Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fish believes that Annie Chapman was dead when John Richardson sat on the back step of 29 Hanbury Street. No problem.

So we have a man undoubtedly at the crime scene but claiming that he didn’t see a horribly mutilated corpse around a foot or two from his feet. Indeed he told the police that he couldn’t possibly have missed it had it been there. So he could have killed her.

As there was a gap of time between then and when he arrived at work he’d have had opportunity for a clean up.

He had ample time to get to work after killing.

Fish also expresses serious doubts about the validity of his testimony. So he possibly lied to the police.

Richardson admitted that the location was used for immoral purposes so he knew that he’d previously seen prostitutes there.

Richardson even admitted to having a knife with him.

……

Therefore I’d say that there is more reason for suspicion against Richardson than there is against Lechmere. The only difference is Robert Paul which allows the creation of the ‘caught in the act’ narrative. I’m sure that with a bit of research and creative thinking we could come up with a few more points of suspicion against Richardson. Why does Lechmere stand out?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for Scobie, Herlock, since you have painted yourself into a corner: He said that the points against Lechmere would warrant a trial. How does ANY information look that would dissolve that picture? You see, for the point Scobie made to be irrelevant, it would take that there is exonerating evidence, alternatively that the barrister was fed lies. Which do you suppose applies? And dont you think that a top barrister asked to see how he was portrayed before giving his approval?

It hurts massively, I understand that, but we must accept that Scobie looked at the evidence against Lechmere and concluded that there was a court case against him. How many of the other suspects come anywhere near such a thing? Not a single one. There is not a single thing that could be served to a jury in this respect for ANY of them.

Druitt? ” He killed himself”. Yeah, right.
Kosminski? ”He threatened his sister”. I see.
Levy? Maybe, just maybe, it was Jacob Joseph Hyam Levy saw. Oh, good, lets brong him to trial!

Can you see how Lechmere - who was THERE - differs? I hope so.

This just means that we can name Lechmere. It in no way means that a man that we can’t name couldn’t have been there before him Fish.

It’s a case of gross exaggeration I’m afraid. I haven’t a clue how much Scobie was shown but if he was told that Lechmere left the house at 3.30 (which he obviously was) then that’s false ‘fact’ number one. The time gap is a creation and should be dismissed as evidence because it’s not evidence it’s invention. Did Scobie ever hear that from anyone? Was he told that Lechmere had said ‘about 3.30?’ Or that most people interpret the discovery of the body by Lechmere as somewhere between 3.40 and 3.45 with 3.40 as a definite possibility.

Dismiss the gap and a huge plank of the case against Lechmere is gone and without that you massively weaken the case for his guilt.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry to be a bore; but that's a triangle with four corners! Also: Millwood was attacked in February 1888, so you can't use Doveton Street (June and after, it seems) as 'home' for that bit of geometry. And MacKenzie was killed in July 1889, which might need the 'family' corner moving a bit, as his mother might (I say 'might': you'd need to check this) already have moved to Cable Street. Same sort of thing would apply if someone wanted to add Emma Smith, killed April 1888: the Doveton-cornered triangle didn't yet exist.

HTH.

M.

Thanks Mark
Im just making the general observation that all the activity falls within or just near the borders of the triangle. an area that lech would traversed on a daily basis and knew like the back of his hand. everything else,including specific work routes, to me at least is just gravy. : )

[Mark J D]

... Millwood was attacked in February 1888, so you can't use Doveton Street (June and after, it seems) as 'home' for that bit of geometry. [...] Same sort of thing would apply if someone wanted to add Emma Smith, killed April 1888: the Doveton-cornered triangle didn't yet exist.

Footnote: We don't actually get much of a triangle at all until June 1888, as before then he always lived within a few blocks of his mother. Which in itself is interesting: he was never living all that far out of her sight until the age of 38 years and 8 months -- just a couple of months before the C5+1 killings started.

M.

[MrBarnett]

I also find Lech's profile - the stable 'career man' unconvincing. There is a lot made of comparing Sutcliffe but I believe he, seemingly unremarkable, had numerous fairly menial jobs and was sacked for theft from one (remind you of anyone?), and arrested for drink driving.

Also, I believe Sutcliffe was disturbed during attacks on several occasions and fled. In this scenario we have Lechmere staying put with ample time to flee. Nonsense. The comparison to his arrest isn't really convincing as he wasn't with a dead victim and trying to conceal his tools was a reasonable thing to do. Someone also made the comparison to Bury going to the police. Again, this isn't a good comparison as we are to believe Lech was caught in the act and stayed, whereas Bury committed the act and then decided after five or six days to go to the police.

I also think there is a question mark against Kelly. Two people hear a cry of murder at about 4 am. One of these says she was up from 2 until 5 so must have had reason to assign that time span and indicate the cry shortly before 4. If the ripper spent 'some time' with the body (at least 30 mins), Lechmere would be at work. Although cries of murder were apparently common, I can see that being the case around pub closing time, but much less so at 4 am.

There is also the Chapman ToD for which the Lechers rely on Philips' estimation, yet I believe Philips ruled out the torsos as being committed by the ripper. A little bit of cherry picking?

Ah, so you’ve established that the Lord Mayor’s show road closures didn’t impact on Lechmere’s shift pattern?

[MrBarnett]

Footnote: We don't actually get much of a triangle at all until June 1888, as before then he always lived within a few blocks of his mother. Which in itself is interesting: he was never living all that far out of her sight until just a couple of months before the C5+1 killings started.

M.

Am I right in thinking that not only did he move away from his mother and daughter in June, 88, but he moved to smaller accommodation in a less respectable street? And that by 1891, James Street had a higher density of Jewish residents than Doveton Street?

[MrBarnett]

Am I right in thinking that not only did he move away from his mother and daughter in June, 88, but he moved to smaller accommodation in a less respectable street? And that by 1891, James Street had a higher density of Jewish residents than Doveton Street.

Post 364 on here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-crime-scenes/584235-charles-lechmere’s-lair/page25#post585608

[Mark J D]

Am I right in thinking that not only did he move away from his mother and daughter in June, 88, but he moved to smaller accommodation in a less respectable street? And that by 1891, James Street had a higher density of Jewish residents than Doveton Street.

Scenario: He's in the socially descending arm of the famous family, semi-dispossessed; he's brought up never knowing his father, moving from one address to another but always known and despised as a 'copper's kid' in the worst neighbourhood for tarts in London; and he doesn't even reach normal height. He's fascinated by the streetwalkers he hates -- so different from his saint of a mother, who keeps a clean and tidy house whatever the neighbourhood. And then come the Jews, moving in everywhere around him, making him listen to their jabber, running their own businesses, getting ahead, looking after each other, respecting extended family ties. So he goes to Doveton Street as an act of, as it were, Christian 'white flight' that means a smaller house in a less respectable area, but with fewer Jews. His eldest daughter refuses to go, meaning he has to visit her at weekends and put up with that damn idiot Forsdyke. And his new walk to work -- whether he takes the northern route or the southern, and he tries them both -- takes him through an area that's even more full of harlots and Jews and horrible houses full of filthy, work-shy drunks than the route he used to take up Aldgate and Hounsditch...

Just a couple of months of that, and yer man snaps...

M.

[Aethelwulf]

Ah, so you’ve established that the Lord Mayor’s show road closures didn’t impact on Lechmere’s shift pattern?

And you have? What complete and utter bull you Lechers make up, just like the 'near fatal illness' story. You lot should write a book - you certainly do a good line in fiction.

[rjpalmer]

He goes on to work for the same company for years (established fact?)

No, but it's reasonable assumption. By his own account, he had worked for Pickford's for over two decades by 1888, and he is still listed as a 'carman' on his daughter's wedding banns in May 1896.

[MrBarnett]

No, but it's reasonable assumption. By his own account, he had worked for Pickford's for over two decades by 1888, and he is still listed as a 'carman' on his daughter's wedding banns in May 1896.

Yes, we know that, RJ. He also specifies a railway agents carman on one subsequent census. But any kind of conjecture is frowned upon by some.

[MrBarnett]

And you have? What complete and utter bull you Lechers make up, just like the 'near fatal illness' story. You lot should write a book - you certainly do a good line in fiction.

No I haven’t. You’re the one who seems certain he was at work when Kelly was killed.

I’m assuming, though, that you have at least established that Saturday was normally his day off and that the hours of his shifts rarely varied.

There is no ‘lot’ of Lechers, but it’s clear the antis push out a lot of bull.

[Fisherman]

Then you’ll accept the very obvious possibility that Lechmere might have left home at 3.35 (which is ‘about 3.30’ to a man estimating)

If he left home at 3.35, he should have been outside Browns at 3.42. Then Neil would have arrived at circa 3.48 and sent Thain to Llewellyn at circa 3.50, in which case he does not fit with the approximations of 3.55 and 4.00 as given per Llewellyn. He is not all that far off, but he is off. We can do better, as I have shown before.

[Fisherman]

Fish believes that Annie Chapman was dead when John Richardson sat on the back step of 29 Hanbury Street. No problem.

So we have a man undoubtedly at the crime scene but claiming that he didn’t see a horribly mutilated corpse around a foot or two from his feet. Indeed he told the police that he couldn’t possibly have missed it had it been there. So he could have killed her.

As there was a gap of time between then and when he arrived at work he’d have had opportunity for a clean up.

He had ample time to get to work after killing.

Fish also expresses serious doubts about the validity of his testimony. So he possibly lied to the police.

Richardson admitted that the location was used for immoral purposes so he knew that he’d previously seen prostitutes there.

Richardson even admitted to having a knife with him.

……

Therefore I’d say that there is more reason for suspicion against Richardson than there is against Lechmere. The only difference is Robert Paul which allows the creation of the ‘caught in the act’ narrative. I’m sure that with a bit of research and creative thinking we could come up with a few more points of suspicion against Richardson. Why does Lechmere stand out?

Fish is in no way certain that Richardson DID sit on the step. In actual fact, nor was Richardson himself, as per Chandlers testimony. But Fish HAS checked and found out that the body could have been out of Richardsons sight even if he DID sit there - which he, according to Chandler, did not.

It is only if we leave out part of the information that it looks simple.

[Fisherman]

There is also the Chapman ToD for which the Lechers rely on Philips' estimation, yet I believe Philips ruled out the torsos as being committed by the ripper. A little bit of cherry picking?

Philips actually said that there were great similarities in how Kelly and the Pinchin Street torso were cut. So I donīt know about the cherries. Hebert did speak about how the two were not one and the same, and since I rely on him when he tells us that the 1887-1889 victims were all cut by the same hand, but do NOT rely on him when he says that the two series displayed different levels of skill, you may want to try your luck on that instead? Of course, I do have an answer for that too, but since you want to make me look as a cherrypicker, why not take your chances?