Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

I am not Fisherman; nor am i on any team.
Why some would consider me Fisherman (and verbalize it) illustrates a rather negative and condescending attitude that they bring to this forum.
They probably should reevaluate how they go about doing things here.
Those who have no absolute conviction on this affair are my favorite posters.

Personally, I have not been trying to 'hang' Lechmere; and if Lechmere was alive today, that would be a very serious charge.
Some people take an absolutist position: for some, it is just a matter of looking at a problem from one angle and seeing if it bares fruit.
That does not necessarily mean that you are totally on board with a train of argumentation.

I've been pushing for people to consider oddities about his testimony & conduct on two separate occasions where we have direct knowledge about his behavior. I never liked the 'he would have just walked away argument'; nor the 'he is an honest family man, and we know those types would never, ever...'; and quite frankly, i thought the level of rudeness towards Fisherman, and the complete obtuseness of some towards his arguments was off-putting.

When i say 'if Lechmere is the killer', i am forming a hypothetical: that does not mean that i am 100% convinced of his guilt. It actually suggests some level doubt.

Now, considering Lechmere to be the Ripper, i have to ask myself why he failed to know that Paul routinely passed through Buck's row at about 3:40 am. He had two months to scope out that route and learn about the most advantageous time for mayhem; and i also have to ask myself why he was just getting to the disembowelment part, given that he had to get to work in 20 minutes. How long would that process take?

On the torso murders, i pretty much ruled out the possibility that Lechmere was involved, given his lack of a privacy in being able to slice up his victims. Someone recently seemed to come up with some interesting findings concerning the Lechmere's cat food business...so for me, that is back on the table.

Cheer up!

Hi Newbie,

The cats’ meat connection and the Lechmere family’s ability to acquire business premises has been known about for many years. Those who come to the debate with an objective stance bear that in mind. Those who don’t point to the fact that there is no hard evidence of the family’s connection to the trade before 1891 and dismiss it accordingly.

Please do keep the cats’ meat on your table - it may one day make a tasty meal.

Gary

[Newbie]

Recurring pattern? What recurring pattern?

The only recurring patterns in Lechmere's statements is that none of them are provably false and almost all of them agree with Robert Paul's statements.

So where is the part where Robert Paul's story did not match Lechmere's?

His original statement to the Loyd's weekly reporter:

"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man (Lechmere) I would send the first policeman I saw."

- you have a habit of pretending that other things aren't out there.

[Newbie]

Upon what basis have you decided that she was in the dark about any of this? Where is your proof that he did not, upon his arrival home from work that evening, tell his wife about finding a woman in the street that might have been dead? How can you be so sure that he didn't go to the police upon her insistance? What is the evidence that his neighbors were unaware of his use of both Cross and Lechmere as his names? Other than mere speculation, what is the evidence either of these names were unknown to be associated with him?


- Jeff

You ask two different questions. I'll give you three facts:

I base it on Lechmere using his adolescent surname Cross at the inquest.
I base it on Lechmere showing up at the inquest dressed in his work clothing when it was only a 7 minute walk from home.
I base it on there being no knowledge among Lechmere's descendants that Lechmere was the first to 'discover' the body of Mary Nichols.

The first two i expounded upon already; again, did you bother reading it?

[Newbie]

The children were given the surname Lechmere, his wife was Ms. Lechmere......
someone here came up with direct evidence that his neighbors knew him as Mr. Lechmere.

The neighbors would not have known who was Charlie Cross.
In addition, Lechmere's address was not furnished to jurors at the inquest: unlike most non officials there.

Emily Holland, a married woman, living at 18, Thrawl-street
Wm. Nicholls [Nichols], printer's machinist, Coburg-road, Old Kent-road
Edward Walker deposed: I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road
Emma Green, who lives in the cottage next to the scene of the murder in Buck's- row,
Walter Purkess [Purkiss], manager, residing at Essex Wharf
Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman
James Hatfield, an inmate of the Whitechapel Workhouse

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co...

[drstrange169]

>>Lechmere's address was not furnished to jurors at the inquest: unlike most non officials there.<<

Just out of interest, which specific court documents are you relying in to support that claim?

[rjpalmer]

I base it on Lechmere using his adolescent surname Cross at the inquest.

Cross was hardly an adolescent in 1876. He was in his late 20s. Reminds me a bit of Gary's "boy constable," to describe a man in his early 20s.

As for most papers failing to print Lechmere's address (the Star did), I can almost hear Jeremy Brett's booming Sherlock Holmes voice:

"I am not to blame for the deficiencies of the police!"

Or, in this case, "Cross is not to blame for the deficiencies of the journalists."

Though, clearly, that is what some want us to believe.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Newbie --

Let me ask you a question or two, if I may.

Do you think Walker, Holland, Paul, etc., all spontaneously volunteered their addresses, or do you think the reason they were given is because they were asked?

And if they were asked, does this not suggest that 'Cross' would have been asked as well?

So how does one explain Cross's ability to manipulate the proceedings so he, and he alone, was not asked?

At the risk of being crass, did he use some sort of hypnosis to prevent being asked this damaging question? And if, for some strange reason, he wasn't asked, isn't this on the coroner, and not on Cross himself?

I'd really like someone to explain how Cross was able to pull this stunt.

RP

[Fisherman]

Hi Newbie --

Let me ask you a question or two, if I may.

Do you think Walker, Holland, Paul, etc., all spontaneously volunteered their addresses, or do you think the reason they were given is because they were asked?

And if they were asked, does this not suggest that 'Cross' would have been asked as well?

So how does one explain Cross's ability to manipulate the proceedings so he, and he alone, was not asked?

At the risk of being crass, did he use some sort of hypnosis to prevent being asked this damaging question? And if, for some strange reason, he wasn't asked, isn't this on the coroner, and not on Cross himself?

I'd really like someone to explain how Cross was able to pull this stunt.

RP

Probably like this:

- State your name, address and place of work, please.
- My name is Charles Allen Cross and I have been in the employ of Pickfords for more than thirty years.

[Fisherman]

Cross was hardly an adolescent in 1876. He was in his late 20s. Reminds me a bit of Gary's "boy constable," to describe a man in his early 20s.

As for most papers failing to print Lechmere's address (the Star did), I can almost hear Jeremy Brett's booming Sherlock Holmes voice:

"I am not to blame for the deficiencies of the police!"

Or, in this case, "Cross is not to blame for the deficiencies of the journalists."

Though, clearly, that is what some want us to believe.

Have, if you will, a look at the second day of the inquest, as reported in the papers.

I did.

I looked at the Daily News, the Daily Telegraph, the East London Observer, the illustrated Police News, the Morning Advertiser and the Times, six papers.

I counted the unprofessional witnesses taking part on that second day of the inquest, and found that they were Henry Tomkins, Charles Lechmere (calling himself "Cross"), William Nichols, Emily Holland (called "Jane Oram in two papers) and Mary Ann Monk.

Out of these five unprofessional witnesses, three of them had their addresses quoted in all six papers. Mary Ann Monk, who was an inmate of a workhouse, had that fact stated in four of the papers, seerving as her address. In two papers, the Daily Telegraph and the Illustrated Police News, it was not explicitly written that she was a workhouse inmate, although it was clear from her testimony that this was so, and so linking her to it was easily done.

In none of these six papers was any effort made to mention Lechmeres address.

Only the Star did have the address, and they had it spot on. This suggests that if the address was read out alound by Lechmere, then it was read out ina clear and precise enough manner for the reporter of the Star to get it perfectly correct. What we can see from other testimonies, though, is that the various reporters had some real problems overhearing what was said, and so the addresses were often muddlet to a significant degree. Streets were not called the same in all papers, and the numbering was sometimes also wrong.

But the Star reporter, who could have overheard "Doveton Street" as Duffton Street, Doughton Street, Danton Street, Loughton Street or anything like that, actually got the address spot on, letter for letter, number for number.
And yet, this very clear message made no impact at all on the six reporters from the Daily News, the Daily Telegraph, the East London Observer, the Illustrated Police News, the Morning Advertiser and the Times.

This picture,all the parts of it taken together, is something those who deny Lechmere´s value as a suspect regards as clearly an unequivocally proving that the address was read out by Charles Lechmere. Because it was in the Star, and if it was in the Star, it must be because the Star reporter heard Charles Lechmere reading it out aloud. The alternative suggestion, that the reporter got the address from a clerk, is regarded as bollocks, because - don´t you know - it is not a proven thing.

As if it IS a proven thing that the Star reporter got the name from Lechmeres mouth?

When six out of six papers anchor four out of five witnesses geographically, whilst they ALL fail to do so with one of the witnesses - and it is the SAME witness throughout - then the time has come to put those little grey cells to good use. If the reporters were lazy on the address matter, why is it that they are so in one case only - a case where it seems the address was read out very clearly and audibly IF that was how their diligent colleague at the Star got it?

[MrBarnett]

Probably like this:

- State your name, address and place of work, please.
- My name is Charles Allen Cross and I have been in the employ of Pickfords for more than thirty years.

Which puts me in mind of the

‘Do women call at the slaughter yard?’

‘I don’t like them.’

exchange between Tomkins and Baxter.

Tomkins didn’t want to give a straight answer to the question and he got away with not doing so.

[Fisherman]

Which puts me in mind of the

‘Do women call at the slaughter yard?’

‘I don’t like them.’

exchange between Tomkins and Baxter.

Tomkins didn’t want to give a straight answer to the question and he got away with not doing so.

Of course. It was not as if important information would go lost for the legal system if a witness did not divulge his address at an inquest; it had already been aquired by the police in advance, and so the stating of the information at an inquest was more or less superfluous in many ways. The one thing that had a legal bearing was that the witness swore to the information given, but I suspect that did not mean that it was something that was followed up on with much gusto.

I think we must add some further questions to R J:s queries:

Why was it that the papers regularly (although there will be the odd exception as there always is) reported the addresses of the various witnesses at an inquest?

I would say that they didn so because the reporters regarded it as part of their task, which means that the practice was instigated by those who ran the papers.

What does it therefore mean if an address is not given in the papers?

I would say it means that the reporters had not been able to aquire the address for some reason, the most likely one being that it was never given. If some or most of the papers had had Lechmeres address in more or less muddled versions differing inbetween the papers, it would be understandable if one or a few papers had given up on the task to make an intelligible representation of the address. In such a case, it would likely owe to how it was stated in a very low or a very unclear voice (in which case the coroner would perhaps ask for a clearer repetition). But when one paper only has the address and has it in perfect order down to the last letter and number, it becomes very hard to believe that the rest of the press skipped over what they apparently otherwise prioritized on account of being lazy.

The implication is an easy one: Charles Lechmere followed up on giving a name he otherwise never used with any authorities (as far as we can tell) by leaving out his address.

[MrBarnett]

Of course. It was not as if important information would go lost for the legal system if a witness did not divulge his address at an inquest; it had already been aquired by the police in advance, and so the stating of the information at an inquest was more or less superfluous in many ways. The one thing that had a legal bearing was that the witness swore to the information given, but I suspect that did not mean that it was something that was followed up on with much gusto.

I think we must add some further questions to R J:s queries:

Why was it that the papers regularly (although there will be the odd exception as there always is) reported the addresses of the various witnesses at an inquest?

I would say that they didn so because the reporters regarded it as part of their task, which means that the practice was instigated by those who ran the papers.

What does it therefore mean if an address is not given in the papers?

I would say it means that the reporters had not been able to aquire the address for some reason, the most likely one being that it was never given. If some or most of the papers had had Lechmeres address in more or less muddled versions differing inbetween the papers, it would be understandable if one or a few papers had given up on the taks to make an intelligible representation of the address. In such a case, it would likely owe to how it was stated in a very low or a very unclear voice (in which case the coroner would perhaps ask for a clearer repetition). But when one paper only has the address and has it in perfect order down to the last letter and number, it becomes very hard to believe that the rest of the press skipped over what they apparently otherwise prioritized on account of being lazy.

The implication is an easy one: Charles Lechmere followed up on giving a name he otherwise never used with any authorities (as far as we can tell) by leaving out his address.

Which is seemingly identical to the situation in 1876 when he had killed a child and it was said that the child’s father believed he was to blame.

[Fisherman]

Which is seemingly identical to the situation in 1876 when he had killed a child and it was said that the child’s father believed he was to blame.

Precisely. And that is the best indication we have that we are dealing with the same Charles Cross in both cases.

Unless it was two more of them coincidences ...

[rjpalmer]

Which puts me in mind of the

‘Do women call at the slaughter yard?’

‘I don’t like them.’

exchange between Tomkins and Baxter.

Tomkins didn’t want to give a straight answer to the question and he got away with not doing so.

Oh, he did, did he?

Coroner Baxter:

“Never mind whether you like them or not. We’re there any about that night?”

Tompkins WAS challenged about his non-response, and went on to concede that there were women in the Whitechapel Road.

How is this exchange a convincing argument that Lechmere could have refused to give his address when asked?

Further, since The Star published the address, he clearly gave it. Again, it is entirely plausible that you’re ascribing to Lechmere what might be better explained by bad acoustics or the indifference of the journalists stuck in the back of the room.

[Mark J D]

They want to hang Lechmere.

<*boggle*...>

M.