Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    agree. he must have only been a few feet and bending down to get a better look wouldnt be out of the question. seems a natural thing to do.
    ‘Where the woman was’.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

      Charles Lechmere. Look at the cheeks under the facial hair.
      Let me ask for clarification, if I might.

      Are you suggesting that CAL just started wearing a beard in his old age? It happens, but I can't see it being the norm. If CAL wore a long, full beard in his old golden years, what's to say that he didn't wear one in 1888?

      I don't know about you, but if I lived in 1888 without easy access to hot water and had to crawl out of bed at around 3.15 a.m., and then spend several hours racing through the London chill in an open car, I wouldn't be clean shaven.

      Equally doubtful, by suggesting that CAL was 'Blotchy,' aren't you having him out boozing and picking up 'unfortunates' at 11.30 pm on a worknight? John Davis, another carman (who was admittedly older than CAL) told the inquest that he had gone to bed at 8.00 p.m.

      And what happened to 'spontaneous' attacks during CAL's commute to work? He's now out roaming the street before midnight?

      The Church of Lechmere is indeed large, but you might run this past the Rev. Holmgren. It smells of heresy.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

        Let me ask for clarification, if I might.

        Are you suggesting that CAL just started wearing a beard in his old age? It happens, but I can't see it being the norm. If CAL wore a long, full beard in his old golden years, what's to say that he didn't wear one in 1888?

        I don't know about you, but if I lived in 1888 without easy access to hot water and had to crawl out of bed at around 3.15 a.m., and then spend several hours racing through the London chill in an open car, I wouldn't be clean shaven.

        Equally doubtful, by suggesting that CAL was 'Blotchy,' aren't you having him out boozing and picking up 'unfortunates' at 11.30 pm on a worknight? John Davis, another carman (who was admittedly older than CAL) told the inquest that he had gone to bed at 8.00 p.m.

        And what happened to 'spontaneous' attacks during CAL's commute to work? He's now out roaming the street before midnight?

        The Church of Lechmere is indeed large, but you might run this past the Rev. Holmgren. It smells of heresy.
        I doubt on this occasion it was a work night. It was the Lord Majors Show the next day, the streets would be packed all next day, and in my view carmen and others would likely be off. It would have been hard to do deliveries in the busy streets, and the businesses he delivered too would be likely be closed. This of course could be checked.
        However, as a Scotsman I can say I’ve seen plenty of people boozing on a work night, it’s not uncommon, although I accept your point. Starting work at 4am and being drunk at 23.30 is in my view unlikely. I agree with you on that.
        In terms of the beard. I can’t say, I don’t know Lechmere’s appearance in 1888. However, he does have a noticeable blotch or birthmark on his left cheek. Even at 62 years old, and even with a beard, it’s still very noticeable.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

          I doubt on this occasion it was a work night. It was the Lord Majors Show the next day, the streets would be packed all next day, and in my view carmen and others would likely be off. It would have been hard to do deliveries in the busy streets, and the businesses he delivered too would be likely be closed. This of course could be checked.
          However, as a Scotsman I can say I’ve seen plenty of people boozing on a work night, it’s not uncommon, although I accept your point. Starting work at 4am and being drunk at 23.30 is in my view unlikely. I agree with you on that.
          In terms of the beard. I can’t say, I don’t know Lechmere’s appearance in 1888. However, he does have a noticeable blotch or birthmark on his left cheek. Even at 62 years old, and even with a beard, it’s still very noticeable.
          London didn’t close down entirely for the the Lord Mayor’s show. A limited number of streets were briefly closed.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

            I doubt on this occasion it was a work night. It was the Lord Majors Show the next day, the streets would be packed all next day, and in my view carmen and others would likely be off. It would have been hard to do deliveries in the busy streets, and the businesses he delivered too would be likely be closed. This of course could be checked.
            However, as a Scotsman I can say I’ve seen plenty of people boozing on a work night, it’s not uncommon, although I accept your point. Starting work at 4am and being drunk at 23.30 is in my view unlikely. I agree with you on that.
            In terms of the beard. I can’t say, I don’t know Lechmere’s appearance in 1888. However, he does have a noticeable blotch or birthmark on his left cheek. Even at 62 years old, and even with a beard, it’s still very noticeable.
            This mark on his left cheek is dark and is of quite considerable a size. Apart from that his complexion appears perfectly normal. If Lechmere didn’t have a beard at the time of the murder but did have this mark on his face then I’d be a little surprised that no one who saw a face close up enough to notice the blotches didn’t also notice a bullet hole sized dark blemish?
            Regards

            Herlock Sholmes

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              agree. he must have only been a few feet and bending down to get a better look wouldnt be out of the question. seems a natural thing to do.
              Maybe it was an assumption based on her bonnet being nearby.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post

                I doubt on this occasion it was a work night. It was the Lord Majors Show the next day, the streets would be packed all next day, and in my view carmen and others would likely be off. It would have been hard to do deliveries in the busy streets, and the businesses he delivered too would be likely be closed. This of course could be checked.
                However, as a Scotsman I can say I’ve seen plenty of people boozing on a work night, it’s not uncommon, although I accept your point. Starting work at 4am and being drunk at 23.30 is in my view unlikely. I agree with you on that.
                In terms of the beard. I can’t say, I don’t know Lechmere’s appearance in 1888. However, he does have a noticeable blotch or birthmark on his left cheek. Even at 62 years old, and even with a beard, it’s still very noticeable.
                Do we know anything of Lech's height ? Blotchy is supposed to be a fairly short guy, with broad shoulders.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dickere View Post
                  Do we know anything of Lech's height ? Blotchy is supposed to be a fairly short guy, with broad shoulders.
                  Among Lechmere's descendants there are and have been people of noticeably less than average height.

                  Yes, I asked.

                  The photo might be a useful guide if the house and window arch in the background are still there; my information, however, is that the only property with that distinctive brickwork we see in the street today is not the one in the photo.

                  M.
                  Last edited by Mark J D; 01-28-2022, 04:04 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                    Among Lechmere's descendants there are and have been people of noticeably less than average height.

                    Yes, I asked.

                    The photo might be a useful guide if the house and window arch in the background are still there; my information, however, is that the only property with that distinctive brickwork we see in the street today is not the one in the photo.

                    M.
                    And he seems to have light ginger ('reddish-brown') hair/beard too. Hmmm.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Dickere View Post
                      And he seems to have light ginger ('reddish-brown') hair/beard too. Hmmm.
                      At the risk of being a bore, I can only counsel against putting great weight on the details in IT-enhanced/colourised images -- especially when the original is as poor in quality as the screenshots and other copies of Lechmere we're all using.

                      At the same time, I do think these things have their uses... (Meaningful pause...)

                      M.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dickere View Post
                        And he seems to have light ginger ('reddish-brown') hair/beard too. Hmmm.
                        I wonder if indefatigable image-unearther Gary Barnett can find us some paintings of Lechmere's aristo ancestors or his socially non-descending rellies? Would be interesting to see what genetics were visible in those simulacra...

                        M.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SuperShodan View Post
                          Trevor can’t see something so it doesn’t exist. How would you describe this sketch of Eddowes, or what about Chapman with her meagre possessions placed around her, have you seen the Kelly photo perchance, and what about Tabram left legs akimbo in a public stairwell ?
                          Compare and contrast other victims with Polly Nichols. The attending physician doesn’t even notice 12 stab wounds to her abdomen, neither does numerous policemen and witnesses.
                          You don’t see any evidence of the bodies being posed because you don’t want to.
                          It might reflect a difference in definition of what "posing" means. With Eddowes, Chapman, and Tabram, for example, the position of the leg moved up out of the way, etc, may simply reflect the killer positioning the body to provide them access to the abdomen in order to perform the mutilations, etc. Upon completion, they then just left the body in the position they needed to have it in order to perform those actions. If so, that could be argued to not meet a definition of "posing". This would be the case if one defines posing as deliberately placing or arranging the body in order to create shock, or to satisfy some bizarre psychological need of the offender other than the commission of the offense.

                          With Kelly, though, the placement of her left arm, with the hand into the open gut cavity, seems to me to reflect just such a behaviour and so would constitute posing by that definition (or at least constitute a strong reason to consider deliberate posing on the part of the offender - I'm sure one could think of scenerios where the offender was imply moving the arm "out of the way", but just because one can come up with alternatives doesn't mean posing should not be highly considered).

                          With other offenders, such as Albert Desalvo (Boston Strangler), there are clear signs of posing as he did things like place a greeting card between the toes of one victim (I think that's where it was; it might have been on the bed by her feet? I've forgotten the exact details). With the JtR series, for those offenses committed outdoors (and Tabram's in the stairwell, if she's part of the series), there would be little time for anything elaborate but that doesn't mean an offender wouldn't spend a few moments to satisfy some need. So if the wide placement of the legs, particularly Tabram and Eddowes, was done for reasons other than the facilitate the offense itself, then it's posing. But if those were done in order to perform the offense, then it is questionable if this could be called posing per se.

                          I get the impression Trevor is arguing that the position of the bodies does not show clear indications their positions, however shocking they may be, reflects anything other than how the offender committed the mutilations, and does not appear to reflect an arrangement of the body after the mutilations were complete.

                          Of course, it could be that you are arguing that the position of the bodies were arranged post-mutilation, and so it's not just a definition issue but a difference in opinion about what actions the killer performed. I'm not trying to speak for people here, rather just giving my impression about a potential source of the alternative claims with regards to posing. Personally, I tend to view posing as arranging the scene or body over and above what is necessary to commit the offense, which I think applies to the Kelly scene, but evidence for which is far less clear in the others (which is what I think Trevor is getting at here as well).

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            It might reflect a difference in definition of what "posing" means. With Eddowes, Chapman, and Tabram, for example, the position of the leg moved up out of the way, etc, may simply reflect the killer positioning the body to provide them access to the abdomen in order to perform the mutilations, etc. Upon completion, they then just left the body in the position they needed to have it in order to perform those actions. If so, that could be argued to not meet a definition of "posing". This would be the case if one defines posing as deliberately placing or arranging the body in order to create shock, or to satisfy some bizarre psychological need of the offender other than the commission of the offense.

                            With Kelly, though, the placement of her left arm, with the hand into the open gut cavity, seems to me to reflect just such a behaviour and so would constitute posing by that definition (or at least constitute a strong reason to consider deliberate posing on the part of the offender - I'm sure one could think of scenerios where the offender was imply moving the arm "out of the way", but just because one can come up with alternatives doesn't mean posing should not be highly considered).

                            With other offenders, such as Albert Desalvo (Boston Strangler), there are clear signs of posing as he did things like place a greeting card between the toes of one victim (I think that's where it was; it might have been on the bed by her feet? I've forgotten the exact details). With the JtR series, for those offenses committed outdoors (and Tabram's in the stairwell, if she's part of the series), there would be little time for anything elaborate but that doesn't mean an offender wouldn't spend a few moments to satisfy some need. So if the wide placement of the legs, particularly Tabram and Eddowes, was done for reasons other than the facilitate the offense itself, then it's posing. But if those were done in order to perform the offense, then it is questionable if this could be called posing per se.

                            I get the impression Trevor is arguing that the position of the bodies does not show clear indications their positions, however shocking they may be, reflects anything other than how the offender committed the mutilations, and does not appear to reflect an arrangement of the body after the mutilations were complete.

                            Of course, it could be that you are arguing that the position of the bodies were arranged post-mutilation, and so it's not just a definition issue but a difference in opinion about what actions the killer performed. I'm not trying to speak for people here, rather just giving my impression about a potential source of the alternative claims with regards to posing. Personally, I tend to view posing as arranging the scene or body over and above what is necessary to commit the offense, which I think applies to the Kelly scene, but evidence for which is far less clear in the others (which is what I think Trevor is getting at here as well).

                            - Jeff
                            Hi Jeff,

                            I basically agree with your comments regarding the term "posing". The term I used was "on display", by which I meant that after the mutilations were complete there was no attempt to cover the injuries as there was for Nichols. I was questioning what reason could be considered for this sole (leaving Stride out of the discussion) exception?

                            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.”

                            Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

                            Comment


                            • >>if there were street lights near the Cap Factory or the Wool Warehouse gate, shouldn't Paul have spotted Cross as he passed under these lights<<

                              Nobody would have passed under the Cap factory light until they left the scene, as it was further down.

                              According to Cross's testimony, the wool warehouse gates is exactly where he was standing when Paul came up. The story fits.
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange

                              Comment


                              • >> A lot closer than his approximate location as proposed by Dusty with the help of Richard’s simulation.<<

                                Not my proposal, the spot the named in the inquest by the newspaper, but known evidence is always an optional extra with Lechmerians.

                                It's great to know al these people know exactly what the lighting conditions were in Buck's Row that night. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to exactly how you know?



                                >> ‘Where the woman was’.<<

                                When she was dead so long it was before Cross left home, you mean? And since Paul left Cross with the body and found Mizen by himself, how come Neil didn't find Cross still with the body or at least walking up the street?

                                Yeah, well thought out comments Gary.
                                Last edited by drstrange169; 01-31-2022, 04:09 AM.
                                dustymiller
                                aka drstrange

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X