Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

I think that Lechmere would probably have made a statement to the police before the inquest, otherwise the coroner might not wish to call him with no knowledge of what his evidence might be.

Absolutely - they must have secured that Lechmere was probably what he said he was. But the question is when they did so. And apparently, they were not able to be 100 per cent certain, since Mizen was asked to formally identify him as he was led into the court room.

I also think that Mizen identifying him as the man he saw would be routine procedure before Lechmere gave evidence in order to confirm his evidence was valid.

Then you agree with me that the police would not have been able to be certain that he was what he said he was. It required an identification from Mizens side. And yes, of course such a thing would be standard procedure - but it certainly was not standard procedure that it took place before the inquest! Take Paul for instance - he was not identified before the inquest, was he? The prudent thing would be to ensure this matter BEFORE adding a person to the inquest proceedings, which is why I say that it seems that Lechmere only arrived to the inquest as it was more or less under way.

His presence in working clothes presumably meant he had done some work, but obviously not a full shift, so therefore it must have been arranged with Pickfords.

Of course it must not have been pre arranged with Pickfords. That´s just wrong. Why could he not have noted the date and time for the inquest and gone ther on his own account?
I am not saying that this must have been so, but I Am saying that there is no must about it at all, the way you propose.

I agree that Paul almost certainly did not make himself available.

That seems to be the case, yes. Once again we find a little something to agree on - lucky us!

[Dickere]

You may have a point there, generally speaking at least. But people are different, somea re more curiious than others, some less inclined to help out and so on. What I think may bolster your take is how Lechmere later in the process declined to help Paul prop Nichols up, saying that he would not touch her. If he was so disinclined to help a person lying on the pavement, then it seems a bit odd that he would stop in the first place

It´s full of anomalies, his story ...

Stop here Paul, come and look at this woman. I'm not touching her though, you do that.

So he stopped just for a look did he ? You'd think that someone with his job would be less squeamish than that.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Christer,

In #811 you wrote "Of course it must not have been arranged with Pickfords. That's just wrong". It would have been part way through his shift if he hadn't arranged something with Pickfords, and he would have had to park his horse and cart and load outside the court. I'm reasonably sure that this was unlikely. Or are you saying that he took the day off of his own choice, but still turned up in his working clothes?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

In #811 you wrote "Of course it must not have been arranged with Pickfords. That's just wrong". It would have been part way through his shift if he hadn't arranged something with Pickfords, and he would have had to park his horse and cart and load outside the court. I'm reasonably sure that this was unlikely. Or are you saying that he took the day off of his own choice, but still turned up in his working clothes?

I am saying that neither of us knows. Which was why I wrote that it is not a given that he arranged the inquest visit with Pickfords.

[Harry D]

Fisherman, in your view, what would Lechmere have to do in Buck’s Row to convince you of his innocence? Putting aside all the ancillaries about his name, work route etc.

Genuinely curious.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, in your view, what would Lechmere have to do in Buck’s Row to convince you of his innocence? Putting aside all the ancillaries about his name, work route etc.

Genuinely curious.

That´s an odd question, isn´t it? What would Lechmere have to do to convince me of his innocence? Are you asking me to identify an act of sorts that would more or less guarantee innocence? If that is what you are after, then I´d say that unless this act PROVED innocence, it could always be interpreted as an effort by Lechmere to clear himself.

Let me explain!

My money is on Lechmere being a psychopath. Psychopaths are very likely to try and con people and play games, if you like.

So let´s imagine that Charles Lechmere was recorded as shouting at the top of his voice in Buck´s Row:

"Hey, there´s a woman who needs help out here, she seems to be in a bad way! Anybody!!"

And then, when say Walter Purkiss opened his window and asked what was afoot, Lechmere would go "Please get out here quickly and see what you can do for this woman, while I run for help!"

At this stage, Paul would have arrived, and we can imagine that Lechmere would have directed him to go looking for a policeman in the other direction from the one he took himself, saying "Run, man, quickly! I believe the woman needs help swiftly!"

And then he would run off himself like a scolded troll, find Mizen and usher him towards the murder site, all the while going "Please, constable, quicker!".

These would all be acts that seem very consistent with a hearfelt wish on Lechmere´s behalf to do all he could for the woman. But if we nevertheless had evidence of the same magnitude as we have in the actual case, I would point to the possibility that a clever psychopath who really wanted to clear himself would have understood that staging all of these helpful acts in the shape of a charade could well help his cause - nobody would in their wildest dreams think that he did it with these inclusions, right?

I guess what I am trying to say here is that a person who decides to con his way out of a spot the way I think Lechmere did, would perhaps be quite likely to add inclusion to that process that would implicate innocence. Any such thing would help him a lot at, say, an inquest.

I realize that people may (or, in some cases: will) go "Damn Fisherman, he is so hellbent on Lechmere´s guilt that he is going to look away from any sign of innocence, no matter what!"

I trust (and pray) you are too alert and conscious about matters to fall into that trap. With any luck, you are able to see exactly what I am pointing to.

At the end of the day, the one thing that would make me feel that he was innocent would be transformations of the existing evidence, like for example if it was proven that Paul always saw Lechmere and could vouch for how he could not be the killer. I would want him not to have done the things he did; the name swap, the refusal to prop Nichols up, the work trek through the killing fields, the disagreement with Mizen etcetera, etcetera. That´s what I would want to see to speak of a likely innocent man.

[caz]

As I already described above (and umpteen times before that over the years), there was ample reason for Lechmere to try and save his bacon before the cops came looking for him.

But this is a contradiction, Fishy. If Lechmere was unable to feel fear or panic, why would he feel any need to 'try and save his bacon' in this way? If the cops read Paul's article and knew the woman had not been dead for some time, as you argue, they'd have Paul down as a liar who might therefore be trying to save his bacon, by claiming the other 'man' was there first and that he'd left him at the scene while good old Paul went to find the nearest copper. They only had Paul's dodgy word for it that he hadn't been found by this other man 'standing over' the body.

If the cops had come looking for Paul's other 'man', just as they came looking for Paul himself, how would they have gone about their search? And so what if they had managed to find him, based purely on descriptions given by Paul the liar and PC Mizen, who had failed to take either man's details and hadn't exactly dashed off to save the woman's bacon? Paul was far easier to track down and he had apparently lied in his press interview about the woman being cold. What on earth would Lechmere have had to fear - if only he had been able to feel fear?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Hmmm, I get that, but to be fair to Fisherman's idea, he states as a premise that Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath. Seeing Paul take all the credit and leave him out of the picture nearly altogether, could easily spark a desire to grab the limelight (it's bravado, not bravery). If Cross/Lechmere had pulled the con of the century, got Paul to assist him, then wondered off together to find PC Mizen, where he then proceeds to pull the Mizen Scam, and saunters off to work with bloody blade in tow, only then to see Paul make out like a bandit and steal all the attention, claiming discovery, claiming to be the big talker to PC Mizen, and so forth, he might very well come out of the shadows because he needs to ensure nobody steals his glory. Paul is not going to steal his thunder. He should get credit for discovery, and for being the "good guy" who told the police, etc.

It put me in mind of Dennis Rader (BTK) as he is thought to have started communicating with the police again, after decades of silence, when a news story came out and noted how "nobody remembers BTK anymore" (or some such phrase). Rader couldn't stand it, and so started a cat and mouse game with the police and press, which eventually led to his capture and conviction. Had he not done that, he could have gone to his grave a free man and with his secret (well, until his box of photos and other trophies were found of course).

Anyway, I don't believe that's what Cross/Lechmere did, but when viewed from Christer's starting point, that Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath, then doing that totally unnecessary stunt would indeed be in keeping with publicity stunts made by other psychopaths when they see unflattering stories in the press.

I'm trying to remember another case, but I can't recall which one it is just now. All I can remember is that the police searched some country road as they had reason to believe they would find a body along it (a tip, or something like that - maybe thought to be from the killer?). Anyway, nothing was found after quite an extensive search. But then, the next day or so later, either they got a call telling them to look a bit further along (or on the other side of the road?) and when they did they found a body (or someone called in they had found a body a little further beyond?). Anyway, the police I think determined the body had been placed there after their search, and they think the killer did that to deliberately rub their noses in it (I think the person had been dead longer and may have moved the body from elsewhere to put it there?). Damn, sorry, I may have got something very wrong about this in the details, but in the end, however exactly it went specifically it was another good example of how pulling stunts to stroke their own egos is certainly not unheard of. I'll probably remember at some ungodly hour of the morning though. Sigh.

Sorry, I can't recall what case that 2nd story comes from, and my recollection of it is not great, so I'm sure I've got some bits wrong but I've tried to be general enough that any errors I may have made are not substantial enough to make a difference to our purposes here.

Still, I don't see any supportive evidence for the starting premise that Cross/Lechmere was a psychopath, so just because I could spin a story about how a psychopath might do that, doesn't mean he was. Because if he's a good enough fellow to stop and considering checking on someone passed out on the street, he might also feel he should testify to ensure the information presented to the inquest was accurate and it may have appeared to him the other guy wasn't going to do that.

Or he may have independantly gone to the police to make a statement. They found the body on Aug 31st, and he testifies at the inquest on Sept 3rd. He would have had to given a statement to the police before then, in order to appear on the inquest list. The Lloyd's article only comes out on the 2nd I think, so he would have to rush to the police, make his statement, and be selected by Baxter to testify the next day. Looking at the dates, I think he must have gone to the police upon hearing the gossip about the murder when he realized that was the woman he saw that morning. And Paul probably did the same around the same time as they both testify on the same day. It's just that Paul also spoke to the press as well.

Still, I could be wrong about that, and maybe he did read the Lloyds article on the 2nd and was able to get selected to testify the next day. That just seems unlikely to me, but then, I don't really know all the ins and outs of that system, so maybe it was more efficient that I suppose.

- Jeff

Nice post, Jeff.

What I think I'm trying to get at is how Christer goes from a psychopath like the one you describe, who wants the limelight and to become known as the 'good guy' who found the body and did the right thing, to a man who comes forward in order to 'try and save his bacon' before the police come looking for him.

Can it be both? I'm not sure.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

a decent human being dosnt leave a woman in obvious dire need lying on the street

Like Robert Paul did, you mean?

[Fisherman]

But this is a contradiction, Fishy

Is it? Or is that only your take on things? Let´s see!

If Lechmere was unable to feel fear or panic, why would he feel any need to 'try and save his bacon' in this way?

For the simple reason that people who are fearless are not necessarily therefore interested in having their lives terminated. To be fearless is not the same as having a death wish. Nor is not having a wish to die proof of fear. It is probably a practical matter to full-blown psychopaths. Once they are caught and sent to the gallows, they often enough retain the fearlessness. Like for example Carl Panzram, who told his exectutioner to hurry up. But overall, most serial killers arguably enjoy whay they do too much to want to see it ended.
I trust you can see the logic in this? Oh, and do weigh in that there will be levels in it, just as Hare suggests.

If the cops read Paul's article and knew the woman had not been dead for some time, as you argue, they'd have Paul down as a liar who might therefore be trying to save his bacon, by claiming the other 'man' was there first and that he'd left him at the scene while good old Paul went to find the nearest copper. They only had Paul's dodgy word for it that he hadn't been found by this other man 'standing over' the body.

In fact, the cops did not initially believe the article and Pauls claim to fame - but how do you propose that Lechmere would have been aware of that? The information only surfaced after the second day of the inquest had already started, and so Lechmere could not take advantage of it. Instead, as I say, he would have realized that if the police trusted Paul story, there was bacon to be saved.

If the cops had come looking for Paul's other 'man', just as they came looking for Paul himself, how would they have gone about their search?

That´s for the police to say. My guess, though, is that they would probably do what the Lloyds reporter likely did - stake out Bucks Row. They could also address the public and ask if anybody knew anything about a carman who passed through Bucks Row at around 3.40-3.50 in the mornings. The thing is, if these tactics - or any other tactic they chose to use - payded off for the police, Lechmere would look really bad for not having come forward. Although you seem unable to understand what he stood to gain from coming forward on his own account, I can assure you that others have no problem at all to do so.

And so what if they had managed to find him, based purely on descriptions given by Paul the liar and PC Mizen, who had failed to take either man's details and hadn't exactly dashed off to save the woman's bacon?

If Lechmere had told him that there was another PC in place and said nothing about any urgency, why WOULD Mizen think he had an urgent matter on hand? Any answer to that one?
To carry on, if he had not come forward, the police would have known that they were searching for a potential killer. If he had not come forward himself, Mizens version of events, with the carman lying about a second PC, would be what governed the hunt. Since he DID come forward, he was able to quench that fire before it burst out in any real flames.
Please tell me that you can see how that works, Caz?

Paul was far easier to track down and he had apparently lied in his press interview about the woman being cold. What on earth would Lechmere have had to fear - if only he had been able to feel fear?

Love,

Caz
X

See the above. Please.

[caz]

I think that Lechmere would probably have made a statement to the police before the inquest, otherwise the coroner might not wish to call him with no knowledge of what his evidence might be. I also think that Mizen identifying him as the man he saw would be routine procedure before Lechmere gave evidence in order to confirm his evidence was valid. His presence in working clothes presumably meant he had done some work, but obviously not a full shift, so therefore it must have been arranged with Pickfords. I agree that Paul almost certainly did not make himself available.

Hi DW,

I don't get the suspicion voiced by others over Lechmere appearing in his working clothes. If he started work promptly at 4am, he'd have been able to put in some hours before attending the inquest and then go straight back to work afterwards. Why would he have taken the time to go home and change his attire - twice - if he had no need and it wasn't expected of him?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Nice post, Jeff.

What I think I'm trying to get at is how Christer goes from a psychopath like the one you describe, who wants the limelight and to become known as the 'good guy' who found the body and did the right thing, to a man who comes forward in order to 'try and save his bacon' before the police come looking for him.

Can it be both? I'm not sure.

Love,

Caz
X

Of course it can be both. How can you NOT be sure? By coming forward and stealing the thunder, by revealing the police as jerks who got things wrong, by conning the inquest into believing that he was a stand up citizen, he saved his own behind and got a few good laughs along the way.

How hard can it be to understand? Which of these things is it you find hard to accept?
That psychopaths lie?
That they actually ENJOY lying and conning people?
That they are likely to try and stay unrevealed so that they may carry on their business?

Which is it?

Take another look at Dahmer and his Thai victim.

Dahmer approached the police, steps only from his apartment where he had some very odd cuts of meat in the fridge. There was a huge risk that he would get caught, but that did not deter him. Instead of panicking and running for the horizon (a parallel would be how Lechmere did not panic when Paul arrived but instead engaged him, a much less dangerous exercise that that of Dahmer), he cucumber-cooly said "Hi officers, I can explain this..." and was allowed to walk away with the boy.
Is your suggestion that since he was fearless, he should instead have said "I was the guy who drilled a hole in his head, arrest me, I am not afraid!"?

Dahmer got in a sticky place, but decided to be proactive before somebody took the boy to hospital and found that acid-filled hole in his skull, before the police had the time to understand that they needed to protect the boy and before anybody objected to his suggestion that he was the best caretaker around for the poor youth.

This is why it is such a good comparison to what I suggest on Lechmere´s behalf - quick thinking, no panic, no fear to engage anybody, the police included, a propensity to lie in a trustworthy manner, and getting allowed to surface and disappear without noone thinking anything but "What a stand up guy!".

So yes, it CAN be both.

[caz]

See the above. Please.

But overall, most serial killers arguably enjoy whay they do too much to want to see it ended.

Which is why I find it so unlikely that a psychopathic Lechmere would have risked his future enjoyment of murdering and mutilating more victims, by hanging around in Buck's Row, for the lesser thrill of pulling a stunt like that, when he could simply have walked away before Robert Paul got close enough to see that a woman was lying there, let alone able to see what the matter was and raise the alarm.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi DW,

I don't get the suspicion voiced by others over Lechmere appearing in his working clothes. If he started work promptly at 4am, he'd have been able to put in some hours before attending the inquest and then go straight back to work afterwards. Why would he have taken the time to go home and change his attire - twice - if he had no need and it wasn't expected of him?

Love,

Caz
X

Plus why would he go home and change his attire - twice - if he had the aim to con his wife into thinking that he was doing a normal day´s work?

Same, same - but different.

[Fiver]

It is often spoken about the onus of proof out here. If you are going to claim that Scobie, I or the film team are liars, twisters or misinformers, that onus rests firmly on your shoulders. When it comes to this calibre of accusations, I generally advice people to get the proof first and throw the accusations out later.

It easy to prove that the "documentary" is full incorrect statements and opinion presented as facts.

Just before Jame Scobie is quoted it said "He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols.. Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

"He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" - This statement is provably false. Robert Paul testified Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

"Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits." - This statement is based on fudging the times. It starts by using 3:20am, the time Lechmere usually left for work, instead of 3:30am, the time Lechmere testified he left for work. It further fudges the time by assuming a ten minute walk would take 7 minutes or less. It fudges the time a third time by ignoring the time estimates of Lechmere and of all three of the first policemen to arrive in favor of the time estimate of Robert Paul.

It also ignores that the Ripper inflicted far worse mutilations in Catherine Eddowes body in only about 10 minutes. If the Ripper had 18 minutes alone with Polly Nichols he could have inflicted all of the actual mutilations and been 10 minutes walk down the street by the time Robert Paul arrived. An 18 minute time gap contradicts the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper, interrupted in his work.

"Lechmere then lied to the police..." - Lechmere's testimony contradicted PC Mizen's testimony. If that's proof that Lechmere was the Ripper, then it also proves Robert Paul was the Ripper, since he also contradicted PC Mizzen. This whole phrase is based on "guilty until proven innocent". It assumes that Lechmere was lying while completely ignoring the possibilities of Mizen lying or Mizen misunderstanding what Lechmere said.

"...and gave false details at the inquest." - Lechmere gave no provably false details at the Inquest. He did use his stepfather's surname as he had done in 1876 in an accidental death case. It's not unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname. It is unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname part of the time and their father's surname part of the time, but Lechmere had started doing that at over a decade before the first Ripper murder. It does not prove that Lechemere "gave false details at the inquest", let alone that he was the Ripper.

"And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - this statement is provably false. Charles Lechmere's family moved to the area decades before the Ripper killings began.

"Wearing blood stained overalls..." - Carmen wore sack aprons. Nobody present at the time noticed bloodstains on Lechmere. Lechmere worked for Pickford's, not a meat packing plant, so a bloodstained apron would have been an occasional on-the-job hazard for those times he carried meat and it was improperly packed.

"...his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred." - this statement is provably false. Lechmere's job placed him at one of the killings around the time that it occurred - Polly Nichols. Martha Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work and might have been killed while he was walking to work. Annie Chapman was killed while Lechmere was at work. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed along Lechmere's route to work and they were not killed on work days.

Scobie said "The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically, you add all those points together, piece it all together and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects. What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

The timing do not hurt Lechmere. Lechmere did not act in a suspicious manner. Lechmere was not physically linked to a "pattern of offending". Lechmere was one of hundreds if not thousands who lived and worked in the area,It seems clear Scobie was fed a mix of false information and opinion masquerading as facts. As the old computer saying goes - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.