Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary
There isn't proof of a genuine alibi , but there could be what is termed negative evidence of one . As myself and others have pointed out the police seem to have taken no interest in Lech as a suspect, but we do know they interviewed the three slaughterhouse workers separately for instance. Did they not interview Lech ? Or at the very least have someone go to Pickfords to check him out ? And if they did, this would explain their virtual non existence regarding him as a person of interest if he did have some form of alibi.
Regards Darryl

I’m lost. The police checked CAL out at Pickfords during the Nichols investigation and somehow obtained alibis for subsequent murders? How did that work? Or do you imagine they were still beavering away investigating Lechmere as the body count mounted up?

The slaughtermen were very much persons of interest, among the public and presumably among the police since they interviewed them. There’s nothing to suggest Lechmere ever was. Compare Richardson and Davis to the slaughtermen and Lechmere.

When you say others have pointed out that the police seem not to have taken Lechmere seriously as a suspect, you are correct. I’ve certainly said that, as has Christer.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I’m lost. The police checked CAL out at Pickfords during the Nichols investigation and somehow obtained alibis for subsequent murders? How did that work? Or do you imagine they were still beavering away investigating Lechmere as the body count mounted up?

The slaughtermen were very much persons of interest, among the public and presumably among the police since they interviewed them. There’s nothing to suggest Lechmere ever was. Compare Richardson and Davis to the slaughtermen and Lechmere.

When you say others have pointed out that the police seem not to have taken Lechmere seriously as a suspect, you are correct. I’ve certainly said that, as has Christer.

I should have worded it differently, maybe the police did a routine check up on Lech after Annie's murder at Pickfords for instance
Regards Darryl

[rjpalmer]

I’m lost. The police checked CAL out at Pickfords during the Nichols investigation and somehow obtained alibis for subsequent murders? How did that work? Or do you imagine they were still beavering away investigating Lechmere as the body count mounted up?

It sounds like you are tacitly acknowledging that you are not convinced by Christer’s arguments that Chapman was killed between 3:30-4.00 am.

Had she been, then CAL would obviously have no alibi, and these musings about the police confirming his whereabouts would be superfluous and pointless.

When speculation is stacked on further speculation questions like these become muddled and paradoxical.

It suffices to say that the prosecution’s theory that Lechmere is killing women on his commute to work between 3:30-4:00 is weak, because different theories, also unproven, have to be introduced for the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders, along with the Pinchin Street torso disposal. Scobie’s jurors are going to notice that the goalposts are a moving target, and that the prosecution is willing to abandon its own theory for different, other explanations if it suits their cause.

At least Christer attempts to stay true to his theory, by shoe-horning the Chapman murder into a time slot where it didn’t occur.

[MrBarnett]

It sounds like you are tacitly acknowledging that you are not convinced by Christer’s arguments that Chapman was killed between 3:30-4.00 am.

Had she been, then CAL would obviously have no alibi, and these musings about the police confirming his whereabouts would be superfluous and pointless.

When speculation is stacked on further speculation questions like these become muddled and paradoxical.

It suffices to say that the prosecution’s theory that Lechmere is killing women on his commute to work between 3:30-4:00 is weak, because different theories, also unproven, have to be introduced for the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders, along with the Pinchin Street torso disposal. Scobie’s jurors are going to notice that the goalposts are a moving target, and that the prosecution is willing to abandon its own theory for different, other explanations if it suits their cause.

At least Christer attempts to stay true to his theory, by shoe-horning the Chapman murder into a time slot where it didn’t occur.

You could read that into it, if you were desperate to score a point. I was merely questioning how DK thought the police checking Lechmere out at work could have provided him with an alibi. DK has now acknowledged that his wording was less than clear.

I have no firm opinion about when Chapman was killed. Never have, and probably never will. So your rather unsubtle attempt to score yet another point has once again fallen flat. What I do have is an aversion to the idea of CAL having an alibi once he was on the road with his horse and cart/van. The potential for him to have had the few spare minutes it might have taken to locate and murder Chapman is enormous.

[rjpalmer]

The evidence we have is limited, and we cannot gather more in terms of checking out individual people through direct questioning. There is a partial alibi for Cross/Lechmere with regards to Chapman. From what we know, he would have been at work…

- Jeff

Another way of expressing it is that, after 130 years, he technically has no alibi—which is true of nearly everyone.

Yet, within the confines of the prosecution’s theory, it is very likely that he does have an alibi, since their argument is contingent on him commuting to work at 3.30 am, and there is strong evidence that Chapman was killed nearly two hours later than this.

It doesn’t prove CAL has an alibi, but it does prove that the prosecution’s theory is dubious

[rjpalmer]

You could read that into it, if you were desperate to score a point.

Yes, that’s what motivates us, Gary, or at least me. It’s not that we look rationally at the evidence; it’s that we are desperate. I don’t feel desperation, but if you say so…

Now you have Lechmere murdering and mutilating women during his work hours. Within the first hour and a half of his busy shift he’s picking up unfortunates and accompanying them into private houses. It’s amazing that he managed to keep his job for twenty plus years.

[JeffHamm]

Another way of expressing it is that, after 130 years, he technically has no alibi—which is true of nearly everyone.

Yet, within the confines of the prosecution’s theory, it is very likely that he does have an alibi, since their argument is contingent on him commuting to work at 3.30 am, and there is strong evidence that Chapman was killed nearly two hours later than this.

It doesn’t prove CAL has an alibi, but it does prove that the prosecution’s theory is dubious

Hi rj,

Sure, it comes down to the definition of alibi. If someone says "I was at X with these people", they have an alibi, but the alibi needs to be confirmed and verified. Until those latter steps are completed, do we call their claim an alibi? Or not? I think it is still referred to as such, though one might phrase it as "an alibi that needs to be checked out", and that's how I've been intending it's use, as an alibi that needs to be checked out, but it's the checking out that we cannot do. We're then left with evidence ("the alibi") that, if it checks out, clears him (at least of Chapman's murder), but which also does have a chance of failing that checking procedure, which we also cannot determine if it was the situation.

We're then left with having to consider what is the likelihood that his work schedule would have taken him to the vicinity of Hanbury street at that time? It might be high if, for example, Pickford's made a lot of deliveries to the market. But if the market was primarily sellers who provided their own supplies, rather than took deliveries of merchandise at the market itself, then the market would not be a probable location for him to be making a delivery, so what else is in the area that might provide him with a location to which he might have been dropping off goods at that time?

If the workings of the market were known, did the market stalls take deliveries from Pickfords, or did they take deliveries elsewhere, such as at a primary place of business (with the market being a secondary selling point), for example; or did they bring in produce from their own farms, etc? If Pickford's was unlikely to be making deliveries to the market, that removes the market as an indication he might have reason to be in that area at that time while at work. If they were known to make a lot of deliveries to the market, at that time, then that would increase the the strength of the argument for higher probabilities that he might have been in the area at the time those deliveries were made. And if that time corresponds to the time of the murder, then there would at least be a foundation upon which to draw the hypothesis that his "alibi" stands a reasonable chance of not checking out. Of course, even if we did that, we're still talking probabilities, neither of which would constitute that rock solid "proof" (they might have made rare deliveries to the market, so maybe this was one of those days and Cross/Lechmere was the delivery driver, ... - if that's allowed, then there is no evidence of innocence because we're no longer talking evidence of innocence but proof of innocence.)

And all of this type of reasoning against it checking out is built upon the premise that the police did not look into the background of Cross/Lechmere in the least little bit with regards to the Chapman murder. But if they didn't look into him about the Chapman murder, there must have been a reason for that, which is they already concluded he was not a suspect, which suggests they looked into him with regards to the Nichols murder. And even a cursory investigation of him would have turned up the name Lechmere, if indeed that was the name he used in day-to-day life. That is claimed to never have been known by the police, which requires the assumption that no checking into the background of Cross/Lechmere was ever undertaken. And, in my opinion, that assumption is unreasonable, but if it's not made, then neither the claim that his name Lechmere was unknown to the police nor the claim his alibi for the Chapman murder was never investigated, can be substantiated. So, the whole theory is built upon the foundation of an unsupported, and unreasonable, starting premise.

So, if the requirement is for undeniable innocence (proof of innocence), then fine, but that must be compared against the proof of guilt - and there is no proof of guilt. If we are comparing more probabilities evaluations, so evidence of innocence and evidence of guilt, then we see the evidence of guilt tends to be built upon a lot more very specific, low probability, unsubstantiated claims - and that makes the evidence of guilt far less weighty than the evidence of innocence.

- Jeff

[harry]

Correct in everything you say Jeff. There never was a question of proving innocence.If one wants to argue on the merits of anyone as being a suspect in the Ripper murders,one must abide by the definition of suspect as laid down by law.

[harry]

Even if you reverse the onus of proof,the result would be the same.The weight of evidence favours an innocent verdict.Innocence has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.The evidence could not be changed.

[MrBarnett]

Correct in everything you say Jeff. There never was a question of proving innocence.If one wants to argue on the merits of anyone as being a suspect in the Ripper murders,one must abide by the definition of suspect as laid down by law.

There is no definition of suspect laid down in law.

[MrBarnett]

Hi rj,

Sure, it comes down to the definition of alibi. If someone says "I was at X with these people", they have an alibi, but the alibi needs to be confirmed and verified. Until those latter steps are completed, do we call their claim an alibi? Or not? I think it is still referred to as such, though one might phrase it as "an alibi that needs to be checked out", and that's how I've been intending it's use, as an alibi that needs to be checked out, but it's the checking out that we cannot do. We're then left with evidence ("the alibi") that, if it checks out, clears him (at least of Chapman's murder), but which also does have a chance of failing that checking procedure, which we also cannot determine if it was the situation.

We're then left with having to consider what is the likelihood that his work schedule would have taken him to the vicinity of Hanbury street at that time? It might be high if, for example, Pickford's made a lot of deliveries to the market. But if the market was primarily sellers who provided their own supplies, rather than took deliveries of merchandise at the market itself, then the market would not be a probable location for him to be making a delivery, so what else is in the area that might provide him with a location to which he might have been dropping off goods at that time?

If the workings of the market were known, did the market stalls take deliveries from Pickfords, or did they take deliveries elsewhere, such as at a primary place of business (with the market being a secondary selling point), for example; or did they bring in produce from their own farms, etc? If Pickford's was unlikely to be making deliveries to the market, that removes the market as an indication he might have reason to be in that area at that time while at work. If they were known to make a lot of deliveries to the market, at that time, then that would increase the the strength of the argument for higher probabilities that he might have been in the area at the time those deliveries were made. And if that time corresponds to the time of the murder, then there would at least be a foundation upon which to draw the hypothesis that his "alibi" stands a reasonable chance of not checking out. Of course, even if we did that, we're still talking probabilities, neither of which would constitute that rock solid "proof" (they might have made rare deliveries to the market, so maybe this was one of those days and Cross/Lechmere was the delivery driver, ... - if that's allowed, then there is no evidence of innocence because we're no longer talking evidence of innocence but proof of innocence.)

And all of this type of reasoning against it checking out is built upon the premise that the police did not look into the background of Cross/Lechmere in the least little bit with regards to the Chapman murder. But if they didn't look into him about the Chapman murder, there must have been a reason for that, which is they already concluded he was not a suspect, which suggests they looked into him with regards to the Nichols murder. And even a cursory investigation of him would have turned up the name Lechmere, if indeed that was the name he used in day-to-day life. That is claimed to never have been known by the police, which requires the assumption that no checking into the background of Cross/Lechmere was ever undertaken. And, in my opinion, that assumption is unreasonable, but if it's not made, then neither the claim that his name Lechmere was unknown to the police nor the claim his alibi for the Chapman murder was never investigated, can be substantiated. So, the whole theory is built upon the foundation of an unsupported, and unreasonable, starting premise.

So, if the requirement is for undeniable innocence (proof of innocence), then fine, but that must be compared against the proof of guilt - and there is no proof of guilt. If we are comparing more probabilities evaluations, so evidence of innocence and evidence of guilt, then we see the evidence of guilt tends to be built upon a lot more very specific, low probability, unsubstantiated claims - and that makes the evidence of guilt far less weighty than the evidence of innocence.

- Jeff

So, it’s your unsupported ‘standard procedure’ claim again?

The only evidence of any kind we have are the surviving police reports where there is mention of investigation into some witnesses but not into Lechmere. If the ‘cursory’ investigation you speak of was just a matter of calling at Pickfords to see whether they had a driver named Cross who turned up for work at 4.00 each morning, why would that necessarily have revealed the name Lechmere?

[MrBarnett]

The LNWR had agents at Spitalfields market who could arrange for produce to be delivered via the LNWR to provincial centres.

[Darryl Kenyon]

So, it’s your unsupported ‘standard procedure’ claim again?

The only evidence of any kind we have are the surviving police reports where there is mention of investigation into some witnesses but not into Lechmere. If the ‘cursory’ investigation you speak of was just a matter of calling at Pickfords to see whether they had a driver named Cross who turned up for work at 4.00 each morning, why would that necessarily have revealed the name Lechmere?

Gary, the name Lechmere was known, it was in the Star on Sept 3 . What is suggested is - The police knew Lech worked at Pickfords that is beyond doubt. An officer could have done a routine follow up procedure after Annie's death to see if Lech was working that morning and were he was working. Pickfords would have ledgers on this. Perhaps he was delivering/receiving goods down near Aldgate that morning or something similar.
Regards Darryl

[MrBarnett]

Gary, the name Lechmere was known, it was in the Star on Sept 3 . What is suggested is - The police knew Lech worked at Pickfords that is beyond doubt. An officer could have done a routine follow up procedure after Annie's death to see if Lech was working that morning and were he was working. Pickfords would have ledgers on this. Perhaps he was delivering/receiving goods down near Aldgate that morning or something similar.
Regards Darryl

Hi Darryl,

The name Lechmere wasn’t known. The Star called him Carman Cross. If so much investigative work was done on Lechmere, why is it not mentioned in the surviving police reports?

And if they had gone back to Pickfords after the Chapman murder what would they have been told - ‘he was out on his horse and cart’? So they’d then have had to check when he arrived at his early delivery points and whether he had the opportunity to leave his cart for any length of time. Do you really believe all this investigative work took place and it didn’t warrant a mention in the summarised police reports?

Gary

[MrBarnett]

And don’t forget, even if the police had visited Pickfords and they did know him as both Cross and Lechmere there, they wouldn’t have felt it necessary to mention both names because that’s not how people thought at the time, right?