Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

It is only natural that one uses the name he chose for himself; clearly that is the name by which he wished to be known.

As has been shown, there are examples of men whose "official" paperwork (census, marriage, children's baptism) is all in one name (their birthname) - which means researchers would normally conclude that they were known by that and used that name always. But where another source shows that they were, in fact, known under another name.

So your insistence that using Cross was only one instance overwhelmed by many others of Lechmere is not convincing. Since we do have examples that directly contradict it.
Cross chose to use Cross, not Lechmere, and there is nothing wrong - it is indeed proper and respectful - to continue to call him Cross.

We know he chose to use Cross on one or two abnormal, rather unpleasant, occasions, A far as we can tell from the written record, he used Lechmere on every other occasion throughout his long life. Those who insist on calling him Cross are identifying the man with the two unpleasant events and ignoring all the other events in his life.

If you believe it is proper and respectful to refer to him by the name he used when he found the mutilated body of a prostitute in preference to the name he used when he married, the name he used when he celebrated the births of his children and the name his grieving family used at his funeral, that is your prerogative.

Genealogically he is Charles Allen Lechmere. Sadly, in the strange world of Ripperology some refuse to acknowledge the man’s existence outside of the few minutes he spent with Polly Nichols’ body.

[caz]

Again, the actions of a guilty Lechmere who wanted to look innocent would be actions that were in line with innocence - once he was joined by Paul. The last time I said so, you were very upset and said that in my view, Lechmere was damned regardless of what he did. But it still applies that killers who want to feign innocence WILL behave innocently once they are observed by other people. What is a tad flummoxing is if you cannot see how this works.

Speaking about disingenuous, I mean...

This was aimed at Harry, but I would only repeat that a guilty Lechmere could only have feigned innocence in this one case when, uniquely, he would have just committed murder in the right place at the right time for his onward journey to work.

"Come on you old ratbag, get a move on. I need you with me in Buck's Row no later than 3.40, so I can explain to the police what I was doing there at that time if anyone comes along before I've - er - we've done the business and adjusted your - er - our clothing."

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Did he do anything he shouldn't have? Nope.

We actually do not know. Unless you think that even if he killed Nichols, he did not do anything he should´t have...?

Fisherman has already admitted that Charlie's actions in Buck's Row were not in and of themselves guilty. In fact, he claims quite the opposite. It was the innocence of his actions that paradoxically marks his guilt.

"Admitted"? As if you had to force it out of me? Anybody with a head on his neck knows that what Lechmere did after Paul arrived seems to be innocent (except possibly for the refusal to help prop her up). And anybody with a head on his neck can also see that what a person who wants to look innocent will do when others look at him are things that are in line with innocence.

Why does this upset you so much, Harry?

And when did I say that these seemingly innocent things are what marked his guilt? I never did, did I? That is just your invention, right?

I am not saying that calling out to Paul for help marks his guilt. I say that the bleeding time is that kind of a marker.

I am not saying that seeking out Mizen marks his guilt. I say that the correlation between his logical work treks and the murder spots in Whitechapel are that kind of a marker.

And I also say that since I think he was the killer, he would have feigned innocence in Bucks Row after Paul arrived.

That is what I say. Not that the things he did and that looked innocent are the markers of his guilt.

I would much appreciate if you could work up the honesty not to misrepresent what I say, steep though that task may seem to you.

[Fisherman]

You and Christer are doing Scobie no favours, all the while you are posting different versions of his position.

Love,

Caz
X

I am posting the exact version of his position that Scobie went public with on The Missing Evidence, Caz - that the case would be gpopd enough to take to a modern day murder trial. I am, word for word, QUOTING him. I have no reason whatsoever to contact him and ask whether he meant what he said.

Trevor or anybody else who thinks he did NOT mean what he said are the ones who have a problem here. And you, if you fail to understand that.

[Abby Normal]

Post of the week, Doctored Whatsit. Deserves more than just 3 likes.

Christer thinks there is enough to bring Lechmere into court on a charge of murder, while I think there is enough reasonable doubt in the Nichols case for any balanced and objective jury to acquit. And without Buck's Row the prosecution would have nothing.

"Not guilty!"

Love,

Caz
X

except paul directly contradicts himself by saying he thought he could detect breathing and that she must have been dead and was so cold etc. but yes the rest is sound reasoning and good stuff.

so if i get this right-the ripper (not lech) is with nichols in bucks row, Lilly hears them and possible initial attack, ripper murders Nichols around 3:30 as the train passes by, cuts throat and gashes stomach but is scared off as lech approaches around 3:35 say? is this the idea?

[Fisherman]

Post of the week, Doctored Whatsit. Deserves more than just 3 likes.

Christer thinks there is enough to bring Lechmere into court on a charge of murder, while I think there is enough reasonable doubt in the Nichols case for any balanced and objective jury to acquit. And without Buck's Row the prosecution would have nothing.

"Not guilty!"

Love,

Caz
X

"Without Bucks Row the prosecution would have nothing."

Absolute brilliance, Caz. The reason for it is that all the information we have on Lechmere pertaining to the murders is about Bucks Row.

Unless we look at the geographical correlation between the murders and his logical paths. But I guess that is "nothing" too, in your world where the possibility that the carman MAY have called himself Cross is everything and the FACT that he called himself Lechmere is nothing.

[Fisherman]

This was aimed at Harry, but I would only repeat that a guilty Lechmere could only have feigned innocence in this one case when, uniquely, he would have just committed murder in the right place at the right time for his onward journey to work.

"Come on you old ratbag, get a move on. I need you with me in Buck's Row no later than 3.40, so I can explain to the police what I was doing there at that time if anyone comes along before I've - er - we've done the business and adjusted your - er - our clothing."

Love,

Caz
X

We agree on this, Caz: It is a matter of how he COULD have done things. The fact that there are innocent alternative explanations will not go away. Nor will the fact that he needs TOO MANY innnocent alternative explanations to get off the hook.

So basically, you are putting your five fingers in a ship hull with many more holes in it.

[Fisherman]

except paul directly contradicts himself by saying he thought he could detect breathing and that she must have been dead and was so cold etc. but yes the rest is sound reasoning and good stuff.

so if i get this right-the ripper (not lech) is with nichols in bucks row, Lilly hears them and possible initial attack, ripper murders Nichols around 3:30 as the train passes by, cuts throat and gashes stomach but is scared off as lech approaches around 3:35 say? is this the idea?

And between 3.30 and around 3.55, Polly bled from a wound that according to two forensic physicians was likely to go on bleeding for three to five minutes. Yes, that is Dr Whatevers general three star idea.

Three stars only make a VERY dark night.

[Kattrup]

Genealogically he is Charles Allen Lechmere.

We are not genealogists, we are ripperologists.

[rjpalmer]

and even allows the old bag to have wound him up face-to-face

Now she’s an old bag.

What will they think of next?

[Doctored Whatsit]

And between 3.30 and around 3.55, Polly bled from a wound that according to two forensic physicians was likely to go on bleeding for three to five minutes. Yes, that is Dr Whatevers general three star idea.

Three stars only make a VERY dark night.

Of course, we must take into account that Paul and CAL raised Nichols' arm, probably to check pulse, and definitely the temperature of the hands, and that PC Neil said that he did check the temperature of the arm under the clothing, so blood would be made to ooze from the wound because of this. It needn't be natural bleeding.

[Fisherman]

Of course, we must take into account that Paul and CAL raised Nichols' arm, probably to check pulse, and definitely the temperature of the hands, and that PC Neil said that he did check the temperature of the arm under the clothing, so blood would ooze from the wound because of this. It needn't be natural bleeding.

Does it say anywhere that Lechmere and Paul raised Nichols’ arm? It definitely says nowhere that Neil did, he instead insisted that he did not disturb the body, meaning that he did not raise the arm. So you can forget that suggestion.
What Neil did was to feel the surface of the arm for warmth, nothing more, nothing less. To change that, you must invent something that never happened.
Which, of course, you did.

[Fiver]

And between 3.30 and around 3.55, Polly bled from a wound that according to two forensic physicians was likely to go on bleeding for three to five minutes.

That is a very inaccurate summation of what Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin said.

You asked some vague questions of the two and interpreted them the way you wanted to. You also don't appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Jason Payne James:
Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.
A. Yes
Q. Do you know of any examples?
A. No
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible. Not maximum - possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes. Not the "three to five minutes" you claim.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes, based on you suggesting those numbers.

If Thiblin's estimate is correct, then Lechmere could have been there at the time of death, but he also could have arrived several minutes after Nichols died.

If James' estimate is correct, then Lechmere could have been there at the time of death, but she probably died after Lechmere and Paul left, which would make PC Neil the most likely killer.

The estimates put Lechmere at the location around the time of death, but they knew that back in 1888.

[Fiver]

In all probability because he wanted to and did not feel himself strictly restricted to killing on work days. Note how the times are different in these murders. If it was a man who did not work, then why kill at late hours on workdays and early hours on weekends? Again, Lechmere is a fit.

I thought a key point in your accusation against Lechmere was the claim that the victims were being killed on Lechmere's route to work and during the time that he would walk it. Yet the Tabram, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes killings do to match this supposed pattern.

It's not a pattern if most of the killing do not match it.

[MrBarnett]

We are not genealogists, we are ripperologists.

I thought you were an archivist.

Where would you file Charles Lechmere’s birth/christening/marriage/kids’ various records etc etc? Under C or L?