Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

We are not genealogists, we are ripperologists.

‘We’ being?

My interest in this subject has a solid genealogical base.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

Christer, you can, if you wish, take the view that Paul, CAL, PC Neil, and later, the doctor, checked temperature of the hands, and arms without moving them, but I don't believe it for one moment. Checking temperature of the hand and arm by raising the hand a little from the ground would be perfectly normal behaviour. Not doing so would be very odd in the extreme. Moving a hand a few inches to check pulse and/or temperature is not the same thing as disturbing a body.

[Fiver]

In my world, it is unlikely that she died at 5.30. I am as convinced as Phillips was that she died at around 4 o clock or earlier.

You are more convinced than Dr Philips, since he gave a qualified response.

You also get his time estimate wrong.

Philips testified he "arrived at half-past six". When asked to estimate time of death, Philips gave the qualified response - "I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

So Philips estimated ToD was 4:30am or earlier. And he qualified the estimate by saying "...but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood."

After all, his estimated ToD was contradicted by three witnesses

John Richardson testified that the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street was empty at about 4:45am. There is no reason for him to lie and he is unlikely to be mistaken. Which would mean that if Chapman was killed at 4am, the killer was lugging her corpse through the streets for at least 45 minutes. This seems improbable.

Elizabeth Long testified that she saw Chapman with a man near 29 Hanbury Street at about 5:30am. There is no reason for her to lie and she is unlikely to be mistaken.

Albert Cadosch testified that he heard people in the the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street at about 5:30am. There is no reason for him to lie, though he was not sure where some of the noises came from.

John Davis testified that discovered Chapman's body at around 6am.

Dr George Baxter Phillips testified that "On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid..." so clearly Chapman was killed where her body was found.

[Mark J D]

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.

-- If I can just push past the straw men ("...Stride, and Eddowes...") blocking the way at this point, I'd like to present a screenshot from the TV moment that made me jump out of my chair a few months back...



We now return you your normal Klosowski/Druitt/Bury/Kosminski/Van Gogh/Sickert/Tumblety/etc programming...

M.

[rjpalmer]

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.

Precisely. The WRITTEN record. And as the many examples posted by David Barrat amply demonstrate, the written record can be highly misleading. Every surviving record for the coal miner he drummed-up used his birth name. If it wasn’t for a relative coming forward at the inquest, there would be no record that the miner actually used the name of his stepfather in his day to day life. Not even the census records reflected this fact.

And, after hundred years, where is one of the only places we are likely to find oral testimony for an obscure person? In court records!

[MrBarnett]

Mark,

Can you explain the significance of the image as you understand it.

Gary

[Fiver]

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

I doubt the coroner's office would do this. In modern jury duty you are given a set amount in compensation. The prospective juror's income is irrelevant.

[Fiver]

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.

Those victims were just as near to Robert Paul's work route. The ToD argues strongly against Lechemre killing either Tabram or Chapman.

[MrBarnett]

Precisely. The WRITTEN record. And as the many examples posted by David Barrat amply demonstrate, the written record can be highly misleading. Every surviving record for the coal miner he drummed-up used his birth name. If it wasn’t for a relative coming forward at the inquest, there would be no record that the miner actually used the name of his stepfather in his day to day life. Not even the census records reflected this fact.

And, after hundred years, where is one of the only places we are likely to find oral testimony for an obscure person? In court records!

Judging by the written record, what name do you think Lechmere’s children were known by at school?

[MrBarnett]

Judging by the written record, what name do you think Lechmere’s children were known by at school?

The kids were registered at school in the name of Lechmere.

Perhaps their form teacher was told, ‘We’ve registered these children in the name of Lechmere, but their parents have asked us never to refer to them by that name. Instead, they are to be spoken of as the Cross boys.’

Genealogists would find that a rather absurd idea. Ripperologists find it perfectly plausible - after all a couple of months later the kids’ father would discover (or whatever) a dead prostitute on his way to work and tell the police his name was Cross. That was the most significant event in his entire life, and even if he’d told the police his name was Michael Mouse, we should always refer to him by that name.

[Fisherman]

Christer, you can, if you wish, take the view that Paul, CAL, PC Neil, and later, the doctor, checked temperature of the hands, and arms without moving them, but I don't believe it for one moment. Checking temperature of the hand and arm by raising the hand a little from the ground would be perfectly normal behaviour. Not doing so would be very odd in the extreme. Moving a hand a few inches to check pulse and/or temperature is not the same thing as disturbing a body.

Yes, that is true, I can take any view I wish to. However, I ground what views I take on the evidence, and the evidence tells us that Neil said, having been explicitely asked about it by the coroner, that he did not disturb the body.

If you do not understand what disturbing the body means, I will lay it out for you. To disturb the body means to move it in any way. Touching it is not disturbing it, but raising an arm is. This is on account of how that arm cannot be placed back exactly as it lay from the outset. And so "moving the hand a few inches" IS disturbing the body, contrary to what you claim. So would turning the head be, so would turning the body upside down be, so would crossing the legs be: ANY moving of ANY part of the body IS disturbing it.

Now, these matters are understood by the police. Neil knew what Baxter asked him about, and he gave a clear answer - he had NOT disturbed the body. Meaning that he had NOT raised the arm. Nor did he have to, Nichols was on her back with the arm alongside the body, and her clothing was not tight fitting but instead it allowed for reaching in under it. This is on record, so we know it.

Ergo, regardless of what you personally think, this is what is on record. Neil says he "felt" the arm, not that he grabbed the arm, rasied it and put it back down again.

You say that it would be "odd in the extreme" if the hand was not raised to make a check for temperature, but you do not expand on why this would be so. Personally, I donīt think it would be odd at all, least of all since the police would know that they were not to disturb the body of a murder victim if it could be avoided. Maybe you would care to expand on how and why it would be odd in the extreme to put your hand against the arm while it rests on the ground?

You list a fair few people who you think pumped Nicholsī arm up and down throughout the murder morning, but you fail to list the only important one, Jonas Mizen. If Lechmere, Paul and Neil raised her arm - and although you claimed it as a fact, there is no such fact present, or is there? - it would be of little consequence to the blood evidence question, unless you think that Neil first pumped the arm up and down and then looked at the wound and found blood running from it.

The real issue is Mizen and how he said that the blood was STILL running (meaning that he anticipated an unbroken period of bleeding starting when Polly was cut and bleeding throughout up until the time when he saw it), that it looked fresh (meaning that he did not think the blood had been running for a very long time or was old blood, set in motion by pumping the arm up and down) and that the blood in the pool under her neck was partially congealed (meaning that some of the blood had exited the body around four minutes or more before he looked at the pool, whereas that pool was still being fed with fresh, uncoagulated blood).

I guess it is possible that Lechmere and/or Paul may have raised the arm of Nichols, although neither man says he did, but such a thing would not impact what Mizen saw many minutes later. To introduce Llewellyn to the picture is a bit odd, since he only arrived AFTER Mizens first visit to the area outside Browns Stable Yard. And a medico would not necessarily be as cautious about not disturbing the body as a PC would.

Summing things up, we should not invent any new facts although the old ones are scarce - what we have is what we have and what we go by. And what we have is an assertion on Neils behalf that he did not disturb the body. Any suggestion to the contrary is to tamper with the facts as we know them. If you wnat to go down that path, feel free to do so, but I will point it out.

[Fisherman]

The kids were registered at school in the name of Lechmere.

Perhaps their form teacher was told, ‘We’ve registered these children in the name of Lechmere, but their parents have asked us never to refer to them by that name. Instead, they are to be spoken of as the Cross boys.’

That should do it. Time to throw the towel in, R J.

[Fiver]

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

There is also no evidence that no one from Pickford's was at the inquest, either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Doctored Whatsit's point about the 1876 Inquest still stands. If their employee was convicted in 1876 for the death of the child, they probably would have been sued. It was in their best interests to have a representative at the Inquest. That's not a guarantee, of course, but it is probable.

[Mark J D]

Mark,
Can you explain the significance of the image as you understand it.
Gary

Certainly, old bean. The lines start at Buck's Row (though I myself would go all the way back to Doveton Street...), and from that point they show plausible alternative walking routes to the southernmost entrances to Broad Street Station. The two places that are not linked by lines are the sites of the Stride and Eddowes killings, which took place early on a likely non-work day and therefore are left unconnected with Lechmere's logical shortest home-to-work routes. Along the path/s shown we see the murder sites of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, all of whom were murdered early in the morning, and one of whom bled for several minutes after Lechmere 'found her' in the street, yeah right.

I understand perfectly well -- and I have the print-outs to prove it -- that other entrances to the huge Broad Street site are available, and that lots of us are working to discover the best, likeliest way of getting to wherever a Pickfords shift probably started. Had I been producing the documentary, I'd have run the graphic a few more times, taking us all the way up to Worship Street; but who the hell cares what I think?

Now, Gary, you know that I consider you an all-round good egg, so I would never for a moment suspect you of setting a trap. So you must have had a decent reason for asking that question. What's the problem, bro?

Bests,

M.

[MrBarnett]

There is also no evidence that no one from Pickford's was at the inquest, either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Doctored Whatsit's point about the 1876 Inquest still stands. If their employee was convicted in 1876 for the death of the child, they probably would have been sued. It was in their best interests to have a representative at the Inquest. That's not a guarantee, of course, but it is probable.

Dr W stated that a Pickford’s representative was present at the inquest. There’s no evidence that one was.

I believe I have the honour of being the person who discovered the 1876 incident. I believe I was also the first person to suggest that Pickford’s would most likely have had someone present at the inquest.

Please keep up, 5r.