Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

If he was the murderer, with the murder instrument on him, he most probably would not and it would be a matter of initiating something he did not want to do. He would be fine with a quick look over of the body to convince Paul that he was just a passer by and then everyone head off on their merry way.

That is not a refutation of my position. That is my position.

As I said, sneaking away from Paul was an option before Paul reached Nichols body. There is a good chance Paul wouldn't even notice him. Even if Paul did see him, he'd be able to provide much less of a description than if Lechmere stopped Paul, talked to him, examined the body with him, sought out a policeman with him, and continued to walk with Paul almost as far as Spitalfields market.

Sneaking away before Paul reached Nichols body would have been the smart thing for the killer to do. Lechmere's actions were either those of an innocent man or a stunningly stupid killer.

Sneaking away after stopping Paul, talking to him, and drawing attention to Nichols body would have been stupid. But I did not suggest that. As I said before, separating from Paul before they found a police officer would have been easy - Lechmere would have just had to say it would improve their chances of finding a policeman sooner.

Agreeing to go separate ways would have been the smart thing for the killer to do. It meant he would not have to come face-to-face with and talk to a police officer while covered in bloodstains and carrying the bloody murder weapon. A police constable's lamp would reveal all sorts of things the darkness concealed. And a killer would have no reason to expect that PC Mizen was an incompetent who didn't even take the time to get the names and addresses of witnesses.

If Lechmere and Paul had separated after finding Nichols body, neither Paul nor PC Mizen would have any idea if Lechmere had also approached a constable. Over the next few days, Paul might suspect that the other man had not contacted the police, but he might just have assumed the other man had found a bigger incompetent than PC Mizen and that constable had not bothered to check out the report of a body. PC Mizen might suspect the same things, but he might also suspect that Robert Paul had made up another man in order to deflect suspicion from himself.

[Fiver]

Propping up the body signified a turn towards a more thorough check-up of the woman's condition, which among other things would take more time.

Helping to prop up Nichols body would have taken only a few moments and provided an innocent excuse for inconvenient bloodstains on hands or clothes. Lechmere's refusal is the act of either an innocent man or a very stupid criminal.

[Fiver]

he idea to get a cop was most probably Paul's: once refused help from Lechmere in propping up the body, he had a what the hell moment and announced his leaving with the caveat that he would seek a policeman. To me, that seems like the only possible response at that point from Paul.

You continue to ignore Robert Paul's actual testimony, which undermines your theory.

"They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.
By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen." - Robert Paul.

[Fiver]

The whole post murder scene again went off script for Lechmere, and again he had to improvise.

Your assumption of guilt is noted.

Stay behind and wait for a cop with the murder knife on him was a dangerous option (he could have tossed it somewhere and then waited); not following Paul was a dangerous option - Paul would have given the police enough info about the fellow carman to pick him up later;

Offering to stay behind and wait for a constable would have been a good option if Lechmere had killed Nichols.

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

Paul would not have been able to have given the police enough info about the fellow carman to pick him up later. He did not know Lechmere's name. He did not know where Lechmere worked. He did not know who Lechmere worked for. He did not know where Lechmere lived. He did not know where Lechmere shopped. He did not know what pubs Lechmere attended. He did not know where Lechmere went to church.

Lechmere was a complete stranger to Paul. All Paul could have given was a vague physical description of a stranger seen for a few moments in poor lighting.

And that's not enough to pick up anyone.

[Fiver]

...following Paul was a dangerous option - the PC might take them back to the murder scene.

You continue to assume Lechmere was the one following. That contradicts the evidence of both Robert Paul and PC Mizen.

He had three options, each problematic. If Lechmere was innocent, Staying with the body was what one would have expected from someone who seemed concerned enough by the woman's condition to physically block the way of Paul; they still wouldn't have known if she was dead.

Your double standard here is blatant. If staying with the body was what an innocent man would do, that means Robert Paul was not innocent.

A clever killer would have jumped at the suggestion to prop up Nichols body - it would have provided an innocent explanation for inconvenient bloodstains. That means Charles Lechmere was either innocent or a stupid criminal.

A clever killer would have avoided contact with witnesses. Charles Lechmere waited for Robert Paul, stopped him when Paul tried to pass him by, talked to him, drew Paul's attention to Nichols body, examined the body with Paul, walked together until they met PC Mizen, then continued to walk down Hanbury Street with Robert Paul until they had almost reached Spitalfields market. That means Charles Lechmere was either innocent or a staggeringly stupid criminal.

A clever killer would have avoided contact with police even more than they would want to avoid civilian witnesses. But everything Lechmere did are things that a killer would have expected would bring him face to face with a policeman. And the killer would have had no reason to expect PC would be a total incompetent who didn't bother to get theire names, let alone any sort of statement. That means Charles Lechmere was either innocent or a staggeringly stupid criminal.

If the Ripper was really that stupid, how did he repeatedly get away with it.

[Fiver]

Was Lechmere the murderer? I don't know. Like i previously said, he most probably arrived earlier to Nichols body than he claimed.

You're parroting Fisherman's errors. Charles Lechmere never said what time he reached Nichols body. The "missing time" is manufactured by people who have assumed Lechmere's guilt. There is no evidence that Lechmere found the body significantly before Robert Paul came within earshot.

If not the murderer, than still one would be concerned that people might accuse you of being one. So, you go through the process of looking over the body again - with you doing not much, damn well knowing what her state is. Of course, one's question at this point would be that without the murder weapon 'why didn't he concede to a more thorough exam.'

All this shows is your double standard and your assumption of Lechmere's guilt.

[Fiver]

Both Lechmere and Paul seemed to be on schedule....

This is an incorrect assumption on your part.

Charles Lechmere testified that Paul "said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself."

and Lechmere had been taking this route for 2 months. On the morning of the Polly Nichols murder, according to Lechmere, they missed each other by some 30 seconds - give or take a few seconds.

This is another incorrect assumption on your part.

Lechmere never gave an estimate of how far Paul was behind him on a day they were both running late.

Being fellow carmen, if one was spotted a bit ahead of the other, they most probably would have joined up and chatted....most mornings having better light than that night.

Robert Paul's evidence undermines your speculation - again.

"t was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman."

"...as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him. He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here."

Robert Paul did not attempt to join up and chat with Charles Lechmere. He actively tried to avoid him.

My question is why were they complete strangers? It is possible that they kept on just barely missing each other over those two months?
Maybe Lechmere was heading out earlier than he stated.

And your speculation, as always, assumes the worst of Charles Lechmere.

He said he was "behind time" on the day Nichols was murdered. If he was lying about that, his wife would have known.

Both Lechemre and Paul were behind schedule that day. A lot of their work route overlapped, but there easily could have been a five, possibly even a ten minute gap between them on a normal day.

And it is clear based on Robert Paul's testimony, if he saw a stranger walking in front of him he would have tried to keep him a stranger.

[Greenway]

His aggressive behavior in getting Paul to stop

How was his behaviour aggressive?

[The Baron]

Here once again is why i think Lechmere makes a very good suspect

2. His aggressive behavior in getting Paul to stop, and then his subsequent seeming indifference

6. Appearing at court in his work clothes
- most probably, he paid for someone to take his place that day and didn't go to work

7. There being no family narrative of Lechmere being the first one to encounter Polly Nichols body.

The above three points are my favorites!

You are the first one ever Newbei to point them out!

Don't let the Anti Lechmere Revolution take you down, keep them coming!




The Baron

[Fisherman]

Having read through the posts that have transpired lately, I find that Fran van Oploo makes an interesting point about who it was that induced the search for a PC. Frank writes ”it seems that Lechmere was the one who suggested (it) and not Paul, and adds that Lechmere would likely not lie about it, for fear of having Paul contradicting him at the inquest.

Frank presents a fair number of quotations, but I think the better way to go about it is to look at it from the two respective views, Lechmere´s and Paul. Let’s begin with Lechmere. I have checked out only where the intention of finding a PC is described, and most papers do not mention that detail. Here’s the ones that do.


LECHMERES CLAIMS:


Daily News, Daily Telegraph and East London Observer: The Coroner - Did the other man tell you who he was?

The Witness - No, sir. He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time. I was behind time myself.

Illustrated Police News: The other man merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, but he was behind time. Witness was behind time himself.

These four papers are very much alike; the three first ones are exact copies of each other. They all seem to point out how Lechmere describes how Paul said that if he had not been so late, he would have gone to search out a policeman. To my ears, it sounds as if Lechmere perhaps suggests that what Paul led on was that he would seek out a police station and find a PC there. It does not sound as if Paul merely suggests that he should look for one along his route to work.

But let’s move on to more papers!

Echo: He (Paul) then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him."

So here we have something else. Now it is no longer about Paul asserting that he would have gone in search of a policeman if he had not been so late. Instead, we have Charles Lechmere claiming that he told Paul to go on, presumably by himself, and to tell a policeman about the matter if he came across one.

This is a very different story, with Lechmere as the instigator.

The next two papers are a tad different:

Morning Advertiser: He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."

Star: He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. Let's go on till we see a policeman and tell him."

Here we have Lechmere as the instigator again, but not by way of putting the responsibility on Pauls shoulders, but instead by suggesting a joint venture.

Summing things up, we have a picture where Lechmere is the only part that is suggested as the instigator of looking for a policeman - but the different versions are not in full accordance with each other on how it went down.

Not let’s move on to Robert Paul and listen to how he portrayed it!


PAULS CLAIMS:

Lloyds Weekly: I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.

This is the interview in Lloyds Weekly, of course, and here, Paul does not leave any room for doubt - he himself was the one instigating the search for a PC, and taking care of the task himself.

Frank wisely points out that since we all agree that this interview is not providing a true picture of the events in all aspects, we may need to be careful about it.

I agree. It is a source fraught with danger. All we can do is to establish that Paul says that he instigated the search, but we need to be wary about how this may not even be Pauls own suggestion.

Let’s move on to the inquest reports now. The four first are in agreement with each other:

Daily News: He and the man discussed what was best to be done, and they decided that they ought to acquaint the first policeman they met with what they had discovered.

East London Advertiser: The other man and he agreed that the best thing to be done was to tell the first policeman they met.

St James Gazette: They agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met.

Times: They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met.

The last paper, however, is not in agreement with the other four:

Morning Advertiser: I felt her hands and face; they were cold. I sent the other man for a policeman.

Here we have Paul as the instigator, sending Charles Lechmere for a policeman.

Summing up, we can see that Lechmere does claim in some sources that he was the instigator, and that he in no paper says that Paul was the instigator.

We may also see that Robert Paul in some sources claim that HE was the instigator and that he in no case claims that Lechmere was the instigator.

In my ears, being the suspicious old cynic that I am, this is not good news for Charles Lechmere. In a perfect world, the two carmen would agree about who was the instigator. But here, this is not so.

Of course, one man say that it is just as likely that Paul was the one misrepresenting the matter as Lechmere. And on the surface of things, that’s true. But when we look at how Lechmere also disagrees with PC Mizen, another picture emerges, that of a carman who disagrees with BOTH the other people who were present on the murder morning.

It has - of course also been claimed that Mizen was as likely to be the one not telling the truth as Lechmere. But once we have a reoccurring pattern, the weight of the evidence shifts. Or it SHOULD shift, at least.

My last point: Frank says that Lechmere would not be likely to take the risk of gainsaying Paul because the latter could turn up and tell a story that did. Ot match Lechmeres. And lo and behold - he DID!

The thing is, we already have another example where Lechmere told a story that did not match the evidence - the so called Mizen scam. And I don’t think we can rue out that Lechmere lied since he would not take the risk of being gainsaid by Jonas Mizen. As a matter of fact, if he did lie to Mizen on the murder morning, then he HAD to misrepresent what was said at the inquest. It would have been a case of mending things as best as he could as he went along. In Baker´s Row, he could not tell Mizen that he was the sole finder of the body, because that would make Mizen detain him. So he lied, if I am correct. But that lie would reappear at the inquest, and so he had to deny it - which he did. And got away with, it would seem.

The exact same thing would apply to the issue of who instigated the search for a PC. Lechmere would look good if he did it, and so he may have suggested that there was a discussion and that his line in it was that they should find a PC. It can be read as if Paul said ”If I was not so late, I´d go in search of a PC”, whereupon Lechmere said ”You know, I am late myself. Why don’t we go on together and we may find a PC along the way!”.

The problem is that Pauls version of events does not support that take. And that is where we need to get cautious. At any rate, if we had a situation where it was discussed which course to take, something that Pauls suggests, then it would not be very hard for Lechmere to say ”I was the one suggesting keeping an eye out for a PC”, and if Paul objected, then how was the inquest to know who was right?

Lechmere does not allow for any such discussion having taken place - in his version it is clear cut; as Paul suggested that they should prop Nichols up, Lechmere instead said that they needed to go and find a PC.

Sounds good, does it not? A stand up citizen - with whom others had a tedious habit of disagreeing.

Again, the devil is really sometimes in the details.

[rjpalmer]

How was his behaviour aggressive?

If you are implying that there is no evidence of aggressive behavior, then I agree.

Paul saw a man standing in the middle of a darkened street at 3.40 a.m., or thereabouts, as if waiting for him. Being a rough neighborhood, Paul wondered if the man was going to confront him--knock him down, in fact. Later, at the inquest, Paul would mention gangs in the area, as if to explain this apprehension. One would naturally be leery in such circumstances--I know I would be--so there is nothing particularly unusual about Paul's initial concern.

But, as it turned out, this attitude of 'aggression' was entirely in Paul's own mind; as he approached, all Charles Crossmere did was try to get a second opinion about the woman he had just found on the sidewalk.

By way of contrast, a few weeks ago I was reading about a modern case where a man later diagnosed as psychopathic was interrupted during one of his rape/murders. His reaction? He immediately attacked the arriving bystander and even gave chase when the man tried to flee.

This is more in line with the suspect described by Israel Schwartz than the actions of a concerned citizen merely walking to work.

The way I look at it, any claim that a psychopath will invariably try to "bluff his way out" is so much hot air--human behavior isn't that simplistic nor predictable.

[Fisherman]

If you are implying that there is no evidence of aggressive behavior, then I agree.

Paul saw a man standing in the middle of a darkened street at 3.40 a.m., or thereabouts, as if waiting for him. Being a rough neighborhood, Paul wondered if the man was going to confront him--knock him down, in fact. Later, at the inquest, Paul would mention gangs in the area, as if to explain this apprehension. One would naturally be leery in such circumstances--I know I would be--so there is nothing particularly unusual about Paul's initial concern.

But, as it turned out, this attitude of 'aggression' was entirely in Paul's own mind; as he approached, all Charles Crossmere did was try to get a second opinion about the woman he had just found on the sidewalk.

By way of contrast, a few weeks ago I was reading about a modern case where a man later diagnosed as psychopathic was interrupted during one of his rape/murders. His reaction? He immediately attacked the arriving bystander and even gave chase when the man tried to flee.

This is more in line with the suspect described by Israel Schwartz than the actions of a concerned citizen merely walking to work.

The way I look at it, any claim that a psychopath will invariably try to "bluff his way out" is so much hot air--human behavior isn't that simplistic nor predictable.

Two questions, R J, if you don´t much mind?

1. Has it to the best of your mind been suggested anywhere that psychopaths will "invariably" try to bluff their way out of trouble? If it has, I would be very interested to be pointed to it.

2. Are you suggesting that attacking bystanders and giving chase is what psychopaths will invariably do?

Thanking you in advance for your answers.Oh, and a third question, while I am at it:

3. "Your" psychopath, who was in the midst of raping and murdering a victim as that "arriving bystander" appeared - had he stepped back from his victim when it happened, so that the "arriving bystander" was not able to tell who had been doing the raping/murdering? Or was it apparent to the psychopath that the "arriving bystander" had seen what he was up to?

I am asking this because it has a tremendous bearing on the matter. If the psychopath first stepped back so that the "arriving bystander" had no idea who had attacked the raped and murdered victim, and only thereafter attacked him and gave chase, then it may perhaps have some impact on how we should look upon the Lechmere case, although, as you acknowledge, human behaviour is not simplistic or predictable.
Then again, if the "arriving bystander" saw what the psychopath did, and if the psychopath knew that the arriving bystander had seen what he did, then it is a very different case from the Lechmere case, is it not? If this was the case, then the psychopath had a witness to deal with, right?

I´d appreciate if you could clarify these matters.

[Fiver]

2. Are you suggesting that attacking bystanders and giving chase is what psychopaths will invariably do?

RJ did not even imply that psychopaths invariably attack bystanders. That's just you trying to put words in his mouth.

[Fiver]

I don't think it's a contradiction to say that Lechmere didn't want to look for a bobby but volunteered to speak to him when they did find one. He might have not wanted to involve the police but preferred to control the conversation when they did. Makes perfect sense to me.

There is no evidence that Lechmere did not want to talk to a policeman.

[Fiver]

Here once again is why i think Lechmere makes a very good suspect, based just on the morning of the Polly Nichols murder and the inquiry.

1. Paul appearing not to hear the footsteps of Lechmere's hobnailed boots hitting the pavement just ahead on a dark night while walking down a dangerous street:

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was."
- that when indicates that he was not aware of Lechmere's presence until the sighting;
Lechmere mentions first hearing Paul's footsteps in his testimony to the inquest.

2. His aggressive behavior in getting Paul to stop, and then his subsequent seeming indifference, leaving the body with out determining Nichol's state.
- very few people would approach someone that way at that time unless you are deeply concerned for someone's health and need help.

3. The issue with PC Mizen and what was said (which has been discussed add infinitum)

4. Coming forward only after reading Paul's account in the newspaper.

he seems to want to keep his wife & family in the dark by ..

5. Reverting back to his childhood name on a matter that does not involve Pickford's, despite being a 38 year old man (& not a 21 year old kid)

6. Appearing at court in his work clothes
- most probably, he paid for someone to take his place that day and didn't go to work; but if he did, it was a 7 minute trip back home to change.

7. There being no family narrative of Lechmere being the first one to encounter Polly Nichols body.
- generally, families pass these type of stories on.

I suggested the possibility that Lechmere was leaving for work earlier than he mentioned (i don't think much can be gathered from the conflicting times mentioned by reporters at the inquest; if Lechmere was the murderer, he would have chosen a time that matched PC ONeil's)

8. Other detailed matters....never chancing to run into Paul on previous walks to work; describing walking on the side of the street that is opposite to custom & the flow of traffic (an attempt to exaggerate his distance from the body?); the passive aggressive dichotomy in his behavior;....

Most of your points are just rehashes of Fisherman's repeatedly disproved speculation.

1) Paul saw Lechmere at an unknown distance ahead of him - "just ahead" is mere speculation on your part. "Hobnailed boots" are also speculation on your part. We do not know if Paul heard Lechmere before he saw him - "appearing not to hear the footsteps" is yet another assumption on your part.

You also ignore the often mentioned point that it is harder to hear someone else while you are walking.

2) The idea that Lechmere showed "aggressive behavior" exists only in your mind. His "seeming indifference" also exists only in your mind.

3) Robert Paul still completely undermines this. Paul agreed with Lechmere. Paul and Lechmere both disagreed with PC Mizen. This is only evidence of the double standard you have about Lechmere.

4) We do not know whether Lechmere contacted the police before or after reading Paul's account in the newspaper. We don't know if he ever read Paul's account in the newspaper. We do know that Lechmere came forward voluntarily even though neither Robert Paul nor PC Mizen knew who he was.

Contacting the police is a point in favor of Lechmere's innocence, no matter how much you and the rest of the Fisherman Fanclub try to ignore that.

5) Lechmere did not try to keep his wife and family in the dark. That isn't just bad speculation on your part - it is ignoring the actual evidence. Lechmere gave his home address, work address, shift times, and first and middle names. Use of his stepfather's surname was unusual, but he was not hiding his identity from the police, his family, his employers, his coworkers, or his neighbors.

6) Appearing at court in his work clothes is the exact opposite of trying to hide his identity. There is no evidence that "he paid for someone to take his place that day'. even if he did hire a substitute, that is not evidence that CAL was trying to hide his identity from anyone.

7) There being no "family narrative" of Lechmere being the first one to encounter Polly Nichols body is evidence that there was no "family narrative". That's it. There is no "generally" about it, either.

You're far from the first member of the Fisherman Fanclub to suggest Charles Lechmere left early for work that morning. I'm still waiting for any of you to provide actual evidence or to stop dodging the fact that if CAl had lied about the time his wife would have known.

Lechmere was already willing to contradict PC Mizen under oath. He had no reason to chose a time that matched PC Neil's.

8) Not meeting Paul is not suspicious. Lechmere walked on the same side of the street as Robert Paul and PC Neil - that's the opposite of suspicious. The "passive aggressive dichotomy in his behavior" exists only in your imagination.