Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

Perhaps it has another definition in the rarefied academic world Jeff inhabits. Or perhaps he’s not totally sure of his own argument and thinks ridiculing an alternative view is the way to proceed.

I think you missed it when I said "It's not meant to be derogatory,...". I suggest this because had you not missed that then I suspect you would have realised that it is not my intention is to ridicule. But while I fear you won't believe me when I say that, I still hope I'm wrong.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

As a guilty Lechmere becomes aware of Paul approaching, what’s going through his head? He has three options: fight, flight or flannel. The longer he delays, the less viable flight becomes. How many minutes would it take Paul to reach the body from which someone had just legged it and start shouting ‘murder!’?

And then we’re not talking about sending for doctors and ambulances and casually searching the area for a hidden assailant or a weapon, we’re talking about an almost immediate hue and cry with Paul screaming, ‘He went that way!’

There may have been people in the Whitechapel Road, but not do many that a running man would be swallowed up and lost to sight. I wonder how much experience Wynne Baxter had of the Whitechapel Road in the early hours of the morning, any morning.

Sure, if Paul checked out the body.

If he doesn't see him flee, though (because it's so very dark), then he could just walk on by on the far side of the street, not interested in the unknown object across the street (which may require walking half way to it to be recognizable as a human). So Paul has no reason to talk to PC Mizen, who therefore continues on his rounds, and PC Neil arrives to find the body. And now our fictional account lines (for PC Neil at least) with reality, so unless there's a butterfly effect, PC Neil summons PC Thain, etc. However, PC Mizen doesn't come along, so there would be a delay in sending for the ambulance.

That's another fictional account. I'm sure there's more. This is why I think it's important to separate fiction from non-fiction based lines of discussion. We can just make anything up because nothing we know constrains anything we say.

For someone deciding about whether or not to flee from being spotted after just killing someone though, the safest option is to flee. If you're not identified already, you have a chance to get away. If you are seen, you can still hope to avoid the witness from being able to give a good description. Even if that witness is almost on top of you, which Paul was not. There's no debate over that, fleeing is safer.

Cross/Lechmere didn't flee, that is non-fiction, that is what we need to explain. Fictional accounts are fun, but we don't need to explain them.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Fantasy is something that is improbable or impossible. ‘Fantasy fiction’ is not a tautology. The Lord of the Rings is fantasy, Jane Eyre isn’t.

I’m pretty sure Abby once described a real life situation where someone who had committed a crime didn’t immediately run from the scene but stayed to engage someone. I had a similar example.

hey gary
yes i did. its one of the reasons i started to accept tje possibility of lech doing so.

what was yours?

[GBinOz]

How could he have seen them at work when their work was inside the slaughterhouse buildings?

Daily Telegraph account of inquest, Sep 4 1888:
Henry Tomkins, horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green
The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday morning, say after two o'clock?
Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The gates were open and we heard no cry.
The Coroner: Did anybody come to the slaughterhouse that night?
Witness: Nobody passed except the policeman.

[MrBarnett]

I think you missed it when I said "It's not meant to be derogatory,...". I suggest this because had you not missed that then I suspect you would have realised that it is not my intention is to ridicule. But while I fear you won't believe me when I say that, I still hope I'm wrong.

- Jeff

You should use whatever term you prefer - for whatever reason.

Of course, the flee/not flee discussion can be detached from anything that actually happened in Buck’s Row. A person commits a crime and while he is still standing at or very near the crime scene he suddenly becomes aware that another person is walking in his direction. Is it totally implausible that rather than taking to his heels through streets he knows are regularly patrolled by coppers, thus alerting the approaching person that something is amiss, he might wait for the approaching person to arrive?

As I’ve said before, I had a real life situation similar to that where the dodgy person initially engaged with the person who approached him and only legged it when it was obvious his explanation wasn’t being believed. I think Abby also has a similar story in his repertoire. These aren’t fantasises, they actually happened.

[MrBarnett]

Daily Telegraph account of inquest, Sep 4 1888:
Henry Tomkins, horse-slaughterer, 12, Coventry-street, Bethnal-green
The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday morning, say after two o'clock?
Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet. The gates were open and we heard no cry.
The Coroner: Did anybody come to the slaughterhouse that night?
Witness: Nobody passed except the policeman.

Yes, the gates to the yard were open. Perhaps the two men were standing outside having a breather and Neil chucked Thain’s cape at them as he passed without even breaking step.

[MrBarnett]

You’ll notice that once again Tomkins doesn’t give a straight answer.

‘Did anyone come to the slaughterhouse?’

‘Nobody passed …’

Reminds me of,

‘Do women come to the yard?’

‘I don’t like them!’

I paraphrase.

Tomkins may just have been an idiot who couldn’t grasp simple questions. Or he had something to hide.

[JeffHamm]

You should use whatever term you prefer - for whatever reason.

Of course, the flee/not flee discussion can be detached from anything that actually happened in Buck’s Row. A person commits a crime and while he is still standing at or very near the crime scene he suddenly becomes aware that another person is walking in his direction. Is it totally implausible that rather than taking to his heels through streets he knows are regularly patrolled by coppers, thus alerting the approaching person that something is amiss, he might wait for the approaching person to arrive?

As I’ve said before, I had a real life situation similar to that where the dodgy person initially engaged with the person who approached him and only legged it when it was obvious his explanation wasn’t being believed. I think Abby also has a similar story in his repertoire. These aren’t fantasises, they actually happened.

Ah, now I understand what you're getting at. I'm not saying, and I don't think I ever have said, it's impossible for him to stay if he's guilty, only that such accounts are far far less common, it's the far more improbable decision and therefore a theory that hinges upon it is the far more improbable theory. Even in the story you suggest, the person ends up fleeing after all, because as your event illustrates, sticking around to talk your way out runs the risk of not being believed. And for C/L, his "cover story" is only going to be believed if Paul hasn't seen him move away from the body in the first place. Now while we know Paul hasn't see him move, at the time C/L has to make this decision he wouldn't know that would be the outcome unless it is so dark he can safely make that assumption.

So C/L's decision to move away from the body to the middle of the street, even if it's only 4m rather than the 12 that has been suggested, would suggest he's pretty sure Paul won't see him move into that position otherwise, his story, as he really plays it out - I'm just standing here in the middle of the street and just found this woman - would never work. But if he knows he can't be seen (or feels that is highly likely to be the case), then he can flee knowing that all that Paul might notice are some footsteps, and maybe some movement due to the faster pace, but he'll have nothing in the way of a description. And once he rounds the corner, he knows his direction of flight will not be observed. It's clearly the less risky option, therefore far safer, which is why it is the far more common option, even if not universal (and generally, those that try and talk themselves out, are in a situation where the witness has suddenly come upon them and is right there in their face already, not 120 feet away in the dark). C/L also has to be concerned that Paul might realise nobody was ahead of him, so he'll have to say he was coming up the street. That might make for problems if they meet a PC and have to explain themselves and more detailed statements than PC Mizen took get recorded. Particularly if Paul ends up realising that Nichols is dead (which C/L can't guarentee he won't find out).

The greater the amount of engagement a guilty C/L has with Paul the greater the risk that Paul is going to become suspicious of him and find out that Nichols is dead. Of course, Paul appears to be trying to avoid him, so at that point a guilty C/L has to make another decision, and he decides that letting Paul pass is more risky than getting Paul to view the body (which in this line of speculation, C/L knows is dead, with her head almost removed). When they agree to go seek a police man, he has another decision to make upon exiting Buck's Row, he has to decide to continue to walk with Paul to look for a policeman rather than suggesting he head south to Whitechappel (for it's relative safety for him) and let Paul go north (where of course Paul would find PC Mizen and C/L vanishes; carmen, name unknown, but also looking for a policeman). etc.

Every time a guilty C/L has a decision to make, the one he does make is always the more risky one for a guilty C/L. It's improbable (not impossible) decision after improbable decision, and that is really not very convincing. All of those decisions we know he does make, however, are very natural ones for an innocent C/L to make.

The difference between what we're doing here is that we're having to explain the decision he did make at each of these decision points - we stay within the realm of non-fiction, and consider the decision making process knowing what decision he came to. In the fictional accounts, we start with him actually making a different decision, and then we start debating how others would have reacted, and then what follows after their new fictional decision, and what follows. We move further and further away from reality ; does paul stop and check the body if C/L flees? Who knows, it didn't happen that way, so we're already at a point where our fictional accounts depend upon how we write the fictional version. That's not going to help us. Looking at the decision points, and recognising the information he has available at that point in time, and knowing what his actual decision was (call Paul over, examine the body with him, walk to find a PC with him; speak with the PC with him, etc) let's us evaluate those decisions and the risk associated with each branch available to him.

- Jeff

[SuperShodan]

Ah, now I understand what you're getting at. I'm not saying, and I don't think I ever have said, it's impossible for him to stay if he's guilty, only that such accounts are far far less common, it's the far more improbable decision and therefore a theory that hinges upon it is the far more improbable theory. Even in the story you suggest, the person ends up fleeing after all, because as your event illustrates, sticking around to talk your way out runs the risk of not being believed. And for C/L, his "cover story" is only going to be believed if Paul hasn't seen him move away from the body in the first place. Now while we know Paul hasn't see him move, at the time C/L has to make this decision he wouldn't know that would be the outcome unless it is so dark he can safely make that assumption.

So C/L's decision to move away from the body to the middle of the street, even if it's only 4m rather than the 12 that has been suggested, would suggest he's pretty sure Paul won't see him move into that position otherwise, his story, as he really plays it out - I'm just standing here in the middle of the street and just found this woman - would never work. But if he knows he can't be seen (or feels that is highly likely to be the case), then he can flee knowing that all that Paul might notice are some footsteps, and maybe some movement due to the faster pace, but he'll have nothing in the way of a description. And once he rounds the corner, he knows his direction of flight will not be observed. It's clearly the less risky option, therefore far safer, which is why it is the far more common option, even if not universal (and generally, those that try and talk themselves out, are in a situation where the witness has suddenly come upon them and is right there in their face already, not 120 feet away in the dark). C/L also has to be concerned that Paul might realise nobody was ahead of him, so he'll have to say he was coming up the street. That might make for problems if they meet a PC and have to explain themselves and more detailed statements than PC Mizen took get recorded. Particularly if Paul ends up realising that Nichols is dead (which C/L can't guarentee he won't find out).

The greater the amount of engagement a guilty C/L has with Paul the greater the risk that Paul is going to become suspicious of him and find out that Nichols is dead. Of course, Paul appears to be trying to avoid him, so at that point a guilty C/L has to make another decision, and he decides that letting Paul pass is more risky than getting Paul to view the body (which in this line of speculation, C/L knows is dead, with her head almost removed). When they agree to go seek a police man, he has another decision to make upon exiting Buck's Row, he has to decide to continue to walk with Paul to look for a policeman rather than suggesting he head south to Whitechappel (for it's relative safety for him) and let Paul go north (where of course Paul would find PC Mizen and C/L vanishes; carmen, name unknown, but also looking for a policeman). etc.

Every time a guilty C/L has a decision to make, the one he does make is always the more risky one for a guilty C/L. It's improbable (not impossible) decision after improbable decision, and that is really not very convincing. All of those decisions we know he does make, however, are very natural ones for an innocent C/L to make.

The difference between what we're doing here is that we're having to explain the decision he did make at each of these decision points - we stay within the realm of non-fiction, and consider the decision making process knowing what decision he came to. In the fictional accounts, we start with him actually making a different decision, and then we start debating how others would have reacted, and then what follows after their new fictional decision, and what follows. We move further and further away from reality ; does paul stop and check the body if C/L flees? Who knows, it didn't happen that way, so we're already at a point where our fictional accounts depend upon how we write the fictional version. That's not going to help us. Looking at the decision points, and recognising the information he has available at that point in time, and knowing what his actual decision was (call Paul over, examine the body with him, walk to find a PC with him; speak with the PC with him, etc) let's us evaluate those decisions and the risk associated with each branch available to him.

- Jeff

Lechmere being 12m away was suggested by a poster who misread news reports. I think we can kick that into touch.
Whether running or staying is the best option is entirely subjective. We have seen that 2 posters have actually had real life situations where the culprit didn’t run. My view is that staying and facing the approaching witness has its merits.

[Aethelwulf]

Matey, if ya wanna know what really, really, *really* freaks me out, it's the fact that poor Chapman was killed 320 feet from the street out of which Robert Paul worked...

Yes, only 8 days later, Lechmere deliberately left a body at 'Y', an address they'd walked past together, and which was *100 metres away* from the street ('X') the other guy had been walking to...




Yeah, Druitt might have done that. Or Kosminski. Or Bury. Or Tumblety. Or hundreds of bloody others. Deffies. I mean, they're *all* gonna be heading straight for *the workplace of Robert Paul*, aren't they? A man who just discovered a man who just discovered a body...

M.

As theories go, this is on a par with the 'FM' letters on Kelly's wall and body in terms of utter ridiculousness. 97 m away is hardly incriminating!

I suspect the significance of Hanbury Street is that having been disturbed by Lechmere, the real killer realised a location like Buck's Row wasn't ideal and sought a more secluded location.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

While I am not one who postulates that Lechmere was the killer, if he was then the time limitation that you quote above (with which I agree) relies on the testimony of a serial killer. He could have left earlier and lied by presenting a time that he thought would clear him, but still be considered plausible. This prospect is often refuted with the possibility that the police would have checked his leaving time with his wife, but that presumes that she arose from bed to see him off. In the years that I left home before dawn to travel to work my wife and children slept on and would have had not the slightest clue as to my departure time.

Cheers, George

Hi George
The reality is that to make the times fit so that Lechmere was the killer he would have had to have met up with Nicholls in Bucks Row now I am not saying that couldnt have happened but if she was looking for business then she would not have been in Bucks Row doing just that at that time of the morning.But she was last seen in Osborn St which is some way away from Bucks Row and was very close to the Whitechapel Road where there were more people moving about and more business to be found

It seems that the naysayers are looking for any excuse to keep Lechmere in the frame which includes suggesting that the police would not have checked his account or that he could have left his home early. Obviously we cant be 100 certain that the police would not have checked his account because it is not documented, but what we do know to negate that suggestion is that there is no indictaion in any police record, or any of the police officers later writings that Lechmere was looked upon as anything other than a person going to work who found a body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi SS,

Lechmere being 12m away was suggested by a poster who misread news reports. I think we can kick that into touch.
Whether running or staying is the best option is entirely subjective. We have seen that 2 posters have actually had real life situations where the culprit didn’t run. My view is that staying and facing the approaching witness has its merits.

I'm not so sure that the news reports were misread. As dusty shows, when one examines the phrasing with regards to how C/L and Paul have to go over to the woman, etc, those descriptions imply they had to walk over a bit, and that seems more than a couple meters. The press has badly mangled things, with the body on the wrong side of the road and tool warehouses, etc, that it's hard to pinpoint all the errors. I don't think we can do better than to accept they're somewhere between 4 and 12 m away. I suspect where on that line people favour will be driven by the theory of their choice, rather than by an examination of the statements themselves.

Sure, it's a subjective call, but it's a risk assessment and the risk is objectively greater if one stays.

Look at it this way, the risk is, of course, getting caught and identified.
There is some risk with fleeing, you might draw attention to yourself, increase the chance the person coming will take notice, you might run into a PC, etc.

But all of that risk remains if you stay, because if your story isn't believed you have to flee, and you've increased the chance you'll be identified, etc. Therefore, whatever risk comes with fleeing is there if you stay, but increased because you increase the chance of being identified (or at least identifiable).

Obviously, a cover story might work, but then, you might flee unnoticed - but risk is not about comparing how well things go if the plan works. The risk is about what if it goes wrong, not when it goes right. And everything that could go wrong if you flee remains, but added to it is the fact your face has been seen. And the chance of a cover story working is so low, staying becomes more likely to just increase your risk for no reason. Only if you're trapped does it make sense, but C/L wasn't trapped.

And as I say, the guilty theory doesn't require just one decision to be improbable, it requires every decision made to be the more improbable one - the one that increases the risk to the offender.

One improbable event I might expect, rare things do happen so it wouldn't kill a theory. But when everything is always the low probability outcome, the theory is just driving itself into the ground. It's making itself too unlikely to be considered.

You may not agree with me, which is fine, but to me the whole encounter sequence is just a long series of improbable decisions being made if C/L is guilty. And when those decisions are the probable ones if C/L is innocent, then the probability is that he is, in fact, innocent.

His actions are evidence of innocence.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

Hi George,

The variable light experiment would require me to join the wallabies at dawn and I'm not sure how much enthusiasm could be elicited from my wife (or the wallabies) for that notion.

We don't want to find out how that would work out, would we?

I think the defining factor is Lechmere's testimony that when directly over the body he was unable to see that her throat had been cut. The possibility of discerning a tarpaulin that has managed to shape itself like a diminutive woman at 12, or worse, 17.5 metres in that level of darkness, to me, does not bear consideration.

You're very likely, if not absolutely right about the 17.5 metres and probably the 12 metres, too, but I'm not convinced that he would only have been able to see something directly opposite, on the other side of the street, meaning that he was right under Walter Purkiss's window.

That seems a bit too unnatural to me. The more natural thing for me would be that, while he was still some way off, he would spot something on the opposite side of the street, just something that, perhaps, didn't seem to belong there or seemed off to him, and that, while getting closer and perhaps slowing down, he got the impression that it was a sheet/jacket of some sort, maybe a tarpaulin and that he got so curious about what he saw that he crossed the street.

Of course, depending on the actual lighting conditions, this complete 'process', might have occured within a metre or 2 or 3, too, and that, when he started to cross the street, he was under Purkiss's window, but I remain open to the possibility that it was a bit further away when he first spotted 'something off' and that he started crossing the street at some point before Purkiss's window.

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi herlock
i see your point but imho it becomes more relevant back then when most people traveled by foot. they didnt have the luxury of a mobile bolt hole (cars)that could travel large distances quickly like they do in the modern era of serial killers. so whike it dosnt mean they must commit murders near a site of personal relevance i think it increases the liklihood and is one of the reasons i put such a large emphasis on geographical and proximity considerations in this case. but thats just me.

hi Abby,

No problem. I’m just wary of making connections in an attempt to add to the plus points. I know that you just give your honest opinions though. We could both be wrong or right….Not that I’m ever wrong of course.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Trevor,

While I am not one who postulates that Lechmere was the killer, if he was then the time limitation that you quote above (with which I agree) relies on the testimony of a serial killer. He could have left earlier and lied by presenting a time that he thought would clear him, but still be considered plausible. This prospect is often refuted with the possibility that the police would have checked his leaving time with his wife, but that presumes that she arose from bed to see him off. In the years that I left home before dawn to travel to work my wife and children slept on and would have had not the slightest clue as to my departure time.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

There’s no doubt that Lechmere could have left the house earlier. For all that we know he could have been out all night. Did the Police ask his wife to check what he’d said? We don’t know. But they might have done but of course Mrs Lech might have lied. All that we know is that Lechmere said that he left the house “about 3.30.” That estimation is all that we have (where have we heard that before George?)

Now if that was the case, and it was after all a reasonable time for him to get to work, then he’d have had to have met Nichols in Bucks Row (as Trevor points out, he’d have had no time to go looking for a victim) So it’s a case of asking if we think that Lechmere had so little self control that, even though he was around 20 minutes or so away from work, he comes across a woman, murders and mutilates her in the street intending to simply continue on to work? At a spot that he would have passed 6 days a week and at pretty much the same time.

So on the one hand we have this out of control maniac yet on the other we have a man who, after just killing her hears a man approach in the distance (hears first rather than sees of course) yet he doesn’t flee the scene. He calmly, brazenly and calculatingly stands around waiting for the man to arrive even though he’s probably got blood on his hands, he’s possibly got blood on him elsewhere (clothes etc) and he’s definitely in possession of a bloodied knife.

So cool, calm killer or out of control killer?