Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    Four?

    Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work. It was also near Robert Paul's route to work.

    Nichols was killed on Lechmere's route to work. It was also on Robert Paul's route to work.

    Chapman was killed on Lechmere's route to work. It was also on Robert Paul's route to work. And it was after both men were at work.

    So where is your fourth?

    Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed on Lechmere's route to work and were not killed on days that he worked. Just like Robert Paul.

    And Robert Paul shows your 1-in-5 million odds are bunk. Just like Charles Lechmere, three of the victims were killed on or near his route to work.
    Hi Fiver,

    The theory that Lechmere was JtR depends on so much more than the circumstantial evidence for him committing the Buck's Row murder and then trying to behave as an innocent man would. There has to be something of real substance - not just the geography and his known home and working life - to connect this same individual to more of the murders, before the case against him can even begin to stand up.

    Otherwise the psychopath supposition is just circular and doesn't even get off the ground in Buck's Row, never mind elsewhere.

    IF he was JtR he was a psychopath. Big deal.

    IF he was a psychopath he could have been JtR. Big deal.

    IF he killed Nichols, he killed others too. Big deal.

    IF he had the means, motive and opportunity to kill one, he may also have had the means, motive and opportunity to kill many more. Big deal.

    IF he had the motive and the capability to kill anyone, he might have done everything Christer accuses him of doing.

    But that last one is the biggest IF of all, and there is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to suggest this was part of the man's character.

    Love,

    Caz
    X


    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      I have not avoided a single question throughout my years here.


      You have repeatedly pointedly ignored these points before. You have not answered them.

      * Charles Lechmere made no attempt to hide his identity from the police. He contacted them and gave his real home and work addresses. Use of his stepfather's surname was unusual, but it did nothing to hide his identity from the police.

      * Charles Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen. So did Robert Paul. Your double standard is quite clear - two men do the exact same thing, yet it only "proves" one of them guilty. You assume guilt on Lechmere's part, ignoring the possibilities of PC Mizen lying or being mistaken. You also ignore that according to both PC Mizen and Robert Paul, Paul was a witness to the exchange between Mizen and Paul - if Lechmere was lying, Paul was his accomplice.

      * Robert Paul testified he pulled down Nichols clothing. This fact has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You ignoring the fact does not make it go away.

      * The timings are not off for Chrales Lechmere's trip to work. The testimonies of Charles Lechmere, PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain all put Lechmere and Paul at the murder site around 3:40am. But you ignore the Inquest testimony in favor of a lone newspaper article, the 2 September Lloyd's weekly. According to that article, Paul said "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row". The article is full of errors - it gets Paul's work address wrong and falsely claims that Paul left Lechmere with the body. It also claims the body was cold enough that Nichols would have been dead long before Paul or Lechmere found her.

      * The timings are off for your theory that Charles Lechmere was murdering on his way to work. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were murdered on days that Lechmere had the day off of work. Chapman was murdered after Lechmere started work for the day. The Pinchin Street Torso was deposited after Lechmere started work for the day.

      * Your failure to understand the difference between exsanguination and bleeding to death proves nothing. Neither does your failure to understand the meaning of the word "oozing".

      * There is no evidence that Lechmere had already touched Nichol's body. Nobody saw him touch the body. Nobody saw fresh bloodstains on on Lechmere's clothes or hands.

      * If Lechmere were guilty, the smart thing would have been to help Paul prop up Nichols - it would have provided an innocent excuse for any blood on Lechmere's hands or clothes.


      Feel free to show anywhere that Lechmere or Paul testified that Nichols clothes "were over the knees, not up over the abdomen".

      "Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

      Last I checked the stomach was above the groin, not below the knee. Perhaps anatomy is different in your part of the world.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        Try again. Read again.
        Four?

        Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work. It was also near Robert Paul's route to work.

        Nichols was killed on Lechmere's route to work. It was also on Robert Paul's route to work.

        Chapman was killed on Lechmere's route to work. It was also on Robert Paul's route to work. And it was after both men were at work.

        So where is your fourth?

        Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed on Lechmere's route to work and were not killed on days that he worked. Just like Robert Paul.

        And Robert Paul shows your 1-in-5 million odds are bunk. Just like Charles Lechmere, three of the victims were killed on or near his route to work.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          You have claimed that you can prove that James Scobie was misled. That is the exact level of your veracity.
          I have repeatedly shown that the "documentary" was a mix of provably false statements and opinions masquerading 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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            "Present" is not the same as within earshot.
            It is according to Robert Paul, who claimed he spoke with PC Mizen.

            Comment


            • Couldn't help but notice that the baseless charges levelled at Lechmere describe Bury very well. Cheers.
              Evidence
              Lechmere Bury
              Psychopath None
              • At ease living with a body in box for four days
              • At ease playing cards on box containing body
              • Body in box has this injury:
              • ‘On the inner side of the right labium was a wound 2 inches in length, penetrating the skin. Beginning about an inch behind the anus was an incised wound running forwards and to the left, into the perineum, and dividing the sphincter muscle’.
              Which is identical to this
              • Eddowes: ‘The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum’.
              Liar, cunning, plays games None
              • Forges job offer letter for himself and his wife
              • Forges a second letter from his wife to her sister
              • Is always pleasant to the sister while beating wife black and blue
              • Trial testimony: ‘he is cunning and conceals his temper before people’
              Tries to lie his way
              out on incriminating situation
              None
              • Tries to fake murder scene as suicide and tries to convince police. Almost succeeds.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                It would not be so smart if a PC or watchman was able to negate in retorspect what he said in such a case, though. As for Lechmere saying "there was nobody there", you are welcome to source it.
                There is no way that a PC or night watchman could have disproved it unless they were present in Buck's Row at the same time as Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul, but hiding from Paul and Lechmere.

                As PC Neil testified "It was quite possible for anybody to have escaped through Brady street into Whitechapel road, or through a passage into Queen's buildings."

                Lechmere clearly testified that he was alone with Nichol's body. The smart thing for a guilty man would have been to claim he had seen someone ducking around the corner as he approached Nichols' body. Instead, Lechmere said he saw nobody.

                "I saw no one after leaving home, except the man that overtook me, the constable in Baker's row, and the deceased. There was nobody in Buck's row when we left." - Charles Lechmere



                Comment


                • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post
                  The most suspicious think about Lechmere is his photograph - there is something about his eyes I find disturbing!
                  Disturbing eyes?

                  how about Pete Spence?

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	PeteSpence.jpg
Views:	139
Size:	20.0 KB
ID:	766368

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    If Lechmere was a psychopath and the killer, then he did not stay in Bucks Row for "the thrill of nearly being caught", Caz. You need to read up on psychopathy!
                    There's an old saying about pots and kettles. You've been making a lot of statements about psychopathy. Many of your statements have little if anything to do with what actual psychiatrists say.

                    "Psychopathy is characterized by diagnostic features such as superficial charm, high intelligence, poor judgment and failure to learn from experience, pathological egocentricity and incapacity for love, lack of remorse or shame, impulsivity, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulative behavior, poor self-control, promiscuous sexual behavior, juvenile delinquency, and criminal versatility, among others." - Psychiatric Times, Vol 31 No 10, Volume 31, Issue 10


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      What we must understand about psychopaths is that they are basically fearless. They are physically unable to panic,
                      Actual psychiatrists disagree with you.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        We somethimes call somebody who calmly walk out into a bullet rain, gun in hand, and singlehandedly kill half a platoon of enemies a hero. But such a person is most likely a psychopath, and so he does not have to overcome any fear. And he never for a second thinks that he will end up dead. He thinks the other guys will, though.
                        Actual psychologists disagree with you.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          A slight problem here is that the police and the coroner alike said that Lechmere found Nichgols at 3.45, not at 3.40.
                          Your statement is provably false.

                          PC Neil testified he found Nichols' body at 3:45, which means Lechmere would have found the body around 3:40.

                          PC Mizen testified he spoke to Lechmere at 3:45am, which means Lechmere would have found the body around 3:40.

                          The coroner said "The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                            there is also another thing to consider: The Times, for example, said that Lechmere claimed to have left home at 3.20, not 3.30, and so the "around 3.30" that so many wish to adjust to a later time, should - if we use the reprots we have - more likely be adjustes to an EARLIER time instead..
                            The Times also said his first name was George. Almost all of the newspapers gave the time as 3:30am, so the simplest explanation is that 3:20 was a typo.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                              It is according to Robert Paul, who claimed he spoke with PC Mizen.
                              Yes, Fiver. Robert Paul has to be a liar, and a foolish one at that, for Christer to maintain that Lechmere did all the talking to Mizen out of Paul's earshot.

                              Inventing out of whole cloth a conversation with a PC that a complete stranger had, which Paul didn't hear a word of, for a newspaper article concerning a case of 'orrible murder, would not have been the brightest move for this witness to make. If Lechmere hadn't come to the rescue and admitted to being first on the scene, the police could easily have suspected Paul was lying about that too.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                                The Times also said his first name was George. Almost all of the newspapers gave the time as 3:30am, so the simplest explanation is that 3:20 was a typo.
                                It would have been a bit daft for Jack the Ripper to have admitted leaving his house at 3.20, giving himself plenty of time to encounter, nearly decapitate and disembowel Nichols before he heard Robert Paul approaching.

                                If he did say 3.20, and this was the truth, he must have been more terrified of giving a later time and the missus catching him out in a lie, than he was of being hanged for murder.

                                Christer is better off sticking with 3.30, and claiming this was a lie on Lechmere's part, to lessen the time he would have had to kill on his way to work that morning.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X