Evidence of innocence

[Aethelwulf]

Step back from the minutiae for a moment and show me the profound circumstantial evidence that Lechmere had the capacity to commit these crimes. Where is the evidence that these crimes were within the range of his known behaviours? Most of the circumstantial evidence against Lechmere is to do with geography, timings and interpretations of conversations, and it is weak. There is no evidence of known behaviours that would tie him to these crimes. Think of the profound and staggering level of emotional detachment needed inside Miller’s Court. Where is the evidence he could have done this?

The building blocks of JtR must have be laid down in traumatic childhood and adolescent experiences. You would expect the results of these experiences to be manifest in his day-to-day life – violence, abuse, addiction, inability to achieve, be successful and hold down a steady job, and form long-term relationships. Lechmere had a solid working career and a long-term relationship, with 12 children. He got up at the crack of dawn, walked 40 minutes, put in a brutal shift, and walked home again. He did this day in, day out for 40 years or so. Why would he do that? He had commitments, bills to pay, people that depended on him and expectations to meet. He could put the needs of others before himself. These don’t sound like qualities one would associate with JtR. I know someone will quote examples of where this was the case, but I can’t help thinking that Lechmere would need to be a massive statistical anomaly to have been JtR.

Ditto Druitt

[Fiver]

You are of course free to make your own calls in that department. But keep in mind that James Scobie said that the case was good enough to take to court and suggested that Lechmere was guilty, just as he said that a jury would not like Lechmere. I am of the exact same meaning, and the case has grown even stronger after adding in the Torso series.

It easy to prove that Scobie was badly misinformed.

Jame Scobie appears to have said ""He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols.. Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

"He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols" - This statement is provably false. Robert Paul testified Lechmere was "standing in the middle of the road".

"Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits." - This statement is based on fudging the times. It starts by using 3:20am, the time Lechmere usually left for work, instead of 3:30am, the time Lechmere testified he left for work. It further fudges the time by assuming a ten minute walk would take 7 minutes or less. It fudges the time a third time by ignoring the time estimates of Lechmere and of all three of the first policemen to arrive in favor of the time estimate of Robert Paul.

It also ignores that the Ripper inflicted far worse mutilations in Catherine Eddowes body in only about 10 minutes. If the Ripper had 18 minutes alone with Polly Nichols he could have inflicted all of the actual mutilations and been 10 minutes walk down the street by the time Robert Paul arrived. An 18 minute time gap contradicts the idea that Lechmere was the Ripper, interrupted in his work.

"Lechmere then lied to the police..." - Lechmere's testimony contradicted PC Mizen's testimony. If that's proof that Lechmere was the Ripper, then it also proves Robert Paul was the Ripper, since he also contradicted PC Mizzen. This whole phrase is based on "guilty until proven innocent". It assumes that Lechmere was lying while completely ignoring the possibilities of Mizen lying or Mizen misunderstanding what Lechmere said.

"...and gave false details at the inquest." - Lechmere gave no provably false details at the Inquest. He did use his stepfather's surname as he had done in 1876 in an accidental death case. It's not unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname. It is unusual for men to use a stepfather's surname part of the time and their father's surname part of the time, but Lechmere had started doing that at over a decade before the first Ripper murder. It does not prove that Lechemere "gave false details at the inquest", let alone that he was the Ripper.

"And the Ripper murders started just after he moved into the area." - this statement is provably false. Charles Lechmere's family moved to the area decades before the Ripper killings began.

"Wearing blood stained overalls..." - Carmen wore sack aprons. Nobody present at the time noticed bloodstains on Lechmere. Lechmere worked for Pickford's, not a meat packing plant, so a bloodstained apron would have been an occasional on-the-job hazard for those times he carried meat and it was improperly packed.

"...his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred." - this statement is provably false. Lechmere's job placed him at one of the killings around the time that it occurred - Polly Nichols. Martha Tabram was killed near Lechmere's route to work and might have been killed while he was walking to work. Annie Chapman was killed while Lechmere was at work - he has an alibi. Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly were not killed along Lechmere's route to work and they were not killed on work days.

Scobie was clearly fed a mix of false information and opinion masquerading as facts. As the old computer saying goes - GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

[Abby Normal]

Step back from the minutiae for a moment and show me the profound circumstantial evidence that Lechmere had the capacity to commit these crimes. Where is the evidence that these crimes were within the range of his known behaviours? Most of the circumstantial evidence against Lechmere is to do with geography, timings and interpretations of conversations, and it is weak. There is no evidence of known behaviours that would tie him to these crimes. Think of the profound and staggering level of emotional detachment needed inside Miller’s Court. Where is the evidence he could have done this?

The building blocks of JtR must have be laid down in traumatic childhood and adolescent experiences. You would expect the results of these experiences to be manifest in his day-to-day life – violence, abuse, addiction, inability to achieve, be successful and hold down a steady job, and form long-term relationships. Lechmere had a solid working career and a long-term relationship, with 12 children. He got up at the crack of dawn, walked 40 minutes, put in a brutal shift, and walked home again. He did this day in, day out for 40 years or so. Why would he do that? He had commitments, bills to pay, people that depended on him and expectations to meet. He could put the needs of others before himself. These don’t sound like qualities one would associate with JtR. I know someone will quote examples of where this was the case, but I can’t help thinking that Lechmere would need to be a massive statistical anomaly to have been JtR.

Ditto Druitt

hi wulf
he wouldnt be. many serial killers have seemingly normal and stable relationships and jobs.

[JeffHamm]

Step back from the minutiae for a moment and show me the profound circumstantial evidence that Lechmere had the capacity to commit these crimes. Where is the evidence that these crimes were within the range of his known behaviours? Most of the circumstantial evidence against Lechmere is to do with geography, timings and interpretations of conversations, and it is weak. There is no evidence of known behaviours that would tie him to these crimes. Think of the profound and staggering level of emotional detachment needed inside Miller’s Court. Where is the evidence he could have done this?

The building blocks of JtR must have be laid down in traumatic childhood and adolescent experiences. You would expect the results of these experiences to be manifest in his day-to-day life – violence, abuse, addiction, inability to achieve, be successful and hold down a steady job, and form long-term relationships. Lechmere had a solid working career and a long-term relationship, with 12 children. He got up at the crack of dawn, walked 40 minutes, put in a brutal shift, and walked home again. He did this day in, day out for 40 years or so. Why would he do that? He had commitments, bills to pay, people that depended on him and expectations to meet. He could put the needs of others before himself. These don’t sound like qualities one would associate with JtR. I know someone will quote examples of where this was the case, but I can’t help thinking that Lechmere would need to be a massive statistical anomaly to have been JtR.

Ditto Druitt

HI Aethelwulf,

As Abby mentions above, what you suggest may apply to many serial killers, but it is by no means a massive anomaly to find those for whom it does not. Ted Bundy had no major traumatic experiences, neither did Dennis Radar (BTK), and one could list others as well. Often, what is found, may be things like a broken home, or other such things, these are difficult, but not traumatic, experiences that a large number of people go through without the kind of impact upon their lives that people often attribute to serial killers. Working "backwards", so to speak, can make one prone to over interpreting the importance of past events simply because we are looking for an explanation. But what leads someone to become a serial killer is very poorly understood. I wouldn't rule out Cross/Lechmere, or anybody else for that matter, simply on the basis he seems normal and has a functioning relationship and day to day life.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Nothing personal, Fish, but this is terrifying.

This is the reason why people hesitate before helping the police. They find a dead body or see something suspicious and are terrified that some over-zealous profiler or detective will put a rope around their neck if they "become involved." So they keep their mouths shut and say nothing. After reading the Lechmere threads, I think if I was unfortunate enough to find a dead person while out on one of my walks, I'd seriously consider buying one of those cheap throwaway phone cards before dialing it in! There are people here who would soon have me on the gallows next to Charles.

In the past three weeks, we've seen commentators ready to lynch Lechmere because 1) he walked on the north side of the street; 2) wore his work clothes to an inquest; 3) tapped an approaching bystander in a darkened street instead of screaming his lungs out.

How can this be anything other than the gratuitous suspicions of an arm-chair psychologist?

Personally, I'm with those who don't see anything suspicious in Lechmere's behavior--maybe I'll give him a pale pink flag for using his stepfather's name--but even if he did act a little strange, can you appreciate that finding a dead body is a traumatic experience for many people? That they usually don't act 'normally'?

Read all about it here in this link to The Guardian. One of these people--entirely innocent--even admits to feeling guilt after finding a drowning victim. Why? It's totally irrational, but it happens because we are human.


Dead bodies: People who find corpses and body parts | UK news | The Guardian

Hanging somebody is a terrifying thing, yes. Luckily, in this case, Lechmere has been dead for a hundred years, and so we cannot hang him, physically speaking. Which is why my statement should be seen as me saying that I am convinced that he is guilty.

As for what others find enough to call somebodt guilty, that is up to them and it does not in any way affect me or my call, as you should be able to understand. I agree fully that tapping somebody on the shoulder should not come with a death sentence, so no worries there. However, I am of the meaning that the amassed evidence is more than enough for me to make the call guilty, and as you are aware, I have the support of a barrister who was not too terrifyed to claim that Lechmere would warraant a trial that suggested that he was guilty. After that, more circumstantial evidence has been added, making the case even better. So that is why, R J.

Painting me out as a blood-thirsty arm-chair psychologist, ready to hang anybody who happens to cough in my presence is not a very decent thing to do, so if you could spare that idignation of yours a little and instead look at the case on the whole, I would be much happier.

That´s not to say that your duty out here is to keep me happy, but I do think we all have a duty to try and debate with some sense.

[Fisherman]

Yes, we know, Fish. The Victorian wits were infamous for stealing each other's quips--Monte Python even did a skit about it, with James Whistler, no? And, of course, there are always debates over various attributions.

Either way, the statistical method you use is clearly flawed, and I don't even have to see the details to know this. Your friend is giving undue weight to streets not known for prostitution, just as in my skateboarding analogy, the kid from New York is counting old Nigerian women who never saw a skateboard in their life.

How is this not blindingly obvious? If a man is forced to walk through the main red-light district in the city where he lives in, OF COURSE his route is going to coincide with the murder sites of someone preying on that same district.

I will return to this subject when I see your entire thesis, which should be soon.

The statistical method not I but a mathematical professor versed in these matters used is NOT flawed at all. It is the one and only correct method to use for these kinds of measurings. As both you and I know, there will always be matters that cannot be weighed in, taking the result in either direction, but that is another matter. In my book, I point out that the number one in five million should not be seen as a precise number but instead as a pointer to the kind of very large numbers we will have on our hands regardless of whether we weigh in surrounding factors or not. As you pointed out, the fact that prostitutes will favour some streets will make the numbers smaller, but as I said, if we add the chronological correlation, it will enlarge the numbers. Any whci way we cut it, it would be unexpected in the extreme if an alternative killer was to choose the twenty or so streets I mentioned for all of the four Whitechapel murders just by chance. The numbers are either astronomical or more astronomical, I´m afraid. Regardless of which, the method is the one and only method statisticians will use for this kind of a measurement, so you need to back away from any other claim.

[Fisherman]

Now we have more "coincidences" suggested. Stride being killed "a stone's throw" from his mother's home.

Maria Louisa lived in 1 Mary Ann Street. Considering that we alread have all the four Whitechapel murders committed in the exact small area that Lechmere traversed en route to work, how could it NOT be a coincidence if Stride was killed close by his mothers house - unless it was Lechmere who did it?

Would Lechmere "chat up" a prostitute in an area where he would very likely be recognised?

Did Gary Ridgway chat up around fifty prostitutes in the area where HE was likely to be recognized - and incidentally WAS recognized?

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.

The significance is that he would have used a trek that he had used for many, many years when moving from Berner Street to Mitre Square.

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.

If we draw a line from the murder spot to Lechmere´s home, that line will pass close by the rag. It will also pass by hundreds of other lodgings, with many hundreds of people living in them. But we are investigating Lechmere to see if he is a viable bid, not the rest of the East End. Fort the same reason, we don´t go "There were many thousands of people living in the Spitalfields area!" when we try to see if Lechmere is geographically viable. Well, some DO make that claim, but it is a foolish one. Read my book and see wht Robert Black was sent down on a geographical correlation in areas where MILLIONS of people lived. Strangely, the police did not arrest them all, but settled only for Black.

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

And there you join the pityful heap of people who are so desperate that they are willing to question the integrity of an award winning film company like Blink. And that, as everything else, is up to each and every one to make a choice about, just as it is up to me to think what I want to about those who make the choice that Scobie was bribed/lied to/misinformed etcetera.

And I do just that.

[Fisherman]

Oh well - I'll stick around then!

Great. Thanks!

[FrankO]

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.

Hi Jeff,

I've done a similar thing, but have chosen Lechmere's time of arrival at Broad Street Station at 4 o'clock as a starting point. I've further assumed, based on something Dusty wrote on another thread, that the entrance for Lechmere's work would be in Worship Street, which was about 1280 meters from where the men met Mizen.

This is what I come up with. P.S. I think that 3.25 mph comes closer to average walking speed.

(with 1280 meters between meeting point Mizen and entrance Broad Street)
Walking at an average speed of 3.75 mph (6.03 kmph):
4:00:00 am arrival at work
3:47:14 am departure from Mizen
3:46:54 am start conversation with Mizen
3:43:54 am departure from crime spot
3:43:34 am start examination body
3:43:04 am Lechmere hears & sees Paul
3:36:04 am Lechmere leaves home

Walking at an average speed of 3.5 mph (5.56 kmph):
4:00:00 am arrival at work
3:46:20 am departure from Mizen
3:46:00 am start conversation with Mizen
3:42:50 am departure from crime spot
3:42:20 am start examination body
3:41:50 am Lechmere hears & sees Paul
3:34:50 am Lechmere leaves home

Walking at an average speed of 3.25 mph (5.23 kmph):
4:00:00 am arrival at work
3:45:18 am departure from Mizen
3:44:58 am start conversation with Mizen
3:41:31 am departure from crime spot
3:41:01 am start examination body
3:40:31 am Lechmere hears & sees Paul
3:33:31 am Lechmere leaves home

In all of the above, I’ve assumed that:

• it took Paul 30 seconds to arrive & for the 2 men to then walk over to Nichols
• the examination of the body and decision to go look for a PC took 30 seconds
• the meeting/conversation with Mizen took 20 seconds

If you think one, two or all took longer than that (as you do), the time you would add can be deducted from the time “Lechmere leaves home”. Also, of course, if where Lechmere entered his place of work wasn’t in Worship Street, then the distance would increase by a couple of hundreds of meters/yards and the time by 2-3 minutes.

Anyhow, the time when "Lechmere leaves home" aren't much off, if at all, with what Lechmere stated at the inquest: "I left home about half-past 3 on Friday morning"

All the best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

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

If he left home at 3.30.he should be at the murder site at 3.37. The claim of the police and the coroner was that the body was found at 3.45. That means that going on these figures, he was in Bucks Row around 8 minutes to late.
After that, we can juggle with figures as much as we want to, which is what you do. But there you are.

[Fisherman]

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.

I have proven that serial killers can and will do things that nobody has done before them. That moves the onus of proof to anybody who says that Lechmere could not be the killer on account of this detail.

[Fisherman]

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.

This has been answered many times before. I would only like to help you with your failure to understand the bit about pulling the clothes down. Lechmere said himself that when he first saw Nichols, her clothes were over the knees, not up over the abdomen. Paul did not pull the clothes down from a position where the wounds were on display, therefore. And he was not the first one to pull them down, the killer was.

[Fisherman]

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.

"Present" is not the same as within earshot.

[Fisherman]

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.

It would not be so smart if a PC or watchman was able to negate in retorspect what he said in such a case, though. As for Lechmere saying "there was nobody there", you are welcome to source it.

[Fisherman]

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.

So you cannot see the diffderence between the two matters? You think Lechmere, a man who - if he was the killer - conned Paul, would not mind having a PC or watchman revealing his lie? Really?