer's machinist, and he came to the mortuary dressed in a long black coat, with a black tie, trousers of dark material, and a tall silk hat. He carried an umbrella, and looked very quiet and very gentlemanly.He is very pale, with a full light brown beard and moustache.

"John Sparling [Spratling], a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard, dressed in the regulation blue of the force"

"Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet, whose naturally pale face was flushed with excitement, and who gave her address in a frightened manner"

"Mary Ann Monk - a young woman with a flushed face and a haughty air, who wore a long grey ulster"

"John Neil, the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial."

"Mr. Wynne Baxter, who, fresh from his Scandinavian tour, appeared at the inquest in a pair of black and white checked trousers, a dazzling white waistcoat, a crimson scarf and a dark coat."

"The Father of the Murdered Woman,an old, grey-headed, and grey-bearded man, who, with head lowered and hands behind his back, came slowly up to the table and gave the name of Edward Walker"

Can we all move on from the silly scenarios and talk about sensible things?

[Fisherman]

>>What about the timing issue. Lechmere usually leaves for work at 03.20. <<

The idea that Cross normally left for work at 3:20, is a fabricated story. It has NO FACTUAL BASIS.

No where, in either the newspapers or police reports is this claimed.

Only two, of all the numerous newspapers, mentioned a time of 3:20 and looking at the quality of reporting in one of them (The Times) we can see that their story is full of errors.

“Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 … George Cross, a carman, stated…”

It was a “J” Mizen not “G”.

His number was “55H”, not “56H”.

The meeting took place at “3:45” not “a quarter past four”.

Lechmere’s name is “Charles” not “George”.

This is the quality of evidence that the “3:20” time has been fabricated on.

Serious researchers need to move past these types of speculations presented as fact.



>>He is found in Bucks Row at 03.45.<<

Can we please dismiss this nonsense once and for all?

There are very few solid facts in this case, but one of them is that Cross was a NOT in Buck’s Row at 3:45!

He has a rock solid alibi that shows he was at the corner of Hanbury and Montague at 3:45. A policeman swore to it under oath. Not just any policeman, this particular policeman’s specific job, when Cross spoke to him, was to knock on peoples doors and tell them the correct time.

The evidence doesn’t end there, two other policeman independently, again under oath, corroborate Cross was not in the street at 3:45. Whereas, nobody that we know of swore under that he was.

Baxter - who knew quite well about the timings the three PC:s had given - established in his inquest summary that 3.45 was the time when the body of Polly Nichols was discovered. Swanson confirmed it in his October report, changing the 3.40 timing from before Baxters summary to 3.45.
So no, you cannot dismiss this information once and for all. What can be dismissed is that the PCs must have been correct. Regardless of what they swore to. Others swore to information that was in line with the body being found at around 3.45.

[SuperShodan]

>>What about the timing issue. Lechmere usually leaves for work at 03.20. <<

The idea that Cross normally left for work at 3:20, is a fabricated story. It has NO FACTUAL BASIS.

No where, in either the newspapers or police reports is this claimed.

Only two, of all the numerous newspapers, mentioned a time of 3:20 and looking at the quality of reporting in one of them (The Times) we can see that their story is full of errors.

“Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 … George Cross, a carman, stated…”

It was a “J” Mizen not “G”.

His number was “55H”, not “56H”.

The meeting took place at “3:45” not “a quarter past four”.

Lechmere’s name is “Charles” not “George”.

This is the quality of evidence that the “3:20” time has been fabricated on.

Serious researchers need to move past these types of speculations presented as fact.



>>He is found in Bucks Row at 03.45.<<

Can we please dismiss this nonsense once and for all?

There are very few solid facts in this case, but one of them is that Cross was a NOT in Buck’s Row at 3:45!

He has a rock solid alibi that shows he was at the corner of Hanbury and Montague at 3:45. A policeman swore to it under oath. Not just any policeman, this particular policeman’s specific job, when Cross spoke to him, was to knock on peoples doors and tell them the correct time.

The evidence doesn’t end there, two other policeman independently, again under oath, corroborate Cross was not in the street at 3:45. Whereas, nobody that we know of swore under that he was.

Dusty Logic. Lechmere is found near the body by Robert Paul. But he can’t have done it as when Nichols was killed he was with PC Mizen. So despite meeting Mizen after Nichols is already dead this somehow gives Lechmere an alibi ?
And I would just add this for clarification ~

Coroner Mr. Wynne E. Baxter himself fixed the time the body was found at around 03.45. “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 03.45 as it is fixed by so many independent data”

[SuperShodan]

[B][I]>>

He has a rock solid alibi that shows he was at the corner of Hanbury and Montague at 3:45. A policeman swore to it under oath. Whereas, nobody that we know of swore under that he was.

Okay Dusty. Can you explain how talking to a policeman (Mizen) gives Lechmere an alibi ? Are you seriously suggesting Lechmere can’t be JTR because he was talking to Mizen at 03.45 ?

[John Wheat]

More Witness descriptions,

"William Nicholls - is a printer's machinist, and he came to the mortuary dressed in a long black coat, with a black tie, trousers of dark material, and a tall silk hat. He carried an umbrella, and looked very quiet and very gentlemanly.He is very pale, with a full light brown beard and moustache.

"John Sparling [Spratling], a keen-eyed man with iron-grey hair and beard, dressed in the regulation blue of the force"

"Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet, whose naturally pale face was flushed with excitement, and who gave her address in a frightened manner"

"Mary Ann Monk - a young woman with a flushed face and a haughty air, who wore a long grey ulster"

"John Neil, the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial."

"Mr. Wynne Baxter, who, fresh from his Scandinavian tour, appeared at the inquest in a pair of black and white checked trousers, a dazzling white waistcoat, a crimson scarf and a dark coat."

"The Father of the Murdered Woman,an old, grey-headed, and grey-bearded man, who, with head lowered and hands behind his back, came slowly up to the table and gave the name of Edward Walker"

Can we all move on from the silly scenarios and talk about sensible things?

This isn't the thread for sensible things.

[The Baron]

>>What about the timing issue. Lechmere usually leaves for work at 03.20. <<

The idea that Cross normally left for work at 3:20, is a fabricated story. It has NO FACTUAL BASIS.

No where, in either the newspapers or police reports is this claimed.

Only two, of all the numerous newspapers, mentioned a time of 3:20 and looking at the quality of reporting in one of them (The Times) we can see that their story is full of errors.

“Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 … George Cross, a carman, stated…”

It was a “J” Mizen not “G”.

His number was “55H”, not “56H”.

The meeting took place at “3:45” not “a quarter past four”.

Lechmere’s name is “Charles” not “George”.

This is the quality of evidence that the “3:20” time has been fabricated on.

Serious researchers need to move past these types of speculations presented as fact.



>>He is found in Bucks Row at 03.45.<<

Can we please dismiss this nonsense once and for all?

There are very few solid facts in this case, but one of them is that Cross was a NOT in Buck’s Row at 3:45!

He has a rock solid alibi that shows he was at the corner of Hanbury and Montague at 3:45. A policeman swore to it under oath. Not just any policeman, this particular policeman’s specific job, when Cross spoke to him, was to knock on peoples doors and tell them the correct time.

The evidence doesn’t end there, two other policeman independently, again under oath, corroborate Cross was not in the street at 3:45. Whereas, nobody that we know of swore under that he was.

Thank you for the good posts Dusty!


The Baron

[The Baron]

This isn't the thread for sensible things.

It is the thread where a witness showing up in work clothes is a red flag and a point of guilt!



The Baron

[Great Aunt]

>>I wonder if anyone has timed the walking of that orange route (minus the detour back to Bucks Row) and compared it to the Bucks Row route to see which would have been the faster of the 2 routes for Lechmere when walking to work.<<


Those and more possible routes have been timed and are available to read in the most comprehensive book on Row, “Inside Buck’s Row".

Thank you - I will certainly read up on it.

[FrankO]

>>Lechmere said at the inquest that he could hear all the way up the street.<<

No he didn’t.

He said,

“No; I did not see anyone at all around except the constable I spoke to. I don't think I met anybody after I left my house till I got to the body.”

Which brings us to the elephant in the room. Why would a guilty man say that? Obviously, it would be to a guilty man’s advantage to say he did he or see something and thus exonerate himself. Those are the words an innocent man is more likely to say.

Hi Dusty,

I'm afraid that he did say something to that effect. Only the Star and the Times of 4 September carried this as follows.
Star: "Witness heard no sounds of a vehicle. He thought that had anyone left the body after he had turned into Buck's-row he would have heard them."
Times: "Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him."

I've included this in a reconstruction of Lechmere's inquest statement, which is to be found here.

Cheers,
Frank