Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

>>One of those two senior officers, the much more senior officer in fact, also said that Lechmere found the body at 3.45 in that October report. And we DO trust what he said, do we not?<<

As has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, Swanson's reports were riddled with minor errors, so NO we cannot what he wrote without cross-checking the other evidence.

>>It is not proven by a country mile that Lechmere and Paul were together as Mizen was spoken to.<<

All three witnesses are on record at some point as saying he was, so I don't know how sort a country mile can get.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Herlock,

It’s the interpretation of estimates that I struggle with in these debates Jeff. There appears to be a concerted effort to impose a kind of certainty. As if the word ‘about’ is defined as ‘within a minute or two either way.’ And it’s not as if those of us that don’t feel that Lechmere was guilty are moving any goalposts here. I’ve stated clearly that I accept that ‘about’ could just as easily have meant before or after. But it could also just as easily mean 5 minutes. How can this possibility be difficult to accept? How many times throughout our lives have all of us estimated a time or a period of time only to then discover that our estimate was considerably more than 5 minutes out? So why should anyone struggle with accepting the possibility that, for all that we know, Lechmere might have actually left the house at 3.35? How can anyone consider this mundane suggestion as in any way controversial?

Likewise the discovery time. There’s a difference in interpretation. Fine. But no one can claim 100% certainty about the discovery time. Just before 3.45 could have course have meant 3.44. But are we really being serious by trying to exclude 3.43 or 3.42? These discrepancies could occur today even with our technology. How much more likely then?

So basically we are interpreting 2 estimations. Not one of us can be certain of exact times. So my question remains (and I’m sorry but it’s an absolute slam dunk certainty) how can it be stated that there was a sinister gap of time for Lechmere in Bucks Row? There might have been. I certainly can’t disprove it but I know for a fact that no one can prove it either. It’s impossible to do so. As long as other possibilities exist, and they clearly do, we can’t suggest a gap. We cannot state something definite like a gap of time when the parameters are nowhere near definite.

If this very obvious, inarguable point cannot be conceded by some then reasoned debate can’t be had. I’m not claiming any special knowledge. I’m not claiming any brilliant deductions. I’m not claiming infallibility. But I am 100% certain that logic, reason and simple common sense says that this ‘there was a gap’ argument should be abandoned before it becomes too embarrassing to continue.

I tend to have a view of these qualifiers that is similar to yours, and as a result we come to similar conclusions. And it is sometimes difficult to comprehend how someone can come to the polar opposite conclusion. However, it's becoming very clear that the divergence is driven a great deal by these inexact descriptions. Even though I don't agree with Fisherman's or SuperShodan's narrower range of variation, once I consider how they interpret those phrases, then I can see how their reasoning leads them upon a path divergent from my own. Since the words "about" and "not far off" MEAN something different to them than to me and you, then they will see "inconsistent with" where we see "consistent with". As such, our views would be as equally baffling to them as their views are to us.

It is also common to interpret such situations as being nefariously motivated, that the only way they could deny what is obvious to us would be to be deliberately misleading. We see this from both sides. For example, when I suggest Paul's departure from home was 6-7 minutes prior to 3:45, it's viewed as "I think this is taking a massive liberty.", which has an underlying accusatory tone as it implies a sort of "fudging." However, to me it simply indicates that SuperShodan has a far narrower range of what "about" signifies. We also see it when people suggest Fisherman, and/or SuperShodan, are "ignoring the facts", rather than recognizing they are applying a different interpretation to how much variation is associated with "about" and so forth. Clearly, 6-7 minutes is considered extremely wide of the mark to how SuperShodan interprets it. Given we have no common ground on that term, there's no way for us to come to an agreement on how to interpret the more objective values that can be worked out. As a result, I would not be surprised if I'm seen as "determined to exonerate Cross/Lechmere" because my interpretation would be so incredibily different from what the term "about" MEANS to them. The thing is, I'm not determined to exonerate him, rather, because "about" and "not far off" MEANS something different to me, I come to a different conclusion. And because those terms MEAN something different to them, it's not that they are "determined to come to the conclusion of guilt", rather it's because that is the conclusion one would come to if one has a concept of "about" and "not far off" that is associated with a narrow range of variation.

The most common way this arises, at least here on the boards, is when debates spiral into simply accusing the other side of doing anything to support an agenda; basically saying that they will ignore anything in order to come to a particular conclusion. If, however, the two sides are operating with very different interpretations of what things "mean", then despite the two reading the same words, they are still operating with different concepts. Hence, it may not be a motivation to come to conclusion X come hell or high water, but rather simply an example of how when two people are working with different conceptualisations of what the words mean, they come to different conclusions.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>Perhaps someone who has it will explain what happened to the usual shouts of 'But there's a Sainsbury's in the way!'; 'But we don't know what his route was!'; and 'But how do you know that's the specific entrance he went to?'<<

All covered and explained in Steve's book.

[JeffHamm]

>>This is a very important point which should not be ignored.<<

I agree with one minor quibble...

>>Either Mizen or Lechmere is lying on oath<<

Certainly Mark, Bob and Christer have claimed Mizen could easily have lied under oath, in fact it's essential to their theory, but I think there is a good possibility that Mizen, having been told "you are wanted" simply assumed, on finding a policeman in Buck's Row, that it was a policeman who wanted him.

I fully agree with this possibility and have suggested it myself as well. I don't think that PC Mizen was lying per se, rather, simply presenting his interpretation of what he was told, and that interpretation of having been told he was needed in Buck's Row would be influenced by then finding he was need by a policeman in Buck's Row. It would be natural to presume that was the intention of Cross/Lechmere's statement. An intention that was corrected by Cross/Lechmere's testimony. PC Mizen appears to be genuinely mistaken, rather than intentionally misleading.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>it’s potentially a disciplinary issue. <<

So why is no record of Thain being disciplined through his service in police orders? and hadn't Sgt Kirby just checked on him?

>>Moving on to PC Mizen. He doesn’t take any details from Lechmere or Paul and continues his knocking up duties.<<

According to the police code he had no reason to.


>>I believe that this wasn’t an official police duty and was an extra cash in hand type arrangement.<<

Don't "believe" check.

People wanting to use the service had to apply at the police station, taking cash for the service was a disciplinary offence. If Mizen was in the wrong, he would have faced disciplinary action, but police records show he was never disciplined in his whole career.

This is the problem that dogs ripperology, people base theories around their personal opinions without bothering to check the evidence. All this has been discussed by experts here and over on Forums many times. The answers are available for anyone who puts in the effort to find them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s an article on knocking up on DO’s website. It was a police duty which could be requested and payment certainly wasn’t allowed.

[drstrange169]

>>Are you saying that your personal misgivings should take precedence over the official line offered by those who arguably knew best how exact or inexact the timings were?<<


This excerpt from David Orsam's review of Christer's book on the matter. I've already posted a link to the full review and fact that Christer continually try's to avoid the evidence listed below says it all.


As it happens, the lead investigating officer of the Nichols murder, Inspector Abberline, wrote in his report of 19 September 1888 that the discovery of the body of Nichols was made 'about 3.40am 31st Ult'.
In other words, Lechmere's evidence that he left his house at about 3.30am, perfectly satisfied Inspector Abberline who had concluded that he arrived at Bucks Row at about 3.40am, meaning that all the timings in the case fit perfectly.

Now, in this respect, we come to one of Holmgren's most disingenuous attempts at trying to pin the murder on Cross. For, on page 90 of his book, he deliberately implies for the unwary reader that Inspector Abberline's report was written by Chief Inspector Swanson who then changed his mind in a later report.

Thus, Holmgren says:

'Two police reports signed by Donald Swanson, the man who was made responsible for collecting and sorting all information pertaining to the Ripper case by Robert Anderson [Lord Orsam note: it was actually Sir Charles Warren] concern themselves to a significant degree with the Nichols case'.

Holmgren then notes that the first report states that Lechmere met Paul at 3.40am but that, in the second report, the time 'is amended to 3:45' and thus, says Holmgren, 'it would seem that the police ultimately settled for Paul's timing being correct' and, indeed, he claims that the police 'ultimately rejected' the 3.40am timing.

We can see that Holmgren deliberately withholds from his readers the crucial fact that the first report was written by Inspector Abberline, whose report was merely countersigned as a formality by both Chief Inspector Swanson and Superintendent Shore before being forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner at Scotland Yard. But the author was Abberline. The report is in his handwriting.

Nothing can be more nonsensical than for Holmgren to say that the time of 3.40 was 'amended' by Swanson so that it shows that the police 'ultimately settled' for a time of 3.45 and 'rejected' the 3.40 timing. Swanson's report of 19 October for the Home Office was a big picture report and he used broad brush timings. This is clear from other timings in his report of the Chapman case written on the same date which don't fit precisely with the known evidence.

For example, Swanson said in his report that the body of Chapman was discovered by John Davis at 6am whereas, in his evidence, Davis said no more than that he woke up at 5.45 and discovered the body'soon afterwards' (after having first drunk a cup of tea). Swanson also wrote that Chapman was last seen alive by John Donovan at 2am whereas Donovan said in his inquest evidence that he last saw her at 'about ten minutes to two a.m.' according to the report in the Daily Telegraph. In respect of John Richardson's evidence, Swanson said that he sat on the steps of 29 Hanbury Street at 4.45am whereas, in his inquest evidence, Richardson didn't give a precise time for this, only referring to a time of'between a quarter and twenty minutes to 5' according to the report in the Times or 'between a quarter and ten minutes to five' according to the Daily Chronicle or 'between 4.45am and 4.50am' according to the Daily Telegraph or 'about 4:40am or 4:50am' according to the report in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper. Swanson, incidentally, said in his report that Richardson was 'of 29 Hanbury Street', seemingly unaware that he didn't live at that address but resided at 2 John Street. He wrote that Albert Cadosch went into the yard of his house at 5.25am whereas Cadosch said that he got up at 5.15 and went out into the yard of his house, returning 'three or four minutes afterwards' according to the report in the Times, or at 'about twenty minutes past five' according to the Daily Chronicle. In respect of Mrs Long's evidence that she saw a man and a woman talking, Swanson noted this occurred at 5.30am whereas Mrs Long herself said this happened at 'about 5.30'. She did also say that she heard a church clock strike 5.30 'just before I got to the street' but this suggests that what she heard happened shortly after 5.30.

Exactly the same is true in the case of the Stride murder in which Swanson gave precise times in his report where only approximate times were known. Hence, for example, he said that PC Smith saw a man and woman in Berner Street at 12.35am whereas, in his inquest evidence, as reported by the Times, Smith said only that he was in Berner Street 'about half past 12 or 12.35'.

When we look at Swanson's report of the Tabram murder, we find him saying that John Reeves found the body of a woman the landing of George Yard at '4.50am 7th Augt. 1888'. Yet, in his inquest evidence on 9 August 1888, Reeves stated that 'he left home at a quarter to 5 to seek for work' and that, when he reached the first floor landing of his apartment building, he found deceased lying on her back in a pool of blood (Times 10 August 1888). Are we supposed to believe that Swanson carefully calculated that it took Reeves a full five minutes to walk from his front door at 37 George Yard Buildings down to the first floor landing of George Yard Buildings? I don't think so! It looks like he simply took the time of 4.50am from Inspector Ellisdon's report of 10 August 1888. Presumably, though, Holmgren would tell us that there is a mysterious gap of five minutes between Reeves leaving his home and him discovering the body within the same apartment building!

In the Nichols case, there is no reason to think that Swanson gave any thought to a particular timing, just like he obviously didn't given any particular thought to other timings in his reports. There was no reason for him to do so. None of them seemed to be critical. 3.45 was the approximate time spoken of by all witnesses, including Mizen and Neil, as to when everything happened in and around Bucks Row. Swanson simply commenced his report by saying: '3.45am 31st Augst. 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'. It obviously wasn't intended to be an exact time, just like his other times weren't intended to be exact. It certainly wasn't intended to amend any times from other reports!
What is so interesting about Inspector Abberline's report is that none of the witnesses mentioned 3.40 am at the inquest, so it looks as if Abberline actually did give the matter some thought and concluded that Neil's timing of about 3.45 when he discovered the body was likely to be correct so that Lechmere and Paul must have arrived in Bucks Row about five minutes prior to this. It makes perfect sense for him to have made this calculation, bearing in mind that Mizen corroborated Neil's timing by saying that he was told about the body in Bucks Row at about a quarter to four, while he was in the process of knocking up (and thus, considering that he was getting people out of bed at an ungodly hour in the morning, must have had a reasonably good idea of what the time was).

The coroner, when summing up, said that the discovery of the body 'cannot have been far from 3.45' which is another way of saying 'about' 3.45 and is consistent with a discovery at about 3.40, which is not far from 3.45.

Anyone with any sense will know that Holmgren is embarking on a fools errand here by trying to pin down exact times in circumstances where no-one was wearing a watch, and any clocks might have been running fast or slow. All times can only have been estimated. Not a single witness relating to the Nichols murder was even asked how they fixed the time.
Nevertheless, Holmgren relies heavily on the timings of two other witnesses, Robert Paul and Dr Llewellyn.

In respect of Paul, the evidence he gave at the inquest was nothing more than that he left his house at 'about' 3.45 (according to the report in the Times) or 'just before a quarter to four' (according to the report in the Morning Advertiser). But that can very easily encompass 3.40am. So, with the actual inquest evidence in the case not being terribly helpful, Holmgren relies instead on a newspaper report in which Paul apparently stated to a reporter for Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper that it was 'exactly' 3.45 that he walked into Bucks Row. At first blush this might seem impressive, even though Paul didn't say how he fixed the time, but what Holmgren doesn't inform his readers is that what Paul was angrily responding to was a newspaper report that it was THE POLICE who had found the body of Nichols at 3.45am. What he was trying to say was that this was wrong and that HE and another carman (Lechmere) were the first to discover the body at that time. Indeed, Paul would have been under the impression that the only reason the police knew about the body was because he and the other carman had informed Mizen about it.

The short point is that we cannot possibly rely on Paul's timing in these circumstances because he was trying to argue a point. He was trying to say that it couldn't have been the police who found the body at 3.45am because he did. If we were to assume that he and Lechmere discovered the body at 3.42 or 3.43 and that Neil stumbled across it at 3.47 or 3.48 then both men would be entitled to say they discovered the body at 3.45 and Paul would very likely have said that he discovered it at 'exactly' 3.45, something which would have been impossible for him to have said with certainty unless he had checked the time on a timepiece which was known to be 100% accurate. But he never said this and he certainly never said he heard any bells ringing or anything like that so, even if accurately reported, his comments to a newspaper reporter - which were not repeated in his sworn evidence at the inquest - cannot possibly be taken as gospel.

We may also note that in another context, on page 66, Holmgren warns us that the Lloyd's article 'contains material that needs to be treated with caution' but when he deals with this timing point from the same article on page 89 he doesn't treat it with any caution, accepting that this part of the article is 100% accurate!

The other evidence on which Holmgren relies is Dr Llewellyn stating that he was woken up by a police constable at 'around four o'clock'. On this occasion, Holmgren does include the qualifying word 'around'which means that it might easily have been 3.50 or 3.55. Indeed, Holmgren relies on a statement of the doctor reported in a newspaper which says that he was woken up 'at about five minutes to four' which shows that even Holmgren accepts that 'around four o'clock' can easily be five minutes away from that time. But we're back to the word 'about' again. Holmgren takes it literally as being that the doctor must have been woken up at exactly 3.55. Given that the doctor lived about two minutes walk from the murder site, then taking the timing literally, Thain must have set off from Bucks Row to wake him at 3.53. If Neil found the body at 3.47, Holmgren would say that leaves a six minute gap in the timing between the discovery and Thain being sent off to fetch the doctor. But, of course, it doesn't leave any gap if the doctor was woken up at 3.52 or 3.53, meaning that Thain set off at 3.50 or 3.51 (and that's not including the time it would have taken Thain to have informed the doctor's servant that he needed to wake the doctor). There is no reason why Neil couldn't have taken three or four minutes to have examined the body of Nichols and look around before Thain appeared (and, as Holmgren notes, Thain would himself have taken about a minute to walk from Brady Street up to where the body lay). Indeed, we don't have any kind of timing for the gap between Neil finding the body and Thain's appearance. Nor can we say with any certainty whether Neil and Thain had a discussion about the apparent murder before Thain ran off to fetch the doctor.

Above all, though, we have no information about how Dr Llewelyn fixed the time that he was woken up. What if he looked at a clock which was running a few minutes slow, or fast? We just don't know. It's why this entire business is a fool's errand; one which only someone who is used to living in a modern world, where exact times are generally more accurately known, would attempt.

Truly, it's a joke to try and match up all these estimated timings to fix a precise timeline to within minutes. You just can't do it. The police would have had trouble in 1888 but today it's simply impossible and a complete waste of time. About 3.30 could truly and easily mean any time fifteen minutes either side, the same for about 3.45 and about 4.00. Indeed, depending on the circumstances, the inaccuracy could be even greater than that. People can be hours out in their estimates, so being a few minutes out is not surprising.
To attempt anything like the exercise Holmgren sets out in his book, you need to know how the relevant witnesses fixed the time and whether any relevant timepieces were tested for accuracy. As this didn't happen in 1888, we can't possibly reconstruct it now. Any feeling that there are five or ten missing minutes can easily be rectified by adjusting the chronology in various directions which will still fit the rough estimates provided by the witnesses.

[FISHY1118]

Stride 1am
Kelly 2am approx
Eddowes 1.30am approx
Chapman Between 1.45am-3.45am
Mckenzie 12.45am
Coles 2.15am

The only evidence to support that belief comes from the police officer who as i have stated may have been less than liberal with the truth, or he could have genuinely missed the body when he supposedly passed by at 3.15am.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, If its your firm belief that Chapman was indeed murdered between 1.45am -3.45am that effectively has you agreeing with this quote from a victorian doctors [Dr Phillips] opinion in regards to T.O.D [Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; . . Just so im clear on this, my question is do you agree with Dr Phillips , yes /no ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, If its your firm belief that Chapman was indeed murdered between 1.45am -3.45am that effectively has you agreeing with this quote from a victorian doctors [Dr Phillips] opinion in regards to T.O.D [Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; . . Just so im clear on this, my question is do you agree with Dr Phillips , yes /no ?

I belive Chapman was not killed around 3.45am but much earlier and Richardson missed seeing the body and as far as Dr Phillips examination is concerned he took a calculated guess and to back up his guess he noticed the onset of rigor mortis which would not have been visible to him had she been murdered at 3.45am

Rigor mortis starts between two and six hours following death, rigor mortis begins with the eyelids, neck, and jaw and then spreads to the other muscles, including the internal organs, within the next four to six hours.

I should also mak mention of Dr Browns examination of Eddowes at the crime scene where we can pin down almost the time of death by her movements

"no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body."

So I think as far as Dr Phillips calculated guess on the TOD of Chapman he wasnt far wrong

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

Here's another of Swanson's "amended timings",

"about 1 a.m. 30th Leon Goldstein of 22 Christian Street Commercial Road, called at Leman St. & stated that he was the man that passed down Berner St. with a black bag at that hour"
Donald S. Swanson report dated 19 October 1888 to the Home Office:

Not only did Swanson "amend" Goldstein's appearance at the police station to admit being the man Mortimer saw happening before the article was published. He amended it to before Fanny gave the interview! In fact he amended it to the time Diemshitz claims to have passed the Harris clock before discovering the body!!!

This is the evidence Christer wants us to trust.

[FISHY1118]

I belive Chapman was not killed around 3.45am but much earlier and Richardson missed seeing the body and as far as Dr Phillips examination is concerned he took a calculated guess and to back up his guess he noticed the onset of rigor mortis which would not have been visible to him had she been murdered at 3.45am

Rigor mortis starts between two and six hours following death, rigor mortis begins with the eyelids, neck, and jaw and then spreads to the other muscles, including the internal organs, within the next four to six hours.

I should also mak mention of Dr Browns examination of Eddowes at the crime scene where we can pin down almost the time of death by her movements

"no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body."

So I think as far as Dr Phillips calculated guess on the TOD of Chapman he wasnt far wrong

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So givin that logic Phillips Brown and Lewellyn by their calculation guessing , we can conclude that they werent far wrong and reasonble accurate were they not , ? and just in regards to Chapman again if i may , all of Cadoush and Longs testermonies what t do you make of them given your stance on chapmans t.o.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I usually leave the numbers to Jeff but I had an hour spare so I just did a bit of simple maths which I’m happy to be corrected on as long as it’s done fairly of course.

All that I did was take every permutation of times from Lechmere leaving his house to when he met up with Paul. I’ve used a + or - 5 minutes, so from an earlier leaving time of 3.25 to a later time of 3.35 and I used 3.40/41/42/43 and 3.44 as the possible meeting up times. I used 7 minutes as the walking time to calculate any gap. I left out the 3 times where it would have meant Lechmere getting there in under 7 minutes. This gave me 52 individual times.

Ive taken 2 mins, 1 min and 0 mins as the ‘no gap’ times because I don’t think that 2 minutes is a fair allowance for Lechmere to first engage with Nichols then to kill and mutilate her.

This left me, from that range of permutations, with 12 times out of 52 where there was no gap. So 23.08% of the time there were no gaps.

But….

If Lechmere left the house at around 3.30 to get to work for 4.00 I’m sure that we can all agree that he wouldn’t have gone looking for a victim only to have brought her back to Bucks Row? So he ran into her in Bucks Row. He engages (obviously realising that he doesn’t have a lot of time for chit-chat) then kills and mutilates her. Even if we allow a probably over-generous 4 minutes I’d say that any gap of 5 minutes or over couldn’t be justified because we would be correct in asking why he would have stood around after killing her and before he became aware of Paul’s presence. So if we then remove the 5 mins or more gaps that leaves us with 22 remaining times. 12 of which are the gaps of 2 minutes or under.

Therefore taking into reasonable consideration all possible permutations and eliminating the obviously too small or non-existent gaps plus the illogically long gaps we are left with 54.55% of the possible permutations where there would have been no suspicious gap.

Even if the figures were far lower this should tell us loud and clear that we can propose that there was definitely a gap.

[drstrange169]

>>If Lechmere left the house at around 3.30 to get to work for 4.00<<

It's important to note that, according to Cross, he still got to Broad Street by 4:00 despite the delay that day. We know the railways had the EXACT Greenwich meantime.
If he was still in Buck's Row at 3:45 Greenwich meantime, we have a timing problem.

[drstrange169]

>>As I said before, how do we know that Dr Llewellyn did not have a very expansive and exact timepiece, and was able to refure the possibility that it would be off? Very exact timepieces were available in 1888 too.<<

It seems, like your burglars and piss-takers post, you don't actually understand what you are posting.

If Llewelyn had (I assume you meant expensive) "a very expansive and exact timepiece", it significantly increases the notion that he was out of sync with the rest of the witnesses who would not have access to a "a very expensive and exact timepiece". Therefore his timing could not be compared to the other witnesses times. Your argument is self defeating.


"A circle is a round straight line with a hole in the middle."

[FISHY1118]

A thread devoted to offering space where those who think there is evidence pointing to innocence on Charles Lecherme´s behalf can provide their thoughts and ideas. My personal take is that there is no genuine evidence at all that points to innocence on the carmans behalf, but since it has been led on that I ommitted to present such evidence in my book "Cutting Point", it would be interesting to see what that evidence consists of.

What this thread is not for is presenting alternative innocent explanations, like "Mizen may have made up the stuff about that other PC", because it would drown the thread totally - such alternative explanations can be provided en an endless stream, and although we must consider them, they are not genuine evidence of innocence but only "what if's".

What we do not need out here either are claims like "Lechmere is a useless suspect". Althoug anybody is entitles to entertain that idea, it is the evidence they can put behind it that counts.

So let´s not speak about how there may have been alternative innocent explanations at play, but instead start our contributions with "Charles Lechmere cannot have been the killer because..." and than add true and genuine evidence. Another starting point can of course be "Charles Lechmere is not likely to be the killer because..." - just as there can be circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt, there can also be circumstantial evidence speaking of innocence.

But is there?

Let me know.

Anybody who can master this debate without descending into disrespectfulness is welcomed to the thread. And I demand that attitude from everyone, myself included.

Charles Lechmere is not likely to be the killer because?.......... Hi Fisherman , as much as i have enjoyed the last few days on this thread discussing t.o.d with others i feel i have not contributed my thoughts on your original post, which i must say the amount of time and effort and detail thats been put into this topic is nothing short of remarkable . [in a positve way] . So if youll allow me to impart my thoughts on Charles Lechmere being/not being jack the ripper i will give you my personal opinion . Ive adopted perhaps a different take than most, ive never really got caught up with times, distances ,to or from wherever, or what lech said or didnt say to paul etc etc ,im more trying to gauge lechmere himself ,his motive , family life ,work life , social life . So when i see a picture of Mary Jane Kelly [as im sure most have ] and have read many times in depth at the shear horricfic injuries she sustaned described by some as the devils work himself, i cant help but think how Charles Lechmere who lived for another 32 years , had 12 children worked as a humble carman and could do all that to Mary Kelly and then continue on in his life without doing it AGAIN. Now do serial killers have children? yes of course and some are humble no doubt , but its the murder itself thats key.. How many would do such a thing and ''STOP'' . Which begs a question what were Lechmeres movements in his life right after the 9th Nov?, did he return to work monday morning ?how long after did he work at the same place walking up Bucks Row to work every morning for how many more years ?. That would be very interesting to know what sort of life he had after that day. Now this neither points to his guilt or innocence of course , but for me its puts one Charles Lechmere in the ''extremly very unlikely basket'' For being Jack The Ripper . Cheers fish