Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

The overall most important factor to keep in mind when discussing the timings is that they are no conclusive pointer to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf.

In fact, regardless which parameter we are looking at, none of them are certaing pointers to Lechmere´s guilt; , not the timings, not the fact that Nichols bled for many minutes after the carman left her, not the fact that Paul never said he saw or heard Lechmere walking in front of himself down Bucks Row, not how the wounds to the abdomen were covered from sight, not the fact that Lechmere passed through the killing fields on workday mornings, not that he had very close links to the Berner Street area, not that he gave the name Cross instead of Lechmere at the inquest, not that he appeared in working clothes at the inquest, not that he seems not to have told PC Mizen about the gravity of the errand, not that he didn´t tell the PC that he was the finder of the body himself, not that he according to Mizen claimed that there was another PC in place in Bucks Row, not that the Goulston Street rag was found between Mitre Square and his home, not that the other rag up at the hospital area was also an apron, also bloodied and also found in a line between the spot where the victim in Pinchin Street was found and 22 Doveton Street.

Each and every one of these matters can be given alternative innocent explanations.

Instead, what proves his guilt beyond reasonable doubt is that nobody who has such a mass of circumstantial evidence pointing in his way, can be innocent. I know of no example in criminal history where an innocent man has come up with this kind of a collection of red flags, and I believe the reason is simple: It-just-does-not-happen. If anybody can come up with a parallel example, please do not hesitate to publish it out here!

In a sense, discussing the timings in isolation is as bonkers an idea as discussing all the other parameters in isolation. It is the combination of them that puts the noose around his neck, and it always was.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
But of course Lech is guilty Fish , so the neck wounds must have been covered otherwise the supposed covering of the wounds on Polly's abdomen would go out the window .

It seems it was a bitter blow for you to be told that the neck wounds may well also have been covered? And there you were, celebrating how you had finally dispelled the "nonsense"...


Let me tell you that even if the neck wounds were not covered, the act of covering up the abdominal wounds is and remains suspicious in itself. And that stands regardless of your personal convictions.


As you say yourself - It would be odd if Lechmere covered the abdominal wounds but not the neck wound.

He would reaasonably have strived for as efficient a hiding of the wounds as possible, yes. After that, it would have been a question of what he had time to do and what the clothing allowed for.

Even though there is no evidence of this.

No evidence means it was either way. The neck wounds were covered or they were not. My own take on things is that Paul would not be likely to miss a one or two inch wide gap in a white neck, with dark blood running from it. So my guess remains that they were covered. We certainly know that the abdominal wounds were.

PC Neil - I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. IE exposing the neck. And - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat

Yes, that is correct. And my guess is that Paul had revealed the neck wounds by pulling down Nichols´ dress. As I pointed out in my earlier post.

And as you say - Lechmere was part of the examination himself. He may well have guided Paul to an extent. If this was the case, I don´t see that he would have feared that Paul would undress Nichols.

Nor do I. And nor have I suggested such a thing.

Since when did you have to undress someone to see their neck ? . And, Oh wait a minute, Paul also said that Polly's clothes were disarranged and he helped to pull them down. So much for Lech doing it by himself.
I never said that Lech pulled the dress down, I´m afraid. It was Paul who did it. Why would Lechmere do it, risking to reveal the neck wounds?

It seems you may have misread or misunderstood me, Darryl.


1- Well Fish where is your evidence that the wounds may have been covered let alone that they were ?

2- "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen." - Surgeon Henry

So much for the abdominal wounds being covered

3- Your guess Fish , that Neil uncovered the neck wounds yet he didn't say this - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. Nothing at all about pulling a scarf or whatever away from the throat.

4- But you did suggest such a thing Fish, Post 3339 and it is your exact words

5- What !!! I thought this was part of your argument that Lech hid the abdominal wounds IE covering them. Answer me this then , why would Paul pull Polly's dress down if the stomach /abdomen was not exposed ?

6- You are right Fish I do have trouble understanding you at times . He wouldn't give a false address to the police etc Yet he didn't give his address to the police etc

[Fiver]

What about the timing issue. Lechmere usually leaves for work at 03.20. He is found in Bucks Row at 03.45. It’s about 6 minutes walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row.
So on his usual commute Lechmere gets to Bucks Row about 03.26.
When Lechmere is found in Bucks Row on that fateful morning he’s around 15-20 minutes later than he usually is. There is time missing. The timing is clearly very off, and considering the circumstances it’s got to be a red flag

When you look at the timing it just doesn’t make sense.

I’ll explain. Paul leaves for work some time after after Lechmere. Paul leaves about 03.45, around 15 minutes after Lechmere, who in turn claims he left home at 03.30. So Paul is about 15 minutes behind Lechmere. However, Paul still manages to make up the time and catch up with Lechmere in Bucks Row. Lechmere has around a 15 minute head start and yet Paul still manages to make up the time. How is this possible ?

Once again the timing is bad optics. I don’t see how Paul can possibly catch up with Lechmere.

What exactly has Lechmere being doing ? He has a 15 minute head start on Paul and yet there he is in Bucks Row when Paul arrives.

As is typical for the Fisherman Fanclub, you have manufactured a gap.

* We do not know what time Lechmere usually left for work.
* Lechmere said he left for work on that day at about 3:30am. Not 3:20am.
* Average walking pace is about 3mph. To reach the murder site in 6 minutes, Lechmere would have had to "walk" at around 5 mph.
* Lechmere did not have a 15 minute head start. He lived several blocks east of Paul.
* Paul's time estimate contradicts the time estimates of PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain. Their estimates would put Lechmere and Paul at the murder site around 3:40am, which fits well with Lechmere's estimated time and normal human walking speed.

But you ignore all three policemen's testimony, because they do not fit your theory.

[Fisherman]

1- [/B]Well Fish where is your evidence that the wounds may have been covered let alone that they were ?

You need to be more specific, Darryl. Which of the wounds?

2- "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen." - Surgeon Henry

So much for the abdominal wounds being covered

Henry Llewellyn did not speak of the wounds to the lower abdomen until after he had examined her the second time, after Spratling had directed his attention to the abdominal wounds, Darryl. Before that, he had no idea that there were any wounds to the abdomen at all, and certainly, he did not see them at the murder site.
As for what Paul says, he speaks of how the clother were raised ALMOST up to the stomach - which is the same as how they were not raised up to the stomach. Besides, you should never pick and choose to try and make points. Why not listen to what Lechmere said, as per the Morning Advertiser: "When I found her clothes were up above her knees..."

And this you garnished with the words "So much for the abdominal wounds being covered". What a total rot, Darryl! You need to be a lot more careful with the facts.

3- Your guess Fish , that Neil uncovered the neck wounds yet he didn't say this - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. Nothing at all about pulling a scarf or whatever away from the throat.

I am not saying that Neil had anything at all to do with how the wounds could have been uncovered, Darryl. Read again, please!

4- But you did suggest such a thing Fish, Post 3339 and it is your exact words

I suggested... what, Darryl? Again, don´t mumble, be distinct and to the point, please!

5- What !!! I thought this was part of your argument that Lech hid the abdominal wounds IE covering them. Answer me this then , why would Paul pull Polly's dress down if the stomach /abdomen was not exposed ?

Because the thighs were. Are you aware of the victorian picture of modesty, Darryl? No?

6- You are right Fish I do have trouble understanding you at times . He wouldn't give a false address to the police etc Yet he didn't give his address to the police etc

He would not give a false address to the police. He did give his correct address to the police. He seemingly withheld it at the inquest.

Capisce?

It is a tragic thing when posters who set about trying to criticize other posters are not aware of the facts. It will inevitably result in what Shakespeare called much ado about nothing.

Now, please - PLEASE - go back, read up, and then you can perhaps return and make claims on my behalf that are consistent with reality. So far, you have miserably failed in that department.

[Dickere]

We gather that, on that particular night, the dock fire meant that the streets were unusually empty. But even so, surely the fact is that a random killer has no reason to strike unless the conditions are right. In the case of our man, he just carries on walking if there's a chance of his being seen...

M.

In terms of picking up the victim in Whitechapel Rd, sure he's not going to do it if actually seen, but he may be seen on his way to Bucks Row. Assuming that was her choice of venue what was he going to do if there was someone there ? And he was already late for work too, remember...

[Harry D]

No need to attempt to resort to saying that his actions were due to his psychopathic nature (I don't think anyone is claiming that).

Fisherman has claimed EXACTLY that.

[Great Aunt]

Has anyone made sense of the route Lechmere is quoted as claiming he followed? It's never been comprehensible to me...

M.

I was thinking the same - I speculate (of course) he could generally have walked the orange route - without turning back to Bucks Row - and continued down Whitechapel Road cutting through a side road or walkway to Old Montague Street. If Bucks Row was the type of place to be knocked down and robbed he would have done better to avoid it. I guess we will never know the route he usually walked to work but the possibilities are numerous. Best wishes.

[Great Aunt]

[QUOTE=Dickere;n773320]

In terms of picking up the victim in Whitechapel Rd, sure he's not going to do it if actually seen, but he may be seen on his way to Bucks Row. Assuming that was her choice of venue what was he going to do if there was someone there ? And he was already late for work too, remember...[/QUOTE.

He didn't have to kill her if he thought he had been seen - he just had to walk off and leave her alive. I imagine he wouldn't have chosen to commit the murder unless he was supremely confident he hadn't been seen.

[Mark J D]

In terms of picking up the victim in Whitechapel Rd, sure he's not going to do it if actually seen, but he may be seen on his way to Bucks Row. Assuming that was her choice of venue what was he going to do if there was someone there ? And he was already late for work too, remember...

You know, old bean, I reckon he'd have had no hesitation at all in calling it off by the Board School if he'd seen someone hove into view, or if there was a copper visible. One victim is as good as another to a random killer; and while he's wisely avoiding the ten days on either side of the full moon, he can always come back another morning -- or just walk further in and hope to get lucky once more off Wentworth Street... Again, if Nichols chose Bucks Row (which I'm a bit reluctant to believe, given the existence of the cut-throughs to Winthrop Street from the main road), and he saw someone approaching, all he has to do is tell Polly that he actually has no money on him and he is hoping for a freebie... Without the killing, no-one at all will see *anything* they would ever remember...

And was he actually 'late for work' at that stage? Or did his 'I was behind time myself' refer to him being *made late* by the 'discovery' (hahaha) of Nichols' body...? Genuine question, detective.

M.

[SuperShodan]

Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post


1- [/B]Well Fish where is your evidence that the wounds may have been covered let alone that they were ?

2- "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen." - Surgeon Henry

So much for the abdominal wounds being covered

3- Your guess Fish , that Neil uncovered the neck wounds yet he didn't say this - I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. Nothing at all about pulling a scarf or whatever away from the throat.

4- But you did suggest such a thing Fish, Post 3339 and it is your exact words

5- What !!! I thought this was part of your argument that Lech hid the abdominal wounds IE covering them. Answer me this then , why would Paul pull Polly's dress down if the stomach /abdomen was not exposed ?

6- You are right Fish I do have trouble understanding you at times . He wouldn't give a false address to the police etc Yet he didn't give his address to the police etc

Actually her abdominal wounds were so severe her intestines were protruding. However, PC Neil, PC Mizen and everyone else never noticed. Even the attending Dr didn’t notice. The wounds went undiscovered until she was undressed at the mortuary. So we can say that her wounds were concealed. They were in fact very well hidden.
And who would benefit from such a course of action. Certainly not some third party who had to quickly run off.
The wounds were covered because JTR never left Bucks Row. The only reason to conceal that a murder has taken place would be if JTR was still in situ and trying to conceal his handiwork from an approaching witness. The only person there is Lechmere, and the approaching witness is Paul.

[Newbie]

>>No need to attempt to resort to saying that his actions were due to his psychopathic nature (I don't think anyone is claiming that). <<

I may be misrepresenting him, but I believe Christer has put forward that theory.


>>1. Lech was at least 100 meters, either way, from leaving Buck's row...<<

The corner of the Board School was 46 yards away.

And another 15 yards to get into Winthrop, and another 100 + meters to get back to Brady Street.

>>If you are Lech, you weren't anticipating anyone coming at that time - having scoped out the street traffic over the course of two months;<<

If he had “scoped out” the street traffic over the course of two months” he would have known he could escape without fear of bumping into a policeman.


>>Considering the alignment of Polly Nichols body (her head was pointed eastward), the murderer would have been aligned likewise<<

Not according to Ed Stow’s theory of how the throat slitting was done.

According to PC Neil, her head was pointed eastward when he discovered the body. How the throat was slit is irrelevant, unless the killer decided to spin her like a top before leaving.


>>Running would attract the interest of the PCs nearby who would be curious as to what could prompt someone to flee somewhere at 3:38 am. <<

You’ve already claimed the beats were “scoped out” for two months. Why then, by your theory, would he not know exactly where Neil was? And if he didn’t, why did he waste time “scoping out”. The argument is circular and defeats itself.

He would have a general idea of where he was, yes. Neil said that his route was 12 minutes in duration at a rate one would assume to be a normal pace. At 3:45 am, Neil encountered the body. At 3:43 am, or earlier, Neil would have been entering Buck's row from the East. At his leisurely pace, he wouldn't have been far from that corner if he heard a commotion.....and Lechmere would have been very cautious because of it. But you would have Lech hang a left, so its now 250 meters to get back to Brady street, where you had PC Thain ambling about. You then also had Mizen not to far away. All three would hear any screams and move towards it.

>>… leave in the opposite direction; or just say to hell with it, and prepare the body so that the depraved murder which just took place is not so apparent while bluffing your way out of trouble. <<

To leave meant transversing about the 46 yards to the board school corner. To stay meant transversing the same distance towards Paul, to be found by the Brown and Eagle gateway. How did he get there unseen and heard? And why would he do that, when the same distance took him to safety?
He moved (traversed) 46 yards towards Paul? Where did you get this? Maybe, i don't understand what you are trying to say.

>>I don't know why you insist he was at that point home free, or that he could just lay low while still going to work. If the police were motivated to find this person they quite possibly would have. <<

At what point are we talking about? Before being detected by Paul, or after? Before, we have the issue of the escape route with three PCs triangulated to be in decent positions to respond if they heard something. After, Paul would recognize him to be a fellow carman, the police would have a general description from Paul, they would know that lived east of Buck's row, they would still have Paul for further identification,.....not bad.

And then, Lech couldn't exactly hide in a basement until things blew over.

And if they did, what could they do? Check his fingerprints or DNA? What did they do with Alfred Crow? The fact is, once away from the scene, the killer was scot free. Even if the police caught up with him later there was no proof of any kind against him.

Yes, once away from the scene, he was scot free. That was one of his options.

>>Leaving to locate Mizen was a very small risk. <<

If he was carrying a bloodied knife it was a massive risk. He would have no idea how a policeman would react.

If he told them what? That there was another drunk/dead vagrant lying down on Buck's row and suggested that they were just passing by and there was an officer requesting his aid. However, if he told Mizen there was seemingly a murder/rape victim lying there, and that he was the first to find the body? That's entirely different....that is something he did not do.

The only possible contrary explanation is that Mizen got it entirely wrong.


>>Paul testified that he was first aware of Lechmere by sight, instead of by hearing him march steadily ahead of him up Brady and then Buck's row<<


Since Cross was standing still, 50 yards away from the body and Paul was "hurrying" to work, why would Paul hear Cross "march steadily ahead of him"?

You are correct, if Lech was standing by the body when Paul entered Buck's row, then 'hurrying' Paul wouldn't hear him. Otherwise, unless Lech was wearing sneakers, Paul would detect the sounds of someone walking in front of him for 30 or so seconds up Buck's row (& then there was their traversing Brady Street in sequence). Lech would probably not be introduced into the narrative so unexpectedly .

Lechmere said at the inquest that he could hear all the way up the street. On dark & dangerous streets, the sense of hearing elevates in importance.

>>Lech gave the court a name only immediate family members would recognize<<

Plus, employers, work colleagues, clients and ex neighbours and acquaintances in St Georges ‘s East and who knows who else.

His mom would know if she came across it. All the others are probably irrelevant; they evidently weren't in communication with immediate family.

How can you not know that your husband was the first to discover the body of Polly Nichols? How is that possible?


>> Lech showed up at the inquest in a carman's outfit<<

So what? Tompkins did too. How many other Eastenders have turned up in work clothes? Is there a a dress code for inquests? Given that the inquest didn't start till 10, Cross appearing just before lunch, is it perfectly reasonable that he he earned close to a full day's pay before appearing at the inquest.

The only clothing mentioned by any court reporter was Polly Nichols clothing, and Charles Cross's. Why did some point out his clothing?
It must have been odd. If not, they wouldn't have mentioned it.

Did Tompkins fail to give his address? Did he go by an old name? Was his family ignorant of him attending the inquest?

Maybe we have something on him then.


>>Lech did not offer his address to the jury when most likely asked<<

Baxter was legally obliged to illicit the name, address and occupation of each witness and furnish it to the jury. (See coroner's handbook)


>> there was no recognition by his descendants that Lech was the first to find Polly Nichol's body<<

So what?

He evidently didn't bother to tell them about it. He had so many fascinating things going on in his life, it must have slipped his mind.


>>To someone biased like me, it sure seems like he left well before 3:30 am, and was trying to keep information from his wife concerning the inquest.<<

How on earth could he possibly have done that?

If his wife was illiterate, or did not read the newspaper, some of her friends and neighbors would come across her husbands name, Charles Lechmere, in newspaper reports on the inquest, or they would recognize the address. And they would ask her about it.

If Lech was the killer, he wasn't leaving home at 3:30 am, he was leaving earlier. Why not use Cross and not mention your address, and show up in your work clothing (as if you were actually going to work that day)?. Lech's family didn't seem to know.

Care to venture an explanation for all this?

[Newbie]

Fisherman has claimed EXACTLY that.

Well, l'm not... bring up with Fisherman.

[Newbie]

As is typical for the Fisherman Fanclub, you have manufactured a gap.

* We do not know what time Lechmere usually left for work.
* Lechmere said he left for work on that day at about 3:30am. Not 3:20am.
* Average walking pace is about 3mph. To reach the murder site in 6 minutes, Lechmere would have had to "walk" at around 5 mph.
* Lechmere did not have a 15 minute head start. He lived several blocks east of Paul.
* Paul's time estimate contradicts the time estimates of PC Mizen, PC Neil, and PC Thain. Their estimates would put Lechmere and Paul at the murder site around 3:40am, which fits well with Lechmere's estimated time and normal human walking speed.

But you ignore all three policemen's testimony, because they do not fit your theory.

People are getting mixed up about the time:


Given the distance, 3:30 am would make sense for a typical workman living at 22 Doveton, who needs to make it to Pickford's by 4 am.
Google it: the typical time for someone to walk 1.8 miles (approximate distance in between) is 30 minutes.

Lech said that his departure time was around 3:30 am at the inquest: some here don't believe him, but grant that if true, this time would be what one would expect for him to encounter the body, then immediately run into Paul, then mess around a bit with the body, and then run into PC Mizen at 3:45 am

And one paper reported that he stated a departure time of 3:20 am; one can't entirely rule that out.

But let me repeat: some here suggest that Lech's declared 3:30 am departure time from 22 doveton street was a lie.

PC Neil said he encountered the body at 3:45 am.
PC Mizen said that he encountered Lech & Paul at 3:45 am.

The oddball time seems to be Paul's: saying that he encountered Lech and the body at 3:45 am
If he was going by a watch, his watch seems to have been running fast.

Which leaves one to the conclusion that he usually passed up Buck's row about the time that PC Neil strolled down it. I wonder if they interacted before?

A 3:40 am time of encounter with Polly Nichols, and then the time they spent looking over her body and walking up the street would cut it very close to them encountering PC Neil at the top of Buck's row (about 3:43 am) or have him see them going up the side route; which didn't happen.

A bit before 3:40 am is what i'm inclined to believe. Didn't Fisherman state 3:38 am somewhere before?

That means the time they spent looking over the body was very brief.

I'm now, after looking at all the various reports of the testimony, inclined to believe Lechmere asked to leave and seek out a cop.

They, of course, only needed to stay there a few minutes for Neil. Paul might have thought he already passed by, but Lechmere?

[Newbie]

For the Lechmere is innocent group,

they would have us believe that Lechmere had no idea where the PC's were, even though it would be kind of nice to have that kind of information when walking through tough crime ridden neighborhoods.

[Newbie]

That is interesting, of course. However, it represents another aspect of the crimes than that of Lechmere´s role as a witness. The victims were (sorry, Halle Rubenhold) all prostitutes and societal outcasts, and so it is to be expected that many relatives would have done their very best not to invest in them emotionally, instead forgetting about them as best as they could.

I seem to remember that I once saw a documentary or TV show in which some people were informed that they had an ancestor (Polly Nichols) who had been killed by the Ripper. These people, as I remember things, did not even know about Nichols´ involvment in their family before they ones who made the show told them about it.

If we instead look at people who were well integrated into the accepted parts of society and had a family life, I would suggest that we are looking at something very different. Such a character is much more likely to make a mark over generations.

At the end of the day, we will not be able to establish the exact value of the information that none of Lechmere´s descendants knew of his rle as a Ripper case witness. I know that Edward Stow met the family and that he had not been forgotten by all of his relatives. But I also know that nobody remembered him as being named Cross and, again, nobody knew about his role in the Ripper drama.

To me, that is interesting information, and I think it should be so to all of us who research the Ripper saga. Which is why I thought that "So what?" was a less than appropriate answer to Newbies information.

Then again, I´m sure we may disagree about that too.

I read someone living who claimed to be a part of the family, and he said that Charles Lechmere was considered to be very intelligent, and a bit of an odd duck.

If true, and Lech is JtR, one would have to consider what a very intelligent killer would anticipate and do.