Evidence of innocence

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

I don't think the triangular cuts were deliberate, but a by product of how he held the head and slashed across the face (obviously this is just my interpretation, not a fact). While I find it unlikely that any of the cuts were deliberate, the cuts to the eyes are described as being careful, so if any of them were done with care it would be those.

- Jeff

Ok jeff , we disagree . All good.

[GBinOz]

Mistake post.

[Fisherman]

On the so called triangular cuts. While Iīm waiting for an answer from Frank, I might as well point to a thread called "The two upside down V:s" from some years ago, where I suspect that Wickerman may have solved the riddle of how the wounds came about. The post to look at in the link below is number 69:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/catherine-eddowes/1448-the-2-upside-down-v-s/page5

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just making a quick point before I go away again. We have Frank here, commenting on how and why the wounds were covered. Since he always makes considered points, I thought Iīd have a look at what he bases this post of his on. And I find it will be the Times article from the 18:th, where it says:
"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement."

The sequence becomes a logical one; it seems Paul had his hands up at the chest in the process of trying to pull the dress down, and Franks suggestion that the hem of the dress would therefore have been placed up there sounds viable on the surface of things.

However, it is not as if the Times actually states where the hem of the dress was. It is something that Frank interprets in the manner, not any matter stated by the Times. What Frank suggests is that the killer squatted beside Nichols, facing towards her feet. He would then have lifted her clothing with one of his hands, grabbing hold of the hem of the dress and lifting it up into the air with, say, his left hand. The he would have used his right hand to push the blade in at the groin, thereafter cutting his way up towards the breastbone underneath the dress. After that, he would have added a number of other cuts to the abdomen, all the while lifting the skirt by the hem until he aborted the cutting, whether on behalf of being disturbed or by choosing not to cut any more, we donīt know. He then let go of the hem, and the dress fell over the abdomen, with the hem ending up at her chest.

Could it have happened this way? Well, it cannot be ruled out, of course. But it is a theory that comes with a fair few difficulties. To begin with, we have another passage in the same Times article that very much belongs to the picture. Paul is quoted as saying that before his efforts to pull the dress down, "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." He does not say "up to her chest". Which they must have been for Franks suggestion to work. Maybe what Paul meant was that the clothing was doubled up, with the folding being place almost up at the stomach - but that is not what he says. It therefore takes a bit of fiddling to allow for Franks proposition.

Another problem is that of the practicalities involved. I would suggest that cutting the abdomen of a woman open was a desire within the killer, something that he wanted very much to do. And if you have gone through the trouble of finding a victim, spiriting her away from prying eyes and strangling her to finally allow for that cutting, then why would you deny yourself the pleasure of actually seeing what you do? Of course, we know quite well that whoever killed Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly did not work under the clothing of these victims. There was no question of any hidden wounds in those cases. And that in itself must cast serious doubt on Franks suggestion.

Furthermore, one of the reasons that the killer saw to it that the abdominal cavities of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were not obscured by cloth as he cut them would be that he had the intention of carving out inner organs from their bodies. Such a thing is a fiddly business, and you need to be able to see what you are doing. Putting your hands and the knife under clothing while extracting organs would also come with a serious risk of cutting yourself. Meaning that if the killer intended to take out organs from Nichols, he would be poorly served by allowing her dress to stay over the wounds as he worked.

All in all, in my view, Franks suggestion, much as it cannot be ruled out, has very little going for it. The one thing that is compelling is the wording of the Times, that "While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement."

If, as implicated by the Times, the dress was not raised up to the chest but only to just below the abdomen, then there must be alternative explanations for why Paul touched the breast in the process of trying to pull the dress down. And I would suggest that such explanations can easily be provided. If Paul, for example knelt in a ninety degree position to the body, his left arm to the east and his right arm to the west, then it would be the right hand he employed to grab hold of the dress, pulling it towards her feet. And if he felt that the dress would not move as far as he wanted it to, putting his left hand on her body at the chest would provide leverage to pull harder. For example.
There is also the possibility that he pulled with both hands, finding that the dress would not come down, whereupon he tried to grab hold further up the body (at the chest, for example) to try and pull the dress down bit by bit, so to speak.

Anyways, before we go into a "this is the better suggestion - no, THAT is the better suggestion" slanging match, I would point out that the REAL importance of the matter as such lies not in these details, but instead in how the clothing DID obscure the wounds from sight. This in itself is in line with the killer having hidden the damage intentionally, and it is out of line with the other victims. Whatever pointer to guilt on Lechmeres behalf I point out, there is always a platoon of helpful people who rush to limit the damage by providing innocent alternative explanations. The important thing to keep in mind is NOT that such explanations can be provided - they ALWAYS can, otherwise, we would not be speaking of circumstanital evidence but instead of proof - but instead that these innocent alternative explanations are actually called for. And when they are called for in dozens of matters, we have long since passed the point where it is logical to keep providing them. The much more logical thing to do is to accept that Charles Lechmere is a person to whom a bottomless need for innocent alternative explanations clings. And when that is so, we have an extremely good suspect and a very probable killer.

This supposed list of pointers that require innocent explanations is a fallacy when these things don’t exist in the first place Fish. As we know, the ‘gap’ is an invention reliant on estimated times being stated as definite times. We know that the blood evidence doesn’t point to Lechmere anymore than a killer who left the scene just before he arrived. The ‘name’ issue is a non-event of course as we know that he wasn’t giving a false name but the name of his step-father and no one has been able to show that he didn’t use this name in his day to day life. None of these 3 require any imagination or leaps of faith. The leaps have been made by those accusing Lechmere. So we can’t create ‘issues’ and then claim that it’s unrealistic to point to perfectly innocent explanations. Not a single thing that Lechmere did that evening comes close to raising an eyebrow. Everything that he does speaks of a man finding a body on his way to work.

We have to ask again Fish, how many serial killers can we name who, a) butchered a victim on his route to work and 15 minutes or so away from his destination, and b) butchered a victim in the street and waited for a passer by to arrive when he had the option of fleeing. I’m afraid that too much emphasis has been placed on the fact that Lechmere was at the scene (like Richardson) As if this adds a huge pile of plus points to his candidature. The fact that he was there doesn’t make it more likely that he was the killer as opposed to an unknown killer. People who find bodies are always present at the scene and they are usually alone at the time.

[FrankO]

Since he always makes considered points, I thought Iīd have a look at what he bases this post of his on. And I find it will be the Times article from the 18:th, where it says:
"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement."

Correct, Christer.

The sequence becomes a logical one; it seems Paul had his hands up at the chest in the process of trying to pull the dress down, and Franks suggestion that the hem of the dress would therefore have been placed up there sounds viable on the surface of things.

Good.

However, it is not as if the Times actually states where the hem of the dress was. It is something that Frank interprets in the manner, not any matter stated by the Times.

That’s indeed the way I interpret it and I interpret it that way because I see no other good way to interpret it. I mean, if no part of the lower part of the dress (including the hem) was on the chest area, then why would Paul’s hand be in that area while pulling down the dress? How would that work? If the lower part including the hem would have been positioned lower down on her body at, say, the belly, he would never have even needed to touch the breast to begin with. That’s the way I see it, regardless of whether the Times actually stated it or not.

What Frank suggests is that the killer squatted beside Nichols, facing towards her feet. He would then have lifted her clothing with one of his hands, grabbing hold of the hem of the dress and lifting it up into the air with, say, his left hand. The he would have used his right hand to push the blade in at the groin, thereafter cutting his way up towards the breastbone underneath the dress.

I’ll only add that this isn’t my preferred suggestion. Also see my reply to George above.

After that, he would have added a number of other cuts to the abdomen, all the while lifting the skirt by the hem until he aborted the cutting, whether on behalf of being disturbed or by choosing not to cut any more, we donīt know. He then let go of the hem, and the dress fell over the abdomen, with the hem ending up at her chest.

I have to correct you here, Christer. I didn’t actually wrote it, but what I had in mind was that the murderer would have grabbed the hem with his left hand, pulled the dress up and put the hem of the dress on the chest area. The fold of the dress would then have been somewhere between the knees and the breasts and he would have grabbed the dress at the fold to hold it up and then start cutting.

Could it have happened this way? Well, it cannot be ruled out, of course. But it is a theory that comes with a fair few difficulties. To begin with, we have another passage in the same Times article that very much belongs to the picture. Paul is quoted as saying that before his efforts to pull the dress down, "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." He does not say "up to her chest". Which they must have been for Franks suggestion to work.

See above. What I had in mind fits quite well with “her clothes were raised almost to her stomach”.

Of course, we know quite well that whoever killed Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly did not work under the clothing of these victims. There was no question of any hidden wounds in those cases. And that in itself must cast serious doubt on Franks suggestion.

I prefer evidence directly pertaining to the Nichols murder over what you write above, which is evidence not directly pertaining to that murder. You do things the other way around. For that reason I don’t find it particularly convincing.

Furthermore, one of the reasons that the killer saw to it that the abdominal cavities of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were not obscured by cloth as he cut them would be that he had the intention of carving out inner organs from their bodies. Such a thing is a fiddly business, and you need to be able to see what you are doing. Putting your hands and the knife under clothing while extracting organs would also come with a serious risk of cutting yourself. Meaning that if the killer intended to take out organs from Nichols, he would be poorly served by allowing her dress to stay over the wounds as he worked.

Even though that’s probably true, it doesn’t make Paul’s statement, "While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement" or its implication go away. And we have to go by with what we’ve got.

If, as implicated by the Times, the dress was not raised up to the chest but only to just below the abdomen, then there must be alternative explanations for why Paul touched the breast in the process of trying to pull the dress down. And I would suggest that such explanations can easily be provided. If Paul, for example knelt in a ninety degree position to the body, his left arm to the east and his right arm to the west, then it would be the right hand he employed to grab hold of the dress, pulling it towards her feet. And if he felt that the dress would not move as far as he wanted it to, putting his left hand on her body at the chest would provide leverage to pull harder. For example.
There is also the possibility that he pulled with both hands, finding that the dress would not come down, whereupon he tried to grab hold further up the body (at the chest, for example) to try and pull the dress down bit by bit, so to speak.

Possibly, although I especially find the first suggestion a weak and non-practical one (why would he not sit in the best possible position to pull the dress down, which would obviously be next to the legs facing the head?), but this doesn’t make Paul’s statement and implication go away either.

Anyways, before we go into a "this is the better suggestion - no, THAT is the better suggestion" slanging match, I would point out that the REAL importance of the matter as such lies not in these details, but instead in how the clothing DID obscure the wounds from sight. This in itself is in line with the killer having hidden the damage intentionally, and it is out of line with the other victims.

It’s perfectly possible that the differences between Nichols and the others – legs stretched out, no organs cut or pulled out, abdominal wounds covered - were all due to it being the first victim he cut open out in the street. In that sense, my suggestion is as good as yours.

[Fisherman]

This supposed list of pointers that require innocent explanations is a fallacy when these things don’t exist in the first place Fish. As we know, the ‘gap’ is an invention reliant on estimated times being stated as definite times. We know that the blood evidence doesn’t point to Lechmere anymore than a killer who left the scene just before he arrived. The ‘name’ issue is a non-event of course as we know that he wasn’t giving a false name but the name of his step-father and no one has been able to show that he didn’t use this name in his day to day life. None of these 3 require any imagination or leaps of faith. The leaps have been made by those accusing Lechmere. So we can’t create ‘issues’ and then claim that it’s unrealistic to point to perfectly innocent explanations. Not a single thing that Lechmere did that evening comes close to raising an eyebrow. Everything that he does speaks of a man finding a body on his way to work.

We have to ask again Fish, how many serial killers can we name who, a) butchered a victim on his route to work and 15 minutes or so away from his destination, and b) butchered a victim in the street and waited for a passer by to arrive when he had the option of fleeing. I’m afraid that too much emphasis has been placed on the fact that Lechmere was at the scene (like Richardson) As if this adds a huge pile of plus points to his candidature. The fact that he was there doesn’t make it more likely that he was the killer as opposed to an unknown killer. People who find bodies are always present at the scene and they are usually alone at the time.

Still waiting for an answer from Frank, so I might just as well...

1. This supposed list of pointers that require innocent explanations is a fallacy when these things don’t exist in the first place Fish. As we know, the ‘gap’ is an invention reliant on estimated times being stated as definite times.

The time gap is suggested by the fact that Lechmere said he left home at around 3.30, but he nevertheless was in place in Bucks Row at around 3.45. he should have been there at around 3.37. It may be that the timings are unsafe, but that does not make the time gap an"invention". It is a suggestion based on the timings given, and as such, it is a suggestion that is in line with these timings. You suggest that the clocks may have been out or that when Lechmere said "around 3.30", that would entail 3.35 too. And that is why it is a good example of providing possible alternative innocent explanations, something that can always be done. Yes, it may be that there IS an alternative reason, but no, that does not make the implication as such go away. Itīs the same as the eternal claims that he could/would/should have called himself Cross at work - yes, it MAY have been so, but that does not eradicate the fact that he used a name that he otherwise did NOT use when in authority contacts.


2. We know that the blood evidence doesn’t point to Lechmere anymore than a killer who left the scene just before he arrived.

No, we donīt. The blood evidence is stretched already as it is. Going by what Payne James and Thiblin said, she was not likely to bleed for more than three to five minutes, but she bled for at least around nine. Of course, the further away from the suggestion made by the forensic experts the less likely it becomes. That does not per se mean that it could not have been another, earlier killer, but that point is moot - it is nothing but another innocent alternative explanation, and it does NOT make the fact that Lechmere fits the bill perfectly go away.

3. The ‘name’ issue is a non-event of course as we know that he wasn’t giving a false name but the name of his step-father and no one has been able to show that he didn’t use this name in his day to day life.

See the above. It is another point that does n ot go away becasue you can offer innocent alternative explanations.

None of these 3 require any imagination or leaps of faith.

That is true, to a degree at least. Anyone with a brain cell or two to spare can make uop inncent alternative explanations. It is not hard at all. However, the more such things there are to explain away, the greater the leap of fath becomes.

The leaps have been made by those accusing Lechmere.

Which of the points I make against Lechmere do you suppose a modern police force would be disinterested in?

That he gave a time that was seemingly not consistent with when he was in Bucks Row?

That the victim still bled nine minutes after he left her?

That he did not use his registered name, the name he otherwise always used in authority contacts, when he spoke to them?

Which of these points are you suggesting the police would merrily have lete slip through their fingers? If you can provide a working explanation to that question, you may have a point about the Lechmererians making leaps of faith to accuse the carman. If instead you agreew with me that each of these points should be of interest to the police, then you have just proven yourself wrong. And wrong you are!

So we can’t create ‘issues’ and then claim that it’s unrealistic to point to perfectly innocent explanations.

It is the other way around. YOU create innocent alternatives to very suspicious matters, regardelss of how they are around in numbers..

Not a single thing that Lechmere did that evening comes close to raising an eyebrow.

Read the review of my book, and you may see that others are a tad less forgiving than you are. Tom Wescott, for example, writes that having written two book himself, he is not easily impressed - but he finds the case very compelling. So why should I listen to you, knowing as I do, that you will always deny that for example disagreeing with the police over what was said should evoke any suspicion at all? In your world, all we have to do is to make up an innocent alternative, "It was Mizen who misheard!", and the carman is exonerated. And then you feel free to add "Look how he accuses a man of murder for a simple mishearing - what a leap of faith!!"
And you are not even able to understand why it is doing things backwards.

Everything that he does speaks of a man finding a body on his way to work.

Everything he did was perfectly consistent with a killer bluffing his way out of harms way.

You see, it can be viewed from two angles. And for YOU to be correct, we should have no anomalies clinging to the carman. He should not be there at a time that is consistent with being the killer, he should not have had time alone with the victim, he should give his real and registered name, the clothing should not be hiding the wounds, Paul should have or heard or seen him in front of himself, he should not pass through the killing fields, he should not have reason to visit the Berner Street area, the Goulston Street rag should not be found inbetween the murder spot and his home, he should not have said that he left home at around 3.30, he should have told Mizen that HE was the finder, he should not have any diagreement with the PC about another PC being in place, Mizen should have said TWO men came up to me and spoke, Swanson should not have said that the body was found at 3.45 etcetera, etcetera.

As it stands, it is the other way around, and that makes me the one who is extremely likely to be correct, whereas it only makes you yet another person who is able to come up with alternative innocent explanations.

None of the matters you so intesely want to explain away goes away before you PROVE them innocent. And THAT is a game that you cannot play. Until that happens, the carman remains a man a jury would not like, on account of how many things there are that do not seem right with him. Scobie knows how these things work, he has seen it many times. Then again, you have worked so hard on the representation of Scobie as somebody who has been lied to and fed flawed material that you have begun to believe it yourself. But AGIAN, we have the same thing.

A barrister says there is a prima facie case against the carman.

And you provide, helpful as always, the innocent alternative: Scobie was misled by the documentary team!

Proof for it? None, why would we resort to such tedious things as proving our accusations? Surely your personal misgivings and claims must seal the deal?

So itīs back to the drawing board on that score too: PROVE your flights of fancy and your leaps of faith as being somehow connected to the real world. Or, as it is more effectively worded:

Put up or shut up.

Unti you do, Charles Lechmere remains the only truly excellent suspect and the likely killer.

Now, if youīll excuse me, I am waiting for Franks answer.

[MrBarnett]

Of course, we don’t actually know that he wasn’t giving a false name. If he wasn’t known by the name Cross, then he did indeed give a false name. What we do know is that he didn’t give his real name.


Prior to the Nichols incident, the only evidence we have of his use of Cross is from the 1876 inquest. He’d killed a child and although he was cleared of any negligence it was said that the child’s father believed he was to blame.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Still waiting for an answer from Frank, so I might just as well...

1. This supposed list of pointers that require innocent explanations is a fallacy when these things don’t exist in the first place Fish. As we know, the ‘gap’ is an invention reliant on estimated times being stated as definite times.

The time gap is suggested by the fact that Lechmere said he left home at around 3.30, but he nevertheless was in place in Bucks Row at around 3.45. he should have been there at around 3.37. It may be that the timings are unsafe, but that does not make the time gap an"invention". It is a suggestion based on the timings given, and as such, it is a suggestion that is in line with these timings. You suggest that the clocks may have been out or that when Lechmere said "around 3.30", that would entail 3.35 too. And that is why it is a good example of providing possible alternative innocent explanations, something that can always be done. Yes, it may be that there IS an alternative reason, but no, that does not make the implication as such go away. Itīs the same as the eternal claims that he could/would/should have called himself Cross at work - yes, it MAY have been so, but that does not eradicate the fact that he used a name that he otherwise did NOT use when in authority contacts.

You are still claiming that black is white. ‘About 3.30’ isn’t a time. It’s an approximation of a time. And 3.45 is your interpretation which doesn’t fit with what we know and has Baxter ignoring 3 police officers with no basis for doing so. So we cannot state a definite using 2 unknowns without manipulation. I really don’t know why you or anyone else persists with this point. We can’t assume a ‘gap’ therefore we cannot use this as point against Lechmere.


2. We know that the blood evidence doesn’t point to Lechmere anymore than a killer who left the scene just before he arrived.

No, we donīt. The blood evidence is stretched already as it is. Going by what Payne James and Thiblin said, she was not likely to bleed for more than three to five minutes, but she bled for at least around nine. Of course, the further away from the suggestion made by the forensic experts the less likely it becomes. That does not per se mean that it could not have been another, earlier killer, but that point is moot - it is nothing but another innocent alternative explanation, and it does NOT make the fact that Lechmere fits the bill perfectly go away.

And we know from Biggs that bleeding can go on much longer so it doesn’t matter if a lesser time is more usual (whether it is or not) So the FACT remains categorically that the killer could have left before Lechmere arrived. So the blood proves nothing at all. Yet you keep using it. It’s meaningless.

3. The ‘name’ issue is a non-event of course as we know that he wasn’t giving a false name but the name of his step-father and no one has been able to show that he didn’t use this name in his day to day life.

See the above. It is another point that does n ot go away becasue you can offer innocent alternative explanations.

Yes it does. He very obviously wasn’t trying to hide or he wouldn’t have given his correct forenames or his address. As I’ve said before, why not Fred Smith? He achieved absolutely nothing by giving the name Cross therefore it isn’t an issue.

None of these 3 require any imagination or leaps of faith.

That is true, to a degree at least. Anyone with a brain cell or two to spare can make uop inncent alternative explanations. It is not hard at all. However, the more such things there are to explain away, the greater the leap of fath becomes.

And anyone can narrow down approximated times to exact times in order to create a gap. Anyone can mock or dismiss an unnamed killer as a ‘phantom killer’ simply because we can’t put a name to him. The fact that there isn’t a single fact that comes close to dismissing the possibility of an alternative killer proves that there could easily have been a killer present before Lechmere discovered the body.

The leaps have been made by those accusing Lechmere.

Which of the points I make against Lechmere do you suppose a modern police force would be disinterested in?

They’d have seen the approximated times and dismissed the idea of a ‘gap.’ The blood evidence would have shown them that another person could have killed Polly. And if they found out that Lechmere went by the name of Cross and combined that with the fact that he’d gained no advantage from using the name they would have dismissed this too.

That he gave a time that was seemingly not consistent with when he was in Bucks Row?

Yes it was….sans manipulation.

That the victim still bled nine minutes after he left her?

Proves nothing at all.

That he did not use his registered name, the name he otherwise always used in authority contacts, when he spoke to them?

Proves nothing at all given the fact that he gained absolutely no advantage from doing so.

Which of these points are you suggesting the police would merrily have lete slip through their fingers?

All of them after looking into them.

If you can provide a working explanation to that question, you may have a point about the Lechmererians making leaps of faith to accuse the carman. If instead you agreew with me that each of these points should be of interest to the police, then you have just proven yourself wrong. And wrong you are!

Even a cursory check would have dismissed the points.

So we can’t create ‘issues’ and then claim that it’s unrealistic to point to perfectly innocent explanations.

It is the other way around. YOU create innocent alternatives to very suspicious matters, regardelss of how they are around in numbers..

Very few numbers.

Not a single thing that Lechmere did that evening comes close to raising an eyebrow.

Read the review of my book, and you may see that others are a tad less forgiving than you are. Tom Wescott, for example, writes that having written two book himself, he is not easily impressed - but he finds the case very compelling. So why should I listen to you, knowing as I do, that you will always deny that for example disagreeing with the police over what was said should evoke any suspicion at all? In your world, all we have to do is to make up an innocent alternative, "It was Mizen who misheard!", and the carman is exonerated. And then you feel free to add "Look how he accuses a man of murder for a simple mishearing - what a leap of faith!!"
And you are not even able to understand why it is doing things backwards.

This is a twist of course. The mystery has been created…..explanations are required……and have been given numerous times.

Everything that he does speaks of a man finding a body on his way to work.

Everything he did was perfectly consistent with a killer bluffing his way out of harms way.

No it doesn’t. Still waiting for the other examples of serial killers loitering around for people to turn up. Or killing so close to his workplace just before he was due there. I’ve lost count of the amount of times that you’ve quoted from serial killer history Fish but you haven’t done so in this case. I wonder if there’s a reason for this?

You see, it can be viewed from two angles. And for YOU to be correct, we should have no anomalies clinging to the carman. He should not be there at a time that is consistent with being the killer, he should not have had time alone with the victim, he should give his real and registered name, the clothing should not be hiding the wounds, Paul should have or heard or seen him in front of himself, he should not pass through the killing fields, he should not have reason to visit the Berner Street area, the Goulston Street rag should not be found inbetween the murder spot and his home, he should not have said that he left home at around 3.30, he should have told Mizen that HE was the finder, he should not have any diagreement with the PC about another PC being in place, Mizen should have said TWO men came up to me and spoke, Swanson should not have said that the body was found at 3.45 etcetera, etcetera.

As it stands, it is the other way around, and that makes me the one who is extremely likely to be correct, whereas it only makes you yet another person who is able to come up with alternative innocent explanations.

Not even lose Fish. You have an empty sack.

None of the matters you so intesely want to explain away goes away before you PROVE them innocent. And THAT is a game that you cannot play. Until that happens, the carman remains a man a jury would not like, on account of how many things there are that do not seem right with him. Scobie knows how these things work, he has seen it many times. Then again, you have worked so hard on the representation of Scobie as somebody who has been lied to and fed flawed material that you have begun to believe it yourself. But AGIAN, we have the same thing.

A barrister says there is a prima facie case against the carman.

And you provide, helpful as always, the innocent alternative: Scobie was misled by the documentary team!

If Scobie was told that Lechmere left the house at 3.30 (which he was, according to the documentary) then he provably was misled.

Proof for it? None, why would we resort to such tedious things as proving our accusations? Surely your personal misgivings and claims must seal the deal?

So itīs back to the drawing board on that score too: PROVE your flights of fancy and your leaps of faith as being somehow connected to the real world. Or, as it is more effectively worded:

Put up or shut up.

Unti you do, Charles Lechmere remains the only truly excellent suspect and the likely killer.

Charles Lechmere remains the man that found Nichols body and nothing more.

Now, if youīll excuse me, I am waiting for Franks answer.

It’s fairly obvious that Lechmere wasn’t the killer Fish. That’s the innocent explanation. It’s the most reasonable one by a country mile.

[Fisherman]

Since he always makes considered points, I thought Iīd have a look at what he bases this post of his on. And I find it will be the Times article from the 18:th, where it says:
"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement."

Correct, Christer.

Thats good to hear. I was wondering if you had sonething more substantial, but you donīt, it seems.

The sequence becomes a logical one; it seems Paul had his hands up at the chest in the process of trying to pull the dress down, and Franks suggestion that the hem of the dress would therefore have been placed up there sounds viable on the surface of things.

Good.

However, it is not as if the Times actually states where the hem of the dress was. It is something that Frank interprets in the manner, not any matter stated by the Times.

That’s indeed the way I interpret it and I interpret it that way because I see no other good way to interpret it. I mean, if no part of the lower part of the dress (including the hem) was on the chest area, then why would Paul’s hand be in that area while pulling down the dress? How would that work? If the lower part including the hem would have been positioned lower down on her body at, say, the belly, he would never have even touched the breast to begin with. That’s the way I see it, regardless of whether the Times actually stated it or not.

The problem here is that you seemingly fail to see that all the Times does is to say that Pauls touching the breast of Nichols happened in connection with when he was trying to pull her dress down. It does NOT say that any of the clothing was up at the breast; instead it says that the clothing was "almost up to the stomach". Which is emphatically NOT up at the breast. That was why I said that unless we accept that the hem of the clothing MUST have been up there in spite of the paper denying it, we must be able to produce alternative solutions. And I provided such alternatives.

What Frank suggests is that the killer squatted beside Nichols, facing towards her feet. He would then have lifted her clothing with one of his hands, grabbing hold of the hem of the dress and lifting it up into the air with, say, his left hand. The he would have used his right hand to push the blade in at the groin, thereafter cutting his way up towards the breastbone underneath the dress.

I’ll only add that this isn’t my preferred suggestion. Also see my reply to George above.

But surely, your solution involves the killer working underneath the clothing? Or have I misunderstood that?

After that, he would have added a number of other cuts to the abdomen, all the while lifting the skirt by the hem until he aborted the cutting, whether on behalf of being disturbed or by choosing not to cut any more, we donīt know. He then let go of the hem, and the dress fell over the abdomen, with the hem ending up at her chest.

I have to correct you here, Christer. I didn’t actually wrote it, but what I had in mind was that the murderer would have grabbed the hem with his left hand, pulled the dress up and put the hem of the dress on the chest area. The fold of the dress would then have been somewhere between the knees and the breasts and he would have grabbed the dress at the fold to hold it up and then start cutting.

So he would lift the dress by the hem up to the chest? Sort of fold it up upwards? But not lift away the last bit of cloth, allowing full freedom to see and work? I find it a strange proposition that he would not want to make use of both his hands to cut and work at the body, instead opting for holding a garment up in the air with his one hand. Maybe thatīs just me.

Could it have happened this way? Well, it cannot be ruled out, of course. But it is a theory that comes with a fair few difficulties. To begin with, we have another passage in the same Times article that very much belongs to the picture. Paul is quoted as saying that before his efforts to pull the dress down, "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." He does not say "up to her chest". Which they must have been for Franks suggestion to work.

See above. What I had in mind fits quite well with “her clothes were raised almost to her stomach”.

No, it does not. If the clothing was up at the chest, then the Times should not have said "almost to the stomach", because that is way further down. Furtherore, why did the paper not write that the clothing was thrown up over her? Why did they say it was "raised" to under the stomach instead? It just does not work the way you suggest.

Of course, we know quite well that whoever killed Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly did not work under the clothing of these victims. There was no question of any hidden wounds in those cases. And that in itself must cast serious doubt on Franks suggestion.

I prefer evidence directly pertaining to the Nichols murder over what you write above, which is evidence not directly pertaining to that murder. You do things the other way around. For that reason I don’t find it particularly convincing.

Are you saying that because the other victims were different, they are best looked away from, Frank? Why would they NOT be extremely relevant?

Furthermore, one of the reasons that the killer saw to it that the abdominal cavities of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were not obscured by cloth as he cut them would be that he had the intention of carving out inner organs from their bodies. Such a thing is a fiddly business, and you need to be able to see what you are doing. Putting your hands and the knife under clothing while extracting organs would also come with a serious risk of cutting yourself. Meaning that if the killer intended to take out organs from Nichols, he would be poorly served by allowing her dress to stay over the wounds as he worked.

Even though that’s probably true, it doesn’t make Paul’s statement, "While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement" or its implication go away. And we have to go by with what we’ve got.

And I just did. Paul does not say that he grabbed hold of the clothing up at the chest. He said that he felt her heart in the process of adjusting the clothes, and I have provided alternative explanations to your one.
There IS however, one thing that will not go away. And that is how the wounds were hidden from sight in the Nichols case, but in no other case . And that means that statistically, Lechmere ran a 1 in 5 chance (or 1 in 6, counting Tabram) to stumble upon the one and only victim who had this detail clinging to her person. And as fate will have it, she was the ONLY victim who offered a chance of being able to bluff an oncomer. What a(nother) coincidence!
This is the important matter and it cannot be overstressed: The things that potentially point to guilt in Lechmeres case are ALL in place. None of them have gone away because alternative innocent explanations have been supplied. Once any such explanation are proven or overwhelmingly more likely to be true than the guilty explanation, then that point of accusation goes away. But not before. And so Lechmere is still a man who was found alone on a murder spot, in close connection to a very freshly killed victim who would go on to bleed for many, many minutes after the carman left her. He is still a man who gave another name to the police than the one he otherwise used in authority contacts. He is still a man who passed through the killing grounds of Spitalfileds on his way to work. He is still a man with very long standing links to the Berner Street area. He is still a man who disagreed with a serving PC about what he said on the murder night. He is still a man who seemingly never told PC Mizen that he was the finder of the body. He is still a man who said he left home at around 3.30 - but who was in Bucks Row at around 3.45, as per the police reports. He is still a man who a fellow carman walking a smallish distance behind him down most of Bucks Row failed to notice. And he is still a man who was present at a murdere site where the victims wounds were hidden from sight! Anybody who - like Herlock - thinks that these matters should not raise an eyebrow are not very suited even for armchair detective work, much less so for genuine police work. I trust you agree with me on that.

If, as implicated by the Times, the dress was not raised up to the chest but only to just below the abdomen, then there must be alternative explanations for why Paul touched the breast in the process of trying to pull the dress down. And I would suggest that such explanations can easily be provided. If Paul, for example knelt in a ninety degree position to the body, his left arm to the east and his right arm to the west, then it would be the right hand he employed to grab hold of the dress, pulling it towards her feet. And if he felt that the dress would not move as far as he wanted it to, putting his left hand on her body at the chest would provide leverage to pull harder. For example.
There is also the possibility that he pulled with both hands, finding that the dress would not come down, whereupon he tried to grab hold further up the body (at the chest, for example) to try and pull the dress down bit by bit, so to speak.

Possibly, although I especially find the first suggestion a weak and non-practical one (why would he not sit in the best possible position to pull the dress down, which would obviously be next to the legs facing the head?), but this doesn’t make Paul’s statement and implication go away either.

There would not have been any reason for Paul to think that the clothes would be difficult to pull down. Lifting them with one hand and lowering them further down should be easy enough. Therefore, he would not necessarily position himself the way you suggest. But maybe he did - after having tried the way I suggest. All that matters is that there ARE alternatives to your suggestion. And what it is that will not go away you already know: the fact that the wounds were hidden in Bucks Row, which fits perfectly with the suggestion of Lechmere bluffing his way out. No alternative explanations can change that - until they are proven.

Anyways, before we go into a "this is the better suggestion - no, THAT is the better suggestion" slanging match, I would point out that the REAL importance of the matter as such lies not in these details, but instead in how the clothing DID obscure the wounds from sight. This in itself is in line with the killer having hidden the damage intentionally, and it is out of line with the other victims.

It’s perfectly possible that the differences between Nichols and the others – legs stretched out, no organs cut or pulled out, abdominal wounds covered - were all due to it being the first victim he cut open out in the street. In that sense, my suggestion is as good as yours.

It is another alternative innocent explanation that does not change how suspicion is cast on Lechmere. Suspicion is not established guilt, it is a reason to think that there may be guilt. And there are lots and lots of such reasons. That is why he is very, very likely to be the killer. It seems that every point we check him on, he COULD have gone clear - but he never does. That makes a whole lot of unlucky flukes.
And there is a reason for that, Frank.

[Fisherman]

It’s fairly obvious that Lechmere wasn’t the killer Fish. That’s the innocent explanation. It’s the most reasonable one by a country mile.

Iīm sorry, but now that I have gotten my answer from Frank, Iīm out of here. Timewasting was never a priority of mine. Iīve done too much of that already.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Iīm sorry, but now that I have gotten my answer from Frank, Iīm out of here. Timewasting was never a priority of mine. Iīve done too much of that already.

The celebrated vanishing act.

[MrBarnett]

How about this: while adjusting the dress, it occurred to Paul to reach as far as was necessary to see if he could detect a heartbeat.

[JeffHamm]

Ok jeff , we disagree . All good.

No worries, the evidence we have is so insufficient that if you get two people to look at it you'll probably end up with three opinions.

- Jeff

P.S. Fisherman provided a link to an older thread, where Wickerman proposes the same thing I've tried to describe (and quite probably is where I first heard it). You can find Wickerman's post here.

[Fisherman]

The celebrated vanishing act.

Well, we canīt have that, can we?

So let me tell you what exactly it is you are doing and what it amounts to in terms of clearing Lechmere as a suspect.

When a murder is committed and the culprit is not apprehended in combination with it, it rests upon the police to identify viable suspects.

The police will primarily be interested in two categories of people; those who have a relationship to the victim and those who are proven to have been present at or close to the murder site at the relevant hours.

What we have is a series of murders, with no known connections inbetween the victims. Therefore, we are in all probability looking at a killer of strangers. So letīs for simplicity sake rule out the family members and aquaintances of Nichols in our own investigation, although the police would surely have spoken to them in their investigation.

Now, what we have to go by is the selection of people who could be shown to have been at or cloose to the murder site at the relevant time.The many other suspects who people sense are the correct types are secondary suspects, and they come into play only when there are no suspects available who are known to have been present at the site at the correct time. That means that Druitt, Levy, Feigenbaum; that sort of people, are secondary suspects.

We have a person who belongs to the category of people who were there at the correct time, and who has a number of matters pointing to potential guilt; Charles Lechmere. What the police will do when faced with such a suspect is to try and see if he can be cleared. if he cannot, they will instead look for further indicators of guilt, and eventually arrest the person in question if the evidence presented is enough for such a thing. He will then be looked into by the prosecution, and if they feel they have a case, he will be prosecuted. If the case is good enough, he will also be convicted.

Now, what is it that starts this chain of events (if there is no absolute proof)? Correct, it is anomalies, inconsistencies, potential lies and suchlike on behalf of the suspect.
One example in our case would be the disagreement with Mizen; Lechmere was said to have told him that another PC awaited Mizen at the murder site. According to Mizen, no mention was made of how it was a serious errand. Nor was it said that Lechmere himself was the finder of the body. All in all, this is reason for suspicion.

The suspicion as such may be wrong and it may be right. And it is the duty of the police to try and investigate which of the options apply.

What they will NOT do is to reason "well, people are normally good, and so the idea that this particulaar one should be a killer is an unlikely one".

That, however, is how you reason, Herlock. You say that the innocent explanation is the most likely one by a country mile, to be more exact. So what you do is not to investigate the underlying facts - you instead simply opt for thinking that Lechmere was more likely to not be a killer than he was to be a killer. Or, to cut it short: most people are good people.

This is what your stance amounts to. Nothing more, nothing less. You believe that Lechmere was a good guy. End of.

it is of course something you are welcome to think. But it does not change the facts for a split second. The carman did and said a number of things that made him look suspicious, and not a single of those suspicions are dispelled by you reasoning that Charles Lechmere was more likely to be good than bad. The onus of proof is instead on you to PROVE that he was good.

Me, I donīt have to prove anything beyond what I have already brought to the table: the many reasons for suspicion. Once they are there, we have a suspect. And the more they are, the better the suspect becomes. If they are many enough, they form a good ground for conviction.

Your idea that he was probably innocent therefore counts for absolutely nothing, Iīm afraid. Itīs uninformed chitter-chatter, much like the kind of reasoning people do in the TV-sofas before Paradise Island; "He really should pick her, she seems nice!"

Thatīs what your view amounts to.

It becomes painfully obvious if we again look at the so called Mizen scam. It is suggested that the dicrepancies between what Lechmere and Mizen said points to how the carman wanted to pass the police by; the potential lies I point to were extremely well shaped to get Lechmere past Mizen.
But you and others instead say that it could just as well be that Mizen heard Lechmere wrong. Or that Mizen lied to save his behind - although the PC was not in any way reprimanded by the coroner.

But what is the underlying motivaation for this stance of yours? Well, it is that it is likelier that peiopkle are good people than bad people. Nothing else. All very uncomplicated.

And all totally uninterested of how we know that a woman had been viciously slayed by SOMEBODY, and that Lechmere had been found alone close by her body, that he did not give the police his registered name, a name that he always otherwise gave to the authorities, that he passed through the killing fields etcetera, etcetera.

We have a murder.

We have a man who has lots and lots of suspicion clinging to himself.

But people are normally nice, so no.

What was it you wrote about me the other day? Ah, yes: Genius.

[Fisherman]

How about this: while adjusting the dress, it occurred to Paul to reach as far as was necessary to see if he could detect a heartbeat.

it is another possibility, of course. What counts in this context are two things:

1. The Times did not say that the clothing was up over the breast, and
2. the fact that the wounds were hidden from sight remains.

All there is is what there always is: alternative innocent explanations. And they count for nothing, since the nature of circumstantial evidence is precisely that: evidence where alternative innocent explanations can always be provided, more or less likely.