Evidence of innocence

[Doctored Whatsit]

Now we have more "coincidences" suggested. Stride being killed "a stone's throw" from his mother's home. Would Lechmere "chat up" a prostitute in an area where he would very likely be recognised? Then we have"Eddowes's along his old working route, more or less" - what exactly is the significance of this? He wasn't going to work at about 1. 30 am in the morning. Then we have the Goulston Street bloody apron which was on the route from Mitre Square to the most disreputable parts of the East End, not just Lechmere's home.

I wonder what evidence James Scobie had, and what he didn't have.

[Fiver]

And actually there is another example, a suspect in the ripper case itself no less, who also did something similar. surprisingly, or not, nobody has picked up on it. Bury, after murdering Ellen, walked right into the teeth of the police in an attempt to get away with her murder. BAM!

Bury appears to have walked into a police station and announced he was Jack the Ripper, then gave them his address and keys. That is the exact opposite of trying to bluff your way out of being considered a suspect.

[FrankO]

I´d rather you stayed, Frank.

Oh well - I'll stick around then!

[FrankO]

Your opinion is always valued Frank, even if it is of the opposing viewpoint.

Cheers, George

Thanks, George!

[JeffHamm]

I'm not sure I understand why the timings are "off"? Cross/Lechmere and Paul are with PC Mizen at 3:44. Cross/Lechmere leaves home around 3:30, so 14 minutes later he's at PC MIzen's location. It should take him about 7 mintutes to arrive at the crime scene (3:37ish), he then waits for Paul to cover 120 feet to get to him (about 23 seconds), and the distance from the crime scene to where PC Mizen was located would take about 3 minutes for them to walk. Of the 14 minutes, we've already accounted for 10 minutes 23 seconds, leaving 3 minutes and 37 seconds, and we've not included anything yet about Cross/Lechmere and Paul's time examining Nichols, but I don't think 2 minutes is an unreasonable estimate given what they describe. We're not at 1 minute 37 seconds, and that is well within the margin of error that's one has to consider with this type of evidence (even without making any estimate of the time at the crime scene and just having 3 min 37seconds we're inside what would be considered a margin of error). All it takes is for Cross/Lechmere to have left home around 3:31, for example, or for PC Mizen to have noted the time after Cross/Lechmere and Paul finished speaking to him (probably not more than a minute or two).

I've put the distances and times in the map below. I measured two plausible routes from Cross/Lechmere's home to the crime scene, but the times are both very similar, resulting in the usual suggestion of 7 minutes travel to the crime scene to be bang on. For these I'm using the average walking speed of 3.5mph (308 ft/min).

In other words, coincidences don't stack up if they didn't occur and given there's nothing "out" about these times, one can not include "the times are out" as a pointer, because they're not out.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

It is claimed that there are no - or the fewest - examples of killers who have done what is suggested that Lechmere did.

You have missed the point. The burden of proof is on you. It was claimed that if Lechmere was the killer he would have acted the way he did. That is an assumption on your part and your assumption is supported by speculation, not evidence. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any examples of serial killers acting in the way that Lechmere did, let alone showing they would be a probable actions for a serial killer.

[Abby Normal]

Bury appears to have walked into a police station and announced he was Jack the Ripper, then gave them his address and keys. That is the exact opposite of trying to bluff your way out of being considered a suspect.

what are you talking about? he went to the police and said she had committed suicide. another example of someone, a ripper suspect no less, who engaged with police in an effort to get away with murder. exactly like lech (if guilty).

[Abby Normal]

You have missed the point. The burden of proof is on you. It was claimed that if Lechmere was the killer he would have acted the way he did. That is an assumption on your part and your assumption is supported by speculation, not evidence. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any examples of serial killers acting in the way that Lechmere did, let alone showing they would be a probable actions for a serial killer.

Jeff asked if there were any killers that did something similar to Lech (if guilty). I provided two examples- Dahmer and bury who did just that.

[Fiver]

Every case is unique. Whatever inclusion a case has that is also unique is not an obstacle for a suspect to be the killer, unless it involves inclusions that are physically hard or impossible to realize for the suggested killer. Otherwise, when we have an inclusion such as the suggested staying put and conning Robert Paul, if we think it is an unlikely thing for Lechmere to have done, we move on and we look to see if there are OTHER factors that may point to guilt on his behalf.
Such as the suspect hiding his real name real name in contacts with the law.
Such as having a PC pointing to how that he was misinformed and conned by him.
Such as how the victim had her clothing pulled down to cover the wounds - in this case only.
Such as how the timings are off.
Such as how the victim bled for many minutes after Lechmere left her.
Such as how Lechmere said he wouldn´t touch Nichols when Paul asked him to help prop her up - although he already HAD touched her.

These points would be suspicious if they applied to Charles Lechmere. They don't.

* Charles Lechmere made no attempt to hide his identity from the police. He contacted them and gave his real home and work addresses. Use of his stepfather's surname was unusual, but it did nothing to hide his identity from the police.

* Charles Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen. So did Robert Paul. Your double standard is quite clear - two men do the exact same thing, yet it only "proves" one of them guilty. You assume guilt on Lechmere's part, ignoring the possibilities of PC Mizen lying or being mistaken. You also ignore that according to both PC Mizen and Robert Paul, Paul was a witness to the exchange between Mizen and Paul - if Lechmere was lying, Paul was his accomplice.

* Robert Paul testified he pulled down Nichols clothing. This fact has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You ignoring the fact does not make it go away.

* The timings are not off for Chrales Lechmere's trip to work. The testimonies of Charles Lechmere, PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain all put Lechmere and Paul at the murder site around 3:40am. But you ignore the Inquest testimony in favor of a lone newspaper article, the 2 September Lloyd's weekly. According to that article, Paul said "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row". The article is full of errors - it gets Paul's work address wrong and falsely claims that Paul left Lechmere with the body. It also claims the body was cold enough that Nichols would have been dead long before Paul or Lechmere found her.

* The timings are off for your theory that Charles Lechmere was murdering on his way to work. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were murdered on days that Lechmere had the day off of work. Chapman was murdered after Lechmere started work for the day. The Pinchin Street Torso was deposited after Lechmere started work for the day.

* Your failure to understand the difference between exsanguination and bleeding to death proves nothing. Neither does your failure to understand the meaning of the word "oozing".

* There is no evidence that Lechmere had already touched Nichol's body. Nobody saw him touch the body. Nobody saw fresh bloodstains on on Lechmere's clothes or hands.

* If Lechmere were guilty, the smart thing would have been to help Paul prop up Nichols - it would have provided an innocent excuse for any blood on Lechmere's hands or clothes.

[Fiver]

I am very much aware about what facts are. WHich was why I did not write that Lechmere lied to Mizen but instead that what Mizen pointed out would be in line with a lie. Whether or not Mizen was correct to point it out is another matter.]

You did not say that. You said "Such as having a PC pointing to how that he was misinformed and conned by him." That not claiming Lechmere might have lied to Mizen, that is claiming Lechmere did lie to Mizen - or do you not know the meanings of the words "misinformed" or "conned"? You also continue to ignore that both Mizen and Paul testified that Paul was present when Mizen spoke with Lchmere. If Lechmere was lying to PC MIzen, then Paul was his accomplice.

[Fiver]

No, Lechmere never admitted that he was alone with the body as such.

Lechmere quite clearly testified that he was alone with Nichol's body. Lechmere said "There was nobody there".

The smart thing for a guilty man would have been to claim he had seen someone ducking around the corner as he approached Nichols' body. Instead, Lechmere said he saw nobody.

[Fiver]

We have around a hundred examples of how Lechmere always called himself Lechmere in contacts with the authorities.

We have two examples of what Lechmere called himself in contacts with the authorities. At the 1876 Inquest, he called himself Charles Cross. At the 1888 Inquest, he Charles Cross.

[Harry D]

Lechmere quite clearly testified that he was alone with Nichol's body. Lechmere said "There was nobody there".

The smart thing for a guilty man would have been to claim he had seen someone ducking around the corner as he approached Nichols' body. Instead, Lechmere said he saw nobody.

To save Fisherman the bother, his counterargument would be that Lechmere couldn't take the risk of inventing someone because it would've made him look even guiltier if no one else saw them. Although I thought living dangerously was Lechmere's modus operandi, but only when it suits.

[Fiver]

The problem that arises is how Nichols bled for many minutes after Lechmere leaving her, in combination with two pathologists saying that she would be likely to bleed for 3-5 minutes. Not twenty minutes! And whichever way we cut it, the fact remains that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.30, and so he should have been in Bucks Row at 3.37. That means that the timings are off, I´m afraid.

One problem is that you used vague terminology when speaking to the pathologists. Bleeding to death is not the same thing as exsanguination. The Pinchin Street Torso shows blood can still flow from a body hours after death.

Another problem for your theory is the doctor said he did not know how long it would take. This is hardly surprising considering how poorly worded your questions were.

Another problem for your theory is that if bodies stopped bleeding as fast as you claim, the most likely suspect is PC Neil.

Another problem for your theory is that Lechmere said he left home "around" 3:30am, not "at" 3;30am. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Do you not understand the difference between the words?

And another problem is your timing of 7 minutes for Lechmere to get to Bucks Row. You cannot have walked the actual route - a key section of it has been under a Sainsbury's since the early 90s - so what do you base your 7 minute estimate on?

[Fiver]

..and that would make Mizen go "The blood was still running and looked fresh, and it was partly coagulated"?

"I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat." - PC Neil