Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    There is no wiggle room end of !!!!!!!!!!!!!! The TOD cannot be determined by estimating the time it would have taken for Nicholls to bleed out.

    The last nail in the coffin was dispelling Fish`s interpretation regarding a bleeding out time for Nichols which put Lecmehere in the frame for committing the murder whilst on his way to work. If you believe that then you might want to start believing in fairies at the bottom of your garden

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    The Simple fact is, Trevor, that Lechmere could have been the killer. He was in the right place at pretty much the right time. We can argue the toss over minutes here or there, but that fact won’t go away.

    And I’d be interested to see Jeff’s animation with Lech having legged it from the scene and arriving puffing and panting in the Whitechapel Road in full view of Neil at about the time Paul reached the body. If Paul had actually seen him running from the scene, it would have called attention to the location of the body and made it clear that something criminal had occurred. Then what would Paul have done? Carried on his merry way to work, avoiding Mizen’s eyes as he passed him?

    Nothing is proven one way or the other, but Lechmere has some intriguing points in favour of his candidacy as a person of interest. I know you’d like that not to be the case but I’m afraid it is.


    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
      Oh, I forgot to mention, Christer says that Paul testifies at the inquest that he left home at approximately 3.45 or just thereafter. I've seen his testimony as saying he left home about a quarter to 4 (that's in the Times). I know the wording can differ between papers, but I don't ever recall a paper indicating that he left ... just thereafter.? What newspaper does that come from?

      - Jeff
      Hi Jeff,

      I have 8 versions of Paul's inquest statement and none of them say he left at approximately 3.45 of just thereafter. Five have him say he "left home just before a quarter to four", one has him "passing along Buck's-row at a quarter to four", two have has him say "he left home about a quarter to 4" and one says nothing about a time.

      Cheers,
      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


      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

        Hi Jeff,

        I have 8 versions of Paul's inquest statement and none of them say he left at approximately 3.45 of just thereafter. Five have him say he "left home just before a quarter to four", one has him "passing along Buck's-row at a quarter to four", two have has him say "he left home about a quarter to 4" and one says nothing about a time.

        Cheers,
        Frank
        all which point to him seeing lech near pollys freshly killed body at about 3:45.
        put yourself in Pauls shoes. Your heading to work early in the dark morning. your already wary of the area. You see a man hovering around in the middle of the road near what turns out to be the body of a freshly killed woman. Id find that creepy and yes suspicious.
        "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 Abby Normal View Post

          bingo Gary
          Especially since he was seen near her freshly killed body before raising any kind of alarm. It would have only taken him a minute or two to kill her and inflict the wounds.

          Its one of the reasons I find the timings minutia bac and forth somewhat meaningless.
          Of course Abby. Kate's murder in Mitre Square proves this.
          So how come after the double murder the police did a house to house search were they questioned 300 men and quizzed 80 of them further ? And on what evidence ?
          When they had a man, who by his own admission found a freshly killed victim with not much of an alibi .
          Perhaps this man was cleared with further enquires.

          Regards Darryl

          Comment


          • can somebody explain to me how we would favor other peoples testimony about when Paul was in Bucks row, other than the man himself? He was the one who was there-hes talking about himself for crying out loud! wouldnt he know best? He just left his home and has the time fresh in his mind as hes trying to get to work on time?!? I dont get it.
            "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 Aethelwulf View Post

              Your posts on this issue are very good - some of the best I've read on casebook. You must realise you're wasting your time though? I suspect Fisherman and others have invested too much time and effort in Lechmere to concede even the smallest point (despite that nagging doubt they must have that he's innocent). I suppose you're keeping his ideas in check.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                Of course Abby. Kate's murder in Mitre Square proves this.
                So how come after the double murder the police did a house to house search were they questioned 300 men and quizzed 80 of them further ? And on what evidence ?
                When they had a man, who by his own admission found a freshly killed victim with not much of an alibi .
                Perhaps this man was cleared with further enquires.

                Regards Darryl
                HI DK
                Maybe but we just dont have evidence they did. perhaps they simply missed it. it wouldnt be the first time the police missed something in a murder investigation. and besides even if they did suspect him, there wasnt enough evidence (or at least they thought so) to arrest him. If lech was the killer, his ruse worked. simple as that.

                "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 Darryl Kenyon View Post
                  Perhaps this man was cleared with further enquires.
                  I know folks on here feel a desperate compulsion to get Lechmere off the table and return to imaginary incarcerated Jews; but people really, really need to stop with this 'surely the police would have...' stuff.

                  In our own era, the police interviewed the Yorkshire Ripper nine times without result. They received an accusatory letter from one of his friends -- and lost it. They had a survivor photofit, and denigrated one copper who wanted it taken seriously. They spent God knows how much time and money chasing a hoaxer. In the end, they caught the killer by accident at an improperly conducted traffic stop, and even then allowed him opportunities to hide tools and weapons in two different places, one of them inside an actual police station.

                  Over-estimating Plod is another desperate compulsion -- a rather British one, in many respects -- that people need to get over.

                  M.
                  Last edited by Mark J D; 01-11-2022, 04:21 PM.
                  (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                    I know folks on here feel a desperate compulsion to get Lechmere off the table; but people really, really need to stop with this 'surely the police would have...' stuff.

                    In our own era, the police interviewed the Yorkshire Ripper nine times without result. They received an accusatory letter from one of his friends -- and lost it. They had a survivor photofit, and denigrated one copper who wanted it taken seriously. In the end, they caught the guy by accident at an improperly conducted traffic stop, and even then allowed him opportunities to hide tools and weapons in two different places, one of them inside an actual police station.

                    Over-estimating Plod is another compulsion -- a rather British one, in many respects -- that people need to get over.

                    M.
                    But the Yorkshire ripper never discovered a body, nor was he ever placed with one. Don't forget one of the police officers DC Laptew, who interviewed Sutcliffe held deep suspicions against him. But when he took his concerns to a senior officer they were looking for a man with a Wearside accent. Not all police forces make an horrendous mistake as the senior officers did on that particular case.
                    Yet what we have with Lech is not one policeman , higher or lower rank mentioning that this person who discovered a body no more than a few minutes after poor Polly was murdered [ don't forget Llewelyns evidence ] deserves further attention . I simply don't but it .

                    Regards Darryl

                    Comment


                    • Let’s face it, both sides of the debate can make similar claims about bias (whether justified or not) From my own point of view Id say yes of course we can’t disprove his guilt any more than it can be proven. What I don’t understand is when it’s claimed for example that there must have been a suspicious gap of time in Bucks Row for Lechmere. I just can’t see why some persist with this one? I certainly wouldn’t say that Lechmere must have left the house at a certain time or that he must have arrived in Bucks Row at a certain time. For all that we know he could easily have left the house at 3.25. Or he could have lied and actually left the house at 3.00. We can’t know and that’s the whole point. We can’t know. So can someone please tell me why the accusation is made of deliberately trying to exonerate Lechmere when it’s simply mentioned that ‘about 3.30’ could just as easily have actually been 3.35 as it could have been 3.25? And so, as I’ve said numerous times, how can a positive point (the sinister gap) be made using estimated times where any fair-minded person would have to agree that we have to apply a plus or minus? The same is true of the other times. There are questions to be asked about all of them.

                      Im afraid that the only ones trying to manipulate times are those that are trying to state the unknowable as a known. You can’t state the x is the case if there are several alternative possibles. How could anything be more obvious or more simple to understand? And yet we still get some claiming that they somehow ‘know’ that “about 3.30” must only have meant 3.30 or 3.31 or 3.32? How is this honest? It’s simply a case of one side saying “yes he could have left earlier so there could have been a gap, or he could have left a little later leading to no gap.” As opposed to the other saying “no, he must have left at only either of these 2 times and he must have arrived at no earlier that this time.” Where they there?

                      Whatever interpretations we come to one thing should be set in stone. No one should ever claim that there must have been a gap in time. And if we can’t assume that to have been the case then the point is entirely redundant. I find it surreal that some don’t appear to accept this fact.

                      Then we should look at how ‘suspicious’ he looks after removing this blatant manipulation of the facts.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                        ... I simply don't bu[y] it...
                        By all means switch from 'surely the police would have...' to 'but, in this case, surely the police would have...'

                        But it's an approach that guarantees wrong answers.

                        M.
                        (Image of Charles Allen Lechmere is by artist Ashton Guilbeaux. Used by permission. Original art-work for sale.)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          The Simple fact is, Trevor, that Lechmere could have been the killer. He was in the right place at pretty much the right time. We can argue the toss over minutes here or there, but that fact won’t go away.

                          And I’d be interested to see Jeff’s animation with Lech having legged it from the scene and arriving puffing and panting in the Whitechapel Road in full view of Neil at about the time Paul reached the body. If Paul had actually seen him running from the scene, it would have called attention to the location of the body and made it clear that something criminal had occurred. Then what would Paul have done? Carried on his merry way to work, avoiding Mizen’s eyes as he passed him?

                          Nothing is proven one way or the other, but Lechmere has some intriguing points in favour of his candidacy as a person of interest. I know you’d like that not to be the case but I’m afraid it is.

                          I am all in favour of classing a suspect as a person of interest but as it stands I dont see Lechmere as that person. If all those who suspect him to be the killer think about what the police might have done to eliminate him from suspicion back then. Now I know we dont have any evidence to show what they did but looking at all the police records and the various officers memoirs no one but no one looks on him as anythng other than a person who finds a body and given the lng list of those that were suspected speaks for itself

                          I would have expected then to have checked with his wife about his times and movements, asking his bossses at Pickfords the same questions, Both of those lines of enquiry would have been standard practice even for the police is 1888 so what are we left with to make him at best a person of interest?

                          He finds a body in the street on his way to work, but someone had to find the body, You cant suspect every person who finds a body. what would have happpened if Aunt Fanny had left her home at that time of the morning and discovered the body under the same circumstances would she become a suspect, because the same crime scene conditions as described would have been the same

                          He ponders for a moment not knowing what to do

                          He then sees and hears Paul coming along the road at a point 40 yards from where he is standing

                          If he was the killer that would have given him the time and the opportuntity to run or even walk away un-noticed

                          He later volunteers a statement to the police which would have had to contain his home address

                          Fo whatever reason only known to him, the police, and the coroner he gives a name that some say wasnt his corrcet name but the police, nor the coroner do not pass any comment on this, so we must presume that the expalntion he gave for this was accepted. My own personal view is the the name he gave was the name he was known by at Pickfords

                          There is no other evidence to connect him to the murder other than what Fish keeps banging on about see below and what is that he is so desparate to hang onto come what may.

                          I have covered the two different names used by Lechmere

                          Fish and many others seek to rely on Pc Neil who states he had passed by the spot where the body was found "half and hour previous" others have pinned this time down to 3.15am but that is only a rough guide so we cannot rely on 3.15am as being exact, Furthermore Pc Neils testimony has to be taken on face value. The he goes onto say he heard another Police officer in Brady Street, This officer must have good hearing Brady Street is some way off.

                          As I have pointed out many times there have been many conflcits highlighted in police officers testimony all the way through all of the murders and there is no corroboration to show that Pc Neil did pass by the murder spot at the time he said he did, he could have been having a cup of tea somewhere else on his beat, and when confornted had to say he was where he should have been. From his testimony "I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body" so where exactly where was he when he said he passed by the murder spot at 3.15am? and where were the men at work?

                          Then we come to the most contentious part of the murder the time of death. We all should know by now that the Victorian Doctors stated time of death cannot be relied upon and have been described by modern day medical experts as nothing more than guess work so when Dr Llewelyn states at about 4am when he attended the crime scene he belived she had been dead for only about 30 minutes is a guess and not to be relied on.

                          Cue Fisherman and his theory initally based on the 30 minute window given by the doctor and his inital assement of how the blood was or was not still flowing from the body based on other witmess testimony from another Police officer at the scene which is unsafe to rely on to support Fish`s theory.

                          Now with the bit between his teeth he belives that she had been murdered in a short time frame between 3,15am-3,45am. Well we know he left his home that morning at about 3.30am approx taking a short time to get to Bucks Row, where he found the body already murdered.

                          His other ace in the hole is the time it would take for a body to bleed out. He consulted experts who seemingly agreed with him that it would take only a short time and so he has put all his round pegs into square holes trying to convince us that the time of the murder is consistent with Lechmeres movements and that he must be the killer.

                          The truth is that there in realtiy nothing to connect Lechmere to her murder. But of course as Fish is not in the real world when it comes to assessing and evaluating evidence you, he, and his band of misguided followers will still continue peddling this miguided theory

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-11-2022, 04:47 PM.

                          Comment


                          • There’s been some detailed answers to posts recently so here’s one that has always struck me as odd about events in Bucks Row. Why Paul doesn’t have sight of Lechmere sooner ? They seem to be walking 40 or 50m apart for a good period of time, even before they turn into Bucks Row and yet are unaware of each others presence (at these types of distances they might even see each other in Brady Street).


                            These are the facts as I understand them.


                            Paul is apparently some distance up Bucks Row before he sights Lechmere. He appears to first see Lechmere when Lechmere is “standing where the woman was” which is 130 - 140m up Bucks Row. Prior to this both men are unaware of each other’s presence. How is this possible ?

                            My take is when sighted Lechmere is in the middle of the road, 3m away or so from the body (he can’t be too far away as even in the darkness of the gateway he has identified that’s it’s a woman). He also says to Paul “come and look at this woman”. He wouldn’t know this unless he had a close look - Nichols is lying in a darkened gateway.

                            In Lechmere’s version he finds Nichols body just as he becomes aware of Paul approaching. These 2 events happen almost simultaneously. This suggests that Paul isn’t too far behind, maybe 10 or 20 seconds at most, and certainly not the full length of Bucks Row or any such distance.

                            Some have suggested it was dark in Bucks Row but this doesn’t wash. It was dark in the gateway, but I doubt the entire street was pitch black.

                            Lechmere’s version of finding the body just as he becomes aware of Paul doesn’t seem credible. It would require Paul to be both close behind, and yet be unable to see him walking ahead the whole way up Bucks Row.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                              There’s been some detailed answers to posts recently so here’s one that has always struck me as odd about events in Bucks Row. Why Paul doesn’t have sight of Lechmere sooner ? They seem to be walking 40 or 50m apart for a good period of time, even before they turn into Bucks Row
                              Not in Jeff's simulation video, they don't. Watch it again.

                              Start at around 5:00
                              Last edited by rjpalmer; 01-11-2022, 05:22 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                                By all means switch from 'surely the police would have...' to 'but, in this case, surely the police would have...'

                                But it's an approach that guarantees wrong answers.

                                M.
                                I don't know for certain they did. But on the other hand Mark, you don't know they didn't.
                                So that approach can give wrong answers as well.
                                I am going on the probability of Lech being the ripper or not.
                                I may be wrong but to me finding a dead body isn't enough evidence to convict anyone .
                                All the other evidence is assumptions. The covering up of the abdominal injuries for instance is seen as a pointer to Lech's guilt. Yet as myself and others have pointed out the neck wounds were visible. It would have been just sheer luck that Paul didn't notice them if Lech was the killer.
                                The bleeding out evidence is ambiguous as is the fact that Lech may have killed on his way to work. And, as I have asked before how did Lech not know the first policeman him and Paul came across wouldn't be as lax as Mizen ? Suppose another police officer hadn't searched them ?
                                Three weeks after Martha was ferociously put to death in a spot not more than a few hundred yards away and another middle aged woman is found on the ground who may be dead. Again just sheer luck that Mizen didn't, if lech was the killer

                                Regards Darryl

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X