Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

Franks pointing out that Lechmere said:

“No; I did not see anyone at all around except the constable I spoke to. I don't think I met anybody after I left my house till I got to the body.”

...makes Dusty say:

...the key and big point here is not this, but the fact that were he the killer, it is to his great advantage to to say he did hear or see something.

This claim has been made before. I have pointed out that although it may SEEM smart to invent sounds made by another person, it can instead by extremely counterproductive. Letīs assume, for example that Lechmere would have said:

Yes, as I drew closer to the site, there were sounds of a man running away to the west, and then round the corner of the schoolhouse building!

The obvious inference would then be that Lechmere had heard the killer. So far so good. But what if it emerged that somebody had been awake and looking out of his window at the time Lechmere claimed somebody ran past it? And was able to convince the police that the information was false?

What seems initially clever can in fact end up being totally stupid. Leaving all the options open for a killer to have escaped in any direction is making yourself unreachable for that kind of criticism.

[rjpalmer]

What seems initially clever can in fact end up being totally stupid.

True enough, Fish, but weren't Otis Toole, Gary Ridgway, Alfred Fish, etc., totally stupid?

[Fisherman]

True enough, Fish, but weren't Otis Toole, Gary Ridgway, Alfred Fish, etc., totally stupid?

If they ever claimed to have heard alternative killers fleeing in the darkness in front of themselves, I must have forgotten all about it, and so you need to refresh me in that respect.

Otherwise, Iīm not really sure what you are pointing to. If anything...?

I think you need to be more specific. Not least in describing exactly how these three cases disprove that Lechmere would have left the matter we speak about open.

By the way, I think itīs Ottis Toole and Albert Fish - not to be clever about it, but just the same.

If the point you are making is instead that since other criminals have proven themselves stupid, whatīs to say that Lechmere wasnīt, then I agree. He may well have been, at least to a degree. If he was not the killer, that is. There are many inclusions in what he did, if the killer, that speak of quick and efficient thinking.

[Fisherman]

True enough, Fish, but weren't Otis Toole, Gary Ridgway, Alfred Fish, etc., totally stupid?

There is anothern facet to your post, I realize. If we describe Gary Ridgway as totally stupid, a man who killed around fifty women - then what does it make to the claim that the Whitechapel police would never make mistakes or a sloppy work over a bunch of dead prostitutes? And that they would never let a man like Lechmere slip through their fingers? Hereīs a snippet from the net:
"On Saturday, April 30, 1983, Marie Malvar, 18, also working, was picked up by a dark pickup as her boyfriend and pimp watched from a close distance. As Marie got into the pickup, she appeared to get into a fight with the driver. The pickup sped off, and Marie’s boyfriend/pimp followed in his own car. Unfortunately, he was caught by a stop light and lost the pickup, so he reported the incident to the police. Three days after Marie was kidnapped, a search party including her boyfriend/pimp and family saw the pickup truck again when they were out looking for her. The search party followed the truck to a house and called the police. The police questioned the resident of the house: Gary Ridgway, 34. Ridgway denied knowing Marie, and police believed him."

[rjpalmer]

By the way, I think itīs Ottis Toole and Albert Fish - not to be clever about it, but just the same.

Yes, of course, Fish. Touché. Albert Fish.

I suppose I have Alfred on my mind, these days--possibly due to that chap Alfred Crowe that you don't care to talk about, though, to be fair, you haven't shunned him quite as thoroughly as you shun Henry John Holland. ;-)

But back to matters at hand. You aren't really suggesting that Toole, Fish, and Ridgway were heavy hitters in the brains department, are you? Or do you see them as having a sort of animal cunning, despite their innate stupidity? A lot of these argument hinge on how much intelligence we wish to implant in someone who is attacking people in the public streets and pulling out their entrails.

[Great Aunt]

I would like to return to Dr Strange 169/Dustys post 3437, where he says it is "nonsense" to claim that the body of Polly Nichols was found at 3.45. I would also ask Great Aunt to listen to what I have to say; taking Dustyīs words about how "Inside Bucks Row" is the most comprehensive book on the Nichols case as gospel is something I would advice against. When saying this, I am working from the assumption that Dustys take on how the 3.45 timing is "nonsense", is mirrored in "Inside Bucks Row". If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me, Dusty.

Now, letīs get the timing issue untangled!

The criticism levelled at those who say that the body was found at 3.45 is that such a thing swears against what the three PC:s said. Neil, Thain and Mizen all said that they were brought into the business at 3.40, and so the 3.45 timing must be wrong, it is claimed.

To begin with, we can establish that there is nothing strange about how all three PC:s said that they were drawn into the proceedings in the exact same minute; it may well be that Neil flagged Thain down in the same minute that he found the body, and it may equally well be that this minute may be the same minute that Lechmere and Paul reached Mizen up at the juncture Bakers Row/Hanbury Street.
So far, so good.

In spite of how the three PC:s were in accordance with each other, the coroner, Wynne Baxter, said when summing up the case that going by many independent data, it was clear that the body was found in the vicinity of 3.45. Very clearly, Baxter therefore opposes the view offered by the three PC:s. And he does so on the last day of the inquest, when the evidence had been collected, the testimony given and everything had been weighed up.

It must be understood that the timeline is always of the essence in murder cases. The very fact that Baxter stated that the time at which the body was found would have been around 3.45 tells us that there had been discussions about the matter.
It seems evident that the initial belief was that the three PC:s had been called into action at 3.40. That timing, however, came with a large problem, and that large problem was Thains participation in the drama.

John Thain was called to the murder site by PC Neil. And he was called there in about the same minute that Neil found Nichols. Both PC:s report 3.40 as the time.
We then know that PC Neil told Thain to "run for Dr Llewellyn", showing us that there was urgency and haste involved.

When Thain was flagged down by Neil by way of signalling with the bulls eye lamp, he was in Brady Street, and so he had a 130 yard distance to cover before he reached Browns Stable Yard. If he was flagged down at 3.40, he would be in place at the murder site at 3.41 - at which time he was immediately sent for Dr Lewellyn.

Doctor Llewellyn had his practice in Whitechapel Road, a two- or three minute walk from the murder site. Thain would have been running, and so two minutes is likely what it would have taken him to reach the practice. We have therefore now arrived at 3.43.
However, and this is the crux, Rees Ralph Llewellyn said he was called up by Thain at 3.55-4.00. Which begs the question why Thain took 14-19 minutes to cover a stretch that would take no more than around two minutes to cover...?
How did that come to pass?
Or did it?

This question was evidently clear to the inquest too. And it originaly sparked the idea that John Thain would have sneaked into the butchers in Winthrop Street to get his cape and to tell them about how there had been a murder committed in Bucks Row. It must have seemed the only possibility to save the 3.40 timing given by the three PC:s. However, the testimony of Henry Tomkins quashed the idea; Tomkins laid down that Thain payed his visit to the butchers at 4.15, AFTER he had arrived back with Llewellyn in company.

Letīs now move on to look at what it would have meant if the PC:s actually had been called into action at 3.40.
Well, it would have meant that the two carmen would have met by the body at around 3.35. Otherwise, they would not have had the time to examine the body, make their decision to leave, and walk up to Bakers Row before Neil turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street! And if this was the case, then Robert Paul would not have been late at all. He would only have thought that he was late, since he would have mistakenly believed that the time was "exactly 3.45" as he walked down Bucks Row.
So did Paul make that kind of a mistake?
Without even noticing it as he arrived to his job?
Hardly.

So which were the actual timings? And how do they fit together? Because they all do, except for one single timing - the one the PC:s gave. Here we go:

Letīs accept that what Wynne Baxter said after having investigated the matter thoroughly, what Donald Swanson said in his October report and what Robert Paul said was the actual truth: The carmen found the body at around 3.45.
More specifically, since Robert Paul said that the time was exactly 3.45 as he walked down Bucks Row, letīs assume that it was 3.46 as he found Lechmere by the body. Then what do we get?

-We get the carmen examining the body and walking up to Mizen, something that according to Robert Paul took no more than four minutes. That means the carmen reached Mizen at 3.50. Mizen was then informed about the woman in Bucks Row, finished a knocking up errand and made his way to the murder site. Reasonably, it would have taken Mizen around the same time as it took the carmen to do the trek in the opposite direction - around four minutes. So he would have arrived at the murder site at around 3.55. And at that stage, the only person in place was John Neil, because he had already sent Thain for Dr Llewellyn, as we shall see.

-We get John Neil arriving at the murder site at around 3.51. The carmen reached Jonas Mizen at around 3.50, and so they would have turned the corner up at Bakers Row at around 3.49.30 or something such, Before that time, Neil could not have turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street, becasue he would have seen and heard the carmen in such a case. And if Neil turned into Bucks Row at circa 3.49.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.51.

-We get Neil flagging down John Thain at around 3.52, after a minutes examination of the dead body of Polly Nichols, and so Thain would have reached the site at around 3.53. He was then informed about the errand by Neil and sent off to get doctor Llewellyn. He would have left the murder site at 3.53-3.54, having a two or three minute trek to Llewellyns practice, meaning that he would have arrived there at approximately 3.55-3.57. And Llewellyn said he was called to Bucks Row by Thain at between 3.55-4.00.

So this is how it all fits together. Each and every little bit, but for the timing given by the three PC:s. And this is what Baxter and the inquest realized, as well as the police, when sifting through the material and checking how the puzzle pieces fit together. It was therefore it became the official picture of the timings.

This is what Dusty calls "nonsense". And he tells us that Lechmere had an alibi - because "sworn police testimony" would somehow prove that Charles Lechmere could not have been at the site at 3.45. What other witnesses swore to, Dusty is much less interested in.

And to close the circle, that picture, Great Aunt, is what Dusty is trying to sell to you by recommending "Inside Bucks Row" as "the most comprehensive" source there is on the Bucks Row matter. Read the book, by all means - but do so with a barrel full of salt very close at hand ...

Thank you, Fisherman. I will bear that in mind if I get around to reading the book. I misunderstood Dusty's post and thought "Inside Buck's Row" was a thread on the forum as I have recently been looking at the different threads on Charles Lechmere. He is my favourite suspect and I haven't yet read anything on here to sway me from that position. Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Yes, of course, Fish. Touché. Albert Fish.

I suppose I have Alfred on my mind, these days--possibly due to that chap Alfred Crowe that you don't care to talk about, though, to be fair, you haven't shunned him quite as thoroughly as you shun Henry John Holland. ;-)

But back to matters at hand. You aren't really suggesting that Toole, Fish, and Ridgway were heavy hitters in the brains department, are you? Or do you see them as having a sort of animal cunning, despite their innate stupidity? A lot of these argument hinge on how much intelligence we wish to implant in someone who is attacking people in the public streets and pulling out their entrails.

You are forgetting that "my" killer was not only attacking and killing people in the streets - he also spirited them away to places where he could eviscerate them and chop them up in pieces, R J.

And to be fair, I would not say that ANY of these two inclinations must necessarily speak of either stupidity or cleverness. It all hinges on the underlying motivations for what he did.

At the end of the day, when speaking of heavy hitters in the brain department, we should also consider that the Ridgway - Police bout seems to have been a mismatch. But not one that disfavoured Ridgway. And so, at the end of the day, maybe it doesnīt matter which defensive strategy you employ, if noone is going to find you out anyway? It sheds some new light on how serialists sometimes decide, some way into their murder strings, that they are invincible and will never get caught.

Maybe that has less to do with their innate stupidity and more with the inability of the police to catch them?

[Fisherman]

Thank you, Fisherman. I will bear that in mind if I get around to reading the book. I misunderstood Dusty's post and thought "Inside Buck's Row" was a thread on the forum as I have recently been looking at the different threads on Charles Lechmere. He is my favourite suspect and I haven't yet read anything on here to sway me from that position. Best wishes.

Thank you, Great Aunt. Inside Bucks Row is a book, written by Steve Blomer. He considers the Lechmere theory to be a weak one, and has done his best over the years to try and dismantle the idea that Lechmere was the killer. On that crusade, he has come up with some very odd thinking if you ask me. But please do not let that view of mine stand in the way if you want to read up on a (very) different view of the Nichols case!

[bolo]

Hi Fish,

The criticism levelled at those who say that the body was found at 3.45 is that such a thing swears against what the three PC:s said. Neil, Thain and Mizen all said that they were brought into the business at 3.40, and so the 3.45 timing must be wrong, it is claimed.

To begin with, we can establish that there is nothing strange about how all three PC:s said that they were drawn into the proceedings in the exact same minute; it may well be that Neil flagged Thain down in the same minute that he found the body, and it may equally well be that this minute may be the same minute that Lechmere and Paul reached Mizen up at the juncture Bakers Row/Hanbury Street.
So far, so good.

In spite of how the three PC:s were in accordance with each other, the coroner, Wynne Baxter, said when summing up the case that going by many independent data, it was clear that the body was found in the vicinity of 3.45. Very clearly, Baxter therefore opposes the view offered by the three PC:s. And he does so on the last day of the inquest, when the evidence had been collected, the testimony given and everything had been weighed up.

I can't see where Baxter opposes all the PC's views, as both Neil and Mizen seem to agree with the 3.45 am mark. Neil saw two slaughterhouse workers at 3.15 and they were the first on the murder location after he had found the body, which, according to his inquest testimony, was half an hour later, i.e. 3.45.

Mizen said that Lech and Paul spoke to him at a quarter to 4 (the "past" must have been a typo), he then went to Buck's row where he met Neil.

Lech said he arrived at work at 4 am. If he was at the crime scene at 3.45 and afterwards went to find a constable together with Paul, he might not have made it in time. It may be just a minor point as it's near impossible to prove today but back in the day, it would have been no problem for the police to check with Pickford's in order to fix the time so a lie may have been too risky here.

Grüße,

Boris

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,



I can't see where Baxter opposes all the PC's views, as both Neil and Mizen seem to agree with the 3.45 am mark.

Neil and Mizen agree that they were drawn into the business at 3.45. But Baxter said that the time the body was found would be around 3.45. And Neil and Mizen could not have been drawn into the matter at the same time the carmen stood over the body of Nichols. The PC:s would have sprung into action around five minutes after that stage. For Baxter to have endoirsed the PC:s, he should have said that the time the body was found was around 3.40, not 3.45. If it was found at 3.45, then the PCs were drawn into the matter at around 3.50 - which also seems to have been the case.

Neil saw two slaughterhouse workers at 3.15 and they were the first on the murder location after he had found the body, which, according to his inquest testimony, was half an hour later, i.e. 3.45.

The slaughterhouse workers only arrived at the site after Thain had spoken to them, and that was around 4.15.

Mizen said that Lech and Paul spoke to him at a quarter to 4 (the "past" must have been a typo), he then went to Buck's row where he met Neil.

The carmen cannot have been in Bucks Row, examining the body and speaking to Mizen simultaneously, though.

Lech said he arrived at work at 4 am. If he was at the crime scene at 3.45 and afterwards went to find a constable together with Paul, he might not have made it in time. It may be just a minor point as it's near impossible to prove today but back in the day, it would have been no problem for the police to check with Pickford's in order to fix the time so a lie may have been too risky here.

Grüße,

Boris

There are many unknown factors included here. One of them is of course whether or not the police DID check this out. Another factor is to which degree there were Pickford employees who kept track of Lechmereīs exact timings. A third factor is the question is how long it would take for Lechmere to cover the stretch from Bakers Row/Hanbury Street down to Pickfords.

I think the much more exact tool must be Thains trek to Llewellyn. He was there at 3.55-4.00, and so he would have started out two minutes before, namely at 3.53-3.58. And for him to have started out at this time, how can he possibly have been brought into action by Neil at 3.45-3.46? It just does not pan out. It is not until we swop the finding time from 3.40 to 3.45 that it makes sense. And then it makes PERFECT sense.

[bolo]

Neil and Mizen agree that they were drawn into the business at 3.45. But Baxter said that the time the body was found would be around 3.45. And Neil and Mizen could not have been drawn into the matter at the same time the carmen stood over the body of Nichols.

Yes, Neil and Mizen were drawn into things at the same time, just not on the same spot. Neil found the body at 3.45, about the same time when Lech and Paul met Mizen in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. This is according to Spratling's report dated 31 August and the inquest testimonies of Neil, Mizen, Lech and Paul. So how could Lech have stood over Polly's body at 3.45 when this was the time Neil gave for the discovery of the body and Mizen gave for when he met the two carmen?

[Fisherman]

Yes, Neil and Mizen were drawn into things at the same time, just not on the same spot. Neil found the body at 3.45, about the same time when Lech and Paul met Mizen in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. This is according to Spratling's report dated 31 August and the inquest testimonies of Neil, Mizen, Lech and Paul. So how could Lech have stood over Polly's body at 3.45 when this was the time Neil gave for the discovery of the body and Mizen gave for when he met the two carmen?

Because Neil and Mizen had the time wrong, obviously, Boris! My questions to you:
Why did Baxter say that the body was found at 3.45 if it was found at 3.40?
Why did Swanson in his October report change the timing of 3.40 from the September report into 3.45?
If Neil flagged down Thain at 3.45, why was Thain not at Llewellyns place around 3.48 but instead at 3.55-3.50?
Because the PC:s were called into action at around 3.50, not 3.45.

[FrankO]

The slaughterhouse workers only arrived at the site after Thain had spoken to them, and that was around 4.15.

There is still a little mystery to be solved here, Christer, as the sequence of events after Thain was signalled by Neil is as follows:

• he ran to the spot where Neil was and was sent for the doctor, so he then ran for the doctor
• both he and Neil stated that he returned with Llewellyn about 10 minutes later
• Llewellyn then quickly examined Nichols, declared her dead and ordered to remove her to the mortuary
• Thain helped to put Nichols on the ambulance
• Neil, Kirby and Mizen then removed her to the mortuary, while Thain, acting under orders, waited at the spot for Inspector Spratling
• the blood on the spot was washed away by Mr. Green in the presence of Thain
• Spratling then arrived at the scene where he found Thain and this was, very likely, well after 4.40, as Spratling received information about the murder at about 4.30, when he was in Hackney Road (over 1 km from Buck’s Row)
• Thain was later directed by Spratling to examine the vicinity of the murder - the railway and wharf more particularly - to see if he could find any weapon and this took place between 5 and 6 or so.

When did Thain go to the slaughterhouse to tell the men about the murder? And was it actually Thain who did that?

[Fisherman]

The sequence is a very easy one to follow. Just as Bolo points out, Spratlings report from August 31 had the time the PC:s were called into action as 3.45. But Spratling was of course not in the vicinity at that time - he was only called to the spot at around 4.30. And so he relied on what he was told by Neil and possibly Thain. And it was not as if he was going to be able to verify the timings; what he was told he accepted, just as he should.

The overall picture was the exact same: Neil had found the body at 3.45. And that was what went into Swansons September report on the 19th:

I beg to report that about 3.40. am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethan Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway...

This was the overall belief, until it became clear that the schedule did not function the way it should. It was obvious that John Thain had spent far too much time on fetching Dr Llewellyn, for example. The outcome of this was the expected one: nobody questioned the timing of 3.40 - but for it to work, there had to be an explanation for why Thain had spent around ten minutes on an errand that should take two minutes only. And that is why we can see that John Thain was questioned over whether he had gone to Winthrop Street to fetch his cape (that he had deposited with the butchers there) and chat with the butchers instead of hotfooting it to doctor Llewellyns practice. If this was the case, it could explain the very long time it took to get the doctor.

But this notion was quickly dispelled by how Henry Tomkins was able to testify about how Thain actually came into the butchers place at 4.15, AFTER he had fetched Dr Llewellyn. And other testimony, like that of John Neil himself, who was able to tell that Dr Llewellyn arrived in about ten minutes after Thain had been sent for him, completed the picture. That claim must have made the coroner bring out his calculator and start doing the math.
Thain was, according to the PC:s 3.45 timing sent for LLewellyn at around 3.46. But Llewellyn said at the inquest that he was called to Bucks Row by Thain at around 4.00 AM. That is fourteen minutes after 3.46. And after Llewellyn had been awakened by Thain, he had to get out of bed, get dressed and get his bag, and only then would he be able to accompany Thain back to the murder site. So many MORE minutes would have to be added to the fourteen minutes already pointed to, perhaps ten minutes or so, taking the count to 24 minutes!
So why did Neil say that it took ten minutes only?
At this stage, it would have become obvious to the coroner that something was very wrong with the timings. And he would be able to see that the magic trick that would amend everything and put it right was to accept the timing of Robert Paul - the body was found at 3.45! That took care of all the problems.
Of course, although we do not have it on paper, the PC:s would have been asked about how certain they at this stage were about their original timing. And it would not surprise me to hear that Mizen and Thain alike may have followed Neils faulty lead, accepting it as correct. It would be strange if they both gave times that did not jibe with their colleagues timing, and this may be the simple solution to what went down - they would in retrospect have admitted that they would have been off.

And this is what would have been behind what Baxter said at the summary of the inquest: That there were so many independent data (not timings!) that fixed the time the body was found at 3.45 that it could not be refuted that this was correct.

And Swanson would have had that in mind when he wrote his October report. When he wrote the September report, these matters were still not resolved, but on the 19th of October they were, and he was able to correct his earlier mistake:

3.45 a.m. 31st. August. The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Bucks Row, Whitechapel, by Charles Cross & Robert Paul, carmen, on their way to work.

And this is really all there is to the matter. The logical sequence is there and leaves me in no doubt whatsoever.

[Fisherman]

There is still a little mystery to be solved here, Christer, as the sequence of events after Thain was signalled by Neil is as follows:

• he ran to the spot where Neil was and was sent for the doctor, so he then ran for the doctor
• both he and Neil stated that he returned with Llewellyn about 10 minutes later
• Llewellyn then quickly examined Nichols, declared her dead and ordered to remove her to the mortuary
• Thain helped to put Nichols on the ambulance
• Neil, Kirby and Mizen then removed her to the mortuary, while Thain, acting under orders, waited at the spot for Inspector Spratling
• the blood on the spot was washed away by Mr. Green in the presence of Thain
• Spratling then arrived at the scene where he found Thain and this was, very likely, well after 4.40, as Spratling received information about the murder at about 4.30, when he was in Hackney Road (over 1 km from Buck’s Row)
• Thain was later directed by Spratling to examine the vicinity of the murder - the railway and wharf more particularly - to see if he could find any weapon and this took place between 5 and 6 or so.

When did Thain go to the slaughterhouse to tell the men about the murder? And was it actually Thain who did that?

Henry Tomkins cleared that up: Thain came for his cape at around 4.15. He then returned to the murder spot. It would have been a matter of the fewest of minutes.
From the Daily News' coverage of the matter (4th of September):
They went to see the dead woman because Police constable Thain had passed the slaughter house about quarter past four and told them that a woman had been murdered in Buck's row.