Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike,

What's also interesting about Ohrocky's account is that he first approached the woman, but then moved a couple of yards away from her as he didn't want to be seen touching the young woman. Might something similar have happened in Lechmere's case? All speculation, of course, but might it?

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I think it could have. Especially if, when he saw that it was a woman, he might have seen that her skirts were raised. If she’d been raped and had fallen unconscious then to wake up with a strange man standing over her, perhaps touching her (innocently), could easily have led her to have screamed out. Might Cross have been afraid of being blamed with the woman in a confused state?

[Mike J. G.]

Of the 5 names you mentioned, I'd say Bury is the strongest suspect, Chapman second strongest, and Lech the weakest, with Kelly and Hutch about the same, and stronger than most suspects.

I wouldn't disagree too much, although I'm content with the idea that the police questioned Hutch and ruled him out. I've got Kelly higher than Hutch, but I honestly don't have a suspect, it's just that those 3 names for me, along with Kos, are the more likely. I'd still be inclined to go with an unknown, although in all likelihood they were questioned at one point and their name could be out there.

My favourite part of the whole Lechmere debacle is that Christer got a case of the willies looking into his eyes. Just goes to show how perceptions can be affected by the most average pictures of average people.

Put Lechmere's picture in a newspaper under the headline "Pensioner Saves Child From Speeding Car" and he's a warm, safe hero of the community.

Put Lechmere's picture in a newspaper under the headline "Pensioner In Stolen Car Solicits Child" and you'll probably shudder looking at the poor sod.

Poor Lech, if only he knew the extent of the waffle being thrown about the place all because he found a body on his way to work.

[Geddy2112]

One November afternoon in the 1980s a teenage boy had a paper round. Often on this paper round he was met by a friend, they both went to different secondary schools so met up when they could, but by the timings it was usually at a similar point. The mate did the odds one side of the road the lad did the evens on the other. This enabled the round to get finished sooner so the lad was always helpful of the help and of course shared the wages and any treats offered by the customers.
One such customer was disabled and lived in a section of 'old persons bungalows' this was the only part of the route where the odds and evens were separated by a grassed area. The lad always did the bungalows and this one person always was waiting at her gate at the correct time no matter what the weather. They suspected it was because she did not have much company and at least a very brief chat with the paper lad was better than nothing.
On the afternoon in question the lad was a bit surprised to note the woman was not at her gate to greet him, so whilst his mate was across the green delivering papers he decided to walk down the path towards the side entrance to her house, it was not fully dark but dark enough. It was not 'around 3:30' however that will have been the approx time the lad left the newsagent ironically. The lad noticed the door was opened a bit so pushed it further open and to his horror he saw the woman lying there with what seemed to be a head injury, a lot of blood. The lad jumped back out of the door way in shock and seemed to freeze for what seemed like over a minute. The lad's mate concerned he was not talking at the gate to the woman crossed the green to actually witness the lad moving back from the doorway. The poor woman had been murdered with horrific injuries.
The lads decided to go together to meet the first person they could to raise the alarm. They found someone in their garden across the road and they rang for the Police. The woman had not been dead that long, so in fact the paperboy had been found 'alone near a freshly killed woman' but oddly enough once the Police had done some initial investigations and some brief questioning they were sure the paper lad and his mate were not involved and no suspicion was ever placed on them.
People say of course no suspicion would be placed on two teenage boys being where they were supposed to be but it turned out one of the real murderers was even younger at just 11.

A interesting story you might say, well yes but the most interesting bit about the story is it is a true story and I was that paper boy.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Thanks for posting Ohrocky’s example. It’s a really good illustration of the things that can go through anyone’s mind in that situation and it’s not always ‘I must help’ that’s first in line. Ohrocky might have touched her to see if she was ok only for her to wake up screaming that he’d attacked her (who knows how someone might act if they’re drunk or on drugs) so Cross might have hesitated for that same reason. Would he really have wanted to be 20 minutes from work in a darkened street with a woman screaming “help, help” at the top of her lungs? Having someone else there is a good insurance policy. Also I believe that it was a common trick for women to lure a guy over so that he could be attacked and robbed, so maybe Cross was worried that some guy might be waiting in the shadows?

I see nothing suspicious in the actions of Cross or Paul. There aren’t any rules of behaviour and harder times breed harder people. There wasn’t much sympathy going around in those days. This was only 40 years after we as a country did next to zero to stop a million dying during the potato famine.

Hi Mike,

What's also interesting about Ohrocky's account is that he first approached the woman, but then moved a couple of yards away from her as he didn't want to be seen touching the young woman. Might something similar have happened in Lechmere's case? All speculation, of course, but might it?

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike & all,

Here's an interesting post by poster Ohrocky on the thread "All roads lead to Lechmere":

08-19-2021, 05:47 PM #92
Here's what happened to me.........

A couple of years ago, late one cold winters evening I was returning home from a late football match. Turning the corner into my quiet, tree-lined steet I saw "something" up against the churchyard wall. I approached and saw that it was a young woman lying there, motionless. I didn't know whether she had been attacked, had a medical episode, or had collapsed through drink and / or drugs.

I didn't want to be observed touching the young woman or her posessions so moved a couple of yards away from her. Whilst contemplating what to do I saw a woman passing on her way home from a late shift so I attracted her attention and asked her over. Being a female she had no compunction touching the young lady and eventually rousing her and rifling through her handbag. A nearly empty bottle of vodka was found in her bag so the cause of her collapse soon became apparent.

The rest of the tale doesn't really matter. But I now realise that the way I reacted on finding a woman's body out on the street was not too disimilar at all from the way Lechmere reacted on finding Polly Nichols.

The name issue is a total red herring. In the UK it is not unlawful to go by whatever name you choose provided it is not done with the intention to defraud. On another thread I posted a quote from an MJK thread (originally posted by Wickerman) where a witness gave a name but said it wasn't her real name and that not many people went by their real name. This would suggest that it was certainly not unusual for people to use names other than their registered or "official name".

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Thanks for posting Ohrocky’s example. It’s a really good illustration of the things that can go through anyone’s mind in that situation and it’s not always ‘I must help’ that’s first in line. Ohrocky might have touched her to see if she was ok only for her to wake up screaming that he’d attacked her (who knows how someone might act if they’re drunk or on drugs) so Cross might have hesitated for that same reason. Would he really have wanted to be 20 minutes from work in a darkened street with a woman screaming “help, help” at the top of her lungs? Having someone else there is a good insurance policy. Also I believe that it was a common trick for women to lure a guy over so that he could be attacked and robbed, so maybe Cross was worried that some guy might be waiting in the shadows?

I see nothing suspicious in the actions of Cross or Paul. There aren’t any rules of behaviour and harder times breed harder people. There wasn’t much sympathy going around in those days. This was only 40 years after we as a country did next to zero to stop a million dying during the potato famine.

[FrankO]

But as all people aren’t selfless now RD they certainly weren’t all selfless then. I don’t see how anyone can been seen to be making excuses for 2 men that acted in an entirely normal human way. Do you not think that we are all affected by our environments? I wouldn’t dream of carrying a gun or knifing someone over an argument and neither would you but this happens today. Even kids are behaving like this and it’s not because they’re born bad it’s because of the environment they’ve grown up in and the role models that they’ve had which has de-sensitised them to violence. If a woman had complained of being raped in those days she’d have been told “stop moaning, where’s my supper?” Probably followed by a black eye.

In Cross and Paul’s lives (I’m not talking about childhood) no one helped them. No free medical care, so no money - you suffered. No work no money - you starved or went to the horribly harsh workhouse. There was little or no evidence that politicians gave them a seconds thought until there was a war and then they became prime cannon fodder before losing a leg and spending the rest of their shortened lives as a beggar on the street.

Cross sees a shape that he thinks might be useful to him then when he gets to the middle of the road he finds that it’s a woman that’s no use to him. If he hadn’t heard Paul approaching at that point I wouldn’t have been surprised if he’d just passed by. This is probably what he’d have thought to himself “probably some drunken old ****. Not my problem, I’m not being late because of some gin sodden old ****. Hold on, what if she’s injured? Nah, that’s her problem, shouldn’t be out on the streets. I’m not having her all over me if she wakes up. Anyway there are coppers passing, one of them will find her.”

Cross and Paul acted perfectly normally. There are people today who would think exactly the same RD. I’ve seen footage of people lying in the street and people just walking past. It happens.

Hi Mike & all,

Here's an interesting post by poster Ohrocky on the thread "All roads lead to Lechmere":

08-19-2021, 05:47 PM #92
Here's what happened to me.........

A couple of years ago, late one cold winters evening I was returning home from a late football match. Turning the corner into my quiet, tree-lined steet I saw "something" up against the churchyard wall. I approached and saw that it was a young woman lying there, motionless. I didn't know whether she had been attacked, had a medical episode, or had collapsed through drink and / or drugs.

I didn't want to be observed touching the young woman or her posessions so moved a couple of yards away from her. Whilst contemplating what to do I saw a woman passing on her way home from a late shift so I attracted her attention and asked her over. Being a female she had no compunction touching the young lady and eventually rousing her and rifling through her handbag. A nearly empty bottle of vodka was found in her bag so the cause of her collapse soon became apparent.

The rest of the tale doesn't really matter. But I now realise that the way I reacted on finding a woman's body out on the street was not too disimilar at all from the way Lechmere reacted on finding Polly Nichols.

The name issue is a total red herring. In the UK it is not unlawful to go by whatever name you choose provided it is not done with the intention to defraud. On another thread I posted a quote from an MJK thread (originally posted by Wickerman) where a witness gave a name but said it wasn't her real name and that not many people went by their real name. This would suggest that it was certainly not unusual for people to use names other than their registered or "official name".

All the best,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

This is not meant to be anything other than a throwaway comment, but I was listening to a retired homicide detective the other night, and he had some interesting things to say about witnesses.

Based on years of experience, two types of witnesses raised his suspicions: those too helpful and eager with information, and those who wanted to tell him nothing.

One can find examples of both 'types' in the Whitechapel Murders case, but I personally don't think Lechmere is a good example of either. To me, he comes across as someone squarely in the middle.

Excellent point that one. Totally agree. When this whole body finding lark happened to me, when I was a teenager I was probably still in shock and probably said not very much, however the next day I was probably speaking too much and can remember being told to just answer the question instead of elaboration which I have found out in later life I do when I'm nervous. You could probably (and someone probably has) write a book on the psychology of the witness. Even though I was 'found next to a freshly killed woman' by my mate I was never thought as suspicious though... thought I best add that.

[Lewis C]

I totally agree that there are a few better suspects than Lech for me. Bury, Chapman, Kelly, for starters. Hutch is arguably better than Lechmere, I'd say, but not better than the 3 I listed, which I'm sure you'd agree with.

Of the 5 names you mentioned, I'd say Bury is the strongest suspect, Chapman second strongest, and Lech the weakest, with Kelly and Hutch about the same, and stronger than most suspects.

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

I would suggest that there is a better suspect than Lechmere that can be placed at the scene of a crime: George Hutchinson. I don't think that he's quite the best suspect overall, just the best of those that can be placed at the scene of a crime.

I totally agree that there are a few better suspects than Lech for me. Bury, Chapman, Kelly, for starters. Hutch is arguably better than Lechmere, I'd say, but not better than the 3 I listed, which I'm sure you'd agree with.

[Mike J. G.]

Yes and the fibs have been going on for too long -

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9512928/Was-Jack-the-Ripper-a-cart-driver-from-Bethnal-Green.html

Robert Paul never said that and he was not on his way to Pickfords' he worked somewhere else



Which of course contradicts the quote above but sorry, it should be middle of the road guv'nor...



Nope... Chapman out of hours, Kelly not a work day, Berner St and Mitre square not on those routes... not a bad quote though for near 100% false.



Nope...

Agreed again.

[Mike J. G.]

Agreed. Finding the body makes him a better suspect than many, but there wasn't just one body. Based on the testimony of three witnesses, Chapman was killed after Lechmere started work. Killing Stride and Eddowes would have meant staying up 23+ hours or getting up 3+ hours early on his only day off.

Totally agree.

[JeffHamm]

With regards to Cross/Lechmere and Paul's reactions, and later statements of what they thought and believed at the time, I've always had the impression that what they later say, and what they thought at the time, might not quite be the same but rather modified by what they learned after the fact. I'm not sure I can phrase this very clearly, but I'll give it a go. Also, this is entirely speculative as there is no way to tease these ideas apart without actually talking with them, which is of course clearly impossible.

Anyway, all of the statements we have from both men were made after they both had learned that the woman they had come across had actually been murdered, quite horrifically. That knowledge will impact their recollections, and will influence how they recall their thoughts and actions at the time. It's normal, and is one of the difficulties with regards to interpreting witness statements.

From their descriptions of what they did while examining Polly, it seems clear they spent very little time actually examining her. They seem to have gone over, checked her out and pulled down her dress a bit, but as it was somewhat "stuck", so they couldn't pull it all the way down, they didn't try any harder. This is fairly cursory actions, and shows an understandable reluctance to handle someone who they (I think) believe was simply drunk in the streets (not an uncommon sight). It is also natural for people to think things are "things as usual", and it would be a very odd thing for them to think they've found a murder victim.

Looking for the police, to send aid, while they continue on to work, is not really being callous, and could even be argued to be doing more than most might. Anyone in a city where there are homeless people will no doubt have seen people sleeping in the streets, but how often have you then informed a police officer of that? How do we know that person isn't dead, say of a heart attack or exposure? We don't, we presume they are just sleeping rough because that is the normal state of affairs. If, however, we went the extra yards and told the police of the person sleeping in the stairwell down the road, and later heard that the person was indeed dead, it would not be uncommon for someone to then recount that the reason they told the police was because there was something odd about the situation - i.e. I thought they might even be dead. Finding out they were dead will influence how we recall our thoughts at the time.

I get the impression that the two carmen, at the time, probably thought she was just drunk. They might have had the impression something was "odd", which is how their statements to Mizen come across. The claim they said "she might be dead" type thing, might be accurate, but I suspect even if they said such a thing that at the time they probably thought that highly unlikely, but it reflects that sense of "oddness" about the situation.

By the time the press find them, and when they are giving testimony, their subsequent knowledge that she was brutally murdered, has elevated that sense of unease they may have experienced at the time, and so when they describe it and we get to read their statements, their choice of language to describe things highlights what they later learned did happen rather than describes what they felt/thought at the actual time.

If they truly thought she was dead, I think they would have rushed off more quickly in search of the police or assistance, as we see in the cases where members of the public found one of the victims and knew they were dead (as in the case of Chapman, Stride, and Kelly - Eddowes being found by the police). Going back to Tabram, we see that people simply walked passed her when they thought she was just sleeping in the stairwell, for example. So Cross/Lechmere and Paul actually checking on her is indeed showing more concern than others showed towards someone who might appear to have simply been sleeping rough.

The lack of any great alarm by them points to the lack of any real belief she was dead, or even "outraged", at the time. The fact they examined her shows more concern for someone sleeping in the street than many others, and it may be that statements to Mizen about "she might be dead" or "outraged", reflect more of an attempt to ensure aid was sent to her than an actual belief either of those things were the case (which is probably why Mizen didn't respond to them - they didn't really come across as convincing, indicating they probably didn't really believe those things themselves at the time).

Anyway, I recognize that I could be way off the mark on this, but my impression of the various accounts we have from the two carmen, found in the press and from their inquest testimony, is that when they left Polly, their belief is that she was drunk, and probably in need of some aid. They may have had some sense things seemed "weird" in some way, but not to the point they really thought she was dead, or even necessarily the victim of any sort of violent crime. And if that is the case, it also indicates just how little time I think they actually spent examining her (but spending any time at all checking on her is also more than most people would have done).

I think our evaluation of their characters based upon us knowing Polly was murdered is similar, we're evaluating their actions in the light of knowing what actually happened to her, rather than evaluating their actions given they did not know she was anything but someone sleeping rough at the time. It would not at all surprise me if someone else had walked down Buck's Row ahead of Cross/Lechmere and simply went passed her, even if they had seen her.

- Jeff

[rjpalmer]

This is not meant to be anything other than a throwaway comment, but I was listening to a retired homicide detective the other night, and he had some interesting things to say about witnesses.

Based on years of experience, two types of witnesses raised his suspicions: those too helpful and eager with information, and those who wanted to tell him nothing.

One can find examples of both 'types' in the Whitechapel Murders case, but I personally don't think Lechmere is a good example of either. To me, he comes across as someone squarely in the middle.

[Geddy2112]

We can fairly say that Paul 'thought' he felt Polly breathing and thus alive, even though it was faint.

Testimonies -

The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." - Cross

Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. - Paul

So Cross knew when they were both at the body that Paul suggested she was still in effect alive. My issue with Cross being Jack The Ripper is why if Paul thought she was still alive that he did nothing about it. He did not try to silence Paul and he did not try to finish Polly off. The obvious reason why he did not silence Paul or 'do anything' about Polly being alive was simple - HE WAS NOT THE MURDERER.

[Geddy2112]

Cross and Paul acted perfectly normally. There are people today who would think exactly the same RD. I’ve seen footage of people lying in the street and people just walking past. It happens.

Or like nowadays whip the mobile phone out and film it for 5 mins of X or YouTube fame. Times have changed but maybe attitudes have not.