Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Ah, thanks for that. Maryann Street sounds familiar to me, so I must have seen that on the boards somewhere. Appreciate the pointers to it's location.

    - Jeff
    -- Just discovered that I was wrong: at the time of the Stride killing, Lechmere's mother seems to have lived in Cable Street, just on the other side of the Pinchin Street railway viaduct.

    Sorry about that. There's a rather stunning old post by Edward Stowe that I'd like to attach...

    ---

    Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
    Saturday 29th to Sunday 30th September 1888.
    The Double Event complete with apron drop and graffiti scribble.

    Here is my conjecture for what may have happened with Charles Lechmere as the culprit.
    Click image for larger version  Name:	cross map 3 a.jpg Views:	1 Size:	187.2 KB ID:	664377

    It is Saturday evening. The only evening when most workers could let their hair down and have a night out unworried about having to get up next day to go to work.

    Charles Lechmere goes to visit his mother, Maria, at her house on Cable Street. He does this regularly as one of his daughters, Mary Jane (aged 13), lives there. Mary Jane was his second eldest surviving child. Maria was to live with her grand-daughter right up until her death in 1901.

    However these visits were uncomfortable as his mother lives with his ailing second step father, Joseph Forsdike (he died a little over a year later).

    Charles Lechmere had always lived with his mother or very close to her and she had been a major influence on his own family. He had just three and a half months before moved away to another quite different East End district with his eight children (besides Mary Jane) including the sickly baby Harriet, who had been born that March (and was to die in December 1890)

    After an evening at Cable Street (Red A on map) and a pint in a local pub, at about 12.30 am Charles Lechmere made his way home the route he would probably have followed is shown Green on the map.

    Soon after he left, he saw a prostitute soliciting.
    He approached her, and she took him to Duffields Yard (Blue S on the map). He knew this was next to a club that was predominantly used by the numerous local Jewish community.

    He was slightly uncomfortable as there was a lot of noise coming from the club, although the yard itself was dark. He incapacitated her, then cut her throat. As he did so he heard a noise outside (this could be the altercation Schwartz says he saw, or the approach of Deimschutz with his cart, or something emanating from the International Working Mens Club).

    He stopped and hid in the shadows until it was clear and then fled. He could not afford to be compromised after what had happened at Buck s Row.
    He had not had the time to slash her abdomen and felt fundamentally dissatisfied.
    He needed to find another victim.
    He did not want to continue on his way home. He knew that the area around St Botolphs Church in Aldgate was favoured by prostitutes. He was more than familiar with the way there as it was until June his route to work (the Red Line).

    He walked quickly to the Aldgate area (the Yellow Line) and after a short search found another suitable victim. She took him to Mitre Square. He felt more secure there and after subduing his victim killed her and fully satisfied himself. He cut off part of her apron and rapidly left the scene making directly for home.
    Once he was a safe distance away he found a doorway into a quiet stairwell (the Yellow Blob) and left the bloodied apron piece on the floor. He fished into his pocket and retrieved a piece of chalk, that his daughter had from her school.
    He wrote a message above the apron the meaning was clear to him. It was a reference to the interruption that he had experienced while next to the Jewish Club in Berner Street. He placed the blame for him feeling compelled to kill twice in none night on the Jews. It was always someone elses fault.

    He then carried on his way, quickly following his normal route home from work (the Orange Line back to his house the Red B).

    If it is necessary for the apron to be left after a delay, then Charles Lechmere could have first gone back to his workplace at Broad Street (Red C). He may have hidden his latest victims kidney in his stable area, among the tack and other equipment.
    ---

    M.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

      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.
      Interesting. But I don’ t see how it makes him the Ripper.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

        -- Just discovered that I was wrong: at the time of the Stride killing, Lechmere's mother seems to have lived in Cable Street, just on the other side of the Pinchin Street railway viaduct.

        Sorry about that. There's a rather stunning old post by Edward Stowe that I'd like to attach...

        ---



        ---

        M.
        At the time of the Stride murder, Maria Louisa lived in 1 Mary Ann Street. It was found out only after the documentary, and far from weakening the case, I think it makes it stronger.

        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:	162
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.

          I found an Alfred Crowe in Ireland in 1889 that was involved in a ruckus in which he threatened to “rip” someone but I’m sure that must be a different guy too.


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

            At the time of the Stride murder, Maria Louisa lived in 1 Mary Ann Street. It was found out only after the documentary, and far from weakening the case, I think it makes it stronger.
            Thanks for this, old bean! I should have gone on trusting my memory, rather than suddenly doubting it when I saw Cable Street referred to on here!

            M.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

              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.
              -- I think it's worth mentioning that Lechmere's geographical connection with Berner Street was not only historical: his mum still lived a few streets away. I've not seen it demonstrated that Crow's folks were still there in 1888!

              Another detail that I've not seen equalled in the Crow hostile mock-up comparison case is that Lechmere's mum also lived at an address that was not all that far from the Pinchin Street arch; the significance of this comes from that old official statement that whoever dumped the 1889 torso couldn't have carried it all that far... (Ellen Street is literally twice the distance! Heh!)

              Bests,

              M.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                quite correct gary. ive told him a million times lech has no alibi for any of the murders. and alibi is a verified corroberation usually done by the police to confirm with another witness that the person wasnt at the scene of crime around tod. and besides we dont even have hard TOD on the victims anyway.
                You are not using a standard definition for an alibi. If an alibi is "a verified corroberation usually done by the police to confirm with another witness that the person wasnt at the scene of crime around tod" then the only people who have alibis for the Ripper killings are John Pizer, and anyone else who was suspected, but cleared by police at the time.

                Your definition means anyone who was not suspected by the police at the time cannot have an alibi. Not even Prince Albert Victor. Period records show he was not in London for any of the killings, but nobody confirmed that with any witnesses - they were all dead by the time he was accused in 1962.

                For most of us an alibi is a credible claim to have been somewhere else at the time the crime occurred. That's how it's used in media accounts for real crimes. That's how it's used in detective fiction. Sometimes the police confirm alibis, but they were alibis before they were confirmed. Sometimes the police disprove alibis, but they were alibis until the police disproved them.

                Based on that definition, that an alibi is a credible claim to have been somewhere else at the time the crime occurred, Prince Albert Victor has a strong alibi - in addition to court itineraries there are newspaper accounts saying we was not on London at the appropriate times.

                Walter Sickert has a weaker alibi. He wasn't suspected until 1976, long after any witnesses were dead, but letters he wrote show he was not in Britain for two murders.

                Charles Lechmere has a stronger alibi than Sickert, though a weaker one than Prince Albert Victor. We know from his Inquest testimony that he left home, running slightly late, at 3:30am, and that he had to be at work at 4am. Again, the witnesses are all dead - he wasn't suspected until 2001.

                If suspected at the time, Charles Lechmere could have made a credible claim to have been at home when Martha Tabram was murdered. If he used an alarm clock, his wife could have confirmed his alibi. If he used a knocker upper, both that person and his wife could have confirmed his alibi.

                If suspected at the time, Charles Lechmere could have made a credible claim to have been at work when Annie Chapma was murdered. If he was assigned a van boy, they could have confirmed his alibi. His delivery records could have confirmed his alibi. Every customer who signed off on a pick up or delivery by Lechmere could have confirmed his alibi.

                If suspected at the time, Charles Lechmere could have made a credible claim to have been at home and asleep for the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes.

                If suspected at the time, Charles Lechmere could have made a credible claim to have been at work when the Pinchin Street Torso was deposited.

                Lechmere has an alibi, based on the way we actually use the word "alibi". He's one of the few suspects who has an alibi. The witnesses being long dead and the records being long since destroyed means we cannot confirm or disprove Lechmere's alibis, but that does not mean those alibis do not exist.

                And while fake alibis do happen, but they are much more common in detective fiction than in real crimes.



                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  You are not using a standard definition for an alibi. If an alibi is "a verified corroberation usually done by the police to confirm with another witness that the person wasnt at the scene of crime around tod" then the only people who have alibis for the Ripper killings are John Pizer, and anyone else who was suspected, but cleared by police at the time.

                  Your definition means anyone who was not suspected by the police at the time cannot have an alibi. Not even Prince Albert Victor. Period records show he was not in London for any of the killings, but nobody confirmed that with any witnesses - they were all dead by the time he was accused in 1962.

                  For most of us an alibi is a credible claim to have been somewhere else at the time the crime occurred. That's how it's used in media accounts for real crimes. That's how it's used in detective fiction. Sometimes the police confirm alibis, but they were alibis before they were confirmed. Sometimes the police disprove alibis, but they were alibis until the police disproved them.

                  Based on that definition, that an alibi is a credible claim to have been somewhere else at the time the crime occurred, Prince Albert Victor has a strong alibi - in addition to court itineraries there are newspaper accounts saying we was not on London at the appropriate times.

                  Walter Sickert has a weaker alibi. He wasn't suspected until 1976, long after any witnesses were dead, but letters he wrote show he was not in Britain for two murders.

                  Charles Lechmere has a stronger alibi than Sickert, though a weaker one than Prince Albert Victor. We know from his Inquest testimony that he left home, running slightly late, at 3:30am, and that he had to be at work at 4am. Again, the witnesses are all dead - he wasn't suspected until 2001.

                  If suspected at the time, Charles Lechmere could have made a credible claim to have been at home when Martha Tabram was murdered. If he used an alarm clock, his wife could have confirmed his alibi. If he used a knocker upper, both that person and his wife could have confirmed his alibi.

                  If suspected at the time, Charles Lechmere could have made a credible claim to have been at work when Annie Chapma was murdered. If he was assigned a van boy, they could have confirmed his alibi. His delivery records could have confirmed his alibi. Every customer who signed off on a pick up or delivery by Lechmere could have confirmed his alibi.

                  If suspected at the time, Charles Lechmere could have made a credible claim to have been at home and asleep for the murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes.

                  If suspected at the time, Charles Lechmere could have made a credible claim to have been at work when the Pinchin Street Torso was deposited.

                  Lechmere has an alibi, based on the way we actually use the word "alibi". He's one of the few suspects who has an alibi. The witnesses being long dead and the records being long since destroyed means we cannot confirm or disprove Lechmere's alibis, but that does not mean those alibis do not exist.

                  And while fake alibis do happen, but they are much more common in detective fiction than in real crimes.


                  ok great. lets just add phantom alibis to the case too! any one can have one lol!
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                    in other words, theres zero evidence he was alibied by the police.
                    The police never publicly confirmed or denied Lechmere's alibis.

                    Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”

                    Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

                    Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

                    Holmes: “That was the curious incident.


                    Like the dog in the night, the police silence about Lechmere as a suspect shows that they did not disprove Lechmere's alibi for the Chapman killing. If they had, he would have been prominent on their suspect lists.

                    The silence leads to a couple logical possibilities.

                    1) The police never bothered to investigate Lechmere's alibi for the Chapman killing.

                    2) The police investigated and confirmed Lechmere's alibi for the Chapman killing.

                    We can't know which of those possibilities was true, but if the police were at all competent, they would have investigated Lechmere's alibi for Chapman's killing.

                    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.
                      You are considering only one possibility. Another possibility is that he was generally known as Charles Cross. They had no reason to hunt down his birth certificate - the police knew his home and work addresses.

                      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      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.
                      You are making no sense at all.

                      Why would the police be embarrassed about using the name "Cross" in their records? Why would they be more embarrassed about that than they would be embarrassed about not catching the Ripper?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
                        the significance of this comes from that old official statement that whoever dumped the 1889 torso couldn't have carried it all that far...
                        The Torso Killer scattered body parts along a 20 mile stretch of the Thames. Clearly he wasn't hand carrying those body parts that entire distance.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                          The Torso Killer scattered body parts along a 20 mile stretch of the Thames. Clearly he wasn't hand carrying those body parts that entire distance.
                          These are not good faith postings. Your time's up. Goodbye.

                          M.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                            if the police were at all competent, they would have investigated Lechmere's alibi for Chapman's killing.
                            My feelings exactly Fiver

                            Didn't Anderson say something along the lines of following every lead , even ridiculous ones.
                            Now he may have been boasting but we do know that the police did door to door searches after the double event and questioned around 300 men with 80 being further questioned. I am sure that is in a HO report.

                            So for the police not to have done a cursory check up on Lech at his place of employment further down the line when they were chasing shadows, I know there is no evidence of it but I favour that they did.
                            One policeman to ask for the work ledgers at Pickfords to be checked to see if Lech was working, or were he was working at the time of Annie's murder seems very likely to me .
                            130 years later some of us harbour suspicions over Lech, I am sure one or two Policemen back at the time may have wanted to check out his alibi for corroboration if nothing else just to eliminate Lech from their enquires.
                            After all he was in full view. Here is someone on the street with a victim murdered recently and the police have his work and home address. How hard would it have been ?

                            Regards Darryl





                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                              My feelings exactly Fiver

                              Didn't Anderson say something along the lines of following every lead , even ridiculous ones.
                              Now he may have been boasting but we do know that the police did door to door searches after the double event and questioned around 300 men with 80 being further questioned. I am sure that is in a HO report.

                              So for the police not to have done a cursory check up on Lech at his place of employment further down the line when they were chasing shadows, I know there is no evidence of it but I favour that they did.
                              One policeman to ask for the work ledgers at Pickfords to be checked to see if Lech was working, or were he was working at the time of Annie's murder seems very likely to me .
                              130 years later some of us harbour suspicions over Lech, I am sure one or two Policemen back at the time may have wanted to check out his alibi for corroboration if nothing else just to eliminate Lech from their enquires.
                              After all he was in full view. Here is someone on the street with a victim murdered recently and the police have his work and home address. How hard would it have been ?

                              Regards Darryl




                              Absolutely. Lechmere was found alone with the body, and then is claimed to have lied to PC Mizen!!!! Of course the police made some sort of investigation of his story. We really must stop believing that the police were total idiots with no brains, no skills, and no experience of how to investigate offences.

                              Comment


                              • Phantom rippers! Phantom Alibis! and now phantom investigations? where does it end? lol
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X