Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I keep saying, his "finding" the body is but one of the pointers in his direction. The name change, the hidden wounds, the refusal to prop Nichols up, the trek to work taking him through the killing fields, etc, are all quite enough to entertain suspicion.

If we accept that, then his "finding" Nichols must be viewed in that light. And what we have is:

Lechmere out of all people being the "finder".

Lechmere "finding" the body at a remove in time that is in perfect line with him being the killer, as far as the blood evidence goes. She STILL bled when Mizen saw her!

Lechmere having Paul arrive at the scene in the exact minuscule area of time that provided Lechmere with a makeshift alibi. If Paul had arrive a minute later - no alibi. If he had arrived a minute before - he would have seen the character of Lechmereīs dealings with the body and whether they were innocent or not.

And Paul never spoke of Lechmere walking in front of him.

Could this all have gone down like this? Yes - which is why Lechmere, if the killer, chose to present things like this.

Is it likely to have gone like this? Thatīs a harder question. But it remains that there are a number of coincidences involved befoere we can dub Lechmere an innocent finder of a dead body.

And of course Fish, for every point there’s also an innocent explanation. For every point that you say favours Lechmere others can be pointed to which point away.

[JeffHamm]

The Daily BNews, 18th of September 1888:

"Robert Paul said he lived at 30 Forster street, Whitechapel. On the Friday he left home just before a quarter to four ..."

Anything else I can do for you, Jeff? No?

Well, I've read your posts before, and you're just repeating yourself, so it appears that no, there's nothing more you can do. As you know, you didn't convince me then and you haven't convinced me now. The difference is that I'm not expecting you to change your views, but you seem to think that without presenting anything new that I will suddenly change mine? As you know, I don't agree with your interpretations, just like I know you don't agree with mine. We've covered all this before. I'll continue to present the analyses I work on, and will continue to describe the methods I've used, and the rational for my choices. And you'll continue to repeat your interpretations that the Lloyd's article is to be preferred with respect to Paul's time, but of course not when Paul states she was long dead, or that he did the talking with PC Mizen, it's just that "exactly 3:45" that we should accept, despite the fact that Paul doesn't repeat that under oath, and in fact never states a time as to when he's in Buck's Row, just that he left home "about 3:45".

Anyway, in a nutshell, no, it appears you have nothing more you can do.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

>>I'll double check on that. It could be that the estimated positions are further apart than 40 yards. <<

Fact: Paul never claims to be 40 yards behind Cross.
Fact: Paul never gives a distance.
Fact: Cross doesn't give any distance for how for Paul was when he turned into Bucks Row. He only gives an estimated distance for when he became AWARE of Paul.

The notion that there is any claim from either man that the two walked 40 yards apart is completely untrue.

Completely untrue?

The Daily News:

...passing through Buck's row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come.

Morning Advertiser:

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. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come...

As I got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse, I saw someone lying at the entrance to the gateway. It looked like a dark figure. I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman. At the same time I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going. He was about thirty or forty yards behind then.

That is how "completely untrue" it is.

Then again, maybe Lechmere stopped for some considerable time BEFORE he stepped out into the middle of the street? A minut, perhaps? Or two? Or five?

Dear me, Dusty, you are opening up for the possibility that Lechmere was by the body many minutes before Paul arrived. Watch your step!

In my world, what we should not loose sight of is the fact that what Lechmere says seemingly provides him with an alibi - which would be the exact thing he would do if he wanted to lie himself out of a tight spot.

[Fisherman]

Why use the word in the first place? Is ‘fantasy’ the preferred word used by academics in Jeff’s field for hypothetical situations? Or is he trying to make a point?

You mean like how Dusty chose to say that I "invented" that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.20 instead of saying that I SUGGESTED that he MAY have done so? Along those lines?

[Darryl Kenyon]

As I keep saying, his "finding" the body is but one of the pointers in his direction. The name change, the hidden wounds, the refusal to prop Nichols up, the trek to work taking him through the killing fields, etc, are all quite enough to entertain suspicion.
.

Please show me again were Mitre Square is on Lech's route to work or the fact that Lech visited his mother on the night of the double murder and were there is proof that the neck wounds [ were blood was oozing from ] were covered.
Just conjecture dressed up as fact

[Fisherman]

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

To appear at an inquest you have to receive a summons. That's the way inquests work. Cross appears in the police records therefore he was interviewed by police. I've already detailed this in post 4502

How do you suppose they summoned him, Dusty? There are many out here, some of them quite knowledgeable about these matters, who have said that he may well have gone directly to the inquest. The suggestion that he would never have come and been admitted if he was not summoned beforehand is incorrect.

[Trevor Marriott]

This post has nothing at all to do with your lie about how the theory wouod have been disproven, though, Trevor. And discussing whether or not Nichols had the type of damage that would kill her is, if you excuse the term, stupid.

You asked me to contact Dr Biggs which I did, and I posted his reply in good faith to your question but because his reply does not support your medical evidence you now call me stupid.

Now let me tell you something else which you are not going to like to hear

Because you dispute my conversation with Scobie where he clearly states he was not provided with the full facts and his opinion was bady edited by Blink films. I recently wrote to him with a view to finally clearing up these issues, but he failed to respond, I guess having been professionally embarrased by his part in this he now wants to distance himself from this.

I also wrote to Jason Payne who you seek to rely on and asking him if he concurred with Dr Biggs and was he standing by what he is alleged to have told you, and would you belive he too has not bothered to reply I wonder if he also is professionally embarrased by his partcipation in trying to prove your theory.

Now who is looking stupid !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

How big would the triangle become if it included ALL of the murders that Christer is accusing Lechmere of?

Pinchin Street is allegedly relevant because it is a 'torso' case, but none of the other 'torso' cases are including in the triangle.

Doesn't that suggest that the data is being fitted to the suspect?

No. The data is what it is. As for the Torso cases, we cannot know where they were slain, we only know where their parts were found. And that knowledge involves our certainty that one of the torsos was dumped in Pinchin Street, the exact street where Charles and his family had been living on many occasions, perhps the one street that is most tightly linked to the family.

Out of more than a THOUSAND Whitechapel Streets!

Coincidences, coincidences, eh?

And THEN, the day AFTER the torso was found in that railway arch, a bloody rag is found up in the London Hospital area! And lo and behold, just like the Goulston Street rag, it is ALSO an apron! And if put a ruler on a map and draw a line from the archway where the torso was found up to 22 Doveton Street, that line will pass over the place where the rag was found!

Wait a second! I know: we do not know that this rag had anything to do with the dumped torso. I am very well aware of that. Letīs assume it did not, even.

Guess what that makes the place the rag was found? Yes, indeed, a humongous coincidence!

This is what the facts look like. The facts, that you so charmingly claim that I use to "fit up" a suspect.

One has to be blind not to see how many coincidences must be accepted before we can even start to ponder the possibility that Lechmere was not the killer. And I wonīt go there, simple as that. In my world - and in James Scobies, come to talk of it! - it becomes one coincidence too many, and that happens way before that rag was found.

[Fisherman]

With Lechmere it is a case Nothing = Something

Isnīt that Bury you are talking about...?

[SuperShodan]

I think Trevor suggesting that PC Neil didn’t do his 03.15 patrol is at best dubious. We know Neil found the body on his 03.45 patrol which suggests he was out doing his patrols properly that morning. The earlier time of death, say 02.30, would also equire Neil to miss out 2 patrols - 02.45 and 03.15 and I just don’t think that’s remotely credible or based on any kind of evidence whatsoever.

Basically, the 03.15 patrol sinks Trevor’s theory of an early death, so he just pretends it didn’t happen.

However, we do have Trevor’s bizarre missing cape theory, which is Thains cape not Neil’s. This is a magic cape that somehow prevents Neil from doing an hours worth of patrols. And an unnamed “brother officer” handing it in is taken to refer to Neil when it could refer to any Constable in the Division.

Furthermore, Thains testimony is highly questionable anyway. It appears he simply left his cape in Winthrop Street and had to go back for it himself. No doubt he had some explaining to do about why he’s not in full uniform when he arrives in Bucks Row (he’s been skiving off).

And just for arguments sake, if Neil did hand in a cape, the horse slaughterers is right on the Brady Street edge of Winthrop street, and would require a minor detour to hand it in. It would hardly prevent an hours worth of patrols.

The idea that Neil didn’t do his nightly patrols only exists in Trevor’s imagination. There’s not an iota of evidence to support it.

Moving on, this is typical of many in this thread. Just change facts. Anything inconvenient just change it.

Lechmere has no good reason to be in Bucks Row at 03.45 so just change the time. The time gap incriminates Lechmere, just change it. Lechmere is found “standing where the woman was” just move him down the street 30m to the wool factory gate. Paul would have to walk 80 or 90m up Bucks Row and not see a man 40m in front of him. Just ignore it. Pauls witness statement to Lloyds incriminates Lechmere, just change it. Time the body was found, set by the Coroner, is a problem so just change it. And so and so forth.

We don’t really have a debate, just the most incredible mental gymnastics. Extricating Lechmere from the murder scene is truly something to behold.

[Fisherman]

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.

What I am saying - although that was not what you asked for - is that once we suspect a person of a crime, geography is the common way of checking the viability of the suspicions. If Lechmere had worked in Hackney, for exemple, he would have gone north from Doveton Street, and so we could feel pretty certain that he was not the Spitalfields killer.

But he didnīt work in Hackney, did he?

[Fisherman]

Nope, it's just the way the plaice looks.

Ooooh - nice one!

[Fisherman]

I have always been struck by the opening sentence in Paul's 'Lloyd's' interview. I can't see any reason to think his anti-police orientation and the paper's activist agenda would have falsified it...

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row..."

As for how he'd feel entitled to the 'exactly' after walking the 110 yards to Buck's row from his front door, my 1890s map suggests that he passed a brewery on the way. If Mrs Long can hear a brewery clock (accurate enough for running a large business), why can't Paul?

M.

My suspicion is that the very gentlemen who are spending their time trying to paint anybody who likes the Lechmere theory out as unreliable (interstingly, they made an exception for Gary Barnett who is only unreliable when discussing Lechmere and not otherwise) are doing their utmost to expand the possible scope of Pauls doings in Bucks Row into the 3.50:s and beyond.

Itīs hard work trying to establish how three PCs cannot be wrong, whereas Paul and Llewellyn must have been. And Baxter, Swanson and the Daily News all speaking for how Lechmere was in place at 3.45 does not help either.

[Fisherman]

And of course Fish, for every point there’s also an innocent explanation. For every point that you say favours Lechmere others can be pointed to which point away.

Yes, that is the nature of things. Even if I bring 102 339 pieces of circumstantial evidence pointing to Lechmere to the table, they can ALWAYS be supplied with innocent alternative explanations. That is the very nature of circumstantial evidence, it is not definitive for the eact reason that other suggestions - likely or unlikely - can be produced.

The key to the matter is to know when to stop accepting supplying innocent alternatives as a realistic alternative to guilt.

[Fisherman]

Well, I've read your posts before, and you're just repeating yourself, so it appears that no, there's nothing more you can do. As you know, you didn't convince me then and you haven't convinced me now. The difference is that I'm not expecting you to change your views, but you seem to think that without presenting anything new that I will suddenly change mine? As you know, I don't agree with your interpretations, just like I know you don't agree with mine. We've covered all this before. I'll continue to present the analyses I work on, and will continue to describe the methods I've used, and the rational for my choices. And you'll continue to repeat your interpretations that the Lloyd's article is to be preferred with respect to Paul's time, but of course not when Paul states she was long dead, or that he did the talking with PC Mizen, it's just that "exactly 3:45" that we should accept, despite the fact that Paul doesn't repeat that under oath, and in fact never states a time as to when he's in Buck's Row, just that he left home "about 3:45".

Anyway, in a nutshell, no, it appears you have nothing more you can do.

- Jeff

Where did I say that the LLoyds article is to be preferred, Jeff. I am getting on agewise, and I keep forgetting.

Pauls information about the timings is consistent throughout and suggests very clearly that he was in Bucks Row at 3.45. I remember that much!