Evidence of innocence

[Mark J D]

My concern with Lechmere as killer has nothing to do with Bucks Row, I can accept him doing that and not running off etc. I know and appreciate why this killing has been dissected at such length though of course, he was there.

But the other cases, in particular Stride and Eddowes are more difficult for me. Fish's case seems to be that he may have visited his mum where he used to live and then leave and carry these out on his way home or to a pub. Trouble is, these really aren't on his way home, quite the opposite really. Even if he fancied a pub before home he would go in the homeward direction, yet the suggestion is that he didn't. That feels highly unlikely to me.

I have recently tried to upgrade the graphic we all know from the Blink Films documentary. It seemed worth putting his mother's 1888 address in to clarify the Berner Street issue...



M.

[John Wheat]

I think by Eddowes and Stride that Lechmere was a clearly a confirmed serial killer. I Tabram may have been his first directly fatal attack but I think he attacked plenty more, likely Emma Smith and Annie Millwood (just my opinion). The point being that attacking and killing women was something he was now doing on a regular basis.

I feel there would likely have been other women who had lucky escapes, perhaps a witness or a policeman turning up just at the right time saved them. I think every time he was out in the evening, or early morning, he would he looking for an opportunity to kill. Anytime he is out on his own he is dangerous.

So when Lechmere is visiting his mother and daughter, if indeed that’s what he was doing. Then we have a serial killer in the area around the time both women were killed. I do think the location of his mothers house, where he grew up and his old walk to work (pre Doveton Street) all tie in with both murders.

Its like Ted Bundy, everywhere we know he goes the dead bodies turn up. Same with Lechmere. Every victim is contained with a triangle - where he worked, where he lives and his mothers house, a house where he used to live and where his daughter still lives.

We can draw a direct line between all 3 points and find that EVERY victim falls close to that line. For example, we can draw a line between Eddowes, her discarded apron (giving us the direction the killer headed after the murder) and Doveton Street.

It’s circumstantial, it’s just my opinion, but once again Lechmere being JTR fits like a glove.

Lechmere being Jack the Ripper doesn't fit like a glove in anyway shape or form.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere being Jack the Ripper doesn't fit like a glove in anyway shape or form.

Ta-da.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, they are echoing his FIRST time. But if they echoed his second, they would be idiots, because his 3.45 timing can never be the time at which Nichols died. Regardless of which time Neil had mentioned, we know that he was at the murder spot five minutes after Lechmere.
So when they say between 3.15 and 3.45, they can only mean that Lechmere was at the spot at 3.45 - or, to be fair, around 3.46, since they thought that there was another killer and we must give him time to escape. Again, if they had meant that Neil was there at that stage, then Lechmere would have been there at 3.40 - and then the time gap that covered her murder would be 3.15 - 3.40, not 3.15 - 3.45. And so it would be idiotic to make the claim that Nichols could have been murdered after Lechmere left and before Neil arrived - which is EXACTLY what they are saying in such a case.

There is absolutely no way around this, Herlock, unless we employ the "They did not know what they were talking about" or "They mistakenly got the time wrong" approach. And I advice against that, since what they are writing makes perfect sense in combination with what Baxter said and Swanson wrote.

This former issue is now a non-issue for me, as I said. The evidence is there, and that is when issues become non-issues.

I really can’t understand why you are placing so much importance on this. The Press could know what time that the killer was on the spot to kill Nichols but they knew that Neil had said that he’d arrived at 3.45. Therefore very clearly the only 2 times that they had available whet 3.15 and 3.45. Both Neil’s times. This is just so obvious Fish that I’m genuinely struggling to see how you can try and make a point out of it.

[Fisherman]

I have recently tried to upgrade the graphic we all know from the Blink Films documentary. It seemed worth putting his mother's 1888 address in to clarify the Berner Street issue...



M.

Thank you, Mark. It is thought-evoking, especially if we weigh in that Lechmere could have gone off in any direction from Doveton street - until we find out where he works. And his old stomping ground could have been anywhere - until we realize where he grew up and spent his formative years. Plus his mother and daughter could have lived in many places - but they lived a stone’ s throw away from the Berner Street murder site.
Anybody who fails to see the potential relevance of these matters is no useful detective material …

[Fisherman]

I really can’t understand why you are placing so much importance on this.

Because it very clearly tells us that the Daily News worked from the assumption that Charles Lechmere was in Bucks Row at 3.45, which is what I have been saying for donkeys years, Herlock.

The Press could know what time that the killer was on the spot to kill Nichols but they knew that Neil had said that he’d arrived at 3.45.

Yes, and that is precisely why we may now see that the Daily News discarded Neils timing, and that Baxters summation was the reason for it. Plus we have Swanson following suit.

Therefore very clearly the only 2 times that they had available whet 3.15 and 3.45. Both Neil’s times. This is just so obvious Fish that I’m genuinely struggling to see how you can try and make a point out of it.

We do not know what times they had available. But Baxter may well have had a very certain Llewellyn saying that it could not have been before 3.55 that Thain arrived, and we may have had a likewise certain Paul who stood by his time. There were extremely reliable clocks around in 1888, and there had been since the 1700:s. And Baxter had what he needed to form a fixed timeline, remember. It was not ”could have been anytime” at all.
As an aside, I am not the one making a point here, the Daily News, present at the inquest, is. They are saying that Neil could not have been in Bucks Row at 3.45, whereas Lechmere was.

It is game over, therefore, at long last. All the material aligns now. If you have nothing to offer other than your failure to accept or understand it, then maybe we should not take up more space with that. If Lechmere was in Bucks Row at 3.40, then the Daily News suggests that Nichols could have been murdered well after he left. It is and remains impossible. That is the long and the short of things.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We do not know what times they had available. But Baxter may well have had a very certain Llewellyn saying that it could not have been before 3.55 that Thain arrived, and we may have had a likewise certain Paul who stood by his time. There were extremely reliable clocks around in 1888, and there had been since the 1700:s.
As an aside, I am not the one making a point here, the Daily News, present at the inquest, is. They are saying that Neil could not have been in Bucks Row at 3.45, whereas Lechmere was.

It is game over, therefore, at long last. All the material aligns now. If you have nothing to offer other than your failure to accept or understand it, then maybe we should not take up more space with that. If Lechere was in Bucks Row at 3.40, then the Daily News suggests that Nichols could have been murdered well after he left. It is and remains impossible. That is the long and the short of things.

So we have Emily Holland saying that she’d seen Nichols alive at around 2.30. Then we have Baxter summing up at the Inquest saying that she was found dead in less than an hour and a quarter after this. So if we take it that he was talking about 2.30 which he very clearly was then he’s saying that she was found dead some unspecified time before 3.45.

The Daily News were simply stating what everyone accepted. It’s hardly likely that the paper put so much time into thinking bout the details of the case as you do. They gave a general time based on the 2 times that they believed were known. It means absolutely nothing. Game over? Not even approaching it I’m afraid to say Fish. Do you really have to rely on the wording of a newspaper article to try and make a point?

[John Trent]

I have recently tried to upgrade the graphic we all know from the Blink Films documentary.

M.

Unfortunately, constucting a number of lines on a map that fit a theory does not advance or prove a theory - especially when there are many, many alternate lines that could be drawn. As anyone who has walked the area could tell you the idea of linking Mitre Square to or from Broad Street as part of a route to work from Doveton street is beyond fanciful. You have created a pretty graphic to support a meaningless theory. Perhaps you should do similar such graphics for other known victims and suspects just to illustrate how ludicrous the idea is.

[Aethelwulf]

I think by Eddowes and Stride that Lechmere was a clearly a confirmed serial killer. I Tabram may have been his first directly fatal attack but I think he attacked plenty more, likely Emma Smith and Annie Millwood (just my opinion). The point being that attacking and killing women was something he was now doing on a regular basis.

I feel there would likely have been other women who had lucky escapes, perhaps a witness or a policeman turning up just at the right time saved them. I think every time he was out in the evening, or early morning, he would he looking for an opportunity to kill. Anytime he is out on his own he is dangerous.

This is the sort of total BS that is just so stupid about the Lechmere case. There is no evidence he did anything sinister in Buck's Row yet the Lechers will have us believe that he basically attacked and killed everyone woman in Whitechapel in the last quarter of the 19th century (including the ridiculous torso idea).

The Lech case can be summarised as follows:

a) 0+0 = 0

b) 2+2 = 5

[MrBarnett]

Unfortunately, constucting a number of lines on a map that fit a theory does not advance or prove a theory - especially when there are many, many alternate lines that could be drawn. As anyone who has walked the area could tell you the idea of linking Mitre Square to or from Broad Street as part of a route to work from Doveton street is beyond fanciful. You have created a pretty graphic to support a meaningless theory. Perhaps you should do similar such graphics for other known victims and suspects just to illustrate how ludicrous the idea is.

Mitre Square doesn’t appear to be on the route.

[mpriestnall]

Lechmere being Jack the Ripper doesn't fit like a glove in anyway shape or form.

Except maybe one with a lot of holes in it!

[John Wheat]

Ta-da.

You can write Ta da as much as you like it doesn't change the fact that the case for Lechmere being the Ripper is non existent.

[Mark J D]

... anyone who has walked the area could tell you the idea of linking Mitre Square to or from Broad Street as part of a route to work from Doveton street is beyond fanciful.

You are fantasizing stuff to fit your tantrum. My graphic does not place Mitre Square on a route between Broad St and Doveton St; nor did the TV original.

You have created a pretty graphic to support a meaningless theory. Perhaps you should do similar such graphics for other known victims and suspects just to illustrate how ludicrous the idea is.

I'm totally fine with the idea of people producing equivalent diagrams for other victims and suspects. Just the other day I saw an old posting showing one suspect's logical path from Mitre Square, via Goulston Street, to his doss house in Wentworth Street. It looked exactly like a bit of the Lechmere diagram, needless to say. (And there were no shouts of 'But this is all meaningless!', equally needless to say.) Someone else on here made a valiant cartographical attempt to pin some non-fatal attacks on WH Bury as he returned from his wedding. This is the way to go: if you've got data and a scheme to fit it into, feel free.

M.

[FrankO]

Before I react to the more important parts, I would like to react to another thing first.

I would advice against claiming to know what people would or would. not have done, Frank. We cannot tell.

I don’t claim to know anything we don’t know, Christer, but maybe I expressed myself a bit too strongly. I only know and claim that Lllewellyn didn’t state that he consulted a clock and at what time, which makes his timings harder to put stock in. He could, for instance, have checked his watch arriving at the crime scene and, from there, have estimated the time Thain knocked at his door, but, why then didn’t he state the time at which he arrived at the crime scene, too? Or he could have checked his watch right after he was woken, but if he did that, why did he need to give two different (and “about x”) timings?

Yes, just as you say, the absolute bulk of the papers did NOT involve the part that was added in the Times. And as I have shown, they described the time at which Lechmere was there in details given both BEFORE and AFTER the sentence “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data". Therefore, the impression is given that the time refers to the carmans finding of the body and nothing else.

I don’t share this view at all. The Daily News and the Times both carried the same additional information relative to the others. That points to Baxter actually having said what was added, giving the distinct impression that Baxter actually referenced Neil’s timing, which was the closest given timing to Lechmere’s finding of the body.

I will now post the version from the Daily News, and we will look at who is referred to and who is not:

"She was first discovered by a carman named Cross on his way to his work. Paul, another carman, came up, and together they went to the woman. She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. Cross says her hand was cold, but her face was warm. Neither appears to have realised the real condition of the woman, and no injuries were noticed by them; but this, no doubt, is accounted for by the early hour of the morning and the darkness of the spot. (So far, neither you nor me is going to dispute how the text so far has made no reference to anybdoy else than Lechmere and Paul and the true finding of the body)

Agreed indeed.

Cross and Paul reported the circumstance to a constable at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, about 300 yards distant, but in the meantime Police constable Neil discovered the body. (Here, we have Neil mentioned, and we have it said that Neil got to the body after the carmen had left in search of a policeman)

Not only that, but they say that he got to the body “in the meantime”, thereby implicitly introducing Neil’s “about 3.45” (which Baxter at no time disputes).

The condition of the body appears to prove conclusively that deceased was killed on the spot where she was found. She met her death without a cry of any kind. Many people were within a short distance, but heard not a sound."(Here, the matter is cleared up; the paper is STILL referring to the INITIAL finding. We can know this since there would be no interest in telling the readers that there was not a sound giving away the murder as Neil arrived - but there WOULD be a huge interest attaching to how the description is about Lechmeres finding the body!)

That’s not the way I read it. The paper is referring to the spot where she was found rather than the finding itself. They might just as well have written: on the spot where she lay. Moving on, they say that when Nichols was killed she didn’t utter a cry, so this is in no way referring to when she was found, either by Lechmere or by Neil, but to when she was being murdered.

As you can see, there is ample enough reason to show us that your version. is not the correct one. Furthermore, what we also can see is that there is a perfectly logical alternative explanation to the wording in the Times. So it boils down to either accepting that the bulk of the papers suggested Lechmere as the 3.45 finder (the clearest example may be the Morning Advertiser, that does not even mention Neil in their version) whereas the Times took the stance that Neil was.

You seem to be forgetting (again) something that I wrote in my previous post:
"What you don’t seem to take into account here is the fact that all the reporters heard Baxter say the very same thing and seeing that “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data"was carried by at least 5 different newspaper versions and the “In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen"was only reported by the Times, it seems plausible that the latter quote was simply the way in which the Times reporter ‘translated’ the first quote."

Of course, without taking into account the DN and Times excerpts, you can say that the bulk of the papers suggested one thing, but can’t say they were correct about what they suggested, simply because we know that the additions in the DN and Times weren’t made up by the reporters of those papers. Taking into account the DN and Times makes the suggestion meaningless.

[FrankO]

Now, letīs take a look at an excerpt from the Daily News of the 24:rd of September. The excerpt was published in a comment preceding the report from the last day of the inquest, where Baxter said that "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data". It reads like this:

Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between a quarter past three and a quarter to four.

Let us begin by changing the letters for numbers:

Nicholls was murdered in the early hours of Friday, the 31st August - in all probability between 3.15 and a 3.45.

The first given time is - as we can all see - identical with the time Neil gave as being representative of the time when he made his earlier visit to Bucks Row and the body was not there.

The second time is the one given by the naysayers as the one when John Neil "found" the body of Polly Nichols.

Here is the problem: It was known and accepted by everybody that Charles Lechmere was the true finder of the body of Polly Nichols. So if, as the naysayers suggest, it is perfectly obvious that Wynne Baxter spoke of John Neils "finding" the body when he said that "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from a quarter to four a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data", why is it that the Daily News claims that Nichols could have been murdered during the five minute period after Charles Lechmere found her?

This naysayer looks at it this way, Christer (and, perhaps, I speak for all us naysayer folk, I don't know): Baxter said the body couldn't have been found far from 3.45, which to us folk would mean a few minutes before 3.45, but not necessarily 3.40. So, if we'd say 3.41, 3.42 or 3.43 (which are all perfectly in line with "not far from 3.45"), saying that Nichols was in all probability murdered between 3.15 and 3.45 the latter time is perfectly fitting - and 3.40 isn't.

Cheers,
Frank