Evidence of innocence

[GUT]

Even as basic an enquiry does he normally travel that route, ie does he live here, and does he work here? Or was he where he had no reason to be.

[MrBarnett]

Just for interest:


It is not quite true, by the way, to say that the traffic in eatables is only into London. Broad-street dispatches every day to Lancashire three or four truckloads of what is known as "offal" - the heads and feet, the hearts and livers of the animals that are slaughtered at the Deptford Cattle Market. But this may perhaps be considered to be balanced by the fact that there is a large "inwards" traffic in cat's meat from Scotland. Why horses should die more freely in Scotland, or cats be more hungry in London, or why Lancashire should have a special penchant for tripe and trotters is sociological puzzle for which the Broad-street authorities have made no attempt to find a solution.

Extract from an Article by W. M. Ackworth originally in Murrays Magazine, but reprinted in the Gloucestershire Chronicle of 18th February, 1888.

[MrBarnett]

More evidence of horse meat at Broad Street, from The Daily News of 4th July, 1876:

[MrBarnett]

Even as basic an enquiry does he normally travel that route, ie does he live here, and does he work here? Or was he where he had no reason to be.

But beyond that? An investigation into his background to discover what his real name was even if the one he had given them checked out at Pickfords?

[MrBarnett]

The anti-Lechmerians are desperate to keep CAL away from meat at all costs and would prefer it if he had carried cauliflowers to/from Spitalfields market.

He could have done, of course, but if he had he might have known or recognised Paul. Paul said he was a carman/carter for Covent Garden Market which was a fruit and vegetable market to the west of the City. Bearing in mind that Corbetts Court was just across Commercial Street from Spitalfields market, which also handled fruit and veg, it seems likely that Paul’s work involved travelling between the two markets.

Paul probably specialised in fruit and veg, just as CAL’s son, Thomas Allen, seems to have specialised in the transportation of cats meat. At least that’s how he described himself on the census and on his kids’ christening records: a meat salesman/carter (the note ‘cat’ was added by a helpful census official). And if the son specialised in the transportation of catsmeat, perhaps the father did too.

[MrBarnett]

Cats meat came into Broad Street.

Pickfords handled cats meat.

The Lechmere family dealt in cats meat from at least 1891.

The nearest cats meat wholesalers to Broad Street could have been reached by travelling through Hanbury Street.

But let’s talk cabbages and Cox’s Orange Pippins. It’s far safer because it leads nowhere.

[mpriestnall]

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.

You have never presented any meaningful evidence because you don't have any, do you? And we both know that.

And that's it for me. I won't waste any more of my time on you and your fantasy suspect.

[The Baron]

There is no evidence at all, meaningful or not, against Cross

From what we have, Nichols had not been cut yet when Cross and Paul left her!



The Baron

[Fisherman]

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

Over the years, it has been, over and over agan, suggested that anybody who lived in the area where the Ripper claimed his victims is by way of their addresses just as likely to be the killer as is Charles Lechmere.

For some reason, they oversee the fact that Lechmere was found alone with a Ripper victim who had just been killed and how that puts the carman leagues ahead of somebdy who just happened to be resident in Whitechapel.

You now spoke of how Robert Paul, Alfred Crowe and John Saunders Reeves were on par with Lechmere, and it is just a ridiculous claim. Paul arrived to the site AFTER Lechmere, Crowe saw what was probably Tabram an hour after she was cut and Saunders was even later at the site, around two hours after Tabram died.

None of these three people are known to have altered their names, to have disagreed with the police, to have reasons to be at the other murder sites at the relevant hours and so on.

I am dead tired of people doing these kinds of useless comparisons as if they brought anything at all of interest to the table. It is an utter waste of timeand nothing else, and if you find it disrespectful when I point that out I can only say that I would appreciate if there was respect enough out here not to claim that these comparisons are examples of equally good suspects as Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

There is nothing remarkable about Lechmere's discovery of the body.

What are the odds that a carman just happened to come across a murder victim? Oh, and his route to work also took him past the next murder site?

Well, there was another carman taking the exact same route at the same time. He also walked past Hanbury Street on his way to work.

Lechmerians need Lechmere to kill on his way to work, because he wasn't anywhere he shouldn't have been. Unfortunately, the two carmen following the same routes around the same time proves there was nothing out of the ordinary about Lechmere's overlap with the two murder sites.

There is at least one very remarkable thing about Lechmere´s finding Nichols: she would go on to bleed for many minutes afterwards.

That means that Lechmere ends up in the crosshairs of the murder timing.

Otherwise you are correct: It is not his finding he body that is remarkable. It is instead the many things that do not seem right about him:

He used another name than his registered one with the police, althoug he never did so with any other authorities.

He disagreed with the police about what was said and done on the murder morning.

He walked right through the area where the murders occurred, at roughly the relevant hours.

THIS is where he becomes really remarkable. These things should not be there if he was innocent. If he told the police my name is Charles Lechmere, if he said the same things about the events as Mizen did, if he walked to work along routes that were not close to where the murders occurred, I would echo your take on things: he was seemingly innocent.

But as it stands, there are numerous things that are very awkward for hi,. We may add the covered wounds, the refusal to touch a woman he had already touched when Paul asked him to help prop Nichols up, the fact that Paul only noted him as he arrived outside Browns - there are way too many things that should not have been there. And that means that we must check for geography, and when we do, we find that he fits the bill on that score too. Although he COUD have worked anywhere in London, he instead had a path that took hin right through the killing fields. And to boot, the two only murders that were NOT in Spitalfields, were also committed in places he can be linked to.

He is the archetypical police prime suspect. They could not have asked for more. And STILL they failed to identify him as their man, which is deplorably incompetent.

[Fisherman]

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

He had already aquired that alibi by examining Nichols, Harry.

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.

It is a 99 per cent certainty that he carried the murder weapon on his person as he spoke to Mizen, if he was the killer. I fail to see how that militates against him being the killer.

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

No, he could not. But he WAS a carman in working clothes, moving through dark streets, and he WOULD have an idea of the possible degree to which he would have had stains on himself.

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

Yes. And can you see any record of Mizen hauling him in, examining his clothes for blood? Or Pauls? And can that be because Lechmere served a lie that immediately made Mizen let them pass?
Sexual serial killers are with around a 90 per cent certainty psychopaths. Psychopaths are people who feel very superior and who are certain that they are too smart to get caught. They are sometimes wrong, and so they ARE caught. But that does not alter the premise.
Remind me, is it the 112 576th or the 112 577th time I say this?

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?

There are never any guarantees in thee real world, no. But in the mind of a psychopathic serial killer, he may well feel absolutely certain that he will not be found out. They do not adjust to ther eal world, Harry.
Throughout all the many discussion we have had, you have always suggested that the killer would have acted like a normal man, a non-psychopath. He would have run. He would have been to nervous about any possible blood to dare to speak to a copper.
This is true of yourself, I´m sure, but it is NOT necessarily true of a psychopath. In fact, it is unlikely to be true of such a person. Clear cut psychopaths do not even have the reflex you and I have that makes us run when perceiving danger. If a lion jumps out in front of you from an alley as you are walking down the street, you will immediately run. It is a reflex we have, that alerts the leg muscles. It does not pass through the brain first, becasue that would sacrifice valuable time. But full-bread psychopaths do not even have this reflex! They instead think "Oh, look - a lion! Who would have thought it? I had better run before it eats me."
Can you see how this is a total game changer, Harry? Or do you just not want to see it?

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.

It was Paul who decided to go for the police, and so Lechmere seemingly had no saying in it. We may of course reason that he could have treied to persuade Paul not to do it, but that would not have looked good with the police if it was discovered at a later stage. As it happens, we know that Paul gave an interview that made Lechmere look dodgy. Adding the kind of persuasion attempt you suggest would not have made him look better.

[Fisherman]

And remember that according to Christer, Lechmere initially avoided the police. He even lied to the police, yet didn't come forward until sometime after Sunday morning, September 2nd, when Robert Paul's interview was published in Lloyd's.

Yet Robert Paul also seems to have gone into hiding, for he is AWOL during the first and second sessions of the inquest, and later complains about having to attend.

So, if I understand Christer correctly, by September 3rd, the only man the police now had in their grips was Lechmere, and the only man who could confirm his story was the sketchy Robert Paul---who was still missing.

Sounds like a lot of smoke and strange goings on for the police to have simply accepted it all on faith. If what Christer says is true, then by this stage the police would have been fed-up with these two bystanders from Buck's Row, and I'm guessing both Lechmere, and later Paul, were raked over the coals, or at least quietly investigated, much like Richardson was.

Again, how on earth did the raking investigators manage to miss out on his name? The carman was seemingly NOT raked over any coals at all, that´s how, And thnat is why we have no further mentining of his person in the material after the October police report.

This does not mean that Lechmere couldn't have bluffed his way out of it, of course.

But I'm more concerned with a reasonable explanation of what Lechmere hoped to achieve by giving a 'false name,' while still giving his address and his place of employment. Especially if he came forward in such a belated manner, which would have led to a certain amount of friction with the authorities. The enormity of the risk would have greatly outweighed any benefits. It seems more compatible with a clumsy ruse by a low-level flunkey, than the brainstorm of the psychopath that Lechmere supposedly was. When you give a false name but your correct place of business there is inherently a great risk that someone will notice. And that is one of the weaknesses of their argument, as I see it.

Best wishes.

Again, can you see how the risk Jeff Dahmer took when sntaching his Thai murder victim from the hands of the police? Serial killers are risktakers by nature, and some of them enjoy it a great deal.
As for the benefits of hiding bhis name, that has been explained hundreds of times, so I must reccommend a thorough look through the material. I´m sure you´ll find it if you put your mind to it.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is at least one very remarkable thing about Lechmere´s finding Nichols: she would go on to bleed for many minutes afterwards,

It has been proven and shown to you that modern day medical experts state that that oozing blood in a dead body can still continue many hours after death.

He used another name than his registered one with the police, althoug he never did so with any other authorities.

This is a smokescreen we do not know what name he gave to the police when they took his statement. The inference must be that it was the same name he gave at the inquest. If he had wanted to misead to deflect away from his guilt as you suggest and the name change was for that purpose he could have given any name but no he gives his address and place of work, Are those the actions of a killer trying deflect suspicon away from him

He disagreed with the police about what was said and done on the murder morning.

This is not unusual for the police and witness testimony to conflcit with each other I see this on a dail basis at police stations

He walked right through the area where the murders occurred, at roughly the relevant hours.

He had everr right to do that it was his normal daily route to work as it was for hundreds of other Whitechapel residents

He is the archetypical police prime suspect. They could not have asked for more. And STILL they failed to identify him as their man, which is deplorably incompetent.

And the same could be said for you in not being able to asses and evaluate in an unbiased fashion the flaws which have been pointed out to you in your misguided theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You have never presented any meaningful evidence because you don't have any, do you? And we both know that.

And that's it for me. I won't waste any more of my time on you and your fantasy suspect.

That´s a really good decisions, seeing as you have already wasted enough of it.

The evidence was "meaningful" enough for a barrister to conclude that there exists a prima facie case against the carman that suggests that he was the killer. Basically, this means that if no evidence for innocence came forward, Scobies best guess is that lechmere would be convicted of murder.

To me, that is meaningful evidence. What you descibe as meaningful is something I would not dare to make a guess about.

[Fisherman]

And the same could be said for you in not being able to asses and evaluate in an unbiased fashion the flaws which have been pointed out to you in your misguided theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I actually think I have assessed and evaluated the evidence in an unbiased manner, Trevor. I believe that the real problem is that you are completely unable to realize that. And so you make endless and pointless generalistic posts, basically saying "You are dumb".

That really does not amount to much of an argument, does it?