Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

Here is Paul's statement again to the Loyd's representative: ""It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. 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..."

That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of being aware of someone walking in front of him for a minute or two. Lechmere by the way does mention before the inquest that he first heard Paul's footsteps. My point behind all this is that there is no evidence that Lechmere first approached Nichol's body immediately before Paul arrived, and that Lechmere left home around 3:30 am. Paul's only statement on the matter is about suddenly seeing Lechmere standing over (or near) Nichols body.

Your original claim in Post #450 was that "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?

The Lloyd's account of what Robert Paul said is full of errors and in several places contradicts Robert Paul's Inquest testimony. Most notable is according to Lloyd's claims that Paul left Lechemre with the body and went by himself to find a policeman. But the Lloyd's account does not support your assumptions.

You assume Paul never heard Lechmere in front of him. Nobody ever asked Paul if he heard anyone if front of him. Lechemre could have been less than a minute's walk ahead of Paul and he would have been around at least one street corner - invisible and much less audible - until Paul turned the corner onto Buck's Row.

You state Lechmere was "standing over" Nichols body. Robert Paul's Inquest testimony contradicts you - he saw Lechmere in the middle of the street.

You assume that Lechmere was wearing hobnailed boots and that he could be heard vast distances away. At the Inquest, Charles Lechmere said he heard Paul about 30 to 40 yards away and nobody at the time thought that distance was odd.

We do have evidence that Lechmere first approached Nichol's body immediately before Paul arrived, and that Lechmere left home around 3:30 am. Lechmere gave it. While Lechmere could have lied about that, there is no evidence that he did. Lechemere's timing is supported by the timings given by Lechmere, PC Mizen, PC Thain. The Lloyd's account of what Robert Paul is supposed to have said contradicts the timings of the other 4 men and might have given Lechmere five minutes alone with the body. Of course, the Lloyd's account doesn't even get Paul's workplace correct.

[Fiver]

I don't think these streets had sidewalks. It is the habit of most people walking down a deserted street to walk in the middle, or on the side, of the street in which it is customary. If he was from the U.S., that would mean proceeding more on the right hand side - but not in London of today or back then. Remember, Lechmere was a cart man. It is peculiar.

Buck's Row did have sidewalks. At the Inquest, Robert Paul testified "...he saw in Buck's-row a man [Lechmere] standing in the middle of the road. As witness [Paul] drew closer he [Lechmere] walked towards the pavement, and he [Baul] stepped in the roadway to pass him [Lechmere]. "

So Robert Paul was doing the same things as Charles Lechmere, walking on the sidewalk on the north side of Buck's Row. In Lechmere's case you insist it was "peculiar" and "strange". But you don't apply that same standard to Paul.

In Post #450 you asked "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."

As you note, Lechmere was a carman. He, more than most, would know that being in the street put you in danger from being run over by a passing cart. Also, as a carman, Lechmere knew that unpleasant things came out of the back end of a horse on a regular basis. Walking down the middle of the street risked stepping in a puddle or worse.

Walking down the middle of street in the dark would have been strange behavior of any Victorian Londoner with a functioning nose or brain.

Lechmere and Paul's walking along the north side of Buck's row was not strange, either, let alone suspicious. Walking facing traffic like that gave more warning if a cart jumped the curb. Also, both men's routes involved turning right from Brady Street onto Buck's Row and then turning right from Buck's row onto Baker's Row. Crossing to the left side of Buck's Row would have required pointlessly crossing the street, then having to cross it again.

Your attempt portray Lechmere's perfectly normal actions as strange or even suspicious shows just how weak the accusations against Lechmere are.

[Fiver]

If you just committed the murder, you wouldn't have a care in the world about the guy. It was a dark, dangerous street around 3:40 am and you see a motionless body lying there, and then someone suddenly approaches you from the rear. Most people would be disinclined about approaching the newcomer; they would start rummaging in their minds about possibly missing him hiding in the shadows. Lechmere, does the contrary: moving towards him without a fear, as if he is running for political office. It is peculiar. Overcome with compassion for the woman? He abandons her dead/drunk a few minutes later, saying that he was uncertain of her state.

This makes no sense. An innocent man would be in danger if the approaching man was a criminal. A guilty man was in danger from anyone who was approaching.

If Paul had appeared suddenly behind him, that might have spooked him, but Lechmere heard Paul 30 to 40 yards away.

Why should Lechmere or anyone else think a man behind well 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?

Not being a paranoid coward is not a point against Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

That is something posited by other members attempting to explain why Lechmere used the name of Cross at the inquest: he was protecting the good name of Lechmere from scandal and approbation from the higher class members of his family with whom he did not associate. Maybe they are right. If anything, I would think Lechmere had some resentment for his father and that side of the family, none of whom he seems to have been old enough to remember meeting. He was born & died an East Londoner and probably didn't care a fig about them.

It wasn't posited by anyone on this thread except you.

In Post #450 you said "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?"

But if you want to now switch to attacking your own position, feel free.

[Fiver]

COLOR=#c0392b]Someone here timed it at 7, but the extra 3 minutes wouldn't change anyone's mind on this matter.

The inquest was held in the morning and you are assuming that Lechmere didn't have the day off. If not, he easily could have made the 6 - 10 minute walk to home and changed into his work clothing. For someone sensitive about his social position and appearance to distant relatives, it is peculiar. Why exactly did he use the name of Cross, and not Lechmere, at the inquest? And why did he not inform his wife on the matter? Its a decent assumption based on Lechmere showing up at the inquest in his work clothes & there being no oral history within the family on the matter. She could have supported his story on the 3:30 am departure if necessary. Why give the name of Cross (his work name), when Pickford's administrators could tell the inquest nothing about Lechmere's departure time?[/COLOR]

And now you're back to claiming that Lechmere was "sensitive about his social position and appearance to distant relatives". Not nameless people on dusty, forgotten threads - you are claiming this here and now. And you are providing zero evidence for your claim.

Charles Lechmere wore work clothes to the Inquest and you assume that proves he was trying to hide his identity? You'd be saying the same thing even louder if Lechmere had worn his day-to-day clothes without his carman's cap and apron or if he'd worn his Sunday best. Again, you show how weak the arguments against Charles Lechmere are.

And you have missed my point. I said the simple explanation for Charles Lechmere wearing work clothes is that he had come directly from work. It could also mean he planned to go back to work after testifying. The idea that carman Charles Lechmere was wearing his carman's uniform to the Inquest to hide his identity is clearly ridiculous. Lechmere normally started work at 4am. He could have got in 4 hours work before the Inquest and probably 4 or 5 hours work after he testified. Half-a-day's pay was better than nothing.

Why did he go by Cross at the Inquest? I don't know, but he used Cross in 1876. It was clear his employer knew who he was in 1876 and that the police knew who he was in 1876 and 1888. It sure wasn't going to hide anything from Lechmere's wife unless she was stupendously dim - the 1871 Census shows them living with his mother, Maria L Cross.

You ask "why did he not inform his wife on the matter?". There is not one shred of evidence that Charles Lechmere did not tell his wife about it. Yet you treat your speculation as an established fact.

[Fiver]

Someone here timed it at 7, but the extra 3 minutes wouldn't change anyone's mind on this matter.

The inquest was held in the morning and you are assuming that Lechmere didn't have the day off. If not, he easily could have made the 6 - 10 minute walk to home and changed into his work clothing. For someone sensitive about his social position and appearance to distant relatives, it is peculiar. Why exactly did he use the name of Cross, and not Lechmere, at the inquest? And why did he not inform his wife on the matter? Its a decent assumption based on Lechmere showing up at the inquest in his work clothes & there being no oral history within the family on the matter. She could have supported his story on the 3:30 am departure if necessary. Why give the name of Cross (his work name), when Pickford's administrators could tell the inquest nothing about Lechmere's departure time?

I see you missed my points. Charles Lechmere's job started at 4am. The simplest reason for him to be wearing his work uniform at the Inquest is that Charles Lechmere had already worked 4 hours, then come directly to the Inquest, and probably hoped to work another 4 or 5 hours after he gave his testimony. After all, a half-day's pay is better than nothing.

And now you're back to claiming that Lechmere was "someone sensitive about his social position and appearance to distant relatives". Not nameless others on dusty, forgotten threads, but you, here and now. You have provided zero evidence that Lechmere was sensitive about his social position. Him wearing his work uniform at the Inquest is not peculiar, it is proof Lechmere was not sensitive about his social position.

Wearing his work uniform was perfectly normal, yet you try to twist it into something suspicious. You'd do the same thing if Lechmere had showed up in day to day clothes without his carman's cap and apron. You'd do the same if Lechmere showed up in his Sunday best.

I don't know why Lechmere used the name Cross at the Inquest, but he'd done it before. This wasn't to conceal his identity to the police - they had his address. This wasn't to hide it from his employers - he was on the job in 1876 and they'd want to know why he needed the days off in 1876 and 1888. It's pure speculation to claim that Lechmere did not tell his wife. Showing up in his work clothes was going to emphasize, not hide that he worked at Pickfords. Using the name Cross had no chance of hiding anything from Elizabeth Lechmere unless she was exceptionally dim. The 1871 Cenus shows the Lechmeres living with his mother, Maria L Cross.

I have no idea what your claiming wasn't mentioned in Lechmere family histories, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Fiver]

Because he left home at 3:15 am, and not 3:30 am. If that happened, it would give his wife pause to think as to why her husband only made it as far as Bucks row around 3:40 am.

This is pure speculation on your part. You have provided no evidence to support it.

It was people in a previous thread clutching for explanations as to why he appeared at the inquest in his working clothes. An easier explanation is that he wanted his wife to think he had gone off to work. Who knows? Maybe he came to the inquest in his working clothes, and later on went to work in his suit. Some here proposed that he couldn't afford a suit - but was still concerned about what the well off relatives in the country would think.

The simple explanation for Charles Lechmere showing up for the Inquest in his work clothes is he went to work at his normal time, left work early, and went directly to the Inquest. The rest of what you say is speculation by people who assume Lechmere was guilty and that Lechmere was lying to his wife.

And there is no evidence that Lechmere left on his stated time of 3:30 am. Two people could have confirmed the departure time in this history and failed to do so. Pretty much all is based on assumptions here; some assume that Lechmere was an honest man and leave it at that.

Nobody failed to confirm Lechmere's stated time of leaving for work. Nobody else was asked. All these things that you see as strange and suspicious, like not walking down the middle of the street, were not considered strange or suspicious by Lechmere's employers or Lechmere's family or Lechmere's neighbors or the coroner or other witnesses or the police, even the constable that Lechmere contradicted in open court.

[Fiver]

It is a decent assumption that he was lying on this matter.

That is an assumption based on no evidence.

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.

Bucks Row was not a vacant alley. It was a street with sidewalks.

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.

Robert Paul was used to driving his cart down the left side of the road. He testified that he was walking down Buck's Road on the right.

So how is Lechmere's behavior odd when he did the same thing as Paul?

It seems like he was with the body longer than he stated

There is no evidence that Lechmere was with the body longer than he stated. Again, you are stating speculation as fact.

[Fiver]

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.

Fisherman is wrong - Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman murder.

People cannot confirm or deny things they are not asked. Nobody asked Cross how far ahead he saw Lchmere. Nobody asked Cross if he heard Lechmere in front of him. No one asked Elizabeth Lechmere what time her husband left for work that morning. There is no evidence that he kept her in the dark.

Charles Lechmere didn't need witnesses to "buttress his honesty" - no one at the time questioned it. That includes both Elizabeth Lechmere and Robert Paul. It even included PC, who Lechmere contradicted in open court.

[MrBarnett]

Fisherman is wrong - Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman murder.

People cannot confirm or deny things they are not asked. Nobody asked Cross how far ahead he saw Lchmere. Nobody asked Cross if he heard Lechmere in front of him. No one asked Elizabeth Lechmere what time her husband left for work that morning. There is no evidence that he kept her in the dark.

Charles Lechmere didn't need witnesses to "buttress his honesty" - no one at the time questioned it. That includes both Elizabeth Lechmere and Robert Paul. It even included PC, who Lechmere contradicted in open court.

Enlighten us.

What was Lechmere’s alibi for the Chapman murder? Where was he?

[Harry D]

If Chapman was murdered while Lechmere was on his rounds, that raises several questions:

• Would Lechmere's round have taken him past Hanbury Street?
• Would Lechmere had been using a horse and cart? If so, none were reported nearby.
• Wouldn't it have been foolhardy for Lechmere to park the cart elsewhere and leave it unguarded in the middle of Whitechapel?

[MrBarnett]

If Chapman was murdered while Lechmere was on his rounds, that raises several questions:

• Would Lechmere's round have taken him past Hanbury Street?
• Would Lechmere had been using a horse and cart? If so, none were reported nearby.
• Wouldn't it have been foolhardy for Lechmere to park the cart elsewhere and leave it unguarded in the middle of Whitechapel?

His round might well have taken him near Hanbury Street. We know that Pickfords collected provincial horseflesh from Broad Street/Liverpool Street. Harrison, Barber, who had connections to Pickfords, imported provincial horseflesh and had a wholesale outlet in Coventry Street, Bethnal Green. Hanbury Street lay between Broad Street station and Coventry Street. That’s just one possibility that occurs to me. There were no doubt others.

Hanbury Street was off Commercial Street, a major thoroughfare, and a stone’s throw from Spitalfields Market. We can be reasonably certain there were horses and carts in the vicinity.

Unladen carts were occasionally left unguarded by their drivers - and occasionally pinched! And if we are talking about a man consumed with a burning desire to murder and mutilate women in the open streets, we should expect him to be prepared to take a few risks.

[Columbo]

Enlighten us.

What was Lechmere’s alibi for the Chapman murder? Where was he?

Well not that he needed one because he apparently was never accused, but guessing by his work history of several years of service I would say he was working. Most likely if he left his cart to get "pinched" he would've suffered a fine from his employer or getting axed.

done

[The Baron]

You may have missed the point altogether.


It is not that Lechmere couldn't have killed Chapman after he started his work, it is about their saga "route to work argument" that Lechmerians created to insert cross at other murders spots, but Stride, Eddowes and Kelly's murders don't support their claim, so they need Chapman's badly.

If Chapman was killed after Lechmere started to work, that will ruin their "Lechmere's route takes him over other murders spots" at a time corresponding with their time of death.



The Baron

[Elamarna]

You may have missed the point altogether.


It is not that Lechmere couldn't have killed Chapman after he started his work, it is about their saga "route to work argument" that Lechmerians created to insert cross at other murders spots, but Stride, Eddowes and Kelly's murders don't support their claim, so they need Chapman's badly.

If Chapman was killed after Lechmere started to work, that will ruin their "Lechmere's route takes him over other murders spots" at a time corresponding with their time of death.



The Barion

I believe, we have the change to "during working hours" for Chapman, because it's now becoming very clear that the early TOD is very unreliable.

Steve