Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Completely untrue?

The Daily News:

...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, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come.

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, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time I heard a man coming up the street in the same direction as I had come...

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. I walked into the centre of the road, and saw that it was a woman. At the same time I heard a man come up behind, in the same direction as I was going. He was about thirty or forty yards behind then.

That is how "completely untrue" it is.

Then again, maybe Lechmere stopped for some considerable time BEFORE he stepped out into the middle of the street? A minut, perhaps? Or two? Or five?

Dear me, Dusty, you are opening up for the possibility that Lechmere was by the body many minutes before Paul arrived. Watch your step!

In my world, what we should not loose sight of is the fact that what Lechmere says seemingly provides him with an alibi - which would be the exact thing he would do if he wanted to lie himself out of a tight spot.

But Fish isn’t the simple point that when Lechmere first arrived, saw the ‘body’ went over and checked and then returned to the centre of the road and this would have taken a few seconds. How long? We can’t know of course but 30 seconds or so can’t be out of the question.

Then as he got back to the middle of the road he heard Paul approach and he approximated that he was around 40 yards away. So we can add potentially 30 seconds of walking to that.

That would leave a sizeable gap between to 2 when arriving at Bucks Row.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question I asked you is where I have claimed that the Lloyds article is to be preferred, Jeff. You have given no answer to that specific question yet, and as you will be aware, the claim you made portrays me as cherry-picking. So letīs hear it now, please?

As for Paul claiming that he left home "about 3.45", that is not the whole story, is it? We know that he was quoted in the Daily News as having said "just before 3.45", and we can therefore see that this time fits perfdectly with having passed down Bucks Row at 3.45 precisely. And Paul was quoted in the Lloyds as having said this very thing.

Of course, if we sweep that statement under the carpet and only opt for "about 3.45", then we may feel more at ease to claim that Paul could well have been five minutes wrong or more. So itīs not that I cannot see where you are coming from, itīs more a question of me not wanting to be misrepresented and not accepting you cherrypicking a quotation that suits your desires.

I always found that looking at the whole picture and representing ALL the evidence was the best guarantee for a fair weighing. I hope you agree.

Then you’ll accept the very obvious possibility that Lechmere might have left home at 3.35 (which is ‘about 3.30’ to a man estimating)

[Fisherman]

Not that I am the equal of Jeff Hamm, of course; but I do note that the 0.9 of a mile that Paul had to walk from 30 Foster Street to the far end of Corbett's Court could be covered a little inside half an hour at a leisurely 2mph. If he leaves the house "just before a quarter to four", he could be there a few minutes before 4:00 if he walks at 4mph. That walking speed is, I gather, at the top end of 'moderate intensity' exercise nowadays -- and would likely have been higher still in the LVP, given people's slightly shorter average height. From this, it looks to me like he genuinely was late, assuming his arrival time at work was also meant to be 4am. And why wouldn't it have been? Time is money in the capitalist catastrophe; and there were competitor carriers whose carmen -- Lechmere being one -- apparently arrived at 4am. Is it unreasonable to think of 4am as a likely normal time for the start of a carman's early shift in that locality?

M.

That is the plain and simple explanation: he did leave home just before 3.45, just as he said, he did walk down Bucks Row at exactly 3.45, just as he said and he was running late, just as he said. It dovetails with what Baxter said, it dovetails with what Swanson said and it dovetails with what the Daily News wrote. It all adds up, but for one thing - it is in conflict with what the PCs said.

And for Jeff to have things the way he likes them, Paul cannot have been correct. So he goes to work on the timings. And he picks up whatever pieces he likes as he goes along. One example would be how he deals with the question whether Lechmere would have run or stayed put. Jeff tells us that most criminals run if they get the chance, and so Lechmere was much less likely to have stayed put than he was to run.

Setting aside how he fails to weigh in any case specifics at all, this is an interesting way to look at things: most run, therefore the suggestion that Lechmere stayed put is more than likely wrong.

Letīs apply that kind of thinking to Swanson now. I would say that he got way more than ninety-five per cent of his factual information correct in his reports. Therefore, when he wrote that Lechmere found the body at 3.45, he was far, far more likely to have been correct than to have been wrong.

What goes around comes around.

[SuperShodan]

But Fish isn’t the simple point that when Lechmere first arrived, saw the ‘body’ went over and checked and then returned to the centre of the road and this would have taken a few seconds. How long? We can’t know of course but 30 seconds or so can’t be out of the question.

Then as he got back to the middle of the road he heard Paul approach and he approximated that he was around 40 yards away. So we can add potentially 30 seconds of walking to that.

That would leave a sizeable gap between to 2 when arriving at Bucks Row.

So we now have Lechmere being alone with the body for at least 30 seconds and a sizeable gap between the 2 when arriving at Bucks Row ? That’s an astonishing admission, I’ve argued that from day one.

[Fisherman]

There’s no reason to stop Fish as there’s very few things to oppose.

-He was at the murder site at a time that is consistent with being the killer.

-He was seemingly not heard or seen by Paul.

-The wounds were hidden from sight.

-He gave a name he otherwise never used with the authorities.

-He passed right throught the killing fields on his morning treks.

-He disagreed with a serving PC about what was said in between the two.

-The version the PC suggested was one that is consistent with a wish to circumvent the police.

-According to the PC, he did not mention how serious the errand was.

-He refused to help prop Nichols up on Pauls proposal.

-Nichols bled for at least around nine minutes after Lechmere left her.

-He said he left home at around 3.20 or 3.30, neither of which times is in keeping with being in Bucks Row at 3.40 and much less so at 3.45.

These are things that must be explained away, all of them, and many are very accomodating in that respect. Compare the number of points, if you will, to Druitt, Kosminski, Bury or any other suspect, and you will see why Lechmere is by far the best suspect there is.

But of course, one can always choose to argue that none of the matters above suggest guilt. That would be wrong, though, not least when we put them all together. Which was what Scobie did, coming up with a prima facie case.

So, in essence, this is a non-issue. When people have to speculate that a barrister who was always likely to have asked to see how he was represented before he gave his go ahead was misinformed and had the wool pulled over his eyes, it is game over. Sorry, but that is how things work, Herlock.

[Fisherman]

Not that I am the equal of Jeff Hamm, of course...

M.

Phew!

[Abby Normal]

The Lech Triangle!!
Here we have a man whos known anchor points: home, work, family (moms house and previous address) all form a triangle whithin (or very close to the border) all the murders of the C5 fall in and in addition including Millwood, Tabram and mcKenzie. He was seen standing near one of the victims before raising any kind of alarm and very well could have been her killer. His work routes(and previous work route) take him by all the victim locations. and on a night he was probably not working, two victims killed not on his work route, the first one by his moms house. The only clue the ripper ever left- the GSG and bloody rag, is also found inside the triangle and on route back to his home. did I leave any out? lol

compared to other suspects, Lech is head and shoulders above the rest in terms of the geographic/proximity/location angle, or should we say Triangle! If hes a 10 on a scale, and say someone like feigenbaum is a zero (cant even be placed in England) I think the other main suspects rank as follows- Feigenbaum-0, Druitt-2, Tumblty 4, Bury-5, Chapman-6, Koz-7, Blotchy and hutch-8, Lech-10.

Ive always found the geographic aspect of Lech one the strongest. but thats just me

[Herlock Sholmes]

So we now have Lechmere being alone with the body for at least 30 seconds and a sizeable gap between the 2 when arriving at Bucks Row ? That’s an astonishing admission, I’ve argued that from day one.

‘This is hardly a revelation. We know that he was with the body before anyone else’s arrived but you can’t have your cake and eat it. Even if he’d got there 20 seconds before Paul arrived that would still be 20 seconds of walking distance to add to the approximated 40 yards. So when Lechmere turned into Bucks Row Paul could have been 80 or 100 yards behind him. This a simple acceptance of possibilities.

And by the way Bob, I must have Sid on here 7 or 8 times that of course Lechmere might have left the house before 3.30 (as it was an estimation) or he could have lied. I’ve never had an issue with that possibility. Conveniently though you are reluctant to admit that possibility that he might have left the house 5 minutes later. So I accept a reasonable = or - whereas you only accept a -.

Does that sound like a reasonable approach to anyone on earth?

[Herlock Sholmes]

-He was at the murder site at a time that is consistent with being the killer.

Possibly or possibly not. It’s an unknown and so a neutral point.

-He was seemingly not heard or seen by Paul.

He was when he got close enough. This is physics and we weren’t there to judge. A neutral point

-The wounds were hidden from sight.

This cannot be proven as intentional. Nothing more than the clothes being dropped by the killer. A neutral point.

-He gave a name he otherwise never used with the authorities.

Irrelevant as he gave his address so it cannot be shown that this was done for evasion. Why didn’t he say that he was called Fred Bloggs if he was hiding something. A completely neutral point.

-He passed right throught the killing fields on his morning treks.

Good reason to not kill there. A neutral point.

-He disagreed with a serving PC about what was said in between the two.

And we have no way of knowing who was right and who was wrong. Therefore it’s a neutral point.

-The version the PC suggested was one that is consistent with a wish to circumvent the police.

But Lechmere had absolutely no control over Robert Paul or Jonas Mizen and there’s no evidence that he spoke to Mizen out of Paul’s earshot. So a neutral point.

Which it’s beyond

-According to the PC, he did not mention how serious the errand was.

Again we have to assume this. So this is a neutral point.

-He refused to help prop Nichols up on Pauls proposal.

Absolutely nothing suspicious about that. Many people would feel uncomfortable handling a body. So a neutral point.

-Nichols bled for at least around nine minutes after Lechmere left her.

The blood evidence has been shown to be entirely inconclusive. It’s also entirely plausible that, as it’s being suggested that Paul disturbed Lechmere, then Lechmere’s approach could have disturbed the killer. A completely neutral point.

-He said he left home at around 3.20 or 3.30, neither of which times is in keeping with being in Bucks Row at 3.40 and much less so at 3.45.

No he said “about 3.30,” which could easily have been 3.35 so an entirely neutral point.

These are things that must be explained away, all of them, and many are very accomodating in that respect. Compare the number of points, if you will, to Druitt, Kosminski, Bury or any other suspect, and you will see why Lechmere is by far the best suspect there is.

Take away the imaginary, created ‘gap’ and all that we have is that Lechmere was at the scene. The killer could have fled just before he arrived.

But of course, one can always choose to argue that none of the matters above suggest guilt. That would be wrong, though, not least when we put them all together. Which was what Scobie did, coming up with a prima facie case.

There’s nothing there I’m afraid.

So, in essence, this is a non-issue. When people have to speculate that a barrister who was always likely to have asked to see how he was represented before he gave his go ahead was misinformed and had the wool pulled over his eyes, it is game over. Sorry, but that is how things work, Herlock.

A barrister who didn’t hear the case against Lechmere’s guilt. You can come up with a 1000 points Fish but if they are non-points then there’s no issue. There isn’t a single thing that causes any suspicion about Lechmere. We will never agree Fish. For me it’s just a massive exaggeration. Lechmere cannot be categorically exonerate. That’s all that we can say. Nothing more.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In general we can say….

The fact that he killed on his way to work 20 minutes or so before he had to get there counts against him but not against a man who simply found a body.

The fact that he had ample time to flee and yet he stayed put, an act of close to suicidal stupidity but not stupid for an innocent man who just discovered a body.

The fact that neither Paul or Mizen saw anything suspicious (blood or behaviour etc) about him.

The fact that another killer could easily have left the scene before Lechmere arrived which means that there very obviously could have been another killer.

The fact that we have no evidence of violence or criminal behaviour in Lechmere.

That he turned up at the Inquest.

That the Police had zero interest in him as a suspect.

The fact that there’s not a single point in the ‘case against’ that cannot be easily rebutted.

[Fisherman]

A barrister who didn’t hear the case against Lechmere’s guilt. You can come up with a 1000 points Fish but if they are non-points then there’s no issue. There isn’t a single thing that causes any suspicion about Lechmere. We will never agree Fish. For me it’s just a massive exaggeration. Lechmere cannot be categorically exonerate. That’s all that we can say. Nothing more.

I’ m afraid you asserting me that there is ”absolutely nothing suspicious” about the matters I named is nowhere near competing with how a retired murder squad leader and crininological academic like Griffiths had it the other way. I remain unimpressed with knee-jerk naysaying.

[Fisherman]

In general we can say….

The fact that he killed on his way to work 20 minutes or so before he had to get there counts against him but not against a man who simply found a body.

The fact that he had ample time to flee and yet he stayed put, an act of close to suicidal stupidity but not stupid for an innocent man who just discovered a body.

The fact that neither Paul or Mizen saw anything suspicious (blood or behaviour etc) about him.

The fact that another killer could easily have left the scene before Lechmere arrived which means that there very obviously could have been another killer.

The fact that we have no evidence of violence or criminal behaviour in Lechmere.

That he turned up at the Inquest.

That the Police had zero interest in him as a suspect.

The fact that there’s not a single point in the ‘case against’ that cannot be easily rebutted.

But look at HOW it is ”rebutted”! ”So he walked throught the killing fields at the approximate correct time of the murders. So what? Many did.”

That is not exactly top of the line detectiveship, Herlock.

And as I said a thousand times, it is not about how circumstatial evidence can ALWAYS be given alternative explanations, its about how there is a limit to how many such explanations we should offer before we realize that we are running the errands of a guilty man.

[Mark J D]

... Here we have a man whos known anchor points: home, work, family (moms house and previous address) all form a triangle whithin (or very close to the border) all the murders of the C5 fall in and in addition including Millwood, Tabram and mcKenzie...

Sorry to be a bore; but that's a triangle with four corners! Also: Millwood was attacked in February 1888, so you can't use Doveton Street (June and after, it seems) as 'home' for that bit of geometry. And MacKenzie was killed in July 1889, which might need the 'family' corner moving a bit, as his mother might (I say 'might': you'd need to check this) already have moved to Cable Street. Same sort of thing would apply if someone wanted to add Emma Smith, killed April 1888: the Doveton-cornered triangle didn't yet exist.

HTH.

M.

[Aethelwulf]

I also find Lech's profile - the stable 'career man' unconvincing. There is a lot made of comparing Sutcliffe but I believe he, seemingly unremarkable, had numerous fairly menial jobs and was sacked for theft from one (remind you of anyone?), and arrested for drink driving.

Also, I believe Sutcliffe was disturbed during attacks on several occasions and fled. In this scenario we have Lechmere staying put with ample time to flee. Nonsense. The comparison to his arrest isn't really convincing as he wasn't with a dead victim and trying to conceal his tools was a reasonable thing to do. Someone also made the comparison to Bury going to the police. Again, this isn't a good comparison as we are to believe Lech was caught in the act and stayed, whereas Bury committed the act and then decided after five or six days to go to the police.

I also think there is a question mark against Kelly. Two people hear a cry of murder at about 4 am. One of these says she was up from 2 until 5 so must have had reason to assign that time span and indicate the cry shortly before 4. If the ripper spent 'some time' with the body (at least 30 mins), Lechmere would be at work. Although cries of murder were apparently common, I can see that being the case around pub closing time, but much less so at 4 am.

There is also the Chapman ToD for which the Lechers rely on Philips' estimation, yet I believe Philips ruled out the torsos as being committed by the ripper. A little bit of cherry picking?

[Fisherman]

As for Scobie, Herlock, since you have painted yourself into a corner: He said that the points against Lechmere would warrant a trial. How does ANY information look that would dissolve that picture? You see, for the point Scobie made to be irrelevant, it would take that there is exonerating evidence, alternatively that the barrister was fed lies. Which do you suppose applies? And dont you think that a top barrister asked to see how he was portrayed before giving his approval?

It hurts massively, I understand that, but we must accept that Scobie looked at the evidence against Lechmere and concluded that there was a court case against him. How many of the other suspects come anywhere near such a thing? Not a single one. There is not a single thing that could be served to a jury in this respect for ANY of them.

Druitt? ” He killed himself”. Yeah, right.
Kosminski? ”He threatened his sister”. I see.
Levy? Maybe, just maybe, it was Jacob Joseph Hyam Levy saw. Oh, good, lets brong him to trial!

Can you see how Lechmere - who was THERE - differs? I hope so.