Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed.


The only policeman Lechmere spoke to was PC Mizen, and Mizen never took his name, address or employer. When Lechmere walked off into the night he walked off into anonymity. It would be very interesting to know how the police contacted him.

Furthermore, why would the police interview him anyway ? He was just some random and his pal passing on a message.

We can say for a fact that Lechmere wasn’t interviewed by the police as on the first day of the inquest the police still thought PC Neil had found the body. So did the press. So right from the very start Lechmere had disappeared from the investigation. We should bear in mind the police didn’t even establish who found the body. They got that important and basic facts utterly wrong. Bucks Row was a total fiasco of an investigation from start to finish.

The idea that Lechmere was questioned and eliminated is clearly wrong. Just like many modern investigations the police missed him. He slipped under the radar. I know this hard to grasp for some, but at no point during the entire Ripper investigation was Lechmere a suspect. Nor at any point in the investigation was he ever questioned.

Opinion stated as fact.

Again.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Agreed.


The only policeman Lechmere spoke to was PC Mizen, and Mizen never took his name, address or employer. When Lechmere walked off into the night he walked off into anonymity. It would be very interesting to know how the police contacted him.

Furthermore, why would the police interview him anyway ? He was just some random and his pal passing on a message.

We can say for a fact that Lechmere wasn’t interviewed by the police as on the first day of the inquest the police still thought PC Neil had found the body. So did the press. So right from the very start Lechmere had disappeared from the investigation. We should bear in mind the police didn’t even establish who found the body. They got that important and basic facts utterly wrong. Bucks Row was a total fiasco of an investigation from start to finish.

The idea that Lechmere was questioned and eliminated is clearly wrong. Just like many modern investigations the police missed him. He slipped under the radar. I know this hard to grasp for some, but at no point during the entire Ripper investigation was Lechmere a suspect. Nor at any point in the investigation was he ever questioned.

1- When Lechmere walked off into the night he walked off into anonymity. - Really ? So much for total anonymity, openly giving his place of work and how long he had been employed there when he appears at the second day of the inquest, and his address is published in the newspaper with the highest circulation in London.

2- Furthermore, why would the police interview him anyway ? He was just some random and his pal passing on a message - Really ? Some random pal who he had never met before as per at the inquest. And as for the why would the police interview him anyway, the same question could be asked - Why does anyone suspect him anyway, 100 plus years later.

3- Nor at any point in the investigation was he ever questioned. Really ? Following on from point 2 If people now think he needs closer attention, do you not think someone, who was actually there in 1888 might not have deduced the same thing ? Or do you think the police from bottom to top were complete dimwits ?

I will ask again , to Abby, Mr B, Mark and yourself . Do you honestly think that someone who openly admitted seeing a body five minutes before PC Neil saw a body with blood still oozing from the neck and also poor Polly being in the time frame of when Dr Llewellyn thought she was killed would not be questioned once , not ever ?
Really ?

Regards Darryl

[Mark J D]

... I will ask again , to Abby, Mr B, Mark and yourself . Do you honestly think that someone who openly admitted seeing a body five minutes before PC Neil saw a body with blood still oozing from the neck and also poor Polly being in the time frame of when Dr Llewellyn thought she was killed would not be questioned once , not ever ? Really ?

Your question is sociologically illiterate.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To state that Lechmere was never questioned is to state the unknown. It’s something that we cannot know because we have no evidence. So yes there’s definitely a chance that he might have been interviewed and until someone provides proof rather than a self-serving opinion to the contrary then that’s where the issue stands. Yet again, those seeking to ‘prove’ Lechmere’s guilt consistently claim to know what cannot be known. Anyone see a pattern?

Its strange how we hear that Lechmere obviously has to be taken seriously because he was alone with Nichols and yet that doesn’t appear to apply to the Police investigating the crime at the time.

Strange how this case works?

[Abby Normal]

1- When Lechmere walked off into the night he walked off into anonymity. - Really ? So much for total anonymity, openly giving his place of work and how long he had been employed there when he appears at the second day of the inquest, and his address is published in the newspaper with the highest circulation in London.

2- Furthermore, why would the police interview him anyway ? He was just some random and his pal passing on a message - Really ? Some random pal who he had never met before as per at the inquest. And as for the why would the police interview him anyway, the same question could be asked - Why does anyone suspect him anyway, 100 plus years later.

3- Nor at any point in the investigation was he ever questioned. Really ? Following on from point 2 If people now think he needs closer attention, do you not think someone, who was actually there in 1888 might not have deduced the same thing ? Or do you think the police from bottom to top were complete dimwits ?

I will ask again , to Abby, Mr B, Mark and yourself . Do you honestly think that someone who openly admitted seeing a body five minutes before PC Neil saw a body with blood still oozing from the neck and also poor Polly being in the time frame of when Dr Llewellyn thought she was killed would not be questioned once , not ever ?
Really ?

Regards Darryl

hi DK
he might have. we just dont have any evidence he was. and by the appearance of it- it looks like he wasnt. and even if he was-he certainly was never suspected.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Agreed.


The only policeman Lechmere spoke to was PC Mizen, and Mizen never took his name, address or employer. When Lechmere walked off into the night he walked off into anonymity. It would be very interesting to know how the police contacted him.

Furthermore, why would the police interview him anyway ? He was just some random and his pal passing on a message.

We can say for a fact that Lechmere wasn’t interviewed by the police as on the first day of the inquest the police still thought PC Neil had found the body. So did the press. So right from the very start Lechmere had disappeared from the investigation. We should bear in mind the police didn’t even establish who found the body. They got that important and basic facts utterly wrong. Bucks Row was a total fiasco of an investigation from start to finish.

The idea that Lechmere was questioned and eliminated is clearly wrong. Just like many modern investigations the police missed him. He slipped under the radar. I know this hard to grasp for some, but at no point during the entire Ripper investigation was Lechmere a suspect. Nor at any point in the investigation was he ever questioned.

The police didn't contact Lechmere, how could they? He clearly must have volunteered his evidence like a responsible citizen.

My understanding of Inquest procedures is that the police initially questioned all potential witnesses and took detailed statements which were then provided to the coroner, who decided which witnesses to call and when to call them. For Lechmere to have given evidence, and Paul later also, they must have been interviewed by the police first. Furthermore, the detailed statements of Lechmere and Paul must surely have been in agreement about the basic facts, because the coroner, Swanson and Abberline all separately concluded that Lechmere and Paul sought out a policeman, found Mizen, and told him what they had seen.

You say that Lechmere was never questioned, but I believe that the inquest procedure meant that he had to be interviewed. I am happy to be corrected by someone who has a detailed knowledge of victorian inquests, but not by someone expressing an opinion without the necessary knowledge to back it up.

[drstrange169]

>>Lechmere being 12m away was suggested by a poster who misread news reports. I think we can kick that into touch. <<

No poster has ever suggested it.

The newspapers reported it as happening. A huge difference.

The idea that facts should disregarded and speculation must be considered fact, says it all about the case against Lechmere. One only need through this thread and see how many times Lechmereians have refute the known evidence in favour of invented stories.

Lechmerian post after post here promotes speculation. Ands Lechmerian post after post denounces evidence and rational thought.

TV shows and articles about Lechmere put and out proven lies about the case, why is that? Why the desperate need to avoid issues and promote propaganda?

[drstrange169]

It's interesting to see some people hung up on the word "fantasy". making it the main topic of conversation, rather than discussing the detail of Jeff's work and offering an as detailed response as his.

[drstrange169]

>>You could have started your post, ‘A man was found standing near a recently killed body …’ and then gone on to tell us how the murders in Whitechapel and Spitalfields began almost as soon as he changed his work route to take him through Whitechapel and Spitalfields. Or pointed out that we only have his version of how long he was at the murder site, and that in any case the murder and injuries would only have taken a few minutes, so he had no ‘alibi’ for the Nichols murder.
The same story can be told in different ways.
I’d be interested to know how you know who his employers were after 1888. If we can look at the meagre evidence of two later censuses and draw conclusions about his character, why can’t we go back to his upbringing and draw conclusions about what his feelings towards prostitutes might have been.
Gary <<

The difference is, Herlock post was almost entirely composed of telling the known facts, your post was composed almost entirely of speculation and theres the rub.

[drstrange169]

>>When an normal/innocent person is presented with a threat the fight/flight/freeze (whatever other Fs there are) are instinctively based on self-preservation. But when the threat is to someone who is already in a disturbed mental state do the same rules apply?<<

Given that virtually all serial killers flee the scene of their crimes most of the time, the answer must generally be yes.

[drstrange169]

>>I’m a complete sceptic when it comes to any diagramatic geo-profiling, but Abby’s triangle works like a dream for Lech. <<

So you are sceptical of detailed analyse, but are happy with a cartoon someone draws that doesn't even contain all the murders within it?

Nuff said.

[drstrange169]

>>So what happened to all the reports of such checking out? Or would they have just remained as notes in PC’s notebooks?<<

So what happened to all the police reports of Robert Paul being dragged out of bed in the middle of the night and being questioned for hours, would they have just remained in PC's notebooks?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's interesting to see some people hung up on the word "fantasy". making it the main topic of conversation, rather than discussing the detail of Jeff's work and offering an as detailed response as his.

Hang on the word ‘fantasy’ but ignore the word ‘about.’ Those are the rules apparently Dusty.

[drstrange169]

>>If we’re talking about subtle differences Bob then he wasn’t ‘found.’ I deliberately stood there until Paul arrived. <<

Bingo! It's called alerting the first person available, ala all the other first finders.

[drstrange169]

>>Why does Paul not see him before that ? It’s not possible to walk 80 or 90m up Bucks Row and not notice a man walking in front of you.<<

Not as impossible as Cross magically appearing in the middle of the road unnoticed. Now we are talking about "fantasy" as Gary defines it.