Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Factual Reasons for Lechmeres innocence
    1 He found a body.

    Factual reasons for Lechmeres guilt.
    1 He found a body.

    That’s it in a nutshell.

    Comment


    • #32
      anyone seen hovering near a freshly killed victim alone de facto should be numero uno suspect until cleared. as far as we know lechmere was never cleared. he very much is in the frame as nichols killer at least.
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        A thread devoted to offering space where those who think there is evidence pointing to innocence on Charles Lecherme´s behalf can provide their thoughts and ideas. My personal take is that there is no genuine evidence at all that points to innocence on the carmans behalf, but since it has been led on that I ommitted to present such evidence in my book "Cutting Point", it would be interesting to see what that evidence consists of.
        Hi Fisherman

        I believe there is one question which is difficult to answer if Lechmere was the killer - what happened to the knife?

        If he was almost caught red-handed, he could only have discarded it in the immediate vicinity of the body. No knife was found there.

        If he secreted it about his person, then he must have done that quickly and it is likely this would result in blood on his clothing, even if it took some minutes to seep through. No blood was seen on his clothing.

        If he was secreting the knife on his person and managed to hide that fact - I think it makes it less likely he would have called Paul over and certainly less likely he would approach a police officer, for fear it would be found upon him.

        I think the missing knife is evidence which points towards (but does not prove) Lechmere's innocence.





        Comment


        • #34
          At least three persons found a Ripper victim a short time after the victim had been killed.Cross,Watkins and Diemschutz.They all were at the time of discovery the only persons present.All acted in almost identical fashion.They first examined the body,then sought help.They were never more than witnesses,of equal standing,in the investigations that followed.How one can write that they should be classed as suspect because they found a body,I put down to ignorance of how law enforcement treat evidence.Why certain posters treat Cross differently than the other two is baffling.
          The standard of proof needed to show innocence,is as Fisherman indicates, a lack of incriminating evidence.In assessing Cross there is that lack of incriminating evidence.I am able to state Cross was not a killer,because no evidence has been presented to show he was.It does not need a court case to decide that.
          That Cross lied,and was at the murder scene in the company of a living Nicholls is a belief not supported by evidencceThe theory of Cross being the Ripper is based on beliefs not supported by evidence.Cross could not have killed Nichols if she was dead or dying when he arrived at her side.Yes Cross could have lied,but we should not be persuaded that could have happened,unless there is compelling evidence to show he lied,and there is none.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            I suspect Charles Lechmere was the Ripper as well as the Torso killer.
            Out of interest do you have any suspects for Lechmere's accomplice in the torso murders?

            The Whitehall Torso had to have at least 2 people involved in the placement as it was physically impossible to do alone.
            ​​​​

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Astatine211 View Post

              Out of interest do you have any suspects for Lechmere's accomplice in the torso murders?

              The Whitehall Torso had to have at least 2 people involved in the placement as it was physically impossible to do alone.
              ​​​​
              I do not agree about that, but you are welcome to make your case!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by paul g View Post
                Factual Reasons for Lechmeres innocence
                1 He found a body.

                Factual reasons for Lechmeres guilt.
                1 He found a body.

                That’s it in a nutshell.
                Neither innocence nor guilt is proven by finding a body. But the guilty nutshell is a lot bigger than the innocent one. It compares to a coconut and a hazelnut…

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  The evidence to prove his innoncence has been presented many times its a shame you cant accept it, or wont accept it.

                  You have done nothing more than manipulate the facts in true journalistic fashion to fit your own misguided theory

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  I specifically asked for a respectful debate on this thread. Please respect that. If you have evidence for innocence, just list it, please.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                    Hi Fisherman

                    I believe there is one question which is difficult to answer if Lechmere was the killer - what happened to the knife?

                    If he was almost caught red-handed, he could only have discarded it in the immediate vicinity of the body. No knife was found there.

                    If he secreted it about his person, then he must have done that quickly and it is likely this would result in blood on his clothing, even if it took some minutes to seep through. No blood was seen on his clothing.

                    If he was secreting the knife on his person and managed to hide that fact - I think it makes it less likely he would have called Paul over and certainly less likely he would approach a police officer, for fear it would be found upon him.

                    I think the missing knife is evidence which points towards (but does not prove) Lechmere's innocence.




                    A very good post in the exact vein I asked for. Thank you!

                    To begin with, I think we must accept that no search for blood was made when it comes to Lechmere. There was no suspicion on Mizens behalf.

                    Furthermore, it was dark, and in darkness, all cats turn grey. And reasonably, Lechmeres attire could have had all sorts of stains on it.

                    A carman was required to carry a knife at all times, so that he could cut the harness in the event of an accident. Therefore, he would have had that knife on his person as he walked to work. The question is where he carried it, and if anybody knows, then I would like to hear it. My own guess would be that he either carried it in a sheath or in a pocket in his apron, and in both those cases, we may be speaking of leather that any blood would not seep through. Moreover, why would there be much blood on the knife? There would be a hue of blood on the blade, yes, but perhaps not enough to leak through cloth, and much less leather.

                    For the knife to be a problem, it would likely need to transport wet blood onto the surface of Lechmeres clothes and I don’t see that it must have at all.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by harry View Post
                      At least three persons found a Ripper victim a short time after the victim had been killed.Cross,Watkins and Diemschutz.They all were at the time of discovery the only persons present.All acted in almost identical fashion.They first examined the body,then sought help.They were never more than witnesses,of equal standing,in the investigations that followed.How one can write that they should be classed as suspect because they found a body,I put down to ignorance of how law enforcement treat evidence.Why certain posters treat Cross differently than the other two is baffling.
                      The standard of proof needed to show innocence,is as Fisherman indicates, a lack of incriminating evidence.In assessing Cross there is that lack of incriminating evidence.I am able to state Cross was not a killer,because no evidence has been presented to show he was.It does not need a court case to decide that.
                      That Cross lied,and was at the murder scene in the company of a living Nicholls is a belief not supported by evidencceThe theory of Cross being the Ripper is based on beliefs not supported by evidence.Cross could not have killed Nichols if she was dead or dying when he arrived at her side.Yes Cross could have lied,but we should not be persuaded that could have happened,unless there is compelling evidence to show he lied,and there is none.
                      You write that innocence is what prevails if there is no incriminating evidence. You seem to forget that evidence can be hidden.

                      You seem to get lost in technical terms instead of taking in the facts. A large gash to the belly and a cut throat is useful evidence of foul play. Somebody did that, regardless of how no murder weapon was found. And on Lechmeres list, we have a name change, a denial to help prop Nichols up, a disagreement with the police, a gegraphical correlation with the murder sites and the fact that Nichols bled for many minutes after the carman left her, together with other bits and pieces.

                      What we don’ t have is any other person to whom any circumstantial evidence at all clings in the Nichols case. That is why Lechmere is the only identified suspect for the murder. Reasoning that a phantom killer is likelier is completely illogical.
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 07-11-2021, 05:51 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        I do not agree about that, but you are welcome to make your case!
                        This is from the Whitehall Torso inquest regarding an accomplice, which suggests more than one person being involving in placing of torso was the most likely scenario.
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          This has to be the stupidest thread on the site even more pointless than all those ridiculous Maybrick threads. Has the site been highjacked by lunatics? This is an embarrassment to Ripperology.

                          P.S. I'm still waiting for my complimentary copy of Christers book.
                          Last edited by John Wheat; 07-11-2021, 08:25 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                            This has to be the stupidest thread on the site even more pointless than all those ridiculous Maybrick threads. Has the site been highjacked by lunatics? This is an embarrassment to Ripperology.

                            P.S. I'm still waiting for my complimentary copy of Christers book.
                            It has been asked from those who post here to keep a respectful tone. Please comply with that request or refrain from posting.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Astatine211 View Post

                              This is from the Whitehall Torso inquest regarding an accomplice, which suggests more than one person being involving in placing of torso was the most likely scenario.
                              This is of course relevant per se, but the overall sentiment seems to have developed into a vote for a single perp. Also, the type of murderer we are dealing with (involving eviscerations) is typically working alone. Plus, of course, we do not know how access to the building was gained, it is all guesswork.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                I specifically asked for a respectful debate on this thread. Please respect that. If you have evidence for innocence, just list it, please.
                                The evidence is that there is no evidence to prove his guilt!!!!!!!!!!

                                Perhaps you should look at the movements of those others who found bodies, perhaps you can manipulate their accounts to make them suspects but then again that would weaken your misguided theory for Lechmere.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X