Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

you'd figure a weighty social event would require his best digs - but okay.

I suspect Charles Allen did wear his best digs for weighty social events, like weddings. What does that have to do with him being a witness at an inquest?

[Geddy2112]

I suspect Charles Allen did wear his best digs for weighty social events, like weddings. What does that have to do with him being a witness at an inquest?

Even if he walked in bollock naked I'm still not sure how it would point to him being a serial killer. The depths some stoop is astounding.

[A P Tomlinson]

The issues of the address and the apron are simply clutching at straws in order to try and make as long a list of "things" they can in the hope that someone says, "OK... that one WAS odd" at which point they can claim victory, and that conceding any point means you have conceded that he was The Ripper.

If giving ones name was a part of the inquest process and he "refused to give his name" Wynne Baxter would have demanded it, and further refusals would have led to him being sanctioned.

If wearing a work apron to an inquest were bad form, or deemed as rude or disrespectful Wynne Baxter would have said so and made some scathing, sarcastic comment. The newspapers would also have taken delight at repeating that and throwing a comment of tehir own in.

The press mentioning what he was wearing without commenting on it being inappropriate shows that it was NOT inappropriate. Pretedning to "read between the lines" by suggesting that mentioning it WAS commenting on it being inappropriate is feeble.

[Mike J. G.]

Advocates of Lechmere have to intentionally try to make him sound more suspicious than he ever was... That's why the general argument from any poster on any thread or forum who champions Lechmere as the killer usually consists of...

It was Lechmere! I can't believe you didn't know this. You obviously haven't researched this case, because if you had, you'd see that he was caught crouching over a freshly killed woman. He lied to the police. He gave a fake name at the inquest. And he lived and worked on the murder routes! No other suspect comes close!

Which, when actually broken down and properly analysed, is nothing short of absolute bollocks.

And don't get me wrong, I have to question anyone who is absolutely convinced of any person being the murderer. We'll simply never know for sure who it was, and that's okay. There's simply not enough evidence to be convinced of anyone's guilt.

I've tried to give the Lechmere crowd as much benefit of the doubt as I could, and the argument is simply just pretty weak. He's a bloke who found a body. Many blokes found many bodies, they're all interesting people in their own right, but are they what you'd call persons of interest as far as suspicion goes? Not in my opinion. There are far better suspects, but none of them can ever be placed at any of the crimes, and while Lechmere can be placed at the scene of ONE crime, there's absolutely zero evidence of him ever having committed any crime.

[rjpalmer]

If wearing a work apron to an inquest were bad form, or deemed as rude or disrespectful Wynne Baxter would have said so and made some scathing, sarcastic comment. The newspapers would also have taken delight at repeating that and throwing a comment of tehir own in.

The press mentioning what he was wearing without commenting on it being inappropriate shows that it was NOT inappropriate. Pretedning to "read between the lines" by suggesting that mentioning it WAS commenting on it being inappropriate is feeble.

I suspect that showing up in work clothes was far more common than the Lechmere enthusiasts would have us believe, and as has been mentioned before, the ELO (in particular) often described shabbily dressed people. At least some of the Lechmere enthusiasts also appear to be under the impression that these were highly formal and austere occasions, when many Victorian inquests were held in pubs or even in music halls, which may well have lowered expectations in the minds of the witnesses.

Here's an account of an exasperated coroner in Dover in January 1894. If even jurymen showed up in their work aprons, one can only imagine how frequent it was for witnesses to do the same.




As for Wynne Baxter, he had probably given up or had grown used to it.

[Fiver]

I've tried to give the Lechmere crowd as much benefit of the doubt as I could, and the argument is simply just pretty weak. He's a bloke who found a body. Many blokes found many bodies, they're all interesting people in their own right, but are they what you'd call persons of interest as far as suspicion goes? Not in my opinion. There are far better suspects, but none of them can ever be placed at any of the crimes, and while Lechmere can be placed at the scene of ONE crime, there's absolutely zero evidence of him ever having committed any crime.

Agreed. Finding the body makes him a better suspect than many, but there wasn't just one body. Based on the testimony of three witnesses, Chapman was killed after Lechmere started work. Killing Stride and Eddowes would have meant staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off.

[Geddy2112]

Advocates of Lechmere have to intentionally try to make him sound more suspicious than he ever was... That's why the general argument from any poster on any thread or forum who champions Lechmere as the killer usually consists of...

It was Lechmere! I can't believe you didn't know this. You obviously haven't researched this case, because if you had, you'd see that he was caught crouching over a freshly killed woman. He lied to the police. He gave a fake name at the inquest. And he lived and worked on the murder routes! No other suspect comes close!

Yes and the fibs have been going on for too long -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9512928/Was-Jack-the-Ripper-a-cart-driver-from-Bethnal-Green.html

Cross was discovered crouching over the body by a witness Robert Paul. He told police he had been walking through Bucks Row on his way to Pickfords’ depot in Broad Street at around 3am when he found the body of Nichols.

Robert Paul never said that and he was not on his way to Pickfords' he worked somewhere else

Paul claimed he had seen Cross standing by the body of Nichols when he had arrived

Which of course contradicts the quote above but sorry, it should be middle of the road guv'nor...

And all the subsequent murders took place between his home in Doveton Street in Bethnal Green and his work at Broad Street at times when he would have been walking to work.

Nope... Chapman out of hours, Kelly not a work day, Berner St and Mitre square not on those routes... not a bad quote though for near 100% false.

Mr Stow said: "We think it Charles Cross, the first person who found that first body. He was seen crouching over Polly Nichols and he was trying to cover up some of the wounds."

Nope...

[Georgeb]

I suspect that showing up in work clothes was far more common than the Lechmere enthusiasts would have us believe, and as has been mentioned before, the ELO (in particular) often described shabbily dressed people. At least some of the Lechmere enthusiasts also appear to be under the impression that these were highly formal and austere occasions, when many Victorian inquests were held in pubs or even in music halls, which may well have lowered expectations in the minds of the witnesses.

Here's an account of an exasperated coroner in Dover in January 1894. If even jurymen showed up in their work aprons, one can only imagine how frequent it was for witnesses to do the same.




As for Wynne Baxter, he had probably given up or had grown used to it.

I was a docker many moons ago. I had to give evidence in court over an accident at work. I worked to lunch time then went to court in my work clothes. A working man will attend court in work clothes so he doesn't lose a day's pay. That does not indicate he was the Ripper

To me the issue that clears Cross is when he refused to touch the body. Surely he would have been anxious to touch the body and have an excuse for any blood on him.

[Lewis C]

Advocates of Lechmere have to intentionally try to make him sound more suspicious than he ever was... That's why the general argument from any poster on any thread or forum who champions Lechmere as the killer usually consists of...

It was Lechmere! I can't believe you didn't know this. You obviously haven't researched this case, because if you had, you'd see that he was caught crouching over a freshly killed woman. He lied to the police. He gave a fake name at the inquest. And he lived and worked on the murder routes! No other suspect comes close!

Which, when actually broken down and properly analysed, is nothing short of absolute bollocks.

And don't get me wrong, I have to question anyone who is absolutely convinced of any person being the murderer. We'll simply never know for sure who it was, and that's okay. There's simply not enough evidence to be convinced of anyone's guilt.

I've tried to give the Lechmere crowd as much benefit of the doubt as I could, and the argument is simply just pretty weak. He's a bloke who found a body. Many blokes found many bodies, they're all interesting people in their own right, but are they what you'd call persons of interest as far as suspicion goes? Not in my opinion. There are far better suspects, but none of them can ever be placed at any of the crimes, and while Lechmere can be placed at the scene of ONE crime, there's absolutely zero evidence of him ever having committed any crime.

Hi Mike,

I would suggest that there is a better suspect than Lechmere that can be placed at the scene of a crime: George Hutchinson. I don't think that he's quite the best suspect overall, just the best of those that can be placed at the scene of a crime.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was a docker many moons ago. I had to give evidence in court over an accident at work. I worked to lunch time then went to court in my work clothes. A working man will attend court in work clothes so he doesn't lose a day's pay. That does not indicate he was the Ripper

To me the issue that clears Cross is when he refused to touch the body. Surely he would have been anxious to touch the body and have an excuse for any blood on him.

Good to see an example from the modern era George. And the need not to lose a days work would have been far more important to an 19th century East Ender like Cross.

The point about the blood is also a good one. And how many of us, who have no medical training or who are a bit squeamish, wouldn’t have wanted to touch a body. I was recently reading about the Hanratty case where a horror had to be released from duty because he fainted every time someone mentioned blood.

These are non-suspicious incidents that everyone can see are non-suspicious but they are already woven into the narrative.

[Geddy2112]

I was a docker many moons ago. I had to give evidence in court over an accident at work. I worked to lunch time then went to court in my work clothes. A working man will attend court in work clothes so he doesn't lose a day's pay. That does not indicate he was the Ripper

To me the issue that clears Cross is when he refused to touch the body. Surely he would have been anxious to touch the body and have an excuse for any blood on him.

For many years I was a union rep, representing teachers, T.A.s etc etc. I often turned up to court in my suit, which incidentally was my work clothes. (Crap, that does not actually prove a point does it..)

[A P Tomlinson]

Good to see an example from the modern era George. And the need not to lose a days work would have been far more important to an 19th century East Ender like Cross.

The point about the blood is also a good one. And how many of us, who have no medical training or who are a bit squeamish, wouldn’t have wanted to touch a body. I was recently reading about the Hanratty case where a horror had to be released from duty because he fainted every time someone mentioned blood.

These are non-suspicious incidents that everyone can see are non-suspicious but they are already woven into the narrative.

The point about him not touching the body, or "refusing to help a poor woman in distress" is one of the second tier of "evidence" they present, once you explain the stuff about "No he wasn't standing over the body, no he didn't lie to Mizen and nothing he said, did or wore at the inquest is either unusual or suggestive of nefarious intent..."

"He refused to touch the body..." and when you point out that a) HE was the one who brought that point up at the inquest, and that b) offering to help move her would have been the most logical and pragmatic thing to do (if he were the killer,) now that he has deliberately contrived this scenario where instead of simply... walking away... he has decided to "Bluff" a stranger in the night into spotting his murder victim and then joining him in the examination of it. There is no way on God's green Earth that he was standing there talking to Paul, so soon after eviscerating a human being with clean hands. Lifting her up would have given him the prefect excuse for having blood on his hands or sleeves. But he LETS Paul touch her, and doesn't suggest not doing so.

This is just another of the stupid risks he had to have taken. If Paul examines the body and pulls his hand away covered in blood, the casual walk to work DOES suddenly become a matter of urgency and the Police need to be called. Paul is not going to let Cross bugger off, because he would need corroboration that he hadn't done it. And if he just does a runner at that point, Paul has a decent description of him to give the Police.

Once you've been through that it tends to devolve into; cat meat, leaving bodies in the shape of a cross, and ley lines...

[John Wheat]

This is a frankly ridiculous thread. The idea that you have to prove someone innocent is the wrong way round. It's to prove someone guilty. However despite this Lechmere has been proven innocent to all but the most pigheaded Lechmerians.

[Geddy2112]

Once you've been through that it tends to devolve into; cat meat, leaving bodies in the shape of a cross, and ley lines...

Or the convoluted blood evidence, the 'on his way to work when all the murders happened' and his mother's address. There is of course the Tiger if you listen to Ed, the tiger is vital in proving one's guilt.

[Lewis C]

This is a frankly ridiculous thread. The idea that you have to prove someone innocent is the wrong way round. It's to prove someone guilty. However despite this Lechmere has been proven innocent to all but the most pigheaded Lechmerians.

Hi John,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Cross has been proven innocent, but if we were to randomly pick a man from the census record who lived in Whitechapel and was in his 20's or 30's at the time of the murders, chances are we wouldn't be able to prove that man innocent either.