Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

You should not hang your hat on the credibility of professionals too strongly.

Then on whom should I hang it? You? Trevor?

Professionals are our best bet, but they can disagree at times. And it is anybody´s prerogative to choose for themselves who and what they believe in. In my case, it has people like you claiming that all choices I make are tainted by my belief that Charles Lechmere was the killer. It is a lazy approach, but one that I am terrifyingly used to anyway.

I have no problems saying that Charles Hebbert was probably correct on his take that the four torsos he examined were killed by the same man. I have just as little problems saying that Hebbert was probably wrong when saying that the Ripper and the Torso man were not one and the same.
He based bis first verdict on vast medical competence and experience. He based the second one on crininal antrhopology and a faulty memory. And what does this insight buy me? Scorn. "He cherrypicks!"
I just could not care less, though.

If I remember rightly, Trevor Marriott found medical experts who concurred that the killer could not remove the victim's organs, but I take it you do not bow to their authority?

Other experts had no problems saying it could be done, Harry. You know that as well as I do.

[Fisherman]

What evidence do you have to support Lechmere as JTR. It's a simple question.

Yes, it´s as simple as mine: If you are dismissing evidence, you have hopefully seen evidence presented. If you tell me which evidence it is you dismiss and on what grounds you dismiss it, it may well be that I waste time on you and give you an answer. Be warned though: my patience is limited on the issue.

[Harry D]

Professionals are our best bet, but they can disagree at times.

I guess it depends what we're talking about. At the end of the day, Scobie's conclusion is still a subjective one, and he is not infallible. Furthermore, we don't know for certain what information he was fed or how accurate said information was. If Trevor's interaction with Scobie can be relied upon, there are already reasons to doubt this.
People can be easily misled, particularly when certain parties are pushing an angle for a documentary and might wish (unconsciously or otherwise) to lead their expert to the conclusion they want. It is uncanny how often theorists will find experts to back up their particular theory, like in Trevor's case with the organ removal, or even outside the Ripper world. JFK anyone?

In my case, it has people like you claiming that all choices I make are tainted by my belief that Charles Lechmere was the killer. It is a lazy approach, but one that I am terrifyingly used to anyway.

"Tainted" is a bit overdramatic, but you are operating under a cognitive bias. As JeffHamm quite rightly put it, any innocent behaviour on Lechmere's part comes out guilty, and any suspicious behaviour comes out guilty. If Lechmere acted like an innocent bystander, it's only because he was imitating one. If he stopped a passer-by, it's because he's a psychopath. If he disagreed with Mizen, it's because he was trying to get away with murder (what was Paul's excuse?). There is no appealing to this kind of mindset, because it's a faith-based argument.

[MrBarnett]

I did not claim that Pickfords drivers worked 18 hour shifts. I posted an article from the Standard 29 June, 1891 that showed Pickford's (and other) carman claimed that they worked 14 to 18 hour days.






You continue to puts words in my mouth. Nothing in what you say matches anything I said and some of it is the complete opposite of what I said. Is you reading comprehension really that poor?

As I noted in Post #1890.

"As I have already repeatedly stated, Pickford's often assigned "van guards" or "van boys" to prevent pilferage by the general public or their own carmen. The Old Baiely records, which I have cited before, are full of examples.

Pickford's drivers were given a schedule of pickups and deliveries. Those pickups and deliveries were witnessed and signed for. Strange time gaps would be noticeable. And every pickup and delivery would be a chance for one, possibly several people, to notice unexplained bloodstains on the driver. Pickfords was a general goods service, not a slaughterhouse."

Yes, I think you put this forward as part of your argument that Lechmere would have been too knackered at the end of his long shift to visit his mother and daughter on a Saturday evening.

The meeting of men in the same line as him was on a Saturday evening and it broke up ‘at a very late hour’.

So you made an unsubstantiated claim and in an effort to substantiate it provided us with evidence that undermined it.

Did Pickfords assign van guards to their horseflesh carts?

[MrBarnett]

Here’s my contribution. This driver worked from 8.30 to 11.00, so perhaps Lechmere worked from 4.00 until 6.30.

And perhaps he had Saturdays off.

And perhaps he also had several hours of breaks during his shift.

And perhaps he had no van guard.

And perhaps he was able to swerve off his delivery route without it being noticed - as the Pickfords man did who took stolen goods to a shop off his route.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I´ve done the work and found the evidence - how can that result in you giving him a clean bill?

You still have not answered that part, which is the only important one. The acts of what seems to be innocence at the murder site are totally unimportant in comparison. They are the question, the follow up check is the answer.

Why not comment on that?[/B]

What evidence please tell. What you have done is brought conjecture to the table, nothing more, nothing less.

For instance you say that [ post 2717 ] - In my post 2715, I wrote that the Home Office described the witness testimony delivered by Long, Cadosch and Richardson as "unreliable". They didn´t, they used the term "doubtful". The meaning is the same, nevertheless: The Home Office were no fans of the three witnesses.

Yet if you bothered to read Fivers post 2728 you would know you are going beyond the truth , so here it is - 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.

Yes the police may doubt Mrs Long but a complete dismissal of a later killing time ? Conjecture
And even if Phillips was right and the murder occurred around 4:20 wasn't Lech supposed to be at work at 4.

You mention the name issue, yet how do you know that Lech wasn't known by the name Cross at Pickfords ? Conjecture
In fact with my conjecture I feel he was known by that name at Pickfords otherwise he wouldn't have given Cross as his surname in the 1876 accident.

The fact that no one , not the police his work colleagues etc would know that Lech was Cross even though thousands of people would have seen his address in The Star .
Complete conjecture. And if I do say so quite dumbfounding that no one would.

The Mizen scam, mere conjecture in what could have been a simple misunderstanding and the idea that Paul would agree with Lech when he was supposed to not hear what was said [ as I believe the scam was proposed, apologies if I am wrong ], again conjecture.

The idea that the crossing of Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning fits Lech like a glove and possibly hardly anyone else, conjecture How do you know that ? It was quite common back in 1888 for people to be up early and about to start a 14 hr shift at work - Paul, on his way to work , Bucks Row 3:40 . Crow, on his way back from work, George yard 3:30 . Reeves, on his way out to seek work, George yard 4:45 . And if you look at George Yard it is pretty central to the C5 . So could not Crow coming home from work or Reeves getting up earlier to seek work easily traverse the murder sites ? Seems as logical to me as lech killing going to work. but that is conjecture on my part. Just as it is on yours Fish , that lech killed his victims going to work, cleaned himself up and hid the body parts in the process at Pickfords or elsewhere.

Regards Darryl

[Fisherman]

I guess it depends what we're talking about. At the end of the day, Scobie's conclusion is still a subjective one, and he is not infallible.

Subjective? No more than any other conclusion drawn by a professional barrister, I´m afraid. Scobies profession is what makes him better suited than anybody else to have an opinion on the matter, would you not agree? So maybe we should say "informed" instead of "subjective", Harry?

Furthermore, we don't know for certain what information he was fed or how accurate said information was. If Trevor's interaction with Scobie can be relied upon, there are already reasons to doubt this.

Trevors alleged interaction woth James Scobie has been described by Trevor as, respectively, A/ Scobie saying that if he was handed more evidence, he MAY change his mind and B/ Scobie saying that if he had been handed more evidence, he WOULD have changed his mind.
That is the exact kind of information I immediately dismiss on account of how the originator has compromised himself.
What is your take on somethingmlike this, Harry? Good and useful information?

People can be easily misled, particularly when certain parties are pushing an angle for a documentary and might wish (unconsciously or otherwise) to lead their expert to the conclusion they want. It is uncanny how often theorists will find experts to back up their particular theory, like in Trevor's case with the organ removal, or even outside the Ripper world. JFK anyone?

Before you have a case, please prove that Scobie was "misled". There are two schools in the "Scobie was sold out" disaster. The first one is the milder type, where it is only said that Scobie only saw the accusatory evidence. Such a thing would not mean that his verdict was in any way wrong if he was only asked to see if that accusatory evidence sufficed for a modern court case.
The nore frivolous fraction instead hint at Scobie being lied to, in which case his verdict would be of no value. That is of course a wet dream for many naysayers, and so one can see the attraction. However, it applies that A/ serious film companies like Blink Films do not have an agenda comprising lying to expert witnesses, B/ If Scobie had been lied to, why would he not burn Blink Films on the stake publically for it?, and C/ such allegations must be proven before they can have any impact oin anything but the truthfullness of the ones suggesting it.

"Tainted" is a bit overdramatic, but you are operating under a cognitive bias.

It is not a bias to look into a suspect, Harry. A bias is when you cannot tell the evidence apart on account of being too blinkered. And if we go by Scobie, I am not the one having problems telling the evidence apart.

As JeffHamm quite rightly put it, any innocent behaviour on Lechmere's part comes out guilty, and any suspicious behaviour comes out guilty.

In a situation like the one Lechmere found himself as Paul arrived, if he was the killer, then any innocent behaviour on Lechmeres behalf WAS guilty. There is no bias involved in pointing that out. Before you shout "Bias!" you need to be able to identify it.

If Lechmere acted like an innocent bystander, it's only because he was imitating one.

Not if he was innocent. But if he was the killer. The problem only arises when the behaviour is cited as proof of innocence, disregarding how it is the exact behaviour a guilty party would ALSO engage in.
It is not that behaviour that tells the story - it is the ensuing checkout if there is MORE, Harry. Like namechanging. Like disagreeing with the police. Like walking the exact smallish area where the other murders were committed.

If he stopped a passer-by, it's because he's a psychopath. If he disagreed with Mizen, it's because he was trying to get away with murder (what was Paul's excuse?). There is no appealing to this kind of mindset, because it's a faith-based argument.

If there are too many such matters for it to be a string of mere coincidences, then it is a faith-based argument to claim there is nothing pointing to guilt. I am not the one overstepping the line of logic. You are.

[Fisherman]

What evidence please tell. What you have done is brought conjecture to the table, nothing more, nothing less.

For instance you say that [ post 2717 ] - In my post 2715, I wrote that the Home Office described the witness testimony delivered by Long, Cadosch and Richardson as "unreliable". They didn´t, they used the term "doubtful". The meaning is the same, nevertheless: The Home Office were no fans of the three witnesses.

Yet if you bothered to read Fivers post 2728 you would know you are going beyond the truth , so here it is - 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.

Yes the police may doubt Mrs Long but a complete dismissal of a later killing time ? Conjecture
And even if Phillips was right and the murder occurred around 4:20 wasn't Lech supposed to be at work at 4.

You mention the name issue, yet how do you know that Lech wasn't known by the name Cross at Pickfords ? Conjecture
In fact with my conjecture I feel he was known by that name at Pickfords otherwise he wouldn't have given Cross as his surname in the 1876 accident.

The fact that no one , not the police his work colleagues etc would know that Lech was Cross even though thousands of people would have seen his address in The Star .
Complete conjecture. And if I do say so quite dumbfounding that no one would.

The Mizen scam, mere conjecture in what could have been a simple misunderstanding and the idea that Paul would agree with Lech when he was supposed to not hear what was said [ as I believe the scam was proposed, apologies if I am wrong ], again conjecture.

The idea that the crossing of Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning fits Lech like a glove and possibly hardly anyone else, conjecture How do you know that ? It was quite common back in 1888 for people to be up early and about to start a 14 hr shift at work - Paul, on his way to work , Bucks Row 3:40 . Crow, on his way back from work, George yard 3:30 . Reeves, on his way out to seek work, George yard 4:45 . And if you look at George Yard it is pretty central to the C5 . So could not Crow coming home from work or Reeves getting up earlier to seek work easily traverse the murder sites ? Seems as logical to me as lech killing going to work. but that is conjecture on my part. Just as it is on yours Fish , that lech killed his victims going to work, cleaned himself up and hid the body parts in the process at Pickfords or elsewhere.

Regards Darryl

Too long and too uninformed. I will just pick the one reoccuring point you make towards the end:

"The idea that the crossing of Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning fits Lech like a glove and possibly hardly anyone else, conjecture How do you know that ? It was quite common back in 1888 for people to be up early and about to start a 14 hr shift at work - Paul, on his way to work , Bucks Row 3:40 . Crow, on his way back from work, George yard 3:30 . Reeves, on his way out to seek work, George yard 4:45 ."

Now, Darryl, lets be honest: Where did I say that Lechmere was perhaps the only person to pass through the area in the early mornings?

I never did, did I?

So why is it that you make the claim?

Perhaps becasue you want to make me look a tad stupid and uniformed?

Well, we can´t have that, can we?

So let´s instead tell the story the way it SHOULD be told:

Charles Lechmere was found standing alone at the murder site of Polly Nichols. As he was observed by Paul, there was no telling for how long a time he had been there. His presence at the murder site is perfectly in sync with him being the killer, since we know that Nichols would go on bleeding for many minutes after Lechmere left her.

So, once we know - and admit - this, who is by far and away the likeliest killer of Polly Nichols, going on this piece of information only?

Is it Robert Paul?

Is it Alfred Crowe?

Is it John Saunders Reeves?

Or is it Charles Lechmere?

Let me emphasize this:

It is WRONG to bring up these men or any other people living in and/or traversing the area as if their presence would in any way make themselves compatible to Lechmere as the potential killer of Polly Nichols.

And before you understand this, you are simply unfit to discuss the case. Sorry, but some lessons must be learned: Do not misrepresent what I am saying. And do not claim that living in an area makes you as likely a killer as somebody who has actually been found with the VERY recently killed victim!

[barnflatwyngarde]

Too long and too uninformed. I will just pick the one reoccuring point you make towards the end:

"The idea that the crossing of Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning fits Lech like a glove and possibly hardly anyone else, conjecture How do you know that ? It was quite common back in 1888 for people to be up early and about to start a 14 hr shift at work - Paul, on his way to work , Bucks Row 3:40 . Crow, on his way back from work, George yard 3:30 . Reeves, on his way out to seek work, George yard 4:45 ."

Now, Darryl, lets be honest: Where did I say that Lechmere was perhaps the only person to pass through the area in the early mornings?

I never did, did I?

So why is it that you make the claim?

Perhaps becasue you want to make me look a tad stupid and uniformed?

Well, we can´t have that, can we?

So let´s instead tell the story the way it SHOULD be told:

Charles Lechmere was found standing alone at the murder site of Polly Nichols. As he was observed by Paul, there was no telling for how long a time he had been there. His presence at the murder site is perfectly in sync with him being the killer, since we know that Nichols would go on bleeding for many minutes after Lechmere left her.

So, once we know - and admit - this, who is by far and away the likeliest killer of Polly Nichols, going on this piece of information only?

Is it Robert Paul?

Is it Alfred Crowe?

Is it John Saunders Reeves?

Or is it Charles Lechmere?

Let me emphasize this:

It is WRONG to bring up these men or any other people living in and/or traversing the area as if their presence would in any way make themselves compatible to Lechmere as the potential killer of Polly Nichols.

And before you understand this, you are simply unfit to discuss the case. Sorry, but some lessons must be learned: Do not misrepresent what I am saying. And do not claim that living in an area makes you as likely a killer as somebody who has actually been found with the VERY recently killed victim!

No need to screech!

[rjpalmer]

Something I thought of when walking the dog, RJ:

You suggest that Dew was perhaps member of a task force, designed to smoke Robert Paul out, and that he met Lechmere during this phase, which was why he knew the latter to be middle-aged.

But if this was so, why would he conceal his part from the readers? And moreover, how could he be unaware that Paul was found, at long last…?

Well, we don't need to waste too much time on this, as we are both merely speculating. "Task force" is overstating it.

My thought is that Dew clearly remembers a time when Paul could not be located, and contemporary reports indicate that there was indeed something odd about Paul's belated entry to the inquest, along with his less than cheerful & accommodating attitude. This suggests Dew's memory is partially correct. And, of course, there is nothing strange about a copper who was in H-Division in 1888 having some memories of these events. I prefer a more nuanced approach than broad strokes with a tar brush.

Depending on the names and addresses of Paul's associates, the police may have briefly looked for him on H-Division turf, and this is what Dew is vaguely alluding to, or recalling. My suggestion of Dew's involvement is merely a reasonable deduction, but not a proven fact.

Later, Paul is actually found in bed by J-Division (we don't know this either--it's a reasonable guess) and, after 50 years, Dew is not necessarily going to remember a positive result carried out by officers in a different division. All he remembers is his own unsuccessful role. That's how memory works, old boy.

RP

[Darryl Kenyon]

Too long and too uninformed. I will just pick the one reoccuring point you make towards the end:

"The idea that the crossing of Whitechapel in the early hours of the morning fits Lech like a glove and possibly hardly anyone else, conjecture How do you know that ? It was quite common back in 1888 for people to be up early and about to start a 14 hr shift at work - Paul, on his way to work , Bucks Row 3:40 . Crow, on his way back from work, George yard 3:30 . Reeves, on his way out to seek work, George yard 4:45 ."

Now, Darryl, lets be honest: Where did I say that Lechmere was perhaps the only person to pass through the area in the early mornings?

I never did, did I?

So why is it that you make the claim?

Perhaps becasue you want to make me look a tad stupid and uniformed?

Well, we can´t have that, can we?

So let´s instead tell the story the way it SHOULD be told:

Charles Lechmere was found standing alone at the murder site of Polly Nichols. As he was observed by Paul, there was no telling for how long a time he had been there. His presence at the murder site is perfectly in sync with him being the killer, since we know that Nichols would go on bleeding for many minutes after Lechmere left her.

So, once we know - and admit - this, who is by far and away the likeliest killer of Polly Nichols, going on this piece of information only?

Is it Robert Paul?

Is it Alfred Crowe?

Is it John Saunders Reeves?

Or is it Charles Lechmere?

Let me emphasize this:

It is WRONG to bring up these men or any other people living in and/or traversing the area as if their presence would in any way make themselves compatible to Lechmere as the potential killer of Polly Nichols.

And before you understand this, you are simply unfit to discuss the case. Sorry, but some lessons must be learned: Do not misrepresent what I am saying. And do not claim that living in an area makes you as likely a killer as somebody who has actually been found with the VERY recently killed victim!

I don't claim to be an expert , but to say I am unfit to discuss the case is a personnel insult against me . Everybody as a view , yes some may be more experienced and investigated the relevant points more than I ever will but to say I am unfit to discuss the case . When you will not acknowledge any points or posts whatsoever by someone who in my opinion makes good point after good point and constantly ends up correcting you [ see my last post ].
Sorry but I have lost all respect for you

[Darryl Kenyon]

PS - Yes you may not have used the term " Fits like a glove " But ,for instance from one of your posts

I can name ten thousand London Streets that were not in line with Lechmere being the Whitechapel murderer, who did away with Tabram, Chapman and Kelly. But out of all the streets where the eviscerator could have chosen, he had to - each and every time he killed in Whitechapel - choose streets that lend themselves perfectly to point the carman out. That is incredibly unlucky, or a sign of guilt. It COULD have been a point of innocence, had the killer only managed to stay away from Lechmere´s paths. But no such luck!

So you are saying that the streets in Whitechapel point perfectly to Lech . . "I know I will kill someone else on the way to work, at roughly the same time on the very street were I encountered a policeman just after a week ago when I was seen with a dead woman. Even though the police may have a covert operation on me and know that Hanbury st is somewhere between my workplace and home " So much for the cool and calculating killer there , Anyone in Whitechapel with half an excuse could traversed Bucks row, George yard, Hanbury st, or Millers court in the early hours. Yes, they may not have been seen with a dead woman but that doesn't negate from the fact that the murders were within a short radius which say someone living on Thrawl st could easily reach.

And where is your evidence that Lech went down Dorset st for instance [ he could have but that is not evidence but conjecture ]

Yes , he may have found Polly but you know as well as I do that the killer could have fled a couple of minutes before lech came upon Polly . And until there is a definitive answer on the blood oozing and how long Polly was dead that can always be the case.

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

[Fiver]

Yes, I think you put this forward as part of your argument that Lechmere would have been too knackered at the end of his long shift to visit his mother and daughter on a Saturday evening.

I never made the argument that "Lechmere would have been too knackered at the end of his long shift to visit his mother and daughter on a Saturday evening". Nothing I have said even implied it.

I did point out that the timing of the Stride and Eddowes murders fits very poorly with Charles Lechmere being the killer.

* CAL had to be to work at 4am. He likely woke up at 3am, perhaps earlier.
* Elizabeth Stride was killed between 12:45am and 1am.
* Catherine Eddowes was killed between 1:35am and 1:45am.

So for CAL to be the Ripper he would have to have get up three hours early (on his day off, no less) or he would have to stay up for 23 hours straight. Neither seems likely for a man pushing forty.

OTOH, visiting his mother and daughter on a Saturday evening would have been easy for Charles Lechmere, unless he had a long shift. If he got off work at 10pm, his daughter likely would already have been in bed. If he got off at 6pm, he could have strolled to his mother's place, had dinner with his mother and daughter, spent a few hours with them, and gotten to bed at his normal time.

[Fiver]

The meeting of men in the same line as him was on a Saturday evening and it broke up ‘at a very late hour’.

So you made an unsubstantiated claim and in an effort to substantiate it provided us with evidence that undermined it.

You attacking a position I never held disproves nothing.

As you note, a meeting of men in the same line as Charles Allen was on a Saturday evening and it broke up at a very late hour. You've also provided evidence that a Pickford's driver in 1897 worked from 8:30am to 11pm.

Men who started work at 8:30am would have a much easier time staying up to a "very late hour" than men who started work at 4am.

[Fiver]

Did Pickfords assign van guards to their horseflesh carts?

So far, you have provided no evidence that Pickfords had "horseflesh carts".