Evidence of innocence

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff.

Either way, I find it strange that someone walking down the right side of the street is somehow considered suspicious. I was taught as a child to walk facing traffic, so you knew when to jump.

Cheers.

I was also taught as a child to walk facing the traffic. Lechmere and Paul enterered Bucks Row from the north and would have exited to the north, so being on the northern side of the street facing the traffic would make perfect sense for both. Paul's inquest testimony doesn't make a lot of sense as if he saw Lechmere in the middle of the road, where was he to go to give him a wide berth? His Lloyd's statement wouldn't make that much more sense as, if Lechmere was "near where the body was", to give him a wide berth would mean just continuing on his original path on the north side of the street.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

It is easy to get turned around because we are used to seeing Buck's Row in videos and in documentaries as the camera is entering the street from the other end, so Polly's body is on the right side of the street.

Now that we imagine Buck's Row from a Lechmerecentric point of view (walking down the street from the other end) everything seems a little backwards.

Either way, I find it strange that someone walking down the right side of the street is somehow considered suspicious. I was taught as a child to walk facing traffic, so you knew when to jump.

Cheers.

Yah, that could be it. Actually, I think I know where I've got that impression from now that you mention the above. There's a newspaper image of PC Neil finding her, and given he entered Buck's Row from the west, the way that graphic is depicted, it would place her on the side of the street where I've always pictured her to be.

In this one, for example, PC Neil, coming from the west, would place her on the side I had her. I think there's another one, though, with her laying in the other direction (so head where her feet are in this one), but the rest has the same implications. So to make this more in line with reality, PC Neil should be depicted at her feet end, rather than at her head.



- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Yah, that could be it. Actually, I think I know where I've got that impression from now that you mention the above. There's a newspaper image of PC Neil finding her, and given he entered Buck's Row from the west, the way that graphic is depicted, it would place her on the side of the street where I've always pictured her to be.

In this one, for example, PC Neil, coming from the west, would place her on the side I had her. I think there's another one, though, with her laying in the other direction (so head where her feet are in this one), but the rest has the same implications. So to make this more in line with reality, PC Neil should be depicted at her feet end, rather than at her head.



- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Neil is coming from the east in the image you’ve posted. The pavement (sidewalk) is clear to see and, as Steve mentioned, is shown on both OS and Goad maps, so considerations of traffic flow are irrelevant.

Gary.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

This is not a court of law.

And Fisherman is right: he has no alibis. If he was being honest, Paul could have verified that he was just a bit ahead of him; or his wife could have vouched for his departure time. Lechmere seemed to go to some effort to keep her in the dark.

Two opportunities to buttress his honesty, and zero confirmations.

Hi Newbie, and welcome to the boards.

"If he (Charles) was being honest"? Paul wasn't extensively grilled on the exact distances at inquest. Neither Paul or Charles were on trial.

"Lechmere seemed to go to some effort to keep her in the dark". This is pure speculation that stretches the definition, even by Ripperology standards. I know Christer makes a point of it in his book, but there is literally no evidence that Charles was deceiving anyone by wearing his apron. It's another part of the whole 'Charles was a master of deception/flukey devil' thing. He fools her indoors by wearing his apron. Lucky for him she, or his neighbours, relatives or anyone else who could read a paper never found out about Charles Cross, on his way to Pickford's, finding a body at the time he was out.

Add in that Paul should have been in Commando mode, attuned to his surroundings and not tired/stressed/hungover/distracted/all of these and that Charles should have walked on the left (which is a non starter par excellence) and it's a collection of weak arguments. But these aren't exactly the lynchpins of the Letchmere case, so they're slightly odd points to go over in detail.

As in any suspect/witness evaluation, we always need to keep in mind, we don't know to what extents people were investigated at the time, none of the records survived.

Have you got "Inside Bucks Row" by Steve "Elamarna" Blomer? This is the go to work on distances, timings and routes etc, and is well worth the fiver.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Neil is coming from the east in the image you’ve posted. The pavement (sidewalk) is clear to see and, as Steve mentioned, is shown on both OS and Goad maps, so considerations of traffic flow are irrelevant.

Gary.

Hi Gary,

Yes, the image has PC Neil coming from the wrong direction. I've always viewed this, though, as if he's coming from the correct direction, and as a result, I've always imagined her on the other side of the street (both sides of the street had sidewalks, so it would work in that sense either way). It's my mistake, and goes to show how powerful images can be, and while I try and carefully question the text from newspaper articles, and compare between them when I can, I've obviously let that good habit take a break when it came to considering the images drawn.

As for the rest, I agree, there would be little traffic at the time, and give both sides of the street had a sidewalk (or pavement), which side Cross/Lechmere and Paul chose to walk down would be more determined by how they entered the street. Given that, the side on which she was found would be opposite to the one they would most naturally choose given their route into Buck's Row.

I'm still having to reimage things, and it will take me awhile to shift her over to the other side. Sigh.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Paul's inquest testimony doesn't make a lot of sense as if he saw Lechmere in the middle of the road, where was he to go to give him a wide berth?

Hi George,
In his inquest testimony Paul states that Lechmere walked towards the pavement upon which Paul was walking while Paul was getting closer - some versions even have Lechmere walking onto the pavement – and that Paul then stepped on to the roadway to pass him. As Paul was passing him, Lechmere touched Paul on the shoulder (he probably laid his hand on it) and said “Come and look at this woman.”

So, to me it’s rather clear form Paul’s testimony where he would give Lechmere a wide berth: in the direction of where Nichols lay.

Daily Telegraph of 18 September:
“Robert Baul, 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman,…”

His Lloyd's statement wouldn't make that much more sense as, if Lechmere was "near where the body was", to give him a wide berth would mean just continuing on his original path on the north side of the street.

Paul’s Lloyd’s statement isn’t that far removed from his inquest statement. Paul said he saw a man standing where the body was, that Lechmere walked a little towards Paul and that Paul then tried to give him a wide berth. But Lechmere came all the way to him and said “Come and look at this woman”.

“It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman."”

Cheers,
Frank

[Elamarna]

By mentioning the Lloyd's account, i am not siding with Paul's complete account. Mentioning hearing footsteps, if anything, would have fed into Paul's own vanity: it would lend a more mysterious atmosphere to his description. He didn't mention it. Maybe those little things are unimportant to some people....to me, its just another loose thread that makes me curious. Cobblestone is not exactly a shock absorber, and in limited light Paul's brain should have been more attuned to interpreting sound. I am amazed that so little value is placed in this. How long was Lechmere with the body? If it was more than he stated, he is lying to the inquest. Lying to the inquest of a possible murder should be a big deal. It is a decent assumption that he was lying on this matter. Does this make him the Ripper, not alone by this....but it is not good.

There are traffic laws that are ingrained in people, particularly which side of the road they are going. I would find it awkward at first to drive on the left side of the road. Whenever i walk down a vacant alley, i tend to walk down the middle or more to the right... it feels more comfortable & I doubt it is just me. Lechmere was used to driving his cart down the left side of the road....his description of walking down Buck's road on the right and then moving to the middle in order to look at the body seems odd. In my mind, Lechmere was attempting to exaggerate his distance from the body. That doesn't make him guilty - he had good reason to wish to evade suspicion, innocent or not. It seems like he was with the body longer than he stated; what was he doing there? He is deservedly a strong suspect.

One normally walks on the pavement in the direction one is going, here he enters on the northern side and will leave on the northern side.
There were pavements, sidewalks, Paul was clearly walking on the same northern pavement himself.
Traffic laws have nothing to do with this.

Who says either man was walking on Cobbleston?
They both say they were walking on the pavement.

Again it's IF he was with the body longer, there is no actual evidence to suggest he is, just lots of its, maybes and disputed claims.

The Lloyds account is so unreliable I only accept it where it is corroborated by another, either Lechmere, Mizen or on at least one occasion both. That Paul does not mention hearing Lechmere is not surprising, indeed Lechmere says he only heard Paul, when he himself stopped walking.

Steve

[rjpalmer]

After reading this thread, it's little wonder that people hesitate before getting involved. Even walking on the north side of the street is deemed suspicious

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just thought I’d post something I saw in Morrison’s today.

[FrankO]

If he was Jack the Ripper (& i still have questions about his guilt), he had to play the charade out.

But there are pointers against such a charade to begin with, Newbie. Lechmere is lucky that they don't walk into PC Neil on their way to Baker's Row. He's lucky that Mizen is so unclear in telling the inquest that Paul walked on while he spoke to Mizen. He's lucky that Neil IS present when Mizen arrives. He's lucky that Mizen doesn't talk to Neil about his meeting the 2 carmen. He's lucky that Mizen doesn't act on knowing he lied to him.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,
In his inquest testimony Paul states that Lechmere walked towards the pavement upon which Paul was walking while Paul was getting closer - some versions even have Lechmere walking onto the pavement – and that Paul then stepped on to the roadway to pass him. As Paul was passing him, Lechmere touched Paul on the shoulder (he probably laid his hand on it) and said “Come and look at this woman.”

So, to me it’s rather clear form Paul’s testimony where he would give Lechmere a wide berth: in the direction of where Nichols lay.

Daily Telegraph of 18 September:
“Robert Baul, 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman,…”



Paul’s Lloyd’s statement isn’t that far removed from his inquest statement. Paul said he saw a man standing where the body was, that Lechmere walked a little towards Paul and that Paul then tried to give him a wide berth. But Lechmere came all the way to him and said “Come and look at this woman”.

“It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman."”

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Thanks for the explanation. From Paul's point of view he sees a man suddenly appear in the darkness in an area known for knock down robberies, and when Paul tries to give him a wide berth, the man moves to intercept him. This must have appeared to Paul to be threatening to the point of considering a flight or fight response. Wouldn't the more natural expectation be that Lechmere would have stayed where he was and called out to Paul rather than making these apparently aggressive movements towards him?

If the two had encountered Neil instead of Mizen, I would suppose that Lechmere would have said something along the lines that they had just found a woman lying in the street. The danger would then be if Neil shone his lantern on Paul and noticed blood, although one would think that Mizen would have done that when he noticed they were car-men. Would Neil have searched Lechmere and Paul? Was Davis searched after Chapman's murder?

The other thought I have on this case is, with Chapman and Eddows the bodies were left "on display". If Lechmere's footsteps warned the ripper and he left undetected, why did the he take the time to cover up Nichols mutilations? Wouldn't the cover up only be necessary if the murderer was staying to bluff the potential witness?

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

From Paul's point of view he sees a man suddenly appear in the darkness in an area known for knock down robberies, and when Paul tries to give him a wide berth, the man moves to intercept him. This must have appeared to Paul to be threatening to the point of considering a flight or fight response. Wouldn't the more natural expectation be that Lechmere would have stayed where he was and called out to Paul rather than making these apparently aggressive movements towards him?

Hi George,

Yes, perhaps ‘at first glance’ you would think that Lechmere would have stayed where he was and would have asked Paul from there to come and look at this woman. And if we read Lechmere’s statements, it seems that Lechmere intended to stay where he was, until he saw that Paul seemed to be afraid.

“He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down.”

So, perhaps he thought that walking towards Paul (I’m assuming without aggressive body language) and touching him on the shoulder would be more effective in showing he meant no harm than staying where he stood and calling out to Paul. And Paul, in fact, doesn’t give the impression that Lechmere seemed to pose any danger, but that it was rather the neighbourhood.

If the two had encountered Neil instead of Mizen, I would suppose that Lechmere would have said something along the lines that they had just found a woman lying in the street. The danger would then be if Neil shone his lantern on Paul and noticed blood, although one would think that Mizen would have done that when he noticed they were car-men. Would Neil have searched Lechmere and Paul?

If the two would have seen Neil instead of Mizen, things would have been different for a guilty Lechmere. After all, Lechmere might well have figured that this would be the PC whose beat the woman was on. If he would have told this copper that another PC wanted him further along Buck’s Row, there would have been a good chance that Neil would have started asking some questions, since it was his beat. And perhaps, by walking a short distance (or even without having to do so), Neil could see along the narrow part of Buck’s Row. Lechmere would have known that if Neil would do that, he would see no PC with a bull’s eye alight. In other words, it would be much easier and quicker for Neil to find out that Lechmere had lied and I think Lechmere would have been aware of that. And, obviously, there would be no chance that Neil would find another PC already in place when arriving at the crime scene. So, the chance that Lechmere and Paul would be questioned/taken back/searched would certainly have been there.

Was Davis searched after Chapman's murder?

I don’t know if he was searched, but I’d think he was.

The other thought I have on this case is, with Chapman and Eddows the bodies were left "on display". If Lechmere's footsteps warned the ripper and he left undetected, why did the he take the time to cover up Nichols mutilations? Wouldn't the cover up only be necessary if the murderer was staying to bluff the potential witness?

If the murderer was disturbed by Lechmere, then it may very well have been for a very similar reason as Fisherman suggests that Lechmere did it: to prevent that it was immediately clear the woman was brutally murdered and, in doing so, giving himself a bit more time to get away. After all, we might expect the murderer to have heard Lechmere more than 100 yards away, so he would have had a couple of seconds to do that with little chance of Lechmere noticing anything.

But it may just as well have been because the dress wouldn’t stay out of the way by itself and, so, he had to keep it out of the way with one hand while cutting with his other and he just dropped the dress when he’d finished, covering the wounds. The fact that Paul wasn’t able to get the dress all the way down may have been because it got stuck under her and that may have prevented the dress staying out of the way by itself.

Cheers,
Frank

[caz]

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 Paul examined the body and still didn't twig that this was a murder. A guilty Lechmere would have been counting on Paul either not twigging that she had just had her throat cut, or not suspecting for a second that he was involved and still had the murder weapon on him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

How could Lechmere have expected to 'distract' Paul from what he'd just done, by luring him over to examine his handiwork? He wasn't psychic, so he couldn't predict that Paul would do so, but then leave the scene with him, unaware that the woman had even been injured.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

At this far remove it is impossible to say how hard-assed Pickford's or Paul's employer might have been, but the Victorian business owner had all the power. That Pickford's employees sought a reduction of work hours gives a strong hint about the 'ethos' of the company. Elsewhere, we read of Victorian-era employees being subjected to large fines--or even getting sacked--for the most trivial offenses. It is not difficult to find appalling accounts of work conditions in East End factories and in other jobs. Competition was so fierce that the average employee was expected to work very long, hard hours with few breaks and for poor pay--and without complaining. If the employee got sick or injured at work, that was their problem.

Thus, when theorists suggest that Paul and Lechmere might have done more, instead of hurrying off so as not to be late--they are judging them by modern standards. Their fear of being late and getting in trouble at work might have been a very real one.

In their world, they did what they could. They showed the concern and compassion that was allotted to them. Check her pulse, flag down a copper, and get your backside to work on time, so you still get a full day's pay. Look at Paul--he evidently even tried to shirk the inquest. It's obvious that his employer didn't plan on paying him for missing time, and missed pay was a missed meal.

Free Charles Lechmere!

Hell---free Charles Cross, if that's the name he chose to use!