Evidence of innocence

[bolo]

Hi rjpalmer, Fish, all,

your post mirrors a lot of my thoughts on the timings and the perceived red flags therein. The time estimates given by the PCs, Llewellyn and the carmen look like a weak base for building up a case against Lech that depends on stricter timings than can be found in the press articles and the few official documents.

In my opinion, a lot (not all) of Lech's behaviour that night can be explained by the pressure put on him to reach his work in time, same goes for Paul. The Buck's-row crime scene lies at the early stages of his way to work which in turn puts a limit to the timings mentioned because he said at the inquest that he reached work at 4 a.m. I guess it would have taken him at least 15 to 20 more minutes to get to Pickford's so any timings later than, say, 3.40/45 a.m. for any of the persons involved would contradict his statement.

It could also explain the "you are wanted in Buck's-row" comment, both Lech and Paul wanted to get on as quickly as possible so Lech worded it so to ensure that there wouldn't be any lengthy discussion.

Sometimes a carman is just a carman.

Grüße,

Boris

[Darryl Kenyon]

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.

Been away from the party with Covid. So playing catch up

For Lech's address answer this - What do you think Lech would have said if the coroner asked him his address - I Don't know, Give a false address , Can't remember or give his correct one. No fudging , just answer the question.
Also , it is not a bitter blow to me that Polly's wounds may have been covered . It is a bitter blow to you that you cannot bring forward one iota of evidence that they were.
And while you are at it why don't you answer the point what Paul said - "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul
Was he lying ? mistaken? or just telling the truth .Again no fudging.

[Darryl Kenyon]

He would not give a false address to the police. He did give his correct address to the police.

Capisce?

You openly admit this Fish, yet you still persist in the notion that Lech tried hiding his true ID. Bizarre . And you wonder why I have trouble understanding you.
These were a set of brutal murders in an impoverished area of the east end. Not some plot to a John Le Carre novel of bluff and double bluff.

[Mark J D]

He would not give a false address to the police. He did give his correct address to the police.

Capisce?

You openly admit this Fish, yet you still persist in the notion that Lech tried hiding his true ID. Bizarre . And you wonder why I have trouble understanding you.

Christer has explained the issue of Lechmere's address over and over again: I myself had read and understood the relevant distinction within minutes of arriving at this site, half a year ago.

I think Christer doesn't need to reply to this endlessly repeated garbage -- which, to be frank, no longer seems honest. I shyly suggest that he should ignore it and do other things instead...

M.

[drstrange169]

>>I have already prepared an answer for your various "points", listing and torching your claims as I went along. It´s on my computer desk. So you can have that, if you want to<<

Yes please.

>> after you have provided an answer to why John Thain would have spent up to around a quarter of an hour looking for Dr Llewellyns practice.<<

If you read my posts, you'd know I already have and shown the evidence that supports it.

[SuperShodan]

Been away from the party with Covid. So playing catch up

For Lech's address answer this - What do you think Lech would have said if the coroner asked him his address - I Don't know, Give a false address , Can't remember or give his correct one. No fudging , just answer the question.
Also , it is not a bitter blow to me that Polly's wounds may have been covered . It is a bitter blow to you that you cannot bring forward one iota of evidence that they were.
And while you are at it why don't you answer the point what Paul said - "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul
Was he lying ? mistaken? or just telling the truth .Again no fudging.

Nichols wounds had been covered up and this is the smoking gun that shows that JTR never left Bucks Row. There is only one person in our drama who would benefit from concealing the wounds - Charles Lechmere.

If JTR was some unknown 3rd party who ran off then covering up his handiwork serves no purpose. The only reason to conceal the wounds were if JTR was still in situ and was trying to hide that a crime had taken place from an approaching witness. The only person there is Lechmere and the approaching witness is Robert Paul. If the wounds were concealed then we can say that Lechmere is JTR.

Moving on, the wounds were so well concealed Robert Paul want even sure Nichols was dead. This is despite her nearly being beheaded and having abdominal wounds so severe her intestines were protruding. I would say that Nichols wounds had very clearly been hidden from view.

So what do the press statements say. Inspector Henson (Head of J Division) who oversaw the Nichols case said “...and there were no cuts in the clothing. It would have been impossible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on." So, the killer would have lifted the clothes for access to the abdomen, like he usually did, then on this occasion instead of leaving the body posed, he covered up the mutilations.

Furthermore, Lechmere himself describes how he found Nichol’s “When I found her clothes were up above her knees” and “The woman's legs were uncovered. Her bonnet was off, but close to her head”. It appears that Nichols legs were exposed, and everything else was covered up.

So we have severe abdominal wounds on a woman who’s dress is pulled down to around her knees. Case closed. Lechmere is JTR.

[drstrange169]

>>So now the police who couldn't even be bothered to speak to the residents of Buck's Row are going to investigate the timings of one of their own by asking people who don't have clocks when it was that they were woken up<<

Why would the police need to investigate? You don't seem to understand how capitalism works. The people were paying for a service, if Mizen didn't supply it, they would be at the police station demanding their money back.

Can you show me where Mizen was punished for not doing his job? And if he is so dodgy in your mind, can we dismiss his witness box claim about Cross?

"Here we go round in circles to nowhere"

[drstrange169]

>>Nichols wounds had been covered up and this is the smoking gun that shows that JTR never left Bucks Row. There is only one person in our drama who would benefit from concealing the wounds - Charles Lechmere.<<


And the person Cross disturbed.


>>If JTR was some unknown 3rd party who ran off then covering up his handiwork serves no purpose. <<


If you can be bothered to go through the myriad Cross threads you'll see suggested purposes.


>>Moving on, the wounds were so well concealed Robert Paul want even sure Nichols was dead.<<

We know with absolute certainty that the neck wound was completely visible. All it needed to be seen was a bit of light. Could Cross guarantee Paul would not pull out a match?


>>This is despite her nearly being beheaded and having abdominal wounds so severe her intestines were protruding. I would say that Nichols wounds had very clearly been hidden from view.<<

Then you are factually wrong aren't you.

More circles, and no thought put in to what the facts actually are.

[Fiver]

For Cross, there is nothing to support his 3:30 am departure, and plenty to suggest that he is not being truthful.

Again, there were two people who could have confirmed his 3:30 am departure:

1. Paul, who notably fails ever to mention hearing a person walking 50-60 yards in front of him....even though someone walking ahead of you on tough streets and then suddenly stopping should be of great interest.

2. Lechmere's wife, who seems to have been kept in the dark. Let's imagine Lechmere's wife was functionally illiterate or didn't read newspapers. She still would most probably learn the fact that her husband, Charles Lechmere, testified at the Polly Nichols murder inquest from neighbors or acquaintences. How many of these people could identify Charles Cross as Charles Lechmere? And why would Lechmere not avail himself of his wife's support?

There is nothing to contradict Lechmere's claim that he left home at around 3:30am. There is no evidence that Lechmere was not being truthful.

1. Robert Paul would have no way of knowing what time Charles Allen Lechmere left for work. He could neither confirm nor deny Lechmre's claim. Paul mentions seeing Lechmere in front of him on Buck's Row. We do not know how far away that was - no one ever asked Paul. You are spinning assumptions based on things Robert Paul was never asked.

2. There is no evidence that Lechmere's wife was kept in the dark. That is more speculation on your part. She probably could have confirmed Lechemre's departure, but she was not called on to testify at the inquest. Her not being called was not Lechmere not availing himself of his wife's support, it was the coroner's decision.

[SuperShodan]

>>Nichols wounds had been covered up and this is the smoking gun that shows that JTR never left Bucks Row. There is only one person in our drama who would benefit from concealing the wounds - Charles Lechmere.<<


And the person Cross disturbed.


>>If JTR was some unknown 3rd party who ran off then covering up his handiwork serves no purpose. <<


If you can be bothered to go through the myriad Cross threads you'll see suggested purposes.


>>Moving on, the wounds were so well concealed Robert Paul want even sure Nichols was dead.<<

We know with absolute certainty that the neck wound was completely visible. All it needed to be seen was a bit of light. Could Cross guarantee Paul would not pull out a match?


>>This is despite her nearly being beheaded and having abdominal wounds so severe her intestines were protruding. I would say that Nichols wounds had very clearly been hidden from view.<<

Then you are factually wrong aren't you.

More circles, and no thought put in to what the facts actually are.

>>And the person Cross disturbed.<<

Lechmere never disturbed anyone. You can’t answer this point so you do your usual and go off on a tangent, inventing something that never happened. There was nobody else there - Lechmere confirms this himself.

“He saw no one running away, nor did he notice anything whatever of a suspicious nature”

I ask you for evidence of Lechmere disturbing anyone. It never happened. You plucked this out of thin air.

>>If you can be bothered to go through the myriad Cross threads you'll see suggested purposes.<<


People can suggest all they like. I can only imagine the mental gymnastics required not to see that JTR never left Bucks Row. The dress was pulled down to Nichols knees. It’s actually a very straight forward crime scene - Polly Nichols murderer never left Bucks Row.

>>We know with absolute certainty that the neck wound was completely visible. All it needed to be seen was a bit of light. Could Cross guarantee Paul would not pull out a match?<<

True. Lechmere couldn’t guarantee Paul wouldn’t pull out a match. Lechmere was caught unawares, he had been engrossed with Polly Nichols, and too late he realises somebody is approaching. He has seconds to make a decision. He chose to pull down Polly’s dress and step back from the body. It was his gut instinct. There was no time to weigh up the pro’s and cons. He is reacting to the situation as it unfolds. We can only speculate what would have happened if Paul had pulled out a match.

>>Then you are factually wrong aren't you.<<

The facts on the ground are quite clear. Nichols wounds were concealed, this means JTR was still at the murder scene, Lechmere is JTR. It’s not a difficult case.

>>More circles, and no thought put in to what the facts actually are.<<

Actually I’ve quoted both the inspector in charge of the Bucks Row case and Lechmere himself. I’m a Psychology Graduate. I understand evidence very, very well.

[drstrange169]

>> I ask you for evidence of Lechmere disturbing anyone. It never happened. You plucked this out of thin air.<<

Sigh, Did Diemshitz hear anyone running away? Did Watkins?


>>The dress was pulled down to Nichols knees. <<

And some reports say it was nearly up to her stomach.

And NO report says it was "pulled down" before Paul tried.

Again inventing things is all very nice, but facts are important to some of us.


>>True. Lechmere couldn’t guarantee Paul wouldn’t pull out a match.<<

Thank you, a glimmer of light at last.


>>The facts on the ground are quite clear. Nichols wounds were concealed ...<<

Then you don't know what you are talking about and I'm wasting my time. The neck wounds were clearly visible to PC Neil. I don't understand how to can post here and not know that.



>>Actually I’ve quoted both the inspector in charge of the Bucks Row case and Lechmere himself. I’m a Psychology Graduate. I understand evidence very, very well.<<

At the The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too, presumably;-)

[Darryl Kenyon]

Nichols wounds had been covered up and this is the smoking gun that shows that JTR never left Bucks Row. There is only one person in our drama who would benefit from concealing the wounds - Charles Lechmere.

If JTR was some unknown 3rd party who ran off then covering up his handiwork serves no purpose. The only reason to conceal the wounds were if JTR was still in situ and was trying to hide that a crime had taken place from an approaching witness. The only person there is Lechmere and the approaching witness is Robert Paul. If the wounds were concealed then we can say that Lechmere is JTR.

Moving on, the wounds were so well concealed Robert Paul want even sure Nichols was dead. This is despite her nearly being beheaded and having abdominal wounds so severe her intestines were protruding. I would say that Nichols wounds had very clearly been hidden from view.

So what do the press statements say. Inspector Henson (Head of J Division) who oversaw the Nichols case said “...and there were no cuts in the clothing. It would have been impossible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on." So, the killer would have lifted the clothes for access to the abdomen, like he usually did, then on this occasion instead of leaving the body posed, he covered up the mutilations.

Furthermore, Lechmere himself describes how he found Nichol’s “When I found her clothes were up above her knees” and “The woman's legs were uncovered. Her bonnet was off, but close to her head”. It appears that Nichols legs were exposed, and everything else was covered up.

So we have severe abdominal wounds on a woman who’s dress is pulled down to around her knees. Case closed. Lechmere is JTR.

Except [ again ] - PC Neil - 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.
Where does PC Neil say that the clothing was pulled down ? And so much for the wound in the throat being covered .
What yourself and Fish etc purport is , Lech would have literally cut Polly's throat in the last minute or two before Paul arrived. Now what is the term Fish likes to use ? Oh yeah the blood was running/ or flowing, not oozing [ without trawling through all the pages ] , from the throat. I am assuming all this running blood was cleverly hidden as well ?
How the hell did Lech not know that Paul would not put his hand to Polly's throat, move any clothing which may have hidden the cut , stuck a match and seen the cuts ?
He wouldn't , simple as. And all this time PC Neil could have been coming down Bucks row with his lantern.

Regards Darryl

[drstrange169]

For those not familiar with Christer’s shenanigans, when he’s been caught out , like calling his own posts “bonkers”, he usually seeks to change the subject. This entails saying things like I can answer everything, but I won’t. Do I need to cite examples of previous dummy spits?

Usually this ploy is accompanied by claims that people must answer his questions first, even though, as in this case they already have. It’s like that famous scene in Orson Welles's “Lady from Shanghai”, all mirrors and deflection.

As it happens I’ve got nothing better to do right now so, in this case, I’ll play along with Christer’s “funny little games” and also like the "Lady From Shanghai" scene, let's shatter a few mirrors and find the truth. There are, of course, multiple scenarios, this is but one.

Mizen would have past the Albion Brewery clock about 3:45, from there it was about a minute's journey to where he could have seen Neil’s signal.

Time 3:46.

This is backed up by his inquest testimony,

“Nothing attracted his attention until about 3:45 a.m.”
The Times

Another couple of minutes would have pasted, going down Buck’s Row and talking to P.C. Neil. But for this little game of Christer’s I want to keep things tight, so let’s say it took only one minute.

Time 3:47

Thain then goes to Llewelyn’s house, according to Christer, a two minute journey.

Time 3:49

Obviously, or perhaps I shouldn’t say that because Lechmerians don’t do obvious, nobody would be at the door waiting for him. So we can reasonably expect it to take 1-5 minutes before someone answers. Since we’re taking the shortest possible time for the sake of this silly game, let’s say one minute.

Time 3:50

We know from Dr. Blackwell and Mrs Stride’s murder, that Llewelyn is not likely to be the one answering the door. It would be either a servant or Llewelyn’s assistant Dr. Seacombe. They would then have to wake Llewelyn.

Time 3:51

Already we are in the reasonable realm of Llewelyn’s claim,

“I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four”.
Daily News

But, the unanswerable question is, when did Llewelyn look at a clock?
In his bedroom or after he dressed and went downstairs?

In his bedroom,

Time 3:52

Dressed and down stairs,

TIME 3:55 !!!!!!!!!

Baxter tells us that Llewelyn was at the murder site around fifteen minutes after Neil discovered the body. That would be around 4:00 which gives him, by the shortest possible scenario, just less than 10 minutes to get dressed, pack his bag and get to the murder site. Using Blackwell, who lived a similar distance from his murder site, that is a perfectly feasible time scenario.

Remember I have cut these times down to there lowest limits, in more realistic terms, all this would have taken some minutes longer.

Can we now please stop all these silly stories that smack so much of desperatism and get on with it?

[drstrange169]

Still got some free time up my sleeve so let’s look at Baxter’s summation:


“In less than an hour and a quarter after this she was found dead …”

This establishes that Baxter believes the murder took place before 3:45. He goes on to say,

“The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

What are the “so many independent data” according to Christer it is only one piece of data. The unspecific time Paul says he left home. How can that be?

Surely the “data” he is refering to is Mizen’s time, Neil’s time, Llewelyn’s time, Thain's time and Cross’s time etc. “… so many independent data.”

And if not, where does he say not?

Cross first, does Baxter dispute any of the times Cross gave?

"The deceased was first discovered by a carman on his way to work"

No mention of Cross being mistaken.

Mizen, does Baxter question Mizen’s time?

“The carmen reported the circumstances to a constable at the corner of Hanbury-street, 300 yards distant, but although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there”

No mention of Mizen being mistaken.

Does Baxter question Neil’s time?

“In fact, Constable Neil must independently have found the body within a few minutes of the finding of it by the two carmen.”

No mention of Neil being mistaken.

But interestingly in the above sentence, he places Neil finding the body, in his words,
“within a few minutes” of Cross and Paul.

So now we know without any doubt what Baxter meant when he said,

“The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m.”

He believed Cross and Paul found the body “within a few minutes” of Neil.


There is no ambiguity, Baxter’s “fixed data” is supplied by the policemen.

He even emphasises the point later on,

“Constable Neil was positive that he was at the spot half an hour before”

Finally Baxter tells us Llewelyn was on site by around 4:00.

“Even if Paul were mistaken in the movement of the chest, Neil found her right arm still warm, and even Dr. Llewellyn, who saw the body about a quarter of an hour afterwards”

Something that would be very hard to do if Thain only arrived at the surgery at Christer’s claimed time of 3.57.

That would leave no time for the servant to answer the door, no time for them to alert Llewelyn, and no time for Llewelyn to get dressed and pack his bag.

No matter how much Lechmerians try to twist and tease, the actual facts always win out.

You want to know what happened follow the evidence not the fiction.

[The Baron]

You should be putting all this into a book Dusty

This is a great analyse and very well written!

Some non fictional books on the matter are always welcome!



The Baron