Evidence of innocence

[Trevor Marriott]

As I have pointed out, ”around 3.30” works well if Lechmere assumed that Neils and Mizens timings would be accepted.

The timings relative to all the witnesses are totally unsafe to rely on. And I would suggest that the police officers were less than liberal with the truth as to their movements.

On another issue with regards to the body and what wounds were visible other than the wound to the throat, none of the abdomibnal wounds were discovered. These were not discovered until the body had reached the mortuary. So the doctor who attended the crime scene did not do a very good job, nor it seems did the police who attended

On a final note you seek to rely on the good doctor stating that death had occurred some 30 mins before he arrived to prop up your beleief this is of course also unsafe to rely on

I again refer to what Dr Bigggs says on this topic

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[SuperShodan]

>>Fact 1.Lechmere very clearly states that he saw or heard nobody else. There is nobody else around. <<

Yes, a great pointer to his innocence. Can you tell us of any murder where jtr made a lot of noise?

>>Fact 2. Nichols dress had been pulled down to her knees, confirmed by Lechmere himself. The wounds to the abdomen had been covered up. And this was the scene Lechmere found, prior to Paul or anyone else arriving.<<

You seem to struggle with what a fact is. It is your speculation that the dress was "pulled" down. Show me where it has been stated that Mrs Nichols dress was "pulled" down to her knees. and, apart from the killer, how would anybody know the dress was "pulled" down?


>>Fact 3. Lechmere was found standing “where the woman was” by witness Robert Paul. We can place Lechmere at the scene of the crime close to the time it happened. <<

OK so you really have no idea what a "fact" is. I'm stopping read this post now as it's a waste of everybody's time.

I notice of my earlier post containing 8 facts about Bucks Row only 3 have been disputed.

In terms of Nichols dress covering her abdomen and only her legs being exposed we have the press quoting Lechmere himself.

“When I found her clothes were up above her knees”

Evening Standard 4th Sept 1888.

“The woman's legs were uncovered. Her bonnet was off, but close to her head”.

Daily News 4th Sept 1888.

However, the important and key fact here is that the abdominal wounds were covered up. Paul sees no sign of injury, nor does PC Neil when he comes along with his lamp. The abdominal wounds aren’t noticed by ANYONE including the Doctor until Nichols is in the mortuary. This is the important part. The wounds being covered tell us all we need to know.

In terms of the timing of when Lechmere leaves home this was covered in detail. I count 10 newspapers reporting on this. Two including The Times have him leaving at 03.20, eight others have him running late and leaving at 03.30. However it is stated that Lechmere’s usual time of departure is 03.20. Again this is the important part. When Lechmere is found in Bucks Row at 03.45 he is very, very late compared to his usual commute to work.

And lastly, Lechmere disturbing JTR as Dusty has stated. Dusty has been unable to substantiate this despite me asking him twice for any evidence. This is a hypothesis not a fact. Lechmere is on his own in Bucks Row, he see’s or hears nobody. There is nobody else there.

[Paddy Goose]

One way of looking at this issue would be to consider the known facts very carefully, and then develop logical conclusions.

We know that CAL's birthname was Lechmere, and so did he, and as an adult he used it whenever he thought it was appropriate, such as marriage, registration of his children, the census etc. Exactly what he thought was and was not appropriate, we cannot ever know. We do know that his step-father started to call him Cross, but we do not know for certain how he felt about the names Lechmere and Cross. We can certainly assume that he had absolutely no reason whatever to have any respect for the name Lechmere, the father who abandoned him and his mother when he was an infant. Cross was the only father-figure he ever knew.

At the 1876 inquest CAL gave his evidence on oath as Cross. This is important, and must be considered seriously when we wonder what name he normally used. His cart hit and killed a child, and there would have been an investigation by the police, which must surely have required them to contact Pickfords. So when he gave his evidence as Cross, and no-one, not the police nor the coroner, queried this, then he would surely have been Cross at work with Pickfords. It is totally inconceivable that the police investigated his employment and didn't discover his name was Lechmere, if he was using that name at work.

So if he was Cross at work in 1876, then he had probably always been Cross at Pickfords since he started there, so he was probably using the name Cross from choice as a child, then as a youth, and then as an employee. So very possibly he was still Cross at work in 1888. All assumptions, but totally logical. There is no evidence that he wasn't Cross at Pickfords, and Christer says that he doesn't dispute this.

So, if we accept the strong possibility - and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary - we should accept that CAL was very possibly - I think almost certainly - Cross at work with Pickfords. Once we accept that possibility, we realise that CAL was probably Cross as a child, Cross as a youth, Cross to his neighbours, Cross to his school friends, and Cross at Pickfords, Cross to the management, Cross to his workmates, Cross to his numerous customers, over twelve hours a day, six days a week for over twenty years. In fact, once we consider the evidence carefully, we can see that CAL might have only been Lechmere when he thought it was a legal necessity such as marriage etc. We actually don't even know that he didn't say to Pickfords and the police that his birthname was Lechmere but that he had taken his step-father's name as a child and retained it since. Then there should be no issues whatever with the use of the name. I am not suggesting that he did, but there is no evidence that he didn't either. Absence of evidence is, as always, the problem.

In my mind, I am only wondering which issues he felt required the use of his birthname up to 1888. If he was predominantly Cross, I understand that he would use the name routinely. Although I have made several assumptions here, they are totally plausible. Giving evidence on oath as Cross in 1876, if he was working as Lechmere, is not plausible in my opinion.

I am aware that he used the surname Lechmere in later life, but that is not, and never has been the issue. The simple truth is that we don't know what name CAL used most of the time up to 1888, and it is perfectly accurate to point out that there is absolutely no evidence that CAL was not using the name Cross in everyday life, and perfectly plausible that he was doing so.

Thanks, Doc. Your perfectly logical, sensible inference is right on target.

[drstrange169]

>>I notice of my earlier post containing 8 facts about Bucks Row only 3 have been disputed.<<

Because I did not read any further for reasons I've explained and others have now pointed out to you.

[Fisherman]

>>So you include all the things Llewellyn did AFTER being called to Bucks Row, like gtting out of bed, getting dressed and going downstairs as if they happened BEFORE he was called to Bucks Row?<<

Ummm ... Yes, absolutely!

As noted and explicitly explained in my post 3538, but of course you'll try and claim I didn't mention it. You really are getting desperate or perhaps you aren't actually read any of these posts before replying.

Desperate? Why would I be desperate when you freely admit to dabbling with the facts to make them suit your faulty claims? The time Llewellyn spoke of was the time he was called to Bucks Row, not the time he was called to Bucks Row plus all the things he had to do before setting out for Bucks Row, getting out of bed, getting dressed, getting hold of his bag, etcetera.

You claimed that he perrhaps his clock was situate somewhere that hindered jim from seeing it until as he passed out through his practice door. Where the clock was, we donīt know. Realistically, he had one oh his person. Regardless of which, the time he passed out his front door is not the time he was called to Bucks Row.

Snake oil.

[Fisherman]

>>Baxter very clearly says in the summary that the finding of the body cannot have been far off 3.45, meaning that we cannot rule out 3.45 or any of the minutes adjacent to it. <<

What is it with Lechmerians and there total inability to understand facts and basic english grammar?

“In LESS than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead …”

Less does not in anyway shape or form mean adjacent.

"Less definition
determiner a smaller amount of; not as much."

"Adjacent adjective
next to or adjoining something else."

Your above sentence is complete and utter nonsense. Read it again and tell me you still stick by it and my, and any sensible persons estimation of you will sink to zero. I know we've had our disagreements but this is the lowest level of sheer ridiculousness I've seen.

Again, Baxter very clearly says that the finding of the body cannot have been far off 3.45, and so we cannot rule out 3.45 or the minutes adjacent to it. That is EXACTLY what Baxters statement means. To claim that saying so would be proof of a disability to understand English is nothing short of silly. Which is of course in line with your normal approach to ripperology. Baxter then says "Less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead" but as we can all (with one possible exception) see, if it was LESS than an hour and a quarter after half past two, then the latest possible time of her finding allowed for would be 3.44, Baxter would have allowed for that, but not for 3.45.
So he tells us that the finding of the body cannot have ben far off 3.45 - but he actually MEANS that it cannot have been any later than 3.44? Letīs see how many apprentices you can round up for that one, Dusty!
Oh, and letīs not forget that there are seconds too: She could have been found at 3.44.59, right? That would be in line with what Baxter said.

And now I have my chance, my golden opportunity, to do ripperology the way YOU do it, Dusty; misleading, false and sneaky. Here is what I learnt from you:

Baxter said:
1. the finding cannot have been far off the 3.45 mark. That means that the time we are looking for is as close a we can come to 3.45.
2. less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead, and he works from the time of 2.30.

We must now fit these timings together and get as close to 3.45 as we can. And that means that coroner Baxter actually said that the body was likely found at 3.44.59.

There you go, Dusty - many, many thanks for learning me your trade. Very useful!

>I have already pointed out that Baxter speaks of MANY data, and I believe it was true that there was. Since Baxter never lists them, I canīt say how many they were ...<<

But he does list them and I've pointed them out several times now. What you mean is you can't list anything that supports your theory, that's a very different thing.

The rest of your post is just silly verbal gymnastics without actually saying or proving anything.


>>you may want to ponder that before you try selling this kind of misinformation again.<<

Given the utter nonsense about "less" meaning "adjacent", everyone can now see who really is trying to sell "this kind of misinformation". Even the most hardened Lechmerians must be squirming after reading these claims of yours.

If Baxter did list the data, then you should have no problems to publish that list. So letīs see it. Not information picked from here and there: a list. You said that there was a listing.

Now, produce it. Unless you are once again trying to mislead, it should be a piece of cake.

[Fisherman]

But, don't worry Christer, I going away for the next 4 days and I don't think there will be any internet connections. For your sake though, I'd advise you think a little more seriously and perhaps take some advice from others on how your post are coming across.

Thanks for that advice! I wonīt tell you to do the same since itīs obvious that you donīt even care.

[Fisherman]

The timings relative to all the witnesses are totally unsafe to rely on. And I would suggest that the police officers were less than liberal with the truth as to their movements.

On another issue with regards to the body and what wounds were visible other than the wound to the throat, none of the abdomibnal wounds were discovered. These were not discovered until the body had reached the mortuary. So the doctor who attended the crime scene did not do a very good job, nor it seems did the police who attended

On a final note you seek to rely on the good doctor stating that death had occurred some 30 mins before he arrived to prop up your beleief this is of course also unsafe to rely on

I again refer to what Dr Bigggs says on this topic

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The doctor did not do a very good job? What do you require from doctors? X-ray vision? The wounds were covered by the clothes, and Llewellyn decided eaarly on that he did not want to make a further examination in situ as people were gathering there.
I donīt think that amounts to a bad job. It amounts to doing what he could under the circumstances.

As for the TOD given by Llewellyn, we all know that it is not a very safe thing to rely on. It is an indication, but no hard evidence. I donīt see myself having said otherwise.

[Fisherman]

One way of looking at this issue would be to consider the known facts very carefully, and then develop logical conclusions.

... and if we had all defined logic in the same way, we would get along just fine. As an example, Dusty is right now in the process of saying that it would be a logical solution if Llewellyn meant the time he walked out his door when he spoke of when he was called to Bucks Row. The getting out of bed, getting dressed and getting his bag after Thain had alerted him, would be something that took place BEFORE he was "called to Bucks Row", according to Dusty.
So he did all of this, got up, got dressed, got his gear and THEN he was called to Bucks Row as per Dustys "logic".

Much as I would like to find the same type logical thinking within all of us, instead of the Dusty logic (which I am NOT implying you engage in by the way), it sadly does not work that way, does it?

We know that CAL's birthname was Lechmere, and so did he, and as an adult he used it whenever he thought it was appropriate, such as marriage, registration of his children, the census etc. Exactly what he thought was and was not appropriate, we cannot ever know. We do know that his step-father started to call him Cross, but we do not know for certain how he felt about the names Lechmere and Cross. We can certainly assume that he had absolutely no reason whatever to have any respect for the name Lechmere, the father who abandoned him and his mother when he was an infant. Cross was the only father-figure he ever knew.

At the 1876 inquest CAL gave his evidence on oath as Cross. This is important, and must be considered seriously when we wonder what name he normally used. His cart hit and killed a child, and there would have been an investigation by the police, which must surely have required them to contact Pickfords. So when he gave his evidence as Cross, and no-one, not the police nor the coroner, queried this, then he would surely have been Cross at work with Pickfords. It is totally inconceivable that the police investigated his employment and didn't discover his name was Lechmere, if he was using that name at work.

So if he was Cross at work in 1876, then he had probably always been Cross at Pickfords since he started there, so he was probably using the name Cross from choice as a child, then as a youth, and then as an employee. So very possibly he was still Cross at work in 1888. All assumptions, but totally logical. There is no evidence that he wasn't Cross at Pickfords, and Christer says that he doesn't dispute this.

So, if we accept the strong possibility - and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary - we should accept that CAL was very possibly - I think almost certainly - Cross at work with Pickfords.

So if I accept the POSSIBILITY that he called himself Cross at work - and I do - then it suddenly almost becomes a certainty...? No Dr Whatsit - accepting possibilitites does not make them certainties!

Once we accept that possibility, we realise that CAL was probably Cross as a child, Cross as a youth, Cross to his neighbours, Cross to his school friends, and Cross at Pickfords, Cross to the management, Cross to his workmates, Cross to his numerous customers, over twelve hours a day, six days a week for over twenty years. In fact, once we consider the evidence carefully, we can see that CAL might have only been Lechmere when he thought it was a legal necessity such as marriage etc. We actually don't even know that he didn't say to Pickfords and the police that his birthname was Lechmere but that he had taken his step-father's name as a child and retained it since. Then there should be no issues whatever with the use of the name. I am not suggesting that he did, but there is no evidence that he didn't either. Absence of evidence is, as always, the problem.

In my mind, I am only wondering which issues he felt required the use of his birthname up to 1888. If he was predominantly Cross, I understand that he would use the name routinely. Although I have made several assumptions here, they are totally plausible. Giving evidence on oath as Cross in 1876, if he was working as Lechmere, is not plausible in my opinion.

I am aware that he used the surname Lechmere in later life, but that is not, and never has been the issue. The simple truth is that we don't know what name CAL used most of the time up to 1888, and it is perfectly accurate to point out that there is absolutely no evidence that CAL was not using the name Cross in everyday life, and perfectly plausible that he was doing so.

In later life? Many of the signatures we have by his hand as Lechmere date from the time between 1876 and 1888. There is absolutely no doubt that Lechmere was the name he used officially throughout his adult life (he was nearing 40 at the time of the murders), and that is one of the main reasons that I think it would be odd if he had a small sphere in which he was Cross. Odd - but not impossible. Possible - but NOT anywhere near a certainty!

[FrankO]

Lechmere did mention the knees, but only to say that the clothing was up over them. Admittedly, so are the ears too. But to me, it seems that the logical solution is that the clothing was up somewhere over the thighs, leaving the abdomen unexposed.

I said that Paul pulled them down to just above her knees, because I remembered that somebody - possibly Neil or Inspector Spratling - had stated or written that Nichols was found by Neil with her clothes just above her knees. And this turns out to be correct, as Spratling wrote in his report of 31 August: "P.C. 97J, Neil, reports at 3.45. on 31^st inst. He found the dead body of a woman lying on her back with her clothes a little above her knees, with her throat cut from ear to ear on a yard crossing at Bucks Row, Whitechapel."

As I have pointed out, ”around 3.30” works well if Lechmere assumed that Neils and Mizens timings would be accepted.

I already know (and hadn't forgotten) how you see it, Christer, I was just interested in SuperShodan's reaction.

[SuperShodan]

I will of course defer to Fisherman when it come to such matters.

My opinion, based on press reports quoting Lechmere himself, is that Nichols dress was pulled down to either around her knees or her thighs. The important part for me is that even at this initial stage, the abdominal wounds have been deliberately concealed. For me this shows that JTR never left Bucks Row, he disguised that a murder had taken place, and was therefore still in situ as Robert Paul arrived.

Furthermore, looking at the picture below of Nichols wounds, for these wounds to be concealed, I would suggest that Lechmere’s statements about the dress being pulled down to thighs / knees is accurate. I would add that this wouldn’t happen naturally from the lying down position. JTR tidied up the crime scene - he never left Bucks Row.

[Doctored Whatsit]

In later life? Many of the signatures we have by his hand as Lechmere date from the time between 1876 and 1888. There is absolutely no doubt that Lechmere was the name he used officially throughout his adult life (he was nearing 40 at the time of the murders), and that is one of the main reasons that I think it would be odd if he had a small sphere in which he was Cross. Odd - but not impossible. Possible - but NOT anywhere near a certainty!

There has never been any dispute from me that CAL was "officially" Lechmere. Of course he was. As I am quite sure that you realise, I was considering what name he used most of the time. As I clearly pointed out, if he was Cross when at work, and no evidence disputes this, then it appears he was probably Cross for most of his daily life up till 1888, so your contention that there was a "small sphere in which he was Cross" would then be massively inaccurate. I accept that much of what I have written is assumption, but I believe that it is all logical and totally plausible, and based on a known fact - the use of the name Cross at the 1876 inquest. As with all of our discussions, we have often insufficient data to get to the truth, but we can make reasonable inferences from what is known.

And Christer, I never suggested that accepting a possibility made it a certainty!!!

[Mark J D]

Furthermore, looking at the picture below of Nichols wounds... [etc]

I can't help noticing that we're still only looking at a subset of Nichols' actual wounds. I know this probably doesn't affect SuperS's essential point; but I myself would like to know the total number of cuts. Does anyone have a suitably graphic graphic -- or the different written sources from which we can pool the descriptions? I have long considered that all the people involved in those early days -- the doctors as well as Paul! -- were very unhelpfully constrained by prudery as to what they could mention, and how they could refer to it.

M.

[rjpalmer]

There has never been any dispute from me that CAL was "officially" Lechmere. Of course he was. As I am quite sure that you realise, I was considering what name he used most of the time. As I clearly pointed out, if he was Cross when at work, and no evidence disputes this, then it appears he was probably Cross for most of his daily life up till 1888, so your contention that there was a "small sphere in which he was Cross" would then be massively inaccurate. I accept that much of what I have written is assumption, but I believe that it is all logical and totally plausible, and based on a known fact - the use of the name Cross at the 1876 inquest. As with all of our discussions, we have often insufficient data to get to the truth, but we can make reasonable inferences from what is known.

And, of course, Thomas Cross raised him. So, as far as we know, CAL could have utterly despised Pa Lechmere, the birth father who had abandoned him (which is hardly rare) and was 'all in' with his stepdad. Yet, these same attitudes could have softened later in life. There even could have been a reconciliation with Pa Lechmere later on. Who knows?

Things often look strange when we don't have all the information. It's the main theme of detective novels...in the last chapters our early suspicions turn out to have been unwarranted.

[Fisherman]

There has never been any dispute from me that CAL was "officially" Lechmere. Of course he was. As I am quite sure that you realise, I was considering what name he used most of the time. As I clearly pointed out, if he was Cross when at work, and no evidence disputes this, then it appears he was probably Cross for most of his daily life up till 1888, so your contention that there was a "small sphere in which he was Cross" would then be massively inaccurate. I accept that much of what I have written is assumption, but I believe that it is all logical and totally plausible, and based on a known fact - the use of the name Cross at the 1876 inquest. As with all of our discussions, we have often insufficient data to get to the truth, but we can make reasonable inferences from what is known.

And Christer, I never suggested that accepting a possibility made it a certainty!!!

What you refer to as evidence for him more likely calling himself Cross than Lechmere in his day-to-day life in the years leading up to 1888, is that he in 1876 answered a question from an authority (the inquest) about his name with "Cross".
During the years between 1876 and 1888, however, he answered a lot MORE questions from authorities about his name by saying "Lechmere".

So why is it that your suggestion that we should go by ONE occasion when he gave his name to the authorities should be a better one than my suggestion that we should go with the name he NORMALLY and ON MANY OCCASIONS gave to the authorities?

The name Cross as being the carmanīs name first surfaced on the 1861 census listing, probably given by his stepfather. Two years before that, Charles had been baptized at the age of 9, together with his three year older sister Emily. The siblings were baptized the year AFTER Maria Louisa married Thomas Cross. If Thomas had insisted that the children should be named after him, it seems it was a battle he lost. Moreover, Emily and Charles would already have been listed as Lechmere in the school years before that. Their identities were fixed as Lechmere and it was given confirmation when they were baptized.

And what about Charlesī own children? Well, they are registered at various shools as being named Lechmere. Never Cross. Every teacher they had, every friend they had, everyone who knew them would have known and accepted that the family they originated from was one called Lechmere. Are we to think that the members of this family were called Cross by their Doveton Street neighbors, or would the family have been known as the Lechmeres?

Charles Lechmere differs from many other Eastenders, who pop up every now and then in registers and listings. The carman seems to have filled out just about every form there was, every voting form and every census list, every school list, every everything. He seems to have been a meticulous man, very eager to do things in a proper manner. In that respect, he reminds me of Dennis Rader, who was also a stickler for order.
Would such a man, with a very high brow name, steeped in tradition, call himself Cross at work, but Lechmere in Doveton Street and when taking his kids to school?

I really donīt think so.