Evidence of innocence

[Newbie]

I disagree with those who say he did what a good citizen should do.
First of all, a good citizen would have stayed with the body after Paul left telling him that he would flag down a P.C..

[JeffHamm]

A guilty Lechmere could have just legged it as soon as he became aware of Paul approaching. But if Paul had been aware of Lechmere’s swift departure from a point a few feet away from Nichols’ body, might he not have twigged that Nichols wasn’t just asleep or a tarpaulin, and on discovery of her body started screaming blue murder?

For me, Fish’s idea that Lechmere made the split-second decision to control the situation rather than take to his heels and potentially trigger a hue and cry is totally plausible.

Gary

Hi Gary,

But let's say he did leg it, and Paul did see him fleeing. What exactly could Paul tell the police after finding the body, and calling for help, that would put Cross/Lechmere at risk? They didn't even know each other when the met up as it happened, so other than being able to report he saw someone flee the area, how does this connect to Cross/Lechmere? Particularly as if he flees, he's most likely going to turn left by the school (get out of line of sight quickly) and get down to Whitechapel road, slip onto the busier street and head towards work. If, in the possibility of being stopped and questioned, he just indicates he's on his way to work and came down Whitechapel and no, he didn't go down Buck's Row he sticks to the main roads at this time of the morning, etc.

Given the body position and JtR's position beside it to perform the abdominal cuts, he would in all likelihood see Paul entering Buck's Row so could flee long before Paul could do anything other than see someone running from the area. He's only at risk if Paul has got close enough to him that he thinks he'll be identified, or recognized, but if that's the case, Paul would have seen him leave the location of the body but he doesn't, he sees him standing in the middle of the street.

I just can't make Fish's scenario "work" in the bigger context of the location and actions and testimony that Paul gives (since in Fish's scenario we have to disbelieve what Cross/Lechmere testifies to), but if Cross/Lechmere is innocent, then the testimonies of Paul and Cross/Lechmere pretty much corroborate each other. Faced with two consistent and independent accounts versus an alternative that requires a difficult to believe series of events, and requires the dismissal of one of those consistent accounts (but not the other), weighs heavily in favour of the former theory.

Fisherman, and others, do not agree that the described series of events are difficult to believe, though, hence the different conclusion people hold. If we could recreate the lighting conditions of the time, and other aspects of the crime, we could put those beliefs to a sort of objective test, but otherwise it boils down to "if you want to believe - believe, if you don't want to believe - don't believe". I've tried to outline the reasons for my belief, and Fisherman has presented the reasons for his beliefs at various times as well. Neither of us have felt the other's reasons for belief are sufficient to override our own. But that's how it goes sometimes.

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

bingo gary. even lord orsam allows for that possibility. i was one of the biggest critics of this idea too until i experienced something very similar in georgetown. when caught unawares its not a bad tactic.

Yes, Abby, I remember you describing your experience some time ago. At the time I think I mentioned a similar situation involving someone who, in retrospect, was obviously casing my daughter’s house while it was being refurbed with the intention of stealing builders tools etc. He was challenged by a neighbour and could have just done a runner at that point, but chose to blag his way out of the situation.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary,

But let's say he did leg it, and Paul did see him fleeing. What exactly could Paul tell the police after finding the body, and calling for help, that would put Cross/Lechmere at risk? They didn't even know each other when the met up as it happened, so other than being able to report he saw someone flee the area, how does this connect to Cross/Lechmere? Particularly as if he flees, he's most likely going to turn left by the school (get out of line of sight quickly) and get down to Whitechapel road, slip onto the busier street and head towards work. If, in the possibility of being stopped and questioned, he just indicates he's on his way to work and came down Whitechapel and no, he didn't go down Buck's Row he sticks to the main roads at this time of the morning, etc.

Given the body position and JtR's position beside it to perform the abdominal cuts, he would in all likelihood see Paul entering Buck's Row so could flee long before Paul could do anything other than see someone running from the area. He's only at risk if Paul has got close enough to him that he thinks he'll be identified, or recognized, but if that's the case, Paul would have seen him leave the location of the body but he doesn't, he sees him standing in the middle of the street.

I just can't make Fish's scenario "work" in the bigger context of the location and actions and testimony that Paul gives (since in Fish's scenario we have to disbelieve what Cross/Lechmere testifies to), but if Cross/Lechmere is innocent, then the testimonies of Paul and Cross/Lechmere pretty much corroborate each other. Faced with two consistent and independent accounts versus an alternative that requires a difficult to believe series of events, and requires the dismissal of one of those consistent accounts (but not the other), weighs heavily in favour of the former theory.

Fisherman, and others, do not agree that the described series of events are difficult to believe, though, hence the different conclusion people hold. If we could recreate the lighting conditions of the time, and other aspects of the crime, we could put those beliefs to a sort of objective test, but otherwise it boils down to "if you want to believe - believe, if you don't want to believe - don't believe". I've tried to outline the reasons for my belief, and Fisherman has presented the reasons for his beliefs at various times as well. Neither of us have felt the other's reasons for belief are sufficient to override our own. But that's how it goes sometimes.

- Jeff

Jeff,

It’s not a question of a subsequent ID, it’s whether running from a crime scene and thereby immediately alerting a passer by to the crime makes more sense than engaging the passer by and distracting him from it.

What do you think?


Gary

[Newbie]

Given that it was a dark night, Jack the Ripper would have heard footsteps before he saw anyone.
One assumes that the ear is perfect at determining location: that isn't necessarily true.
There could have been some initial confusion as to the direction in which the sound was coming.

His future choice of murder sites is one indication that he narrowly got away.

[Newbie]

Firstly, I hope you'll enjoy/have enjoyed your off-time from the boards, Christer!

Secondly, I have some remarks about individual things you've written.


That must have been a slip of the finger, Christer. Mizen said that Lechmere didn’t say anything about murder or suicide, not “anything about death and suicide”. Almost the same, but not quite.


That’s not true, Christer. Neil only denied that he was called to the body by two men, not that there couldn’t have been two men who’d called a PC to the body. Paul even told the Lloyd’s that “the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat”. So it’s not clear at all that the police didn’t believe Paul, let alone very clear.

I wonder about one thing, Christer. If Lechmere, in fact, had sent Paul ahead before he spoke to Mizen, what possible fire was there left to stomp out? He’d fooled Paul, he’d fooled Mizen and had passed him without being searched, without being taken back to Buck’s Row, without his name and address being taken, without Paul having heard what he’d told to Mizen. The only thing that could possibly have disturbed him somewhat was Paul saying he “saw a man standing where the woman was”. And although it was a dangerous locality where many were knocked down and robbed, this man acted harmlessly and only called him to see about this woman lying on the side of the road. In addition, he was also described by the same Lloyd’s edition as one of the two men who “found the corpse long before the police”, which is what, quite likely, caused a journalist to ask if Neil if he was called to the body by two men.


Then, my more general comment to your post.

I didn’t worry for a second that you wouldn’t have a solution to/explanation for the points made by Caz, Christer! And I have to admit that it might work, too, if everything happened as you suggest. Of course, Lechmere would have realized the possibility of there being no PC present when Mizen arrived. In fact, I think he must have counted on that to happen, on Mizen then uncovering his lie and the police then starting a search for him with the help of 2 people who’d seen him up close and who’d hear him speak. Very lucky indeed for Lechmere that his plan worked out in exactly the way he needed it to. And perhaps even luckier, still, that they didn’t walk into beat officer Neil on their way to Baker’s Row.

Of course, everything would also only work if Paul was out of earshot when he fed the lie to Mizen. You’re right in saying that the evidence we’re left with does leave room for Paul not to have been within earshot (in the sense that it doesn’t actually state where Paul was exactly when Lechmere spoke to Mizen), but it is a very long way from actually supporting the notion that Paul had walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen and, therefore, would not have heard what Lechmere said to Mizen.

To me, “the other man, who went down Hanbury Street” seems like an extremely awkward way for Mizen to have said that Paul walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen, if that’s what’s he supposed to have been trying to say, that is. But seeing there are two other newspaper versions of this snippet that have both of the two carman go down Hanbury Street and one of the snippets even stating that it was “afterwards” (meaning, after the conversation) that they both went down Hanbury Street, it seems clear to me that Mizen wasn’t trying to say that Paul walked on while Lechmere spoke to Mizen. If it was, then it would, obviously, have been yet another stroke of immense luck on Lechmere’s side that things worked out exactly as he needed.

But, as the evidence reads as if Paul and Lechmere reached Mizen together, that it was a short conversation, that even might have taken place more or less in passing (“when some one who was passing said”) and that they walked on together after the conversation, the view that Paul was out of earshot is really a leap of faith rather than anything else.

Cheers,
Frank

Paul probably new that he was on his way to work, and quite possibly his profession. How many jobs required their workers to be at work around 4am? If he was Jack the Ripper (& i still have questions about his guilt), he had to play the charade out.

[rjpalmer]

But let's say he did leg it, and Paul did see him fleeing. What exactly could Paul tell the police after finding the body, and calling for help, that would put Cross/Lechmere at risk?

This either/or scenario strikes me as artificial.

Where's the evidence that Paul was even aware of the body/tarpaulin and would have noticed it?

Paul's deposition makes it sound as if he was willing to blow past Lechmere in the darkened street, and keep walking. His concern was for the man standing in the street; he makes no mention of having independently noticed anything on the pavement...until Lechmere tapped him on the shoulder and called him over.

So it's not the same situation as a man standing his ground and deciding to bluff his way out of a tricky situation. Lechmere created the tricky situation by specifically waving Paul over in order to call his attention to the body--with no indication that Paul would have noticed it on his own.

Thus, there is nothing in Lechmere's behavior that is inconsistent with a perfectly innocent bystander.

He neither ran, nor bluffed. He drew the attention of the first person who came by--a person who may have been quite indifferent and wouldn't have noticed anything amiss if he hadn't been alerted.

[Newbie]

This either/or scenario strikes me as artificial.

Where's the evidence that Paul was even aware of the body/tarpaulin and would have noticed it?

Paul's deposition makes it sound as if he was willing to blow past Lechmere in the darkened street, and keep walking. His concern was for the man standing in the street; he makes no mention of having independently noticed anything on the pavement...until Lechmere tapped him on the shoulder and called him over.

So it's not the same situation as a man standing his ground and deciding to bluff his way out of a tricky situation. Lechmere created the tricky situation by specifically waving Paul over in order to call his attention to the body--with no indication that Paul would have noticed it on his own.

Thus, there is nothing in Lechmere's behavior that is inconsistent with a perfectly innocent bystander.

He neither ran, nor bluffed. He drew the attention of the first person who came by--a person who may have been quite indifferent and wouldn't have noticed anything amiss if he hadn't been alerted.

A constable any where nearby his flight path might be suspicious of a guy in hobnail boots racing down the street at 3:40 am.
It wouldn't be a stealthy flight at any rate: it would make a bit of a noise. And why would a murderer expect someone passing by to miss his unobstructed handiwork?

The constable might even attempt to chase him down without any cries of murder.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

It’s not a question of a subsequent ID, it’s whether running from a crime scene and thereby immediately alerting a passer by to the crime makes more sense than engaging the passer by and distracting him from it.

What do you think?


Gary

Hi Gary,

For a guilty party, getting out there makes far more sense to me, and there's probably a lot more cases of where that was done (by other offenders of course). If you can flee, as the Buck's Row situation would allow, then flee is the most safe option. There are oodles of cases out there where a perpetrator is seen fleeing a crime scene, sometimes pushing past someone to do so. Sticking around if you don't have to is not clever, odds are you're done for. The only times I can think of where a killer has hidden and not took to their heels, are in cases where by hiding they are hoping that neither they nor the victim will be spotted, and they'll leave the scene later. So they're hoping to delay the reporting of the crime so they can distance themselves from the location. And they get out of there as soon as the coast is clear. That wouldn't apply here, as Paul is walking down the street directly towards the crime scene, if he sticks around he is going to be spotted. The times when killers have engaged, like Dahmer did to retrieve his victim from the police, is when they no longer had the option to avoid that contact because avoiding it would be considered almost ensuring they are going to get caught (so, what have you got to lose?). It was either engage with the police and try and solve it, or go down (in Dahmer's case, it's hard to say what actually would have happened due to the brain damage his victim suffered, but there was no way for Dahmer to know what they could or could not tell the police - he had to make a decision about what to do; have his victim recued and reveal what's been done to him, or try and convince the police there's "nothing to see here". He opted for the latter, and sadly, pulled it off). Also, while killers have sometimes gone to the police in the guise of trying to "help", type thing, that's again a very different situation to Buck's Row. It's one they can control the when and where of. Being found at a crime scene is something to be avoided, and I can't think of a case where, given the option, that "get out of there card" wasn't played. that doesn't mean there aren't any such cases, and maybe somebody knows of some. I would be interested in reading up on them as there might be something about those situations, or individuals, that would be good to know.

- Jeff

.

[JeffHamm]

This either/or scenario strikes me as artificial.

Where's the evidence that Paul was even aware of the body/tarpaulin and would have noticed it?

Paul's deposition makes it sound as if he was willing to blow past Lechmere in the darkened street, and keep walking. His concern was for the man standing in the street; he makes no mention of having independently noticed anything on the pavement...until Lechmere tapped him on the shoulder and called him over.

So it's not the same situation as a man standing his ground and deciding to bluff his way out of a tricky situation. Lechmere created the tricky situation by specifically waving Paul over in order to call his attention to the body--with no indication that Paul would have noticed it on his own.

Thus, there is nothing in Lechmere's behavior that is inconsistent with a perfectly innocent bystander.

He neither ran, nor bluffed. He drew the attention of the first person who came by--a person who may have been quite indifferent and wouldn't have noticed anything amiss if he hadn't been alerted.

Hi rj,

That's a very good point. I was thinking of the "decision time" as being much earlier in the "Cross/Lechmere = JtR" theory, basically that he would have spotted Paul when Paul more or less entered Buck's Row and it would have to be at that point he decides to bluff it out. So, the claim is he moves away from the body and then engages him when he gets close. The idea, I think, is that if he flees he'll be seen leaving the scene and an alarm will be raised. But if he could be seen fleeing, then he could be seen moving away from the body, which is just going to increase the suspicions of whomever is coming if they see the body. And as you say, with Paul appearing to try and avoid Cross/Lechmere, it's likely he was just going to go right past it without noticing it particularly if his attention is on the stranger in the street. But as you say, he then engages a side-stepping Paul, and pretty much ensures he becomes aware of the body in the street. How does he know Paul hasn't seen him move away from it. Remember, he's not fled when he first sees Paul for fear of being seen, so his movement away from the body he must fear may have been seen too, but as you say, now he's ensured he can be identified, but had he fled, he would have ensured he couldn't be identified.

I just can't see that happening, but that's the claim, more or less, as I understand it. And you're right, if he's just going to stay there to ensure Paul doesn't raise the alarm, letting Paul go past as he was appearing to do, makes far more sense.

Like you, I find his behaviour far easier to understand if he's nothing more than an innocent bystander.

- Jeff

[Newbie]

You see the body twisted and uncovered; you realize right away something terrible has happened; you hear footsteps walking up the street away from you.
Some people might cry out for help.

If Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, which ever action he chose would pose great risk.

What if he wasn't certain initially from which direction the sound of the newcomer was coming?
What if he chose to immediately flee and ran in the direction of the newcomer?
What if that newcomer turned out to be a cop?

Bluffing could possibly be deemed as the safest option...which is all that is required.
In the case of the murder of Elizabeth stride, bluffing a 2nd time would not be an option.

[Newbie]

Paul didn't spot Lechmere in front of him until well after entering Buck's row, even though Lechmere maintained that he never got close to the body and entered that shadowy area. Either it was very dark and Lechmere would not have been able to see Paul entering Buck's row, or Lechmere lied about his proximity to the body (he said he was no closer than the middle of the street), or both.

There was also the opposite direction with which the murderer had to be concerned. I would guess his eyes were trained on the body, and his ears were straining to pick up sounds. Tough job being a deranged serial killer.

[Newbie]

Lechmere wouldn't have lied to Mizen, then he is risking finding the police over his shoulder.

He could have run away, but the Lechmerians want us to believe he injected himself intentionally in the events after killing Nichols, to then again change their reasoning to show another Lechmere whose solo purpose is to get out of the situation, he didn't even let Paul help the woman up so that he can enjoy the chock effects on Paul's face, as they falsley always claim.

A very disturbed theory, with zero consistency.



The Baron

At the inquest, Lechmere didn't mention anything about informing Mizen about another policeman; that was a part of Mizen's testimony.
Mizen said that Lechmere informed him that he was wanted there (by a policeman).

Someone, somewhere said that Mizen would have subjected himself to department discipline if he left his duty of knocking up doors, to attend to a drunken/deceased woman on another PC's route. Only another policeman needing his service would have readjusted his early morning schedule. Lechmere was not unfamilar with the procedures of beat cops.

Did Lechmere tell Mizen that another policeman wanted him or merely that he was wanted, implying that another PC was waiting for him there?

[Fiver]

On a dark night, walking through dangerous streets, the natural physiological, unconscious tendency is for the mind to be more attuned to one's auditory senses. In the minute or so that Paul should have been following closely behind Lechmere, he did not once hear the footsteps of Lechmere. How is this possible, given the hobnailed boots workers of the era typically wore, and within the confines of a narrow street?

That is an assumption on your part. We do not know if Paul did or did not hear Lechmere in front of him. We do not know how far away Paul heard Lechmere. Nobody asked these questions to Robert Paul.

Why was he walking on the right hand side of this London street & not the middle or left hand side when he glimpsed Nichols body? A bit strange, if you ask me.

There was nothing strange about choosing to walk on the sidewalk instead of walking down the middle of the street.

And why, having discovered the limp body did he not move towards it to better determine the situation, before redirecting himself and casually approaching Paul; and why was he not put on guard by this stranger walking up behind him, who may have had something to do with the woman's prostrate condition?

Lechmere did move towards the body to figure out what was going on.

"He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman."

And why should Lechmere think a man behind him had attacked the woman in front of him? Was he to think Nichols' attacker had run around the block to attack him from behind? Or done a silent 50 foot double-somersault over Lechmere's head to attack him from behind?

Lechmere probably was with the body longer than he lead on,

There is no evidence that Lechmere was with the body longer than he let on.

And showing up at the inquest in your working garments, when your home is only a 7 minute walk away - someone supposedly sensitive to his social position and concerned about what the relatives in the countryside would think?

There is no evidence that Charles Lechmere was concerned about his social situation. There's also no evidence that Lechmere was concerned about what the relatives in the countryside, but if he was, they'd be very unlikely to know Charles Cross was Charles Lechmere.

The Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel-road was about 10 minutes walk from Lechmere's home, not 7.

The simple explanation for Charles Lechmere wearing work clothes is that he had come directly from work. After all, there were a lot of little Lechmeres to feed.

Did he keep his wife in the dark? It sure seems so.

This is pure speculation on your part. You have provided neither evidence nor a reason for Lechmere to not tell his wife that he had to testify at the Inquest.

The alternative story of a dragnet encountering him and detaining him that morning, when they didn't even check Robert Paul out first - who originated the very story; it just doesn't wash.

Where did this come from? I've never seen anyone suggest that a dragnet encountered and detained Lechmere on the morning of the Inquest.

And the alternative to Lechmere not telling his wife is Lechmere telling his wife, not Lechmere being forced to testify.

There is the strong hint that he left earlier than he said; which might mean he was in the habit of shagging prostitutes on the way to work. Who knows?

There is no hint that Charles Lechmere left earlier than he said, only speculation.

[Fiver]

I disagree with those who say he did what a good citizen should do.
First of all, a good citizen would have stayed with the body after Paul left telling him that he would flag down a P.C..

So Robert Paul wasn't a good citizen? After all, Paul didn't volunteer to stay with the body while Lechmere looked for a PC.