Evidence of innocence

[SuperShodan]

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 bruising around Nichols neck is consistent with manual strangulation. If she was dead before Lechmere got his knife out there wouldn’t necessarily be much blood. I would add that Paul not getting any blood on himself or even seeing any is interesting. When PC Neil gets there there is blood on the ground underneath her neck. This suggests to me when Paul meets Lechmere in Bucks Row Nichols has just died, and the blood hasn’t seeped out yet. And this would explain the lack of blood on Lechmere.
Moving on to Annie Chapman the Dr favoured an earlier time of death, around 4am. Swanson agreed with him. There witnesses are problematic for the TOD, especially Richardson, but going by the Dr’s opinion it’s in the Lechmere time frame.
Lastly, the double event, Stride and Eddowes. This happened on a Saturday, Lechmere’s day off, and in the area of his mothers home, and in an area he grew up in.

[SuperShodan]

Hi Fisherman

I hope you don't mind if I ask another two linked questions about the Lechmere/Cross theory.

As I understand it, one of the reasons you believe Lechmere could have been the murderer is that the murders occur along his home to work route. (except Stride who was murdered not far from his mother's house). I believe your conclusion is that he killed on his way to work, at least mostly, and that is why the work route is an important indicator pointing at Cross.

I wondered why, therefore, all the murders took place at the weekend or bank holiday. The usual (non Lechmere) response is that the killer killed on his non work days. That seems to be a reasonable conclusion to draw but would raise a question for the Lechmere theory to answer. Do you have any thoughts around this? If we conclude he did not kill on his way to work, then does this weaken the link to Lechmere as a suspect?

(Just a quick thank you, also - not many researchers/authors engage so fully with those who have questions/criticisms of the theory they espouse)

I think this is a good question and one I’ve thought about myself. I think the straightforward answer is that on weekends and bank holidays there would be many more prostitutes around, more potential victims and much more opportunity to kill. I would imagine a Monday or Tuesday night on the back streets Lechmere walked to work might not have been many prostitutes around, and those that were may not have been in suitable locations.
Furthermore people might drink more at the weekends, the victims all seemed to have been drinking, and perhaps this is the type of victim he chose, drunk, alone and vulnerable, and there would be more of these lone and intoxicated women around at weekends.
It’s certainly a point that interested me too though.

[Trevor Marriott]

- Martha Tabram was, according to Dr Killeen, killed at around 2.30 - 2.45. Polly Nichols was likely killed at approximately 3.40 - 3.45. Annie Chapman was, according to Dr Phillips, killed at the very latest 4.30, but probably earlier than that. Mary Kelly made the doctors disagree, but the call of "Murder" seems to have been consistent with a TOD of around 4 AM or shortly before. What this information tells us is that there is uncertainty involved, but on the whole, these women may all have perished at times that are consistent with Lechmere being their killer..

You have continually been shown and told by a modern day forensic patholgost that an accurate time of death cannot be firmly established in the way the Victorian doctors estimated the times of death of these victims.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You have continually been shown and told by a modern day forensic patholgost that an accurate time of death cannot be firmly established in the way the Victorian doctors estimated the times of death of these victims.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you have been continually shown and told that you don’ t even seem to understand yourself what that modern day forensic pathologist actually says. To what degree the victorian doctors were able to make useful weighings is hard to say with exactitude, but it is really easy to say that they were certainly not clueless. By the way, none of them established any TOD ”firmly”, they gave their approximate views, the way professionals do.

[Fisherman]

The good thing about some of the posts out here is that they have made me long even more for Iceland.
Adios for now!

[etenguy]

The days the Whitechapel victims were killed were all working days for most people, Tabram included. And thanks for the thumbs up!

Hi Fisherman

That is not quite right. The dates of death are as follows (avoiding trying to suggest TOD):

Mary Ann Nichols - the early hours of Friday 31 August 1888
Annie Chapman - the early hours of Saturday 8 September 1888
Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes - the early hours of Sunday 30 September 1888
Mary Jane Kelly - the early hours of Friday 9 November 1888

All but Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were killed on what might have been a normal working day for Charles Lechmere. Sundays were considered a holy day and people were not expected to work. This possibly supports your theory as the double event did not occur on a normal working day and that may be why Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were attacked away from Lechmere's working route if he had gone to visit his mother and why it was an earlier time than the other murders. (I have not included Martha Tabram - killed at the end of a bank holiday - as not a canonical victim).

However, if the killer did kill on his way to work - why did he only kill at weekends? Here is how Supershodan answers that question

I think this is a good question and one I’ve thought about myself. I think the straightforward answer is that on weekends and bank holidays there would be many more prostitutes around, more potential victims and much more opportunity to kill. I would imagine a Monday or Tuesday night on the back streets Lechmere walked to work might not have been many prostitutes around, and those that were may not have been in suitable locations.
Furthermore people might drink more at the weekends, the victims all seemed to have been drinking, and perhaps this is the type of victim he chose, drunk, alone and vulnerable, and there would be more of these lone and intoxicated women around at weekends.
It’s certainly a point that interested me too though.

I'm not entirely convinced that supply of suitable victims during the week would be a barrier for the killer (though Supershodan may of course be correct). I'm more inclined to think the murder timings had something to do with when the killer had opportunity and was in the area.

And then that leads us to consider the murder of Mary Jane Kelly which I think challenges that the killer was on his way to work. Given the time taken to mutilate the victim it has been estimated the killer was at Miller's Court for around an hour. That does not fit with Lechmere leaving for work and arriving at work at his usual times. So could it be Lechmere was not working that day (in which case his work journey is not relevant) or was it the case the killer was not killing on his way to work?

One last point about this. The killer removed organs from some victims, presumably to keep as trophies. Would he take these to work with him? I think that is unlikely.

[SuperShodan]

The murder of Mary Kelly was the night before / morning of the Lord Major’s show. Given that Lechmere’s job was a carman / delivery driver he would have had the day off.

[Fiver]

The murder of Mary Kelly was the night before / morning of the Lord Major’s show. Given that Lechmere’s job was a carman / delivery driver he would have had the day off.

Why would Lechmere or any other carman be given the day off?

[Trevor Marriott]

And you have been continually shown and told that you don’ t even seem to understand yourself what that modern day forensic pathologist actually says. To what degree the victorian doctors were able to make useful weighings is hard to say with exactitude, but it is really easy to say that they were certainly not clueless. By the way, none of them established any TOD ”firmly”, they gave their approximate views, the way professionals do.

May I remind you once again, and I hope others will agree that the times of death you seek to rely on are flawed.

Part of the interview with Dr Biggs regarding the Nichols murder after he reviewed the post mortem report

Dr Biggs -There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death.

Q. Reading the doctors reports from 1888, they all give estimated times of death based on how warm the bodies were at the time the examined them at the crime scenes, would the times be accurate, and can times of death be determined in his way?

A. Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold.

In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

The murder of Mary Kelly was the night before / morning of the Lord Major’s show. Given that Lechmere’s job was a carman / delivery driver he would have had the day off.

Hi SuperShodan

I wasn't aware that Lechmere might have been given a day's holiday. If that is true, then he was not on his way to work that morning. So, if the killer was Lechmere, he would need to have an excuse to leave home early that morning and he would have no reason to travel his route to work. That being the case would challenge one of the strands of circumstantial evidence that has been compiled to suggest his being the killer.

[Dickere]

Why would Lechmere or any other carman be given the day off?

Traffic, I imagine. Even now the Lord Mayor's Show closes the City for the procession.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

May I remind you once again, and I hope others will agree that the times of death you seek to rely on are flawed.

Part of the interview with Dr Biggs regarding the Nichols murder after he reviewed the post mortem report

Dr Biggs -There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death.

Q. Reading the doctors reports from 1888, they all give estimated times of death based on how warm the bodies were at the time the examined them at the crime scenes, would the times be accurate, and can times of death be determined in his way?

A. Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold.

In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Absolutely. We have to remember the doctor's at the time were operating under the incorrect assumption that ToD could in any way be estimated by touch. It was thought that was possible, but we now know that is just not the case. Chapman could easily have been murdered at a time quite different from that given by medical opinion, either much earlier or much later. When we evaluate the evidence we have to work with on this matter we must look to other sources of information upon which to base our interpretations, recognizing of course that we too can only make probabilistic inferences.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Traffic, I imagine. Even now the Lord Mayor's Show closes the City for the procession.

I believe the traffic restrictions came into force at 10 a.m. that morning. Which wouldn’t have impacted on a 4 a.m. start and in fact may have required an earlier start that day. That’s food for thought.

[Columbo]

May I remind you once again, and I hope others will agree that the times of death you seek to rely on are flawed.

Part of the interview with Dr Biggs regarding the Nichols murder after he reviewed the post mortem report

Dr Biggs -There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death.

Q. Reading the doctors reports from 1888, they all give estimated times of death based on how warm the bodies were at the time the examined them at the crime scenes, would the times be accurate, and can times of death be determined in his way?

A. Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold.

In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So this would also fall under evidence of innocence, as it brings time of death into dispute of the current theory.

Columbo

[IchabodCrane]

And then that leads us to consider the murder of Mary Jane Kelly which I think challenges that the killer was on his way to work. Given the time taken to mutilate the victim it has been estimated the killer was at Miller's Court for around an hour. That does not fit with Lechmere leaving for work and arriving at work at his usual times. So could it be Lechmere was not working that day (in which case his work journey is not relevant) or was it the case the killer was not killing on his way to work?

One last point about this. The killer removed organs from some victims, presumably to keep as trophies. Would he take these to work with him? I think that is unlikely.

The Lechmerists would probably answer to this that after checking in to work at Pickfords at 4am, he started his tour and parked his cart loaded with meat in front of Millers Court (the same scenario applies also to Hanbury Street), conveniently loading off the harvested organs on the way out, and happily continued his routine day of work. Or somehow like this the story would go.

Which scenario is harder to accept, the above or the scenario in which Nichols was already dead when Lechmere first entered Buck's Row?