Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

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?

Yawn.

[Fisherman]

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

"There was a pool of blood just where her neck was lying. It was running from the wound in her neck." - PC Neil

[Fisherman]

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

Yes, I also think it would be nice if we had a full psychological evaluation of Charles Lechmere. And yes, ANYBODY who did what the Ripper did is a statistical anomaly. Why Lechmere would be less likely to be a statistical anomaly than anybody else is something I donīt understand, if that is what you suggest.

[Fisherman]

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.

You have posted this crap before. What you quote is what the docu said, not what Scobie said. Some decency, please.

[Doctored Whatsit]

"What you quote is what the docu said" - so you accept that the docu was incorrect?

[Fisherman]

"What you quote is what the docu said" - so you accept that the docu was incorrect?

If we can avoid this kind of twisting of what I say, I would be ever so grateful. What I am saying is that even if the docu made a claim that can be challenged, that does not mean that this claim was in the material Scobie assessed. He was not shown the docu, he was given a compilation of material about the events. Going on the vociferous character of those who dislike the docu and the Lechmere theory, I think we can be pretty certain that if Scobie was conned by the film team and served misinformation and lies, he would have known that by now, and he would have taken actions against it. After all, he is a barrister.

As for whether the docu made such claims as mentioned above, it is no secret that I think that there were inclusions that I would have worded differently than the docu did. Overall, though, I think that Blink made an excellent job.

It is often spoken about the onus of proof out here. If you are going to claim that Scobie, I or the film team are liars, twisters or misinformers, that onus rests firmly on your shoulders. When it comes to this calibre of accusations, I generally advice people to get the proof first and throw the accusations out later.

On a separate note, have you digested what I said about Paul, Lechmere and Mizen and how we must assume that the errand was not cleared up before the three testified?

[Harry D]

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?

I don't know that I do. Isn't the argument that Lechmere was a psychopathic thrillseeker that stayed to hoodwink Paul, scam Mizen, and appeared at the inquest for kicks? Would he invent a suspect on the off chance it might be negated by a PC/watchman and thus increase the danger, or would he rather remain the lone figure in Buck's Row?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Christer,
I am perfectly happy with my understanding of the Mizen, Lechmere and Paul episode. Our problem will always be that some things we know, some things we don't know, some statements contradict, and some are at least partly inaccurate. We put the whole together and consider our own versions of possibility and probability. And then we will disagree - so what? We are all human and must inevitably disagree sometimes. I have never had a problem with that.

As for twisting what you said, I don't believe that I did anything of the sort. The claim was made that the docu was not accurate, and you indicated that this was the docu not Scobie - so my conclusion was reasonable.

[Aethelwulf]

Yes, I also think it would be nice if we had a full psychological evaluation of Charles Lechmere. And yes, ANYBODY who did what the Ripper did is a statistical anomaly. Why Lechmere would be less likely to be a statistical anomaly than anybody else is something I donīt understand, if that is what you suggest.

Don't get me wrong - I actually don't mind Lechmere as suspect. In fact, it was the Channel 5 documentary that piqued my interest in this subject that I have had a rather vague passing interest in for a long time - I thought it was very good.

My point is, in a case without significant hard evidence, I think circumstantial evidence based on known behaviour has more legs than geography and conversations. If it ever came to light that Lechmere used prostitutes and behind the family man facade was violent and abusive, and carried a knife, I would have a rethink. Until then, I can't help thinking Lechmere was just a man on his way to work who found a body.

The most suspicious think about Lechmere is his photograph - there is something about his eyes I find disturbing!

[Fisherman]

I don't know that I do. Isn't the argument that Lechmere was a psychopathic thrillseeker that stayed to hoodwink Paul, scam Mizen, and appeared at the inquest for kicks? Would he invent a suspect on the off chance it might be negated by a PC/watchman and thus increase the danger, or would he rather remain the lone figure in Buck's Row?

The argument was always that he conned Paul, not that he killed Nichols in front of him and strew her entrails on the pavement, though. Of course, he should have done if he was the mean old bastard, hellbent on thrills, tnhat I claim he is.

Then again, maybe I claim something else...?

Now, can you see the difference, Harry? Bold enough to kill in the open streets, not averse to fooling people - but unlikely to give away what he was about if he was able to.

[Fisherman]

Don't get me wrong - I actually don't mind Lechmere as suspect. In fact, it was the Channel 5 documentary that piqued my interest in this subject that I have had a rather vague passing interest in for a long time - I thought it was very good.

My point is, in a case without significant hard evidence, I think circumstantial evidence based on known behaviour has more legs than geography and conversations. If it ever came to light that Lechmere used prostitutes and behind the family man facade was violent and abusive, and carried a knife, I would have a rethink. Until then, I can't help thinking Lechmere was just a man on his way to work who found a body.

The most suspicious think about Lechmere is his photograph - there is something about his eyes I find disturbing!

Much of the circumstantial evidence IS about behavior, is it not? The pulling down of the dress, the refusal to help prop Nichols up, the fact that he emerged only after the Lloyds interview etcetera. And conversations IS behaviour too.

Finding evidence that he beat people up is impossible unless he was arrested as a result of it. Domestic violence, as a rule, never got to that stge unless somebody lost her or his life in the proceedings. Anyway, before we demand that he must have a record of violence, we may need to look at serial killers who were in no way at all violent in "normal life". Dahmer and Gein, for example, had no records of violence. Nor had Sutcliffe, often spoken of as a close resemblance killing wise.

When it comes to carrying a knife, carmen were obliged to do so in order to be able to cut the harness in the event of an accident, so you can bank on that feature.

[Harry D]

The most suspicious think about Lechmere is his photograph - there is something about his eyes I find disturbing!

He does have something of an Albert Fish about him, but would the photo look "disturbing" to you if it was uncoloured by the Ripper case?

The old boy worked his balls off in Victorian England while raising a dozen kids. I'm not surprised he looked dead inside.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,
I am perfectly happy with my understanding of the Mizen, Lechmere and Paul episode. Our problem will always be that some things we know, some things we don't know, some statements contradict, and some are at least partly inaccurate. We put the whole together and consider our own versions of possibility and probability. And then we will disagree - so what? We are all human and must inevitably disagree sometimes. I have never had a problem with that.

As for twisting what you said, I don't believe that I did anything of the sort. The claim was made that the docu was not accurate, and you indicated that this was the docu not Scobie - so my conclusion was reasonable.

You said "so you accept thnat the docu is incorrect?", indicating that I would have claimed such a thing. You did not ask. The inference is therefore clear.

It is interesting from another angle too, that of you speaking about how we should be adults. Some posts later, you hint at how Scobie would have been misled by Blink Films or me. How adult is that?

Now, if we can do it the adult way, I suggest that you may be less happy with your view on Mizen, Lechmere and Paul if you delve a little deeper into matters than you have so far done.

You think that these three were interviewed at length, and that this procedure led to how the police kconcluded that Lechmere was innocent.

So letīs go back to 1888, and check a few parameters!

First, letīs take alook at the Evening News of the 3rd of September:

Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row."

A man named Cross was here brought into the room and identified by witness as the man to whom he referred.

What does this mean? It means that before the inquest, Mizen had not identified Lechmere. Otherwise, there would be no need for a formal identification in fron of the coroner. And so we may conclude that Lechmere emerged very late in time, and he likely turned up at the inquest itself. So Mizen arguably had no idea what Lechmere was going to say at the inquest.

Letīs now look closer at Mizen. He testified first of the two, and he would have handed in his report from the nightīs events to his superiors well before that. In it, he would have written that he had spoken to a carman, and that this carman had told him that there was a woman lying on her back in Bucks Row, and that a fellow PC in place there would have requested his help.
This was what he said at the inquest, and it will have dovetailed with the written report, otherwise he would be in trouble.

Letīs now look at the Star from the 3rd, reporting on what Mizen said:

Cross told him a policeman wanted him. He did not say anything about murder or suicide.

Again, what does this tell us? It tells us that Mizen knew that the woman had been either murdered or she had committed suicide. This was no secret; the papers had covered the matter extensively.

But did he know this as he met Lechmere? Well, we know that nobody suggested to Mizen that the woman had been killed, but Lechmere claimed that he told the PC that he thought that the woman was dead. However, this was a claim thjat was made AFTER Mizen said that the carman spoke neither of murder not suicide, and so it was no reaction to that claim on behalf of Lechmere.

Then what WAS it a reaction to?

To understand that, we must look at what Mizen thought he knew as he stated it. At this stage, unless Mizen was lying (we will dissect that possibility later on), he knew that a carman had passed by him up at the Hanbury Street/Bakers Row junction and told him that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row, and that a fellow PC of his was requestiing his help.

But he also would know by now that the PC he had thought was the PC Lechmere spoke of was NOT in place when the carmen were there. Mizen would have believed that Lechmere and Paul must have come upon Neil as he was examining Nichols, and that Neil sent them to fetch himself. He would not have it the other way around, that the carmen would have found the body and that Neil arrived after that and sent them to get Mizen. If it had been that way around, Neil would have detained the carmen. The only way that he could have sent them on their way would be if he was sure that they had nothing to do with the body.

This situation would present a conundrum for Mizen. Neil was the finder of the body. The carmen came along later, and found Neil in place with the body. Neil then sent them to fetch himself.

What must have looked very wrong to Mizen about that picture? Of course: If the carmen came upon Neil as he examined or had examined the body, Neil would have known quite well that the woman had either been killed or committed suicide. And so why did Lechmere not speak of that? Why did he only say that there was a woman on the broad of her back in Bucks Row? He must have known that she was dead, so why not mention it?

This explains why Mizen points out that Lechmere said nothing about any murder or suicide: He SHOULD have. And we know from what Neil said that he on first glance knew that it WAS a case of murder or suicide, so Mizen echoes the exact stage he knew Neil would have been at as he sent the carmen for himself.

Ergo, Mizen knew nothing beforehand about the claim of not having spoken about a PC that Lechmere would later make. Equally, he know not that Lechmere was going to claim that he had told Mizen that the woman was likely dead. And the PCs testiminy reflects this.

So was it all a lie from Mizen? Well, we have established that he was in no danger whatsoever of being criticized for not doing his job. So he had no reason to lie. But letīs inagine that he nevertheless WANTED to lie, for whatever reason.

If this was so, it was a pretty elaborate lie he had to come up with. And not only that, the lie would have had to be produced on the murder night, because it would have gone into his notebook. So letīs trace that lie backwards, worjking from. the assumption that Mizen WAS a liar.This is then what he would have done:

Mizen was told that there was a dead or dying woman in Bucks Row, but he declined to take much action and he failed to take down the names of the carmen. He then realized, as he arrived in Bucks Row, that the carmen had been correct, and he thought that he was in trouble over it. He then concocted that he had not been told about the seriousness of the errand, and he invented the lie about the second PC, so that he could say "I didnīt hurry, since I was told that there was already a PC in place". He then came up with the brilliant idea to point out at the inquest that Lechmere said nothing about any murder or suicide, so as to make himself look innocent and make Lechmere look dodgy. And he said that one man spoke to him, omitting tro mention Paul, because he thought it would be easier to deny one mans testimony than two mens.

So far, so good (well...)

But! Mizen took the stand BEFORE Lechmere, and he knew quite well if both carmen had been involved, then their combined testimoiny would point himself out as a liar. He also knew that Lechmere would never admit to having said that a second PC was in place in Bucks Row, just as Paul would be able to corroborate his fellow carman. He also knew that both carmen would say that they did tell Mizen about the seriousness of the errand.

There was no way he was going to be able to lie and escape unrevealed. He would have known that if he was a liar.

So any way we look at things, the by far simplest and best scenario is one where Charles Lechmere ALONE spoke to Mizen and told him that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row, and that a felloow PC had requested his help.

One has to be aware of the different layers of the matter before one can make a logical call.

[Fisherman]

He does have something of an Albert Fish about him, but would the photo look "disturbing" to you if it was uncoloured by the Ripper case?

Isnīt that asking if a person can look sinister even if we have no coupling to any sinister matter for him or her?

They can, actually.

... but it is no evidence of anything at all.

[caz]

On the subject of Dahmer, and I will also use Nilsen as an example too, is these were both psychopaths who were intent on upping their sensory levels, just to feel something. Sensation-seeking is a huge motivator for psychopathic serial lust killers. These men were not stupid men, they were just as thrilled by the excitement of almost being caught as much as they committing their acts on their victims.

Do not rule out the potential of self-sabotage as another form of sensation-seeking.

Good point, ero.

In this regard I always think of Dr Harold Shipman, and wonder how many more victims he might have gone on to murder, if he hadn't stupidly used his own faulty typewriter to forge the will of one of the old ladies he had just done in, leaving all her money to her wonderfully caring GP, instead of to her grieving and understandably suspicious daughter.

He either thought he was invincible by that point, and all those around him must be fools, or part of him wanted the world to know just how prolific a killer he was, and how easy it had been for him to make a career of it without anyone suspecting a thing. What was the point of it all if nobody would ever know he was outstanding in his field - like an invisible farmer?

For Lechmere to have stayed at the scene in Buck's Row just for the thrill of nearly being caught makes little sense to me if he wanted to go on doing his thing over the weeks and months to come. It would be like Shipman forging the will - badly - of one of his earliest victims, before he could even get into his stride.

Love,

Caz
X