Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

What baffles me is how certain people think they have a better understanding of the case than the police back in 1888.

What baffles me is how certain people work from the assumption that the police must have been able to clear Lechmere back in 1888, although we can clearly see how they made very bad mistakes in the investigation.

Yes, the psychology of serial killers may be better understood.

"May"?

But as for bobbies on the ground etc, come on . They had no DNA etc, no forensics etc . What they did have however was instinct, witness statements, local knowledge etc.

Just like today, there were good and bad coppers. One of the really important differences is that the contemporary police worked to an extent from ideas that have since been dumped. They would have been much more prone to prejudice. That is not to say that there were no policemen who made a qualitatively good job as far as the circumstances allowed for it, but not all of them did.
One of my own personal favourites is Jonas Mizen who was able to share information about the developments in Bucks Row as far as the blood evidence is concerned. Interestingly, when I point to his qualities, the ones who are otherwise much inclined to say that the police would have known are suddenly reluctant to allow for old Jonas to have known. He is instead a dodgy figure, hellbent on letting Charles Lechmere take the blame for his own shortcomings.
I am not pointing a finger at you specifically, Darryl - but I do think that this is something many people can learn from, should they want to learn at all.

Of course this didn't account for everything. But you are telling me that 130 years later people have a better understanding than say PC Thain, Mizen etc And of course Swanson , Abberline higher up etc of who was a suspect etc and what leads to follow and what alibi's to check out, well !
So when someone discovered a freshly killed body and the police would have no suspicions against the guy, and we have, even if it was just a follow up, check up on this person, and they were there and we were not. And they did not exonerate him ?
Sorry but I do not concur
Regards Darryl

See the above.

[Fisherman]

Darryl,
There was no need of the police to exonerate Cross.The only evidence the police had was that Cross had found Nichols body.There was no witness statement,or evidence of any kind,that showed Cross had inflicted the injuries to Nichols.

There were a number of factiors that needed clearing up, not least the disagreement between Lechmere and Mizen. The only effort made in that direction was the jurymans question, which was clearly not enough.

If you have seen the documentary, you will know that Andy Griffiths said that before the carman could be exonerated, no other person could be charged with the murder. This is of course true, because anybody else who was charged with the murder could say "It was not me, it was him!", pointing at Lechmere, and it would be the task of the prosecutor of the suspect to clear away the possibility that Lechmere was the killer.

Therefore, as long as the police had no other suspect, they needed to exonerate Lechmere who should have been their prime suspect.

Legal matters seem not to be your cup of tea, Harry.

What IS your cup of tea, by the way?

[Fisherman]

This was the first C5 case, there was no serial killer at that stage. I bet if MN hadn't been first, or Lech had 'found' a later victim, he'd have got a lot more attention than he did.

Absolutely. After Nichols, the slack that was involved in that investigation was something the police would not allow for. The Nichols investigation was an embarrasment to the police on more than one level.

[Fisherman]

That's a fair point D. But I am sure as the killings escalated the police would look back on witness statements etc . And Lech's statement etc would have been gone over and looked into. It was of the upmost importance
Regards Darryl

No, Darryl you are not sure about this. You may think that this was so, but you are not sure about it. It is no fact at all. And you, just as all other posters out here, need to answer the question why the carman was called Cross in the 19th of October police report if he had been thoroughly investigated. If he was brought back into the investigation, why is there no evidence of this? Why is he not mentioned in any memoirs, etcetera? The one time he gets any attention at all is when Dew describes him as a coarse, rough but patently honest man - whose name he has forgotten!

If it walks like a duck ...

This was an investigation that called for lots and lots of resources, and there would have been too many new leads to allow for any extensive looks in the back mirror, methinks. There is also the fact, mentioned numerous times by now, that what Charles Lechmere represented to the police was a man who came forward and embarrased them by laying down that they had been totally wrong in saying that Neil was the finder of the body, they had been totally wrong in saying that it was not true that two civilians were the real finders and so on. They made quite some fools of themselves, and Lechmereīs coming forward was what cemented this. Lechmere was a painful beacon of light, a hurtful bearer of truth, as far as the police were concerned.

If they were unwilling to stick their fingers into a still aching wound, it would be very understandable. And the remaining evidence is perfectly in line with such a suggestion.

In a perfect world, the police make no mistakes. In the one we live in, Timothy Evans was hanged for what Christie did. Keeping that in mind is useful.

You are of course statistically correct - more often than not, the police do things in a proper manner. But we cannot decide all cases on statistics, can we?

[harry]

It isn't the evidence of Cross that should be in doubt. It is simple and straight forward.He found a woman who had been kiled.What is evident is the lack of evidence that points to anyone. The killing was not witnessed.There was no circumstantial evidence that pointed to a particular person.'He could have',requires evidence of opportunity,of being in the company of Nichols at the time the injuries were inflicted.No such evidence involving Cross exists.He arrived after she had been attacked.That is his information,and nothing in the form of evidence proves he (Cross) lied. Theoretical reasoning is only as good as the real evidence allows,and no matter how one seeks to involve Cross in the death of Nichols ,theory will not alter the fact that Cross arrived after Nichols had received the injuries that killed her.
That is,if you wish to rely on evidence,but what else is there?

[Fisherman]

It isn't the evidence of Cross that should be in doubt.

Actually, ALL evidence given by people who have been found alone with a recently killed victim, and where there are no other candidates for the killers role, MUST be scrutinized and doubt MUST be applied and tested. And so Charles Allen Lechmere (which is his name) should also have been scrutinized and doubted.

The real problem here is that the police apparently misunderstood this in the exact same way that you have.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Much has been put forward with the hope to weaken the case against him. So far, no such thing has happened. Why, we have even had an ex murder squad cop who has claimed that the theory has been debunked!

Such desperation is actually quite entertaining. The level of ignorance is breathtaking. Inspector Closeau looks like an intellectual giant in comparison.

The funny thing about this guy is that regardless of how he is ridiculed (which is mainly his own doing) he regularly comes back for more.

Trevor, I’ m sure the dream you had was a nice one, but dreams have nothing to do here. This is about facts, not about yelling ”It wasn’ t him!” at the top of your voice.

This is one of the most astonishing statements I have read on these pages! There is absolutely no evidence whatever that Lechmere killed anyone. There are lots of allegations, possiblities, assumptions and alleged coincidences, but no evidence. He is therefore a Person of Interest, but until there is something tangible, that is all he can be.

Whenever I read about the Polly Nichols murder, I am reminded of the Sherlock Holmes' short story "Silver Blaze" and the much quoted "curious incident of the dog in the night-time" dialogue. I won't repeat it, but I will adapt it -

Inspector Spratling: Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of what was heard by the policeman, the nightwatchman, and several residents who were awake in the night.
Spratling: They heard nothing in the night-time.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.

A police officer on duty 50 yards away heard nothing, the night watchman nearby heard nothing, Mrs Green, living opposite was up and heard nothing, and a Mrs Perkis also heard nothing. No-one heard anything - but then all was explained by Harriet Lilley at number 7. She heard whispers, a moan, some gasps and then nothing, but all sounds were almost drowned out by the sound of a passing luggage train. She couldn't offer a time, but this was easily and accurately calculated, as the train had to be the 3. 07 am from New Cross, which passed by within a minute or so of 3.30 am.

This makes perfect sense - JtR uses the noise of the passing train to cover his deed, and no-one, except Mrs Lilley hears anything. This is reasonably within the range of the doctor's estimated ToD, it gives time for the muscles of the eyes to relax in death and for the eyes to pop open as they were by the time PC Neil found the body. It explains the cold hands etc whilst the body was still warm under the clothing. Remember Paul's account as in Lloyd's Weekly, "I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. I saw a policeman in Church Row ... I told him what I had seen ... I told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead for some time." I think this report may well have been embellished by the journalist, but Paul must have said something similar to allow for this enhancement. I suspect that Paul was slightly embarassed by it, and other comments within the article which were critical of the police, and he softened his tone a great deal at the inquest. Obviously the Lechmere camp claim Mrs Lilley was a lying attention seeker, but to use one of Christer's favourite words, is it a "coincidence" that the train time matches up with all of the other facts so well, and explains why no-one else heard anything?

This timing doesn't exonerate Lechmere absolutely, but in view of all that was done to Eddowes in a few minutes, and the relatively nominal mutilations on Nichols, we must ask ourselves if he was JtR, what on earth was he doing for the 10 - 15 minutes before Paul arrived?

I guess that this is a cue for the possibilities, assumptions and alleged coincidences to be listed again, but we have all read them before. I would welcome any genuinely new information, whether it tends to clear Lechmere, or to elevate him to a true suspect. Until I see something new and tangible, I regard Lechmere as a Person of Interest, and that the murder occurred at about 3. 30 am.

I wonder whether James Scobie QC was briefed about Harriet Lilley's statement. If she made such a statement at a trial, it would establish reasonable doubt immediately.

[Mark J D]

... the train ... passed by within a minute or so of 3.30 am...

And this vital information is established how?

M.

[Trevor Marriott]

I wonder whether James Scobie QC was briefed about Harriet Lilley's statement. If she made such a statement at a trial, it would establish reasonable doubt immediately.

Scobie was not provided with the full facts. I had a telephone call with him discussuing the full facts with him and went trhrough with him the full facts many of which he openly stated he had not been made aware of, had he done so he would not have made the statement Fisherman seeks to prop up his theory with.

He also stated that his interview with the production company was around 30 mins, yet we only see a couple of minutes of that interview in the finished program. I wonder what was edited out?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

And this vital information is established how?

M.

It was apparently established at the time by contact with the railway company, presumably.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Scobie was not provided with the full facts. I had a telephone call with him discussuing the full facts with him and went trhrough with him the full facts many of which he openly stated he had not been made aware of, had he done so he would not have made the statement Fisherman seeks to prop up his theory with.

He also stated that his interview with the production company was around 30 mins, yet we only see a couple of minutes of that interview in the finished program. I wonder what was edited out?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you. As so many have suspected! Another piece of alleged evidence debunked, I think.

[Fisherman]

Scobie was not provided with the full facts. I had a telephone call with him discussuing the full facts with him and went trhrough with him the full facts many of which he openly stated he had not been made aware of, had he done so he would not have made the statement Fisherman seeks to prop up his theory with.

He also stated that his interview with the production company was around 30 mins, yet we only see a couple of minutes of that interview in the finished program. I wonder what was edited out?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A/ Although I do not know what exact facts Scobie was provided with, I think it is self-evident that he was not provided with the full facts. It would have required many months or years of reading up on Scobies behalf. Although it would have been nice if every expert had always read all there is to read about the Ripper case before commenting on it, no such thing can of course be demanded.
What you are rather clumsily trying to imply here is of course that Scobie would have come to another conclusion if he HAD read the full facts, and so what must be asked of you is what lacking information there was that could or would have made him arrive at another conclusion than the one he airs in The Missing Evidence. You must at least be that decent, Trevor, so tell us now: What was it that Scobie was not informed about? You asked him specifically a out some things, you say, so letīs hear it, please!

B/ Much was edited out, I would think. It always is. It is the same with any newspaper article; any conscientious journaist will amass an owerflow of information to choose from when writing. This, however, is not something journalists do in order to be able to cherrypick information that they like themselves. Instead, the reason for the wealth of information amassed lies in how it is easier to make a truly representative article if you have as much background information as possible.
Your - once again - clumsy implication seems to be that Scobie said that the theory was a very good one and Blink Films left that in the docu, and then he said that it was a stupid theory and Blink Films cut that away. However, I donīt think Scobie was as schizophrenic as that. I saw a good deal more material with Scobie than the parts that were in the docu, and I can assure you that he was always saying the same thing in that material; that the theory was a good one and that the case would be good enough to take to trial.
Of course, Blink Films may have slyly hidden away the parts where he said that Scobie thought they should be shot for making such an outrageous suggestion. Who knows? I canīt say. I can only say who does NOT know, and thatīs a guy out here who makes the creepiest suggestions possible about a film company with a very good reputation.

[MrBarnett]

Scobie was not provided with the full facts. I had a telephone call with him discussuing the full facts with him and went trhrough with him the full facts many of which he openly stated he had not been made aware of, had he done so he would not have made the statement Fisherman seeks to prop up his theory with.

He also stated that his interview with the production company was around 30 mins, yet we only see a couple of minutes of that interview in the finished program. I wonder what was edited out?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Did you discuss the name issue with him?

Gary

[Fisherman]

This is one of the most astonishing statements I have read on these pages!

Well, you ARE rather new here. Just wait.

There is absolutely no evidence whatever that Lechmere killed anyone.

Did you read that statement in my post? That there is evidence that Lechmere killed anyone?

There is such evidence, actually. Circumstantial evidence. Otherwise, Scobie would not have said that the case would warrant a modern day trial. But you may have meant proof? Which I didnīt say there was either in my post. So what were those astonishong statements you are speaking of...?

There are lots of allegations, possiblities, assumptions and alleged coincidences, but no evidence.

Again, there IS circumstantial evidence. Your claim tat there is not must be one of the most astonishing things... No wait, thatīs your line.

He is therefore a Person of Interest, but until there is something tangible, that is all he can be.

If a person is found alone with a murder victim at a time that is consistent with that victims TOD, and if no other suspect can be found, then that person will become a suspect unless there is something that nullifies the possibility (such as how it would perhaps have been physically impossible for the person to be the killer, etc).

Whenever I read about the Polly Nichols murder, I am reminded of the Sherlock Holmes' short story "Silver Blaze" and the much quoted "curious incident of the dog in the night-time" dialogue. I won't repeat it, but I will adapt it -

Inspector Spratling: Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?
Holmes: To the curious incident of what was heard by the policeman, the nightwatchman, and several residents who were awake in the night.
Spratling: They heard nothing in the night-time.
Holmes: That was the curious incident.

A police officer on duty 50 yards away heard nothing, the night watchman nearby heard nothing, Mrs Green, living opposite was up and heard nothing, and a Mrs Perkis also heard nothing. No-one heard anything - but then all was explained by Harriet Lilley at number 7. She heard whispers, a moan, some gasps and then nothing, but all sounds were almost drowned out by the sound of a passing luggage train. She couldn't offer a time, but this was easily and accurately calculated, as the train had to be the 3. 07 am from New Cross, which passed by within a minute or so of 3.30 am.

This makes perfect sense - JtR uses the noise of the passing train to cover his deed, and no-one, except Mrs Lilley hears anything. This is reasonably within the range of the doctor's estimated ToD


... Aaaand THERE it went wrong. Nichols bled for around eight minutes AT LEAST after Paul arrived. That means that she bled up until around 3.53 AT LEAST. 3.53 is 23 minutes removed from 3.30. Ingemar Thiblin said that he guessed that the maximun bleeding time with the kind of damage Nichls had would be 10-15 minutes. So she would have stopped bleeding at 3.40-3.45 if Lilley heard the murder. And there goes that suggestion out the window.

Harriet Lilley was not called to the inquest. Was that because the police put trust in her? Any guess?

it gives time for the muscles of the eyes to relax in death and for the eyes to pop open as they were by the time PC Neil found the body. It explains the cold hands etc whilst the body was still warm under the clothing. Remember Paul's account as in Lloyd's Weekly, "I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. I saw a policeman in Church Row ... I told him what I had seen ... I told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead for some time." I think this report may well have been embellished by the journalist, but Paul must have said something similar to allow for this enhancement. I suspect that Paul was slightly embarassed by it, and other comments within the article which were critical of the police, and he softened his tone a great deal at the inquest. Obviously the Lechmere camp claim Mrs Lilley was a lying attention seeker, but to use one of Christer's favourite words, is it a "coincidence" that the train time matches up with all of the other facts so well, and explains why no-one else heard anything?

It does not match up with the facts, so there is no coincidence. And people can die with ice cold hands. It is in those cases a question of blood circulation and not of TOD.

This timing doesn't exonerate Lechmere absolutely but in view of all that was done to Eddowes in a few minutes, and the relatively nominal mutilations on Nichols, we must ask ourselves if he was JtR, what on earth was he doing for the 10 - 15 minutes before Paul arrived?

Lilleys timing is not of interest at all since she could not have heard the murder. It is physically totally improbable, as per Thiblin.

I guess that this is a cue for the possibilities, assumptions and alleged coincidences to be listed again, but we have all read them before. I would welcome any genuinely new information, whether it tends to clear Lechmere, or to elevate him to a true suspect. Until I see something new and tangible, I regard Lechmere as a Person of Interest, and that the murder occurred at about 3. 30 am.

Be my guest. It is a very uniformed guess and at odds with what the forensic physiologists say, but if people wqant to believe in a flat Earth - and yes, that IS a good comparison - then by all means ...

I wonder whether James Scobie QC was briefed about Harriet Lilley's statement. If she made such a statement at a trial, it would establish reasonable doubt immediately.

She would not make any such statement at a trial, for the simple reason that the police would not call her to a trial. And even if they did, a QC is perfectly able to tell the difference between a totally improbable claim and a medically based fact.

[Fisherman]

Thank you. As so many have suspected! Another piece of alleged evidence debunked, I think.

Yes, that is how Trevor goes about debunking evidence - by claiming things that he has no evidence for to begin with, and that he is not willing to describe in detail to carry on.

Anyone who falls for that kind of "research" has disqualified him- or herself from having a view as far as Iīm concerned.