Evidence of innocence

[caz]

If I was to guess, Iīd say that Lechmere may have thought it a bummer that he was not able to pull that stunt again, since he probably enjoyed it very much.

So he did get a thrill out of pulling a 'stunt' like that, even though in the next breath you argue that he had no sense of fear or panic, so it wasn't really a stunt at all, but just another decision he knew would work out fine for him?

And that is what brings us full circle to Shipman. A psychopath who takes precautions not to get caught, and who over and over again manages to stay uncaught, will always run the risk of thinking "Iīm too clever for them, I wonīt even need to take those precautions, they will never see through me anyway!"

And so he uses his own typewriter.

Shipman was not a stupid man. He had no pressing financial need to forge that will at all, let alone so badly, using his own typewriter. It must have been bleedin' obvious this would be questioned by the lady's next of kin, who would want to know why on earth her mother would have changed her previous will without telling her, in favour of her GP. The woman was in good health for her age when he snuffed her out, so it wasn't as though she had constantly needed his bedside manner. It was a stunt too far, and he must have known that when pulling it.

Love,

Caz
X

[JeffHamm]

What if people are not hellbent on choosing 3.45 as some sort of personal mantra. What if they simply find that it is the more logical timing, supported by coroner and police alike? Maybe people do not disagree with you on this on account of a dogmatic wish never to agree with you. Maybe they are being logical and cool enough instead?

Hi Fisherman,

I dug into the Ultimate JtR Companion (Evans & Skinner) and had a look at the earliest police reports with regards to Nichols murder. These pre-date the Lloyds article where Paul appears (Sept 2, 1888). I wanted to check reports prior to Paul's appearance on the scene to ensure that there could be no mix-up argued for (i.e. that somehow a discovery by Paul and Cross/Lechmere at 3:45 got misattributed to P.C. Neil; that sort of thing).

So, From a report dated 31 Aug, 1888 by Inspector John Spratling, first official summary of the murder (and so far the only one I could find written before Sept 2nd, when the Lloyds article comes out):

P.C. 97J, Neil, reports at 3.45. on 31^st inst. He found the dead body of a woman lying on her back with her clothes a little above her knees, with her throat cut from ear to ear on a yard crossing at Bucks Row, Whitechapel. P.C. Neil obtained the assistance of P.C.s 55H. Smizen [sic] and 96J. Thain, the latter called Dr. Llewellyn, No. 152, Whitechapel Road, he arrived quickly and pronounced life to be extinct, apparently but a few minutes, he directed her removed to the mortuary, stating he would make a further examination there, which was done on the ambulance.
…
P.C. states he passed through Bucks Row at 3.15 am and P.S. 10. Kirby about the same time, but the woman was not there then and is not known to them.

So again, even before Paul and/or Cross/Lechmere are even heard of by the police (other than by PC. Mizen of course), the police are officially recording PC Neil as finding Nichols at 3:45. So again, we have another official source that, by implication, shows Paul & Cross/Lechmere had found her and left the area well enough before 3:45 that PC. Neil had time to enter Bucks Row (from the northern side streets) and find her without ever having noted their presence. If they have left the area at 3:41-2, taking 4 or 3 minutes to reach PC Mizen, then that would make for that gap.

The confusion invariably comes from interviews, where the person interviewed can be lead astray to provide exciting newsworthy details (need to make good copy after all) or from paraphrased news reports of the inquest, as the papers had not started presenting transcript type details of the inquest testimony. That's a shame as we do not have even the official inquest papers to compare with those press summaries of the testimony. But, we do have some copies of official police reports, where they would be recording details at the time, and so forth. And it seems pretty clear to me that there can be no confusion here and PC Neil was at the crime scene at 3:45, therefore Cross/Lechmere and Paul were not.

- Jeff

[caz]

"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- 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, 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." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there.If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Reliable or not, I can't for the life of me see why a guilty Lechmere would have felt compelled, on the strength of this article, to 'out' himself as 'the man' [no description given] who had effectively raised the alarm by asking Robert Paul to come and look at the woman, who in Paul's view must already have been dead for some time.

If that wasn't a green light for Lechmere the Ripper to know he had nothing to fear, I don't know what would have been.

And according to Christer, fear was not something he was able to experience in any case!

So we are back to Lechmere pulling a second, totally unnecessary 'stunt', by turning up at the inquest and identifying himself as 'the man', because he had enjoyed himself so much the first time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

That is a very good question that I have asked before. The general answer has been that he did not stop for what he thought was a drunk woman, he stopped for what he thought was a tarpaulin, and so there was an economical reason to stop.

Nobody, however, has explained to me why he did not just walk on when he subsequently found out that it probably WAS a drunk woman he was looking at.

Because he was a decent human being, and just wanted to check, with Paul's assistance, if she was just sleeping off the booze?

If he'd been right, she would probably have been breathing heavily or snoring like an old warthog.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

So do you feel that Paul telling the Lloyd's reporter that he left Lechmere with the body and found Mizen on his own was a mis-interpretation by the reporter? That's a fairly substantial anomaly.

Cheers, George

No, I believe that Paul was the one who told a story that was not always in line with the truth. But that does not mean that I can per se exclude that the reporter was the one to fault.

[Fisherman]

That's a good point too. I guess the answer would be that almost immediately he heard Paul approaching so would be a 'bad Samaritan' if he walked away from a person laying there. If he was the killer it was a bit too late to nonchalantly walk away too.

I still feel that stopping in the first place is strange. London must have been full of all sorts of stuff laying around, this item on this late for work day wouldn't have been anything special.

You may have a point there, generally speaking at least. But people are different, somea re more curiious than others, some less inclined to help out and so on. What I think may bolster your take is how Lechmere later in the process declined to help Paul prop Nichols up, saying that he would not touch her. If he was so disinclined to help a person lying on the pavement, then it seems a bit odd that he would stop in the first place

Itīs full of anomalies, his story ...

[Fisherman]

Because he was a decent human being, and just wanted to check, with Paul's assistance, if she was just sleeping off the booze?

If he'd been right, she would probably have been breathing heavily or snoring like an old warthog.

Love,

Caz
X

My post 801 to Dickere could be of use here too; if he was truly a Good Samaritan, then why did he express an unwillingness to help prop Nichols up? It does not add up when we look closer at things, I feel.

Maybe he was half a Good Samaritan?

[Fisherman]

Hi Jeff,

Reliable or not, I can't for the life of me see why a guilty Lechmere would have felt compelled, on the strength of this article, to 'out' himself as 'the man' [no description given] who had effectively raised the alarm by asking Robert Paul to come and look at the woman, who in Paul's view must already have been dead for some time.

If that wasn't a green light for Lechmere the Ripper to know he had nothing to fear, I don't know what would have been.

Lechmere himself would hjave known, though, that the police would not accept Pauls bid that the woman was long dead. They had their own men and Llewllyn stting that she was warm and only very recently killed. And so Lechmere would be aware that the police would find themselves in a position with a man who was standing alone by a very recently killed murder victim. If he felt that the police would want to speak to that man and have him explain himself, he would reasonably be spot on, would he not?

And according to Christer, fear was not something he was able to experience in any case!

According to Christer, Lechmere was likely a psychopath, and they are (with the addition of the recently spoken about paper) documented not to panic.

So we are back to Lechmere pulling a second, totally unnecessary 'stunt', by turning up at the inquest and identifying himself as 'the man', because he had enjoyed himself so much the first time.

Love,

Caz
X

As I already described above (and umpteen times before that over the years), there was ample reason for Lechmere to try and save his bacon before the cops came looking for him.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I dug into the Ultimate JtR Companion (Evans & Skinner) and had a look at the earliest police reports with regards to Nichols murder. These pre-date the Lloyds article where Paul appears (Sept 2, 1888). I wanted to check reports prior to Paul's appearance on the scene to ensure that there could be no mix-up argued for (i.e. that somehow a discovery by Paul and Cross/Lechmere at 3:45 got misattributed to P.C. Neil; that sort of thing).

So, From a report dated 31 Aug, 1888 by Inspector John Spratling, first official summary of the murder (and so far the only one I could find written before Sept 2nd, when the Lloyds article comes out):

P.C. 97J, Neil, reports at 3.45. on 31^st inst. He found the dead body of a woman lying on her back with her clothes a little above her knees, with her throat cut from ear to ear on a yard crossing at Bucks Row, Whitechapel. P.C. Neil obtained the assistance of P.C.s 55H. Smizen [sic] and 96J. Thain, the latter called Dr. Llewellyn, No. 152, Whitechapel Road, he arrived quickly and pronounced life to be extinct, apparently but a few minutes, he directed her removed to the mortuary, stating he would make a further examination there, which was done on the ambulance.
…
P.C. states he passed through Bucks Row at 3.15 am and P.S. 10. Kirby about the same time, but the woman was not there then and is not known to them.

So again, even before Paul and/or Cross/Lechmere are even heard of by the police (other than by PC. Mizen of course), the police are officially recording PC Neil as finding Nichols at 3:45. So again, we have another official source that, by implication, shows Paul & Cross/Lechmere had found her and left the area well enough before 3:45 that PC. Neil had time to enter Bucks Row (from the northern side streets) and find her without ever having noted their presence. If they have left the area at 3:41-2, taking 4 or 3 minutes to reach PC Mizen, then that would make for that gap.

The confusion invariably comes from interviews, where the person interviewed can be lead astray to provide exciting newsworthy details (need to make good copy after all) or from paraphrased news reports of the inquest, as the papers had not started presenting transcript type details of the inquest testimony. That's a shame as we do not have even the official inquest papers to compare with those press summaries of the testimony. But, we do have some copies of official police reports, where they would be recording details at the time, and so forth. And it seems pretty clear to me that there can be no confusion here and PC Neil was at the crime scene at 3:45, therefore Cross/Lechmere and Paul were not.

- Jeff

I am not looking for as early material as possible. I am pointing to how the LATE and FINAL reports from police and the coroner both say 3.45. I am also saying that if Neil found Nichols at 3.45, whereupon he very quickly signalled to Thain (who ALSO says that he was drawn into the matter at 3.45), then why is it that Thain, who had a two or three minute walk to Llewellyns practice, did not arrive there at 3.48ish but instead at around 3.55 - 4.00? If you want to get that part correct, then accepting that Paul arrived at the body at around 3.46 helps a whole lot.

[Fisherman]

So he did get a thrill out of pulling a 'stunt' like that, even though in the next breath you argue that he had no sense of fear or panic, so it wasn't really a stunt at all, but just another decision he knew would work out fine for him?

If we define a thrill as fear, he didnīt get such a thrill. If we instead define it as a great joy, then I think he did get a thrill.

Shipman was not a stupid man.

Nor were many of the serialists who eventually turned sloppy.

He had no pressing financial need to forge that will at all, let alone so badly, using his own typewriter. It must have been bleedin' obvious this would be questioned by the lady's next of kin, who would want to know why on earth her mother would have changed her previous will without telling her, in favour of her GP. The woman was in good health for her age when he snuffed her out, so it wasn't as though she had constantly needed his bedside manner. It was a stunt too far, and he must have known that when pulling it.

Love,

Caz
X

Correction: YOU think he must have known it. I think otherwise.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Reliable or not, I can't for the life of me see why a guilty Lechmere would have felt compelled, on the strength of this article, to 'out' himself as 'the man' [no description given] who had effectively raised the alarm by asking Robert Paul to come and look at the woman, who in Paul's view must already have been dead for some time.

If that wasn't a green light for Lechmere the Ripper to know he had nothing to fear, I don't know what would have been.

And according to Christer, fear was not something he was able to experience in any case!

So we are back to Lechmere pulling a second, totally unnecessary 'stunt', by turning up at the inquest and identifying himself as 'the man', because he had enjoyed himself so much the first time.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Hmmm, I get that, but to be fair to Fisherman's idea, he states as a premise that Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath. Seeing Paul take all the credit and leave him out of the picture nearly altogether, could easily spark a desire to grab the limelight (it's bravado, not bravery). If Cross/Lechmere had pulled the con of the century, got Paul to assist him, then wondered off together to find PC Mizen, where he then proceeds to pull the Mizen Scam, and saunters off to work with bloody blade in tow, only then to see Paul make out like a bandit and steal all the attention, claiming discovery, claiming to be the big talker to PC Mizen, and so forth, he might very well come out of the shadows because he needs to ensure nobody steals his glory. Paul is not going to steal his thunder. He should get credit for discovery, and for being the "good guy" who told the police, etc.

It put me in mind of Dennis Rader (BTK) as he is thought to have started communicating with the police again, after decades of silence, when a news story came out and noted how "nobody remembers BTK anymore" (or some such phrase). Rader couldn't stand it, and so started a cat and mouse game with the police and press, which eventually led to his capture and conviction. Had he not done that, he could have gone to his grave a free man and with his secret (well, until his box of photos and other trophies were found of course).

Anyway, I don't believe that's what Cross/Lechmere did, but when viewed from Christer's starting point, that Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath, then doing that totally unnecessary stunt would indeed be in keeping with publicity stunts made by other psychopaths when they see unflattering stories in the press.

I'm trying to remember another case, but I can't recall which one it is just now. All I can remember is that the police searched some country road as they had reason to believe they would find a body along it (a tip, or something like that - maybe thought to be from the killer?). Anyway, nothing was found after quite an extensive search. But then, the next day or so later, either they got a call telling them to look a bit further along (or on the other side of the road?) and when they did they found a body (or someone called in they had found a body a little further beyond?). Anyway, the police I think determined the body had been placed there after their search, and they think the killer did that to deliberately rub their noses in it (I think the person had been dead longer and may have moved the body from elsewhere to put it there?). Damn, sorry, I may have got something very wrong about this in the details, but in the end, however exactly it went specifically it was another good example of how pulling stunts to stroke their own egos is certainly not unheard of. I'll probably remember at some ungodly hour of the morning though. Sigh.

Sorry, I can't recall what case that 2nd story comes from, and my recollection of it is not great, so I'm sure I've got some bits wrong but I've tried to be general enough that any errors I may have made are not substantial enough to make a difference to our purposes here.

Still, I don't see any supportive evidence for the starting premise that Cross/Lechmere was a psychopath, so just because I could spin a story about how a psychopath might do that, doesn't mean he was. Because if he's a good enough fellow to stop and considering checking on someone passed out on the street, he might also feel he should testify to ensure the information presented to the inquest was accurate and it may have appeared to him the other guy wasn't going to do that.

Or he may have independantly gone to the police to make a statement. They found the body on Aug 31st, and he testifies at the inquest on Sept 3rd. He would have had to given a statement to the police before then, in order to appear on the inquest list. The Lloyd's article only comes out on the 2nd I think, so he would have to rush to the police, make his statement, and be selected by Baxter to testify the next day. Looking at the dates, I think he must have gone to the police upon hearing the gossip about the murder when he realized that was the woman he saw that morning. And Paul probably did the same around the same time as they both testify on the same day. It's just that Paul also spoke to the press as well.

Still, I could be wrong about that, and maybe he did read the Lloyds article on the 2nd and was able to get selected to testify the next day. That just seems unlikely to me, but then, I don't really know all the ins and outs of that system, so maybe it was more efficient that I suppose.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz,

Hmmm, I get that, but to be fair to Fisherman's idea, he states as a premise that Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath. Seeing Paul take all the credit and leave him out of the picture nearly altogether, could easily spark a desire to grab the limelight (it's bravado, not bravery). If Cross/Lechmere had pulled the con of the century, got Paul to assist him, then wondered off together to find PC Mizen, where he then proceeds to pull the Mizen Scam, and saunters off to work with bloody blade in tow, only then to see Paul make out like a bandit and steal all the attention, claiming discovery, claiming to be the big talker to PC Mizen, and so forth, he might very well come out of the shadows because he needs to ensure nobody steals his glory. Paul is not going to steal his thunder. He should get credit for discovery, and for being the "good guy" who told the police, etc.

It put me in mind of Dennis Rader (BTK) as he is thought to have started communicating with the police again, after decades of silence, when a news story came out and noted how "nobody remembers BTK anymore" (or some such phrase). Rader couldn't stand it, and so started a cat and mouse game with the police and press, which eventually led to his capture and conviction. Had he not done that, he could have gone to his grave a free man and with his secret (well, until his box of photos and other trophies were found of course).

Anyway, I don't believe that's what Cross/Lechmere did, but when viewed from Christer's starting point, that Cross/Lechmere is a psychopath, then doing that totally unnecessary stunt would indeed be in keeping with publicity stunts made by other psychopaths when they see unflattering stories in the press.

I'm trying to remember another case, but I can't recall which one it is just now. All I can remember is that the police searched some country road as they had reason to believe they would find a body along it (a tip, or something like that - maybe thought to be from the killer?). Anyway, nothing was found after quite an extensive search. But then, the next day or so later, either they got a call telling them to look a bit further along (or on the other side of the road?) and when they did they found a body (or someone called in they had found a body a little further beyond?). Anyway, the police I think determined the body had been placed there after their search, and they think the killer did that to deliberately rub their noses in it (I think the person had been dead longer and may have moved the body from elsewhere to put it there?). Damn, sorry, I may have got something very wrong about this in the details, but in the end, however exactly it went specifically it was another good example of how pulling stunts to stroke their own egos is certainly not unheard of. I'll probably remember at some ungodly hour of the morning though. Sigh.

Sorry, I can't recall what case that 2nd story comes from, and my recollection of it is not great, so I'm sure I've got some bits wrong but I've tried to be general enough that any errors I may have made are not substantial enough to make a difference to our purposes here.

Still, I don't see any supportive evidence for the starting premise that Cross/Lechmere was a psychopath, so just because I could spin a story about how a psychopath might do that, doesn't mean he was. Because if he's a good enough fellow to stop and considering checking on someone passed out on the street, he might also feel he should testify to ensure the information presented to the inquest was accurate and it may have appeared to him the other guy wasn't going to do that.

Or he may have independantly gone to the police to make a statement. They found the body on Aug 31st, and he testifies at the inquest on Sept 3rd. He would have had to given a statement to the police before then, in order to appear on the inquest list. The Lloyd's article only comes out on the 2nd I think, so he would have to rush to the police, make his statement, and be selected by Baxter to testify the next day. Looking at the dates, I think he must have gone to the police upon hearing the gossip about the murder when he realized that was the woman he saw that morning. And Paul probably did the same around the same time as they both testify on the same day. It's just that Paul also spoke to the press as well.

Still, I could be wrong about that, and maybe he did read the Lloyds article on the 2nd and was able to get selected to testify the next day. That just seems unlikely to me, but then, I don't really know all the ins and outs of that system, so maybe it was more efficient that I suppose.

- Jeff

As I keep saying, I am not saying that we can conclude that Charles Lechmere was a psychopath. I am saying that we can conclude that if Charles Lechmere was the Ripper, THEN he was a psychopath. And then I take it one step further by saying that since I am convinced there can be no realistic doubt that he WAS the killer, it follows for me that Charles Lechmere was a psychopath.

[Fisherman]

Or he may have independantly gone to the police to make a statement. They found the body on Aug 31st, and he testifies at the inquest on Sept 3rd. He would have had to given a statement to the police before then, in order to appear on the inquest list. The Lloyd's article only comes out on the 2nd I think, so he would have to rush to the police, make his statement, and be selected by Baxter to testify the next day. Looking at the dates, I think he must have gone to the police upon hearing the gossip about the murder when he realized that was the woman he saw that morning. And Paul probably did the same around the same time as they both testify on the same day. It's just that Paul also spoke to the press as well.

- Jeff

This passage, Jeff - if the police had access to Charles Lechmere on the 2nd, then why is he only identified by Mizen the day after, directly at the inquest? If he came forward on the 2nd, and if the authorities felt that they needed to confirm his story, why would they not do so well before the inquest, so that they did not run the risk of having been approached by an attention-seeker?
To me, the fact that the formal identification of Charles Lechmere occurred as he was ushered into the court room seems to point to how he only surfaced directly in combination with the inquest.Which would also be why he arrived in his working clothes. Itīs as if he arrived at the inquest as it was already underway!

As for Paul, why would the coroner not have him on the stand on the same day as Mizen and Lechmere testified, in order to enable for cross-checking the information? Because, Iīd suggest, Walter Dew is correct in saying that they had search extensively for Paul - I do not think for a second he was at the coroners disposal on the 3rd.

[Abby Normal]

Because he was a decent human being, and just wanted to check, with Paul's assistance, if she was just sleeping off the booze?

If he'd been right, she would probably have been breathing heavily or snoring like an old warthog.

Love,

Caz
X

a decent human being dosnt leave a woman in obvious dire need lying on the street

[Doctored Whatsit]

This passage, Jeff - if the police had access to Charles Lechmere on the 2nd, then why is he only identified by Mizen the day after, directly at the inquest? If he came forward on the 2nd, and if the authorities felt that they needed to confirm his story, why would they not do so well before the inquest, so that they did not run the risk of having been approached by an attention-seeker?
To me, the fact that the formal identification of Charles Lechmere occurred as he was ushered into the court room seems to point to how he only surfaced directly in combination with the inquest.Which would also be why he arrived in his working clothes. Itīs as if he arrived at the inquest as it was already underway!

As for Paul, why would the coroner not have him on the stand on the same day as Mizen and Lechmere testified, in order to enable for cross-checking the information? Because, Iīd suggest, Walter Dew is correct in saying that they had search extensively for Paul - I do not think for a second he was at the coroners disposal on the 3rd.

I think that Lechmere would probably have made a statement to the police before the inquest, otherwise the coroner might not wish to call him with no knowledge of what his evidence might be. I also think that Mizen identifying him as the man he saw would be routine procedure before Lechmere gave evidence in order to confirm his evidence was valid. His presence in working clothes presumably meant he had done some work, but obviously not a full shift, so therefore it must have been arranged with Pickfords. I agree that Paul almost certainly did not make himself available.