Evidence of innocence

[John Wheat]

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.

Its possible Paul killed Nichols then doubled back before finding Lechmere who found the body. This is not very likely but it's about as likely as Lechmere killing Nichols.

[Mark J D]

... 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 [etc] ... ?

Sorry, old bean; but this is what I would call structural over-estimation of the police.

How could Lechmere know that the first beat copper he and Paul came across would be a lazy, dishonest berk who wouldn't suspect him? The answer is in the question...

M.

[MrBarnett]

Its possible Paul killed Nichols then doubled back before finding Lechmere who found the body. This is not very likely but it's about as likely as Lechmere killing Nichols.

Perhaps Paul killed Nichols and then went and had a cuppa with Neil. You and Trev should get your heads together and write a book.

[rjpalmer]

Perhaps Paul killed Nichols and then went and had a cuppa with Neil. You and Trev should get your heads together and write a book.

Paul couldn't have killed Nichols. According to his deposition, he didn't even leave home until PC Neil had already rediscovered the body at 3:45.

He's alibied himself out.

;-)

[John Wheat]

Perhaps Paul killed Nichols and then went and had a cuppa with Neil. You and Trev should get your heads together and write a book.

It's no more unlikely than Lechmere killing Nichols.

[JeffHamm]

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

Thanks Frank! I was wondering if there was a version out there that I hadn't seen before, but it appears Christer included his interpretation with a statement about what was said at the inquest, making it inadvertently appear like an actual quote.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

It's no more unlikely than Lechmere killing Nichols.

Well, we know both men were there that morning, so they are head and shoulders above other ‘suspects’ whose whereabouts are unknown. I’m sure you’ll agree.

[John Wheat]

Well, we know both men were there that morning, so they are head and shoulders above other ‘suspects’ whose whereabouts are unknown. I’m sure you’ll agree.

No I don't agree. Both men were witnesses and for some unknown reason Lechmere has been turned into a suspect.

[MrBarnett]

No I don't agree. Both men were witnesses and for some unknown reason Lechmere has been turned into a suspect.

Both men certainly appeared as witnesses at the inquest. Does that somehow eliminate them as possible killers?

[John Wheat]

Both men certainly appeared as witnesses at the inquest. Does that somehow eliminate them as possible killers?

No but there is no evidence either was the murderer of Nichols.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Is there really anything suspicious about Charles Lechmere being just where he would have been expected to have been at just the time that he would have been expected to have been there giving himself just enough time to be on his way to doing something that he had to do 6 days a week?

The only difference being that on this occasion some unknown person killed a woman on that spot.

We cannot prove or disprove that Lechmere had been there longer than he said that he was and neither are impossible.

Just after he’d found the body another man turns up at a spot that he would also probably have passed 6 days a week at the same time.

This second man sees nothing suspicious in Lechmere’s appearance or behaviour.

They walk together looking for a Constable until they find one.

The resulting conversation gets a little contested which often happens and is ripe for misinterpretation or the application of a scenario.

The Constable also sees nothing suspicious in Lechmere’s appearance or behaviour.

We can’t know if or how deeply the Police looked into Lechmere even though he glaring obviously spent at least some time alone with the body so it would have been remiss of them not to have done though not impossible of course.

……

From this we have to consider one huge point. For quite a while we’ve heard about this ‘gap’ that meant that Lechmere spent more time at the body than previously thought. This made Lechmere a suspect. He’d left the house at 3.30 and found the body at 3.45. Deduct the walking time and we have this ‘gap’ of 8 minutes or so don’t we? Well….no we don’t actually because Lechmere said that he’d left the house “about 3.30” which the English language tells is an estimation. So yes it could have been earlier but it could have been later. And we know that the 3.45 time requires Baxter to have been omniscient and to have, for some inexplicable reason, dismissed the times of the 3 Constable’s who were actually there at the scene. So the start time and the end time are both subject to variation and as proper, realistic, logical, common sense and 100% fair to both sides figures has shown. So the ‘gap’ point is null and void.

……

So just imagine for a minute that this ‘gap’ fallacy had never been mentioned. How suspicious of Lechmere would anyone have been? How would he have differed from the million others that have discovered bodies? The only ‘difference’ was that another bloke turned up. Shock, horror. Two men going to work along the same street. Who’d have thought it?

Im not saying that there’s anything wrong with looking into Lechmere. I’m not saying that anyone’s wrong or an idiot for doing so. I just think that there’s a lot of exaggeration going on. Plenty of….. if x occurred and y occurred the z must be the case (where x and y are unknowns) It’s illogical.

[JeffHamm]

...

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. ...

I thought that might be interesting to explore as well. So, I just edited out the JtR's I had in the previous version. I set Cross/Lechmere to simply leave home earlier, at 3:25 (he has to get to crime scene with enough time to murder her). I've left Polly to arrive at the location at the same time as before, but now she's just hanging out there until Cross/Lechmere comes along. And, Cross/Lechmere legs it after Paul enters Buck's Row. I just run things to the point PC Neil arrives at the crime scene as after that everything would be identical to what I've shown before, with I suppose the one exception that Paul, on his own, might not have contacted PC Mizen (or, if he spotted Cross/Lechmere's movements, might have reacted differently). However, given PC Neil, Thain, and Dr. L's activities are independent of PC Mizen, Cross/Lechmere, and Paul, none of that would change.

So, you can see this fantasy version here:

https://youtu.be/Y2lxx-6lkGI

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

I thought that might be interesting to explore as well. So, I just edited out the JtR's I had in the previous version. I set Cross/Lechmere to simply leave home earlier, at 3:25 (he has to get to crime scene with enough time to murder her). I've left Polly to arrive at the location at the same time as before, but now she's just hanging out there until Cross/Lechmere comes along. And, Cross/Lechmere legs it after Paul enters Buck's Row. I just run things to the point PC Neil arrives at the crime scene as after that everything would be identical to what I've shown before, with I suppose the one exception that Paul, on his own, might not have contacted PC Mizen (or, if he spotted Cross/Lechmere's movements, might have reacted differently). However, given PC Neil, Thain, and Dr. L's activities are independent of PC Mizen, Cross/Lechmere, and Paul, none of that would change.

So, you can see this fantasy version here:

https://youtu.be/Y2lxx-6lkGI

- Jeff

Surely, if Lechmere’s activity had changed dramatically that might have changed both Paul’s and Neil’s activities. He hares off from the body, drawing Paul’s attention to it. And finding an unconscious or dead body from which a man has left at speed is a different kettle of fish from finding a woman who might be unconscious from drunkenness or illness. It’s almost certainly a crime scene. And one very normal response to coming across such a situation would be for the finder to start screaming, ‘Help! Murder! Police!’

[JeffHamm]

Surely, if Lechmere’s activity had changed dramatically that might have changed both Paul’s and Neil’s activities. He hares off from the body, drawing Paul’s attention to it. And finding an unconscious or dead body from which a man has left at speed is a different kettle of fish from finding a woman who might be unconscious from drunkenness or illness. It’s almost certainly a crime scene. And one very normal response to coming across such a situation would be for the finder to start screaming, ‘Help! Murder! Police!’

Maybe, but since it didn't happen that way and Cross/Lechmere didn't run off, then we're now into story telling, so depending upon the plot we want to make up, we could go with what you suggest. For example, if we want our fiction to also have Cross/Lechmere murder the other C5 victims later, though, we obviously have to go with "and despite all these calls for help and murder, he got away and was never identified." Or, we go with the less dramatic maybe, and Paul in this fictional account doesn't stop to check out the woman, so of course that would mean he never has reason to stop and chat with PC Mizen, removing PC Mizen from the simulation altogether. PC Neil in this alternate universe isn't alerted by Paul's cries (just like he's not alerted by Paul's absent cries in reality), making PC Neil's behaviour the same as it really was.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Maybe, but since it didn't happen that way and Cross/Lechmere didn't run off, then we're now into story telling, so depending upon the plot we want to make up, we could go with what you suggest. For example, if we want our fiction to also have Cross/Lechmere murder the other C5 victims later, though, we obviously have to go with "and despite all these calls for help and murder, he got away and was never identified." Or, we go with the less dramatic maybe, and Paul in this fictional account doesn't stop to check out the woman, so of course that would mean he never has reason to stop and chat with PC Mizen, removing PC Mizen from the simulation altogether. PC Neil in this alternate universe isn't alerted by Paul's cries (just like he's not alerted by Paul's absent cries in reality), making PC Neil's behaviour the same as it really was.

- Jeff

‘Fantasy’? ‘Story telling’? ‘Fiction’

Describing possible alternative scenarios in those terms shows how thin a veneer of objectivity you employ in these matters.

You stated that in this version of events Paul’s and Neil’s ‘would not change’. What’s that in your terminology, an ascertained fact?