Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

    From the Ultimate sourcebook:

    Donald Swanson's report, 19th October, about the murder: "The body of a woman was found [...] by Charles Cross & Robert Paul"

    Abberline's report, 19th September: "I beg to report that about 3.40 am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman [...] Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention to the woman"
    Thanks for this! Can't stop myself saying that I was hoping for something bigger, though! All the same, I note the presence of Lechmere's address, and the fact that 19 September is 16 days after he attended the inquest. No indication of anything much having been achieved, or even attempted...

    M.

    Comment


    • Made the point to Kattrup that Richardson did not find Chapman, only to note that Abby already pointed it out.
      Last edited by Fisherman; 09-02-2021, 12:31 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

        Thanks for this! Can't stop myself saying that I was hoping for something bigger, though! All the same, I note the presence of Lechmere's address, and the fact that 19 September is 16 days after he attended the inquest. No indication of anything much having been achieved, or even attempted...

        M.
        The October report is a month and 16 days after his inquest appearance. And they still thought that he was called Cross. That tells me that he was never investigated in any depth - if at all. The police would have been greatly embarrased by his surfacing and turning things upside down, ridiculing the Met, and I think this very much contributed to how they would not want to question the carman in any way; the sooner their blunder was forgotten, the better. And forgetting about it would decisively not include doubting the man who had set things right when they were themselves unable to.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

          The October report is a month and 16 days after his inquest appearance. And they still thought that he was called Cross. That tells me that he was never investigated in any depth - if at all. The police would have been greatly embarrased by his surfacing and turning things upside down, ridiculing the Met, and I think this very much contributed to how they would not want to question the carman in any way; the sooner their blunder was forgotten, the better. And forgetting about it would decisively not include doubting the man who had set things right when they were themselves unable to.
          Doveton Street was in J division, wasn’t it? You’d think the local plod would have known that it was in Mile End and not Bethnal Green.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            The October report is a month and 16 days after his inquest appearance. And they still thought that he was called Cross. That tells me that he was never investigated in any depth - if at all. The police would have been greatly embarrased by his surfacing and turning things upside down, ridiculing the Met, and I think this very much contributed to how they would not want to question the carman in any way; the sooner their blunder was forgotten, the better. And forgetting about it would decisively not include doubting the man who had set things right when they were themselves unable to.
            Hi Christer,

            You have repeatedly reminded us that in your opinion Cross/Lechmere lied to PC Mizen, but now you want us to believe that the police made little or no investigation of the man who says he found the body, was discovered on his own with it by Paul, and then is presumed to have lied to a police officer immediately afterwards! It is a huge stretch of the imagination to assume that the police didn't make some checks to verify his statement and character. Just a visit to Pickfords to check that he did indeed work there at the hours stated, would have produced the name Lechmere - if indeed he used that name at work - as would even nominal local enquiries where he lived. So clearly they either made no checks whatever, which I find impossible to believe given your view of events, or they made some checks and found he was known as Cross, hence the continuing use of that name.

            If by embarrassing the police, you mean revealing that it was he and not PC Neil discovered the body of Nichols, then it was the newspaper article by Paul that did this, and not Cross/Lechmere.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
              You have repeatedly reminded us that in your opinion Cross/Lechmere lied to PC Mizen, but now you want us to believe that the police made little or no investigation of the man who says he found the body, was discovered on his own with it by Paul, and then is presumed to have lied to a police officer immediately afterwards!
              That’s the great paradox of the Lechmere theory. The police, the coroner, etc. were evidently too dull-witted to notice Lechmere’s actions, or even conduct the most basic investigation of his movements, but now, after 130 years, his suspicious behavior is so blindingly obvious that it nearly leaps from the page.

              I suspect, from a psychological angle, the real appeal of the Lechmere theory is that there is no credible evidence against him. Rather than dampening the theory, it fuels it. ‘We can see through him—but you can’t. And neither could the contemporary police.'

              One encounters this same attitude from those who favor Bury, Hutchinson, Barnett, etc. The Victorians couldn’t recognize a ‘serial killer’…but, thanks to our great insights into profiling, human psychology, etc…we can.

              I'm not convinced that our insight into extreme human behavior has really evolved all that much. I'd just as soon have Cadfael investigate the case, as John Douglas.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                Hi Abby
                When I first became interested in JTR and read into the case, one of the things that struck me was Lech. A freshly/recently killed body and he is nearby etc . You wonder, as have you, Fish etc.
                Now to me, I am sure there must have been at least one police officer who may have thought twice about Lech. They were experienced men on the ground. What did they have to go off ? No forensics, cctv etc
                Mainly witnesses, interviewing of witnesses etc I am sure the same would be true of Lech. So although you are quite right Abby we have no evidence of an alibi . We have a sort of negative evidence if you will that he was never even remotely suspected. I believe there must be a reason for that.
                Regards Darryl
                Hi DK
                Thanks. Im sure Mizen thought twice about Lech! But youre right-It dosnt seem he was suspected or even questioned closely. back then Im not sure they put as much stock in the possibility that a witness could be the killer, although they seem to have questioned, Barnett, Hutch and richardson quite closely.
                tis a conundrum for sure.
                could be he was just a cunning serial killer who fooled them all.


                Comment


                • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                  That’s the great paradox of the Lechmere theory. The police, the coroner, etc. were evidently too dull-witted to notice Lechmere’s actions, or even conduct the most basic investigation of his movements, but now, after 130 years, his suspicious behavior is so blindingly obvious that it nearly leaps from the page.

                  I suspect, from a psychological angle, the real appeal of the Lechmere theory is that there is no credible evidence against him. Rather than dampening the theory, it fuels it. ‘We can see through him—but you can’t. And neither could the contemporary police.'

                  One encounters this same attitude from those who favor Bury, Hutchinson, Barnett, etc. The Victorians couldn’t recognize a ‘serial killer’…but, thanks to our great insights into profiling, human psychology, etc…we can.

                  I'm not convinced that our insight into extreme human behavior has really evolved all that much. I'd just as soon have Cadfael investigate the case, as John Douglas.
                  hi RJ
                  well at least Bury was a person of interest to the police, and hutch and Barnett were questioned closely. but this is a two way street isnt it? The anti lechers appear to reason-If they were suspected or questioned by police -then they were obviously cleared, if they werent then there is no reason to suspect them! its a catch 22.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                    Hi Christer,

                    You have repeatedly reminded us that in your opinion Cross/Lechmere lied to PC Mizen...

                    Yes. That is because there was an epidemic of people deciding that it was likelier that Mizen misheard Lechmere or that the PC was the liar as the news broke once upon a time. The solution that a man who was already on record for not having given his registered name to the police, for having refused to help prop Nichols up, for having been in place at the murder spot when Nichols would still go on to bleed for many minutes, for having walked through the killing fields on his way to work, for having succeeded to walk so silently down Bucks Row that his fellow carman did not make him out or see him, could not possibly have been lying to a PC was regarded as preposterous, whgereas it was seemingly to be accepted that a PC who was given a very good grading as he left his job would be a lazy and incompetent liar. If it had not been for these matters, I may not have been so inclined to point out that he probably lied to Mizen. But there you are.


                    but now you want us to believe that the police made little or no investigation of the man who says he found the body, was discovered on his own with it by Paul, and then is presumed to have lied to a police officer immediately afterwards!

                    What do you mean: "but"? Is there a contradiction involved here? Ah, now I see it - the Mizen scam! You see, Dr, you cannot work from the assumption that the judge and jury worked from the presumptin that he was lying. If they were, THEN it would be odd if they did not check him out.
                    You of course make the assumption that the police would never have failed to investigate him, but alas! The fact that they never got around to know his real name is the strongest possible indicator that they never did. I can turn your argumenttion around and ask you if you really, really believe that a police force who vigorously investigated all there was to investigate about a possible suspect would forget to find out who he was?


                    It is a huge stretch of the imagination to assume that the police didn't make some checks to verify his statement and character.

                    "Some" checks? They asked about everything else but forgot to ask who he actually was, is that what you mean?

                    Just a visit to Pickfords to check that he did indeed work there at the hours stated, would have produced the name Lechmere - if indeed he used that name at work - as would even nominal local enquiries where he lived.

                    Any REAL check would disclose his real name, and that real name would go into the police reports, unless you think that the police went "If he wants to call himself Cross, why would we object? Let him!!"

                    So clearly they either made no checks whatever, which I find impossible to believe given your view of events, or they made some checks and found he was known as Cross, hence the continuing use of that name.

                    Stig Engström is officially regarded as the man who shot prime minister Olof Palme in Sweden back in 1986. He went to the police himself and was ever so talkative, and he sought out the press when he was not called to the reconstructions of the crime. He was discontent with being left out.
                    The reason that he was left out was that the police had grown tired of him in the fewest of weeks; they found him a busybody and a nuisance.
                    In recent years, two researchers found out that although Engström said he was at the murder site and helped after the shots, none of the other witnesses who were there and who DID help out, has any memory at all of Engström. They do remember, however, a man in a dark coat and a cap and with a wrist bag, running up the stairs to Malmskillnadsgatan directly AFTER the shots. Engström himself contacted the police early on and said that he would have been the one they saw, because he ran up the stairs in pursuit of the police patrol that arrived minutes after the shots, to inform them of what Palmes wife had told him.
                    But Palmes wife remembered nothing about Engström speaking to her. And the man the rest of the witnesses saw running up the stairs did so BEFORE the police arrived, not after.
                    The only logical outcome of this is that Engström lied to the police and was in fact the killer, something the state prosecutor laid down last summer, 34 years after the murder. Engström was long dead by then, but as the researchers delved into his person they noticed one odd thing: although he had placed himself on the site at the time of the murder, although he seemingly lied about the time that he was actually there, although it transpired that he had a deep distaste for Palme and although it was found out that he was a trained shot, THE POLICE HAD NOT INVESTIGATED HIM!!!
                    In the murder of the century in Swedish criminal history, the police failed to investigate one of the main actors, who had been at the site and acted the way people said the killer did.
                    Now, tell me again: Why is it impossible that the police could have missed out on investigating the carman? In 1888? With a witness who had TWICE approached the police, and who had helped to clear up the mess the police had made?


                    If by embarrassing the police, you mean revealing that it was he and not PC Neil discovered the body of Nichols, then it was the newspaper article by Paul that did this, and not Cross/Lechmere.
                    That´s not true, I´m afraid, because the police actively DENIED what Paul suggested. It was not until Lechmere surfaced that they accepted that they were not the fionders of the body themselves.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      That’s the great paradox of the Lechmere theory. The police, the coroner, etc. were evidently too dull-witted to notice Lechmere’s actions, or even conduct the most basic investigation of his movements, but now, after 130 years, his suspicious behavior is so blindingly obvious that it nearly leaps from the page.

                      I suspect, from a psychological angle, the real appeal of the Lechmere theory is that there is no credible evidence against him. Rather than dampening the theory, it fuels it. ‘We can see through him—but you can’t. And neither could the contemporary police.'

                      One encounters this same attitude from those who favor Bury, Hutchinson, Barnett, etc. The Victorians couldn’t recognize a ‘serial killer’…but, thanks to our great insights into profiling, human psychology, etc…we can.

                      I'm not convinced that our insight into extreme human behavior has really evolved all that much. I'd just as soon have Cadfael investigate the case, as John Douglas.
                      Hi, R J!

                      How´s the Crow theory coming?

                      Carrying that whopper in your rucksack, I am not convinved that we should leave it for you to decide what is credible evidence and what is not.

                      I guess it´s a little helping of "what goes around comes around", if you take my meaning.

                      In my world, being in place alone with a freshly killed murder victim at a time when she would go on to bleed for longer than two renowned forensic physicians suggested as the likely time, avoiding to give yur real name to the police and having paths that correcpond geographically with the victims in a murder series is actually very credible evidence. I gues that was why Scoboe said it was enough to warrant a trial that suggested he was guilty, and pointed out that a jury would not like the carman.

                      Of course, he can take comfort in how YOU like him a lot more.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                        Doveton Street was in J division, wasn’t it? You’d think the local plod would have known that it was in Mile End and not Bethnal Green.
                        Geography. Of the East End. That is your cup of tea, and not so much mine. I have seen it described as Bethnal Green, Mile End and Tower Hamlets. But if Doveton Street was in Mile End, then yes, I very much agree.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                          That’s the great paradox of the Lechmere theory. The police, the coroner, etc. were evidently too dull-witted to notice Lechmere’s actions, or even conduct the most basic investigation of his movements, but now, after 130 years, his suspicious behavior is so blindingly obvious that it nearly leaps from the page.

                          I suspect, from a psychological angle, the real appeal of the Lechmere theory is that there is no credible evidence against him. Rather than dampening the theory, it fuels it. ‘We can see through him—but you can’t. And neither could the contemporary police.'

                          One encounters this same attitude from those who favor Bury, Hutchinson, Barnett, etc. The Victorians couldn’t recognize a ‘serial killer’…but, thanks to our great insights into profiling, human psychology, etc…we can.

                          I'm not convinced that our insight into extreme human behavior has really evolved all that much. I'd just as soon have Cadfael investigate the case, as John Douglas.
                          Cadfael - now you’re talking!


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            The anti lechers appear to reason-If they were suspected or questioned by police -then they were obviously cleared, if they werent then there is no reason to suspect them! its a catch 22.
                            Hi Abby -- I don't think this is at all an accurate assessment.

                            I never made this second statement---but you did recently--in regards to Alfred Crow.

                            I'm entirely willing to entertain the idea that there are good suspects in the Whitechapel Murders who were never questioned by the police, nor even known to the police. In fact, I'm researching two now (not Alfred Crow, by the way).

                            I just don't think Lechmere falls into that class. You have stated--many times--that he was 'hovering' over a still bleeding body, but we are supposed to believe that none of this bothered the career policemen who were desperately seeking the murderer, and thus he was never quietly checked out? Even though we know the police were competent enough to quietly investigate Richardson and Barnett?

                            Even if he was checked out, it wouldn't necessarily conclusively prove his innocence (yes, I said that!), but it would certainly weaken many of the claims being made about him.

                            You recently told me there was no reason to suspect Alfred Crow, because he cooperated with the police, even though he had no reason to do so. Isn't that an example of quickly dismissing someone because you believe there is no reason to suspect him?

                            But was Crow's situation really all that different than Lechmere's?

                            He is traipsing home at 3.30 a.m.---probably a more legitimate time for a killer to strike then one traipsing to work at 3.30 a.m.

                            PC Barrett learned that a woman had gone up George Yard with a punter at around 3 a.m., and the police were willing to entertain the notion that this may have been Martha Tabram, so that could place her alive after the estimated time-of-death, which was nothing more than a vague estimate anyway, by a youngish GP.

                            Crow comes home and crosses Martha's path within the next thirty minutes--whether alive or dead is based entirely on his own testimony. He would have to come up with some explanation for walking up the stairwell at this time, because it would have been a very easy matter to discover there was a cabby living in the building who kept late hours, and the police canvassed George Yard Dwellings door-to-door.

                            This scenario might strike you as lame, but it is identical to the one Christer suggested for Lechmere back in April: an unknown punter brought Polly Nichols to Buck's Row and then left her moments before Lechmere's arrival. Ditto Crow in George Yard. If Crow is telling the truth, and Martha was just laying their motionless when he passed, then Tabram was already long dead before Lechmere's daily commute had even begun. (Unless we are going to move the goal posts again).

                            Thus, in an identical way, Crow and Lechmere were in the proximity of a victim within the forensic 'window.'

                            But Crow cooperated, you say? So did Lechmere, I say.

                            And both men also had a geographical connection to Berner Street. Crow grew up just around the corner from Dutfield's Yard, in Ellen Street.

                            The lesson is that it is a very easy matter to find bystanders in the files and manufacture a weak case against them. Hutchinson, Barnett, Lechmere, Richardson, Bowyer, etc.--they can't all be guilty, so clearly the suspicions people voice against them must be wrong most of the time, if not all of the time.

                            I'm not serious about Crow, but I would still like to definitively determine who the heck this person is, who is wandering around at night in 1888 with a knife and noiseless matches:


                            Click image for larger version

Name:	Alfred Crow 1888.JPG
Views:	143
Size:	32.5 KB
ID:	767147


                            There's only a very few Alfred Crows that could possibly fit, and only one who was known to work at night. The age is slightly off, and I don't think this is 'our' Crow, but I'd still like to confirm that, and when I do, I will gladly eat crow.


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              Hi, R J!

                              How´s the Crow theory coming?
                              Thanks for asking, Fish.

                              There were two Alfred Crows, approximately the same age, who lived in the East End and had fathers who were wire workers, so it took a while to work through the muddle, but I'm now confident that the Alfred Crow who turned up in Cardiff in 1891 isn't the cabby. He was born in Bethnal Green and his father's name was John. The cabby's father made wire cages and was named George.

                              Which means I have no idea what happened to the cabby. The last I know he was living in Thrawl Street in 1891. I've lost him in the fog and smoke, and he may have done a runner.

                              Maybe the 1921 Census will cast some light.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                                Hi Abby -- I don't think this is at all an accurate assessment.

                                I never made this second statement---but you did recently--in regards to Alfred Crow.

                                I'm entirely willing to entertain the idea that there are good suspects in the Whitechapel Murders who were never questioned by the police, nor even known to the police. In fact, I'm researching two now (not Alfred Crow, by the way).

                                I just don't think Lechmere falls into that class. You have stated--many times--that he was 'hovering' over a still bleeding body, but we are supposed to believe that none of this bothered the career policemen who were desperately seeking the murderer, and thus he was never quietly checked out? Even though we know the police were competent enough to quietly investigate Richardson and Barnett?

                                Even if he was checked out, it wouldn't necessarily conclusively prove his innocence (yes, I said that!), but it would certainly weaken many of the claims being made about him.

                                You recently told me there was no reason to suspect Alfred Crow, because he cooperated with the police, even though he had no reason to do so. Isn't that an example of quickly dismissing someone because you believe there is no reason to suspect him?

                                But was Crow's situation really all that different than Lechmere's?

                                He is traipsing home at 3.30 a.m.---probably a more legitimate time for a killer to strike then one traipsing to work at 3.30 a.m.

                                PC Barrett learned that a woman had gone up George Yard with a punter at around 3 a.m., and the police were willing to entertain the notion that this may have been Martha Tabram, so that could place her alive after the estimated time-of-death, which was nothing more than a vague estimate anyway, by a youngish GP.

                                Crow comes home and crosses Martha's path within the next thirty minutes--whether alive or dead is based entirely on his own testimony. He would have to come up with some explanation for walking up the stairwell at this time, because it would have been a very easy matter to discover there was a cabby living in the building who kept late hours, and the police canvassed George Yard Dwellings door-to-door.

                                This scenario might strike you as lame, but it is identical to the one Christer suggested for Lechmere back in April: an unknown punter brought Polly Nichols to Buck's Row and then left her moments before Lechmere's arrival. Ditto Crow in George Yard. If Crow is telling the truth, and Martha was just laying their motionless when he passed, then Tabram was already long dead before Lechmere's daily commute had even begun. (Unless we are going to move the goal posts again).

                                Thus, in an identical way, Crow and Lechmere were in the proximity of a victim within the forensic 'window.'

                                But Crow cooperated, you say? So did Lechmere, I say.

                                And both men also had a geographical connection to Berner Street. Crow grew up just around the corner from Dutfield's Yard, in Ellen Street.

                                The lesson is that it is a very easy matter to find bystanders in the files and manufacture a weak case against them. Hutchinson, Barnett, Lechmere, Richardson, Bowyer, etc.--they can't all be guilty, so clearly the suspicions people voice against them must be wrong most of the time, if not all of the time.

                                I'm not serious about Crow, but I would still like to definitively determine who the heck this person is, who is wandering around at night in 1888 with a knife and noiseless matches:


                                Click image for larger version

Name:	Alfred Crow 1888.JPG
Views:	143
Size:	32.5 KB
ID:	767147


                                There's only a very few Alfred Crows that could possibly fit, and only one who was known to work at night. The age is slightly off, and I don't think this is 'our' Crow, but I'd still like to confirm that, and when I do, I will gladly eat crow.

                                Hi Rj
                                Good post. Now youve got me wondering about Crow! lol
                                but thats how me brain works, I tend to rule in suspects as possibilities rather than rule them out-the dam case is unsolved after all!

                                Although I would still say lech is a way better suspect, as he was seen near the body and may have felt compelled/trapped to stay and ruse it out. If crow was the killer he didnt need to because he wasnt seen and therefor no reason to come forward later either. you see the difference please?

                                anyway good luck on your research on Crow (I mean it) and your other possible suspects-cant wait to see what you got!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X