Originally posted by rjpalmer
View Post
- He did not give the name he otherwise gave to authorities, his registered one, when testifying at the inquest.
- He was alone with the body of Polly Nichols for an undetermined amount of time.
- He was found with the body at a remove in time that is entirely consisent with being the killer.
- He walked through the killing fields of Whitechapel/Spitalfields on a daily basis.
- His home in Doveton Street was situated so that not one but two bloodied rags found after Eddowes´murder and the dumping of the Pinchin Street torso were found inbetween the murder/dumping sites and it.
- He disagreed with PC Mizen about a number of things, and in a way that would be perfectly suited to take him past the police.
- He did not tell PC Mizen that he himself was the finder of the body, but is instead recorded as having said that "a body has been found in Bucks Row".
- The body of Polly Nichols had the wounds to the abdomen covered by her clothing when found.
- He declined to help Paul prop Nichols up when asked.
- He gave timings for his departure from home that do not fit with when he was present in Bucks Row.
Are these matters "personal interpretations" from my side? Or do they belong to the recorded evidence in the case?
If we are going to speak of personal interpretations, we must delve into the conclusions I draw from the material above: That Charles Lechmere was the (extremely) likely killer of Polly Nichols.
If you can tell me how either of the points above -or all of them! - speak against that conclusion, then my personal interpretation needs to be questioned. But let´s not pretend that personal interpretation is all there is. There is a solid case, built on numerous factors. A prima facie case that suggests that Charles Lechmere was the killer. That, at least, was James Scobies "personal interpretation"...
Comment