Evidence of innocence

[MrTwibbs]

139 pages and counting and unfortunately all I am seeing here is circumstantial evidence.
I'm also a little confused as to why the need to discuss this seeing as Letchmere/Cross has been stated as being
"The East End carman Charles Allen Lechmere was not only jack The Ripper but also the dismemberment murderer who became known as the Thames Torso killer". Sounds like it was already proven. Case solved.

[Greenway]

...none of the sides has been able to prove their respective points. You wonīt be able to prove that he would never have stayed put, and I wonīt be able to prove that he stayed put for sinister reasons.

My point is that there is reasonable doubt - a point you make very clearly in the above sentence.

All the best

[GBinOz]

139 pages and counting and unfortunately all I am seeing here is circumstantial evidence.

Hi MrTwibbs,

In ripperology, that is the nature of the beast. It is nearly all circumstantial evidence. The thread is so long because Christer has to explain the same points over and over again in answer to the same questions/objections over and over again. His research and patience have to be admired. At least it is certain that Lechmere can be located at the scene of a JtR murder. How many other suspects are there about which that can be said?

Cheers, George

[Fisherman]

My point is that there is reasonable doubt - a point you make very clearly in the above sentence.

All the best

Absolutely! I could not agree more. In fact, all of the points I raise against Charles Lechmere are points where there can be at least some doubt.

And still I say that I am convinced that he was the killer of Polly Nichols, you may say?

Then I answer that the case is not decided on one point only, such as whether he would have run or not. It is decided on a large assembly of points, and to my mind, there is no way that they can ALL be coincidences that can be supplied with alternative explanations. That only works when we take them one by one, not when we look at the collected evidence.

Look, if you will, at the matter of the name. It can be an example of a sinister thing and it can be an example of an innocent matter. Since this is the case, the total outcome of it will be an unproven case - if any case at all. So what I do to move forward is to ask myself whether or not there are other pointers in the carmans direction. And there are: the disagreement with Mizen, the bleeding of many minutes after Lechmere left Nichols, the refusal to help prop her up, the geographical correlation, the fact that Paul seemingly only noted Lechmere as he arrived outside Browns, the timings and so on.

If there had been nothing more than the name, I would be much inclined to free him. As it is, I mean that he must be our man.

Regardless of which item we had started out with, however, we would get that unproven case again, although some factors carry more weight than others.

But you are perfectly correct in saying that there is reasonable doubt item for item - until the coincidences mount up. It was the exact same thing that James Scobie said about the case, of course: It becomes one coincidence too many.

[Fisherman]

139 pages and counting and unfortunately all I am seeing here is circumstantial evidence.
I'm also a little confused as to why the need to discuss this seeing as Letchmere/Cross has been stated as being
"The East End carman Charles Allen Lechmere was not only jack The Ripper but also the dismemberment murderer who became known as the Thames Torso killer". Sounds like it was already proven. Case solved.

If you had added the following line from the book, you would have added: "That is what this book sets out to establish."

That way, you would have gotten the whole truth. But who is interested in whole truths nowadays?

[Fisherman]

The thread is so long because Christer has to explain the same points over and over again in answer to the same questions/objections over and over again.

You noticed - good!

[Greenway]

Absolutely! I could not agree more. In fact, all of the points I raise against Charles Lechmere are points where there can be at least some doubt.

And still I say that I am convinced that he was the killer of Polly Nichols, you may say?

Then I answer that the case is not decided on one point only, such as whther he would have run or not. It is decided on a large assembly of points, and to my mind, there is no way that they can ALL be coincidences that can be supplied with alternative explanations. That only works when we take them one by one, not when we look at the collected evidence.

Look, if you will, at the matter of the name. It can be an example of a sinister thing and it can be an example of an innocent matter. Since this is the case, the total outcome of it will be an unproven case - if any case at all. So what I do to move forward is to ask myself whether or not there are other pointers in the carmans direction. And there are: the disagreement with Mizen, the bleeding of many minutes after Lechmere keft Nichols, the refusal to help prop her up, the geographical correlation, the fact that Paul seemingly only norted Lechmere as he arrived outside Browns, the timings and so on.

If there had been nothing more than the name, I would be much inclined to free him. As it is, I mean that he must be our man.

Regardless of which item we had started out with, however, we would get that unproven case again, although some factors carry more weight than others.

But you are perfectly correct in saying that there is reasonable doubt item for item - until the coincidences mount up. It was the exact same thing that James Scobie said about the case, of course: It becomes one coincidence too many.

From my point of view, no amount of bad evidence ever amounts to good evidence.

All the best

[Paddy Goose]

A thread devoted to offering space where those who think there is evidence pointing to innocence on Charles Lechermeīs behalf can provide their thoughts and ideas. ...

Anybody who can master this debate without descending into disrespectfulness is welcomed to the thread. And I demand that attitude from everyone, myself included.

Thank you for the invitation Fisherman,

Yes of course, Charles Cross and Robert Paul were regular swell fellows who did the right thing. What people do in a community.

Paddy

[MrTwibbs]

If you had added the following line from the book, you would have added: "That is what this book sets out to establish."

That way, you would have gotten the whole truth. But who is interested in whole truths nowadays?

And do you think you established Lechmere as JTR in your book?

[Fisherman]

From my point of view, no amount of bad evidence ever amounts to good evidence.

All the best

I would agree with that too. But I would not agree with any suggestion that the evidence against Lechmere is bad. Nor did Scobie think this was so, and he must be regarded as an authority on the matter, correct?

Lechmere was found standing alone by the frehsly killed body of Polly Nichols at a time when she would still go on to bleed for many minutes. That is anything but bad evidence.

Lechmere lived in 22 Doveton Street. If we forget about how we know that he found Nichols in Bucks Row, and just ask ourselves - without adding any other information about him - which paths he walked, then as long as we know nothing about him, he could have walked any degree of the 360 degree circle to work, north, south, east or west. But as coincidence would have it, he walked the exact tiny fraction of the 360 degree scope that correpsponds with the murders. That is anything but bad evidence.

Lechmere disagreed on a number of points with a serving PC, and the wording the carman used according to the PC was one that would be tailormade to take him past the law. That is anything but bad evidence.

You should also consider how evidence is not static when it comes to how good or bad it is. If we again look at the name issue, it really is not very damning evidence if we put it first on the list. But if we look at all the other things first and only then turn to the name issue, it suddenly seems to be part of a bigger picture. It becomes one coincidence too many, as Scobie put it.

So yes, a heap of bad evidence is not enough to convict a man or even shape a trial against him (although many have been convicted on bad evidence, of course, but that is another matter), but a heap of good evidence is something that is enough to warrant a prima facie case, suggesting guilt. And that where we joined up with James Scobie again. he conidered the evidence good enough for a trial, so I am not very worried about people who range from those who say that Lechmere is the worst suspect ever to those who say that there is not enough evidence to make a case. There is. Scobie said so, and Scobioe would know that field a hell of a lot better than 99,9 per cent of us out here.

[FrankO]

Thanks for your reply, Christer.

Yes, I think it would always come with the risk of him ending up in the crosshairs. An important factor would be if, as you suggest, it was the police that found out about it. That would realistically mean that they would look upon him as a liar or at least a potential liar. Again, it cannot possibly be a good thing to do what he did.

I thought your stance always was that explaining the use of Cross to the police wouldn't be much of a problem, if any at all, for a guilty Lechmere, as, after all, it was his stepfather's name and he gave the right address and workplace to the police. So, does this mean that you've changed your mind somewhat? Or is my memory failing me?

[Fisherman]

And do you think you established Lechmere as JTR in your book?

Letīs begin by clearing up the other matter first: Why did you leave out the second sentence in the book and portray it as if I had claimed for a fact that Lechmere was the Ripper and the Thames Torso killer? Did you miss out or leave out?

Just curious, you see.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your reply, Christer.



I thought your stance always was that explaining the use of Cross to the police wouldn't be much of a problem, if any at all, for a guilty Lechmere, as, after all, it was his stepfather's name and he gave the right address and workplace to the police. So, does this mean that you've changed your mind somewhat? Or is my memory failing me?

You can take a look at the answer I just gave Greenway, in post 2089. It pretty much clarifies my stance. I donīt think I have changed all that much if at all. Some amount of doubt can be cast on all of the pointers in Lechmeres direction, but when we add them together, that doubt becomes unreasonable. James Scobie again: It becomes one coincidence too many.

I also pointed out to Greenway that, depending on where in the evidence chain we put the name issue and on how many and how damning the rest of the points are, it will look more or less bad. If it was the only thing, it would be bad. If it is presented at the end of the chain, it becomes one of the items that Scobie described as one coincidence too many.

There are other pointers in the carmans direction that are more damning evidence than. the name business, and I stand by what I have said many times: I do not rule out that he DID use the name Cross while at work, nor do I think that such a thing could clear him. There are too many and too damning points around for that.

I think you may be referring to how I often say that the carman could not give a false address since that would have the police rasing their eyebrows, whereas his link to the Cross name ensured that he COULD use that. But that is not the same as me thinking it is a trivial matter not to give your real name at a murder inquest.

On a different note, I donīt think it is necessarily a bad thing to change your mind about different matters. The world is never the same from day to day, and ideally, that is reflected in our choices.

[Greenway]

Scobie said so, and Scobioe would know that field a hell of a lot better than 99,9 per cent of us out here.

What information did Scobie look at in making his 'authoritative' assessment?

All the best

[Fisherman]

What information did Scobie look at in making his 'authoritative' assessment?

All the best

Read the thread, and you will know what there is to know about it. Basically, he decided from the points of accusation against Lechmere.