Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

I would like to ask a question of the people who believe Lech as a case to answer.
Suppose Lech is innocent how would you expect him to react after finding Polly ?
Well, I would expect him to seek assistance if he thought the woman was in serious need of attention or worse dead and someone was nearby.
And once they realised that Polly was probably dead, with a slight chance of her still being alive,. I would expect them to seek a policeman or perhaps a doctor
Which is err exactly what he did. How would you expect them to react ?
Regards Darryl

Harry D has asked the exact same question, Darryl. And I have told him that if you are guilty of a crime and if somebody comes upon you as you are still at the crime scene. it is not as if the culprit will do anything to make it clear that he is pleying the culprits role. Far from yelling "I did it" and brandishing the bloody knife, shouting "See?", he is much more likely to HIDE AWAY what he did and LIE about it if asked.

You say that all he did at the site was in sync with innocence.

But are you not saying that all he did AFTER PAUL ARRIVED was in sync with innocence? Becasue what he did BEFORE cannot be corroborated. There, we need to trust Lechmre on his own words to be able to say "That seems innocent".

If you couple this with my former paragraph, you will see that IF he was the killer, I actually believe that once Paul arrived, he would be more likely to lie about it than to say "Truth be told, I killed her".

Anyways, now that I have - once more - explained this matter, that really should not need any explanation at all, letīs look at how I think you reason:

I believe you think that all the carman did at the murder site is in sync with innocence, and so the matters that can point to either guilt or innocence should be interpreted as innocent as a reward for the "good behavior" he showed at the murder site. For example, Mizen said that Lechmere spoke of another PC in Bucks Row, and if that was true, it would be no good thing for the carman, even less so if he lied about it in court when Mizen divulged it.

But since the carman was so very nice and law-abiding at the murder scene, letīs instead make Mizen the liar - or misunderstanding or havinf a hearing impariment, and getting thing wrong. Problem solved!

And it IS - one of them. But not all.

If we for a moment drop kind-hearted you from the narrators role and put cynic old me in charge instead, what happens?

Let me show you!

First, I take a look at the circumstances under which Lechmere "found" Nichols. If he found her at a stage when she was already long gone, it wouold speak in favour of his innocence, and more or less eradicate any possibility of guilt.

But he didnīt, did he? He instead found her at a remove in time that is perfectly consistent with him being the killer. In fact, two forensic physicians agree that she would likely have bled out fully in the interval of 3-5 minutes, although they DO say that she could perhaps have bled for up to 10-15 minutes.

Any way we look at it, Lechmere cannot be taken out of the picture on the blood evidence. Instead, with the 3-5 minute interval, he is the only likely killer - which is why it is good for him that Ingemar Thiblin said that it COULD perhaps be up to 10-15, minutes. It is a possibility, but a less likely one than 3-5 minutes, and the longer the time, the lesser the likelihood.

Once I realize this, and once I know that no other person has been recorded on the site in the minutes preceding Lechmere, I know that I have to look for whether or not there are anomalies involved that should not be there in the ideal case.

In the ideal case, he shoould have told the court that his name was Charles Lechmere. If he did, there would be name issue. But he didnīt.

In the ideal case, the clothing should have revealed all the damage done to Nichols. But it didnīt.

In the ideal case, Mizen and Lechmere should have agreed about the conversation they had. But they didnīt.

In the ideal case, IF the two were to disagree, the story Lechmere told Mizen should at least not be shaped in a way that was 100 per cent consistent with the carman having crafted a lie that was tailormade to take himself past the police. But it was.

In the ideal case, Lechmere should have said "Of course, mate!" when Paul suggested that the two should prop Nichols up. But he didnīt.

In the ideal case, Paul shaould have heard and seen Lechmere walking in front of himself. But he didnīt.

In the ideal case, Lechmere shgould not be a perfect geographical fit for the other murders in the series. But he was. And in this context, it must be pointed out that the fewest look at this matter the way we need to. Most will say "We know he passed through Bucks Row and that he worked at Broad Street, so of course he had to traverse Spitalfields!" And "Of course the murders happened along his road - it was the Whitechapel killer, and he killed in Whitechapel!"

The full truth of the matter is that the murders committed could of course have been committed anywhere in the East End, in Bow, Shadwell, Poplar, Limehouse .. Anywhere!

But they happened in Spitalfields and Whitechapel.

And Lechmere could have worked anywhere in London, taking him in any direction as he left 22 Doveton Street. He would have gone towards Hackney, Mile End, Dalston, Canary Wharf... Anywhere!

But of all the 360 degrees of the scope, he actually walked the very few ones making up Spitalfields.

The match is a perfect one - and it is a statistically very, very narrow choice.

But all of these things, you are ready and willing to put down to sheer coincidence. Because you think he behaved like a good boy at the murder site. Which is EXACTLY what he would do if he wanted to impress upon Paul and the inquest that he was an innocent man.

Itīs always a choice between that is likeliest, Darryl. And we differ a lot when we make that call.

[Fisherman]

In my post 2715, I wrote that the Home Office described the witness testimony delivered by Long, Cadosch and Richardson as "unreliable". They didnīt, they used the term "doubtful". The meaning is the same, nevertheless: The Home Office were no fans of the three witnesses.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not at all, Trevor. I have my own independent take on the name issue. Initially, I was of the same mind as you and many others, but as I’ve researched CAL’s background my opinion has changed.

Do you think that if he had only given the name Cross to the police and the coroner, and that was a name that checked out at Pickfords, the police would have kept digging until they discovered his real name?

It is not a crime to use an alias especially as it was a name associated with him. Where is the intent to deceive in that ?

Did the police care as to what name he used all they were interested in was his evidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

In my post 2715, I wrote that the Home Office described the witness testimony delivered by Long, Cadosch and Richardson as "unreliable". They didnīt, they used the term "doubtful". The meaning is the same, nevertheless: The Home Office were no fans of the three witnesses.

And I have quoted examples in the past as to question the reliabilty of police witnesses, so it cuts both ways in the grand scheme of things, If the civilan witness testimony is unsafe, the same can be said of the police witnesses especially the beat officers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

And I have quoted examples in the past as to question the reliabilty of police witnesses, so it cuts both ways in the grand scheme of things, If the civilan witness testimony is unsafe, the same can be said of the police witnesses especially the beat officers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So when you pit a civilian witness against a beat pc, who would you say is the more dodgy source?

[Trevor Marriott]

So when you pit a civilian witness against a beat pc, who would you say is the more dodgy source?

in the case of the WM it has been proved that there are questions marks hanging over the testimony of both catergories

www.trevormarriott.co,uk

[mpriestnall]

"In my post 2713123..."

[Fisherman]

in the case of the WM it has been proved that there are questions marks hanging over the testimony of both catergories

www.trevormarriott.co,uk

Categories? Yes. Individuals? Thats another matter.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Harry D has asked the exact same question, Darryl. And I have told him that if you are guilty of a crime and if somebody comes upon you as you are still at the crime scene. it is not as if the culprit will do anything to make it clear that he is pleying the culprits role. Far from yelling "I did it" and brandishing the bloody knife, shouting "See?", he is much more likely to HIDE AWAY what he did and LIE about it if asked.

You say that all he did at the site was in sync with innocence.

But are you not saying that all he did AFTER PAUL ARRIVED was in sync with innocence? Becasue what he did BEFORE cannot be corroborated. There, we need to trust Lechmre on his own words to be able to say "That seems innocent".

If you couple this with my former paragraph, you will see that IF he was the killer, I actually believe that once Paul arrived, he would be more likely to lie about it than to say "Truth be told, I killed her".

Anyways, now that I have - once more - explained this matter, that really should not need any explanation at all, letīs look at how I think you reason:

I believe you think that all the carman did at the murder site is in sync with innocence, and so the matters that can point to either guilt or innocence should be interpreted as innocent as a reward for the "good behavior" he showed at the murder site. For example, Mizen said that Lechmere spoke of another PC in Bucks Row, and if that was true, it would be no good thing for the carman, even less so if he lied about it in court when Mizen divulged it.

But since the carman was so very nice and law-abiding at the murder scene, letīs instead make Mizen the liar - or misunderstanding or havinf a hearing impariment, and getting thing wrong. Problem solved!

And it IS - one of them. But not all.

If we for a moment drop kind-hearted you from the narrators role and put cynic old me in charge instead, what happens?

Let me show you!

First, I take a look at the circumstances under which Lechmere "found" Nichols. If he found her at a stage when she was already long gone, it wouold speak in favour of his innocence, and more or less eradicate any possibility of guilt.

But he didnīt, did he? He instead found her at a remove in time that is perfectly consistent with him being the killer. In fact, two forensic physicians agree that she would likely have bled out fully in the interval of 3-5 minutes, although they DO say that she could perhaps have bled for up to 10-15 minutes.

Any way we look at it, Lechmere cannot be taken out of the picture on the blood evidence. Instead, with the 3-5 minute interval, he is the only likely killer - which is why it is good for him that Ingemar Thiblin said that it COULD perhaps be up to 10-15, minutes. It is a possibility, but a less likely one than 3-5 minutes, and the longer the time, the lesser the likelihood.

Once I realize this, and once I know that no other person has been recorded on the site in the minutes preceding Lechmere, I know that I have to look for whether or not there are anomalies involved that should not be there in the ideal case.

In the ideal case, he shoould have told the court that his name was Charles Lechmere. If he did, there would be name issue. But he didnīt.

In the ideal case, the clothing should have revealed all the damage done to Nichols. But it didnīt.

In the ideal case, Mizen and Lechmere should have agreed about the conversation they had. But they didnīt.

In the ideal case, IF the two were to disagree, the story Lechmere told Mizen should at least not be shaped in a way that was 100 per cent consistent with the carman having crafted a lie that was tailormade to take himself past the police. But it was.

In the ideal case, Lechmere should have said "Of course, mate!" when Paul suggested that the two should prop Nichols up. But he didnīt.

In the ideal case, Paul shaould have heard and seen Lechmere walking in front of himself. But he didnīt.

In the ideal case, Lechmere shgould not be a perfect geographical fit for the other murders in the series. But he was. And in this context, it must be pointed out that the fewest look at this matter the way we need to. Most will say "We know he passed through Bucks Row and that he worked at Broad Street, so of course he had to traverse Spitalfields!" And "Of course the murders happened along his road - it was the Whitechapel killer, and he killed in Whitechapel!"

The full truth of the matter is that the murders committed could of course have been committed anywhere in the East End, in Bow, Shadwell, Poplar, Limehouse .. Anywhere!

But they happened in Spitalfields and Whitechapel.

And Lechmere could have worked anywhere in London, taking him in any direction as he left 22 Doveton Street. He would have gone towards Hackney, Mile End, Dalston, Canary Wharf... Anywhere!

But of all the 360 degrees of the scope, he actually walked the very few ones making up Spitalfields.

The match is a perfect one - and it is a statistically very, very narrow choice.

But all of these things, you are ready and willing to put down to sheer coincidence. Because you think he behaved like a good boy at the murder site. Which is EXACTLY what he would do if he wanted to impress upon Paul and the inquest that he was an innocent man.

Itīs always a choice between that is likeliest, Darryl. And we differ a lot when we make that call.

Robert Paul , 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman.
He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away .

The Coroner: Whitechapel-road is busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped that way?
John Neil, police-constable, 97J: Oh yes, sir. I saw a number of women in the main road going home. At that time any one could have got away.

Seems very likely to me that Lech had time and the darkness [ Paul didn't notice the cut throat, so I doubt he could give any description whatever of Lech, even if he saw him hurrying away ] and the opportunity for a getaway[ Whitechapel road, or Old montague st perhaps, if he wanted to take a quieter route and not blend in with any crowd ].

I am going to have to disagree with you Fish. I think Lech acted entirely in the way an innocent man would.

Regards Darryl

[Darryl Kenyon]

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

As a postie of many years before items were scanned when delivered we used to have a small book [ ledger if you will ], which people would sign and put the time on when they received a Recorded delivery or a special delivery packet. I am sure Lech, or any carman would carry something similar for the works foreman [ if you will ], to sign and date and time when he received or when goods were picked up.
All it would take is for one officer to check said book out to see - as an example that lech dropped some goods off at Kearly and Tonges, Mitre Square at 5:30 on the morning of Annie's death .
Regards Darryl

[Fiver]

So when you pit a civilian witness against a beat pc, who would you say is the more dodgy source?

When it comes to timing, you go with the civilian witness (Robert Paul) against three beat constables (PC Neil, PC Mizen, PC Thain).

When it comes to what was said, sometimes you go with one beat constable (PC Mizen) against two civilian witnesses (Robert Paul, Charles Lechmere).

That's not counting the times you ignore all three (PC Mizen, Robert Paul, and Charles Lechmere) when their statements don't fit your theory.

[Fisherman]

Robert Paul , 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman.
He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away .

The Coroner: Whitechapel-road is busy in the early morning, I believe. Could anybody have escaped that way?
John Neil, police-constable, 97J: Oh yes, sir. I saw a number of women in the main road going home. At that time any one could have got away.

Seems very likely to me that Lech had time and the darkness [ Paul didn't notice the cut throat, so I doubt he could give any description whatever of Lech, even if he saw him hurrying away ] and the opportunity for a getaway[ Whitechapel road, or Old montague st perhaps, if he wanted to take a quieter route and not blend in with any crowd ].

I am going to have to disagree with you Fish. I think Lech acted entirely in the way an innocent man would.

Regards Darryl

Yes, you THINK he did - but you cannot possibly know. And you have no reason for thinking that he acted entirely in the way an innocent man would, even in the instances when his story is not corroborated, because you do not know him as such. Not do I, of course!
You seemingly notice what he did when he was under observation, and when he accordingly WOULD act innocently - and then you accept it as an indication of how he was entirely innocent throughout.

You do it that way, I do it another way.

But regardless of that, it remains that by saying that you think he was entirely innocent, you also accept each and every point I listed in my post to you as being coincidental. We need to keep that in mind when assessing your contribution.

[Fiver]

In my post 2715, I wrote that the Home Office described the witness testimony delivered by Long, Cadosch and Richardson as "unreliable". They didnīt, they used the term "doubtful". The meaning is the same, nevertheless: The Home Office were no fans of the three witnesses.

Either way, you provided an inaccurate summary, just like you did with Dew.

"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him. Richardson is a market porter. Again if the evidence of Mrs. Long is correct that she saw the deceased at 5:30 a.m. then the evidence of Dr. Phillips as to probable time of death is incorrect. He was called and saw the body at 6:20 a.m. [sic] and he then gives it as his opinion that death occurred about two hours earlier, viz: 4:20 a.m. hence the evidence of Mrs. Long which appeared to be so important to the Coroner, must be looked upon with some amount of doubt, which is to be regretted." -Swanson

That's not a blanket dismissal of Long, Cadosch and Richardson - it's an acknowledgement that their testimony disagreed with Dr Phillips.

Phillips himself was not near as confident in the time of death as you think.

"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.

[Fiver]

Perhaps it would be more productive if I stuck my fingers in my ears and repeated ‘Alibi, Alibi, Alibi’ ad nauseam.

What would be more productive is for you to provide sources, stop misrepresenting what other posters say, and stop giving Fisherman a pass when he incorrectly states what sources say.

Unlike the rest of the Fisherman Fanclub, you have researched and provided useful information, such as the 1876 article on Charles Cross, so I know you can provide productive posts.

[Fiver]

A further point to R J Palmer, on whether or not Charles Lechmere was available to the police early or late in the inquest process:

-On the 9th of August 1888, the inquest into the death of Martha Tabram commenced. On this first day of it, John Saunders Reeves, the finder of Tabrams dead body, testified.

-On the 10th of September 1888, the inquest into Annie Chapmans death commenced. On this first day of it, John Davies, the finder of Chapmans dead body, testified.

-On the 1st of October 1888, the inquest into Elizabeth Strides death commenced. On this first day of it, Lewis Diemschitz, the finder of Strides dead body, testified.

-On the 4th of October 1888, the inquest into Catherine Eddowes death commenced. On this first day of it, Edward Watkins, the finder of Eddowesīdead body, testified.

-On the 12th of November 1888, the inquest into Mary Jane Kellys death commenced. On this first day of it, Thomas Bowyer, the finder of Kellys dead body, testified.

-On the 17th of July 1889, the inquest into the death of Alice MacKenzie commenced. On this first day of it, Walter Andrews, the finder of MacKenzies dead body, testified.

It was standard procedure that the people involved in finding the bodies of murder victims witnessed on the first day of the inquest. Accordingly, if it had been known on Saturday the 1:st of September 1888 that Charles Lechmere was the finder of the dead body of Polly Nichols, he would have been summoned to testify on that day together with PCs Neil and Mizen.

PC Mizen did not testify on the first day, which undermines your theory.

Since it was not known that Lechmere was the finder, PC Neil testified as the finder of the body. At this stage, Mizens role and his interaction with Lechmere and Paul was not known to the police. If it had been, he would have been called to testify on the first day of the inquest.

How could the police possibly not know about "Mizens role and his interaction with Lechmere and Paul" before the Inquest?

PC Neil testified that he spoke to PC Mizen. Unless the police were complete idiots, they would have gotten a statement from PC Mizen. Unless Mizen deliberately held something back, the police would have known before the Inquest that "a carman who passed in company with another man" had told Mizen that he needed to go to to Bucks Row. Unless the police were complete idiots, they would have known that those two men had found the body before PC Neil.