Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

Paul didn't spot Lechmere in front of him until well after entering Buck's row...

We know Paul saw Lechmere in front of him. We do not know if that was "well after entering Buck's row" - nobody asked Paul how far away Lechmere was when Paul saw him.

Either it was very dark and Lechmere would not have been able to see Paul entering Buck's row, or Lechmere lied about his proximity to the body (he said he was no closer than the middle of the street), or both.

It was clearly very dark near the body, as PC Neil testified. Other parts, near the street lamps, were better lit. Lechmere testified to hearing Paul about 40 yards away, which means he heard Paul before he saw him. It is not clear if that is because of a lack of lighting near Paul or if it is because Lechmere was looking at the body in front of him.

[Newbie]

That is an assumption on your part. We do not know if Paul did or did not hear Lechmere in front of him. We do not know how far away Paul heard Lechmere. Nobody asked these questions to Robert Paul.

Here is all that Paul says in his statement to the representative of Loyd's Weekly:

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was...."

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of someone walking steadily just in front of him for a minute or two. Lechmere, by the way, does mention in his testimony hearing Paul's footsteps before seeing. My point was that there is zero evidence that Lechmere left at 3:30 am, because Paul didn't mention hearing his footsteps. The first testimony about Lechmere is someone suddenly seeing him standing over the body.

There was nothing strange about choosing to walk on the sidewalk instead of walking down the middle of the street.

Have you ever walked down an empty street without sidewalks. Ones habit is to follow custom, which in the London of that era was to stay on the left.



Lechmere did move towards the body to figure out what was going on.

"He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman."



And why should Lechmere think a man behind him had attacked the woman in front of him? Was he to think Nichols' attacker had run around the block to attack him from behind? Or done a silent 50 foot double-somersault over Lechmere's head to attack him from behind?

If you just committed the murder, you wouldn't have a care in the world for the guy. IF it is 3:38 am, dark, you see a knocked out female's body motionless on the ground & then suddenly someone approaches you from the rear - i don't know about you, but most people would be cautious about approaching the guy while running through your mind the idea that you missed him in the shadows. Its curious and there is no way to present it as typical human behavior.



There is no evidence that Lechmere was with the body longer than he let on.

There is no evidence about him being anywhere at any time until Paul visually encounters him. Where was he?


There is no evidence that Charles Lechmere was concerned about his social situation. There's also no evidence that Lechmere was concerned about what the relatives in the countryside, but if he was, they'd be very unlikely to know Charles Cross was Charles Lechmere.

That is something posited by other members attempting to explain why Lechmere used the name of Cross at the inquest: he was protecting the good name of Lechmere from scandal and approbation from the higher class members of his family with whom he did not associate. If anything, I would think Lechmere had some resentment for his father and that side of the family, none of whom he seems to have been old enough to remember meeting.

The Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road was about 10 minutes walk from Lechmere's home, not 7.

The simple explanation for Charles Lechmere wearing work clothes is that he had come directly from work. After all, there were a lot of little Lechmeres to feed.

The inquest was held in the morning and you are assuming that he then went to work that day. Why not take the 7 minute trip back home to get into his work clothes.
Its very odd and there is no reasonable explanation other than wanting to keep the event secret from his wife and family.


This is pure speculation on your part. You have provided neither evidence nor a reason for Lechmere to not tell his wife that he had to testify at the Inquest.

Because he left the house that morning at 3:15 am and would have a hard time explaining to his wife why he got no further than Bucks row at 3:38 am.
That would be one very good reason to leave her out of the inquest.

Where did this come from? I've never seen anyone suggest that a dragnet encountered and detained Lechmere on the morning of the Inquest.

That was from someone in a different Lechmere thread trying to defend the innocence of Lechmere and explain the inexplicable.


And the alternative to Lechmere not telling his wife is Lechmere telling his wife, not Lechmere being forced to testify.

If Lechmere unfairly came under suspicion, an informed wife could verify his story so that things don't proceed any farther the wrong way.
He did not choose this route. Maybe if needed, he would have done so.

There is no hint that Charles Lechmere left earlier than he said, only speculation.

All we have is Lechmere's own word. It would be nice if Paul heard him walking in front, or that his wife was informed of the situation so that
we would be certain that she would verify his account of the timeline of events. It wold be nice to waylay suspicion from the beginning.
Fortunately for Lechmere, no Victorian would think a stable employee and family man would commit murder.

Certain aspects of his life make it hard for me to have a complete sense of his guilt. He does make a very good person of suspicion. I posed the answers to your questions above.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Could someone who suspects Lechmere actually please produce some factual evidence that he really did something wrong. All any of us have ever seen is - he could have done this ... it is possible that ... it is strange that ... it is a coincidence that ... All we have is comments like he was the first person on the scene at one murder. He seems to have used his step-father's name for ordinary every day use and at work, whilst recognizing that his legal name was Lechmere. He turns up at a mid morning court to give evidence in his working clothes, because he started work early in the morning and needed the money. Other murders in the East End were in places where he could have been, just like thousands of others. It is alleged that he lied to a police officer, saying that another policeman wanted him, but if that were believed by the police he would have immediately been suspect number one, and he wasn't.

The case against him is pure speculation. There is no evidence. He might have done something wrong, he might not. Just like thousands of others in the area, yet we have thread after thread opened on this same subject, with the same arguments on each, repeated because we probably miss them on the other threads.

Wouldn't it be better if we had just one thread on this subject so we didn't repeat ourselves? I have expressed my detailed opinions elsewhere and won't repeat them here. Where is there genuine tangible evidence against Lechmere rather than pure speculation? There is however genuine evidence that he probably didn't murder Nichols.

As I wrote elsewhere, the police conceded at the inquest that they hadn't spoken to all of the Bucks Row residents. Those they had spoken to heard nothing unusual. Then Harriet Lilley at number 7 reported that she had heard whispered voices, some gasps and a groan as a luggage train passed by. That train was shown to be the 3.07 am from New Cross which would have passed by within a minute or two either side of 3.30am. This makes perfect sense. JtR used the noise of the passing train to conceal his actions so that no other residents noticed any unusual sounds. A 3.30 am murder explains why both Paul and Cross said Nichols was cold, and it doesn't unduly stretch the doctor's time of death estimate as being 30 minutes before 4.05 am. If Cross was JtR, what was he doing standing around for the 10 - 15 minutes before Paul arrived? In the Eddowes case he was able to perform massive mutilations and evisceration in about 5 minutes! This points strongly towards innocence, and I would suggest there is nothing in any case against him that makes more sense than that.

Furthermore, we have many witness acounts in the Chapman, Tabram and Kelly murders for which he is allegedly suspected, but not one witness describes a man in working clothes like a carman. So he isn't even "in the frame", there is nothing factual here to be used as evidence, and what exists suggests innocence.

[FrankO]

It’s not a question of a subsequent ID, it’s whether running from a crime scene and thereby immediately alerting a passer by to the crime makes more sense than engaging the passer by and distracting him from it.

What do you think?

Hi Gary,

It’s not as simple as that. Distances and other things have to be considered.

Neil heard Thain pass the Brady Street end of Buck’s Row, which was about 120 meters/130 yards from the crime scene. The corner of the board school was not even 40 meters/43 yards away from where Nichols lay. Walking at a quick pace of 6 km per hour/3.7 mph one would cover a distance of 120 m/130 yards in about 70 seconds. Whoever killed Nichols had every reason to listen for sounds. If Lechmere - being familiar with the layout of the neighbourhood - heard Paul enter Buck’s Row from Brady Street and left immediately, he would have known he would be a considerable distance away from the crime spot when Paul would arrive at the body. The closer Paul would be to the crime scene when Lechmere heard him for the first time, the more unbelievable the scenario gets. I’m assuming Lechmere had a good sense of distances and times involved to cover them. What also has to be taken into account is the time it would have taken Lechmere to do everything he needed to before he could take up his position in the middle of the road and wait for Paul and that Lechmere must have been quite sure that Paul wouldn’t see or hear him during this time. As far as I’m concerned, that would easily have taken 10 to 15 seconds and quite possibly even somewhat more. Walking at a speed of 6 km per hour/3.7 mph, it would have taken Lechmere about 22 seconds to reach the corner of the board school.

So, to respond to your question, everything would depend on when Lechmere would have heard Paul’s footsteps for the first time. How far would they have been apart at that point? If, say, 120 m/130 y, then Lechmere would have had enough time to get at least 120 m/130 y away before any alarm would be raised and a bit longer before it was responded to. If, say, 60 m/65 y, then things would get more difficult for Lechmere (but I think not impossible), but also less believable as a scenario. My view is that a distance shorter than 60 m/65 y between the 2 men when Lechmere heard Paul for the first time would not be believable anymore.

All the best,
Frank

[The Baron]

Then Harriet Lilley at number 7 reported that she had heard whispered voices, some gasps and a groan as a luggage train passed by. That train was shown to be the 3.07 am from New Cross which would have passed by within a minute or two either side of 3.30am. This makes perfect sense. JtR used the noise of the passing train to conceal his actions so that no other residents noticed any unusual sounds.

Splendid! What a great point! That is Ripperology on steroids!

Furthermore, we have many witness acounts in the Chapman, Tabram and Kelly murders for which he is allegedly suspected, but not one witness describes a man in working clothes like a carman.

Two brilliant points in a row!!



The Baron

[Elamarna]

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.

He entered Bucks Row from Brady Street, having just left Bath Street. This is to the north of Bucks Row, in addition when he leaves Bucks Row, he will again head north to enter Hanbury or possibly Old Montague.
Therefore walking on the northern pavement makes the most sense, it's the most logical and involves no unnecessary crossing of the road.
Why would we expect him to walk in the middle of the road rather than on the pavement?
Waliking on the southern side is given his route totally illogical.

Steve

[Newbie]

That is an assumption on your part. We do not know if Paul did or did not hear Lechmere in front of him. We do not know how far away Paul heard Lechmere. Nobody asked these questions to Robert Paul.


Here is Paul's statement again to the Loyd's representative: ""It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but, as I knew the dangerous character of the locality, I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard..."

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of being aware of someone walking in front of him for a minute or two. Lechmere by the way does mention before the inquest that he first heard Paul's footsteps. My point behind all this is that there is no evidence that Lechmere first approached Nichol's body immediately before Paul arrived, and that Lechmere left home around 3:30 am. Paul's only statement on the matter is about suddenly seeing Lechmere standing over (or near) Nichols body.




There was nothing strange about choosing to walk on the sidewalk instead of walking down the middle of the street.


I don’t think these streets had sidewalks. It is the habit of most people walking down a deserted street to walk in the middle, or on the side, of the street in which it is customary. If he was from the U.S., that would mean proceeding more on the right hand side - but not in London of today or back then. Remember, Lechmere was a cart man. It is peculiar.




Lechmere did move towards the body to figure out what was going on.


"He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman."


And why should Lechmere think a man behind him had attacked the woman in front of him? Was he to think Nichols' attacker had run around the block to attack him from behind? Or done a silent 50 foot double-somersault over Lechmere's head to attack him from behind?


If you just committed the murder, you wouldn't have a care in the world about the guy. It was a dark, dangerous street around 3:40 am and you see a motionless body lying there, and then someone suddenly approaches you from the rear. Most people would be disinclined about approaching the newcomer; they would start rummaging in their minds about possibly missing him hiding in the shadows. Lechmere, does the contrary: moving towards him without a fear, as if he is running for political office. It is peculiar. Overcome with compassion for the woman? He abandons her dead/drunk a few minutes later, saying that he was uncertain of her state.



There is no evidence that Lechmere was with the body longer than he let on.


And there is no evidence that Lechmere just arrived there, which is my point. It is only his word at the inquest that maintains this.



There is no evidence that Charles Lechmere was concerned about his social situation. There's also no evidence that Lechmere was concerned about what the relatives in the countryside, but if he was, they'd be very unlikely to know Charles Cross was Charles Lechmere.


That is something posited by other members attempting to explain why Lechmere used the name of Cross at the inquest: he was protecting the good name of Lechmere from scandal and approbation from the higher class members of his family with whom he did not associate. Maybe they are right. If anything, I would think Lechmere had some resentment for his father and that side of the family, none of whom he seems to have been old enough to remember meeting. He was born & died an East Londoner and probably didn't care a fig about them.


The Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road was about 10 minutes walk from Lechmere's home, not 7.


The simple explanation for Charles Lechmere wearing work clothes is that he had come directly from work. After all, there were a lot of little Lechmeres to feed.


Someone here timed it at 7, but the extra 3 minutes wouldn't change anyone's mind on this matter.

The inquest was held in the morning and you are assuming that Lechmere didn't have the day off. If not, he easily could have made the 6 - 10 minute walk to home and changed into his work clothing. For someone sensitive about his social position and appearance to distant relatives, it is peculiar. Why exactly did he use the name of Cross, and not Lechmere, at the inquest? And why did he not inform his wife on the matter? Its a decent assumption based on Lechmere showing up at the inquest in his work clothes & there being no oral history within the family on the matter. She could have supported his story on the 3:30 am departure if necessary. Why give the name of Cross (his work name), when Pickford's administrators could tell the inquest nothing about Lechmere's departure time?




This is pure speculation on your part. You have provided neither evidence nor a reason for Lechmere to not tell his wife that he had to testify at the Inquest.


Because he left home at 3:15 am, and not 3:30 am. If that happened, it would give his wife pause to think as to why her husband only made it as far as Bucks row around 3:40 am.



Where did this come from? I've never seen anyone suggest that a dragnet encountered and detained Lechmere on the morning of the Inquest.


And the alternative to Lechmere not telling his wife is Lechmere telling his wife, not Lechmere being forced to testify.


It was people in a previous thread clutching for explanations as to why he appeared at the inquest in his working clothes. An easier explanation is that he wanted his wife to think he had gone off to work. Who knows? Maybe he came to the inquest in his working clothes, and later on went to work in his suit. Some here proposed that he couldn't afford a suit - but was still concerned about what the well off relatives in the country would think.



There is no hint that Charles Lechmere left earlier than he said, only speculation.

And there is no evidence that Lechmere left on his stated time of 3:30 am. Two people could have confirmed the departure time in this history and failed to do so. Pretty much all is based on assumptions here; some assume that Lechmere was an honest man and leave it at that.






.

[Elamarna]

Here is Paul's statement again to the Loyd's representative: ""It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but, as I knew the dangerous character of the locality, I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard..."

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of being aware of someone walking in front of him for a minute or two. Lechmere by the way does mention before the inquest that he first heard Paul's footsteps. My point behind all this is that there is no evidence that Lechmere first approached Nichol's body immediately before Paul arrived, and that Lechmere left home around 3:30 am. Paul's only statement on the matter is about suddenly seeing Lechmere standing over (or near) Nichols body.

It's interesting that you appear to take the Lloyds account at face value, it's clearly a very questionable account, that Paul makes claims which either are not backed by known facts, or which actually contradict other comments he makes in the same account.
He also takes the lead, which is clearly not the case. I am amazed you put so much faith in the article.

I don’t think these streets had sidewalks. It is the habit of most people walking down a deserted street to walk in the middle, or on the side, of the street in which it is customary. If he was from the U.S., that would mean proceeding more on the right hand side - but not in London of today or back then. Remember, Lechmere was a cart man. It is peculiar.

A quick look.at both the OS map and the Goad maps show Bucks Row clearly had pavements on both the northern and Southern sides.
How someone in the USA would walk is totally irrelevant.

How does Lechmere being a camrman, have an effect on where he would walk in the road


Steve

[Newbie]

It's interesting that you appear to take the Lloyds account at face value, it's clearly a very questionable account, that Paul makes claims which either are not backed by known facts, or which actually contradict other comments he makes in the same account.
He also takes the lead, which is clearly not the case. I am amazed you put so much faith in the article.



A quick look.at both the OS map and the Goad maps show Bucks Row clearly had pavements on both the northern and Southern sides.
How someone in the USA would walk is totally irrelevant.

How does Lechmere being a camrman, have an effect on where he would walk in the road


Steve

By mentioning the Lloyd's account, i am not siding with Paul's complete account. Mentioning hearing footsteps, if anything, would have fed into Paul's own vanity: it would lend a more mysterious atmosphere to his description. He didn't mention it. Maybe those little things are unimportant to some people....to me, its just another loose thread that makes me curious. Cobblestone is not exactly a shock absorber, and in limited light Paul's brain should have been more attuned to interpreting sound. I am amazed that so little value is placed in this. How long was Lechmere with the body? If it was more than he stated, he is lying to the inquest. Lying to the inquest of a possible murder should be a big deal. It is a decent assumption that he was lying on this matter. Does this make him the Ripper, not alone by this....but it is not good.

There are traffic laws that are ingrained in people, particularly which side of the road they are going. I would find it awkward at first to drive on the left side of the road. Whenever i walk down a vacant alley, i tend to walk down the middle or more to the right... it feels more comfortable & I doubt it is just me. Lechmere was used to driving his cart down the left side of the road....his description of walking down Buck's road on the right and then moving to the middle in order to look at the body seems odd. In my mind, Lechmere was attempting to exaggerate his distance from the body. That doesn't make him guilty - he had good reason to wish to evade suspicion, innocent or not. It seems like he was with the body longer than he stated; what was he doing there? He is deservedly a strong suspect.

[Newbie]

As you are putting forward Lechmere as the killer the onus is you to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt not for others to prove his innocence.

Your bleeding out times have also been challenged by an expert

Sadly what you have postulated falls far from proving his guilt beyong that reasonable doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is not a court of law.

And Fisherman is right: he has no alibis. If he was being honest, Paul could have verified that he was just a bit ahead of him; or his wife could have vouched for his departure time. Lechmere seemed to go to some effort to keep her in the dark.

Two opportunities to buttress his honesty, and zero confirmations.

[JeffHamm]

By mentioning the Lloyd's account, i am not siding with Paul's complete account. Mentioning hearing footsteps, if anything, would have fed into Paul's own vanity: it would lend a more mysterious atmosphere to his description. He didn't mention it. Maybe those little things are unimportant to some people....to me, its just another loose thread that makes me curious. Cobblestone is not exactly a shock absorber, and in limited light Paul's brain should have been more attuned to interpreting sound. I am amazed that so little value is placed in this. How long was Lechmere with the body? If it was more than he stated, he is lying to the inquest. Lying to the inquest of a possible murder should be a big deal. It is a decent assumption that he was lying on this matter. Does this make him the Ripper, not alone by this....but it is not good.

There are traffic laws that are ingrained in people, particularly which side of the road they are going. I would find it awkward at first to drive on the left side of the road. Whenever i walk down a vacant alley, i tend to walk down the middle or more to the right... it feels more comfortable & I doubt it is just me. Lechmere was used to driving his cart down the left side of the road....his description of walking down Buck's road on the right and then moving to the middle in order to look at the body seems odd. In my mind, Lechmere was attempting to exaggerate his distance from the body. That doesn't make him guilty - he had good reason to wish to evade suspicion, innocent or not. It seems like he was with the body longer than he stated; what was he doing there? He is deservedly a strong suspect.

Hi Newbie,

Ok, if I understand you, you're saying it's odd he's walking on the right side? But he's not, his is actually doing what you feel he should be doing, and that is walking on the left side. Check out the inquest testimony found here on the site, and under his testimony you'll find it reads "... He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, ..." and then he crosses towards it to the middle of the street. So he is walking on the opposite side of where her body was, and the map below, showing the murder location (red dot, by where the gate is; I've put a ? just in case I've got the wrong gate location, but in either case, Cross/Lechmere, coming from the east, has to be walking on what would be his "left", just as you feel he should be. There's no conflict with your belief, he's not doing the opposite of it as you seem to think. Also, where I have him crossing, etc, is just for illustration, and I'm not intending them to suggest he was at the head of the arrow when Paul sees him. Where exactly he was standing at the time he engages Paul is not known, but the testimony reads as after that interaction they had to walk more to get to the body, so Cross/Lechmere isn't right with the body when he starts interacting with Paul.

- Jeff

[harry]

So the same old tired excuse,'This is not a court of law'.
Doesn't have to be.A common principle,then and now,even if theoretical,is that one starts from a position of innocence,and builds a case of guilt.There was a police investigation.There was an inquest.Information was given by witnesses.The evidence given by Cross,has him(Cross) finding Nichols body after she had been attacked.
What you have to do Newbie,is prove Cross lied,and place him,by evidence,in the company of Nichols while she was alive.Cross does not need an alibi.He was never challenged by the police to supply one.Cross evidence is simple and direct.He chanced upon a body on his way to work.How does that make him a killer?

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Newbie,

Ok, if I understand you, you're saying it's odd he's walking on the right side? But he's not, his is actually doing what you feel he should be doing, and that is walking on the left side. Check out the inquest testimony found here on the site, and under his testimony you'll find it reads "... He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, ..." and then he crosses towards it to the middle of the street. So he is walking on the opposite side of where her body was, and the map below, showing the murder location (red dot, by where the gate is; I've put a ? just in case I've got the wrong gate location, but in either case, Cross/Lechmere, coming from the east, has to be walking on what would be his "left", just as you feel he should be. There's no conflict with your belief, he's not doing the opposite of it as you seem to think. Also, where I have him crossing, etc, is just for illustration, and I'm not intending them to suggest he was at the head of the arrow when Paul sees him. Where exactly he was standing at the time he engages Paul is not known, but the testimony reads as after that interaction they had to walk more to get to the body, so Cross/Lechmere isn't right with the body when he starts interacting with Paul.

- Jeff

Sorry Jeff, I think you do have the wrong gateway. Your red spot is in the entrance to the Browne & Eagle warehouses. Polly was found at the gates of Brown's Stableyard (no relation), which is on the South side, opposite Essex Wharf (where you have your "?").
With Cross entering Buck's Row from the North, and leaving to the North, it's entirely natural for him to walk on the northern pavement all the way. No reason to switch sides....unless it's to investigate something unexpected.

[JeffHamm]

Sorry Jeff, I think you do have the wrong gateway. Your red spot is in the entrance to the Browne & Eagle warehouses. Polly was found at the gates of Brown's Stableyard (no relation), which is on the South side, opposite Essex Wharf (where you have your "?").
With Cross entering Buck's Row from the North, and leaving to the North, it's entirely natural for him to walk on the northern pavement all the way. No reason to switch sides....unless it's to investigate something unexpected.

Hi Joshua,

Really! Good Lord, I've always thought she was found on the upper side of the street (map wise). Ok, so I've had that wrong all the time, my fault. Thanks for pointing that out. I had included the ? as I thought she was closer to the railway bridge, and haven't zoomed in this close before. So that was right, but my side of street has always been wrong.

Yes, I was going to mention that as well (the entering from the North, etc), but figured that was unnecessary given my erroneous belief in the location. Sigh. Well, it's never too late to learn.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

Really! Good Lord, I've always thought she was found on the upper side of the street (map wise).

Hi Jeff.

It is easy to get turned around because we are used to seeing Buck's Row in videos and in documentaries as the camera is entering the street from the other end, so Polly's body is on the right side of the street.

Now that we imagine Buck's Row from a Lechmerecentric point of view (walking down the street from the other end) everything seems a little backwards.

Either way, I find it strange that someone walking down the right side of the street is somehow considered suspicious. I was taught as a child to walk facing traffic, so you knew when to jump.

Cheers.