Evidence of innocence

[Darryl Kenyon]

My way of thinking, [and it is only a thought], regarding the reimbursement of wages for the lost work time people spent at inquests is - Wouldn't the coroners office have to get in touch with Pickfords regarding how much money Lech had lost to see how much to reimburse him [ even if they were not going to pay him the full amount ]. And if this is so, how did they get in touch with Pickfords ?
The coroners/police would have to know his registered work name was Lechmere . And if they didn't, his registered work name must be Cross.
Come to think of it, how did the Police get in touch with him in the first place ?
Yes, they had his address but they would have been looking for a Charles Cross. When they came a calling suppose Lech wasn't in and someone else answered the door.
Obviously his wife would know he could be called Cross as well. But one slip of the tongue " Oh yes, Charles Cross does live here, but my hubby prefers to be called Lechmere ". And this brilliant cat and mouse game regarding the surname is up

Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

Hi Gary
Yes, I have heard that suggestion. But, sorry if I am wrong here I was under the impression that Scobie thought that the C5 were killed when Lech was on his way to work. And, Prima Facie it could look likely regarding the double event . From his house traverse south to Liz then west to Kate then north towards work were he drops the apron. Except that there is a fair chance Lech wasn't in work that day.
When I mentioned this to Fish a couple of years back on another thread, Fish said that Lech could have called in work passing by that morning as to give him some kind of alibi [ as I remember]. I don't know if Fish still adhere's to this.

Regards Darryl

Hi DK
For my own sake-I find the geographical evidence against lech extremely compelling. we have a man who was seen alone with a freshly killed victim along his work route and other victims-tabram, chapman, kelly also killed very near his work route and roughly near TOD when he would be passing by.

And re your point-the two who werent killed along his work route-stride and eddowes-were killed at a far earlier time that just happened to be his day off and very near where his mum lived.And The gsg was written in a place that is very near a route lech could have taken from Mitre square back home to doveton st.

Logistically it all fits. we have no other suspect, that it is documented, geographically comes this close to the victims. Lech wins hands down in that regard-no question.

[Fisherman]

First time Iv'e heard that a Coroner can give orders to the police,on how they should carry out their duties,Fisherman.Perhaps you can elaborate.You mentioned it in your last post to me.I doubt very much the police enquired at every house in Hanbury Street,Berner street,Dorset street etc.Were they lax in their duties at those times? As much as the police had powers to investigate,they also relied on the public to come forward with information,which several did,and there is no record that shows these people were ignored.What,in your opinion,would a house to house enquirey in Bucks Row have acheived in relation to your case against Cross?
I have said before,the killer needed to be in the company of Nichols at the time of her death.Do you believe a house to house enquirey would have revealed that?

The police failed to question more thana handful of the Bucks Row dwellers.

Coroner Baxter reprimenaded them for this, and told them that it needed to be done. Here is the conversation again, with an addition at the end:

Inspector Spratley, J Division, stated he had made inquiries in Buck's-row, but not at all of the houses.

The Coroner: Then that will have to be done.

Witness added that he made inquiries at Green's, the wharf, Snider's factory, and also at the Great Eastern wharf, and no one had heard anything unusual on the morning of the murder. He had not called at any of the houses in Buck's-row, excepting at Mrs. Green's. He had seen the Board School keeper.

So Spratling freely admitted that apart from Emma Greens door, none of the other residential doors in Bucks Row had been knocked upon.

If you don´t think that is lax, it will have to stand for you. In the gallery of odd things that have stood for you over the years, it probably defends it´s place well.

[Fisherman]

and not forgetting Dr Biggs who stated that blood can still flow from a dead body long after the 15 minute window Fisherman seeks to rely on to prove his theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not with the kind of damage Nichols had, it couldn´t. At least not according to Thiblin. She had not exactly cut her thumb, had she? I think that most people out here may see how different types of damage will result in different times of bleeding.

[Abby Normal]

Not with the kind of damage Nichols had, it couldn´t. At least not according to Thiblin. She had not exactly cut her thumb, had she? I think that most people out here may see how different types of damage will result in different times of bleeding.

lol. Exactly fish-I made that point earlier. She had her throat cut and mid section gashed open. something the lech deniers conveniently leave out when getting into all the minutia of blood flow/TOD.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Then we differ totally in that respect. No other suspect has anything that comes even close to what Lechmere has in terms of directly caserelated evidence pointing in his direction. He is the only reasonable suspect belonging to the primary group of suspects - the ones who we know were there at one or more murder sites at the approximate TOD of the victim. That means he is the only really good suspect in my eyes.

I didn't realise Diemschultz was the prime suspect for the murder of Liz
Nor that PC Watkin was for the murder of Kate

Regards Darryl

[Fisherman]

going back to my conversation with Scobie for those who question it and suggest I had made it up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from Christer, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

I would suggest the other contributers were treated in the same way

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, well - a summary of your alleged conversation with James Scobie! So let´s check the various points and see how Scobie was manipulated, shall we?

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

And Christer says he never met James Scobie, so it seems that is very true. Question: Would Scobie need to meet me in order to asses the case? Answer: No.

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from Christer, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

The "bullet points" seemingly filled perhaps fifty A4 pages, as can be seen in the docu. And as has been said before, all Scobie was asaked to do was to assess the evidence against Charles Lechmere, not all the possible alternative innocent suggestions. As has also been pointed out - by Paul Begg - this is a perfectly legal way to go about it.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

Which is to be expected; there is normally always a process of editing involved in making an interview. Is there anything that tells us that what was edited out was Scobies upset denials that Lechmere could have been the killer? Answer: No. Would it be likely that Scobie said BOTH that the evidence would warrant a modern day trial and that he would deny such a thing in next breath? Answer: No.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts- edited out

Now, Trevor, THIS is intensely interesting! Here we have Scobie saying that the issue with the false name (thank you for calling it by it´s true definition, by the way) was insoignificant to the other facts. And what does "insignificant" mean? It means that it did not matter to his verdict, based on the other facts.
And then we have a little addition: "edited out"...?
Where does that addition come from, Trevor? And what does it mean? Becasue in my eyes, it seems to point to the possibility that this was an answer you did not like - and so you decided to edit it out.
Maybe you can expand a little on this?

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

And was there anything in the coroners adding up that either contributed to the case against Lechmere or exonerated him? Answer: No. So why would ne need to see it in order to be able to say if there is a case against the carman?

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

Of course. If the full facts involved a train ticket on the Orient Express between September 7 and November 11, then Lechmere could not be the Ripper. What Scobie did not know, he could not comment on. Therefore, he could not say whether or not something that would make him change his mind was present in the material.

I wish you had instead asked him whether or not he believed that Blink Films were likely to withhold crucial evidence speaking for Lechmere´s innocence. Then again, we all know that there IS no such evidence, meaning per se that the whole suggestion that there was such a tyoe of material absent in Scobies information.

The whole discussion is as intelligent as most of your suggestions, Trevor. It´s dumb, in other words.

[Fisherman]

this is an interesting line of research youve uncovered gary. it seems like if it was lech, they didnt recognize each other though right?

btw, i definitely think marshal saw the ripper and stride together. no question imho.

It was at 11.45, a full hour before Schwartz made his observation. It has been suggested that the man Marshall saw was the man seen with Stride in the Bricklayers Arms, and I am personally more inclined to agree with that.

[Fisherman]

Hi Gary
Yes, I have heard that suggestion. But, sorry if I am wrong here I was under the impression that Scobie thought that the C5 were killed when Lech was on his way to work. And, Prima Facie it could look likely regarding the double event . From his house traverse south to Liz then west to Kate then north towards work were he drops the apron. Except that there is a fair chance Lech wasn't in work that day.
When I mentioned this to Fish a couple of years back on another thread, Fish said that Lech could have called in work passing by that morning as to give him some kind of alibi [ as I remember]. I don't know if Fish still adhere's to this.

Regards Darryl

I don´t remember saying it, actually. What I have said is that he may have gone to Pickfords after Mitre Square to wash up and possibly to use the rag from Eddowes´ apron as a makeshift bandage if he cut himself while cutting up Eddowes.

If you can dig up the alibi suggestion, I´d be interested to see it.

[Harry D]

If this kind of people had not existed, you would have had a much better point. I can only point out to you what a psychopath is and how he or she works, jut as I can add that 90 per cent plus of the sexual serial killers are diagnosed psychopaths.

If you can come up with a good idea why we should not make use of that knowledge, please don´t keep it to yourself!

Do you have a source for that statistic, Fisherman?

Not that I contend the killer was a psychopath. That was never my criticism.

My point is that like a lot of suspect-based theories they are defined by circular reasoning. You NEED Lechmere to be a psychopath to justify his charade as an innocent bystander.

If 90% of sexual-serial killers are psychopaths, how come none of them have ever imitated Lechmere's actions in Buck's Row?

Why would a killer who had multiple escape routes to take under the blanket of darkness, stop to accost a witness and direct him to the victim, let alone find a policeman together, when I assume Lechmere still carried the murder weapon and could've had blood stains on him? Ahhh but that's why he decided to pull off the Great Mizen Scam! Despite the fact Paul AND Lechmere both contradicted the copper. The killer would have tried to remain unseen, and not been heard, as he was during the other murders. Ahhh but now you will claim "Yes but Lechmere could only play this trick once! He was back to his ninja skills for the rest of them!"

Conveniences upon contrivances are the name of the game.

[Fisherman]

You have seen the detailed police reports of their investigation of the accident that killed a child in 1876? I haven't, I admit.

I was - of course - referring to the Nichols case. If you were discussing the run over boy only, you should have said so.

[Harry D]

lol. Exactly fish-I made that point earlier. She had her throat cut and mid section gashed open. something the lech deniers conveniently leave out when getting into all the minutia of blood flow/TOD.

"Lech deniers"

At least we know you're finally out of the closet, Abby.

[Fisherman]

My way of thinking, [and it is only a thought], regarding the reimbursement of wages for the lost work time people spent at inquests is - Wouldn't the coroners office have to get in touch with Pickfords regarding how much money Lech had lost to see how much to reimburse him [ even if they were not going to pay him the full amount ]. And if this is so, how did they get in touch with Pickfords ?
The coroners/police would have to know his registered work name was Lechmere . And if they didn't, his registered work name must be Cross.
Come to think of it, how did the Police get in touch with him in the first place ?
Yes, they had his address but they would have been looking for a Charles Cross. When they came a calling suppose Lech wasn't in and someone else answered the door.
Obviously his wife would know he could be called Cross as well. But one slip of the tongue " Oh yes, Charles Cross does live here, but my hubby prefers to be called Lechmere ". And this brilliant cat and mouse game regarding the surname is up

Regards Darryl

Here is the original statement from Paul. I had it muddled somewhat, but may in the end have been correct anyway:

Robert Paul "was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days."

The fact that he got nothing for the first day seems to tell me that he got ... well, nothing. That he was not reimbursed.

[MrBarnett]

In view of the continuing debate about CAL's surname, and without taking sides, I thought it might be helpful to look at the possibilities as they relate to the 1876 inquest. A child is knocked down and killed by CAL during his job as a carman with Pickfords. There would have been some investigation by the police, and they, some representatives from Pickfords and CAL were at the inquest. Let's consider some possible scenarios -

1. CAL was known as Lechmere at work, and also during the police investigation, and when the name Charles Allen Lechmere was called to give his evidence, he took the oath, said his name was Cross, and the coroner, the police, the newspaper reporters and Pickfords' staff didn't notice, or at least no-one expressed any surprise or queried this.
2. CAL was known as Cross at work and throughout the police investigation, and was called to give evidence as Charles Cross, so no query needed.
3. CAL had advised Pickfords and then possibly the police too, that his birth name was Lechmere but that he preferred to use his stepfather's surname, and so gave evidence as Charles Cross.

These seem to be the main possibilities, and everyone is free to comment and choose their own scenario, or offer different ones. I do notice that number 3 does allow for Pickfords to deal with all Government departments without any issue, a point very reasonably raised by Mark J D .

There is no evidence that anyone from Pickfords was present at the inquest.

[Fisherman]

I didn't realise Diemschultz was the prime suspect for the murder of Liz
Nor that PC Watkin was for the murder of Kate

Regards Darryl

Each man is a better suspect than for example Chapman, Bury, Kosminski etcetera if we go only on the proven presence beside a freshly killed victim. However, this only applies for Diemschitz in the Stride case and for Watkins if the Eddowes ditto.

In Watkins' case, he walked a beat in the City, and so he is totally unlikely to have killed the other victims. It may well be that there were other points to check him by, if he for example knocked up people or made contact with other people in any way along his beat, a common enough thing.

Diemschitz was overheard arriving with his cart at 1.00, and so if he was the killer, he managed to park his cart, kill Stride, get hold of the cart again and then he alerted the club members to the site. There is also the fact that the blood was all clotted at 1.16, as Blackwell arrived, (and already at around 1.13, as Johnston arrived, for that matter) and he put the death at around 00.46 - 00.51.

The two are therefore unlikely killers of these two women and even unlikelier ones of the other women. But I am happy to see that you have caught my overall drift that people who can be linked to a murder site at the approximate time of death of the victim are persons of interest. If there is reason to (if they give false names and disagree with the police about the developments on the murder occasion, for instance) they will later be elevated to suspects.

This is how it works:

Lechmere: Ample reason for suspicion

Diemschitz: No real reason for suspicion

Watkins: No real reason for suspicion

Perhaps you have noted how neither Diemschitsz nor Watkins have never been suspects in the Ripper case?

Well, now you know why!