Evidence of innocence

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

None of that will change. Personalities are what they are, and while it's at times aggravating, both Trevor and Fisherman do have a wealth of information, and they do think of things differently, and that is a good thing. Where you see holes, or weaknesses, simply present your case, expect a reply that denies you have a point, but evaluate your argument yourself. Have you presented the best case, targeting the important weaknesses, and so forth. Even if you have, there are those who will still be unconvinced, and those who will be unconvincable. For the former, find a way to strengthen your idea if it's possible, for the latter, well, I'll meet you in the pub and we can swap stories.

- Jeff

Spot on Jeff, spot on.

[The Baron]

The point is, Fish, that a guilty Lechmere could not have known that a policeman would be at the scene when PC Mizen arrived. Arriving to find the woman horribly murdered, with no copper in sight, would immediately have set Mizen's alarm bells ringing and his whistle blasting out. If, by chance, a policeman was there when Mizen arrived, happy days [excuse the fish related pun], but only if there was no carmen related conversation between the two PCs - something Lechmere could not guarantee, even if he shared your reasoning and hoped Mizen would keep it buttoned.

Love,

Caz
X

Exactly, and that is a shot in the heart!


Great post!


The Baron

[The Baron]

After Caz brilliant post above, I can declare from my position, that the Mizen Scam Era has come to an end!



The Baron

[caz]

This is what Fisherman proposes Lechmere did, but he picks the time when Lechmere would have the least time to hunt - his trip to work.

It would work on the one occasion, if Lechmere happened to encounter Nichols on his way to work and thought: "Why not? I estimate that I can kill and mutilate this woman and still make it to work in good time."

But the theory is that it suited him to kill on his way to work, and it mostly paid off. Lucky Lechmere.

His encounter and interaction with Robert Paul was only going to delay him further, yet he waited for this stranger to arrive and then collared him, setting in motion the chain of events which surely threatened to make him late for work.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fiver]

A question for you: If Robert Paul was together with Charles Lechmere as Mizen was approached, then why did the PC not say so? Why did he persist in saying that ONE man came up to him and told the story? Thoughts, ideas? [/B]

PC Mizen did say that Robert Paul was together with Charles Lechmere as Mizen was approached. He clearly said "a carman who passed in company with another man."

[Fiver]

I've seen some pretty good arguments put forth that do pose serious challenges for the Cross/Lechmere as JtR theory, Annie Chapman's murder has a lot of evidence pointing to a ToD when he would be at work, and while you can point to the doctor's testimony that it may have been earlier, it is well known the basis for his opinion is unreliable, leaving us only with the witness testimonies that place the murder well after Cross/Lechmere started work. But I have yet to see you say, and maybe I've simply missed it, that it is a serious hurdle and if the doctor is wrong and the witnesses right, then the theory would fall down. That's not expecting you to say "the theory has fallen down", it's just acknowledging that there is a possible outcome that would in fact refute the theory.

Thank you for yet another well-reasoned post.

While everything you say is correct, Fisherman also focuses on only part of the doctor's testimony, skipping the part that shows it was a heavily qualified answer.

"[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

[Columbo]

After Caz brilliant post above, I can declare from my position, that the Mizen Scam Era has come to an end!



The Baron

I wish it would. Time to quit beating the horse and bury it.

Columbo

[Columbo]

Spot on Jeff, spot on.

I usually do just that when I'm on here. That's why I don't post so much. I find a bit of info I didn't know, surprising on this thread I found quite a bit, then it becomes too hilarious not to chime in and bristle the hair on someones neck when the BS starts. All in good fun!

Trying to be the voice of reason strikes you well. As I have done in the past when needed. But it doesn't matter in the long run. opinions are opinions and everyone has one. Just like everyone has an a**h***. they both tend to stink and are full of shite.

But let's get back to reality. There is no evidence of guilt. none. not even finding a body is evidence of guilt. asking why someone did something is dumb. Who knows why Mizen may have said something out of sync with Cross and Paul? Who knows who's telling the truth. Speculate all day long, it can come in handy. Unless you're continually bending the truth, then it becomes a circus. That's what's become of this whole Cross thing. It started out promising, but then we went the Knight, Cornwell route and started playing with the facts. Very sad actually.

Columbo

[JeffHamm]

Thank you for yet another well-reasoned post.

While everything you say is correct, Fisherman also focuses on only part of the doctor's testimony, skipping the part that shows it was a heavily qualified answer.

"[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

Hi Fiver,

Yes, Fisherman does, but we all do that, we have to - we just each do it we different information. The collection of evidence we have to work with is not entirely internally consistent in each and every detail. As a result, each one of us examines it, and through our methods of reasoning, we come to a decision about which bits we think are erroneous and then focus on the rest. While doing so means we have less evidence overall, the idea is that we will reduce the noise from the erroneous information and the signal of truth will therefore become more apparent. Cull the wrong information, meaning if we make the wrong decision and throw out true information and keep the erroneous, then we make matters worse and we start to spot false signals in the noise.

Once we're left with our set of information that we're going to work with, we then use logic and reason to construct our explanation for the evidence we have. This too will be done by different methods and approaches by each and every one of us. Reasoning is not pure intellect, it is also a skill that one can improve at, either through experience by debating and examining what sort of arguments have worked or failed in the past, or through the formal study of logic (in which I include self guided study, not just study where certificates are given out upon completion).

The first paragraph tends to refer to decisions that can be more strongly based upon objective evaluations (i.e. we know eye witness testimony is not entirely reliable, so we factor that in; we know, objectively, ToD estimations are highly unreliable even today - that's not an opinion, that's the way it is; and so forth).

The second paragraph also has objective rules by which we can evaluate a theory or "argument". All statements must be true, the statements must be internally consistent with each other, implications of the statements need to be confirmed (i.e. predictions evaluated), when faced with multiple options either choose the most probable (which that is can itself be debated of course), show that it won't matter with regards to the next step in the theory (all roads lead to Rome type thing), or recognize that is a key point that, if it turns out you make the wrong choice, will disprove it. Non-falsifiable theories are not of any use because for a theory to be non-falsifiable it must account for every possible outcome, which means it predicts nothing. (note, by non-falsifiable I don't mean it must be false, a true theory predicts things that must not happen, but since it is true, they won't happen - it "risks" being falsified, but truth will survive the challenge of that risk).

I think a lot of the time, in our desire to solve the case, we forget what we once knew. The evidence we have to work with is insufficient to solve the case. We can present potential solutions, but even the best potential solution will have to make choices that are not fully confirmed, and so even the best explanations will always have "weak points". There's no shame in recognizing that - it's the "fault" of the evidence set we have, not the researcher.

But, theories and their weak points provide us with ideas to target, where to look for new evidence, and as that new evidence comes on board, we improve the evidence set. And who knows, maybe one day we'll find enough to move a bit further on. That's where theories, particularly "out of the box" ones, can be very useful - they make us look where we might otherwise not have thought to look for new information. Of course, they will, like any other theory derived from incomplete information, be wrong somewhere, but the goal isn't to "be right", but to "improve our knowledge", and the latter occurs even when we find new evidence that shows our idea was wrong, the former can interfere with that.

- Jeff

[Templarkommando]

Fisherman,

On the one, hand - I have been fairly impressed by the information that you've uncovered, and count Lechmere among my top 5 or so suspects - I'm just a layman though, so bear with me. On the other hand, it seems to me that the best evidence against Lechmere as a suspect would be the evidence that serves in favor of other various suspects. Consider this:

P = Lechmere killed the canonical five.
Q = Kosminski killed the canonical five.
S = Tumbletty killed the canonical five.

It should be easy to see that:

If P, then -Q and -S

However:

If Q, then -P and -S

or

If S then -Q and -P

This simplified version might not account for situations where maybe Lechmere kills one of the victims, and then Kosminski kills the other four or some other formulation. However, once we start saying that a mixture of suspects killed the canonical five, there becomes a philosophical argument that the character we have dubbed "Jack the Ripper" didn't really exist as an individual to begin with because he was sort of a construct of the products of multiple killers. Of course, this doesn't preclude Lechmere's guilt per se - I suppose it's possible - in a strictly modal sense - that Lechmere was guilty of none of the Whitechapel murders, but then later murdered someone else. Providing this sort of evidence of innocence probably falls outside the scope of your intent though, so I'm assuming we're talking about murders involving the Jack the Ripper investigation and no others.

As has probably been belabored elsewhere in this thread (I haven't read all 28 pages of this, and don't really intend to, so please forgive me if I've missed some things), at least in the legal system, the defense doesn't necessarily have to give evidence of innocence, but if there is evidence of innocence, a wise defense attorney should strongly consider presenting anything that would tend to exonerate his client. So, if I'm a defense attorney, I want to make sure that the jury knows things like: "Joseph Barnett hasn't been definitively ruled out as a suspect in the murder of Mary Jane Kelly - his estranged lover" or "Francis Tumblety had a private collection of female genitalia of which we don't know the origin." This isn't even to say that those suspects' guilt has been proven, but that the failure of any investigation to definitively rule them out serves as a certain degree of evidence of Lechmere's innocence - though it isn't proof of it by any means.

[FrankO]

The point is, Fish, that a guilty Lechmere could not have known that a policeman would be at the scene when PC Mizen arrived. Arriving to find the woman horribly murdered, with no copper in sight, would immediately have set Mizen's alarm bells ringing and his whistle blasting out. If, by chance, a policeman was there when Mizen arrived, happy days [excuse the fish related pun], but only if there was no carmen related conversation between the two PCs - something Lechmere could not guarantee, even if he shared your reasoning and hoped Mizen would keep it buttoned.

Love,

Caz
X

Ah yes, Caroline, that's something I lost sight of concentrating me on other things regarding the meeting between Mizen and the two carmen. Thanks for refreshing my view - good points!

Cheers,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Originally posted by caz
The point is, Fish, that a guilty Lechmere could not have known that a policeman would be at the scene when PC Mizen arrived. Arriving to find the woman horribly murdered, with no copper in sight, would immediately have set Mizen's alarm bells ringing and his whistle blasting out. If, by chance, a policeman was there when Mizen arrived, happy days [excuse the fish related pun], but only if there was no carmen related conversation between the two PCs - something Lechmere could not guarantee, even if he shared your reasoning and hoped Mizen would keep it buttoned.

Love,

Caz
X

Ah yes, Caroline, that's something I lost sight of concentrating me on other things regarding the meeting between Mizen and the two carmen. Thanks for refreshing my view - good points!

Cheers,
Frank

I know I said I would be away from Casebook for some time, but I cannot resist commenting on this exchange. My apologies to anybody whose posts I do not comment on now; I hope to be able to do so somewhere in the future. I am not willing to participate in the kind of "debate" that some posters have on offer, but once you see the kind of exchange we have here, between two really knowledgeable posters who seemingly make good points but miss out on a few essentials, I just have to give my view.

Now, let´s dissect this issue and see what we end up with!

Caz tells us that a guilty Lechmere could not have known that a PC would be at the scene when Mizen arrived, and so, Caz says, if there had been no PC in Bucks Row as Mizen got to the murder site, it would have set off immediate alarm bells. And to boot, we are told, even IF there was a PC in place as Mizen arrived, any conversation between the two could easily have disclosed the bluff and the hunt would have been on.

Sounds very logical, all of it - but it misses out on one very important point. The fact is that Lechmere of course KNEW full well that there was never any PC in Bucks Row as he and Paul examined the body. Therefore, he would also have known that even if he was lucky enough to have a PC actually arriving at the scene before Mizen got there (which was what happened, of course) there was never any possibility that this PC would profess to having been the one who sent Lechmere and Paul to fetch another PC.

So what does this mean? It means, of course, that Lechmere was never going to persist in claiming that another PC had been in place as he and Paul were at the murder site. Not under any circumstances. He was ALWAYS going to deny having said it, REGARDLESS if there actually was a PC there when Mizen arrived or not. He could never say "Neil was the PC who was there", because Neil had no idea about the carmen and would of course deny having met them if Lechmere had made such a claim!

The sequence goes like this: Lechmere kills Nichols. Paul arrives as he is cutting into her, and Lechmere decides to bluff it out. In order to do so, he stashes the knife somewhere on his person and steps back from the place where Nichols lies. He then cons Paul, whereupon the latter says that he is late for work, and will go get a PC and send back to the spot, probably thinking that Lechmere would stay with the body. Of course, Lechmere does not want to do that, and so he says that he too is late and tags along with Paul. During the walk, he makes his plan; if they meet a police while walking together, he will send Paul along in advance while he speaks to the PC. And in order not to get searched or be brought back to the site, he invents the lie about the second PC, a lie that is vital to enable him to pass the police unsearched (he still carries the knife on his person). He must reasonably have assumed that there probably would be no PC in place as Mizen got to Bucks Row, but that matters very little - he has managed to get past Mizen and will have time to get rid of the murder weapon and check his clothing at his leisure, no questions asked. He of course realizes that once Mizen arrives at the site, if there is no PC there, Mizen will smell a rat and the search for himself may be on. But if he is sought out and found by the police, he will serve the lie that Mizen must have misunderstood him because he never said anything about any PC in place. Maybe whe would say that he told Mizen that a PC was needed in Bucks Row, nothing more. And then the police would be faced with a man who contacted them and who has a fellow carman who backs up how he says that he had just seen the woman as Paul arrived and so on. The story will be the exact same, with the one exception that there was no PC in place.

As fate would have it, there WAS a PC in place and that added hugely to the confusion. But there was never any question of Lechmere claiming that this proved what he said, because he instead (of course) claimed that he had never said anything at all about a PC.

The vital matter in all of this is that Lechmere had to produce a lie that would take him past the police without passing on the information that he himself was the finder, that the woman was likely dead and that he and only he was the one who spoke to Mizen. And so we end up with Mizen saying that one man spoke to him, said nothing about any death or suicide but claimed that another PC was already in place, while Lechmere said that both he and Paul talked to Mizen, that both men said that Nichols was probably dead and that he never said anything about another PC.

And this was where Charles Lechmere should have been revealed for what he was - but the opportunity was lost.

So you see, the risk he took was one that he decided to take regardless of whether a PC would oblige and be in place, because that would not in any way save his behind. He was always going to have to deny having spoken of another PC - and this is exactly what he did. And the inquest should have seen the implications of this just as easily WITH a PC in place as they should have done without one. It is the exact same lie regardless.

It should be added that it is very clear that the police initially did not believe Robert Pauls claims in Lloyds Weekly (It is not true, said PC Neil...), but as luck would have it, Lechmere was not willing to bank on the police dismissing Paul, and so he came forward to stomp out whatever fire the article could perhaps start. And that had two consequences, the way I see it:
1. The inquest and the police were inclined to believe in a man who willingly sought them out on his own account, and...
2. We got the chane to nail him for murder more than a hundred years after his deeds.

And now I´m off for some considerable time. Really!! So I hope that Caz and Frank can see how I believe this all fits together and how it - very far from speaking of innocence - is perfectly in line with the material that has been handed down to us over the years. If they fail to do so, it matters little, because POOOOF! - there I go anyway.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi everyone, my first post! This thread seems to be an interesting one.

Christer, who appears to me to have no genuine factual evidence of guilt, but mostly assumptions based on perceived coincidences, wants us to prove Charles is innocent. Obviously that is impossible, as he well knows, but in law the defence merely has to demonstrate "reasonable doubt". That, I think, is easy.

Christer opens his prosecution by suggesting firstly that Charles was interrupted by the arrival of Paul, thereby preventing major mutilation of the corpse, and secondly that only Charles spoke to PC Mizen, that Charles said he was wanted by a policeman and that Paul was some distance away, didn't speak, and therefore couldn't hear that Charles lied to Mizen. He then suggests that as he considers that Charles is JtR, we should reconsider the events through the eyes of Paul. OK, let's do that!

Paul's first account appeared in Lloyd's Weekly, where he described the finding of the corpse, and the subsequent events. He said," I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold...." then on finding Mizen, "I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come... He continued calling people up ... I had told him the woman was dead.... so cold that she must have been dead for some time...". I note that Charles had also said that Paul told Mizen that Nichols was dead. So Charles and Paul tell fairly similar stories, except that Lloyd's Weekly gives their witness "star-billing". So, rather than suggesting he had interrupted Charles and prevented any mutilations, Paul says the corpse was stone cold and had been dead for some time! Then he clearly says that he spoke to Mizen himself, agreeing with Charles version of events. So by accepting Paul's account, as Christer asked us to do, we have two dents kicked into Christer's prosecution case at the very start. Of course, it is very possible that the journalist exaggerated Paul's story, but unlikely that he wrote a complete fabrication. Paul says Nichols was dead and cold and that he told Mizen this.

At the inquest Paul softened his story somewhat, and added a bit about a possible movement, but still said that her hands and face were cold, he could not hear her breathe and thought she was dead. They met a policeman, and told him what they had seen. Not much there for Christer, really.

Christer makes quite a bit out of his allegation that oddly neither Charles nor Paul were aware of each other's presence until Paul was almost upon Charles. I actually cannot find any evidence at all that Charles or Paul actually said anything about not seeing or hearing the other man. But as they were just two men walking to work in the darkness, why should they look out for, or take any notice of each other? I don't think they were ever asked whether they had heard or seen each other in the minutes before the discovery.

If Charles was JtR, he went looking for a policeman, in the company of another man who would ensure that they would indeed speak to a policeman, when he would very likely have fresh blood on his hands and clothes, and with the blood-stained murder weapon in his pocket! Mr Supercool, or a brainless idiot? The reader can decide!

Christer makes a great deal out of the suggestion that Charles lied to Mizen, but as both Charles and Paul say they spoke to Mizen, and both say that Paul said that he thought Nichols was dead, I think we should be looking at the reliability of PC Mizen himself. Mizen was in a bit of bother and he knew it. He became aware that he was accused of continuing with his knocking up after being advised of the finding of the body. Knocking up was something that police officers were allowed to do, but it was a private arrangement, for which those awakened would pay the officer. This was an accepted practice, but police business had always to be paramount, and therefore Mizen was accused of not putting his duty first. That was awkward, but even worse potentially, was the fact that two men had advised him about a murder, and he hadn't asked them for their names, addresses, or even asked them anything about the incident. He was in trouble! What a stroke of luck that another PC had found the body! If Mizen had been told that another PC wanted him, surely he would have advised that PC on arriving that he had come because he had been told by the men the PC sent? He said nothing. Mizen is squirming like a worm on a hook - he needs the "he was sent for" story, or he's in deep trouble! Frankly, I am reluctant to believe Mizen at all.

At the inquest on 17th September 1888, Inspector Spratling admitted that the police had not yet made enquiries at all of the houses in Bucks Row, a significant failure, but witnesses had said that it had been a quiet night and nothing had been heard. Odd! This was subsequently explained by Harriet Lilley at number 7, who heard whispered voices while a goods train passed by, some gasps, a moan, and then silence. She didn't note the time, but the goods train had to be the 3. 07 am from New Cross, which would have passed within a minute or two either side of 3. 30 am. This ties up very neatly, does it not? JtR grasps the opportunity of murdering his victim with any sounds being drowned by the passing train, no-one else hears anything, and at 3. 45 am Paul describes a body with cold hands and face. A 3. 30 - 3. 35 am murder doesn't really stretch the doctor's estimated time of death as being up to 30 minutes before 4. 05 am. This doesn't absolutely exonerate Charles, but what was he doing for the next 10-15 minutes up to 3.45 am if he was JtR? There is no doubt that the Eddowes murder demonstrated just how much mutilation JtR could inflict in about 5 minutes. I have more than "reasonable doubt" so far!

Then we have the alleged significant anomaly of the name. I have referred to Charles throughout, avoiding using both Cross and Lechmere. So let's consider this aspect. Lechmere senior abandoned his family when Charles was an infant, and so Charles never knew his father. We can ask ourselves what respect would Charles have had for his father and the Lechmere name? Would his mother have told him "Your father was a wonderful man, you should be proud to be a Lechmere like him", or possibly he was a "bastard who didn't give a toss about his family"? The reader is free to choose the more likely scenario. For me, I believe that it is unlikely that Charles had any good feelings about his father or the name Lechmere, although he knew it was his legal name, and would have to be used on birth, marriage and death certificates, and perhaps legally binding agreements, maybe the purchase or rental of a house etc. But that is not the issue here. What we need to understand is what name he used in his ordinary everyday life, with his friends, neighbours and at work.

Charles had a step-father Thomas Cross, the only father-figure he ever had, from 1858 continuing until Charles started work for Pickfords which was about 1868 or maybe a year or two earlier. We know that there is evidence that the family used the surname Cross, in a census for example, and we would find it logical that local people would think of Mr and Mrs Cross and the Cross children. Christer thinks it highly suspicious that Charles used the name Cross at the inquest of a child killed in 1876. Actually, I reach the exact opposite conclusion. This inquest was a very serious legal issue involving Charles, his employers Pickfords, and the police. There must have been much discussion at the time amongst these three, and yet Charles gave evidence, unqueried in the name of Cross. I cannot believe that this would have been possible if Charles was working for Pickfords as Lechmere - Pickfords or the police would have said something, surely! So for me, this is not suspicious, on the contrary, it is powerful evidence that Charles was using the surname Cross at work, was therefore known as Cross by his workmates, and probably most other people close to him, some of whom might have known his birthname was Lechmere. Christer makes a great deal out of the many examples - over 100 he says - that prove that Charles used the name Lechmere. Unfortunately, he doesn't reveal them in his book. What is absolutely necessary for Christer to demonstrate here however, is evidence that in ordinary everyday life, and at work, Charles was openly using the name Lechmere, between say 1876 and 1888. Legal documents and the like, and other periods of time are quite irrelevant. I haven't seen such evidence, but I accept that it could exist, and Christer could have a point here if he can demonstrate this. Otherwise, I feel he is wrong.

Much again is made of the allegedly huge suspicion caused by the fact that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly were murdered on Charles' route to work. This requires so many leaps of faith. Is it universally agreed that JtR's modus operandi was that he was a man who started work every day in the early hours, but some days would get up even earlier than usual, in order to seek out a prostitute, lure her into a dark alley, and commit his atrocities, put the murder weapon in his pocket, and possibly with hands and clothes smeared with fresh blood, go to work and do a full shift as if nothing had happened. Not everyone's most likely scenario, I suspect. And did he have a policeman knocking him up every day, and did he ask the policeman to give him an earlier call some days? (Only joking). Is it agreed that these four women were all vitims of JtR? Nope, Tabram may well not be. And some are unsure about Kelly. Is it agreed that all four were killed at about 3. 45 am? Nope. Is it known that Charles worked the same shift each day, or that he used the exact routes, or that he even worked those days? Nope. Furthermore, I don't think anyone claims that Kelly was killed by someone making a five minute detour on his way to work! So what are we left with? Er ... Charles says he found the body of Nichols on his way to work ... that's it really!

There are many eye-witness statements in the Tabram, Chapman and Kelly cases, but strangely, no-one describes seeing a carman in his working clothes.

Having said all of the above, I am clearly of the opinion that Charles has no case to answer so far. However, I do accept that it is reasonable to consider him as a possible suspect. After all is said and done, he only needs to be in the UK at the time to be a better proposition than some, and he was even in London. I am one of those people who sees a case being weakened, not strengthened by lots of talk about possibilities and coincidences, when a close scrutiny suggests there is no case to answer. Such as, "Was it a coincidence that he was found standing alone and in close proximity to the freshly killed Polly Nichols?" and, "Was it a fluke that Robert Paul happened to arrive at the precise point in time that would supply a convenient alibi for Charles Lechmere?" As Charles could not make Paul arrive at any given time, then yes it was a fluke, and do we assume that Paul gives Charles an alibi, surely he doesn't. "Did Charles Lechmere simply forget to tell PC Mizen that he himself was the finder of Polly Nichols?" PC Mizen didn't ask any questions did he? We don't know what was said exactly, but both Charles and Paul say they spoke to Mizen, so a lie is extremely unlikely.

That's more than enough - must be boring for you all to read so much from a novice. So till next time....

[Columbo]

Hi everyone, my first post! This thread seems to be an interesting one.

Christer, who appears to me to have no genuine factual evidence of guilt, but mostly assumptions based on perceived coincidences, wants us to prove Charles is innocent. Obviously that is impossible, as he well knows, but in law the defence merely has to demonstrate "reasonable doubt". That, I think, is easy.

Christer opens his prosecution by suggesting firstly that Charles was interrupted by the arrival of Paul, thereby preventing major mutilation of the corpse, and secondly that only Charles spoke to PC Mizen, that Charles said he was wanted by a policeman and that Paul was some distance away, didn't speak, and therefore couldn't hear that Charles lied to Mizen. He then suggests that as he considers that Charles is JtR, we should reconsider the events through the eyes of Paul. OK, let's do that!

Paul's first account appeared in Lloyd's Weekly, where he described the finding of the corpse, and the subsequent events. He said," I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold...." then on finding Mizen, "I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come... He continued calling people up ... I had told him the woman was dead.... so cold that she must have been dead for some time...". I note that Charles had also said that Paul told Mizen that Nichols was dead. So Charles and Paul tell fairly similar stories, except that Lloyd's Weekly gives their witness "star-billing". So, rather than suggesting he had interrupted Charles and prevented any mutilations, Paul says the corpse was stone cold and had been dead for some time! Then he clearly says that he spoke to Mizen himself, agreeing with Charles version of events. So by accepting Paul's account, as Christer asked us to do, we have two dents kicked into Christer's prosecution case at the very start. Of course, it is very possible that the journalist exaggerated Paul's story, but unlikely that he wrote a complete fabrication. Paul says Nichols was dead and cold and that he told Mizen this.

At the inquest Paul softened his story somewhat, and added a bit about a possible movement, but still said that her hands and face were cold, he could not hear her breathe and thought she was dead. They met a policeman, and told him what they had seen. Not much there for Christer, really.

Christer makes quite a bit out of his allegation that oddly neither Charles nor Paul were aware of each other's presence until Paul was almost upon Charles. I actually cannot find any evidence at all that Charles or Paul actually said anything about not seeing or hearing the other man. But as they were just two men walking to work in the darkness, why should they look out for, or take any notice of each other? I don't think they were ever asked whether they had heard or seen each other in the minutes before the discovery.

If Charles was JtR, he went looking for a policeman, in the company of another man who would ensure that they would indeed speak to a policeman, when he would very likely have fresh blood on his hands and clothes, and with the blood-stained murder weapon in his pocket! Mr Supercool, or a brainless idiot? The reader can decide!

Christer makes a great deal out of the suggestion that Charles lied to Mizen, but as both Charles and Paul say they spoke to Mizen, and both say that Paul said that he thought Nichols was dead, I think we should be looking at the reliability of PC Mizen himself. Mizen was in a bit of bother and he knew it. He became aware that he was accused of continuing with his knocking up after being advised of the finding of the body. Knocking up was something that police officers were allowed to do, but it was a private arrangement, for which those awakened would pay the officer. This was an accepted practice, but police business had always to be paramount, and therefore Mizen was accused of not putting his duty first. That was awkward, but even worse potentially, was the fact that two men had advised him about a murder, and he hadn't asked them for their names, addresses, or even asked them anything about the incident. He was in trouble! What a stroke of luck that another PC had found the body! If Mizen had been told that another PC wanted him, surely he would have advised that PC on arriving that he had come because he had been told by the men the PC sent? He said nothing. Mizen is squirming like a worm on a hook - he needs the "he was sent for" story, or he's in deep trouble! Frankly, I am reluctant to believe Mizen at all.

At the inquest on 17th September 1888, Inspector Spratling admitted that the police had not yet made enquiries at all of the houses in Bucks Row, a significant failure, but witnesses had said that it had been a quiet night and nothing had been heard. Odd! This was subsequently explained by Harriet Lilley at number 7, who heard whispered voices while a goods train passed by, some gasps, a moan, and then silence. She didn't note the time, but the goods train had to be the 3. 07 am from New Cross, which would have passed within a minute or two either side of 3. 30 am. This ties up very neatly, does it not? JtR grasps the opportunity of murdering his victim with any sounds being drowned by the passing train, no-one else hears anything, and at 3. 45 am Paul describes a body with cold hands and face. A 3. 30 - 3. 35 am murder doesn't really stretch the doctor's estimated time of death as being up to 30 minutes before 4. 05 am. This doesn't absolutely exonerate Charles, but what was he doing for the next 10-15 minutes up to 3.45 am if he was JtR? There is no doubt that the Eddowes murder demonstrated just how much mutilation JtR could inflict in about 5 minutes. I have more than "reasonable doubt" so far!

Then we have the alleged significant anomaly of the name. I have referred to Charles throughout, avoiding using both Cross and Lechmere. So let's consider this aspect. Lechmere senior abandoned his family when Charles was an infant, and so Charles never knew his father. We can ask ourselves what respect would Charles have had for his father and the Lechmere name? Would his mother have told him "Your father was a wonderful man, you should be proud to be a Lechmere like him", or possibly he was a "bastard who didn't give a toss about his family"? The reader is free to choose the more likely scenario. For me, I believe that it is unlikely that Charles had any good feelings about his father or the name Lechmere, although he knew it was his legal name, and would have to be used on birth, marriage and death certificates, and perhaps legally binding agreements, maybe the purchase or rental of a house etc. But that is not the issue here. What we need to understand is what name he used in his ordinary everyday life, with his friends, neighbours and at work.

Charles had a step-father Thomas Cross, the only father-figure he ever had, from 1858 continuing until Charles started work for Pickfords which was about 1868 or maybe a year or two earlier. We know that there is evidence that the family used the surname Cross, in a census for example, and we would find it logical that local people would think of Mr and Mrs Cross and the Cross children. Christer thinks it highly suspicious that Charles used the name Cross at the inquest of a child killed in 1876. Actually, I reach the exact opposite conclusion. This inquest was a very serious legal issue involving Charles, his employers Pickfords, and the police. There must have been much discussion at the time amongst these three, and yet Charles gave evidence, unqueried in the name of Cross. I cannot believe that this would have been possible if Charles was working for Pickfords as Lechmere - Pickfords or the police would have said something, surely! So for me, this is not suspicious, on the contrary, it is powerful evidence that Charles was using the surname Cross at work, was therefore known as Cross by his workmates, and probably most other people close to him, some of whom might have known his birthname was Lechmere. Christer makes a great deal out of the many examples - over 100 he says - that prove that Charles used the name Lechmere. Unfortunately, he doesn't reveal them in his book. What is absolutely necessary for Christer to demonstrate here however, is evidence that in ordinary everyday life, and at work, Charles was openly using the name Lechmere, between say 1876 and 1888. Legal documents and the like, and other periods of time are quite irrelevant. I haven't seen such evidence, but I accept that it could exist, and Christer could have a point here if he can demonstrate this. Otherwise, I feel he is wrong.

Much again is made of the allegedly huge suspicion caused by the fact that Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly were murdered on Charles' route to work. This requires so many leaps of faith. Is it universally agreed that JtR's modus operandi was that he was a man who started work every day in the early hours, but some days would get up even earlier than usual, in order to seek out a prostitute, lure her into a dark alley, and commit his atrocities, put the murder weapon in his pocket, and possibly with hands and clothes smeared with fresh blood, go to work and do a full shift as if nothing had happened. Not everyone's most likely scenario, I suspect. And did he have a policeman knocking him up every day, and did he ask the policeman to give him an earlier call some days? (Only joking). Is it agreed that these four women were all vitims of JtR? Nope, Tabram may well not be. And some are unsure about Kelly. Is it agreed that all four were killed at about 3. 45 am? Nope. Is it known that Charles worked the same shift each day, or that he used the exact routes, or that he even worked those days? Nope. Furthermore, I don't think anyone claims that Kelly was killed by someone making a five minute detour on his way to work! So what are we left with? Er ... Charles says he found the body of Nichols on his way to work ... that's it really!

There are many eye-witness statements in the Tabram, Chapman and Kelly cases, but strangely, no-one describes seeing a carman in his working clothes.

Having said all of the above, I am clearly of the opinion that Charles has no case to answer so far. However, I do accept that it is reasonable to consider him as a possible suspect. After all is said and done, he only needs to be in the UK at the time to be a better proposition than some, and he was even in London. I am one of those people who sees a case being weakened, not strengthened by lots of talk about possibilities and coincidences, when a close scrutiny suggests there is no case to answer. Such as, "Was it a coincidence that he was found standing alone and in close proximity to the freshly killed Polly Nichols?" and, "Was it a fluke that Robert Paul happened to arrive at the precise point in time that would supply a convenient alibi for Charles Lechmere?" As Charles could not make Paul arrive at any given time, then yes it was a fluke, and do we assume that Paul gives Charles an alibi, surely he doesn't. "Did Charles Lechmere simply forget to tell PC Mizen that he himself was the finder of Polly Nichols?" PC Mizen didn't ask any questions did he? We don't know what was said exactly, but both Charles and Paul say they spoke to Mizen, so a lie is extremely unlikely.

That's more than enough - must be boring for you all to read so much from a novice. So till next time....

For a novice you give a lot to think about. Nicely done and welcome, unless you're Christer in disguise.

Columbo

[The Baron]

Originally posted by caz
The point is, Fish, that a guilty Lechmere could not have known that a policeman would be at the scene when PC Mizen arrived. Arriving to find the woman horribly murdered, with no copper in sight, would immediately have set Mizen's alarm bells ringing and his whistle blasting out. If, by chance, a policeman was there when Mizen arrived, happy days [excuse the fish related pun], but only if there was no carmen related conversation between the two PCs - something Lechmere could not guarantee, even if he shared your reasoning and hoped Mizen would keep it buttoned.

Love,

Caz
X

Ah yes, Caroline, that's something I lost sight of concentrating me on other things regarding the meeting between Mizen and the two carmen. Thanks for refreshing my view - good points!

Cheers,
Frank

I know I said I would be away from Casebook for some time, but I cannot resist commenting on this exchange. My apologies to anybody whose posts I do not comment on now; I hope to be able to do so somewhere in the future. I am not willing to participate in the kind of "debate" that some posters have on offer, but once you see the kind of exchange we have here, between two really knowledgeable posters who seemingly make good points but miss out on a few essentials, I just have to give my view.

Now, let´s dissect this issue and see what we end up with!

Caz tells us that a guilty Lechmere could not have known that a PC would be at the scene when Mizen arrived, and so, Caz says, if there had been no PC in Bucks Row as Mizen got to the murder site, it would have set off immediate alarm bells. And to boot, we are told, even IF there was a PC in place as Mizen arrived, any conversation between the two could easily have disclosed the bluff and the hunt would have been on.

Sounds very logical, all of it - but it misses out on one very important point. The fact is that Lechmere of course KNEW full well that there was never any PC in Bucks Row as he and Paul examined the body. Therefore, he would also have known that even if he was lucky enough to have a PC actually arriving at the scene before Mizen got there (which was what happened, of course) there was never any possibility that this PC would profess to having been the one who sent Lechmere and Paul to fetch another PC.

So what does this mean? It means, of course, that Lechmere was never going to persist in claiming that another PC had been in place as he and Paul were at the murder site. Not under any circumstances. He was ALWAYS going to deny having said it, REGARDLESS if there actually was a PC there when Mizen arrived or not. He could never say "Neil was the PC who was there", because Neil had no idea about the carmen and would of course deny having met them if Lechmere had made such a claim!

The sequence goes like this: Lechmere kills Nichols. Paul arrives as he is cutting into her, and Lechmere decides to bluff it out. In order to do so, he stashes the knife somewhere on his person and steps back from the place where Nichols lies. He then cons Paul, whereupon the latter says that he is late for work, and will go get a PC and send back to the spot, probably thinking that Lechmere would stay with the body. Of course, Lechmere does not want to do that, and so he says that he too is late and tags along with Paul. During the walk, he makes his plan; if they meet a police while walking together, he will send Paul along in advance while he speaks to the PC. And in order not to get searched or be brought back to the site, he invents the lie about the second PC, a lie that is vital to enable him to pass the police unsearched (he still carries the knife on his person). He must reasonably have assumed that there probably would be no PC in place as Mizen got to Bucks Row, but that matters very little - has managed to get past Mizen and will have time to get rid of the murder weapon and check his clothing at his leisure, no questions asked. He of course realizes that once Mizen arrives at the site, if there is no PC there, Mizen will smell a rat and the search for himself may be on. But if he is sought out and found by the police, he will serve the lie that Mizen must have misunderstood him because he never said anything about any PC in place. Maybe whe would say that he told Mizen that a PC was needed in Bucks Row, nothing more. And then the police would be faced with a man who contacted them and who has a fellow carman who backs up how he says that he had just seen the woman as Paul arrived and so on. The story will be the exact same, with the one exception that there was no PC in place.

As fate would have it, there WAS a PC in place and that added hugely to the confusion. But there was never any question of Lechmere claiming that this proved what he said, because he instead (of course) claimed that he had never said anything at all about a PC.

The vital matter in all of this is that Lechmere had to produce a lie that would take him past the police without passing on the information that he himself was the finder, that the woman was likely dead and that he and only he was the one who spoke to Mizen. And so we end up with Mizen saying that one man spoke to him, said nothing about any death or suicide but claimed that another PC was already in place, while Lechmere said that both he and Paul talked to Mizen, that both men said that Nichols was probably dead and that he never said anything about another PC.

And this was where Charles Lechmere should have been revealed for what he was - but the opportunity was lost.

So you see, the risk he took was one that he decided to take regardless of whether a PC would oblige and be in place, because that would not in any way save his behind. He was always going to have to deny having spoken of another PC - and this is exactly what he did. And the inquest should have seen the implications of this just as easily WITH a PC in place as they should have done without one. It is the exact same lie regardless.

It should be added that it is very clear that the police initially did not believe Robert Pauls claims in Lloyds Weekly (It is not true, said PC Neil...), but as luck would have it, Lechmere was not willing to bank on the police dismissing Paul, and so he came forward to stomp out whatever fire the article could perhaps start. And that had two consequences, the way I see it:
1. The inquest and the police were inclined to believe in a man who willingly sought them out on his own account, and...
2. We got the chane to nail him for murder more than a hundred years after his deeds.

And now I´m off for some considerable time. Really!! So I hope that Caz and Frank can see how I believe this all fits together and how it - very far from speaking of innocence - is perfectly in line with the material that has been handed down to us over the years. If they fail to do so, it matters little, because POOOOF! - there I go anyway.

Wrong.

Fisherman is selling the idea that if Mizen went to the body and found no policeman there, that will rise no alarm whatsoever and the police forces will not be all over the place looking for him! he can lie as he want to the Police and no one will be on his door!


And look how the Lechmerians contradict themselves! Fisherman says Cross gave another name to protect his family, to keep them away from the murder, but by lying to the police and risking to be the most wanted Police suspect in Whitechapel is no problem at all.


This whole theory is based ubon the ignorance of all other parties involved, one has to be an imbecile to believe such nonsense


No Fish, that will not work, try harder!


Caz post has set an end to this fishy tunnel under logic and facts that you are trying to escape through.



The Baron