Evidence of innocence

[Great Aunt]

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...

It seems that giving general contact details (eg, employers name or basic address details) was acceptable in court.

[Newbie]

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

Casebook page for newspaper accounts of 2nd day of inquest: generally the September 3rd edition.

https://www.casebook.org/victims/polly.crossneil.html

No mention of address: Daily News, Daily Telegraph, Eastern Argus, East London observer, the Echo, Loyd's Weekly, Manchester Guardian, Morning Advertiser


Mention of Lechmere's address: The Star (an evening paper)
- probably the most thorough, because it was the Star that jumped everyone with the account by Paul; so quite probably they put the most effort and care into it. More details of the inquest than other accounts. I would guess their thoroughness prompted them to go to the police to get Lechmere's address; but from a quick read of their account, there is very little that would cause one to wonder about Lechmere's behavior.


I think Walker, Holland, Paul, etc. responded to what was asked of them... it is an intimidating situation for most and you want to cooperate. James Hatfield was living in a workhouse: doubt it was something of which he was proud and willingly wanted the assembly to know. In the Daily Telegraph, 3 others did not give their addresses: 1. Mary Anne Monk - address not mentioned in the Daily telegraph - but implied , is mentioned in the Daily News; 2. Thomas Ede - a signal man with East London Railway Company; 3. Alfred Maishaw - a night watchman. Thomas Ede & Alfred Maishaw both testified on day 3 of the inquest - two weeks after Lechmere. None of the addresses were explicitly written down by the reporter of the Daily Telegraph on this 3rd inquest date (lives in the cottage by the murder, resides in essex wharf, etc). It could have been a different reporter.


Cross was not manipulating anyone - evading a question is not manipulation; he most simply probably ignored the part of the question involving his address and Baxter had no interest in compelling him to respond to it. If he was unclear, newspaper reporters were in the habit of phonetically writing down what they thought they heard. The Star got his complete address: 22 Doveton street.


Some accounts, including the Star have Lechmere saying that it was he who asked that they see the police, or that it was by mutual consent after a discussion.

In Loyd's Weekly, the reporter has Lechmere saying that Paul refused to touch the body, and then they saw a policeman coming:

"The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said, "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming."

In the East London Observer, the reporter has Lechmere saying that he was the one who mentions going to seek the police - however, no mention of saying: "I'm not touching her!", and Paul confirms to Lechmere that she is dead.

"Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said on Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side in the gateway to a wool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had done, so I waited for him to come up. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head, and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, Yes, she is." he then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees, we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood."

[JeffHamm]

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.

And, as you say, the fact that it was in the information given to the police, indicates he was not trying to conceal his identity from them. Therefore, his use of the name Cross is not evidence he was trying to conceal his identity. He cannot both be trying to conceal his identity and not trying to conceal his identity - that is a paradox, which refutes the line of reasoning.

We can safely conclude, therefore, that the reason he went by the name of Cross at the inquest is something other than an attempt to conceal his identity.

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

It is consistent with that interpretation, but it is not strong evidence. The papers do omit information presented, and often multiple papers appear to be either reprinting a common story (so one reporter's omission gets reproduced multiple times, but it is still just one omission). A break down of the various reports, trying to determine how many independent reports we're dealing with, would have to be done and presented before moving on to drawing inferences. Even if there were multiple stories, none of which appear to present his address, they are all tied to the presentation at the inquest for which something idiosyncratic could have occurred (off the top of my head just to illustrate the concept I'm trying to convey, a shuffling of people at the time he initially gets up and answers the opening question may have interfered with hearing his address when he stated it and only the Star reporter caught that information. A bit too "just-so" story for my liking, of course, but as that's the standard set for the accusation against Cross/Lechmere, the bar for what constitutes evidence has been set pretty low.

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.

That is, I think, the best line of argument as it is grounded in a relevant piece of evidence. The issue, though, is that as you indicate above, he clearly had to have given the information to the police since the Star reporter obtained it (or, of course, the Star reporter was the only one to hear him when he stated it at the inquest, but we're considering options where that's presumed not to be the case). And that once again brings us back to the conclusion, that whatever his reason for not stating his home address during his testimony, his home address does not appear to have been withheld from the police.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

It was the Lechmere family business.

If selling cats meat was Charlesthe Lechmere's "family business" it should feature prominently in the records.

1870 Marriage Certificate - Carman
1871 Census - Carman
1881 Census - Carman
1891 Census - Carman
1901 Census - Railway Agent Carman
1902 London City Directory - Grocer
1905 London City Directory - Grocer
1910 London City Directory - Grocer
1911 Census - General Shop and Sweetstuff-
1915 London City Directory - Grocer

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

[JeffHamm]

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.

?? How is reporting what he found to the first police officer he comes across not effectively raising the alarm? Don't forget, the others saw blood, or a horribly mutilated body, Cross/Lechmere and Paul both were unsure if Nichols was even dead and thought she may only have been drunk and passed out. they didn't see any blood, or any mutilations. The possibility of her being dead appears to be them thinking she may have died of natural causes (exposure, alcohol poisoning, heart attack, etc) rather than having been nearly decapitated and mutilated. As such, it would be surprising if they reacted in a way similar to those who found Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, or Kelly, where the extent of the carnage was readily apparent.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

Certainly, a number of factors militate against such a suggestion; Paul said that he felt Nichols breathe, for example, and dead people do not breathe. So why would he say that Nichols was dead if he had felt her breathe? It is quite a riddle!

You are badly misrepresenting what Robert Paul said.

"He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. 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.' - Robert Paul.

"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

"I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." - Robert Paul

Furthermore, PC Mizen says throughout that ONE man spoke to him, not two men. And that man was Charles Lechmere, not Robert Paul. The coroner even has to remind Mizen about Pauls presence before he gets around to acknowledging it! Therefore, PC Mizen can of course not be used as a source for establishing that Paul told him that he thought that Nichols was dead. His testiminy seems to tell us that Paul never said a iot to him at all.

You are misrepresenting what PC Mizen said.

"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 passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." - PC Mizen

[Newbie]

My mistake, Loyd's broke the account of Paul.
The Star still strikes me as the most thorough and reliable on the testimony at the inquest; unfortunately, the newspaper accounts on what was said vary greatly. The Star claims to have the widest readership of evening papers: they probably had more resources and hired courtroom reporters who actually had stenographic skills.

Also, big difference in the emotional and social status of males who are 27 and males who are 38.

[Fiver]

I think we must look at what Lechmere did in the role as the killer as something that he made up as he went along. one thing gave the other and it would have been a game of adjusting as best as he could. For example, one could reason that he would not lie to Mizen since he would be found out at the inquest - but when he lied to the PC, it would have been the one and only thing he could do at that stage if he wanted to circumvent the police. Once he found himself at the inquest, he needed to deny the lie and get away with it, and if he was the killer (and just between you and me, he must have been) this was just what he did.

The idea that a killer will always have all possibilities covered from the outset is not a sound one. Heaps of them have stood before inquests and trials and lied; "It was not me!", although their intentions from the outset did not involve appearing at inquests and trials.

Again you start by assuming guilt and interpret everything through that lens.

If Lechmere wanted to circumvent the police, he should have left as soon as he heard Robert Paul. PC Neil testified it would have been easy for the killer to do that. Lechmere's staying with the body was either the action of an innocent man or a rather stupid killer.

If Lechmere wanted to circumvent the police, he should not have gotten Paul's attention. Doing that was either the action of an innocent man or a rather stupid killer.

If Lechmere wanted to circumvent the police, he should have split up with Paul before they found a policeman. Deliberately traveling with Paul to talk to PC Mizen was the actions of either an innocent man or a mindbogglingly stupid killer.

Lying to PC Mizen would have been incredibly stupid. Robert Paul would have immediately known Lechmere was lying. PC Mizen would have known Lechemre was lying as soon as he reached Nichol's body. It would have been an immediate problem to lie to PC Mizen. Again, Lechmere's actions are either that of an innocent man or a mindbogglingly stupid killer.

Having escaped immediate detection of a lie due to dumb luck (PC Neil was already at the crime scene), the gross incompentance of PC Neil not getting anyone's identity, and Robert Paul's support of the lie for no explicable reason, only one of the stupidest murderers in all of history would have voluntarily come forward as a witness.

Charles Lechmere's actions are either those of an innocent man or of a killer of incredible stupidity.

[Fiver]

If instead Lechmere and Lechmere only spoke to Mizen - and this is the picture given by the PC - things end up in a very different light.

Again you ignore Robert Paul's testimony, which supports that both he and Lechmere spoke to PC Mizen.

"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

I suspect you will continue to ignore this inconvenient fact. You've been ignoring inconvenient facts for over 200 pages now.

The detail to keep track of is that Lechmere disagrees not only with Mizen but also with Paul. So he is the one person who disagrees with both of the other actors in the Bucks Row drama.

Why do you keep repeating this provably false claim? Paul, Mizen, and Lechmere all disagreed with both of the other two on some points. All three agreed on most points. Robert Paul agreed with almost everything Charles Lechmere said. Their only real disagreement was Paul thought Nichols' face was cold, while Lechmere thought her face was warm.

If Paul had testified that Lechmere first declined to help him prop Nichols up and then suggested that the two should instead go in search of a PC, things would all be in good order.

But things seem never to be in good order when the carman testifies. For some reason.

If Paul had testified that Lechmere suggested they should go find a policeman, you would have interpreted that as Lechmere wanting to get Paul away from the body as soon as possible so he did not discover her wounds.

Almost everything Lechmere testified to was confirmed by Paul. Paul would have known if Lechmere was lying, yet Paul did nothing to contradict these supposed lies.

[Fiver]

Once we see how Lechmere also finds it very hard to agree with Paul about the proceedings in Bucks Row,

Lechmere testified first, so the real question is did Robert Paul's testimony support Charles Lechmere's

And Robert Paul's testimony continues to contradict you.

"...but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman." - Charles Lechmere
"...as he was passing up Buck's-row he saw a man standing in the middle of the road." - Robert Paul

"He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down." - Charles Lechmere
"As witness approached him he walked towards the pavement, and witness stepped on to the roadway in order to pass him." - Robert Paul

"The witness said, "Come and look over here. There's a woman." - Charles Lechmere
"He then touched witness on the shoulder, and said, "Come and look at this woman here."" - Robert Paul

"They both went across to the body..." - Charles Lechmere
"Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway." - Robert Paul

"...and the witness took hold of the hands while the other man stopped over her head to look at her. The hands were cold and limp...." - Charles lechemre
"Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold." - Robert Paul

"...and the witness said, "I believe she's dead." - Charles Lechmere
Robert Paul neither confirmed nor denied this.

"Then he touched her face, which felt warm. "- Charles Lechmere
Robert Paul disagreed, saying that Nichols face was cold.

"The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." - Charles Lechmere
"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul

"He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright." - Charles Lechmere
Robert Paul neither confirmed nor denied this.

"The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her." - Charles Lechmere
Robert Paul neither confirmed nor denied this.

"The woman's legs were uncovered." - Charles Lechmere
"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

"Her bonnet was off, but close to her head." - Charles Lechmere
"Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. - Robert Paul

"The witness did not notice that her throat was cut, as the night was very dark." Charles Lechmere
"It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood." - Robert Paul
"He could not see whether the clothes were torn..." - Robert Paul

"He and the other man 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." - Charles Lechmere
"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

"The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." - Charles Lechmere
"...he thought she was dead" - Robert Paul

"The policeman answered, "All right." - Charles Lechmere
Robert Paul neither confirmed nor denied this.

"I saw no one after leaving home, except the man that overtook me, the constable in Baker's row, and the deceased. There was nobody in Buck's row when we left. " - Charles Lechmere
"He had not met any one before he reached Buck's-row, and did not see any one running away." - Robert Paul

"He merely said that he would have fetched a policeman but he was behind time. I was behind time myself." - Charles Lechmere
"I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on...." - Robert Paul

So where is the part where Lechmere finds it very hard to agree with Paul about the proceedings in Bucks Row?

[Fiver]

You say that you don´t think that we must make Lechmere look like the "difficult one". But he IS the difficult one, no matter how we look on things. He is the one person who disagrees with the other persons involved.

You keep saying this, but it is still false.

Take, for instance, the matter at hand: Did he lie about what he said and did at the murder site?

Well, it´s either that, or Mizen misheard/misunderstood him - on one item after another.
Lechmere did not say anything about a second PC, but Mizen thought he did.
Lechmere did tell Mizen that the woman could well be dead, but Mizen failed to hear that.
Lechmere´s description of how he had found a woman in Bucks Row was overheard by Mizen as a simple claim that she "had been found" there.
Although Lechmer spoke of death, Mizen said that he had said nothing of murder or suicide - something he would have been aware of if the phantom PC had sent him to fetch Mizen.
It´s incredible how Mizen was able to misinterpret, mishear and misunderstand just about everything the stand-up carman told him. Or what BOTH carmen told him, according to Lechmere - but not to Mizen. For some unfathomable reason.

What both carmen said according to Lechmere and Paul.

But you continue to ignore Robert Paul and the many ways his testimony supports Lechmere.

[Newbie]

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

Now, you are just repeating yourself.

I presented a complete explanation as to how using Cross in this case might be to Lechmere's advantage.
Quite frankly, i don't know how i can possibly make it clearer.

On the last point, you are mixing up everything.
Let's start with something simple: would you agree that Lechmere was aware that he attended the Polly Nichol's inquest to give testimony on having been the first to discover the body of Jack the Ripper's first widely accepted victim? Are you on board with that? Having then told his wife about it, it was forgotten between the two because so many fascinating things were happening in their lives and that fact turned out to be a trivial detail - correct?

Some here have said that he was protecting his wife due to her delicate health and the delicate health of their infant; that's possible, but only for a short time - after a while you'd think he'd say something to her about it.

Although i'm just spit-balling here, some might say that they were a deeply conservative religious couple who found it shameful to be associated in such a disgraceful affair; that still doesn't explain why he shows up to court in his coarse work clothing, as mentioned in several accounts. I think he is the only person whose clothing is mentioned, aside from the deceased.

A few have said that he protected the family name due to the income his mom derived from a trust: said income being jeopardized by the Lechmere name being embroiled in this tawdry affair and their betters in the countryside being scandalized. It's an interesting theory; but if so, it doesn't justify the 2nd & 3rd points: showing up like a common lower class workman, and it being absent from family lore. And besides, the trust fund was established on his mother's side....different family.


Some have said that the affaire was personally demeaning to him and his family, who aspired for the approval of the gentile class; then why show up as a bum to the inquest? Personally, i think Lechmere didn't give a fig about what the Countryside Lechmere's thought about him; he might have even resented them.

Believe what you want.

[MrBarnett]

If selling cats meat was Charlesthe Lechmere's "family business" it should feature prominently in the records.

1870 Marriage Certificate - Carman
1871 Census - Carman
1881 Census - Carman
1891 Census - Carman
1901 Census - Railway Agent Carman
1902 London City Directory - Grocer
1905 London City Directory - Grocer
1910 London City Directory - Grocer
1911 Census - General Shop and Sweetstuff-
1915 London City Directory - Grocer

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

Keep digging, you may get there eventually.

[MrBarnett]

Now, you are just repeating yourself.

I presented a complete explanation as to how using Cross in this case might be to Lechmere's advantage.
Quite frankly, i don't know how i can possibly make it clearer.

On the last point, you are mixing up everything.
Let's start with something simple: would you agree that Lechmere was aware that he attended the Polly Nichol's inquest to give testimony on having been the first to discover the body of Jack the Ripper's first widely accepted victim? Are you on board with that? Having then told his wife about it, it was forgotten between the two because so many fascinating things were happening in their lives and that fact turned out to be a trivial detail - correct?

Some here have said that he was protecting his wife due to her delicate health and the delicate health of their infant; that's possible, but only for a short time - after a while you'd think he'd say something to her about it.

Although i'm just spit-balling here, some might say that they were a deeply conservative religious couple who found it shameful to be associated in such a disgraceful affair; that still doesn't explain why he shows up to court in his coarse work clothing, as mentioned in several accounts. I think he is the only person whose clothing is mentioned, aside from the deceased.

A few have said that he protected the family name due to the income his mom derived from a trust: said income being jeopardized by the Lechmere name being embroiled in this tawdry affair and their betters in the countryside being scandalized. It's an interesting theory; but if so, it doesn't justify the 2nd & 3rd points: showing up like a common lower class workman, and it being absent from family lore. And besides, the trust fund was established on his mother's side....different family.


Some have said that the affaire was personally demeaning to him and his family, who aspired for the approval of the gentile class; then why show up as a bum to the inquest? Personally, i think Lechmere didn't give a fig about what the Countryside Lechmere's thought about him; he might have even resented them.

Believe what you want.

So who are the few who have said he was protecting the name to prevent his mother’s income from being jeopardised?

[Fiver]

So how do we decide what is likeliest (and yes, R J, I know that serial murder is not likely at all in the first place, but once we know it was in swing, we´d better adjust our thinking to that fact), that PC Mizen misheard a number of things - or indeed that he perhaps lied about them! - or that Lechmere was the liar, a liar who tried to hide his deed?

The answer is simple: If Mizen was the failing party, then Lechmere should be scot free from any other suspicious behavior.

The answer is simple: Whose testimony does Robert Paul support?

And Paul's testimony supports Lechmere.

"Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. 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

It was quite bad enough as it was, and there should not be more. And so, Lechmere:

- should not disagree with Paul about what was said.

- should not call himself by any other name than the one he otherwise used in contacts with authorities.

- should not give a departure time from home that does not dovetail with him being in Bucks Row when Paul arrived there.

- should not have the rotten luck to be caught in the eye of the storm by the blood evidence.

Finally, he should not have a trodden path right through the killing fields, plus a reason to visit the Berner Street area on a Saturday night.

You continue to repeat this mix of incorrect statements and speculation.

* Paul mostly agreed with Lechmere, especially on what was said.

* Lechmere had used his father's surname in "contacts with authorities" as far back as 1876. He gave his first and middle name, home and work addresses, and work shift, so Lechmere was not trying to hide his identity from the police, his family, his employers, his coworkers, or his neighbors.

* Lechmere's departure time dovetailed with the times given by PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain.

* Your "blood evidence" is bunk. Your own experts don't support your claims.

* Hundreds of men lived and worked in the area of the murders. People who understand geographic profiling have repeatedly shown your errors about this.

* The Berner Street area is not Berner Street. Hundreds of men had a reason to visit the area. To be the murderer of Stride and Eddowes, Lechemre would have had to get up three hours early on his day off or stay up 23 hours straight. The times argue strongly against Lechmere being their killer.