Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Are we seriously suggesting that just because Lechmere might have passed the vicinity of the other murder sites way before the actual series of murders began that this in some way implicates Lechmere? I’m not aware of any evidence that serial killers only kill at or near familiar spots. How far do we go to try and find things that make Lechmere ‘fit?’ The locations wouldn’t have given Lechmere an excuse for being there if questioned by the police and if someone intended to butcher women in the streets I’d have thought that one poor choice might have been if he’d decided to do it in a location where he’s potentially known.

Depends how you look at it. It’s not a case of ‘just because’ it’s a case of why might Lechmere have chosen the Mitre Square area as somewhere as to look for a second victim if he’d been interrupted in Berners Street and his bloodlust wasn’t satisfied?

Firstly, it was in the City and came under a different police jurisdiction and secondly he may well have known the area having passed close by in his way to Broad Street while he was living in James Street. Since he supposedly started work at Pickfords in the 1860s, he may even have worked at Haydon Square which was much closer to Pinchin/Mary Ann Streets than Broad Street. It was also (just) in H Div. and his stepfather was an H Div. officer.

If we ever get to the stage where the naysayers demand absolute proof for everything and it becomes impossible to think along these lines, the subject will be dead.

Me, I like to create hypothetical scenarios and check them out. You find some fascinating stuff that way. Info about Pickford's Haydon Square cricket team in the 1860s for example. Which didn’t seem to have had a Cross or a Lechmere in it. I so wish it had. ;-)

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;n778499]

hi gary
did they have fires going in these places? maybe they had a fire going perhaps near tje gate and the coppers would stop for a little bit to warm up. might explain why a cape might have been left there. perhaps he took it off because it was wet to dry it and warm up.

The horseflesh went into large boilers to be cooked - they would have given off some heat. The boilers would have been inside the sheds, though. Since the work primarily inside, I don’t see why they would have needed any kind of a fire or brazier outside in the yard. But they may have done, I suppose.

[FrankO]

This probably should be on another thread, but has the mystery of the two men (civilians) who were present in Buck’s Row ever been solved? Tomkins claimed they were there when he arrived, Neil claimed that two slaughterman were the first civilians on the scene. Baxter suggested Tomkins may have read about the two men rather than actually seen them, to which Tomkins replied that he couldn’t read.

I don’t think that it was ever solved, Gary. Thain also stated he saw two men with Neil when he returned with Llewellyn. And both Emma Green and Walter Purkiss saw two or three men and three or four constables when they looked from their window after a knock at their door. Seeing that the men were unknown to Thain, we might conclude that they weren’t from Mr. Barber’s slaughterhouse in Winthrop Street, but that’s it.

I'd also like to know who those three or four policemen were. Kirby and Neil, but the third and the fourth? Who'd called them there? Is there anything known about that?

[MrBarnett]

I don’t think that it was ever solved, Gary. Thain also stated he saw two men with Neil when he returned with Llewellyn. And both Emma Green and Walter Purkiss saw two or three men and three or four constables when they looked from their window after a knock at their door. Seeing that the men were unknown to Thain, we might conclude that they weren’t from Mr. Barber’s slaughterhouse in Winthrop Street, but that’s it.

I'd also like to know who those three or four policemen were. Kirby and Neil, but the third and the fourth? Who'd called them there? Is there anything known about that?

Thanks, Frank. There may have been nothing sinister to it, but I used to wonder whether there had been 4 horse slaughterers at the scene, including Henry Tomkins’ brother, Thomas.

A topic for another thread, perhaps.

[GBinOz]

Thanks, Frank. There may have been nothing sinister to it, but I used to wonder whether there had been 4 horse slaughterers at the scene, including Henry Tomkins’ brother, Thomas.

A topic for another thread, perhaps.

There is one here:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...-barber-s-yard

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

There is one here:
https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...-barber-s-yard

Cheers, George

False alarm, almost nothing about a fourth slaughterer.

Cheers, George

[Mark J D]

Wow ! That’s a great pic Mark.

Kind of you. Thanks.

-- Actually, I've upgraded it to show Stoney Lane and the GSG/apron...

Is there anything else that should be shown? I mean, apart from a great big banner shouting "He's just a man who discovered a body!"


M.

[drstrange169]

>>The Murder took place in the early hours of Friday 31 Aug 1888. On that afternoon a journalist from Lloyds Weekly intercepted Robert Paul on his way home.
Sunday 2 Sep 1888. Lloyds publish account of Paul's interview disputing Neil being the finder of the body and effectively exposing Cross to the attention of the police.<<

The story of two men finding the body was published in various newspapers across the country and as far away as Edingbough on the Saturday morning a day before Lloyds article appeared on the Sunday, the source is credited to The Star. It's a somewhat garbled version of events, but then so is the Lloyds version.




>> According to a report that I cannot locate, Cross turned up at the inquest dressed in a hessian apron.<<

The Star


>>My opinion, not presented as fact, is that Cross just turned up at the inquest. <<

To appear at an inquest, you have have been sent a summons by the coroner. Think from a practical point of view. If just anybody could turn up at an inquest, every nutter, attention seeker and who knows what could disrupt preceding for weeks. Anyone appearing has to be shown to have a credible story. Which is why Coroners chose their witnesses from people who have been interviewed by police.

>>Had he been to the police before that they would have already had Mizen identify him (jmo). <<

There may well be a reason for that. It's not my story to tell, so we'll have to wait until it's published to decide on the merits of it.

[Abby Normal]

Kind of you. Thanks.

-- Actually, I've upgraded it to show Stoney Lane and the GSG/apron...

Is there anything else that should be shown? I mean, apart from a great big banner shouting "He's just a man who discovered a body!"


M.

can you do a master lech triangle that includes all this and millwood, tabram chapman kelly nichols mckenzie and possible routes work routes from his home?

[drstrange169]

>> .. you might like to track down Jeff Hamm’s posts where he insisted that checking out Lechmere would have been standard procedure.<<

Are you referring to this comment?

"...we do know that police procedures of the day involve the verification of people's accounts for themselves (we see reference to this in the police files for other people brought to police attention), which, when appropriate, involved talking to the person's family (i.e. Pizer - his brother verified his whereabouts). We therefore have evidence that police procedures involved what has been suggested..."

Seems a reasonable enough comment. Particularly in Cross's case as Swanson claimed,

"... enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police."

If a man turns up claiming that Neil wasn't the first person to discover the body and can't prove it because the other witness is in hiding, then when they go to the inquest another policeman disputes what that witness said and then a new murder is committed where that witness said he passed, isn't ground for "suspicion was cast in statements made to police" I don't know what is.

[drstrange169]

>>... anything given in evidence in court or written in a newspaper is a ‘fact’. And when it comes out of the mouth of a copper it’s presumably doubly unchallengeable. <<

Wow, talk about wriggling and twisting what people have actually written!

Jeff explained what he meant by "fantasy" and yet people kept insisting he use their words simply because they didn't like the word "fantasy" even after Jeff explained he didn't meant in the sense they used the word.

I explained how I, specifically, used the word "fact" and in what context I used it in. And you now attempt to claim it's some catch all phrase.

It is a fact that anything written on this case exists and is evidence. And I repeat, Herlocks post was largely based on the evidence that factually exists, where as your follow up post was based largely on conjecture that has no factually existing evidence, e.g. police reports or newspaper articles.

[Mark J D]

can you do a master lech triangle that includes all this and millwood, tabram chapman kelly nichols mckenzie and possible routes work routes from his home?

Yes and no. The classical Autumn of Terror and C5+1 are easy to do, given certain assumptions (e.g. he kept working out of Broad Street right through to the Kelly murder); and I've done it...



For the others, the problem is that the triangle may have changed through time, and we won't know how. Thanks to Edward Stow, we have a roughly dated succession of addresses for Lechmere and his mother; but the further we move from the date of the Nichols killing the less we can be confident that he was working out of Broad Street rather than from one of the two other Pickfords bases in the area or some other location entirely. The data we need may be findable, some of it; but only if more people start looking...

Let me have a go at a few, and we'll see how they look...

M.

[drstrange169]

>> I don't have a reference for the raid so the report may be apocryphal.<<

Lloyds 30th Sept 88

"There is great indignation at the East-end over the shabby treatment of witnesses. On their summonses was printed in red letters across the subpoena:
N.B. - Bring this summons with you. All fees and expenses are required by the Act of Vic., cap. 68. sec. 1, to be advanced and paid by the coroner immediately after the termination of the inquest to such witnesses as the coroner may think fit to allow.
Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day. John Richardson lost four days' work, and he was paid for three days one shilling each day. Cadosh came up from Enfield, and was paid 3s. for his three days' attendance. The coroner for some time demurred to allowing him his railway fares, but eventually did so, but his loss was 1l. 8s. 9d. John Davis, who discovered the body, lost two days, and was paid 2s., Mrs Long lost two days, and she was paid 2s. Other witnesses told the same story of what they naturally consider very unjust treatment."


P.S.

Gary, Bob and anyone else who doubts coronal procedure might want to pay close attention to the words in the second and third sentences.

[MrBarnett]

>> .. you might like to track down Jeff Hamm’s posts where he insisted that checking out Lechmere would have been standard procedure.<<

Are you referring to this comment?

"...we do know that police procedures of the day involve the verification of people's accounts for themselves (we see reference to this in the police files for other people brought to police attention), which, when appropriate, involved talking to the person's family (i.e. Pizer - his brother verified his whereabouts). We therefore have evidence that police procedures involved what has been suggested..."

Seems a reasonable enough comment. Particularly in Cross's case as Swanson claimed,

"... enquiries were made into the history and accounts given of themselves of persons, respecting whose character & surroundings suspicion was cast in statements made to police."

If a man turns up claiming that Neil wasn't the first person to discover the body and can't prove it because the other witness is in hiding, then when they go to the inquest another policeman disputes what that witness said and then a new murder is committed where that witness said he passed, isn't ground for "suspicion was cast in statements made to police" I don't know what is.

No, I was referring to this one:

“What follows from the police performing what would be standard procedure is a questioning of his wife and/or workplace.”

How reasonable is that?

[MrBarnett]

>> I don't have a reference for the raid so the report may be apocryphal.<<

Lloyds 30th Sept 88

"There is great indignation at the East-end over the shabby treatment of witnesses. On their summonses was printed in red letters across the subpoena:
N.B. - Bring this summons with you. All fees and expenses are required by the Act of Vic., cap. 68. sec. 1, to be advanced and paid by the coroner immediately after the termination of the inquest to such witnesses as the coroner may think fit to allow.
Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day. John Richardson lost four days' work, and he was paid for three days one shilling each day. Cadosh came up from Enfield, and was paid 3s. for his three days' attendance. The coroner for some time demurred to allowing him his railway fares, but eventually did so, but his loss was 1l. 8s. 9d. John Davis, who discovered the body, lost two days, and was paid 2s., Mrs Long lost two days, and she was paid 2s. Other witnesses told the same story of what they naturally consider very unjust treatment."


P.S.

Gary, Bob and anyone else who doubts coronal procedure might want to pay close attention to the words in the second and third sentences.

Why would I doubt it?