Evidence of innocence

[FISHY1118]

Of course, it was Thain who called at the knacker’s yard at ‘about’ 4.15 to fetch his cape. That was stated by Henry Tomkins at the inquest. But Thain claimed that another constable had taken his cape there.

Thanks for clearing that up barnett, nothing at all to do with P.C Neil as i expected .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,



No, it's not ridiculous. In a police investigation you have to prove it, prove it, prove it, never assume it. That means verify every detail of what is said, no matter who says it. PC Neil's statement also has to be examined very very carefully with respect to details.

I can think of an example from a documentary I watched ages ago, though I forget the specific case. There was a cold case. At the time, the police had a fellow they were interested in, and thought he looked like a promising "suspect". There were various bits of information that seemed to point to him as either responsible, or somehow involved. They had "promising leads" if you will. Then, they found out he had been in custody at the time of the murder. They called up to verify the guy was actually in custody, of course, and were told he was. After that, the case went cold. When a new set of detectives opened this cold case file, they too thought this guy seemed a good lead, so they looked at what was done investigating him. They found the report detailing that he was in custody, and that the detectives called to verify that. They thought, hmmm, did the person on the other end of the telephone actually verify he was in custody, or did he just confirm they had him? Might he have been out on a day or weekend pass? So they went to that jurisdiction and checked those records, and sure enough, he had been out on a weekend pass. He did not have an alibi. That then led to them being able to investigate further and eventually arrest and convict him.

Trevor's experience with actual police work makes him more than aware of just how common this sort of thing can arise. It's not at all ridiculous to point out that all we have are unverified statements, with only some corroborations on some points.

The thing is, we can't do what those cold case detectives did. We can't go and verify anything because all the important documents are lost, and all the people dead. So while I fully appreciate where Trevor's coming from, I have butted heads with him on such things with respect to what we can do. We cannot do a proper police type investigation, that's long since become impossible. As such, the best we can do is work with the information we have, and we have to go with the statements as being considered reliable unless we can show they are not. If we evaluate our information as if we are conducting a police investigation, we might as well just put the file away because we are left with such useless evidence from that view point that nothing can be done.

I've said a few times I'm not really suspect oriented, and I don't think we have enough information to actually solve "who did it", much for the same reasons that Trevor is pointing out here. I'm generally interested in seeing what we can extract, though, and see if we can build a reasonably reliable account of the events themselves. That's why I tend to be most interested in reconstructing the time lines. It won't be perfect, and I can't rule out Trevor's concern (maybe she was killed before 3:15 and PC Neil somehow wasn't there, etc), but I do think that is less likely than he did his patrol and she really wasn't there. Less likely doesn't mean impossible though. I accept that what I think we can do is construct what appears "the most likely story", but I don't think we can construct "the one and only true story".

When Trevor and I do disagree, it's entirely due to that difference in view point. I get why he sees things like this as necessary to consider, and I suspect he gets that if viewed from my perspective, he understands why I would say "but it is still more likely she was killed after 3:15". He just doesn't think approaching things from my perspective is a good idea. But then, I don't think approaching a historical case from a modern police investigation perspective is a good idea as that perspective is too strict and demanding and simply "breaks" all the evidence. If you adopt that perspective you really should just close the case and say "this can't be investigated further - it goes in the dead case files as unsolved, next". From a historical perspective, we recognize where the evidence is weak, but we do our best to make sense of it nonetheless.

- Jeff

Thank you jeff , but ill still stand by what p.c neil claimed and testified to at the inquest, as the most very likely tru events that happened other than any of that other nonsense , which as i said is just wishful thinking to support a very outlandish narritive that some people wish to follow , thats my opinion and ill stick with that .

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

Thank you jeff , but ill still stand by what p.c neil claimed and testified to at the inquest, as the most very likely tru events that happened other than any of that other nonsense , which as i said is just wishful thinking to support a very outlandish narritive that some people wish to follow , thats my opinion and ill stick with that .

That's fine, but as you say, "the most very likely true ...", and that's a different criterion from how Trevor approaches things. From Trevor's perspective, if you cannot say it is absolutely true, then you have to keep the options open and worrying about probabilities is what will lead an investigator to become blinded to the alternatives.

And when it is possible to investigate the various options, one investigates both the more and less likely option because low probabilities do sometimes occur! I just don't think we can do that, though, hence I can clash with Trevor at times because our views are so different, but I do understand where he's coming from when I step back and think of it as a current active police investigation. But the tools by which one "researches" in a current police investigation are no longer applicable. We can't generate new information (ie. reinterview someone; reexamine a crime scene, etc). We're stuck with what was gathered in 1888, using far less reliable methods, and even much of that is lost.

So you don't have to change your mind, or your point of view, because you're working at this from a different perspective. That doesn't mean Trevor's is ridiculous, it just means he's using an approach that evaluates things in a way that isn't compatible with your own. I sometimes forget my own advice though, so do as I say, not as I do! ha ha.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

>>The tarpaulin sheets for the cart would have been supplied by his employer. Finding a "men's" weather protective coat would provide him with personal advantage. I would think that it would be more plausible to mistake a large coat for a woman than a sheet of tarpaulin. We have another case of conflicting press reports, either of which could be correct.<<

I can't see anyway an empty jacket has the volume and size to be mistaken for a body, however, a tarpaulin fits the bill perfectly. Cross makes no mention of wanting the object he saw, just that it aroused his attention. Considering cart tarps were part and parcel of his trade this is not surprising or odd.

8 newspapers called it a tarpaulin, 5 specifically called it a tarpaulin sheet.

East London Observer
Daily News
Telegraph
Illo Police News
Lloyds

Only one, Morning Advertiser, called it a "man's tarpaulin".

Given the numerous transcription errors in the Advertisers report that day, it's pretty unsound evidence to give credence over all the other reports and the logic of a carman's job.

Some of the Advertiser's errors:

George Maizen
at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street
The man, whose name is George Cross
I went down Parson street
I saw something lying on the north side
in the gateway to a tool warehouse
a man's tarpaulin
we tried to pull them over her


>>Can you point me towards the reference to the woolshed that you said was part of the testimony please?<<

Echo
Morning Advertiser (which mis-spelt wool as tool)
Western Daily Press
Evening Standard
Birmingham Daily Post
Manchester Courier

I seem to remember at least two more newspapers, but I can't find them at the moment.

Hi Dusty,

Illustrated Police News: passing through Buck's-row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. He could not tell in the dark what it was at first. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet

London Observer: passing through Buck's-row he saw on the opposite side something lying against a gateway. In the dark he could not tell at first what it was. It looked like a tarpaulin sheet

Daily Telegraph: he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet.

Echo: As I got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse, I saw someone lying at the entrance to the gateway. It looked like a dark figure

Morning Advertiser: As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin

Evening Standard: As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side in the gateway to a wool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin,

Pcdunn's post here - https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ge4#post527746
"A man's tarpaulin" made me curious enough to do a little research and conclude that Lechmere means not a common tarp sheet for covering firewood or the open spaces at the rear of trucks/lorries (as we might interpret it today)-- but, rather a garment of some sort.
A glance at a dictionary definition told me tarpaulins were originally waterproofed with tar, and made of canvas.
So... Why did Lechmere stop to look at the "tarpaulin"? A discarded man's tarpaulin coat could have been a prize for a cart driver who was normally out in all types of weather, day in and day out. I think poor people are always scavengers, and he was perhaps thinking of snatching it up.

From "Capturing Jack the Ripper" by Neil Bell: Charles Cross, a carman heading to work, had entered Buck's row from Brady St, and was just approaching Essex Wharf when, across the road he saw "something lying in front of the gateway like a tarpaulin.

Thank you for the information and opinion. I don't have access to some of your newspaper references. I find myself unable to agree with your assessment that Cross was outside the gate of the wool warehouse when he spotted the body. There is obviously something amiss with the Morning Advertiser and Evening Standard reports as they have the body lying on the north side of Buck's Row when it was actually on the south side. My assessment is the same as that of Neil Bell, that Cross was opposite the body when he saw the shape and was less than half the width of the street away when he realised it was a body. That makes more sense to me as he would have been close enough to determine, in the dark, that is was a woman. It also agrees with Paul's original statement that Cross was "where the body was". This is presuming Cross is innocent. If not......well...serial killers have been known to lie.

I own a tarpaulin large enough to be used on a cart and folded up it is quite small. If it were to fly off a cart it might bunch up to resemble a body. I also own a large full length Driza-Bone (a duster) which could easily be thrown on the ground and resemble a 5 foot woman. In the end whether it was a sheet or a coat bears no import on the evidence.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,



That's fine, but as you say, "the most very likely true ...", and that's a different criterion from how Trevor approaches things. From Trevor's perspective, if you cannot say it is absolutely true, then you have to keep the options open and worrying about probabilities is what will lead an investigator to become blinded to the alternatives.

And when it is possible to investigate the various options, one investigates both the more and less likely option because low probabilities do sometimes occur! I just don't think we can do that, though, hence I can clash with Trevor at times because our views are so different, but I do understand where he's coming from when I step back and think of it as a current active police investigation. But the tools by which one "researches" in a current police investigation are no longer applicable. We can't generate new information (ie. reinterview someone; reexamine a crime scene, etc). We're stuck with what was gathered in 1888, using far less reliable methods, and even much of that is lost.

So you don't have to change your mind, or your point of view, because you're working at this from a different perspective. That doesn't mean Trevor's is ridiculous, it just means he's using an approach that evaluates things in a way that isn't compatible with your own. I sometimes forget my own advice though, so do as I say, not as I do! ha ha.

- Jeff

If i approched things the way Trevor does given everthing his described, what witnesses said , that they may have lied, or didnt say, etc , jesus , i could make houdini jack the ripper or better still william gull

[drstrange169]

>>There is obviously something amiss with the Morning Advertiser and Evening Standard reports as they have the body lying on the north side of Buck's Row when it was actually on the south side.<<

Yes, presumably a confused fact that he was on the north side. All those quotes go on to say,

"I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman"

"but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman"

The same mistake was made in some newspapers with Neil's testimony,

"I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. ...I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway"

The key point is, Cross gives a specific place he was when he saw the body and that place exists and fits the testimony. To ignore his statement is to exclude important evidence. Nowhere in Paul's testimony does he say Cross was wrong. The distance is significant.

As to the tarpaulin, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Cross said it was a dark shape there seems no sense for me in the idea he could see enough detail to determine the make of a particular jacket.

And even if he could see that much detail he would have known it was a body. Had he said an overcoat, or an Ulster, which she was wearing it might make some sense.

Since so many newspapers specifically said "sheet" I have no doubt whatsoever.

The idea of being next to the body is only mentioned in the highly dubious Lloyd's interview.

[drstrange169]

It's clear from Paul's inquest reports that he did not see Mrs Nichols. If Cross was standing a few feet from her he must have seen them both.

Instead the reports say things like,

"I went and found the woman lying on her back"
"drew his attention to the murdered woman"
"The witness went with him and saw a woman lying across the gateway"
"When I got close up to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman;" and together we went across the road."

There is no evidence given at the inquest that Cross was level with the body. To claim he was is an assumption only.
On the other hand there is evidence that Cross was at the wool warehouse gates when he saw the body.

[SuperShodan]

It's clear from Paul's inquest reports that he did not see Mrs Nichols. If Cross was standing a few feet from her he must have seen them both.

Instead the reports say things like,

"I went and found the woman lying on her back"
"drew his attention to the murdered woman"
"The witness went with him and saw a woman lying across the gateway"
"When I got close up to him, he said, "Come and look at this woman;" and together we went across the road."

There is no evidence given at the inquest that Cross was level with the body. To claim he was is an assumption only.
On the other hand there is evidence that Cross was at the wool warehouse gates when he saw the body.

I’ve had a look at the newspaper reports of Lechmere’s inquest statement.

In no way, shape or form can it be suggested that Lechmere was at the wool house gates when he saw the body.

The reports that mention the wool house gateway actually say that the BODY was lying in the wool house gateway.




The Morning Advertiser (4th Sept)


I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman.



The Evening Standard (4th Sept)


As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side in the gateway to a wool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman.


I can only assume this is an oversight on your behalf. I’m happy to bring it to your attention and to clear up any confusion you may have about the matter.

[GBinOz]

The key point is, Cross gives a specific place he was when he saw the body and that place exists and fits the testimony. To ignore his statement is to exclude important evidence. Nowhere in Paul's testimony does he say Cross was wrong. The distance is significant.

As to the tarpaulin, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Hi Dusty,

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on both counts.

I'm reading the testimony as him giving the location of the body in a gateway, not where he was when he saw it. IMO the wool warehouse is the mistake.

I struggle to imagine how a sheet of canvas can look like a woman. While he obviously couldn't have seen a brand of coat, he could have recognised the shape of a tarpaulin coat, just as one might recognise the shape of a full length Driza-Bone. But as I said, it is of no consequence so we can each choose our own version.

Cheers, George

[MrBarnett]

Thanks for clearing that up barnett, nothing at all to do with P.C Neil as i expected .

I wouldn’t be so sure. The other constable was presumably one whose beat took him past the yard. Neil has to be the most likely candidate, especially since he claimed to have seen the men working there earlier that morning. Their gates were open, of course, but I doubt their gruesome activities took place in full sight of anyone passing along Winthrop Street.

[Trevor Marriott]

If i approched things the way Trevor does given everthing his described, what witnesses said , that they may have lied, or didnt say, etc , jesus , i could make houdini jack the ripper or better still william gull

Pc Neils testimony is crucial to the case agains Lechmere because the TOD cannot firmly be etablished but his testimony is belived put the TOD between 3,15am-3,45am

But can his testimony be proved or disproved I personally belived that based on other testimony given by witnesses his testimony certainly creates a number of ambiguities.

The evidence of Pc Neil as i have continually stated has to be taken on face value as to what his movments were leading up to the body being found, and was he where he said he was and passed by the murder spot at 3.15am I have my doubts his testimony makes it unclear "I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body" was he with them having a cuppa with those men at 3.15am? The officer clearly had been at the slaughterhouse because he left in a hurry leaving his cape behind, but how long had he been there and if he had been there for a significant amount of time, that would have thrown his beat times out of sync so can his testimony be relied upon without question, no it cant So Nichols could have been murdered much earlier and Pc Neil was forced to lie about his movements.

So he didnt pass by the crime scene at 3.15am because he was somewher else

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

My assessment is the same as that of Neil Bell, that Cross was opposite the body when he saw the shape and was less than half the width of the street away when he realised it was a body. That makes more sense to me as he would have been close enough to determine, in the dark, that is was a woman. It also agrees with Paul's original statement that Cross was "where the body was".

Hi George,

It's clear that it wasn't clear to the reporters what Lechmere was saying. This was quite possibly due to the fact that they didn't know the location well or at all. But they, apparently, heard him say something about the north side, about the wool warehouse and about the opposite side. As the wool warehouse was situated on the north side and the gateway where Nichols was lying was on the south side and belonged to Brown's Stables (so, no wool or any kind of warehouse), I think it's still very much worth considering that he was actually saying that he was passing through Buck's Row on the north side and when passing the entrance/gateway to the wool warehouse, he first noticed something lying by the gateway on the opposite side of the street.

If we assume for a moment this was so, then if he walked obliquely to the middle of the road towards the figure he saw and he stopped there, we can also see how Paul would get to see him with Nichols lying, from where he was at the time he spotted Lechmere, just left of the latter. At that point Nichols and Lechmere would have been more or less in a straight line of vistion. I hope you see what I'm getting at.

Cheers,
Frank

[Aethelwulf]

I’ve had a look at the newspaper reports of Lechmere’s inquest statement.

In no way, shape or form can it be suggested that Lechmere was at the wool house gates when he saw the body.

The reports that mention the wool house gateway actually say that the BODY was lying in the wool house gateway.




The Morning Advertiser (4th Sept)


I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side, in the gateway to a tool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman.



The Evening Standard (4th Sept)


As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side in the gateway to a wool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman.


I can only assume this is an oversight on your behalf. I’m happy to bring it to your attention and to clear up any confusion you may have about the matter.

What I take from this is that Lechmere was walking down one side of the road, sees something unusual (probably opposite him or near enough opposite), stops, moves to the middle of the road and determines it is a woman. Lechmere sees Paul, Paul sees Lechmere in the middle of the road (though not sure who saw who first?).

That, I am sure, is the sum total of Lechmere's involvement. All of the circumstantial evidence doesn't actually add up to anything remotely sinister.

[SuperShodan]

Pc Neils testimony is crucial to the case agains Lechmere because the TOD cannot firmly be etablished but his testimony is belived put the TOD between 3,15am-3,45am

But can his testimony be proved or disproved I personally belived that based on other testimony given by witnesses his testimony certainly creates a number of ambiguities.

The evidence of Pc Neil as i have continually stated has to be taken on face value as to what his movments were leading up to the body being found, and was he where he said he was and passed by the murder spot at 3.15am I have my doubts his testimony makes it unclear "I had previously seen the men at work. That would be about a quarter-past three, or half an hour before I found the body" was he with them having a cuppa with those men at 3.15am? The officer clearly had been at the slaughterhouse because he left in a hurry leaving his cape behind, but how long had he been there and if he had been there for a significant amount of time, that would have thrown his beat times out of sync so can his testimony be relied upon without question, no it cant So Nichols could have been murdered much earlier and Pc Neil was forced to lie about his movements.

So he didnt pass by the crime scene at 3.15am because he was somewher else

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You seem to have PC Thain and PC Neil mixed up. Thain doesn’t appear to be doing any patrols at all and was chatting with workmen in Winthrop Street. Since he had taken off his cape I’d suggest more than just a quick word. Thain then turned up at the murder site without his cape and had to return for it. If you are suggesting it was Neil who was chatting and Neil who left his cape you are very much mistaken.

Furthermore, PC Neil appears to have done his duties diligently - going down Bucks Row around 03.15 and 03.45 as was his duty.

It’s worth pointing out if PC Neil’s patrol had been interrupted or his beat was out of sync then it calls into question what time he found the body.

However, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest so. I think the TOD between 03.15 and 03.45 is solid and that’s what we should work with. After all it’s based on a policeman’s testimony.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At the end of the day we can’t inject anything sinister into this. It’s entirely plausible that Lechmere couldn’t tell without getting closer that it was a body. He thought that it might have been a tarpaulin which would have been of use to him in his work. And as I said in an earlier post if he was guilty and had decided to wait for Paul to arrive then he could very easily have made up any number of lies to try and move any potential suspicion away from himself. Hearing someone running away for example or seeing someone crouching over the body and then running away or he could even have said that he’d chased after the killer for a short while but had to give up because the killer was too quick and so he returned to the body just as Paul came into view. He could even have given the Constable a rough description. But he did none of these. If anything isn’t plausible it’s Loitering Lechmere.