Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

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.

Yes he did.

Did he directly answer whether women called at the slaughter yard? No he didn’t.

That was the question he was asked and clearly did not want to answer.

It’s an example of a witness being able to avoid giving information he didn’t wish to give.

[MrBarnett]

Q: Do prostitutes visit your place of work?

A: There are all sorts of people in the main road nearby.

RJ seems to think Tomkins answered the question he was asked. Or does he? Is his post just a knee-jerk anti-Lechmerian response.

[Fisherman]

since The Star published the address, he clearly gave it.

Aaaand there we go again.

The fact that the Star had the address proves not that Lechmere gave it - it only proves that the paper aquired it. And it was in the information given to the police, which is why it would have been available from other sources than Lechmere himself. Like a court clerk, for example.

The next fact - that none of the other papers had the address - militates very strongly against the idea that Lechmere actually gave it.

Furthermore, the 1876 case is a factual example of the carman being the only involved amateur witness in a case of violent death avoiding to divulge his address, and so we have a precedence. Before the 1888 inquest into Polly Nichols' death, there was only one example of which amount of personal information Charles Lechmere gave to the police in combination with violent cases of death in which he was personally involved, and that example suggested that he withheld his address. Therefore, going on the (scant) statistics we have, this is what we should expect from him.

[JeffHamm]

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?

Hmmm, my question was:

"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?"

But your listed facts aren't proof that he kept his wife in the dark about anything? (which I assume they are listed addressing that question and you've simply avoided the latter one about the name being unknown).

Your first fact isn't complete. We know he used the name Cross in court when he was in his 20s, so it's not his "adolescent" surname, although we know it was associated it with him during that period of his life as well. It was his step-father's surname. Also, there are lines of reasoning that suggest that Cross may be the name he was known under at his place of work (at least), making it a name he may very well have used more widely. As such, your fact is tied to a pejorative adjective, which potentially misleads a reader. That aside, what name he used at the inquest does not, in anyway, lead to the conclusion that his wife was unaware of his participation. For all you know, it was his wife who told him to use Cross to "keep their names out of the paper."

Your second fact also does not answer the question. His work day starts at 4am. His being in his work clothes indicates he was working that day. If he was given leave to attend and then return to work, then he's not going to change clothes. If he's given leave to work up until he was to attend but had to take the rest of the day off, then again, as he's only going to be paid for hours worked, he's not going to lose even more pay by having to also end early to go home and change. Regardless, there is no connection to what clothes he was wearing and his wife's knowledge, other than through creative writing, which is not evidence.

Your third fact is unsubstantiated, so I don't even know if it is a fact at all. But, let's pretend it is. What present day people are aware of about an ancestor's wife's knowledge from 130 years ago is hardly indicative of what the wife of that ancestor would know.

So again, do you have any evidence that his wife was unaware of his attendance at the inquest?

- Jeff

[Fiver]

So, it was Cadosch who found Chapman’s body?

Do you really wonder why Christer doesn’t respond to your questions?

Nice attempt at dodging for Fisherman. Thank's for the correction, though. It does nothing to change the fact that Fisherman's claim that "he could not tell Mizen that he was the sole finder of the body, because that would make Mizen detain him" is easily shown to be false.

John Reeves was the sole finder of Martha Tabram's body. The police did not detain John Reeves.

John Davis was the sole finder of Annie Chapman's body. The police did not detain John Davis.

Lewis Deimschutz was the sole finder of Elizabeth Stride's body. Twenty-eight people in Dutfield's Yard were were searched and questioned, but neither Lewis Deimschutz nor any of the others were detained.

PC Edward Watkins was the sole finder of Catherine Eddowes' body. The police did not detain PC Watkins.

Thomas Bowyer was the sole finder of Mary Jane Kelly's body. The police did not detain Thomas Bowyer.

[Fiver]

I’m still waiting for you to tell me how you would have moved fruit and veg from Spitalfields to Covent Garden by goods train.

I am under no obligation to help you with your wild speculation about Robert Paul's work.

[Fiver]

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

What is your bizarre obsession with cats meat? There is no evidence that it had anything to do with any of the Ripper killings.

[MrBarnett]

I am under no obligation to help you with your wild speculation about Robert Paul's work.

It was your suggestion. A rather silly one.

I can understand why you won’t be drawn on it.

[Fiver]

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.

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

Your "proof" is a bit from a newspaper article that contradicts Lechmere's testimony at the Inquest. Unfortunately for you, the Lloyd's article also contradicts PC Mizen's testimony at the Inquest. And it contradicts Robert Paul's testimony at the Inquest.

"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." - Robert Paul interview, 2 September, 1888, Lloyd's Newspaper.

"Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman [Lechmere] passing by in company with another man [Paul] said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." - PC Mizen Inquest testimony, 4 September 1888 Daily News.

"He [Lechmere] and the other man [Paul} left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw the last witness [PC Mizen] whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row. The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." - Charles Lechmere Inquest testimony, 4 September 1888 Daily News.

"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 Inquest testimony, 18 September 1888 Times.

So either your "proof" is wrong or Lechmere, Cross, and Paul lied under oath.

[MrBarnett]

Nice attempt at dodging for Fisherman. Thank's for the correction, though. It does nothing to change the fact that Fisherman's claim that "he could not tell Mizen that he was the sole finder of the body, because that would make Mizen detain him" is easily shown to be false.

John Reeves was the sole finder of Martha Tabram's body. The police did not detain John Reeves.

John Davis was the sole finder of Annie Chapman's body. The police did not detain John Davis.

Lewis Deimschutz was the sole finder of Elizabeth Stride's body. Twenty-eight people in Dutfield's Yard were were searched and questioned, but neither Lewis Deimschutz nor any of the others were detained.

PC Edward Watkins was the sole finder of Catherine Eddowes' body. The police did not detain PC Watkins.

Thomas Bowyer was the sole finder of Mary Jane Kelly's body. The police did not detain Thomas Bowyer.

We must have a different understanding of the meaning of the word ‘detained’. Requiring a group of people to remain in a building while they are questioned and searched is detaining them in my book.

Perhaps you can provided us with the timeline of Bowyer’s activities after he and McCarthy had informed the police of his finding Kelly’s body.

Ditto Davis. Did he accompany the police back to Hanbury Street and was he present when the police searched his room(s)?


Incidentally, did you pick up on the fact that in the post of Fish’s you are referring to he used the word ‘gainsaid’ (contradicted) and not ‘detained’?

[MrBarnett]

What is your bizarre obsession with cats meat? There is no evidence that it had anything to do with any of the Ripper killings.

It was the Lechmere family business.

[Fiver]

We instead need to turn to the inquest proceedings to get as clear a picture as possible, and we already know that Lechmere makes a claim in the Echo that he himself AND Paul informed Mizen about how he thought that Nichols was dead. However, since Lechmere is under suspicion of being the killer and since there are numerous discrepancies between what he and other involved parties reported the matter, it cannot be taken as a truth that Paul made the claim of death.

All this proves is your double standards and circular reasoning.

"since Lechmere is under suspicion of being the killer" is you once again assuming Lechmere is guilty as an excuse for dismissing things he said.

"there are numerous discrepancies between what he and other involved parties reported the matter" is you once again assuming guilt on Lechmere's part. And ignoring that all three of Lechmere, Paul, and Mizen disagreed on some points. And you ignoring that Mizen and Paul agreed with Lechmere on most points.

[Great Aunt]

Another? You don't have any examples where Lechmere told a story that did not match the evidence.

And the Mizen scam exists only in your imagination. PC Mizen and Robert Paul both gave statements that contradict your speculation.



Your idea that "he could not tell Mizen that he was the sole finder of the body, because that would make Mizen detain him" is easily shown to be false.

John Reeves was the sole finder of Martha Tabram's body. The police did not detain John Reeves.

Albert Cadosch was the sole finder of Annie Chapman's body. The police did not detain Albert Cadosch.

Lewis Deimschutz was the sole finder of Elizabeth Stride's body. Twenty-eight people in Dutfield's Yard were were searched and questioned, but neither Lewis Deimschutz nor any of the others were detained.

PC Edward Watkins was the sole finder of Catherine Eddowes' body. The police did not detain PC Watkins.

Thomas Bowyer was the sole finder of Mary Jane Kelly's body. The police did not detain Thomas Bowyer.

They didn't just find the bodies, though, they raised the alarm. Lechmere didn't admit to finding the body on finding a policeman neither did he effectively raise the alarm. Also, Lechmere was found with a body before attempting to raise am alarm.

[Fiver]

It was your suggestion. A rather silly one.

I can understand why you won’t be drawn on it.

It was your suggestion.

"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." - Mr Barnett, post #2825

"I’m still waiting for you to tell me how you would have moved fruit and veg from Spitalfields to Covent Garden by goods train." - Mr Barnett, post #3058

We are still waiting for you.

[Fiver]

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.

You are making a series of assumptions, starting with where Paul was a carman.

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market." - Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday, 2 September, 1888."

"Robert Baul, 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road." - The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, 18 September, 1888."

The two accounts differ about where Paul worked. You're trying to combine the two while not taking the second a face value. Cobbett's Cort is near Spitalfields Market. It is not Spitalfields Market. Paul could have said Spitalfields Market if he meant it. And there was a Tobacco Manufactory at Hanbury and Corbett's Court. People normally deliver produce from where it was grown to a market or from a market to a home or restaurant, not between markets. And if they did, they could have used a goods train.

You've laid into other people for making far fewer assumptions than you do here.