Evidence of innocence

[DJA]

Then he walked off into Anonymity.

Is that anywhere near Romford?

[Scott Nelson]

Well, no. How about his bolt hole at #6 Mitre Street?

[DJA]

It was very nice,except for the noise of the cop coming and going every 12 minutes or so at night.

[Dickere]

Is that anywhere near Romford?

Lol. Anonymity is just before Romford.

[DJA]

A late great footballer,Jack Dyer,used to have a newspaper column called "Dyer 'ere".

A relative perchance

[Mark J D]

Then he walked off into anonymity.

No, he walked off into *pseudonymity*.

Which is why it took until the 21st century to unearth who he really was.

Mark D.

[Fiver]

Ah, now I understand what you're getting at. I'm not saying, and I don't think I ever have said, it's impossible for him to stay if he's guilty, only that such accounts are far far less common, it's the far more improbable decision and therefore a theory that hinges upon it is the far more improbable theory. Even in the story you suggest, the person ends up fleeing after all, because as your event illustrates, sticking around to talk your way out runs the risk of not being believed. And for C/L, his "cover story" is only going to be believed if Paul hasn't seen him move away from the body in the first place. Now while we know Paul hasn't see him move, at the time C/L has to make this decision he wouldn't know that would be the outcome unless it is so dark he can safely make that assumption.

So C/L's decision to move away from the body to the middle of the street, even if it's only 4m rather than the 12 that has been suggested, would suggest he's pretty sure Paul won't see him move into that position otherwise, his story, as he really plays it out - I'm just standing here in the middle of the street and just found this woman - would never work. But if he knows he can't be seen (or feels that is highly likely to be the case), then he can flee knowing that all that Paul might notice are some footsteps, and maybe some movement due to the faster pace, but he'll have nothing in the way of a description. And once he rounds the corner, he knows his direction of flight will not be observed. It's clearly the less risky option, therefore far safer, which is why it is the far more common option, even if not universal (and generally, those that try and talk themselves out, are in a situation where the witness has suddenly come upon them and is right there in their face already, not 120 feet away in the dark). C/L also has to be concerned that Paul might realise nobody was ahead of him, so he'll have to say he was coming up the street. That might make for problems if they meet a PC and have to explain themselves and more detailed statements than PC Mizen took get recorded. Particularly if Paul ends up realising that Nichols is dead (which C/L can't guarentee he won't find out).

The greater the amount of engagement a guilty C/L has with Paul the greater the risk that Paul is going to become suspicious of him and find out that Nichols is dead. Of course, Paul appears to be trying to avoid him, so at that point a guilty C/L has to make another decision, and he decides that letting Paul pass is more risky than getting Paul to view the body (which in this line of speculation, C/L knows is dead, with her head almost removed). When they agree to go seek a police man, he has another decision to make upon exiting Buck's Row, he has to decide to continue to walk with Paul to look for a policeman rather than suggesting he head south to Whitechappel (for it's relative safety for him) and let Paul go north (where of course Paul would find PC Mizen and C/L vanishes; carmen, name unknown, but also looking for a policeman). etc.

Every time a guilty C/L has a decision to make, the one he does make is always the more risky one for a guilty C/L. It's improbable (not impossible) decision after improbable decision, and that is really not very convincing. All of those decisions we know he does make, however, are very natural ones for an innocent C/L to make.

- Jeff

This is a good, though incomplete list.

C/L also had a decision to make when Paul suggested propping up the body. Agreeing to do it is the less risky decision for a guilty man, since it would provide an innocent explanation for any blood on a guilty man's clothes.

The other decision is C/L choosing to walk several blocks with Paul after they have spoken with PC Mizen. The more time he spends with Paul, a more likrly Paul is to ask questions like his name or where he works and the better Paul will remember him. It's yet another improbable action for a guilty man to take.

[Fiver]

-He was at the murder site at a time that is consistent with being the killer.

Or with having disturbed the killer.

-He was seemingly not heard or seen by Paul.

This is incorrect. Paul clearly testified to seeing Lechmere, we just don't know at what distance. Paul was never asked if he heard Lechmere before he saw him.

-The wounds were hidden from sight.

This is incorrect. According to Paul, he pulled down the victim's clothes. And according to PC Neil, he had to use his lamp to see the neck wound.

-He gave a name he otherwise never used with the authorities.

This is incorrect. He also used the name Cross at a previous inquest where he accidentally ran over a child.

-He passed right throught the killing fields on his morning treks.

As did Robert Paul and hundreds of other men.

--He disagreed with a serving PC about what was said in between the two.

As did Robert Paul.

-The version the PC suggested was one that is consistent with a wish to circumvent the police.

That is speculation on your part.

-According to the PC, he did not mention how serious the errand was.

PC Mizen's version clearly shows he thought it was serious enough to leave his beat.

-He refused to help prop Nichols up on Pauls proposal.

This continues to point towards Lechmere's innocence. The smart thing for a guilty man to do was to prop the body up as it would provide an innocent explanation for any blood on hands or clothing and a witness to support that innocent explanation.

-Nichols bled for at least around nine minutes after Lechmere left her.

That is an assumption on your part, based on vague questions you made to doctors. In fact, if people bled to death as fast as you have speculated, Nichols must have been killed after Lechmere and Cross left her.

-He said he left home at around 3.20 or 3.30, neither of which times is in keeping with being in Bucks Row at 3.40 and much less so at 3.45.

This is incorrect. Leaving around 3:30 is in keeping with being in Buck's Row at about 3:40 and fits with the time estimates of PC Mizen, PC MNeil, and PC Thain. The only time estimate that doesn't fit with the other 4 estimates is Robert Paul, whose number doesn't match with the time estimates of any of the three police officers.

[Fiver]

In Lechmeres case, we have a "finder" who does his "finding" ALONE, which separates him from very many people.

Finding "Alone" matches all of the C5 and more.

John Reeves was alone when he found Martha Tabram's body.
PC John Neil was alone when he found Polly Nichol's body.
John Davis was alone when he found Annie Chapman's body.
Louis Diemschutz was alone when he found Elizabeth Stride's body.
PC Edward Watkins was alone when he found Catherine Eddowes' body.
Thomas Bowyer was alone when he found Mary Jane Kelly's body.
PC Walter Andrews was alone when he found Alice McKenzie's body. (Her body continued to bleed for more than 20 minutes after it was found.)

Your trying to use this non-existent difference to imply Lechmere's guilt says more about you than it does about Lechmere.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Fiver;n796655]

Finding "Alone" matches all of the C5 and more.

John Reeves was alone when he found Martha Tabram's body.
PC John Neil was alone when he found Polly Nichol's body.
John Davis was alone when he found Annie Chapman's body.
Louis Diemschutz was alone when he found Elizabeth Stride's body.
PC Edward Watkins was alone when he found Catherine Eddowes' body.
Thomas Bowyer was alone when he found Mary Jane Kelly's body.
PC Walter Andrews was alone when he found Alice McKenzie's body. (Her body continued to bleed for more than 20 minutes after it was found.)

Your trying to use this non-existent difference to imply Lechmere's guilt says more about you than it does about Lechmere.

QUOTE]

hi fiver
you are quite correct. i dont know if fish mis spoke but i think the point he was trying to get across is that lech is the only witness that found a body who was SEEN alone with the victim.

its a point that sticks with me because its very rare and yes odd. ive never heard in the annals of true crime of an innocent witness who was seen alone with a dead victim before raising any kind of alarm.

[Fiver]

This is an interesting article. Looks like Bucks Row was better lit than I thought. It makes Paul not seeing Lechmere walking ahead even more improbable.
So as Paul is walking up Bucks Row where is Lechmere?
I would say Lechmere’s version of finding the body is clearly a fabrication.




Evening News
London, U.K.
7 September 1888

FIFTH EDITION.
THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
WATCHING BUCK'S ROW.
This morning, at one o'clock, two reporters commenced a watch in Buck's-row, which terminated at eleven o'clock, and from what they then observed, coupled with the evidence already given, they came to the conclusion that the police are altogether wrong in their assumption that the murder was committed on the spot where the body was found. This seems to be absolutely impossible, for the following reasons. In the first place, Buck's-row is a decently wide thoroughfare, running at right angles from Baker's-row to Brady-street. Buck's-row is in every sense thoroughly respectable, every tenant being an old inhabitant, and of good class. In addition to well-to-do artisans, the row contains a mission hall, the factory of Messrs. Schneider and Sons, and the factories and warehouses of Messrs. Torr, and Browne and Eagle, together with the private residence of the Rev. Henry North Hall, the curate of St. Mary, Whitechapel. There are watchmen at night at these factories, and many of the private residents were awake at the time the deceased was murdered, but none heard any cries for help on Friday morning.
It has been stated that the street is a dark one, but this is altogether wrong, for it is well lighted at all hours of the night by the great lamps outside the [Albion] brewery of Messrs. Mann and Crossman, in addition to the ordinary street lamps, and it seems inconceivable that such a well-lighted street would be selected for the crime.
WINTHROP STREET.
Winthrop Street, on the other hand, is very narrow and very dark, and tenanted by many of the worst characters in London, and there seems to be no doubt whatever that the murder was committed there, and the body brought round the corner and left a few yards up Buck's-row. The extensive nature of the injuries and the absence of blood in Buck's-row, as proved by the police, also goes to show that the murder was not committed there, and if this be so there was probably a second party cognisant of the murder, if not a participator in it. It may be stated that a thorough search of the houses in Winthrop-street has not been made by the police yet, and there is good reason to believe that had this been done at the outset a clue to the murder and the actual spot where it took place would have been discovered.
POLICE BEATS.
The police system of particular beats and regular time for certain constables to be upon those beats is thoroughly well-known by the criminal classes, and the medical evidence gives colour to the theory that Constable Neil was watched, and the moment he had passed through Buck's-row the body was carried there and left where he found it half an hour afterwards on his return along that beat; and as the body was not cold the murder was committed perhaps three-quarters of an hour before the discovery of the victim.
The whole of the inhabitants of Buck's-row are of one opinion, viz., that the murder was not done there, and as many of them know the locality well, having lived there for 20 or 30 years (the youngest inhabitant three years), some respect might, it is thought, be shown to their knowledge.

Unfortunately for the reporters and your theory, Charles Lechmere's statement about hoe dark it was is supported by several other witnesses.

"It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away.." - PC John Neil

"It was dark at the time." - Dr Henry Llewellyn

"It was too dark to see the blood about her" - Robert Paul

[Fiver]

Not sure. The photo I have has been coloured and he looks fair haired but I don’t know for sure. However, there is clearly a birth mark or similar on his left cheek. I think the blotchy / ruddy / sunburned complexion mentioned by some witnesses fits with Lechmere.

A birthmark that doesn't seem to exist in the uncolorized photo.

https://www.ancestry.com/mediaui-viewer/collection/1030/tree/161380527/person/132278452604/media/72426d05-feac-4be9-b3fc-a4493c4d80b8?src=search

[Fiver]

You will be missed, Christer.

How can you miss someone who never actually leaves?

[Fiver]

The apron thing is easy to gloss over, but it is significant in my view. Why did carmen wear aprons? To protect them from horse ****. Isn’t it a bit odd that he didn’t remove his apron and leave it at work? Or even just roll it up and carry it under his arm?

In what bizzaro world does wearing an apron imply guilt?

[Fiver]

aparently some have such a phobia against lech that they cant grasp the concept that criminals use aliases to avoid detection lol.

Lechmere did use an alias, but he did not use that alias to avoid detection - he gtold the police his home address and where he worked.