Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

And you can substantiate these "maybe's" I presume? You've requested I substantiate my suggestions that the police would look into the backgrounds of those who found the body, otherwise you dismiss such things with pejorative adjectives while failing to present any evidence that the suggestion is unfounded. We know, for example, the police did look into Richardson for the Chapman murder. We don't have the primary investigative notes, sadly, and the summary documents focus on the investigation of those who were considered potential suspects. So, if people like Cross/Lechmere, and Paul, and Richardson, were quickly cleared of suspicion, then they never would have been considered suspects for a sufficient period to be likely to show up in the records we have, making us lucky to have the reference to Richardson at all. But that reference does provide a suggestion at what the police did.

So, keeping the playing field level, where's your substantiation for any of these claims? Not that she had one in 1891, but in 1888, when it matters. Or that she hadn't opened it on that very day? Or that Cross/Lechmere did actually help her on that very day? Or is actual evidence not required on the guilty side and claims purported to be "not unreasonalbel" allowed, unless included on the innocent side?

- Jeff

Jeff,

Can you substantiate your ‘standard practice claim’?

Gary

[Fiver]

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

Key word - "surviving".

Just because records have not survived does not mean that they never existed.

According to Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, over 2000 people were interviewed, "upwards of 300" people were investigated, and around 80 people were detained. And it appears none of them warranted a mention in his summarized police reports.

[MrBarnett]

Lloyds 23rd Jan, 1881:

[Fiver]

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, let´s instead make Mizen the liar - or misunderstanding or havinf a hearing impariment, and getting thing wrong. Problem solved!

Charles Lechmere disagreed with PC Mizen.
Robert Paul also disagreed with PC Mizen.

Which is more likely - Lechmere and Paul were correct or Mizen was correct?

[Fiver]

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.

With a 3-5 minute interval, the only likely killer is PC Neil, not Charles Lechmere.

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, along with the fact that your sources were guessing times based on little or no actual information.

[Fiver]

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.

Your statement is meaningless.

No other person has been recorded on the site in the minutes preceding John Reeves. That does not prove that Reeves killed Tabram.

No other person has been recorded on the site in the minutes preceding John Davis. That does not prove that Davis killed Chapman.

No other person has been recorded on the site in the minutes preceding Louis Diemschutz. That does not prove that Diemschutz killed Stride.

No other person has been recorded on the site in the minutes preceding PC Edward Watkins. That does not prove that Watkins killed Eddowes.

No other person has been recorded on the site in the minutes preceding Thomas Bowyer. That does not prove that Bowyer killed Kelly.

No other person has been recorded on the site in the minutes preceding Charles Lechmere. That does not prove that Lechmere killed Nichols.

[Harry D]

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

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

But it's already been pointed out that propping up Nichols would've given Lechmere the perfect alibi if blood was detected on him.

I mean, at that point Lechmere is standing there with a bloody murder weapon on his person no? The knife was never found at the crime-scene, and surely Paul would've heard it clang to the ground if Lechmere ditched it along the way.

So, after slitting Nichols' throat and rearranging her abdomen, Lechmere cannot be confident of being stain-free.

Nevertheless, he accompanies Paul with possible bloodstains on him and goes looking for a policeman?

There was a murder case in the UK where a man's foster-daughter was murdered in the patio. The foster-dad was an obvious suspect from the start. He took his biological daughters and went for a circuitous drive around the neighbourhood, then drove to the DIY store before realising he'd forgotten his wallet. When he came back to find his dead foster-daughter, he went and sat in his car until the emergency services arrived. It's been theorised that the reason he did this is because he was creating an alibi if any forensic evidence was found in the car.

It seems to me that Lechmere's mind would be operating along similar lines if he was indeed the killer. You will argue that the "Mizen scam" put him in the clear but there was never any guarantee that Mizen wouldn't have taken both carmen back to the scene of the crime instead of carrying on knocking up. Why not take advantage of the situation like Billie-Jo Jenkins' (probable) killer did?

And let's not stop there. Paul thought that Nichols was still alive. This was another opportunity put on a plate for Lechmere. Agree with Paul that she's probably alive and just another old soak sleeping in the gutter. Then the two carmen could be on their merry way and Lechmere would have no need to interact with the police.

[MrBarnett]

Key word - "surviving".

Just because records have not survived does not mean that they never existed.

According to Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, over 2000 people were interviewed, "upwards of 300" people were investigated, and around 80 people were detained. And it appears none of them warranted a mention in his summarized police reports.

That was during the Chapman investigation, wasn’t it?

Lechmere was a witness in the Nichols case and those investigated in that case were mentioned:

Lodging house keepers,
Coffee stall keepers,
Prostitutes,
Night watchman,
Slaughtermen,
Pizer.

You would have us believe they checked Lechmere out at work and home, discovered his real identity, but forgot to mention it?

[Fiver]

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 didn´t.

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

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

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 didn´t.

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

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!"

There is no such thing as an ideal case.

And you repeatedly bringing up these disproven points does not suddenly, magically make them proven.

* CAL gave his home and work addresses. His use of Cross is unusual, but he was not trying to hide his identity. This is not evidence of CAL's guilt.

* Nothing covered Nichols neck, yet Paul didn't see that injury, either. The clothing proves nothing about anyone's guilt.

* PC Mizen disagreed with both Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul. The disagreement proves nothing about anyone's guilt.

* Nothing that Lechemre said was "100 per cent consistent with the carman having crafted a lie that was tailormade to take himself past the police".

* Refusing to prop up Nichols still points towards Lechmere's innocence, not his guilt.

* Paul did see Lechmere in front of himself. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. We don't know what the distance was - no one asked Paul. Nobody asked Paul if he heard Lechmere in front of him either. Questions Paul was never asked prove nothing about anyone's guilt.

* Lechmere is not "a perfect geographical fit" for the murders. This has been repeatedly explained to you by people who actually understand geographical profiling.

[MrBarnett]

5er,

I’ve just come across a report in the ELO of 24th November, 1883 where it was said that Pickfords did have a van guard on every one of their vehicles.

[Fiver]

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

Good to see someone else who understands this. Every pickup and delivery would be signed for and the time recorded. This would not only show where a carman was at certain times, it would show if there were odd gaps in the record. For example, it would be incredibly odd for someone who started work at 4am to take his food break at 4:30am. Every pickup or delivery would also be one, possibly several witnesses as to whether the carman had bloodstains on his hands or clothing. Things that could be hidden at 5am would be a lot more obvious in the hours between sunrise and sunset.

[MrBarnett]

Good to see someone else who understands this. Every pickup and delivery would be signed for and the time recorded. This would not only show where a carman was at certain times, it would show if there were odd gaps in the record. For example, it would be incredibly odd for someone who started work at 4am to take his food break at 4:30am. Every pickup or delivery would also be one, possibly several witnesses as to whether the carman had bloodstains on his hands or clothing. Things that could be hidden at 5am would be a lot more obvious in the hours between sunrise and sunset.

So you imagine that after each of the murders the police had a look at Lechmere’s paperwork to make sure he wasn’t anywhere near the murder scene?

Who else, in your fevered imagination, was singled out for such intense scrutiny?

[rjpalmer]

Sometimes I wonder whether some of these anti-lechers have ever lead normal lives.

A grown man hanging out with dear old mom at 1.00 a.m. on a Saturday Night isn't what I consider 'normal,' unless one is Norman Bates.

And anyway, you're the one painting CAL as an abductor & mutilator, so what does 'normal' behavior have to do with your line of argument?

[Fiver]

Pickfords carried tons of the stuff.

"Cooked joints". Not raw, bleeding unpackaged horseflesh.

Also, is your fragment of an article before or after Harrison Barber got their near-monopoly on cats meat in London?

[MrBarnett]

Good to see someone else who understands this. Every pickup and delivery would be signed for and the time recorded. This would not only show where a carman was at certain times, it would show if there were odd gaps in the record. For example, it would be incredibly odd for someone who started work at 4am to take his food break at 4:30am. Every pickup or delivery would also be one, possibly several witnesses as to whether the carman had bloodstains on his hands or clothing. Things that could be hidden at 5am would be a lot more obvious in the hours between sunrise and sunset.

What if his first delivery was just 15 mins away from Broad Street and he was delivering one commodity to one customer whom he delivered to every day?

When do you normally have breakfast? When I had an early start at work, I’d tend not to have it before I left but to get something at the earliest opportunity
after I’d arrived at work. How odd was that?

In your eyes that probably makes me a potential serial killer.