Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

You based your suspicion of Lechmere on the killings taking place on Lechmere's route to work. Yet now you totally contradict yourself by saying "As a cabman, he is instead likely to have been all over London, with no fixed reoccurring pathway through the murder area."

If Charles Lechmere had "no fixed reoccurring pathway through the murder area" then it is impossible to tell if any of the killings took place on his route to work. By saying this you completely undermines any reason you had to tie Lechmere to the locations of the killings.

Charles Lechmere did go by the name of Cross, his stepfather's surname, at the Inquest. He had done it before in 1876, so clearly using the name Cross has nothing to do with the Ripper killings. Charles Lechmere also gave his home and work addresses at the Inquest, so clearly his use of the name Cross was not an attempt to hide his identity from his family, his neighbors, his employers, his coworkers, or the police.

Lechmere was present at a murder site at the approximate time the victim died. So were Robert Paul and PC Neil. And for other victims - John Richardson, Elizabeth Long, Albert Cadosch, John Davis, Israel Schwartz, Louis Diemschutz, Leon Goldstein, and PC Watkins.

Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen. So did Robert Paul.

Nichols was killed on Lechmere's route to work. You've claimed 5 million-to-1 odds about where the victims were killed.

But the 5 million-to-1 odds about where the victims were killed are clearly nonsense. They apply to Robert Paul's route to work exactly as much as they apply to Charles Lechmere's route to work. They might apply to some of Paul's co-workers. They probably apply to some of Lechmere's co-workers at Broadstreet Station. They almost certainly apply to several of the hundreds of people who worked in or near near Spitalfield's Market. Not counting the Market, an 1891 map shows a Cocoa Manufactory, the National telephone Works, a Chenniles Manufactory, a Boot & Shoe Factory, a Tobacco Manufactory, and the Black Eagle Brewery.

Read Fish’s post again. He was referring to Crow, not Lechmere. Crow was apparently a cab driver, a man who transported people to wherever they wanted to go. Lechmere was a carman. He carried goods.

[Fisherman]

Hi Frank,

You are aware of the esteem in which I hold your posts, but I am having difficultly in believing that the journey to WR, negotiations and return to the murder site could be accomplished in a couple of minutes.

Cheers, George

In all honesty, George, to my mind there is nothing more than a fleeting academic interest involved in the matter. Lechmere could have left home at 2.37, 2.51, 3.03, 3.22 or any other time. it is a total unknown, and relhying on Lechmeres testimony to be correct is not something I would advice anyone to do.

The business end, if you like, of the timings is not the time before Lechmere and Nichols crossed roads, because that could have happened just about anywhere and anytime in the area. It is the time AFTER Lechmere left the body that is of interest and here we have facts to deal with and to fit into a chronological frame. And that frame tells us that if the two forensic physicians I consulted in my book where correct, then the likely time for when Nichols would stop bleeding points to how either Lechmere or someone else AFTER - not before! - him did the cutting.

These timings are of a much more established and conclusive character than the ones leading up to the deed.

I have Jonas Mizen arriving at the murder site at around nine minutes after Lechmere and Paul left the body. As per Mizen, the blood was "still running and looking fresh" at that stage, just as the blood in the pool beneath her was "somewhat coagulated". And the forensic physicians both said thata bleeding out time of 3-5 minutes would be to be expected, putting the likely end of the bleeding process in the period of time well before Mizen got to the body. The fact that she nevertheless bled at this stage tells us that she had already bled for a number of minutes longer than what was to be expected.

And the thing is, to shoehorn ANOTHER killer than Lechmere in requires Nichols to have bled even longer.

The equation is an easy one, and much more interesting than whether Lechmere had time to pick Nichols up in Whitechapel Road or not.

[rjpalmer]

"I cannot exactly remember what I said in response, but I would be surprised if it did not contain information about how many killers utilize an area they regard as their home turf, and feel safe killing in. As a matter of fact, there are intelligent serial killers who kill in their own living rooms and kitchens, daft though it may sound."

That’s just it, Fish, you didn’t say anything in response.

Your were arguing the exact opposite position to the one you are now taking.

When I objected to the apparent absurdity of Lechmere leading Polly back to his own route to work and then killing her at around the same moment he would have been there anyway—something a jury surely wouldn’t like---you argued that that need not have been the case: it was entirely possible that Polly had been led there by an unknown punter and when finished, she approached Lechmere. When I argue the unknown punter is a better suspect than Lechmere (because, like many others, I don’t accept your interpretation of the blood oozing ‘evidence’) you suddenly have Lechmere back to picking her up in the Whitechapel Road.

“Juggling” two theories might strike you as intellectually honest and a demonstration of mental acumen, but there will be unkind people that might suspect it is also a way of retreating to a different default position whenever a legitimate objection rears its head. If we can’t pin you down, we can’t hope to dismiss your arguments.

Which of the two theories do you imagine Scobie would use in the courtroom, considering that juries don’t like the prosecution to be caught juggling multiple theories?

Your current response is that since Dennis Nilson –an entirely different psychological type-- killed people in his living-room, there is therefore nothing odd about a street murderer picking up a woman in the main road, and then leading her back to his own route to work, and at roughly the same time he would be there anyway?

Was the backyard of Hanbury Street a similar 'comfort zone' for Lechmere? And all the other murder sites? He thought of these places in the same way that Nilson thought of his living room?

"Thank you kindly, R J. I notice that you seem unwilling to push the idea that Crow was the Ripper any further?"

Complications, Fish, complications.

The identity of Alfred Crow, the petty thief, remains elusive. He also used the name ‘Alfred Howard’ and ‘Alfred Ireland’ and ‘Alfred Crowe Howard.’ I’m under the impression the police didn’t really know who the heck he was, and I haven't identified him yet, either. Most of his later addresses are in North London.

By the way--not that you care--but the bloke who ended up in Bethnal Green in the 1930s was not the cabby. That didn't pan out. There was another Alfred Crow, a tin worker, born in Bethnal Green at around the same time as the cabby.

But it’s the cabby who is connected to Thrawl Street, Baker’s Row, and Ellen Street, thus putting him just around the corner from Dutfield’s Yard in the early 80s--in what were his teenaged years. He probably had his first sexual experiences in the very streets that Stride and Spooner and Spooner's sweetheart wandered in September 1888.

[FrankO]

Is that entrance the one that seems to be indicated on the top north-west corner of the huge Broad Street site?

M.

Indeed Mark, that would be on the corner of Appold Street and Worship Street.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

You are aware of the esteem in which I hold your posts, but I am having difficultly in believing that the journey to WR, negotiations and return to the murder site could be accomplished in a couple of minutes.

Cheers, George

Yes, George, I'm indeed aware of that and it does make me feel good - thanks! As to the detour via WR, perhaps a couple of minutes (as in 'two') is too short. So I should have expressed myself better and said 'some 5 minutes', although it could also have taken up to 10 minutes or so.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

Such a thing would be part of planning to kill, but where and who he killed would be opportunistic;

I don't remember reading anything from you about how you think this is supposed to have worked, Christer, but I may very well have missed (or even forgotten) it. Anyway, I'm having a bit of trouble trying to imagine it.
Questions that spring to mind while doing so, are:
- How did he arrange at what time he would wake up? Did he use the/a knock-up service? Did he have a clock with an alarm of sorts of his own? Or did he rely on the bells of St. Bartholomew's Church?
- Would his wife know at what time he woke up? Or did he keep her in the dark about that on the mornings of the murders?
- Did his wife know at what time he was supposed to start at work? Or did he keep her in the dark about that?
- Would he have got up (and leave for work) earlier on each & every morning, so that he had time to murder on every morning or just on some mornings? If just on some mornings, he must have arranged only on that mornings to get up & leave earlier than usual. How would that work?

Of course, I know you don't have the actual answers to these questions, but would be interested to know how you see this, Christer.

The best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

"I cannot exactly remember what I said in response, but I would be surprised if it did not contain information about how many killers utilize an area they regard as their home turf, and feel safe killing in. As a matter of fact, there are intelligent serial killers who kill in their own living rooms and kitchens, daft though it may sound."

That’s just it, Fish, you didn’t say anything in response.

Your were arguing the exact opposite position to the one you are now taking.

When I objected to the apparent absurdity of Lechmere leading Polly back to his own route to work and then killing her at around the same moment he would have been there anyway—something a jury surely wouldn’t like---you argued that that need not have been the case: it was entirely possible that Polly had been led there by an unknown punter and when finished, she approached Lechmere. When I argue the unknown punter is a better suspect than Lechmere (because, like many others, I don’t accept your interpretation of the blood oozing ‘evidence’) you suddenly have Lechmere back to picking her up in the Whitechapel Road.

“Juggling” two theories might strike you as intellectually honest and a demonstration of mental acumen, but there will be unkind people that might suspect it is also a way of retreating to a different default position whenever a legitimate objection rears its head. If we can’t pin you down, we can’t hope to dismiss your arguments.

Which of the two theories do you imagine Scobie would use in the courtroom, considering that juries don’t like the prosecution to be caught juggling multiple theories?

Your current response is that since Dennis Nilson –an entirely different psychological type-- killed people in his living-room, there is therefore nothing odd about a street murderer picking up a woman in the main road, and then leading her back to his own route to work, and at roughly the same time he would be there anyway?

Was the backyard of Hanbury Street a similar 'comfort zone' for Lechmere? And all the other murder sites? He thought of these places in the same way that Nilson thought of his living room?

"Thank you kindly, R J. I notice that you seem unwilling to push the idea that Crow was the Ripper any further?"

Complications, Fish, complications.

The identity of Alfred Crow, the petty thief, remains elusive. He also used the name ‘Alfred Howard’ and ‘Alfred Ireland’ and ‘Alfred Crowe Howard.’ I’m under the impression the police didn’t really know who the heck he was, and I haven't identified him yet, either. Most of his later addresses are in North London.

By the way--not that you care--but the bloke who ended up in Bethnal Green in the 1930s was not the cabby. That didn't pan out. There was another Alfred Crow, a tin worker, born in Bethnal Green at around the same time as the cabby.

But it’s the cabby who is connected to Thrawl Street, Baker’s Row, and Ellen Street, thus putting him just around the corner from Dutfield’s Yard in the early 80s--in what were his teenaged years. He probably had his first sexual experiences in the very streets that Stride and Spooner and Spooner's sweetheart wandered in September 1888.

A/ There has never been any ground for choosing one solution over the other when it comes to where Nichols met her killer. I couldn’ t care less if a jury would prefer people singling out one of the options; I don’t have to, and as I have pointed out: it would be stupidity to do so.
To make things clear: There has never been any question of ME going for one solution only, and the primary reason I pointed to how Polly MAY have met her killer in Bucks Row was to refute YOUR idea that it must have happened in Whitechapel Road.
I hope that takes care of your misgivings.

B/ I never said anything about Dennis Nielsen. Isaid that there are examples of intelligent serial killers dispatching their victims in their living rooms and kitchens. Nielsen is far from the only example, so ifyou would be so nice as to refrain from putting words in my mouth, I would be ever so grateful.

C/ You still haven’ t presented a single point that indicates that Crow would have been a killer, and so it is high time to put that charade to rest.

[Fisherman]

I don't remember reading anything from you about how you think this is supposed to have worked, Christer, but I may very well have missed (or even forgotten) it. Anyway, I'm having a bit of trouble trying to imagine it.
Questions that spring to mind while doing so, are:
- How did he arrange at what time he would wake up? Did he use the/a knock-up service? Did he have a clock with an alarm of sorts of his own? Or did he rely on the bells of St. Bartholomew's Church?
- Would his wife know at what time he woke up? Or did he keep her in the dark about that on the mornings of the murders?
- Did his wife know at what time he was supposed to start at work? Or did he keep her in the dark about that?
- Would he have got up (and leave for work) earlier on each & every morning, so that he had time to murder on every morning or just on some mornings? If just on some mornings, he must have arranged only on that mornings to get up & leave earlier than usual. How would that work?

Of course, I know you don't have the actual answers to these questions, but would be interested to know how you see this, Christer.

The best,
Frank

I don’ t think it would be productive to speculate too much about these matters. It is akin to the other thing discussed between us, namely the pre-murder timings. We cannot tell when he left home - and we cannot tell how he was awakened on these occasions. Anything can be brought to an empty table, and when it can, there is always the risk of getting it wrong.

If we were suddenly handed an exact description of what happened and how, we could perhaps be informed that Lechmere had periods of insomnia, and killed on these occasions. Perhaps we would get to know that he only killed when the rest of the family slept on other premises for some reason, or something such.
I would not try to gauge the specific weight of any such suggestion, I would just accept that there are many possible solutions to the questions you ask. Conversely, in my world there is only ONE solution to the immense collection of ”coincidences” (involving the blood evidence) surrounding the carman.

It would be nice to know the answers to your questions, but as long as we don’ t, I simply accept that none of them pose any unsurmountable obstacle for Lechmere having been able to leave home earlier when he was in killing mode.

[Fiver]

hi fiver
re you first paragraph, i think fish is differentiating between lechs route to work, and his travels with his cart afterwards delivering goods.
his route to work would take him very near the murder sites near murder times, yet his cart travels would take him everywhere, so he would not only have an intimate knowledge of the quickest routes to work, shortcuts etc, but also an intimate knowledge of the general area as well.

Read Fish’s post again. He was referring to Crow, not Lechmere. Crow was apparently a cab driver, a man who transported people to wherever they wanted to go. Lechmere was a carman. He carried goods.

So Mr Barnett, Abby Normal, and I have all come to different conclusions on what Fisherman meant in Post #951.

Perhaps the problem is with the original post.

[Fiver]

I think the pre-murder timings are by and large very open to speculation.

Yet this hasn't stopped you from repeatedly speculating about the pre-murder timings.

Yes, if he left Doveton Street at 3.30, it would mean stretching the timings if he needed to seek out prey in Whitechapel Road. Then again, and as has been pointed out before, why would I presume that a man I think was a liar and a killer would be patently honest about his timings?

Thanks for admitting that your method is to assume Lechmere's guilt and interpret the evidence based on that assumption.

And what stands in the way of him having left before 3.30? Nothing.

Two things.

First, his wife would have known if Charles Lechmere lied about when he left for work.

Second, if Lechmere was the Ripper and had another 10 to 15 minutes he wouldn't have still been anywhere near the body when Robert Paul approached.

As for the choice between planning and being opportunistic, I think we are dealing with something inbetween, n ot least if he DID leave earlier than he said. Such a thing would be part of planning to kill, but where and who he killed would be opportunistic; once he got the chance to be alone with a prostitute in a secluded place, the trap was sprung.

Again you have Scheodinger's Suspect. Your Lechmere is simultaneously premeditated and impulse, but only if you can interpret in a way against Lechmere.

[Fiver]

I don’ t think it would be productive to speculate too much about these matters.

Looks like Fisherman is dodging FrankO's questions as well.

[rjpalmer]

You still haven’ t presented a single point that indicates that Crow would have been a killer, and so it is high time to put that charade to rest.

Irony noted.

[Fisherman]

Irony noted.

… but no points in favor of Crow being a killer. That is of course not ironic, more like sad.

How expected.

[Mark J D]

This is the bit I don't get, Harry. How did the poor sod have the time or the opportunity to relive his murder experiences in comfort and privacy, with the aid of the body parts he removed? Isn't this usually a trait of the psychopathic, organ-harvesting serial killer, who operates on the streets and can't take his freshly killed victims with him? What were the organs for, if not trophies to feel and admire until they rotted, reminding him of what he'd achieved?

X

Pardon the wild imaginings of a returning non-expert; but as far as I can see, there'd be a shifting subset of thrilling reminiscences to be enjoyed twelve times a week along whatever route Lechmere chose to follow to and from work... "Eyes left... Touch and go for a while, that one; but I got away with it... Eyes right... The idiots couldn't even work out the correct time! ... Hmm, looks like I'm running a bit early today... Let's have a little detour down that way... Ah, a classic of its kind, that one was. And never really equalled..."

As for the organs -- which I've never felt were being treated as 'objects of desire' (I can't picture Lechmere frying and eating that bit of kidney) -- he might simply have chucked them off the Primrose Street bridge onto the railway tracks. The rats would have made off with them within minutes (which to me feels like it could have been part of the point). All the same, I do want Doveton Street excavated. Just as I want to see all the local papers from the time those old houses were being bombed and then demolished...

Bests,

M.

[Abby Normal]

So Mr Barnett, Abby Normal, and I have all come to different conclusions on what Fisherman meant in Post #951.

Perhaps the problem is with the original post.

no
I was basing my response to YOUR post on the assumption you didnt have it all jacked up. I can see why Fish dosnt respond to you any more.