Tweet
Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit
View Post
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....
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....
And i will give your post the first like!
The Baron
Here I go again stroking egos. Enough for me I think.
Comment