Evidence of innocence

[Doctored Whatsit]

How easy would it have been for him to remove his apron and roll it up?

Why is this important?

[MrBarnett]

Why is this important?

What a strange question.

[Doctored Whatsit]

What a strange question.

If Lechmere was working that day, he would not have been wearing his best suit underneath his apron, but some old clothes which would very likely have been more unsightly than his apron. Why would he want to remove his apron to reveal his working clothes? I don't understand why he should do this.

[Mark J D]

... I hadn't even thought of the possibility that he may have been unaware of the Lloyd's article...

Only one person from the Broad Street depot would need to have read it on the Sunday for it to be all over Pickfords on the Monday.

M.

[JeffHamm]

Great post Jeff. I hadn't even thought of the possibility that he may have been unaware of the Lloyd's article.

Cheers, George

Thanks George.

Yah, while we know of the Lloyd's article, and have all read it (many times probably), we have to remember that we will read every snippet in every paper if we can, while people of the day will in all probability either read one paper, not necessarily every day, and if that paper isn't Lloyds then they may never know about it.

On the other hand, word of mouth about the murders would indeed spread, so even someone who never reads a paper will still have heard of the murders. But what they will hear won't be a transcript of any particular article, but some sort of blended version, where the highlights, or most "retellable" statements get mashed together into some sort of "meta story".

What I mean is, I think it would be hard to defend the notion that Cross/Lechmere was completely unaware that there had been a murder in Buck's Row, and that the woman had been cut open, etc. That information will have spread, with various distortions as to how grizzly the scene was. How the Lloyd's article might appear in such a conglomerate of sources is impossible to know (we don't actually have those blended word of mouth stories after all, and anyway, each one will vary depending upon oration skills and styles of the person spreading the news - they aren't acting like "keepers of the word" where oral histories are to be retold in some exact format after all.

My instincts, however, suggest that the Lloyd's article would have relatively little impact on such a meta story. The details would be pedantic with regards to the gossip - the focus would be on the fact there was another murder with horrendous injuries. The Lloyd's article, if it contributed at all, would probably reduce down to "and she was found by a fellow just walking to work ..." (because Paul really downplays Cross/Lechmere's presence it's possible it gets retold as if only one carmen found her; but of course it might be "and she was found by a couple fellows ....", we don't know). Other than that, most of the details (times, etc) would tend to get glossed over I suspect.

So I have no doubt that Cross/Lechmere heard of the murder, and while technically I can't say that is proven I think the odds of him not hearing the hot gossip of the day is so low that we can set aside that notion. If he heard of this grizzly murder, which through retelling presents the woman as horribly mutilated upon discovery, and he realizes it is the woman he saw and that she was not (to his knowledge) mutilated at that time, that alone could result in him deciding to go to the police. For example he might think he should report how she didn't appear to have been cut open when he found her because in his mind the killer must have returned to the scene after he left, etc.

I'm just presenting some speculations here to illustrate how upon entering the unknown we can formulate any series of events, any set of "thoughts" characters might have, any set of "motivations" for their actions, once we decide which outcome our story has to reach (guilt or innocence). I'm not suggesting the above was what happened, or what was his motivation, rather the above is just one of an infinite number of possibilities that we can think of, which means any particular line of speculation, no matter how appealing it might be to us, is just one of an infinite number of possibilities, and so we have no reason to believe it is the one single line of events that actually did happen. One of the ways to take stock of what we know is to first recognize what we don't know.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Only one person from the Broad Street depot would need to have read it on the Sunday for it to be all over Pickfords on the Monday.

M.

Hi Mark,

There was nothing in the Lloyds article to connect Paul's statement to Cross/Lechmere or to Pickfords.

Cheers, George

[drstrange169]

>>How easy would it have been for him to remove his apron and roll it up?<<

If ease was the criteria, keeping it on wins hands down.

How do we know the police didn't ask him to keep it on for the Mizen identification?

[Mark J D]

There was nothing in the Lloyds article to connect Paul's statement to Cross/Lechmere or to Pickfords.

No. But just think about it: Lechmere will have turned up at Pickfords seriously late on the Friday with an excuse about about 'finding a woman in the street and going with another man to tell a copper' which was flatly contradicted by every newspaper report on that day and Saturday.

M.

[drstrange169]

Except there is no evidence Cross turned up late, quite the opposite.

The Star was circulating a story of two men finding the body first on the Friday. By Saturday morning, newspapers along the line from Scotland to Broad Street were reprinting the Star story.

Given Paul seems to have liked telling his story, how many people at Covent Garden would have heard it. Did Carmen from Broad Street go to Covent Garden I wonder?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

No. But just think about it: Lechmere will have turned up at Pickfords seriously late on the Friday with an excuse about about 'finding a woman in the street and going with another man to tell a copper' which was flatly contradicted by every newspaper report on that day and Saturday.

M.

I thought the whole point of the Mizen scam was to escape into anonymity?

[JeffHamm]

I thought the whole point of the Mizen scam was to escape into anonymity?

He told them it was a secret.

- Jeff

[Mark J D]

Except there is no evidence Cross turned up late, quite the opposite.

The Star was circulating a story of two men finding the body first on the Friday. By Saturday morning, newspapers along the line from Scotland to Broad Street were reprinting the Star story.

Given Paul seems to have liked telling his story, how many people at Covent Garden would have heard it. Did Carmen from Broad Street go to Covent Garden I wonder?

Does anyone want to tidy up this mess? After the guff about Nichols' stays the other day, this guy is no longer on the list of people I bother with.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is it being suggested that Lechmere would have got to work late?

[drstrange169]

>>Does anyone want to tidy up this mess? <<

Are you ever going to contribute anything more than insults?

Presumably you just don't know about the earlier reports about two men finding the body.

[JeffHamm]

>>Does anyone want to tidy up this mess? <<

Are you ever going to contribute anything more than insults?

Presumably you just don't know about the earlier reports about two men finding the body.

Interesting. What newspaper is that from? I've gone through the press section on Casebook, but haven't been able to locate it.

- Jeff