Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

I think we may have reached a time when we are not making the best of the matter, so I respectfully bow out for today.

[SuperShodan]

But he had every opportunity of walking away. When Lechmere first saw Paul he would have heard him first. It’s impossible to know how far away Paul would have been. Fish himself has spoken about the echoing of boots in regard to the issue of Paul not hearing Lechmere up ahead on his walk to work. So as soon as Lechmere heard footsteps, which for all that he’d known might have been a Constable, he could have walked. This could have been what 60/70/80/90 yards away. This isn’t a case of bending facts Bob it’s just the acceptance that Lechmere would probably have heard Paul approach before seeing him.

So Lechmere would immediately have been faced with the chance of being caught at the scene of a murder by a Constable, with blood on his hands and a bloodied knife on him. How could anyone claim that this is a reasonable option.

And even if he was confident that it wasn’t a Constable (perhaps it could be claimed that he’d judged the footsteps as being to fast?) then what could he expect from calling a stranger over? How could he know that Paul would just stand their yelling for a Constable? One thing that we know for certain is that he couldn’t have hoped that this stranger would have said “let’s ignore it and move on.” Therefore the obvious and likeliest outcome would have been a search for a Constable. This is simple common sense. A man who has had no time to check himself over for blood. How does he explain wet blood to either Paul or a Constable? And he can’t even discard the knife because if it was found then it would have pointed straight to Lechmere because why would another killer, unseen by anyone, have discarded his knife?

Lechmere would have had the option of walking away before Paul came into view. Paul would of course have also heard Lechmere walking or running away but, until he’d arrived at the body the checked to find that it was a dead woman, he would have had no reason for suspicion. And even after he’d found that she was dead Lechmere could have had a minute to get away. He could have been 2 streets away. How could Paul have found him? Would he have chased after a knife killer?

It just doesn’t add up. If Lechmere had no choice but to bluff it out then ok but he clearly would have had ample time. Unless we suggest that Lechmere had absolutely no sense of self-preservation I fail to see how this can be claimed. As I said….it doesn’t add up.

Lechmere not running off is a good point and one that comes up often. It does seem like best option is leaving, either sneaking away or making a run for it. Staying and confronting an approaching witness is indeed a huge gamble. So why did Lechmere just not run away ?

Firstly, I think Lechmere was engrossed in his work, he was fully focussed on Nichols and became aware of Pauls arrival too late. If Lechmere is aware of Paul just as Paul he turns into Bucks Row then I think Lechmere would run.

However, I think Lechmere only becomes aware of Paul when Paul is a good way up Bucks Row. I think this changes everything. A relatively short distance between our protagonists gives Lechmere a decision to make.

If Lechmere runs Paul will see him, it would clearly be suspicious. When Paul arrives at the body shortly after it will become clear what’s going on. Paul could shout for help, Paul could give chase. Perhaps Paul is close enough that if Lechmere runs Paul could even see him. Perhaps Paul has even witnessed Lechmere by the body.

Furthermore, if Lechmere runs he could run into another witness, or maybe even into a policeman. Running away isn’t without its risks either.

Secondly, there is a high degree of psychopathy at the crime scenes. Lechmere is a psychopath. Psychopaths are different and can be incredibly brave. I even read an article linking psychopathy ti heroism. A normal person would run, a psychopaths gut instinct would be to stand and face the danger. We’ve seen this with other killers, most famously with Jeffery Dahmer.

Thirdly, has Paul seen anything. I believe Nichols was killed shortly before Paul arrives in Bucks Row. Has he seen anything suspicious, will he tell the police he saw a man attack the woman. Lechmere would have good cause to find this out before he runs.

Fourthly, Paul can provide Lechmere will and alibi. If Lechmere can act like he’s just found the body, then Paul’s arrival could have an unexpected bonus. Depending on what Paul has seen, he could inadvertently support Lechmere’s pantomime of finding the body just as Paul arrives.

And lastly. An insurance policy. I believe that when Lechmere taps Paul on the shoulder, when they examine the body and when the walk off to fetch a policeman Lechmere has his hand in his pocket holding the murder weapon. If Paul has seen anything then he will die too. I know that’s dramatic, but I believe Paul stumbled upon a murder taking place, and that he could easily have ended up a victim too.

Just my thoughts. I don’t think running away is the obvious choice we think it is.

[rjpalmer]

How did he know the approaching civilian was not a policeman ? Even an off duty one. Or even someone who once served with the force

He didn't. Indeed, the most obvious assumption would have been a beat constable was walking towards him, and he just stood there, waiting.

It's another weakness of the Lechmere theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

Where and how did I suggest that he DID clean his hands? Where and how do we have evidence that he needed to? Where and how do we know that he would have cared? Where and how is it impossible for him to have rubbed his hands against each other and felt that there was no significant amount of wet blood on them?
Again this is the same old, same old. It does not represent any obstacle for the Lechmere theory in any way and it never did. So can we move on? And could you stop claiming that I duck and dive when I never do? Or present evidence that I do? Put up or shut of, sort of?

How can we rely on your experts opinion when there is no evidence to show how her throat was cut, when they were not there at the crime scene to view the body, or at the post mortem. It seems to me that you have provided your experts with loaded questions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Lechmere not running off is a good point and one that comes up often. It does seem like best option is leaving, either sneaking away or making a run for it. Staying and confronting an approaching witness is indeed a huge gamble. So why did Lechmere just not run away ?

Firstly, I think Lechmere was engrossed in his work, he was fully focussed on Nichols and became aware of Pauls arrival too late. If Lechmere is aware of Paul just as Paul he turns into Bucks Row then I think Lechmere would run.

However, I think Lechmere only becomes aware of Paul when Paul is a good way up Bucks Row. I think this changes everything. A relatively short distance between our protagonists gives Lechmere a decision to make.

If Lechmere runs Paul will see him, it would clearly be suspicious. When Paul arrives at the body shortly after it will become clear what’s going on. Paul could shout for help, Paul could give chase. Perhaps Paul is close enough that if Lechmere runs Paul could even see him. Perhaps Paul has even witnessed Lechmere by the body.

Furthermore, if Lechmere runs he could run into another witness, or maybe even into a policeman. Running away isn’t without its risks either.

Secondly, there is a high degree of psychopathy at the crime scenes. Lechmere is a psychopath. Psychopaths are different and can be incredibly brave. I even read an article linking psychopathy ti heroism. A normal person would run, a psychopaths gut instinct would be to stand and face the danger. We’ve seen this with other killers, most famously with Jeffery Dahmer.

Thirdly, has Paul seen anything. I believe Nichols was killed shortly before Paul arrives in Bucks Row. Has he seen anything suspicious, will he tell the police he saw a man attack the woman. Lechmere would have good cause to find this out before he runs.

Fourthly, Paul can provide Lechmere will and alibi. If Lechmere can act like he’s just found the body, then Paul’s arrival could have an unexpected bonus. Depending on what Paul has seen, he could inadvertently support Lechmere’s pantomime of finding the body just as Paul arrives.

And lastly. An insurance policy. I believe that when Lechmere taps Paul on the shoulder, when they examine the body and when the walk off to fetch a policeman Lechmere has his hand in his pocket holding the murder weapon. If Paul has seen anything then he will die too. I know that’s dramatic, but I believe Paul stumbled upon a murder taking place, and that he could easily have ended up a victim too.

Just my thoughts. I don’t think running away is the obvious choice we think it is.

good post ss. yes the obvious idea would be to simply run or walk away and most killers would, so IMHO it is a check mark against his candidacy, i would be remiss not to agree with anti lechers on this point. but as you succinctly point out there could be reasons why he stayed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lechmere not running off is a good point and one that comes up often. It does seem like best option is leaving, either sneaking away or making a run for it. Staying and confronting an approaching witness is indeed a huge gamble. So why did Lechmere just not run away ?

Firstly, I think Lechmere was engrossed in his work, he was fully focussed on Nichols and became aware of Pauls arrival too late. If Lechmere is aware of Paul just as Paul he turns into Bucks Row then I think Lechmere would run.

However, I think Lechmere only becomes aware of Paul when Paul is a good way up Bucks Row. I think this changes everything. A relatively short distance between our protagonists gives Lechmere a decision to make.

As I said, I can recall Fish talking that Paul would have been able to have heard Lechmere from a fair distance away with hobnailed boots echoing the deserted streets. Why doesn’t this also apply to Bucks Row. Paul was a workman too and would have been fairly clumping along an empty and echoing street. Unless we assume poor hearing on Lechmere’s part (which isn’t impossible of course) then it’s difficult to imagine him not hearing Paul from a considerable distance away. He must have heard him before he actually saw him. And surely someone undertaking the super risky business of murdering in the street, with Constable’s on the beat and potentially other people going to work, I’d have expected him to have been in a state of high alert.

If Lechmere runs Paul will see him, it would clearly be suspicious. When Paul arrives at the body shortly after it will become clear what’s going on. Paul could shout for help, Paul could give chase. Perhaps Paul is close enough that if Lechmere runs Paul could even see him. Perhaps Paul has even witnessed Lechmere by the body.

Furthermore, if Lechmere runs he could run into another witness, or maybe even into a policeman. Running away isn’t without its risks either.

Nothing is without risks but after having just killed a man escaping has to be the best option. If he’d run when he first heard Paul and before he’d seen him then Paul might not have seen him. But if Paul was 50 yards or so away then he wouldn’t have known what was going on in front of him until he got there and then checked the body. This allows plenty of escape time. And even then we couldn’t assume that he’d have given chase. So there might have been no conflict to have dealt with.

Secondly, there is a high degree of psychopathy at the crime scenes. Lechmere is a psychopath. Psychopaths are different and can be incredibly brave. I even read an article linking psychopathy ti heroism. A normal person would run, a psychopaths gut instinct would be to stand and face the danger. We’ve seen this with other killers, most famously with Jeffery Dahmer.

If he was a psychopath. Can we produce any other examples of serial killers found waiting at a body to talk to a passerby.

Thirdly, has Paul seen anything. I believe Nichols was killed shortly before Paul arrives in Bucks Row. Has he seen anything suspicious, will he tell the police he saw a man attack the woman. Lechmere would have good cause to find this out before he runs.

Even if Paul saw him it was only a shadowy figure n the distance.

Fourthly, Paul can provide Lechmere will and alibi. If Lechmere can act like he’s just found the body, then Paul’s arrival could have an unexpected bonus. Depending on what Paul has seen, he could inadvertently support Lechmere’s pantomime of finding the body just as Paul arrives.

An alibi? What if he spotted the blood on his hands? What if he’d panicked and called Lechmere a murderer? All unnecessary risks.

And lastly. An insurance policy. I believe that when Lechmere taps Paul on the shoulder, when they examine the body and when the walk off to fetch a policeman Lechmere has his hand in his pocket holding the murder weapon. If Paul has seen anything then he will die too. I know that’s dramatic, but I believe Paul stumbled upon a murder taking place, and that he could easily have ended up a victim too.

True but he couldn’t have done anything by the time that he got to Mizen?

Just my thoughts. I don’t think running away is the obvious choice we think it is.

To me everything points to fleeing being by a long way the better, safer option.

[John Wheat]

To me everything points to fleeing being by a long way the better, safer option.

To anyone not deluded fleeing is clearly the safer option.

[drstrange169]

>>It’s easy to criticise. <<

It's certainly easy to criticise your posts as they contain so much incorrect information. It not just me pointing that out, everybody is.


>>All you ever do is react to others idea’s, never once offering your own thoughts or contributing to the debate in any meaningful way.<<

I've been writing this site and jtrforums with my opinions for just shy of 30 years. Spent decades of time and money researching the case and the Victorian period. More importantly when I wrote an article for Rip I didn't hide and refuse to discuss what I had written, like you are.

Research is more than just telling people your opinion without actually doing the hard yards to check if what you think is feasible or even true.


>>A post about prostitutes avoiding the Main Street and you reply with police guidance. Totally missing the overall point about why Nichols might be in Bucks Row.<<

Since the Cass case is vital to whether your "opinion" on Mrs Nichols choosing Buck's over Whitechapel and you haven't the faintest notion about the case, it's a bit rich for you to post about others contributing nothing.


>>I mention the next street up from Whitechapel Road and you take the literal view it’s Winthrop Street, not comprehending the conversation is about her presence in Bucks Row. <<

I fully understood what you meant as did everybody else, I merely and correctly pointed out you were wrong, but instead of acknowledging you error and apologising, you chose to insult.

Put bluntly, the point you were making doesn't work. Others noticed it and pointed it out too, but you still did not acknowledge the flaws in your "opinions" to them either.


>>Your posts are very odd. It’s like you are autistic. <<

Thanks, if that makes you feel better, I'm a big boy insult away. How do you know I'm not autistic and why would you think autistic people are insulting?

The key here is not the amount of insults you throw, it's the amount of knowledge in your posts that count. In that respect your posts are lagging way behind just about everyone else here. Even Christer is ahead of you.


>>Every post is a reply or critique of somebody’s original, and never once in thousands of posts ever being original yourself. <<

As I wrote, I've 30 years of posts, I'm happy to stand by them all, good and bad. And I'm more than comfortable to compare them to yours.

Now, can we get back to issues rather than personalities?

Will you answer some of the questions that have been asked of you? Because some of them go to the core of your creditably.

Ripperologist magazine is a serious study magazine, it's had some of the fantastically well researched articles that have graced its pages over the years, your article has somewhat tarnished it with your incredibly poor research and opinion presented as fact.

Despite being given the opportunity to explain why you made so many errors, you have, so far, refused to answer, instead you've posted distractions here. This seems to be a bit of a theme with some Lechmerians.

For once and for all, will you respond to the errors in your article. Some are trivial some are very serious.

For example, you wrote.

“To quote David McNab, the producer of the Channel Five television documentary that looked at Lechmere and Buck’s Row, “Lechmere was discovered standing over the body, but bizarrely no-one seems to think was an important fact.”

It has been made very clear that the documentary showing Lechmere standing over the body was a mistake. Christer has even confirmed it right here, yet despite being given that opportunity, you have not stood up and explained why you put that in your article, or told us that you now know it to be an error.


Worse still, you wrote,

"PC Thain was in Winthrop Street, ... it would have been nigh on impossible for him (the killer) to sprint to safety and avoid detection. The likelihood of the murderer being an unknown third party running away seems slim to none. Coroner Baxter thought so too: “It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection”.

I don't where you got the information that PC Thain was in Winthorp St when Cross and Paul were in Buck's Row, but it certainly isn't the fact you claimed it was.

But, the serious part of this section was,

"Coroner Baxter thought so too: “It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection”.

In fact Baxter said the complete opposite.

"“It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood-stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic.”

Baxter clearly said it would have been easy for the killer to escape unnoticed, you even gave the a footnote source for Baxter's quote so you could not have failed to know what he said, yet you had altered it to pretend it meant the opposite.

This not a minor issue it deserves not only answer but a written retraction.

These are by no means the limit of the problems with your article, so why do you refuse to acknowledge and discuss them? Instead you post here complaining about minor issues, that don't actually stack up.

If I'm wrong on anything, by all means show me and prove I am, but don't waste everybody's time by posting meaningless insults to avoid the actual issues.

[drstrange169]

>>>Nice to see Robert Paul's expertise in forensic pathology being properly acknowledged. Frankly, I'm staggered the police didn't seek out his estimates concerning all the other killings.<<

Precisely my point!

And yet his Lloyds interview is not just taken seriously, it is at the core of the case against Lechmere.

[drstrange169]

>>- When Swanson altered the time Lechmere found the body to 3.45 in his October report, it is claimed that either A: He actually did not alter it at all, or B: It means absolutely nothing that he did.<<

Could you list the errors in his reports and explain them to us? If not why should we believe this was not just one of his many mistakes?

[drstrange169]

>>Interesting news paper article from a previous post. It would appear to place our Pickford’s carman at the scene of the crime very close to the point of death.<<

If Cross interrupted the killer, it goes without saying Mrs Nichols died around that time, it's the one thing pro and anti Lechmerians tend to agree on. Although Trevor, at least, has suggested otherwise. So, your point adds nothing to the debate.

[drstrange169]

>>Would you direct me to the post where I said that there is absolute proof that Lechmere killed all or any of the Ripper victims? <<

Could you direct us to the post where John said, "absolute proof"? If not why ask?

[drstrange169]

>>With Lechmere, the tweaking and changing is all performed by the naysayers:-The killer is likelier to have been there ten minutes or more before Lechmere,<<

Could cite the post where "naysayers" said, "The killer is likelier to have been there ten minutes or more before Lechmere"? You didn't just make that up did you? And why would it matter how long any killer might have been there, surely the only relevant point is when the deed was done?


>>two prominent pathologiusts say that the bleeding would have been most likely to stop after three to five minutes.<<

Based on that time, bleeding would have stopped before Mizen arrived, interesting.


>>-3.45 is taken as the time when Neil got to the body,<<

Certainly Baxter believed so and instructed the jury as such, so it's a reasonable hypnosis.


>>Baxter clearly says that the time at which the body was found is fixed by "so many independent data". <<

Correct, three policemen's undisputed testimony. Despite repeated attempts to get you to show us where Baxter told the jury he believed the policemen's timings wrong you have failed to do so. On the other hand I have shown you that when Baxter disagrees with a witnesses testimony he clearly states so. as he did with Llewelyn's claim of the stomach injuries being inflicted first.

I'm afraid you can't keep creating fictional narratives and refuse to explain them.


>>And there is NO independent data anywhere that fixes 3.40 as the Lechmere finding time, whereas there IS when it comes to 3.40.<<

You've lost me, did you mean to write 3:45?


>>- When Swanson altered the time Lechmere found the body to 3.45 in his October report, it is claimed that either A: He actually did not alter it at all, or B: It means absolutely nothing that he did.<<

Until you can show that the numerous Swanson timing mistakes were not mistakes, then your claim is not credible.

Please feel free explain to us how Goldstein, turned up to the police station before Mrs Strides body was discovered. And then explain all the other mis-timings.

Your silence on the matter gives us your answer.


>>- When I have an explanation to offer for why Thain was questioned about whether or not he visited the knackers en route to Llewellyn, everything goes silent and nobody can offer an alternative explanation to mine: <<

Really? Oh yes, sorry you deny my posts on the subject exist, I forgot.

Lets look at you explanation, post #4215

"We see, for example, how Thain was hauled over the coals for wasting precious time at the knackers ..."

Lets read how Thain was "hauled over the coals",

"By the Jury. - He did not pass the end of Buck's-row exactly at the end of each half-hour. It was a quarter to 4 when he was first called by the constable. It was a quarter-past 3 when he was round there before. He did not take his cape to the slaughterers, but sent it by a brother constable. When he was sent for the doctor he did not first go to the horse-slaughterers and say that as a murder had been committed he had better fetch his cape. He was not supposed to leave his beat. Shortly before he was called by Constable Neil he saw one or two men going to work in the direction of Whitechapel-road. When he was signalled by Neil he was coming up Brady-street, from the direction of Whitechapel-road."

So, far from being "hauled over the coals", P.C. Thain was merely asked a series of general questions, by the jury, not Baxter, about what happened that night and the specific question about the cape was to determine when Thain told the slaughters about the murder, not about any delay in going to Llewelyn.

As for Llewelyn,we are back to that old canard, synchronisation. Where does Christer PROVE Llewelyn's clock was in sync with anybody else? In fact quite the contrary, he has claimed Llewelyn owned some kind of super clock that was in prefect time with Greenwich. The upshot being that Paul must have own the same super clock and that is the quality of the argument Christer is offering.

[FISHY1118]

I think Mrs Long identification is unsafe because of what she says "I am "sure" the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased" that is not a positive identification.If she is not sure, then how can she also be "so sure" that the body she viewed at the mortuary were one and the same!!!!!!!

So that clearly makes her ID unsafe and casts a major doubt surrounding the actual time of death, and her testimony also conflicts with Cadosh who heard a bang which could have emenated from anywhere in close proximity and not necessarily from the fence of 29.

As to Richardson, he either didnt see the body, or he saw the body and thought that it was someoone sleeping rough and chose to do no more. that sugegstion is supported by his witness testimony when questioned by the coroner

[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.

Those supporting a later time of death in line with Long and Cadosh should really take a reality check because the evidence of Long,Richardson and Cadosh is UNSAFE and the doctors guessed time of death is far more reliable

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your interuptation of what long said staggers me , ill take it for what i really means, I am "sure" the woman that I saw in Hanbury-street was the deceased.richardson just also decides he will just let this bum sleep if off the night of chapmans murder after he said he often had to turn them out , bordering near impossible ,i think the reality check needs to be a bit closer in another direction, how herlock can sit by and not comment on your post also staggers me, but thats up to him i guess.

[FISHY1118]

I think people assume an element of forward planning in Bucks Row and I don’t think there was. Lechmere took a big chance in Bucks Row, it’s not a great place for a murder. Somebody turns the corner from the Brady Street entrance, or walks round the corner from the Board School, and you’re caught. And that’s exactly what happened.The last thing Lechmere expected was that a witness would turn the corner, and the last thing he expected was that a few minutes later he would end up in front of a policeman.

Once Paul arrives it’s all gone horribly wrong and Lechmere has completely lost control of the situation.

People say it’s crazy to interact with a witness with blood on your hands, it’s suicidal to chat to a policeman after committing a murder, perhaps with the murder weapon in your pocket. The point is Lechmere had zero choice in any of this. He was a murderer on survival mode. He had avoided being caught by seconds. Everything that follows is him reacting to the unfolding situation. He had little room for manoeuvre and few options.

Interacting with Paul is a huge risk, fetching a policeman and talking to Mizen an obstacle he had to negotiate his way past. However, in each case Lechmere had zero choice.

So having blood on his hands, if indeed he did, was just one more problem he had to deal with. And for all we know he simply wiped his hands on his apron.

Im afaide you lost me after AND THATS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED. Lechmere discovers the body, after reporting it to the police went to work as any normal citizen would probably do ,thats problably what really happened