Evidence of innocence

[MrBarnett]

But no one at Pickfords.

Makes sense.

Who’s saying that, Paddy?

[Fiver]

So which of these matters are "personal interpretation", R J?

- 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"...

Scobie's brief clip in the "documentary' shows he was fed a mix of false statements and opinion masquerading as facts, much like your list here.

* Using his stepfather's surname was unusual, but Lechmere had done it before in 1876. He gave his first and middle names, work address and shift start, and home address, so Cal was not trying to hide his identity.

* Everyone that found on of the Ripper's victims was alone with the body for an undetermined amount of time and was there near the time of death. This is not evidence against Lechmere or any of the other men.

* Thousands of men walked through the "killing fields of Whitechapel/Spitalfields" on a daily basis. This is not evidence against Lechmere or any of the other men.

* You're still sticking with your bloody rag ley lines? What's next, calling on a psychic? That is not evidence; it is complete nonsense.

Real human beings walk along roads and go around buildings. They do not travel as the birds fly.
Real human beings do not deliberately drop bloody rags as clues. Only Batman villains do things like that,
The apron piece found at Gouston street was not on a direct route between Mitre Square and Doveton Street.
To kill Stride and Eddowes, Lechemre would have had to get up 3 hours early on his day off or stay up for 23 hours straight, so the timing makes it very unlikely that Lechemre was their killer,
Lechmere would have been at work when the Pinchin Street Torso was deposited.
A bloody rag was found only a block away from the Pinchin Street Torso a few hours later. You ignore it because it does not fit your theory.
A second bloody rag was found near a church the next day. There is no evidence that it had anything to do with the Pinchin Street Torso.
A you try to treat that location as if it was a single point, instead of an entire square block.
You draw your leyline though on corner of that block while ignoring the rest of it because that is the only way you can get a ley line that comes near Doveton Street.
This second rag was not on a direct route between the Pinchin Street archway and Doveton Street.

* Lechmere disagreed with Mizen, but not in a way that would be perfectly suited to take him past the police. Robert Paul also disagreed with Mizen and supported Lechmere's account. Paul had no reason to lie under oath for a stranger.

* If PC Mizen had a tiny particle of brain, he could assume that the people who told him about the body had found the body.

* Refusing to prop up Nichols body is still a point in favor of Lechmere's innocence.

* His timing for when he left home does fit with when he was present in Bucks Row. And with the times given by PC MIzen, PC Neil, and PC Thain.

Are these matters "personal interpretations" from my side? Or do they belong to the recorded evidence in the case?

* His use of Cross is a fact. Your personal interpretation of that fact to assume Lechmere's guilt is your personal interpretation.
* His finding the body is a fact. Your personal interpretation of that fact to assume Lechmere's guilt is your personal interpretation.
* His walking through the area is a fact. It it not evidence that Lechmere was the Ripper, that is your personal interpretation.
* Bloody rags were found - those are facts. They are not evidence that Lechmre was the Ripper, that is your personal interpretation.
* PC Mizen and Lechmere disagreeing about what was said is a fact. Robert Paul supporting Lechmre and disagreeing with Mizen is another fact - one you repeatedly ignore because it does not fit your theory. Your personal interpretation the disagreement to assume Lechmere's guilt is your personal interpretation.
* Lechmere did refuse to prop up Nichol's body. It it not evidence that Lecheme was the Ripper, that is your personal interpretation.
* Your claim that "He gave timings for his departure from home that do not fit with when he was present in Bucks Row" is not a fact. It is your personal interpretation.

[Fiver]

Now neither Paul nor Cross.when they set out to find a policeman,knew that a crime had been committed.

Both men appear to have thought a crime had been committed.

"I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle." - Robert Paul

"In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon" - Charles Lechmere

[MrBarnett]

“To kill Stride and Eddowes, Lechemre would have had to get up 3 hours early on his day off or stay up for 23 hours straight, so the timing makes it very unlikely that Lechemre was their killer”

Fiver must have lead a very sheltered life.

[harry]

Cannot remember reading anything of the two explanations you have given Fiver,but It still doesn't add up to knowing a crime had been committed,and there is no information Cross or Paul relayed those suspicions to Mizen.

[drstrange169]

A few of issues.

Whether he had a suit or not is not important. The key piece of information is that he wore the apron. This strongly suggests he had been working that day.

The lie put out that describing his appearance was in any way odd or unusual that it had been singled out as exclusive to Cross is troubling because, as I've shown, the reporter did it to other witnesses.

I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation how the neighbours would not have known about a witness called Cross living at number 22 and how Elizabeth could not have known about the story.

I'd also like to see where reporters commented on the fact that Cross didn't give an abode or where the Star boasted about gaining his address exclusively and why the reporter would have done so.

[harry]

A person can still appear respectfull even in work clothes,and I am not aware of any standards in respect of how a person had to appear in court in regard to clothing.
A little aside here.I was concened in a case where 10 seamen were charged with the same offence.All showed up in their work clothes.One wore a tie so the magistrate reduced his fine on that account.

[MrBarnett]

A few of issues.

Whether he had a suit or not is not important. The key piece of information is that he wore the apron. This strongly suggests he had been working that day.

The lie put out that describing his appearance was in any way odd or unusual that it had been singled out as exclusive to Cross is troubling because, as I've shown, the reporter did it to other witnesses.

I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation how the neighbours would not have known about a witness called Cross living at number 22 and how Elizabeth could not have known about the story.

I'd also like to see where reporters commented on the fact that Cross didn't give an abode or where the Star boasted about gaining his address exclusively and why the reporter would have done so.

The lie put out?

Please explain.

[MrBarnett]

A person can still appear respectfull even in work clothes,and I am not aware of any standards in respect of how a person had to appear in court in regard to clothing.
A little aside here.I was concened in a case where 10 seamen were charged with the same offence.All showed up in their work clothes.One wore a tie so the magistrate reduced his fine on that account.

So, in recent times, the way a witness was dressed was deemed respectful/disrespectful to the court?

How much more so would it have been in the 1880s?

[drstrange169]

>>Please explain<<

Amongst many other similar quotes over the years across the boards and Facebook groups,

"... given the absence of comments about others, there must have been something uniquely different about his attire to generate comment."

[JeffHamm]

We can safely conclude no such thing, no, for reasons given above. All we can say is that he did not give information to the police that would keep them from finding him, and that was to be expected, since if he was looked into by the police, a false address would immediately have gotten him into trouble, whereas a name change could be provided with some sort of explanation about honoring his former stepfather.

This, I have pointed out a hundred times or more by now, but it seems those who spend their days trying to diminish Lechmere´s value as a suspect and the likely killer are equipped with teflon brains; it just won´t stick.

Hi Fisherman,

I can't say I've ever seen you post that before, but it's a long thread. So, we agree, then. He did not try and deceive the police about his identity because he made it trivial for them to find him, and the name he gave is indeed associated with him through it being his stepfather. So the name thing is not a pointer to guilt because there is no deception involved.

- Jeff

[harry]

I would expect,Mr Barnett,that had Cross been deemed to be disrespectfull in wearing an apron,the Coroner would have remarked on it.

[Darryl Kenyon]

That’s a start. So you acknowledge the possibility that he may have omitted his name/address when giving evidence under oath in order to conceal something?

I knew I would get jumped on for that post, but I try and be fair and look at it from all angles. So yes Gary there is the possibility that he may have asked the court, and given a privacy reason why he didn't want his address to be read out in court. But the point is, as Fish says the police knew his address , they knew his workplace as well . He appeared at the inquest and a popular newspaper printed his address . So if he was trying to conceal his ID with smoke and mirrors say, he wasn't doing a very good job of it.
Regards Darryl

[Fisherman]

Yes, they won the lottery in 1890. Before that they had the arse out of their trousers and couldn’t have afforded to rent a ramshackle shed in Backchurch Lane.

From rags to riches!

[Fisherman]

A few of issues.

Whether he had a suit or not is not important. The key piece of information is that he wore the apron. This strongly suggests he had been working that day.

It is also in line with a suggestion that he may have told his wife that he was off to a normal working day, thereby obscuring from her that he was going to attend a murder inquest. It´s all about perspectives.

The lie put out that describing his appearance was in any way odd or unusual that it had been singled out as exclusive to Cross is troubling because, as I've shown, the reporter did it to other witnesses.

I'd like to hear a reasonable explanation how the neighbours would not have known about a witness called Cross living at number 22 and how Elizabeth could not have known about the story.

The point I am making is not that no neighbour could have identified him - it is that it is line with such a wish on his behakf if he did not speak his address at the inquest. Again, it is about perspectives.

I'd also like to see where reporters commented on the fact that Cross didn't give an abode or where the Star boasted about gaining his address exclusively and why the reporter would have done so.

Why would we expect the reporters to comment on how he did not give his address, Dusty? And why would the Star treat a rather minor effort in a trivial matter on behalf of the reporter as a scoop?