Evidence of innocence

[Abby Normal]

Hi Caz
I think it's important to remember that Nichols was the first victim. There was no serial ripper at that stage, so it was much easier to accept Lechmere had simply stumbled upon a body. In a later case, you'd think that anyone found so near a victim would definitely have been looked at far more seriously.

hi dickere
there were many in the press already assigning nichols as the third victim-after emma smith and tabram

[caz]

Here is my evidence of innocence - for what it's worth. I know Fisherman will tear it to shreds, but I'm not just posting this for his benefit.

'Shortly after 10.15, with the shadows now deep and dark, student Tristram Beasley-Suffolk was walking across the Green, "taking a breath of air from his studies", when he saw what he thought was some white plastic sheeting lying on the ground on the edge of the cricket square. But as he got closer he realized, to his horror, it was a person.
Amelie was face-down on the grass with her right arm underneath her and her legs bent up towards her chest in what was almost the foetal position. She was breathing, but only just: she had been hit viciously on the head with a heavy blunt instrument - not once but several times. Tristram did what he could to make her comfortable and ran across the Green to ask the local wine bar to call an ambulance...'

Amelie was rushed to hospital but was pronounced dead the same night, on Friday August 20, 2004.

Now this is a recognised human response to seeing the unexpected from a little way off - a human body lying in a public place, either dead or dying. A bundle of rags, a doll, a shop dummy, some plastic sheeting, a tarpaulin - the normal human mind resists, until it can resist no more, the bleakest of all possibilities.

Contrary to some opinions, dead or severely injured women did not routinely litter the streets of Whitechapel in 1888, so anyone seeing the 'object' lying in Buck's Row on that late August night, as they approached it from a distance, would not necessarily have recognised it for what it was until they got much closer. Lechmere said he took it for a tarpaulin at first, while it would appear that Paul was similarly unaware of the situation until he reached Lechmere and was directed to where it was now obvious that the object was no tarpaulin, but a human being.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought psychopaths were not all that good at imagining things from another person's perspective, in this example a killer getting into the mind of an innocent witness, who comes across a murder victim for the first time in his life and can't accept the evidence of his own eyes until he is too close for the comfort of any alternative explanation. So while I can see how it might be possible for such a killer to have fooled Paul into not having the slightest doubts about him after his initial worries about the kind of people one could meet on that street, I struggle with Lechmere having had the insight to invent that tarpaulin detail. It has the ring of truth - and innocence - running through it like letters through a stick of Brighton rock.

Love,

Caz
X

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Just to jump in briefly,

The premise of "proof of innocence" for Charles is realistically impossible. We have a limited amount of data on his life and movements, particularly at that crucial time, so cast iron proof, such as being incarcerated or abroad are not options. Short of such irrefutable data, anything else is always going to be a matter of speculation and possibility. See Druitt and his cricket matches. So proving his innocence is effectively impossible. He lived and worked in the area, had friends and family there, a local pub and a school for his kids. He's tied to the area, and in a case that covers such a localised region, he's not escaping that.

He can be placed at the scene of the Nichols murder, in close proximity to her death, that's indisputable. That merits his inclusion on the suspect list. But, as Christer freely admits, the rest is coincidence and speculation. There's no data to verify anything, but lots of possibilities that only appear in the case of Charles Letchmere, at least as far as we know, so that's worth entertaining. As possibilities go, I'd put the Eddowes murder up there, because that typifies the model, it's based on possibilities, but they're are many. There are no unassailable facts.

For a man who lived, worked and socialised in that confined area, he's always going to be a disadvantage in distancing himself from coincidence.

As for evidence of his innocence. None. Not a shred.

[caz]

Not even a shred of that imagined tarpaulin, Al? The man would have needed to be a genius to invent that detail about human nature, if he had never seen a dead person from a distance and thought he was looking at an inanimate object.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I am sure it did and I bet they checked his and Pauls accounts and movements after they found them both.

We have nothing anywhere from anyone back then to show Lechmere was looked upon as a suspect, despite all the ambiguities that have arisen, if they didnt at the time I am sure when the names conflcit arose they woud have looked more closely, but of course if that ambiguity was soon negated then he was exonerated and if they had have looked on him as a suspect you can bet your life that after the next murder he would have been first in line to be re visisted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And since you are "sure they did" and since you "bet they checked" Lechmere out, can you please tell me why they were under the impression that he was called Cross? WOuld not a check reveal his real name: And would not the police use his real name once they had it?

I believe it is the 1. 456 332:nd time this is asked. So far, I have never seen any good - or half good - answer.

[Fisherman]

Here is my evidence of innocence - for what it's worth. I know Fisherman will tear it to shreds, but I'm not just posting this for his benefit.

'Shortly after 10.15, with the shadows now deep and dark, student Tristram Beasley-Suffolk was walking across the Green, "taking a breath of air from his studies", when he saw what he thought was some white plastic sheeting lying on the ground on the edge of the cricket square. But as he got closer he realized, to his horror, it was a person.
Amelie was face-down on the grass with her right arm underneath her and her legs bent up towards her chest in what was almost the foetal position. She was breathing, but only just: she had been hit viciously on the head with a heavy blunt instrument - not once but several times. Tristram did what he could to make her comfortable and ran across the Green to ask the local wine bar to call an ambulance...'

Amelie was rushed to hospital but was pronounced dead the same night, on Friday August 20, 2004.

Now this is a recognised human response to seeing the unexpected from a little way off - a human body lying in a public place, either dead or dying. A bundle of rags, a doll, a shop dummy, some plastic sheeting, a tarpaulin - the normal human mind resists, until it can resist no more, the bleakest of all possibilities.

Contrary to some opinions, dead or severely injured women did not routinely litter the streets of Whitechapel in 1888, so anyone seeing the 'object' lying in Buck's Row on that late August night, as they approached it from a distance, would not necessarily have recognised it for what it was until they got much closer. Lechmere said he took it for a tarpaulin at first, while it would appear that Paul was similarly unaware of the situation until he reached Lechmere and was directed to where it was now obvious that the object was no tarpaulin, but a human being.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought psychopaths were not all that good at imagining things from another person's perspective, in this example a killer getting into the mind of an innocent witness, who comes across a murder victim for the first time in his life and can't accept the evidence of his own eyes until he is too close for the comfort of any alternative explanation. So while I can see how it might be possible for such a killer to have fooled Paul into not having the slightest doubts about him after his initial worries about the kind of people one could meet on that street, I struggle with Lechmere having had the insight to invent that tarpaulin detail. It has the ring of truth - and innocence - running through it like letters through a stick of Brighton rock.

Love,

Caz
X

Okay, I will correct you if you are wrong. Psychopaths are very good at mimicking all sorts of behaviors, meaning that they are very aware how people with other perspectives than their own react to different matters. This is why they cry, seem upset, laugh, worry etc. together with other people - not because they feel sad, upset, happy or worried, but because they know what is expected from them.

The tarp matter is something I myself think is perfectly in line with what a psychopath could conjur up. Let´s remember that he was not giving his evidence a minute after the affair; he had three days to ponder what he should say. Coming up with the tarpaulin in that time would be easy-peasy for anybody, psychopaths included. They are gifted liars who enjoy playing games and feeling superior.

As for "tearing your suggestion to shreds", I said at the outset of this thread that I want a civil debate, and I am not deviating from that stance now. I try, as best as I can, to give my view and support it by known facts, and I am thankful for whatever suggestions may arrive.

[Fisherman]

Just to jump in briefly,

The premise of "proof of innocence" for Charles is realistically impossible. We have a limited amount of data on his life and movements, particularly at that crucial time, so cast iron proof, such as being incarcerated or abroad are not options. Short of such irrefutable data, anything else is always going to be a matter of speculation and possibility. See Druitt and his cricket matches. So proving his innocence is effectively impossible. He lived and worked in the area, had friends and family there, a local pub and a school for his kids. He's tied to the area, and in a case that covers such a localised region, he's not escaping that.

He can be placed at the scene of the Nichols murder, in close proximity to her death, that's indisputable. That merits his inclusion on the suspect list. But, as Christer freely admits, the rest is coincidence and speculation. There's no data to verify anything, but lots of possibilities that only appear in the case of Charles Letchmere, at least as far as we know, so that's worth entertaining. As possibilities go, I'd put the Eddowes murder up there, because that typifies the model, it's based on possibilities, but they're are many. There are no unassailable facts.

For a man who lived, worked and socialised in that confined area, he's always going to be a disadvantage in distancing himself from coincidence.

As for evidence of his innocence. None. Not a shred.

You are almost certainly correct that no decisive evidence of innocence will be presented (we cannot rule out new finds, though). But I find it interesting to see how people who think the carman is innocent reason, and I think the thread has generated interesting discussions, like I have already pointed out. If we could furthermore carry on that discussion in a friendly tone, then so much the better, and I think we are succeeding to do just that in most cases.

[Fisherman]

Not even a shred of that imagined tarpaulin, Al? The man would have needed to be a genius to invent that detail about human nature, if he had never seen a dead person from a distance and thought he was looking at an inanimate object.

Love,

Caz
X

A genius? I think that is overegging the pudding rather dramatically. Think of him, sitting at home, pondering how he should play his cards if he was the killer. Surely, stating that he at first thought it was a tarpaulin would be a very trivial thing to do? It would serve well to convince the inquest that he was innocent - not least if they shared your demands for ingenuity!

[Fisherman]

Of course, if Lechmere only decided to come forward as a result of Pauls 2nd of September interview, he would only have one day to figure out what to say, not three. But it is ample time nevertheless.

[The Baron]

Lechmere is innocent.

Both him and Paul didn't notice any blood.

Paul detected what might have been a faint breath.

I challenge you to prove Nichols was dead or even cut when Lechmere left her.


If you cannot, and you can not, then Lechmere is innocent.



The Baron

[paul g]

Neither innocence nor guilt is proven by finding a body. But the guilty nutshell is a lot bigger than the innocent one. It compares to a coconut and a hazelnut…

well actually it is not.
The guilty nutshell is not a lot bigger than the innocent one at all , that is only your opinion.
while you could be right in your assumption or belief sadly and this is a fact
There is no 100% indisputable fact or evidence that backs that belief up.
Non.
There is conjecture assumptions opinions but not one factual piece of evidence either posted by yourself or in your book that indicates he is guilty.
you or others could argue that there is nothing to prove his innocence either which is also correct.
Therefore the nutshells you speak of are equal unless you can post a undisputed fact that points to guilt.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fisherman,

And indeed they ARE a collection of interpretations, Jeff. But they can be pointers and a collection of interpretations at the same time. Just as is the case with Schrodingers cat, we don´t know if my take on things is correct or not, and so we cannot discount the possibility that they are REAL pointers. Once again, it is not each pointer per se thqat makes the case, it is instead the fact that there are too many such pointers to be kosher. Or, worded differently, too many things allow themselves to be interpreted as signs of guilt for it to be all coincidental. Scobie, and all that, you know.

I think where you're getting pushback is the fact, as we both agree, what we have are a collection of interpretations, either interpretations based upon presuming guilt or interpretations based upon presuming innocence. Both presumptions can account for the information.

Where those who disagree with you are, I believe, generally coming from is the stance that if one drops both presumptions, and just looks at the information we start with, does it lead to the conclusion of guilt rather than can it be interpreted when starting from a guilty perspective. Those who disagree with you believe the information does not lead to guilt, and because there are far more innocent people than guilty ones (even if every murder were committed by a different offender, that would still be true, obviously), then the odds are always in favour of innocence. What tips those odds towards guilty is evidence that cannot be interpreted by the presumption of innocence (or at least is very hard to force into that perspective). Because the information we have is not difficult to interpret from an innocence perspective, the fact that it can be presented from a guilty perspective does not carry much weight for them.

Barnett, for example, or Hutchinson, are also viewed as potential JtR's for this reason, their actions can be presented as consistent with a guilty starting point despite the fact that a guilty starting point is not necessary to explain their particular actions. Since Barnett and Hutchinson are both tied to Kelly's murder, unless they were working as a team, they can't both be guilty. If we add Cross/Lechmere into the mix, we now have a pretty crowded room in Miller's Court, or at least two of them are innocent, and odds would be all three are.

I think your view (and correct me if I'm way off base here), is that because Cross/Lechmere can be presented from a guilty perspective he simply needs to be added to the list of potential JtRs, which is obviously a fair request (particularly in light of some other candidates that have been put forth for which I think even that request is unreasonable, such as Lewis Carrol to name an extreme example). Suggesting someone should be added to the list of potentials, however, isn't weakened by recognizing that the evidence is not definitive, which, by the way, I don't think you've ever said it is. But if you agree it is not definitive, then there's nothing wrong with agreeing with the points that demonstrate that very thing. Arguing that all presentations from the point of view of innocence is somehow unacceptable because they are "alternative interpretations", makes it sound like you don't view the presentations from the point of view of guilt as similarly being "alternative interpretations" (they're just not alternatives to your perspective). At best, what we have, is a collection of arguably ambiguous information, that could be interpreted either way. Advancement of our knowledge starts with identifying those points of ambiguity, and then conducting research to see if we can find something that definitively resolves it. When two sides refuse to agree on where those points of ambiguity are, though, then resolution will continually escape us.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

And since you are "sure they did" and since you "bet they checked" Lechmere out, can you please tell me why they were under the impression that he was called Cross? WOuld not a check reveal his real name: And would not the police use his real name once they had it?

I believe it is the 1. 456 332:nd time this is asked. So far, I have never seen any good - or half good - answer.

The name he used at the inquest, must have been in his original statement made to the police, and that is why there is no mystery surrounding the names, other than the one you have created. If he had given the statement to the police in one name and then used another at the inquest questions would have been asked at the inquest and it would have been recorded and we would all be the wiser.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

When posters use terms like suspicion,possibilities,beliefs,opinions,it is a sure sign they do not know the facts,and facts are what prove situations.It is quite permissable to entertain a suspicion,which is what occured at the finding of the body of Nichols. There was a a suspicion that Nichols might have been alive when found,a suspicion that was never proven.The evidence of Neil,together with the medical evidence,make it unlikely that Nichols was alive when found.So no,Fisherman I am not wrong on any account.Try again.
It is quite common for witnesses in criminal cases to give conflicting evidence.Rarely does it end up in one or the other being charged with perjury,or misleadin the police.Cross answered a question put to him at the inquest,under oath.There is a suspicion among certain posters that he lied.They have not of course proved it to be a lie.No suspicion of lying was raised by either the Coroner,the jury,or the police,yet those same posters(Fisherman,Mr Barnett etc) continue to try and persuade otherwise.
The killing of Nichols was a real event.There was a police investigation.We can only argue the guilt or innocence of Cross from the information available,and nowhere in that information,are facts that prove Cross guilty,and if he cannot be proven guilty,by the laws that existed in 1888,he must be considered innocent.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,



I think where you're getting pushback is the fact, as we both agree, what we have are a collection of interpretations, either interpretations based upon presuming guilt or interpretations based upon presuming innocence. Both presumptions can account for the information.

Where those who disagree with you are, I believe, generally coming from is the stance that if one drops both presumptions, and just looks at the information we start with, does it lead to the conclusion of guilt rather than can it be interpreted when starting from a guilty perspective. Those who disagree with you believe the information does not lead to guilt, and because there are far more innocent people than guilty ones (even if every murder were committed by a different offender, that would still be true, obviously), then the odds are always in favour of innocence. What tips those odds towards guilty is evidence that cannot be interpreted by the presumption of innocence (or at least is very hard to force into that perspective). Because the information we have is not difficult to interpret from an innocence perspective, the fact that it can be presented from a guilty perspective does not carry much weight for them.

Barnett, for example, or Hutchinson, are also viewed as potential JtR's for this reason, their actions can be presented as consistent with a guilty starting point despite the fact that a guilty starting point is not necessary to explain their particular actions. Since Barnett and Hutchinson are both tied to Kelly's murder, unless they were working as a team, they can't both be guilty. If we add Cross/Lechmere into the mix, we now have a pretty crowded room in Miller's Court, or at least two of them are innocent, and odds would be all three are.

I think your view (and correct me if I'm way off base here), is that because Cross/Lechmere can be presented from a guilty perspective he simply needs to be added to the list of potential JtRs, which is obviously a fair request (particularly in light of some other candidates that have been put forth for which I think even that request is unreasonable, such as Lewis Carrol to name an extreme example). Suggesting someone should be added to the list of potentials, however, isn't weakened by recognizing that the evidence is not definitive, which, by the way, I don't think you've ever said it is. But if you agree it is not definitive, then there's nothing wrong with agreeing with the points that demonstrate that very thing. Arguing that all presentations from the point of view of innocence is somehow unacceptable because they are "alternative interpretations", makes it sound like you don't view the presentations from the point of view of guilt as similarly being "alternative interpretations" (they're just not alternatives to your perspective). At best, what we have, is a collection of arguably ambiguous information, that could be interpreted either way. Advancement of our knowledge starts with identifying those points of ambiguity, and then conducting research to see if we can find something that definitively resolves it. When two sides refuse to agree on where those points of ambiguity are, though, then resolution will continually escape us.

- Jeff

Keeping it short: I am aware that there is no conclusive proof in Lechmer´s case. But if I was on a jury, asked to say whether I thought that the existing amount and character of the circumstantial evidence was enough to secure a conviction, then I would - no hesitation - send him down.

As has been pointed out before, that decision would be based on the existing evidence, and not involve whatever material he would - or would not - be able to present in his defense.

In my eyes and based on the evidence, he must be considered guilty until such evidence surfaces that can alter the picture.