Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

A thread devoted to offering space where those who think there is evidence pointing to innocence on Charles Lecherme´s behalf can provide their thoughts and ideas. My personal take is that there is no genuine evidence at all that points to innocence on the carmans behalf, but since it has been led on that I ommitted to present such evidence in my book "Cutting Point", it would be interesting to see what that evidence consists of.

What this thread is not for is presenting alternative innocent explanations, like "Mizen may have made up the stuff about that other PC", because it would drown the thread totally - such alternative explanations can be provided en an endless stream, and although we must consider them, they are not genuine evidence of innocence but only "what if's".

What we do not need out here either are claims like "Lechmere is a useless suspect". Althoug anybody is entitles to entertain that idea, it is the evidence they can put behind it that counts.

So let´s not speak about how there may have been alternative innocent explanations at play, but instead start our contributions with "Charles Lechmere cannot have been the killer because..." and than add true and genuine evidence. Another starting point can of course be "Charles Lechmere is not likely to be the killer because..." - just as there can be circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt, there can also be circumstantial evidence speaking of innocence.

But is there?

Let me know.

Anybody who can master this debate without descending into disrespectfulness is welcomed to the thread. And I demand that attitude from everyone, myself included.

[harry]

'A person is considered innocent untill proven guilty' There is no provision,as far as I am aware,of an accused to be proven innocent,but supposing,as the author of this thread wants us, for some peculiar reason,to play his litle game,I will join in.
Cross was considered innocent because no one accused him of committing a murder.

[Dickere]

Charles Lechmere is not likely to be the killer because if Paul had any suspicions about him he would have told the police about them as he seems a decent bloke.

I do love a mass debate

[Fiver]

'A person is considered innocent untill proven guilty'

Agreed.

No physical evidence connects Charles Lechmere to the killings. He found one of bodies, but no blood was seen on him by Robert Paul or PC Mizen.
Annie Chapman was killed between 5:30am and 6am. Charles Lechmere started work at 4am, so he has an alibi.
Elizabeth Stride was killed around 12:45am. Charles Lechmere normally left for work around 3:20am to 3:30am.
Catherine Eddowes was killed around 1:45am. Charles Lechmere normally left for work around 3:20am to 3:30am.

[Fisherman]

'A person is considered innocent untill proven guilty' There is no provision,as far as I am aware,of an accused to be proven innocent,but supposing,as the author of this thread wants us, for some peculiar reason,to play his litle game,I will join in.
Cross was considered innocent because no one accused him of committing a murder.

The fact that nobody accuses you of murder is not in any way genuine evidence of innocence. Many killers who passed as innocent and were not accused of murder initially were nevertheless serial killers. And it is not as if Christie had never been accused, he would automatically be innocent, is it? The Golden State killer de Angelo killed his last victim in 1986. After that, he was not accused of murder for the 35ish years leading up to his arrest and confession. During all that time, he was guilty, not innocent.

[Fisherman]

Charles Lechmere is not likely to be the killer because if Paul had any suspicions about him he would have told the police about them as he seems a decent bloke.

I do love a mass debate

People do not have to entertain suspicions against killers. In fact, it is a very common thing that those living in the vicinity of a serial killer react with utter amazement when they are told the truth. So this is not anything like genuine evidence of innocence.

[Fisherman]

Agreed.

No physical evidence connects Charles Lechmere to the killings. He found one of bodies, but no blood was seen on him by Robert Paul or PC Mizen.
Annie Chapman was killed between 5:30am and 6am. Charles Lechmere started work at 4am, so he has an alibi.
Elizabeth Stride was killed around 12:45am. Charles Lechmere normally left for work around 3:20am to 3:30am.
Catherine Eddowes was killed around 1:45am. Charles Lechmere normally left for work around 3:20am to 3:30am.

The 1888 police had very limited means to secure physical evidence. If it had been today, there would likely have been fingerprints, dna and so on. Even today, murderers do not always leave physical evidence. The time Chapman was killed is not established, and may well have been in line with the Nichols murder. And Lechmere could of course have been the killer regardless of what time of the day she was killed. Stride was not killed on a. Working day, but instead on a Saturday night when Lechmere had likely the day off. The same goes for Eddowes. So none of your points are genuine evidene of innocence.

[Fisherman]

So far, thanks for the contributions. I hope to have more suggestions added by other posters, so that we may perhaps outline the case for the defence a bit sharper.

[harry]

The killers you mentioned Fisherman,confessed to their crimes.Cross neither confessed,nor was accused,nor was suspected of killing anyone.
By the way,what is your definition of Innocence,in regard to murder?

[Fisherman]

The killers you mentioned Fisherman,confessed to their crimes.Cross neither confessed,nor was accused,nor was suspected of killing anyone.
By the way,what is your definition of Innocence,in regard to murder?

It is not as if every undiscovered killer will admit to what he has done, though. As a consequence, there will be a pool of such people that flies under the statistic radar, meaning that it CAN be suggested that undiscovered killers are non-existant. If you subscribe to that view, I can only disagree with you.

What is my definition of innocence in regard to murder? Not having perpetrated it. There can be no other definition. The fact that a suspect must be regarded as innocent until proven guilty is not the same thing as that suspect actually being innocent. Until Gary Ridgway confessed to what he had done, he was regarded as innocent, but he was far from it. He had killed on dozens of occasions, and the police were suspecting him for the longest time but did not have the evidence to convict him. During that time, Harry, was he an innocent man - or a man that was guilty? I woul appreciate an answer on that question from your side.

Loosing our sense of logic over a phrase NOT designed to help killers out but instead to create learoom for those who may look guilty without being so is not a very productive thing, is it? There must always be very farreaching demands before we may convict somebody of the worst crime there is, that of taking somebody else’ s life. This means, among other things, that many killers who cannot be convicted because of a lack of evidence, will walk free. Such men are innocent by way of the legal definition, but they are of course not innocent practically.

[erobitha]

The only thing that you have is him being the first discover Nichols, but his alibis for the other times of death would exonerate him alone if he was suspected. As it did for John Pizer. People have latched on to letch because of the accident with the child and his name change. Neither of which makes him JtR.

[Fisherman]

The only thing that you have is him being the first discover Nichols, but his alibis for the other times of death would exonerate him alone if he was suspected. As it did for John Pizer. People have latched on to letch because of the accident with the child and his name change. Neither of which makes him JtR.

I have pointed out before that there are many people who are inclined to say "The only thing you´ve got on him" - and then they add different things! Some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is that he first discovered Nichols", some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is the name change", some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is how he traversed the killing zone", some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is how he disagreed with Mizen".
So no, Erobitha, I do not have one thing only on him - I have scores of things. And then I have a bunch of naysayers who disagree in different ways.

Returning to the object of this thread, it is of course not to look into the points of accusation, but instead to see what evidence there is that he was innocent. You make a contribution in that field by speaking about "his alibis for the other times of death". It cleared Pizer, so why would it not clear Lechmere? Well, mainly because we have no alibi in any case for Lechmere. If it was there, it is unrecorded. And the fact remains that there is a correlation between his morning work trek and Tabram/Nichols/Chapman/Kelly, just as he has geographical links to the Stride and Eddowes murders too. Plus, of course, the two murders that were not perpetrated on workdays (normally Monday-Saturday), were instead committed on the one night when workers normally had their day off. And NOT at the time Lechmere walked to work. For Lechmere to fit the bill, none of the Whitechapel murders can be exchanged for any of the St Georges/Aldgate murders. But they all fall neatly in place into a wrking man´s normal schedule.
That in itself makes for a pretty convincing argument. Or another cry of "coincidence!"

If you have read my book, you would have seen a long list of circumstantial evidence, reaching miles beyond the name change and the finding of the body of Polly Nichols. Furthermore, you would see that finding that body as such is not what makes Lechmere look a very good suspect. It is instead the circumstances surrounding that find. It must be surmised that when Robert Paul saw the body, the cutting had already been done, and so the bleeding process would have commenced some time BEFORE Robert Paul arrived at the body. After that, it took around four minutes for Lechmere and Paul to examine the body, leave it lying and seek out Jonas Mizen. Realistically, since Mizen was then informed by Lechmere about the body and since he finished a knocking up errand before setting off for Bucks Row, it would have been around a four minute return trip too. So we have an eight minute period elapsing between when Robert Paul saw the body and when Mizen arrived at it - at which time it was "still bleeding" as the PC put it. If we assume that Lechmere cut her, we need to add at least another minute before Paul arrived. If it was somebody else, we must add numerous minutes, not just the one.

With Lechmere as the perp, we have therefore around a nine minute ongoing bleeding. And two forensic pathologists tell me that although this may perhaps happen, a bleeding time of some three to five minutes is the more realistic guess. So Nichols bled a lot longer than the pathologists would have expected, making evey added minute of bleeding after five minutes more and more unexpected.

It is not just about finding a body, Erobitha. Very, very far from it. Lechmere becomes a red hot bid when we look at the bleeding, and once he has been heated up to that stage, we must add:
-The disagreement with Mizen, where Mizen says that Lechmere claimed that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row, something that allowed the carmen to passa the PC without even having their names taken.
-The fact that Mizen said that there was no talk of murder or suicide; he does not acknowledge that Lechmere spoke of a possible death.
-The fact that Paul never said that he saw or heard Lechmere a mere 30-40 yards in front of himself.
-The fact that Lechmeres walk to work took him right through the killing fields of Whitechapel at times that seem roughly consistent with the murders.
-The fact that the wounds of Nichols were covered up by her clothes.
-The fact that Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up.
-The fact that Lechmere said he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, which would have had him in Bucks Row at 3.27-3.37, not at 3.45.
-The fact that Lechmere called himself Cross when involved in a case of murder, whereas he always otherwise called himself Lechmere in authority contacts.
One of these things only would be bad for the carmans claims of innocence. Two would be catastrophic. Taken all together, they make for a very good accusation act. If he is not guilty, these were all coincidences and flukes. Accepting that is being incredibly naive in my book. And that´s the only book I can answer for.

So anyways, it´s not just about finding a body, is it?

Finally, in your post, there is of course not any genuine evidence of innocence. What there is, is "he may have had an alibi". Meaning that it is another example of the so called alternative innocent explanations. And those can be taken to any exotic lengths. Maybe he was moonlighting as a magician on the Embankment they night Stride and Eddowes was killed? Maybe he had been enrolled chasing vampyres in Transylvania in November of 1888? And yes, I know that your suggestion of a "simple" alibi is much more realistic. But the same demands apply in each of these cases: to be genuine evidence of innocence, it must be proven.

[harry]

Well Fisherman,as you say,Ridgeway was far from innocent,but what sets him apart from Cross,is that Ridgeway did confess,and was suspect,so he could not,and cannot be considered innocentCross on the other hand had no accusers,and no suspicion at any time was directed against him so he can be considered innocent.
If as you say innocence of murder is not having commited it,thats fine,as the known evidence in the Nichols murder falls way short of Cross having commited the crime,and is non existent in the other Ripper murders.
Being first at the scene of a crime is not incriminating,and it has no relation to being at the scene ,and in the company of a living Nichols,when the crime occured.No evidence of the later is evident,as there was no witness to the murder.How long Nichols had been attacked before Cross found her,has never been established,and cannot now be determned accurately.
Nor can it be established that Cross lied at any time.
How much of this is relevent to the question of innocence on the part of Cross matters not.He is innocent of murder because he did not commit murder.In that sense the question has been answered.

[Damaso Marte]

Annie Chapman was killed between 5:30am and 6am. Charles Lechmere started work at 4am, so he has an alibi.
Elizabeth Stride was killed around 12:45am. Charles Lechmere normally left for work around 3:20am to 3:30am.
Catherine Eddowes was killed around 1:45am. Charles Lechmere normally left for work around 3:20am to 3:30am.

The strongest evidence for Lechmere's innocence, and exactly what I would have said if somebody put a gun to my head and forced me to argue for Lechmere not being Jack the Ripper. And while pro-Lechmere forces (wait, are you "pro-Lechmere" if you are accusing Lechmere of being a serial killer?) have sank a lot of effort into arguing about Chapman's actual time of death, there's no such possibility for Stride or Eddowes.

I am dismayed at how poorly this forum tends to treat the Lechmere theorists, they don't deserve the hate and nastiness they get around here and they've made all of our lives more interesting with their novel theories. But the theory has serious issues with timing and fails entirely if the late morning TOD for Chapman is upheld.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have pointed out before that there are many people who are inclined to say "The only thing you´ve got on him" - and then they add different things! Some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is that he first discovered Nichols", some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is the name change", some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is how he traversed the killing zone", some say "The only thing you´ve got on him is how he disagreed with Mizen".
So no, Erobitha, I do not have one thing only on him - I have scores of things. And then I have a bunch of naysayers who disagree in different ways.

Returning to the object of this thread, it is of course not to look into the points of accusation, but instead to see what evidence there is that he was innocent. You make a contribution in that field by speaking about "his alibis for the other times of death". It cleared Pizer, so why would it not clear Lechmere? Well, mainly because we have no alibi in any case for Lechmere. If it was there, it is unrecorded. And the fact remains that there is a correlation between his morning work trek and Tabram/Nichols/Chapman/Kelly, just as he has geographical links to the Stride and Eddowes murders too. Plus, of course, the two murders that were not perpetrated on workdays (normally Monday-Saturday), were instead committed on the one night when workers normally had their day off. And NOT at the time Lechmere walked to work. For Lechmere to fit the bill, none of the Whitechapel murders can be exchanged for any of the St Georges/Aldgate murders. But they all fall neatly in place into a wrking man´s normal schedule.
That in itself makes for a pretty convincing argument. Or another cry of "coincidence!"

If you have read my book, you would have seen a long list of circumstantial evidence, reaching miles beyond the name change and the finding of the body of Polly Nichols. Furthermore, you would see that finding that body as such is not what makes Lechmere look a very good suspect. It is instead the circumstances surrounding that find. It must be surmised that when Robert Paul saw the body, the cutting had already been done, and so the bleeding process would have commenced some time BEFORE Robert Paul arrived at the body. After that, it took around four minutes for Lechmere and Paul to examine the body, leave it lying and seek out Jonas Mizen. Realistically, since Mizen was then informed by Lechmere about the body and since he finished a knocking up errand before setting off for Bucks Row, it would have been around a four minute return trip too. So we have an eight minute period elapsing between when Robert Paul saw the body and when Mizen arrived at it - at which time it was "still bleeding" as the PC put it. If we assume that Lechmere cut her, we need to add at least another minute before Paul arrived. If it was somebody else, we must add numerous minutes, not just the one.

With Lechmere as the perp, we have therefore around a nine minute ongoing bleeding. And two forensic pathologists tell me that although this may perhaps happen, a bleeding time of some three to five minutes is the more realistic guess. So Nichols bled a lot longer than the pathologists would have expected, making evey added minute of bleeding after five minutes more and more unexpected.

It is not just about finding a body, Erobitha. Very, very far from it. Lechmere becomes a red hot bid when we look at the bleeding, and once he has been heated up to that stage, we must add:
-The disagreement with Mizen, where Mizen says that Lechmere claimed that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row, something that allowed the carmen to passa the PC without even having their names taken.
-The fact that Mizen said that there was no talk of murder or suicide; he does not acknowledge that Lechmere spoke of a possible death.
-The fact that Paul never said that he saw or heard Lechmere a mere 30-40 yards in front of himself.
-The fact that Lechmeres walk to work took him right through the killing fields of Whitechapel at times that seem roughly consistent with the murders.
-The fact that the wounds of Nichols were covered up by her clothes.
-The fact that Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up.
-The fact that Lechmere said he left home at 3.20 or 3.30, which would have had him in Bucks Row at 3.27-3.37, not at 3.45.
-The fact that Lechmere called himself Cross when involved in a case of murder, whereas he always otherwise called himself Lechmere in authority contacts.
One of these things only would be bad for the carmans claims of innocence. Two would be catastrophic. Taken all together, they make for a very good accusation act. If he is not guilty, these were all coincidences and flukes. Accepting that is being incredibly naive in my book. And that´s the only book I can answer for.

So anyways, it´s not just about finding a body, is it?

Finally, in your post, there is of course not any genuine evidence of innocence. What there is, is "he may have had an alibi". Meaning that it is another example of the so called alternative innocent explanations. And those can be taken to any exotic lengths. Maybe he was moonlighting as a magician on the Embankment they night Stride and Eddowes was killed? Maybe he had been enrolled chasing vampyres in Transylvania in November of 1888? And yes, I know that your suggestion of a "simple" alibi is much more realistic. But the same demands apply in each of these cases: to be genuine evidence of innocence, it must be proven.

As you are putting forward Lechmere as the killer the onus is you to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt not for others to prove his innocence.

Your bleeding out times have also been challenged by an expert

Sadly what you have postulated falls far from proving his guilt beyong that reasonable doubt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk