Evidence of innocence

[The Baron]

you should not expect me to return.

You brought the Alcohol reference to the debate, thinking you are maybe writing something funny, trying to give a false impression that you can handle the challenge, you have been shown wrong, your reference has been shown weak and inconsistent, and I am the last one who wants you to return.



The Baron

[Fisherman]

You brought the Alcohol reference to the debate, thinking you are maybe writing something funny, trying to give a false impression that you can handle the challenge, you have been shown wrong, your reference has been shown weak and inconsistent, and I am the last one who wants you to return.



The Baron

It is one thing to speak of corking up champagne and another - tasteless - one to imply that debate opponents are drunk. As long as you avoid such things, there is nothing wrong about making references to alcohol; the mere idea is ridiculous.

That is why I make you pay for it. And return when there is a need to.

[The Baron]

It is one thing to speak of corking up champagne and another - tasteless - one to imply that debate opponents are drunk. As long as you avoid such things, there is nothing wrong about making references to alcohol; the mere idea is ridiculous.

That is why I make you pay for it. And return when there is a need to.

You returned and you are proved wrong again!



The Baron

[The Baron]

Is it perhaps the evasive Phantom Killer you speak of...?

Yes the Phantom Killer, the same Phantom Killer who killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly.

Do you think by repeating this phrase 'phantom killer" you are making a point or something?!

You have nothing, your theory against the carman is empty, your twisted arguments are voids.

You cannot even prove Nichols was cut when Cross and Paul examined her, and yet you want to convict him as the ripper and the torso killer!

Was it not a journalist who forged those ripper letters?! That's what you get when you depend on a journalist to tell you the 'truth'



The Baron

[Newbie]

The Anderson/Macnaghten/Swanson suspects have more facets than just a criminological one, there also are socio-political aspects that go beyond the mere question of guilt. It would be bad practice in my eyes to ignore them as they are part of the small amount of historical first-hand info we have and should be valued as such. You may drop them for reasons of convenience but that would not change their overall relevance.



First-hand information from witnesses or officials who were directly involved with the murder cases of 1888/9 will always have more weight for me than contemporary second-hand info (e.g. press articles) or current deductions but I'm not dogmatic here, oftentimes we have to cope with what is available and make the best of it. With official info, most of the problematic guesswork can be eliminated, just take the Paul situation with three conflicting press articles. It's shaky ground.

The police knew Crossmere's home address, they knew that he was the first person seen on the crime scene, they knew his profession and place of work so they probably knew about his way to work and they also realised that he told Mizen he is wanted in Buck's Row but by then PC Neill had already found the body, yet they did not act on it. Ignorance, stupidity? Maybe, but that explanation as to why the police did not suspect him seems a bit too simple to me. It was Whitechapel, after all, and I'm sure the police knew about the usual suspects when it came to violent crimes in their area, they may have been a bit blind or simply went with experience, your choice.

I guess we will never know how much effort the police put in to investigating Lechmere. By all appearances, next to none.
Why should they?

It was the first of the canonical murders: hysteria hadn't set in;
Most in the neighborhood suspected a gang was responsible;
It was Lechmere who seems to have come to them;
he was a longtime employee of a reputable company;
he seemed calm and composed at the inquest;
he was a family man in his late 30's;
he was not a foreigner or recent immigrant, nor did he have bouts with insanity;
he was discovered at the scene precisely at a time in which one would expect him to be on his 30 minute walk to a job that started at 4 am;
the guy who discovered him standing next to the body had no suspicions about him;
it was unclear, due to the lack of blood, if the murder was actually committed on Baker's row


Most importantly, Victorian England couldn't conceive of such a person being a serial killer.
A mentally unbalanced immigrant like Kosminski matched the zeitgeist

[Newbie]

I’d say the likely killer was the individual who didn’t loiter at the crime scene, approach the first passer-by, and attend the police inquest. Hey, that’s just me!

Loitering means hanging out idly without purpose or motivation.
No one is suggesting Lechmere was cracking his knuckles waiting for Paul to appear.
If you can get away from the crime scene surreptitiously, that certainly would be preferable;
If not, acting like you are the first to the scene of the crime would probably work - if you have the nerve for it.

Whether he committed the crime or not, heading to the police was the wise choice (whether he gave a damn about the murdered woman or not)
If someone mentions in a newspaper article that you were discovered standing next to the body, you would want to attempt to clear that type of thing up with authorities.

If the police were curious as to who you are, they would find you:
its some carman walking to work probably around the broad street station, who lives east of Buck's row. Police aren't that incompetent.

He had no choice but to go to the inquest.

[Newbie]

Another stab in the heart of this misguided theory!

Lechmerians claim that Charles Cross concealed his true name "Lechmere" and suggested Cross may not be the name he was known as at work.

But Cross stood at the inquests and before the coroners and the jurys and the police officers and all kind of journalists two times, and in those two times he gave the name "Cross"

Was there no one at all there in those two occasions who knows this man?!

I challenge every lechmerian to prove to me here and now that there was no one at all present in those two occasions who knew Cross true identity and his "Lechmere" name.



The Baron

This is absurd.

Prove to me that you put any thought into any of this!

[Newbie]

One or two things that trouble me about Lech's guilt are these things:

It is approximately 1.8 miles (or a 30 minute walk) between 22 Doveton street and Pickfords.

one would imagine he would have cased a particular location like Buck's row before the act of killing someone.
He had at least two months to get a feel for what times the beat cops and regulars passed down the street.
He most likely would have had a watch: probably a bit of a luxury back then.

Why didn't he know that Robert Paul should be expected to come down that street on his way to work around 3:38 am?
And wouldn't it be a coincidence for Robert Paul to find him there at precisely the time in which he should have been there?
* It being approximately 1.8 miles (or a 30 minute walk) between 20 Dutton street and Pickfords.

[Newbie]

One possible resolution to running in to Paul at 3:38 am is that Paul was 7- 10 minutes early that morning.

Robert Paul's address at 30 Foster street (i couldn't find it), was in the general vicinity of Collingwood street & Darling row (some doc lumped them together);
that would make it around a 1 mile walk to his workplace at Corbet's court (15 - 20 minutes away).

Paul first said that he arrived at the murder scene at 3:45 am. That makes sense if he thought he left for work at 3:40 am (his usual time: the time one would expect him to leave given the distance of travel). People tend to just dismiss his time as being off and go no further. One explanation is that he left early for work and didn't realize it. Leaving for work at 3:33 am would bring him to work well before 4 am.....and Robert Paul didn't seem to be the type of guy who wanted to punch in early to impress his bosses.

In other words, Lechmere could have cased the street and expected Paul to come some 7 - 10 minutes later; by that time he would have completed the ritual and headed on out. Paul screwed up by coming early that morning.

As for the coincidence aspect, the coincidence is of Paul's making: the act of showing up at the unusual time of 3:38 am

[Dickere]

One possible resolution to running in to Paul at 3:38 am is that Paul was 7- 10 minutes early that morning.

Robert Paul's address at 30 Foster street (i couldn't find it), was in the general vicinity of Collingwood street & Darling row (some doc lumped them together);
that would make it around a 1 mile walk to his workplace at Corbet's court (15 - 20 minutes away).

Paul first said that he arrived at the murder scene at 3:45 am. That makes sense if he thought he left for work at 3:40 am (his usual time: the time one would expect him to leave given the distance of travel). People tend to just dismiss his time as being off and go no further. One explanation is that he left early for work and didn't realize it. Leaving for work at 3:33 am would bring him to work well before 4 am.....and Robert Paul didn't seem to be the type of guy who wanted to punch in early to impress his bosses.

In other words, Lechmere could have cased the street and expected Paul to come some 7 - 10 minutes later; by that time he would have completed the ritual and headed on out. Paul screwed up by coming early that morning.

As for the coincidence aspect, the coincidence is of Paul's making: the act of showing up at the unusual time of 3:38 am

But Paul said he was running late too. Maybe he normally would have walked through there before Lechmere did, so Lech was 'unlucky' that morning ?

[Fisherman]

Yes the Phantom Killer, the same Phantom Killer who killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly.

Do you think by repeating this phrase 'phantom killer" you are making a point or something?!

No, I think history made it for me: There are no sightings or records of any other person at the murder site before Lechmere was found there.

You have nothing, your theory against the carman is empty, your twisted arguments are voids.

I have a large amount of circumstantial evidence, enough for a barrister to say that there is a prima facie case against Lechmere. As for twisted arguments, I´ll leave that department to you, who are much more suited to deal in that department.

You cannot even prove Nichols was cut when Cross and Paul examined her, and yet you want to convict him as the ripper and the torso killer!

That´s correct, I cannot even prove that. It may be that she was lying around unharmed in the street, giving off no signs of life but for a faint, weak breath. However, the general conception is that she of course was cut as Lechmere and Paul was there, and I ascribe to that line of thinking myself. The only ones who suggest that she was alive and kicking are researchers of a questionable caliber.

Was it not a journalist who forged those ripper letters?! That's what you get when you depend on a journalist to tell you the 'truth'

The Baron

Nobody knows if it was a journalist, numerous journalists or somebody else. So claiming that it WAS a journalist and thereafter saying that it is what we get when depending on journalists to tell the truth is nothing but an insult based on lacking knowledge. Which - of course - is your field of research in a nutshell.
If you feel you want to come back for more, be my guest.

[Harry D]

Loitering means hanging out idly without purpose or motivation.
No one is suggesting Lechmere was cracking his knuckles waiting for Paul to appear.
If you can get away from the crime scene surreptitiously, that certainly would be preferable;
If not, acting like you are the first to the scene of the crime would probably work - if you have the nerve for it.

Whether he committed the crime or not, heading to the police was the wise choice (whether he gave a damn about the murdered woman or not)
If someone mentions in a newspaper article that you were discovered standing next to the body, you would want to attempt to clear that type of thing up with authorities.

If the police were curious as to who you are, they would find you:
its some carman walking to work probably around the broad street station, who lives east of Buck's row. Police aren't that incompetent.

If Lechmere had time to stop what he was doing, stand up and back up into the middle of street, presumably at the sound of Paul's footsteps, then he had time to spin on his heels and be away. There was no guarantee that Paul was going to stop to inspect Nichols or assume she had been killed and start shouting bloody murder. Even had this worst case scenario occurred, Lechmere would've been long gone at that point. Paul was trying to avoid Lechmere. Lechmere could've actually let Paul carry on past him. Instead, a guilty Lechmere approaches an evasive Paul and directs him to the murder scene! And then, to cap it off, agrees to go looking for a policeman whilst presumably carrying the murder weapon on him. These were all unnecessary risks that Lechmere took when he could've simply walked away. The only rationalization from the prosecution is that it's in a psychopath's nature to behave this way. Despite the fact you'd have to prove Lechmere was a psychopath without circular reasoning, and two that's a myth.

He had no choice but to go to the inquest.

Says who? No one knew the identity of the carman and there was nothing they could charge him with. Given the choice between keeping a low profile or attending a police inquest and making yourself known to the authorities, I can't see many killers choosing the latter. Lechmere's conduct only makes sense if you view him without the prism of guilt. Lechmere wilfully engaged with the police TWICE when he had no need to. These are not the actions of a known serial killer.

[Mark J D]

Is this visible? (1) Furthest end of Doveton Street; (2) Furthest end of Foster Streer; (3) Nichols murder site, Bucks Row.

https://scontent-man2-1.xx.fbcdn.net...5f&oe=618AE054

M.

[bolo]

Hi Newbie,

I guess we will never know how much effort the police put in to investigating Lechmere. By all appearances, next to none.
Why should they?

It was the first of the canonical murders: hysteria hadn't set in;
Most in the neighborhood suspected a gang was responsible;
It was Lechmere who seems to have come to them;
he was a longtime employee of a reputable company;
he seemed calm and composed at the inquest;
he was a family man in his late 30's;
he was not a foreigner or recent immigrant, nor did he have bouts with insanity;
he was discovered at the scene precisely at a time in which one would expect him to be on his 30 minute walk to a job that started at 4 am;
the guy who discovered him standing next to the body had no suspicions about him;
it was unclear, due to the lack of blood, if the murder was actually committed on Baker's row

Polly was rated as the third victim in the Whitechapel murders series after Emma Smith and Martha Tabram so there must have been quite a bit of concern and fear when news of yet another murder appeared in the morning papers, of course on a much lower level than the later hysteria starting with Annie Chapman's murder and the Leather Apron scare that got kicked off by The Star on 5 September.

With "Baker's Row" you surely mean Buck's Row? Other than that I mostly agree with your points.

Most importantly, Victorian England couldn't conceive of such a person being a serial killer.
A mentally unbalanced immigrant like Kosminski matched the zeitgeist

While this statement may be true on a general level, its increasing use by Lechmere theorists as a simple explanation for the perceived inability of the police to direct their enquiries into the right (i.e. Lechmere's) direction is a slippery slope in my opinion. Kosminski was named by Swanson in corroboration of Anderson's recollections of the Ripper case who tells us that Kosminski had been identified by a Jewish witness who refused to testify. Now, I don't want to kick off yet another Anderson debate but if what he wrote is true, the poor Polish Jew wasn't just your typical zeitgeist-y choice but a viable suspect that deserves being researched in tandem with the Anderson/Swanson/Macnaghten complex. There just isn't enough evidence available as of yet to come to a verdict here so I think it's too early to drop Kosminski and others from the list, specially if its done to further another suspect.

Grüße,

Boris

[SuperShodan]

One or two things that trouble me about Lech's guilt are these things:

It is approximately 1.8 miles (or a 30 minute walk) between 22 Doveton street and Pickfords.

one would imagine he would have cased a particular location like Buck's row before the act of killing someone.
He had at least two months to get a feel for what times the beat cops and regulars passed down the street.
He most likely would have had a watch: probably a bit of a luxury back then.

Why didn't he know that Robert Paul should be expected to come down that street on his way to work around 3:38 am?
And wouldn't it be a coincidence for Robert Paul to find him there at precisely the time in which he should have been there?
* It being approximately 1.8 miles (or a 30 minute walk) between 20 Dutton street and Pickfords.

My opinion is that Paul being there was completely unexpected. Paul was running late and used Bucks Row, perhaps for the first time in months, to make up time. Paul wasn’t supposed to be there. This was the curveball that caught Lechmere unawares.
Lechmere moved to Doveton Street in June and he would have walked along Bucks Row 6 days a week for nearly 3 months prior to the murder. Criminals spot opportunities during their day to day activities and Bucks Row would always have been deserted on Lechmere’s usual commute.
Bucks Row is not a great place to commit a murder, and only somebody familiar with it would attempt a murder there. There are no obvious escape routes west until you get past the board school, none at all east until you got to Brady Street. The poor location for the murder is borne out by the fact Lechmere did actually get caught red handed.