Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

    And investigated and cleared by the police, no?


    Lechmere only interacted with one Policeman, PC Mizen, who never took his name, address or place of employment. Once Lechmere walked off into the night he walked off into anonymity. So it would be interesting to know how the police contacted him for questioning. Answers on a postcard please.

    Furthermore, why would they anyway, Lechmere was just some random passing on a message from a policeman who needed a hand in Bucks Row.

    We know that Lechmere was never interviewed as on the first day of the inquest the police still thought PC Neil had found the body. If they had interviewed Lechmere they would know this wasn’t the case. The police got Bucks Row badly wrong, they never even established who found the body.

    Just to clarify, at no point was Lechmere interviewed by the police during the Ripper enquiry.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

      Doesn’t answer the question even 1%. If our protagonists are 40 - 50m apart then why doesn’t Paul sight him sooner ?
      Its hard for you because you actually have to think for yourself, think in the abstract, analyse and understand and come up with a possible solution. It involves more than just criticising someone’s else post which is the limit of your contributions.
      Having you own idea, hypothesis, explanation or theory is hard, because you can’t just copy and paste one.
      What you appear to be suggesting though Bob is that no set of circumstances could have occurred where Paul couldn’t have seen Lechmere on the walk to work. I believe that Steve Blomer showed how this was entirely possible. As we know, these streets were poorly lit, there were corners to be turned. Plus we know that Lechmere estimated that Paul was 40 yards away when he heard his approach. So as Lechmere had already stopped and gone over for a look at the tarpaulin/body then we can possibly add 20 or so to that which adds distance to the 40 yards. Yes the 40 yards estimate might actually have been less but it could have been more. How many people can accurately judge distance by hearing? How can we know how quickly Paul was walking?

      So yes we can suggest that if they were closer then we would have expected Paul to have seen Lechmere. But there are too many unknowns to make this claim. Paul could have been 50+ yards away when Lechmere first heard him. And then we would have to considers Lechmere’s time taken to see the body and go for a look (he might have hesitated or he might have gone straight over. Did he try and wake her? Who knows but we might possibly add 20 seconds which could add 20 or 30 yards to the distance.

      This is not a case of altering times or intentionally adding or deducting times to fit. It’s simply an acknowledgment of the unknowns in these events. It’s the acceptance of the variations that we have to consider when estimations occur and when events occur in an environment that we can only imagine.

      So just like the gap fallacy, the suggestion that Paul would have had to have seen Lechmere is another fallacy. It’s a constant attempt to mould unknowns into knowns, to add inaccurate interpretations to words and to suggest opinion as fact. So that’s 2 planks of the guilty Lechmere theory which should be laid aside but sadly the 2 points will still be claimed as points against his guilt. And I’m still not criticising anyone for thinking Lechmere worthy of consideration btw.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post



        Lechmere only interacted with one Policeman, PC Mizen, who never took his name, address or place of employment. Once Lechmere walked off into the night he walked off into anonymity. So it would be interesting to know how the police contacted him for questioning. Answers on a postcard please.

        Furthermore, why would they anyway, Lechmere was just some random passing on a message from a policeman who needed a hand in Bucks Row.

        We know that Lechmere was never interviewed as on the first day of the inquest the police still thought PC Neil had found the body. If they had interviewed Lechmere they would know this wasn’t the case. The police got Bucks Row badly wrong, they never even established who found the body.

        Just to clarify, at no point was Lechmere interviewed by the police during the Ripper enquiry.
        Im unsure but didn’t Lechmere go to a Police station to say that he was the person who found the body? I can’t recall to be honest Bob but someone will know. Or did he just hear about the Inquest and turn up. People were allowed to do that.

        But how could a guilty Lechmere have known that Mizen wouldn’t have asked them to escort him back to the body? How could he have expected to have spoken to Mizen out of Paul’s hearing so that he could suggest that Nichols was only drunk (so that Mizen would allow them to walk away?) How could he have known that Mizen wouldn’t ask him his name, address and place of work? And of course Mizen had seen his face. Would Lechmere have then left the area or his job to avoid being seen and identified by Mizen or Paul?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post


          Just to clarify, at no point was Lechmere interviewed by the police during the Ripper enquiry.
          And you know that for certain ?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

            Im unsure but didn’t Lechmere go to a Police station to say that he was the person who found the body? I can’t recall to be honest Bob but someone will know. Or did he just hear about the Inquest and turn up. People were allowed to do that.

            But how could a guilty Lechmere have known that Mizen wouldn’t have asked them to escort him back to the body? How could he have expected to have spoken to Mizen out of Paul’s hearing so that he could suggest that Nichols was only drunk (so that Mizen would allow them to walk away?) How could he have known that Mizen wouldn’t ask him his name, address and place of work? And of course Mizen had seen his face. Would Lechmere have then left the area or his job to avoid being seen and identified by Mizen or Paul?


            The thing is Herlock that Lechmere would have had no idea about Mizen.

            When Lechmere attacked Nichols the last thing on his mind was that a witness would come along, and that a few minutes later he would be in front of a Constable. He couldn’t possibly have predicted how close he would come to disaster. Robert Paul shouldn’t have been there, he was apparently late and using a street he normally avoided. Everything after that is Lechmere reacting to the unfolding situation. Trying to appear innocent, and trying to extricate himself from his botched attack as best he could. When Paul decided to go and find a policeman I’ll bet Lechmere was in panic mode.

            I’ll bet it was all a huge shock and when he was walking off to fetch a policeman (Pauls idea) his heart must have been in his mouth. Walking up to Mizen, his mind was in overdrive wondering how to play it. Luckily Mizen was a pushover, just like Paul had been, and Lechmere walked off into anonymity.

            I’ll bet years after he would look back and laugh. Caught red handed, but he fooled them all (he still is even now).
            Last edited by SuperShodan; 01-12-2022, 01:13 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
              I'll bet Lechmere was in panic mode.

              I’ll bet it was all a huge shock and when he was walking off to fetch a policeman (Pauls idea) his heart must have been in his mouth.
              His 'heroic psychopathy' didn't last long, then, eh?

              He didn't simply walk or run away when he had a chance, but now he is panicked and his heart is in his mouth?

              Sorry, but I think I've heard enough.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                His 'heroic psychopathy' didn't last long, then, eh?

                He didn't simply walk or run away when he had a chance, but now he is panicked and his heart is in his mouth?

                Sorry, but I think I've heard enough.
                His gut instinct was to stay and face Paul and not run. He walked off to talk to Mizen and took the lead by taking to him alone. He stood, he took ownership, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t have had the huge adrenaline rush. The difference is he can be totally cool under stress, cool enough to talk to a policeman minutes after murdering someone.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                  Hi George,

                  The measurement is the distance I get when working out his position based upon his statement, whether or not it would be possible to recognize at that distance that what he was looking at was a woman lying in the street is impossible for me to say. That would require us being there. By the sounds of it, though, he spotted "something" at a greater distance, and was heading over to check it out. So we know he could see a shape, and we know he's moving towards it, so he's focused on it. It doesn't seem implausible that under those circumstances that he makes out that it's not just a crumpled tarpaulin but a women (the shape of the clothing would indicate that). But again, I can't know for a fact how realistic that is.

                  His familiarity with his route to work would probably have provided him with the knowledge that Neil's beat would bring him to the murder site quite soon.

                  But doesn't that argue against Cross/Lechmere committing murder in that location in the first place? If he is aware that PC Neil could come by anytime ...

                  - Jeff
                  Hi Jeff,

                  Your 12 metre distance of Lechmere's sighting of the body has been bothering me. I've looked at several newspaper accounts of his testimony and found no reference to his location in relation to the woolshed. Can you point me to that reference please? I found this account from the Morning Advertiser 4 Sep 1888: "As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman.". It appears that Lechmere thought he was looking at a man's tarpaulin jacket rather than a crumpled sheet of tarpaulin. The tarpaulin jackets were most often worn by sailors, the origin of the term "Jack tar", but were also made for women. It seems to me that 12 metres is an inordinate distance to be able to distinguish, in the dark, between a man's tarpaulin jacket and the figure of a woman? I would have thought that said observation would have been more likely made from the middle of the road, about opposite the body, which would closer fit Paul's statement to LLoyd's of "where the body was".

                  When I suggested that Lechmere, if guilty, probably had knowledge of Neil's beat I was contemplating that he was planning his timing around this knowledge, as JtR was in Mitre Square. His plan of quietly leaving before Neil arrived would not have included and alarm being raised by Paul. In your opinion, would JtR have done some pre-murder research on police beats, or was he more likely a daring opportunist?

                  Cheers, George
                  “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                  “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Im unsure but didn’t Lechmere go to a Police station to say that he was the person who found the body? I can’t recall to be honest Bob but someone will know. Or did he just hear about the Inquest and turn up. People were allowed to do that.
                    Hi Herlock,

                    I believe he just turned up at the inquest, dressed in his work apron, presumably as a response to Paul's statement to Lloyds. While there he was called before the inquest to be identified by Mizen as the man to whom the latter had spoken.

                    Congrats on the fourth test. A true profile in courage by Bairstow.

                    Cheers, George
                    Last edited by GBinOz; 01-12-2022, 02:09 PM.
                    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Herlock,

                      I believe he just turned up at the inquest, dressed in his work apron, presumably as a response to Paul's statement to Lloyds. While there he was called before the inquest to be identified by Mizen as the man to whom the latter had spoken.

                      Congrats on the fourth test. A true profile in courage by Bairstow.

                      Cheers, George
                      Thanks George

                      I think that they should give Bairstow the gloves and bring in another batsmen. Butler’s a talented batsman but he doesn’t cut it in test cricket.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post



                        The thing is Herlock that Lechmere would have had no idea about Mizen.

                        When Lechmere attacked Nichols the last thing on his mind was that a witness would come along, and that a few minutes later he would be in front of a Constable. He couldn’t possibly have predicted how close he would come to disaster. Robert Paul shouldn’t have been there, he was apparently late and using a street he normally avoided. Everything after that is Lechmere reacting to the unfolding situation. Trying to appear innocent, and trying to extricate himself from his botched attack as best he could. When Paul decided to go and find a policeman I’ll bet Lechmere was in panic mode.

                        I’ll bet it was all a huge shock and when he was walking off to fetch a policeman (Pauls idea) his heart must have been in his mouth. Walking up to Mizen, his mind was in overdrive wondering how to play it. Luckily Mizen was a pushover, just like Paul had been, and Lechmere walked off into anonymity.

                        I’ll bet years after he would look back and laugh. Caught red handed, but he fooled them all (he still is even now).
                        And it’s that complete uncertainty that makes it such a strange suggestion that a guilty Lechmere should have stood and waited for Paul to get there. For me the suggestion isn’t even worth consideration. Lechmere wasn’t placed in an impossible situation. ‘Flee’ will always be the first instinct for a murderer. So even if he considers his situation for 5 seconds what doubts could possibly have entered his mind that would override his instinct to run? It’s been suggested that he might have run into a Constable? So…

                        There’s a chance (of unknown likelihood) that he might have run into a Constable somewhere along his escape route. And even then that Constable would have had no reason to have given him a second look.

                        versus

                        The close to 100% certainty that after Paul had arrived the search for a Constable would have followed and that meeting would have had them standing face to face.

                        There’s just no competition Bob. A guilty Lechmere standing and waiting for a stranger to get there would have been nigh on suicide. But if he was simply a man who found a body then it’s absolutely normal behaviour.

                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • The Lechmere Triangle

                          I had briefly mentioned this idea in a response to Jeff, and im sure its probably been mentioned before somewhere concerning Lech, but wanted to expound on it a bit more and see others thoughts.

                          If you draw straight lines from Lechs house to his place of work and then to his mothers house (which is also near where he used to live) and back to his house it forms a triangle. All of the murders, including tabram and Mckenzie (and millwood) as well as the placement of the apron/GSG, fall within this triangle or right on the border. If lech was the killer, I would suggest this area was his comfort zone, as he knew it well, and that none of the murders fall far outside this zone as it would be areas he might not be as familiar and comfortable with. Its also interesting to note that nichols is the victim who was murdered closest to his house and also the first of the C5, but still a good distance away from where he lived-suggesting if he was the killer he didnt want to kill TOO close to his home.
                          Its simplistic laymans "geoprofiling" I know, but I find the idea somewhat intriguing.

                          Thoughts? Prayers? lol

                          Last edited by Abby Normal; 01-12-2022, 02:36 PM.
                          "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 GBinOz View Post
                            It appears that Lechmere thought he was looking at a man's tarpaulin jacket rather than a crumpled sheet of tarpaulin. The tarpaulin jackets were most often worn by sailors, the origin of the term "Jack tar", but were also made for women. It seems to me that 12 metres is an inordinate distance to be able to distinguish, in the dark, between a man's tarpaulin jacket and the figure of a woman?
                            Unfortunately, the East London Observer gives a different account, and quotes CAL as calling it a "tarpaulin sheet."



                            Click image for larger version

Name:	tarpaulin.JPG
Views:	90
Size:	44.2 KB
ID:	778099

                            Comment


                            • I know that it’s easy to play the ‘what if’ or ‘why not’ game but if we suggest Lechmere was a devious killer who was insanely confident enough to take the unnecessary risk of standing around waiting for Paul to get there why didn’t he tell Paul that as he’d arrived at the scene he’d heard the footsteps of someone running away? If he wanted to go further he could even have said he’d seen someone crouching near the body before running away.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes

                              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                The Lechmere Triangle

                                I had briefly mentioned this idea in a response to Jeff, and im sure its probably been mentioned before somewhere concerning Lech, but wanted to expound on it a bit more and see others thoughts.

                                If you draw straight lines from Lechs house to his place of work and then to his mothers house (which is also near where he used to live) and back to his house it forms a triangle. All of the murders, including tabram and Mckenzie (and millwood) as well as the placement of the apron/GSG, fall within this triangle or right on the border. If lech was the killer, I would suggest this area was his comfort zone, as he knew it well, and that none of the murders fall far outside this zone as it would be areas he might not be as familiar and comfortable with. Its also interesting to note that nichols is the victim who was murdered closest to his house and also the first of the C5, but still a good distance away from where he lived-suggesting if he was the killer he didnt want to kill TOO close to his home.
                                Its simplistic laymans "geoprofiling" I know, but I find the idea somewhat intriguing.

                                Thoughts? Prayers? lol


                                A bit off topic but I just wanted to answer a previous post by Abby.


                                The marauder and commuter profiles are fascinating. I think that Lechmere was clearly a commuter and that he was attacking women well before he moved to Doveton Street. I think from late 1887 and through 1888 there are women being savagely beaten, then knifed, then strangled and mutilated. This kind of progression is what I’d expect from JTR.

                                The killers MO is developing and by the time he killed Polly Nichols he had become good at murder. I definitely don’t think she was his first victim. It was too good a kill.

                                In particular, I don’t think a killer would start his career with a murder. I think he would likely start with assaults and work up. I see that in Whitechapel. Women beaten to death moving up to very efficient stealth kills.

                                Im at 23 attacks during the ripper period but these are just some that caught my eye. I’m not saying they are Ripper attacks, they just fit my idea of progression and assaults moving up to the Nichols murder, which I believe is his first strangulation and throat cut kill which is silent and deadly.


                                Emily Hosnell (Nov 1887) severely beaten.

                                Margaret Haimes (Dec 1887) severely beaten .

                                Annie Millwood (Feb 1888) repeatedly stabbed.

                                Georgina Green (May 1888) stabbed in the head, she managed to survive.


                                It would be interesting to see if any of these attacks occurred between his former address and his work at Pickford’s, and what time they occurred. My hypothesis would be that they would.

                                The Lechmere triangle is very interesting to me in terms of ‘evidence of innocence’. If he were innocent I wouldn’t expect we could link him so easily to the crime scenes.
                                Last edited by SuperShodan; 01-12-2022, 05:06 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X