Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Firstly, I hope you'll enjoy/have enjoyed your off-time from the boards, Christer!

    Secondly, I have some remarks about individual things you've written.

    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    And so we end up with Mizen saying that one man spoke to him, said nothing about any death or suicide but claimed that another PC was already in place, while Lechmere said that both he and Paul talked to Mizen, that both men said that Nichols was probably dead and that he never said anything about another PC.
    That must have been a slip of the finger, Christer. Mizen said that Lechmere didn’t say anything about murder or suicide, not “anything about death and suicide”. Almost the same, but not quite.

    It should be added that it is very clear that the police initially did not believe Robert Pauls claims in Lloyds Weekly (It is not true, said PC Neil...)
    That’s not true, Christer. Neil only denied that he was called to the body by two men, not that there couldn’t have been two men who’d called a PC to the body. Paul even told the Lloyd’s that “the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat”. So it’s not clear at all that the police didn’t believe Paul, let alone very clear.

    ... but as luck would have it, Lechmere was not willing to bank on the police dismissing Paul, and so he came forward to stomp out whatever fire the article could perhaps start.
    I wonder about one thing, Christer. If Lechmere, in fact, had sent Paul ahead before he spoke to Mizen, what possible fire was there left to stomp out? He’d fooled Paul, he’d fooled Mizen and had passed him without being searched, without being taken back to Buck’s Row, without his name and address being taken, without Paul having heard what he’d told to Mizen. The only thing that could possibly have disturbed him somewhat was Paul saying he “saw a man standing where the woman was”. And although it was a dangerous locality where many were knocked down and robbed, this man acted harmlessly and only called him to see about this woman lying on the side of the road. In addition, he was also described by the same Lloyd’s edition as one of the two men who “found the corpse long before the police”, which is what, quite likely, caused a journalist to ask if Neil if he was called to the body by two men.


    Then, my more general comment to your post.

    I didn’t worry for a second that you wouldn’t have a solution to/explanation for the points made by Caz, Christer! And I have to admit that it might work, too, if everything happened as you suggest. Of course, Lechmere would have realized the possibility of there being no PC present when Mizen arrived. In fact, I think he must have counted on that to happen, on Mizen then uncovering his lie and the police then starting a search for him with the help of 2 people who’d seen him up close and who’d hear him speak. Very lucky indeed for Lechmere that his plan worked out in exactly the way he needed it to. And perhaps even luckier, still, that they didn’t walk into beat officer Neil on their way to Baker’s Row.


    Of course, everything would also only work if Paul was out of earshot when he fed the lie to Mizen. You’re right in saying that the evidence we’re left with does leave room for Paul not to have been within earshot (in the sense that it doesn’t actually state where Paul was exactly when Lechmere spoke to Mizen), but it is a very long way from actually supporting the notion that Paul had walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen and, therefore, would not have heard what Lechmere said to Mizen.

    To me, “the other man, who went down Hanbury Street” seems like an extremely awkward way for Mizen to have said that Paul walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen, if that’s what’s he supposed to have been trying to say, that is. But seeing there are two other newspaper versions of this snippet that have both of the two carman go down Hanbury Street and one of the snippets even stating that it was “afterwards” (meaning, after the conversation) that they both went down Hanbury Street, it seems clear to me that Mizen wasn’t trying to say that Paul walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen. If it was, then it would, obviously, have been yet another stroke of immense luck on Lechmere’s side that things worked out exactly as he needed.

    But, as the evidence reads as if Paul and Lechmere reached Mizen together, that it was a short conversation, that even might have taken place more or less in passing (“when some one who was passing said”) and that they walked on together after the conversation, the view that Paul was out of earshot is really a leap of faith rather than anything else.

    Cheers,
    Frank
    Last edited by FrankO; 07-30-2021, 09:38 AM.
    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • Lechmere wouldn't have lied to Mizen, then he is risking finding the police over his shoulder.

      He could have run away, but the Lechmerians want us to believe he injected himself intentionally in the events after killing Nichols, to then again change their reasoning to show another Lechmere whose solo purpose is to get out of the situation, he didn't even let Paul help the woman up so that he can enjoy the chock effects on Paul's face, as they falsley always claim.

      A very disturbed theory, with zero consistency.



      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        Originally posted by caz
        The point is, Fish, that a guilty Lechmere could not have known that a policeman would be at the scene when PC Mizen arrived. Arriving to find the woman horribly murdered, with no copper in sight, would immediately have set Mizen's alarm bells ringing and his whistle blasting out. If, by chance, a policeman was there when Mizen arrived, happy days [excuse the fish related pun], but only if there was no carmen related conversation between the two PCs - something Lechmere could not guarantee, even if he shared your reasoning and hoped Mizen would keep it buttoned.

        Love,

        Caz
        X


        Ah yes, Caroline, that's something I lost sight of concentrating me on other things regarding the meeting between Mizen and the two carmen. Thanks for refreshing my view - good points!

        Cheers,
        Frank


        I know I said I would be away from Casebook for some time, but I cannot resist commenting on this exchange. My apologies to anybody whose posts I do not comment on now; I hope to be able to do so somewhere in the future. I am not willing to participate in the kind of "debate" that some posters have on offer, but once you see the kind of exchange we have here, between two really knowledgeable posters who seemingly make good points but miss out on a few essentials, I just have to give my view.

        Now, letīs dissect this issue and see what we end up with!

        Caz tells us that a guilty Lechmere could not have known that a PC would be at the scene when Mizen arrived, and so, Caz says, if there had been no PC in Bucks Row as Mizen got to the murder site, it would have set off immediate alarm bells. And to boot, we are told, even IF there was a PC in place as Mizen arrived, any conversation between the two could easily have disclosed the bluff and the hunt would have been on.

        Sounds very logical, all of it - but it misses out on one very important point. The fact is that Lechmere of course KNEW full well that there was never any PC in Bucks Row as he and Paul examined the body. Therefore, he would also have known that even if he was lucky enough to have a PC actually arriving at the scene before Mizen got there (which was what happened, of course) there was never any possibility that this PC would profess to having been the one who sent Lechmere and Paul to fetch another PC.

        So what does this mean? It means, of course, that Lechmere was never going to persist in claiming that another PC had been in place as he and Paul were at the murder site. Not under any circumstances. He was ALWAYS going to deny having said it, REGARDLESS if there actually was a PC there when Mizen arrived or not. He could never say "Neil was the PC who was there", because Neil had no idea about the carmen and would of course deny having met them if Lechmere had made such a claim!...
        Fair enough, but an entirely circular argument, because the result - Lechmere's denial that he told PC Mizen he was wanted by another policeman at the scene - would be exactly the same if he was telling the simple truth.

        Fisherman is trying to use Lechmere's denial against him, by making it a case of cause and effect: he lied to Mizen, so he then had to change the record and lie again at the inquest.

        But Fisherman hasn't demonstrated that Lechmere lied to Mizen in the first place. It's entirely plausible that Mizen made an assumption from what he was told, when he arrived to find PC Neil already attending to the woman and needing him to go for an ambulance. Or Mizen could have misremembered the message when later called to testify, because his attention was not 100% on what he was being told at the time. He was fallible just like anyone else, and this wasn't at the height of the ripper scare, when policemen were expecting women to drop like flies all over the place. Mizen didn't exactly rush to report the conversation either, and may only have done so when Robert Paul spoke to the press and it became an issue.

        That was all I wanted to say on this one, so I'm afraid I didn't read the rest of Fisherman's post. Life really can be too short sometimes.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

          Your theory does not refute Caz, it reinforces how correct Caz' post was.

          This supposed "plan" of Lechmere's makes no sense whatsoever. If not for the lucky happenstance of PC Neil's presence, even PC Mizen would have changed from seeing Lechmere as a helpful bystander to a prime suspect. And PC Mizen would be 100% guaranteed to believe himself, not Charles Lechmere. In addition to lacking the psychic powers to know PC Neil had found Nichols' body, there is no way that Lechmere could expect Robert Paul, a complete stranger, to commit perjury for Lechmere against the sworn word of PC Mizen.

          If Lechmere lied to PC Mizen, Mizen wouldn't even have to reach Nichols body to know Lechmere was lying. If found, Lechmere would expect to be stopped and searched - a very bad thing for someone who might have bloodstains on him and would almost still have a bloody knife on him.

          If Lechmere was a lying murderer, the clock was ticking. He needed to get as far as possible from PC Mizen before the alarm was raised. He needed to ditch Robert Paul so he could get rid of the bloody knife without being seen and at least take off his carman's cap so he was harder to recognize. He needed to hide down some side street or get on the most traveled street he can (likely Whitechapel Road) and blend in among the crowd.

          Instead, Lechmere continues to walk down Hanbury Street with Robert Paul until the reach Corbet's Court. That's reasonable behavior for an innocent, but a stunningly stupid thing for the killer of Polly Nichols to do.

          Make up your mind - is Lechmere quickwitted, clever serial killer or a complete idiot?
          Thank you, Fiver.

          Fisherman's argument is that it doesn't matter if PC Mizen catches the carman out in a lie, immediately after the murder is committed. If the PC nears the body and there's no policeman in sight, he can blow his whistle with all his puff, no problem, because Lechmere can simply turn up later to the inquest, identify himself as the lying carman who was first at the scene, but deny saying anything to Mizen about a policeman being there. And everyone will naturally conclude it is PC Mizen who is lying or misheard. Job done.

          But Mizen would still know he had been lied to.

          Love,

          Caz
          X


          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


          Comment


          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

            Hi Caz,

            But how far forward would a guilty Lechmere with a bloody knife in his pocket have been thinking? Getting swiftly past Mizen would have been his top priority, and suggesting that there was another copper on the scene would seem a reasonable choice of action in those circumstances. Better the whistles start blowing when you’re some distance away than that you are effectively detained by a PC with incriminating evidence on your person.

            Gary
            But the irony here, Gary, is that Lechmere chose to detain Robert Paul, and then go with him to detain the next PC they encountered, to report a woman down.

            If Lechmere had been detained as a result, he'd only have had himself to blame.

            Love,

            Caz
            X

            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
              I think Caz's point is rather shrewd.

              It isn't so much that it couldn't have been a reasonable strategy, done in the heat of the moment, it's that believing in this alleged 'scam' forces us to swallow a coincidence. There was another copper on the scene when Mizen finally arrived in Buck's Row--something Lechmere could not have predicted.

              By contrast, if we accept that Lechmere didn't 'scam' Mizen, and Mizen simply wanted to downplay his own indifference, the coincidence disappears. By now Mizen knew that another officer had found Nichols, and he could use that to his advantage when trying to defend himself against the very public allegations of continuing to knock people up.

              It might not be a huge coincidence to swallow, but it is a coincidence nevertheless, and tips the scale towards Mizen being the one telling the white lie retroactively (and making a slight error in logic while doing so).

              Oh Jesus, I now have RJ and The Baron onside. What am I doing wrong?

              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                But Mizen would still know he had been lied to.
                And did nothing with this knowledge when other victims started to turn up, Caz - or si it seems.

                The best,
                Frank
                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                Comment


                • A very valid point, Frank. If Lechmere lied to Mizen in the Nichols case, he must become an automatic police suspect in all of the cases which followed. And all of his details, name and address were known.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                    A very valid point, Frank. If Lechmere lied to Mizen in the Nichols case, he must become an automatic police suspect in all of the cases which followed. And all of his details, name and address were known.
                    Great photo my dear Whatsit

                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • Ah Sholmes, it's been a long time.....about a hundred years!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                        And did nothing with this knowledge when other victims started to turn up, Caz - or si it seems.

                        The best,
                        Frank
                        Hi Frank,

                        Indeed, but Fisherman would simply argue that Lechmere made sure PC Mizen would not prove to be a thorn in his side, in the interval before killing Chapman the following weekend.

                        Just how Lechmere would have gone about it, I'm not entirely sure. But Fisherman is nothing if not full of ideas to make our Pickfords man look guilty.

                        The argument also goes that Lechmere stood over the body and did nothing to raise the alarm. But if he had simply walked past it, thinking it was a tarpaulin, or walked swiftly away after killing Nichols, the next person along would have been Robert Paul. Might he too have walked on, thinking it was a bundle of rags, or just a drunk sleeping rough? Or would he have been 'found' instead, standing over the body, this time by PC Neil?

                        If Robert Paul had stood in the middle of the road and touched PC Neil on the shoulder to alert him to the woman lying close by, nobody would argue that he failed to raise the alarm, so I don't see how it's any different with Lechmere alerting Paul. He would have had no idea who Paul would turn out to be, even if he could tell from that distance it wasn't a policeman, either on or off duty.

                        All Lechmere had to do was walk away and leave the person he heard or saw approaching to make the discovery and decide what to do. What was the worst that could happen? By the time that person - Paul - had raised the alarm, assuming he realised the woman was dead or needed help, and a policeman had responded and attended the scene, Lechmere would have been streets away. If Paul was still there with the body when the next beat copper arrived, it would be Paul left to do all the explaining. The most Paul could say was that he saw a shadowy figure running off, or heard departing footsteps, as he reached the scene and made the discovery himself. [Which is what Lechmere could have said, but didn't.] With a bit of luck, Fisherman's great grandfather, Inspector Monkfish, would be on the case, and be downright suspicious of Paul, hauling him in for a thorough filleting, and nobody would ever know Lechmere had been there, so he wouldn't need to be Cross.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          But the irony here, Gary, is that Lechmere chose to detain Robert Paul, and then go with him to detain the next PC they encountered, to report a woman down.

                          If Lechmere had been detained as a result, he'd only have had himself to blame.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          But why did he do that, Caz ?

                          Safety in numbers. Mizen wasn't to know that Lechmere had 'discovered' the body alone, was he ? He'd assume the guys had been together when it happened, and if told to go and find her quickly he'd go and do so rather than hold an ad-hoc interview in the street.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post

                            But the irony here, Gary, is that Lechmere chose to detain Robert Paul, and then go with him to detain the next PC they encountered, to report a woman down.

                            If Lechmere had been detained as a result, he'd only have had himself to blame.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            A guilty Lechmere could have just legged it as soon as he became aware of Paul approaching. But if Paul had been aware of Lechmere’s swift departure from a point a few feet away from Nichols’ body, might he not have twigged that Nichols wasn’t just asleep or a tarpaulin, and on discovery of her body started screaming blue murder?

                            For me, Fish’s idea that Lechmere made the split-second decision to control the situation rather than take to his heels and potentially trigger a hue and cry is totally plausible.

                            Gary



                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              A guilty Lechmere could have just legged it as soon as he became aware of Paul approaching. But if Paul had been aware of Lechmere’s swift departure from a point a few feet away from Nichols’ body, might he not have twigged that Nichols wasn’t just asleep or a tarpaulin, and on discovery of her body started screaming blue murder?

                              For me, Fish’s idea that Lechmere made the split-second decision to control the situation rather than take to his heels and potentially trigger a hue and cry is totally plausible.

                              Gary


                              bingo gary. even lord orsam allows for that possibility. i was one of the biggest critics of this idea too until i experienced something very similar in georgetown. when caught unawares its not a bad tactic.
                              "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


                              • Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                                The only thing that you have is him being the first discover Nichols, but his alibis for the other times of death would exonerate him alone if he was suspected. As it did for John Pizer. People have latched on to letch because of the accident with the child and his name change. Neither of which makes him JtR.

                                Here is my problem with Charles Lechmere's innocence: he has no witness who granted him an alibi for the murder of Polly Nichols.
                                He says that his time of departure was around 3:30 am, and given PC Mizen's time of encountering the body (3:45 am), one would
                                assume that he is either being honest or that he contrived a lie to fit Mizen's time. Did he leave at the time that he stated in the inquest?

                                There were two opportunities to absolve him completely for posterity's sake: the testimony of Robert Paul and Elizabeth Lechmere.
                                How long was Charles Lechmere hanging around the body of Polly Nichols? According to his testimony, only a few seconds....
                                and then Robert Paul came into view. Anyone should have problems with this statement. On a dark night, walking through dangerous streets, the natural physiological, unconscious tendency is for the mind to be more attuned to one's auditory senses. In the minute or so that Paul should have been following closely behind Lechmere, he did not once hear the footsteps of Lechmere. How is this possible, given the hobnailed boots workers of the era typically wore, and within the confines of a narrow street? The acoustics should have been sufficient (a narrow walled street) to clearly transmit and enhance the sound, and the human brain with its habit of disengaging from repetitive things - one's own footsteps - and focusing in on what is new. The simple & only answer is that Lechmere was quite a bit more than 50 meters in front of Paul. Lechmere also places great emphasis on his distance from the body. Why was he walking on the right hand side of this London street & not the middle or left hand side when he glimpsed Nichols body? A bit strange, if you ask me. And why, having discovered the limp body did he not move towards it to better determine the situation, before redirecting himself and casually approaching Paul; and why was he not put on guard by this stranger walking up behind him, who may have had something to do with the woman's prostrate condition? Lechmere probably was with the body longer than he lead on, which does not necessarily implicate him - he should have been concerned with being viewed as a suspect, so he would have cause to be less than honest. Elizabeth Lechmere was the 2nd person who could have provided Lechmere with an alibi: and she seems to have been left in the dark about the incident. Why give your name as Charles Cross and direct officials towards your employer, when your employer can tell them nothing about when you left for work that morning? In the case of his running over & killing the boy, there is ample reason to involve your employer, who can inform officials on what a model employee he was and provide legal council: i am comfortable with the notion that he was known administratively as Charle Cross at Pickford's. However, Elizabeth Lechmere, most probably could tell officials when Lechmere left for work; typically, a proper English wife would get up with the husband and prepared his breakfast/lunch. Why not use the name of Lechmere at the inquest and be prepared to involve your wife's testimony, should you encounter doubt? If one thinks that being a witness to a murder in East London is shameful, how about being a suspect? Was he leaving for work at 3:15 am?

                                And showing up at the inquest in your working garments, when your home is only a 7 minute walk away - someone supposedly sensitive to his social position and concerned about what the relatives in the countryside would think? Did he keep his wife in the dark? It sure seems so. The alternative story of a dragnet encountering him and detaining him that morning, when they didn't even check Robert Paul out first - who originated the very story; it just doesn't wash.

                                There is the strong hint that he left earlier than he said; which might mean he was in the habit of shagging prostitutes on the way to work. Who knows?

                                It would have been nice if Jack the Ripper wasn't disturbed during the murder.
                                It would have been nice if there was conformity between Lechmere and the 2nd PC's story.
                                Last edited by Newbie; 07-31-2021, 01:05 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X