Evidence of innocence

[harry]

We should be more interested in linking the killer with the crime,than linking people by geographical accessability..According to the theory of Cross as the killer,he didn't find a body in Bucks Row.He found a victim at a time and place not specified.Same with the other victims.Therefor evidence linking Cross with any of the Whitechapel victims,has to start at a time previous to their death.There is no such evidence.No eye witnesses,and no physical evidence.Of course the answer will be,'But this is a theoretical exercise of what was possible'So far there has been plenty of theoretical exercises of what was possible.Cross is just one of them.

[JeffHamm]

Just did a simple test of the time estimations that I do. Basically, I had to go for a walk, and so I noted my location, started a stop watch, and stopped it upon my return home.

Wasn't a long walk, and on google maps, it said 1.2 km. My time was 12m 46s. Converting km to miles, then using 3.2 mph, the simulation would estimate a walking time of 13m 58s. So the estimation is pretty good, particularly as the distance measurements for google maps are fairly crude (in units of 100m). If we look at 1.1 km, for example, that turns into an estimation of 12m 48s! (almost exactly what I got), but of course 1.3 converts to an estimate of 15m 8s (which is out by more). Converting my time to mph ends up at 3.5mph, so faster than average, and I have been accused of "walking too fast" fairly often.

Anyway, while obviously one journey is hardly an extensive examination, it does indicate that the methods I've outlined produces reasonable values. And yes, there will be errors associated with any estimation procedure, but the idea is to spot clear indications of "something is not right in these statements", and that is what we are not seeing here.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

The title of this thread is Evidence of Innocence and I think it worth looking at the murder sites and some other factors about Lechmere in this context.

If we decide Lechmere is a good suspect and we try and link him to the murders but there is nothing there, then it’s evidence of innocence. Let’s say there is absolutely nothing to link him to any murder location whatsoever - that’s evidence of innocence. However, we find that Lechmere walks within yards of several of the murders on his way to work and he’s there around the the time of the murders too. For example, how could we link any other Ripper suspect to Bucks Row at 03.45 ? Suggestions on a postcard please.

Then we look at Eddowes and Stride, below the psychological barrier of Whitechapel Road. 2 murders at a different time than the others. If we can’t link Lechmere to these it’s evidence of innocence ?

However, we find that his mother and daughter live a stones throw away from Berner Street, and Saturday is his only night off. We discover that Mitre Square is on his old route to work, and we find that the crucial evidence of the bloody apron piece is discarded on a direct route from the Eddowes murder to his home in Doveton Street. We can link him to everything and still no evidence of innocence.

Moving on, how did JTR move around undetected ? After Chapman we had increased police patrols, undercover cops, vigilance committees and a wary public. If Lechmere had no reason to be out at night it would be evidence of innocence, it would be hard for him to be JTR.

However, we find that he is a carman who starts work at 4am and his route to work takes him right through Ripper territory at the time of the murders. He has a reason to be out and could walk around unchallenged and unnoticed. If he were a dockworker or a postman and worked 06.00 - 14.00 or 14.00 - 22.00 then it’s evidence of innocence. He has no cause to be out in the early hours of the morning.

I’ll cut it short here, but we can see there is no obstacles in the way of Lechmere’s candidacy as JTR. There is no evidence of innocence anywhere. It’s actually incredible to start researching Lechmere and find that he can’t be eliminated, and that every aspect of his life fits with the murders.

''There is no evidents of innocents anywhere'' This could also apply to 100s of men just like Lechmere who lived ,worked , walked the streets, had relatives lived nearby. . See my post 4140 regarding this next comment ''and that every aspect of his life fits with the murders '' i very much doubt thats the case.

[drstrange169]

>>I will begin by establishing that after Charles Lechmere had taken the stand on the 3:rd of September and explained to the inquest that he was the finder of the body of Polly Nichols, it was universally accepted that he told the truth. Therefore, as coroner Baxter summed up the inquest a couple of weeks later, nobody would any longer suggest that PC Neil was the true finder. I hope we may agree about that?<<

You do seem to love warping the english language. By definition both men found the body. Cross was the first person, we know of, to find Mrs Nichols body. Neil separately found the body later.

The time Lechmere found the body is unknown. Neil says he found the body at 3:45 (his time). P.C. Thain then claimed to confirm Neil's time. Another policemen from a different division who was knocking people up telling them the time, claimed he met Cross and Paul at 3:45 (his time). Baxter then had there points of data to pinpoint Neil's time as likely to be correct and in sync with the events of that night.

He did not have any conformation of the time Cross found the body or when Paul saw him. Paul is not recorded as telling the inquest an exact time.

Not only couldn't anybody corroborate his time, the corroborated times Baxter had, excluded the idea that Cross and Paul were in Buck's Row at 3:45.

According he told the jury that Cross finding the body happened BEFORE Neil's time of 3:45, but not far from it. All of which was correct.


>>The first factor is John Neils passing through Bucks Row at 3.15, a stage at which the body was not there. If she was killed at the spot where she was found, then she lived at 3.15. The second factor is of course Charles Lechmeres finding the body. She was not attacked and killed AFTER that, it was before ... <<

Correct and according to you there were "passers-by", Piss-takers" and burglars, all of whom could have been the killer. Not to mention the "shift workers" that were definitely there according to Bob's post 4237,

"There were of course a few night shift workers around and who knows she might get some business."


>>Of course, the naysayers out here prefer the 3.40 timing...<<

Naysayers like Baxter, Abberline, Neil, Thain and Mizen who had no conceivable interest in finding Lechmere innocent.

So to be clear, what you are advocating, is people should throw out all the corroborated evidence and accept the uncorroborated evidence of the ONLY person proven to have lied?


>>Now, let´s 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.<<


When it comes to Lechmerians quoting things it pays to check, one need look no further than Bob Mills altering Baxter's quote in his article for Rip. A sin Christer also committed a few years back, and a sin they both still refuse acknowledge and apologies for.

So, what was actually written and what is the context?

Daily News 24 Set 1888 page 4,



"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. Late on Thursday night she was seen staggering along in drink, and she told an acquaintance that she had had her lodging money three times, and had spent it, and that she was now going out to look for some more. A little while after, she was found with her throat cut, and with other horrible mutilations, still warm, and, as one witness believed, still breathing, but, of course, as good as dead."
(my emphasis)

So, in fact this editorial is just pumping random contradictory thoughts.

Yet again we see Christer desperately trying to fudge the evidence.


>>PS. Sorry, Jeff. All that work you did!<<

I bet you are sorry, he really showed the weakness of your argument in easy terms any unbiased person would understand.

[drstrange169]

>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDZ422tMiWg <<

Having a look now, thanks.

[JeffHamm]

>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDZ422tMiWg <<

Having a look now, thanks.

Cool. For some reason it's recorded the cursor positions wrong, and it's generally much lower than it should be and seems scaled to a different sized window??? Something to do with the screen capture program I suspect, but other than that, and the awful narrator, it's not too bad.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>... Lechmere walks within yards of several of the murders on his way to work ...<<

Both he and Paul are the only suspects to walk past two murder site. Two is not several. And Paul worked right next to the murder site. Paul also tried to avoid going to the police and he was a proven liar.


>> how could we link any other Ripper suspect to Bucks Row at 03.45 ? <<

First, of course, according to the inquest testimony, we can't link Lechmere or Paul to Buck's Row at 3:45 as they were talking to a policeman at the corners of Hanbury, Montague and Baker's.

Second no other suspect had a legitimate reason for being in Buck's Row around that time of the morning.


>>Then we look at Eddowes and Stride, below the psychological barrier of Whitechapel Road. 2 murders at a different time than the others. If we can’t link Lechmere to these it’s evidence of innocence ?<<

Eddowes murder site wasn't "below the psychological barrier of Whitechapel Road." I know you will insult me and autistic people for pointing this out, but, hey, what the heck!


>> ... his mother and daughter live a stones throw away from Berner Street ...<<

Suspects who have relatives living near Mrs Strides murder site ... mmm ... I wonder if anyone can name some. And how do we know, for sure Mrs Stride was a jtr victim?


>>Saturday is his only night off.<<

You know this for certain, how?


>>We discover that Mitre Square is on his old route to work ... <<

Do we? Do show the evidence that it is a fact.


>>Moving on, how did JTR move around undetected ? After Chapman we had increased police patrols, undercover cops, vigilance committees and a wary public.<<

Good point, Lechmere had no reason to be near Mitre Sq or Miller's Court.


>>we find that he is a carman who starts work at 4am and his route to work takes him right through Ripper territory at the time of the murders.<<

But it didn't. The Pickfords office was almost a straight line from his home. You are accepting an invented map designed to make Lechmere look guilty without checking the validity of it.


>> He has no cause to be out in the early hours of the morning.<<

So how was he supposed to get to work?

[drstrange169]

>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDZ422tMiWg<<

That's a fantastic presentation Jeff! I got a bit confused with you pointer hovering around Whitechapel at the beginning, but once the timeline kicked it worked like a charm. I think the timeline should be included as a permanent feature on this site. I'd also like to see one that follows the Lechmerian claims, but, obviously as they don't really follow the evidence, it might be harder to do.

I'd also love to see a Berner Street one too.

Certainly better than the dreadful "Missing Evidence" one that had Cross and Paul walking side by side instead of 40 yards apart.

[FISHY1118]

Cool. For some reason it's recorded the cursor positions wrong, and it's generally much lower than it should be and seems scaled to a different sized window??? Something to do with the screen capture program I suspect, but other than that, and the awful narrator, it's not too bad.

- Jeff

I also liked it , but i have a question if i may . You have Nichols entering off Whitechapel rd towards Durward st then into bucks row at 3.25am . Her last sighting alive was on the corner Whitechapel and Osbourne st at 2.30am , Google maps has that at roughly a 10 min walk , thats 55 minutes of time that Nichols is unacounted for . im just curious aS to what she might have been doing , she could have turned a lots of tricks in that time ,thus had the money to go home .So just a simple question , does the time gap seem a bit odd ?

[drstrange169]

>>... thats 55 minutes of time that Nichols is unacounted for <<

That's the mystery, nobody knows.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Dusty,

>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDZ422tMiWg<<

That's a fantastic presentation Jeff! I got a bit confused with you pointer hovering around Whitechapel at the beginning, but once the timeline kicked it worked like a charm. I think the timeline should be included as a permanent feature on this site. I'd also like to see one that follows the Lechmerian claims, but, obviously as they don't really follow the evidence, it might be harder to do.

I'd also love to see a Berner Street one too.

Certainly better than the dreadful "Missing Evidence" one that had Cross and Paul walking side by side instead of 40 yards apart.

<blush> Thanks. Yah, the pointer has recorded strangely. I had just downloaded a screen capture program to make the video, and while when making the video I had the pointer over important areas, it seems to have recorded the pointer's position incorrectly? So when I'm moving the pointer to illustrate Polly's route along Whitechapel, then north and into Bakers and Buck's, in the recording it shows the pointer below Whitechapel Road?? I think I resized the recording area, to zoom in more on the map, but the screen capture program must capture the pointer itself based upon screen coordinates and inserts it to the video based upon the standard viewing window rather than my zooomed in one and so when the image is zoomed in as I had it, the pointer gets misplaced.

It's really apparent when I start the simulation, the pointer looks to be hovering over the edit button, but I'm clicking the run button, which is up and left of where the pointer has been recorded.

I've been working on the Berner Street simulation. There's a lot of people in that one, and I need to go over it again to make sure I've got all of them properly placed. Interestingly, it was working on the Berner Street time line, it became apparent that the "fly in the ointment", meaning the witness whose stated time seems to cause all the difficulty, was PC Smith! We know the police commonly checked a public clock to time their rounds, and while everyone else's stated times line up really well, PC Smith's stated time doesn't make sense unless his clock is out of sync with Dr. Blackwell's by something like 5 or 6 minutes (with PC Smith being that much behind). Other than him, pretty much everyone else's statements mesh together really well, as we see with Buck's Row.

Ages ago I did Mitre Square (the first post in the Jack's Escape from Mitre Square thread was my first attempt at showing things - but it's unfortunately rather messy looking). Anyway, there are fewer people involved, the bulk of the movements being PC Watkins and PC Harvey, but their testimonies line up really well. And from examining their statements and movements, I tend to think JtR fled out onto Mitre Street and then north, avoiding St. James, although I can't completely rule that exit out. There are some configurations that would allow him to also exit back out Church Passage, but that would require him hiding in place while PC Harvey patrols Church Passage, and then deciding to exit out after PC Harvey turns around and departs. It's possible, it's dramatic, would make a great movie sequence, but I rather suspect once PC Harvey turned around, if JtR were still there, he left in the opposite direction. Also, we know the fellow cleaning up opened the door around the same time, so if that door opening alerted JtR, he would have fled away from that, and again, that would mean out towards Mitre Street. South would mean PC Watkins would probably have seen him, so that suggests he went north, as he can escape detection in that direction (as he apparently did).

I suppose I could try to put together the alternative version for Buck's Row, but to be honest, given everyone seems to be wrong in their times (PC Neil is wrong, it wasn't 3:45 when he found the body, though apparently it was 3:15 when he previously patrolled 30 minutes prior, but that apparently 3:15 is 30 minutes prior to some other time; PC Mizen is wrong, he wasn't with the carmen at 3:45; PC Thain is wrong and wasn't summand at 3:45, and Dr. L didn't arrive about 4:00 (as he does in the current recreation) but 4:05 or something like that.

So, what I would have to do is build it, much like what I have now. The only difference is, just shift all the times such that Paul arrives at the crime scene at 3:45. That would shift everything except Cross/Lechmere's departure time and his arrival time, to be about 4 or 5 minutes later in time. The thing is, from the crime scene to Paul's work, is about 0.651 miles, so that would take him 12m 12s (at 3.2 mph), which is fine, tight, but he can get to work before 4:00. Although I realise that it is not fully established that he hard to start at 4:00, since the men are talking about being behind time, and starting on the hour makes sense, I'm happy to work on that assumption.

But Cross/Lechmere's work is further off, and harder to work out where exactly he had to go, but it looks to be in the vicinity of 18 minutes from the crime scene. So he can comfortably make it to work as it currently is described, but if we shift Paul's arrival to be 3:45, Cross/Lechmere will be late for work by 3 minutes. He could, of course, make that up, but nothing in his behaviour or testimony appears to be that of someone who is actually late, rather, just someone who doesn't have much time to spare. That impression is what, I think, what I've presented fits with, and is not what one would expect if the timeline is shifted and everyone there was simply wrong about the time, other than Paul. It just seems far more realistic to assume Paul is a bit out, rather than to assume everyone else is a bit out, and in exactly the same way.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

I also liked it , but i have a question if i may . You have Nichols entering off Whitechapel rd towards Durward st then into bucks row at 3.25am . Her last sighting alive was on the corner Whitechapel and Osbourne st at 2.30am , Google maps has that at roughly a 10 min walk , thats 55 minutes of time that Nichols is unacounted for . im just curious aS to what she might have been doing , she could have turned a lots of tricks in that time ,thus had the money to go home .So just a simple question , does the time gap seem a bit odd ?

Thanks. Yah, as I say in the video, there's enough missing time that there's no way to know for sure from what direction she eventually approaches the murder location. I chose that simply on the basis that it corresponds with her last known location, which as you rightly point out, is almost an hour previous. Where was she? I don't know, nor does anybody else. I went with the assumption that perhaps she was just walking up and down Whitechapel looking for a customer, simply because of that was the last thing we know she was doing. As I say, that part of the video is purely speculative, and I only included it because I wanted to look at the plausibility of the idea that's been put out that the murder may have happened around 3:30ish. Rather than just have her and JtR "appear" at the crime scene at 3:30, I wanted to see if an approach from Whitechapel worked. Turns out I think it does, so it's plausible, but by no means am I suggesting "I've figured it out". It works, but there are a lot of alternative ways to get her there that would also work. I'm almost certain we could find routes from just about any direction, simply because we have so much time to play with.

But a missing hour is not really odd. Annie Chapman's location is unknown for much longer than that after all. Kelly's movements are disputed, and there's even debate out the time of her murder. Stride seems to "pop in and out" as well. And Eddowes has about 40 minutes missing after she leaves the police station, and a lot of "use" gets made of that too.

So, missing 55 minutes is sort of "par for the course" really. It's frustrating, but I wouldn't say it's odd relative to the others. Even a look at other non-canonical cases show that the victim's movements are often incompletely recovered.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,



Thanks. Yah, as I say in the video, there's enough missing time that there's no way to know for sure from what direction she eventually approaches the murder location. I chose that simply on the basis that it corresponds with her last known location, which as you rightly point out, is almost an hour previous. Where was she? I don't know, nor does anybody else. I went with the assumption that perhaps she was just walking up and down Whitechapel looking for a customer, simply because of that was the last thing we know she was doing. As I say, that part of the video is purely speculative, and I only included it because I wanted to look at the plausibility of the idea that's been put out that the murder may have happened around 3:30ish. Rather than just have her and JtR "appear" at the crime scene at 3:30, I wanted to see if an approach from Whitechapel worked. Turns out I think it does, so it's plausible, but by no means am I suggesting "I've figured it out". It works, but there are a lot of alternative ways to get her there that would also work. I'm almost certain we could find routes from just about any direction, simply because we have so much time to play with.

But a missing hour is not really odd. Annie Chapman's location is unknown for much longer than that after all. Kelly's movements are disputed, and there's even debate out the time of her murder. Stride seems to "pop in and out" as well. And Eddowes has about 40 minutes missing after she leaves the police station, and a lot of "use" gets made of that too.

So, missing 55 minutes is sort of "par for the course" really. It's frustrating, but I wouldn't say it's odd relative to the others. Even a look at other non-canonical cases show that the victim's movements are often incompletely recovered.

- Jeff

Fair call jeff , and good work too . . intersting tho if nichols is dead on the spot right after p.c neil passes thorough bucks row say 3.17 to 3.20am then there a good chance its still very quiet no lech ,no paul no witness that testify they heard anything at 3.30 .So in theory there could be any number of senarios as to how she ended up there at that time too.

[Fisherman]

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.

What he said was that the body could not have been found far off the 3.45 mark. In my world, that means that he regarded 3.45 as the chronological epicenter, but that he allowed for minor deviations from it. And that would entail deviations of both earlier and later times.

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

Here´s what I think. I think that although it can of course be said that 3.43 is "perfectly in line with not far from 3.45, the fact that Baxter was able to produce a timeline that allowed him to put Lechmere at the spot at a time that was not far off the 3.45 mark (I know that you prefer that it was Neil that was put on the spot, but I rule that out now), tells us that there was not the kind of slack that 3.45 would represent. And here is why:
If we look at the chroinological relation between John Neil and Charles Lechmere, we will find that they were a number of minutes apart. Typically, people seem to work from the notion that they were around five minutes apart, and I think that comes close to the truth, although I use six minutes myself. But let´s go with the five minute idea anyhow! This produces a situation where the internal distance in time between the two will not change, regardless of when we put Lechmere at the scene. If we put him there at 3.40, then Neil arrives at 3.45. If we put Lechmere at the spot at 3.45, then Neil arrives at 3.50. Und so weiter!

Now, what Baxter said was the scenario he offered, with Lechmere in place, was fixed by "so many independent data" that it could not be far off. To me, that means that if we are to move the time he suggests, we cannot move it more than two minutes at most, because if we move it three minutes towards John Neil, he comes closer than Lechmere to the chronological epicenter. And then Baxter would not be able to tell the two conclusively apart.

The fact of the matter is that Baxter said that he was able to place Lechmere (or, if you are correct, Neil) at the site at 3.45ish, and that effectively means that the timing is less elastic than some will have it.

What we then know by now is that the Daily News, having been able to take stock of what Baxter said in his summary, concluded that the earliest time Nichols could have been killed was 3.15. This is a slightly dubious wording since it relies on how Neils timing was exact, and we cannot know that. The correct thing to say is that the earliest time at which Nichols could have been murdered is the time directly after John Neil had passed through Bucks Row on his earlier round. The paper further concluded that the latest time at which Nichols could have been murdered was 3.45. If we were to rephrase that along the same lines as we did with the 3.15 timing, we would need to say that - provided that Charles Lechmere was innocent, which was the working premise of the Daily News - the latest time that Nichols could have been murdered would be the minute preceding Lechmeres arrival at the body.

We need not concern ourselves with the idea that the paper would have reasoned that the latest time that Nichols could have been murdered was the minute before Neil arrived at the body, since the staff of the Daily News knew quite well that many minutes had elapsed after the murder when the PC got to Browns.

So there we have it, as far as I´m concerned. The timings were exact enough for Baxter to establish that the body was found by Lechmere in close proximity to 3.45. Obviously, the data that allowed for Baxter to make his conclusion must have involved LLewellyns estimation of the time at which he was called to Bucks Row. And when we look at what LLewellyn said, he is quoted on the 1:st of September as having said "I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning" (Daily News), whereas he at the inquest gave sworn testimony to the effect that "on Friday morning about four o'clock he was called up by a policeman with whom he went to Buck's row".

The overall impression is that he was therefore called to the site at a time between 3.55 and 4.00. If we accept that Thain took two minutes to get to his practice, it would have meant that the PC left the murder site at 3.53-3.58. The former time is perfectly in line with Neil having arrived at the body at around 3.51, the latter is perfectly in line with Neil having gotten there at 3.56. In neither case are we anywhere near Neils having arrived at the spot at 3.45.

This is the very clear inference of the collected material. Again - and I would say as always - in order to get Lechmere to the spot at 3.40, as seems to be the ideal for those who dispute Lechmeres likely guilt, it takes a whole lot of time-tweaking and alterations, bad clocks and loose-mouthed coroners to pry the door open to the more innocent scenario on Lechmeres behalf. And as most will understand, all it would have taken for Baxter to be sure, would be to check the exactitude of LLewellyns clock and to ensure that the time Thain arrived as per that clock was not a number of minutes before 3.55.
And since Baxter was certain enough to place the finder outside Browns at a time not far off 3.45, there really is no conundrum here any longer, least of all when we read the Daily News. Charles Lechmere was the 3.45 finder of the body.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

Fair call jeff , and good work too . . intersting tho if nichols is dead on the spot right after p.c neil passes thorough bucks row say 3.17 to 3.20am then there a good chance its still very quiet no lech ,no paul no witness that testify they heard anything at 3.30 .So in theory there could be any number of senarios as to how she ended up there at that time too.

Absolutely. As I say, I only included that "option" simply because it had been raised a couple times here, and I was interested in exploring it. It's entirely speculative, and by no means intended as the solution. As you say, if she entered shortly after PC Neil's patrol at 3:15, then that too would be an idea very easy to fit in. And who knows how many other people may have passed down, and simply didn't realise she was dead? If Cross/Lechmere hadn't thought she was a tarpaulin in the first place, he might have just walked by as his interest hadn't been peaked. Maybe Paul would have been the one to make the discovery, or maybe he too would have walked on by. If that had happened, we may never have heard of them at all.

- Jeff