Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

William Marshall gave evidence at the Stride inquest. He stated that he had seen her at 11.45 talking to a man a few yards from his front door at 64, Berner Street. The man had his back to Marshall, so he was unable to provide a description of him, but he did hear him speak.


In 1869, Marshall’s wife Mary Ann was the informant recorded on the death certificate of Charles Lechmere’s sister, Emily. Mary Ann had been present at Emily’s death and she and her husband lived a few doors away from the Lechmere/Cross family.

At the time of Emily’s death, although Charles Lechmere’s stepfather, Thomas Cross, was still alive, Mary Ann Marshall reported her surname as Lechmere. Obviously she and her husband knew the family by both names. It’s not much of a stretch to imagine that if one neighbour in an East End Street was aware of the Lechmere name, others would have been too.

In 1871, the Marshalls were still living in Mary Ann Street, as were Charles Lechmere and his wife and Lechmere’s mother, Maria. On the census, Charles and his wife are shown with the surname Lechmere, his mother with the surname Cross.

It seems highly likely that a number of Lechmere’s ex neighbours from Mary Ann Street would have recognised the finder of Nichols’ body as someone they knew. Or at least they will have suspected that he might be the Charles Lechmere, Pickford’s Carman, whom they had known as the stepson of PC Cross.

So what was CAL hiding by his sole use of the name Cross at the Nichols inquest?

Not his ID in STGITE, I would suggest, but rather his ID in Hereford.

[Abby Normal]

It can certainly be viewed that way. Then again, we know from experience that serial killers often employ a "comfort zone", meaning that they kill or find their victims in areas where they feel familiar. Ridgway, for example, sought out victims on the Sea Tac Strip of Seattle to a very large degree if I donīt misremember. And he was a familar face there. Still he used that ground to find prey. Of course, he killed mostly at home, but he would nevertheless have signposted himself rather heavily. In the Stride case, we seem to have a murder committed in a yard, so if he had been spotted by the person you speak of, that would have been it. An observation that he was in the street, perhaps at the right time.

I would suggest that brazenness is an alternative explanation for the Stride murder, if it was him. But I neverthless consider your take on it a logical one.

btk killed a woman who lived a few doors down from him on his street. targeting and killing victims who live very near has never been a hindrence to serial killers.

[Abby Normal]

1. He had an alibi for Chapman's murder.
2. He probably had an alibi for Stride's mruder.
3. He probably had an alibi for Eddowes murder.

he has absolutely zero alibi for these or any of the other ripper murders. the police apparently never questioned him as a suspect and hence didnt verify any alibi.

[MrBarnett]

btk killed a woman who lived a few doors down from him on his street. targeting and killing victims who live very near has never been a hindrence to serial killers.

Never, Abby?

I know nothing about any other SKs than JTR. What % of the victims of the SKs that you know of were known to them or were killed on their home patch?

[paul g]

If Scobie had not agreed there was a case to answer would that portion of the documentary still be included ?

[rjpalmer]

1. He had an alibi for Chapman's murder.
2. He probably had an alibi for Stride's mruder.
3. He probably had an alibi for Eddowes murder.

And the response:

Possibly, but there’s no evidence to support 1, 2 or 3.

Well, that’s fine, but that means that the case against Lechmere collapses.

The major thrust of the Lechmere documentary was that he supposedly killed his victims while on his way to work between 3 & 4 a.m.—a remarkable set of ‘coincidences’ of both time & place, we are told.

If it's now admitted that there is, in fact, no evidence that these were Lechemere's work hours (and thus he had no alibi after 4 a.m.) then the whole point of documentary--and the circumstantial case that Scobie supposedly found so compelling--can be sent to the rubbish bin.

One can't have it both ways--arguing that the alleged timetable works against Lechmere, but must be disregarded if it works for him.

[Abby Normal]

Never, Abby?

I know nothing about any other SKs than JTR. What % of the victims of the SKs that you know of were known to them or were killed on their home patch?

i may have worded it poorly. all im saying is serial killers have been known to target and murder victims very near where they live. i dont know percentages but i would agree with you they probably kill victims out side a close range of there home. and strides murder wasnt where he lived anymore any way.

did marshall definitely know lech? and vice versus? because if they did i would admit it would be check mark against lech as a suspect as he would be wary of someone who knew him seeing him with a victim, hence making it less likely he would go on to kill her. he would be scared marshal would tell police he saw lech with stride.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Mr. Barnett,

Never, Abby?

I know nothing about any other SKs than JTR. What % of the victims of the SKs that you know of were known to them or were killed on their home patch?

That's an interesting question, and to answer it requires a bit of a definition of what one means by "home patch". In the research literature the "home patch" would generally be defined as the collection of main locations one is associated with in their day-to-day lives, so home, work, place of worship, favorite bars/clubs/pubs, and so forth. Obviously, not everyone will have all of those. It can also include former places of work and residences, particularly for those who have changed jobs or moved shortly before or during a series. So, if you take those locations and draw the smallest circle you can around them, that's often used to define "home patch" (usually referred to as the "home range" in the research literature, but I like your term "home patch", so will use it here). When you do the same thing, but plot the crime locations, that circle gets referred to as their "crime zone". And for the vast majority of serial killers, there is a large overlap between those. Offenders who have that sort of overlap are referred to as marauders, and when there isn't that overlap, they are referred to as commuters.

Dennis Rader (BTK), pretty much had 100% overlap between his home patch and his crime zone. Peter Sutcliff, given his job as a lory driver took him to Manchester fairly often, would likewise have a large overlap between his home patch and crime zone. In his case, it just happens his home patch is very large.

Also, and this is the basis for what's called "geographical profiling", offense locations tend to be closer to the anchor points of the home patch, and as you move further away from an anchor point, the probability of an offense occurring in those locations drops. Some people, such as Rossmo, argue that there is also a "buffer zone", meaning that immediately surrounding the anchor points is an area where offenses become less probable again; basically, they will be more likely to committ offenses close, but not too close, to their home patch anchor points. Other prominent researchers in this area do not include a buffer zone, and just work on the basis of that distance decay (the probability of an offense decays over distance from the anchor point). I've recently submitted an article for review in which I suggest that the percentage of commuters may even be highly overestimated, and that the vast majority of offenders are marauders.

The influence of the home residence is sufficiently strong that most geographical profiling is reported to the public as if it is about locating the offender's residence. And indeed, there are very good rates of residence location area by many of the routines, but it is not all that rare for other anchor points to be more important. Dennis Rader, for example, appears to have operated out of his work locations more so than his home (most of his offenses are in the areas around where he worked for ADT, and prior to that with Cessna. He worked for Coleman before Cessna, and two of his earliest victims also worked there, so he may have fixated upon them at that job, though I'm not sure if that has been established. Also, upon his arrest, he appears to have started planning another murder, with his intended victim being someone from his place of work again. It wasn't until his 6th offense (including a house he broke into but his intended victim never showed up) that he committed a murder in Park City, near where he lived, and by that time he was no longer working for ADT and was working in Park City. His work shifted, and so to did his preferred crime locations.

The idea, and I think Dennis Rader exemplifies this really well, is that they are often searching for opportunities, and while they go about their day-to-day life, that's when they may spot an opportunity. Given their day-to-day lives keep them in areas around their anchor points, they are simply more likely to spot opportunity near their anchor points. Having to specifically "commute", would mean going to an area where one has less local knowledge, making it less familiar and so more risky, and relying on being able to spot an opportunity during that trip, rather than spotting an opportunity that one can return to later.

Of course, Dennis Rader is more like JtR in so much as he murdered victims where he found them. Others operate very differently, like Gary Ridgeway (Green River Killer, near), or Bruce McArthur (in Toronto, Canada), where they pick up their victim and take them back to their home. Ridgeway tended to pick up sex workers, and the strip of highway where he would find them was on the route between his home and work. McArthur would meet men in the Gay Village area of Toronto, where he would frequent some of the popular gay clubs there. So for Ridgeway, his home and work are influential anchor points for where he met his victims, while the body dump sites tend to radiate out from his home. McArthur seems to have committed most of his murders at his home, and then hid the bodies in planters at his work. When the bodies were discovered, then effectively they were discovered right at one of his anchor points. When he was arrested at his home, the police rescued a man tied to his bed and whom they believe McArthur was planning on killing, possibly at that time. Most of the information one had before that, though, was simply the location where the victims were last seen, and those tend to result in a profile that focuses on the Gay Village, which is where he was meeting his victims.

Anyway, so yes, the vast majority of offenders do commit their offenses on their "home patch", but the home patch is much more than the area close to their residence. Some researchers argue for a buffer zone around the residence, others do not. Some offenders have other day-to-day anchor points that are more the focus of their offense patterns, such as their place of work or a club they go to, but the residence is often a very strong one.

Not sure if that addresses your question, but hope it's of interest.

- Jeff

[harry]

To prove someone innocent,that person would have had to have been previously proven guilty.There are cases where this has happened,but not so in the case of Cross.So from the beginning,any suggestion that the thread has any relevence to guilt is sadly lacking.It has descended,as one poster suggests,into just another attempt by Fisherman to revive interest in Cross.Would book sales have any part in it i wonder?

[The Baron]

To prove someone innocent,that person would have had to have been previously proven guilty.There are cases where this has happened,but not so in the case of Cross.So from the beginning,any suggestion that the thread has any relevence to guilt is sadly lacking.It has descended,as one poster suggests,into just another attempt by Fisherman to revive interest in Cross.Would book sales have any part in it i wonder?

According to Fisherman's twisted logic, All the supects that we have in this case are guilty, all of them are Jack the Ripper, until one of them is proven innocent, then we take him out, and the rest will remain forever the Jacks the Rippers, and we hang them all...

[Dickere]

1. He had an alibi for Chapman's murder.
2. He probably had an alibi for Stride's mruder.
3. He probably had an alibi for Eddowes murder.

Only guilty people need alibis

[MrBarnett]

And the response:



Well, that’s fine, but that means that the case against Lechmere collapses.

The major thrust of the Lechmere documentary was that he supposedly killed his victims while on his way to work between 3 & 4 a.m.—a remarkable set of ‘coincidences’ of both time & place, we are told.

If it's now admitted that there is, in fact, no evidence that these were Lechemere's work hours (and thus he had no alibi after 4 a.m.) then the whole point of documentary--and the circumstantial case that Scobie supposedly found so compelling--can be sent to the rubbish bin.

One can't have it both ways--arguing that the alleged timetable works against Lechmere, but must be disregarded if it works for him.

I don’t want it both ways. I’ve always questioned the killing on the way to work suggestion because we do not know what Lechmere’s shift pattern was. We have one example when he was due in at 4.00 and on that day he accompanied Paul along Hanbury Street. Had he ever used that route before? Did he ever use it again? Was his start time always 4.00? Did he work a 6 day week, Monday to Saturday?

The reason I say he has no alibi for Chapman is that although he had possibly clocked on by the time she was murdered we have no idea of his movements after that. Nor do we know whether he worked with a van guard. Might his first job of the day have been to deliver horseflesh to the wholesalers in Mike End and Whitechapel? After which, an hour or so later, he returned Broad Street for a second load?

The other piece of evidence the documentary made much of was the suggestion that he carried meat on his van and would therefore have had bloodstained clothes. Again, we are in blissful ignorance as to what goods he carried. Yes, butcher’s meat came through Broad Street, as did fish from Scotland, horseflesh from the midlands and probably a hundred and one other types of goods.

[Fisherman]

Is Scobie talking about the Nichols case alone though ? That I can see as being one to take to court, but there's no actual evidence for any of the others as I see it.

No, Scobie speaks of all the Ripper victims. He points to the geographical and chronological pattern.

[Fisherman]

I see you continue to have no idea what the word "coincidence" means.

* Based on your time estimates on bleeding, PC Neil is the most likely killer, not Lechmere.

* Robert Paul also disagreed with PC Mizen, but you don't claim Paul was the Ripper.

* As had been repeatedly pointed out to you - Paul did say he saw Lechemere in front of him. We don't know how far that distance was because nobody asked Paul. We don't know if Paul heard Lechmere before he saw him - nobody asked Paul that, either.

* As had been repeatedly pointed out to you - Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman killing.The timing for the Stride and Eddowes is not "roughly consistent" with Lechmere's walk to work, they occurred hours before Lechmere normally left for work.

* As had been repeatedly pointed out to you - Paul testified that he pulled down Nichols clothing.

* Refusing to prop up Nichols is not suspicious. A guilty man would have jumped at the chance to have an excuse for any blood on his clothing.

* Lechmere said he left home at 3:30am. Virtually every source agrees on that time. Leaving at 3:30am would put Lechmere at the murder site around 3:40am. That doesn't fit your theory, so you focus on the couple of papers that incorrectly said 3:20am.

* Lechmere always called himself Cross when he appeared in court. The 1876 case not not a case of murder. Lechmere used the Cross name over a decade before the Nichols murder.

When it comes to your theory, one alibi would be bad for your claims of Lechmere's guilt. Two would be catastrophic. Lechemere had three alibis, four if we count the Pinchin Street Torso killing that you sometimes tack on.

Letīs keep it short: Lechmere had no alibi at all, that could be checked and verified as far as we can tell.

[Fisherman]

I see you continue to have no idea what the word "coincidence" means.

* Based on your time estimates on bleeding, PC Neil is the most likely killer, not Lechmere.

* Robert Paul also disagreed with PC Mizen, but you don't claim Paul was the Ripper.

* As had been repeatedly pointed out to you - Paul did say he saw Lechemere in front of him. We don't know how far that distance was because nobody asked Paul. We don't know if Paul heard Lechmere before he saw him - nobody asked Paul that, either.

* As had been repeatedly pointed out to you - Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman killing.The timing for the Stride and Eddowes is not "roughly consistent" with Lechmere's walk to work, they occurred hours before Lechmere normally left for work.

* As had been repeatedly pointed out to you - Paul testified that he pulled down Nichols clothing.

* Refusing to prop up Nichols is not suspicious. A guilty man would have jumped at the chance to have an excuse for any blood on his clothing.

* Lechmere said he left home at 3:30am. Virtually every source agrees on that time. Leaving at 3:30am would put Lechmere at the murder site around 3:40am. That doesn't fit your theory, so you focus on the couple of papers that incorrectly said 3:20am.

* Lechmere always called himself Cross when he appeared in court. The 1876 case not not a case of murder. Lechmere used the Cross name over a decade before the Nichols murder.

When it comes to your theory, one alibi would be bad for your claims of Lechmere's guilt. Two would be catastrophic. Lechemere had three alibis, four if we count the Pinchin Street Torso killing that you sometimes tack on.

Double posting.