Evidence of innocence

[JeffHamm]

One picture is worth a thousand words



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Indeed.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi jeff , Just on the first point ,the fact that Dr Brown thought enough to say ''by design'' is clearly evidence in itself its possible they were . But i can also see your point.In regards to Kelly and difference with Eddowes is undeniably so when discussing ''posing''' .

However your second point i will have to respectfully disagree, as my previous post on the subject with trevor suggest , Eddowes was killed instantly , all the facial injuries were done after she lay dead on the ground, and the evidence supports this .

Hi Fishy,

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying she was alive when he cut her face, only that he would have steadied her head when he cut her. Keeping his hand down over her mouth keeps it out of the way, particularly when he's attacking by making a horizontal slash. Given he's cutting horizontally, he would have to hold the head to prevent it just moving with the knife.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying she was alive when he cut her face, only that he would have steadied her head when he cut her. Keeping his hand down over her mouth keeps it out of the way, particularly when he's attacking by making a horizontal slash. Given he's cutting horizontally, he would have to hold the head to prevent it just moving with the knife.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff , Yes so were agreed that he cut her throat which instantly resulted in her death. [ yes he held his hand over her mouth ] . Now while she was ''dead'' all the facial mutilation were then committed .Look at the two illustrations , firstly they are more ''V'' shaped than rounded ,also once shes dead there is no interference while mutilations are takin place therefore they were delibrate and precise are per drawings. Wouldnt you agree ?

[GBinOz]

>>Neil may well have discerned a "figure" at a range of 6 metres.<<

As I've pointed out, it was more like a MINIMUM of 8 metres not 6. It seems very unlikely that he would have been level with body before noticing it, so over 8 metres is more realistic.

"... Neil was on his beat in Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, when his attention was attracted to the body of a woman lying on the pavement ..."

You appear to have picked out one of the few reports referring to "the body of a woman" see below.

>>a woman at a range of 17.5 metres <<

I don't have a problem with him walking closer, the issue is how close. Your recreation is a good base point, but it is very unlikely to be exactly the conditions as Buck's Row that night as the various lighting factors are not added.
You had a problem in your post #5519 when you said "According to Cross's testimony, the wool warehouse gates is exactly where he was standing when Paul came up. The story fits."
This is what I disputed, as the wool warehouse gates are 17.5 metres from the body. Unless he walked to the body and then walked back, this couldn't have been where he was standing when Paul came up.

Daily News, Monday 3rd September 1888
Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, from Thomas Street to Brady Street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously, and met nobody then. The first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath. It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away. The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to Mr. Brown. From the gateway eastward the houses began, and westward there was a Board School.

The Daily Telegraph, Monday 3rd September 1888
John Neil, police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady Street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward.

East London Observer, Saturday 8th September 1888.
John Neil,the police constable of the J Division of police who found the body - a tall, fresh-coloured man, with brown hair, and straw coloured moustache and imperial. He deposed that on Friday morning, at a quarter to four o'clock, he was going down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, from Thomas Street to Brady Street. Not a soul was about. He was round there about half an hour previously and met nobody then. The first thing he saw was a figure lying on the footpath. It was dark, but there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away. The figure was lying alongside a gateway, of which the gate, nine or ten feet high, was locked. It led to some stables belonging to a Mr. Brown. From the gateway eastward the houses began, and westwards there was a Board School. All the houses were occupied. The deceased's left hand was touching the gate. Directly he turned his lantern on the body he noticed blood was oozing from the woman's throat. She was lying on her back with her hands beside her body, the eyes wide open, the legs a little apart, and the hands open.

Evening News, Saturday 1st September 1888
At a quarter to four yesterday morning Police-constable Neil was on his beat in Buck's Row, Thomas Street, Whitechapel, when his attention was attracted to the body of a woman lying on the pavement close to the door of the stableyard in connection with Essex Wharf. Buck's Row, like many minor thoroughfares in this and similar neighbourhoods, is not overburdened with gas-lamps, and in the dim light the constable at first thought that the woman had fallen down in a drunken stupor.

Evening Standard, Monday 3rd September 1888
Police Constable John Neil said - On Friday morning I was proceeding down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady Street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previous, and I saw no one then. I was on the right hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the west.

Morning Advertiser, Monday 3rd September 1888
John Neil, police constable, 97 J, said - On Friday morning I was proceeding down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady Street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf.

The Times, Monday 3rd September 1888.
Police-constable John Neil 97 J, deposed that on Friday morning he was passing down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, and going in the direction of Brady Street, and he did not notice any one about. He had been round the same place some half an hour previous to that and did not see any one. He was walking along the right-hand side of the street when he noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, although a street lamp was shining at the end of the row. He walked across and found the deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. He noticed that the gateway, which was about 9 ft. or 10 ft. in height and led to some stables, was closed. Houses ran eastward from the gateway, while the Board school was westward of the spot. On the other side of the road was the Essex Wharf.

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday 2nd September 1888.
John Neill, police-constable 97 J, was sworn, and said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's Row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady Street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previous, and I saw no one then. I was on the left hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found the deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I agree that Paul should have testified that he was aware of Lechmere walking ahead of him, had the lighting conditions been as the EN suggested they were on the night of the murder. Both his Lloyd’s interview and his inquest statement versions give me the impression that Lechmere could have walked ahead of Paul without him necessarily noticing him. Paul never expressed any surprise about not noticing Lechmere at any moment before seeing him standing in the middle of the street, nor was he asked about it. Which leads me to the conclusion that Buck's Row wasn't as well-lit as the EN suggested on the night of the murder. So, perhaps they fixed that right after the murder.


Not necessarily, George. As per the evidence, Paul was unable to pull the dress down over the knees and, as has been suggested, it may very well have been that the killer wasn’t able to pull it up further than where he left it as it had got stuck under Nichols’s body.

It’s also possible, and in line with the evidence, that the killer squatted beside her upper body, facing her feet, and cut her abdomen from that position from the groin to(wards) the breastbone. So, with his left hand he pulled up the dress leaving the hem on the chest area, whilst he cut under the dress with the other. If he did it like that, he didn’t need to get the dress completely out of the way. As long as it was worked up some way between, say, the knees and groin area, it would be fine. He could easily get under the dress with the knife and cut as he pleased and he didn’t need to bend or spread the legs.

If, however, he was crouched beside her legs and facing her head, then it would be more practical to lift the dress completely out of the way or he would have needed to put his knife hand under the dress and then cut downwards towards her groin area. Or he needed to hold the dress up with one hand and got under it with his other to cut and when he was finished he just dropped the dress on her abdomen. If this is what happened, then it may have been by choice or because he didn’t know any better yet, it being his first outdoor victim. But, again, it may also have been because the murderer couldn’t get the dress further up than where Lechmere & Paul found it because it had got stuck under her.

However, Paul’s statement firmly suggests that the hem of the dress was lying on the chest area when he was about to pull the dress down and that, to me, suggests that the murderer just dropped the dress covering he abdomen rather than that he consciously pulled the dress down to cover the abdominal wounds.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I think that we are obliged to accept Neil's testimony that there was only one functional lamp that night as it is primary evidence and he was commenting on lighting conditions, not the number of lamps in Bucks Row. That seems to be the conclusion drawn here: https://www.casebook.org/victims/polly.crossneil.html
I agree that the other lights would likely have been made operational after that night and before the EN inspection.

This is Llewellyn's testimony at the inquest:
"There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards.".

My inference from his testimony is that he was crouched by the legs facing the head, your second suggestion. From memory I think that the testimony of the doctor's at later inquests was that the killer was in that position. So the abdomen had to be uncovered for the wounds to be inflicted, but was covered when found by the carmen - When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood.

Another interesting factor is this statement by the coroner at the Chapman inquest:
The Coroner: There is a difference in this respect, at all events, that the medical expert is of opinion that, in the case of Nicholls, the mutilations were made first.

Did JtR continue the MO of attacking the body as for Tabram, but as he heard someone approaching and covered the wounds Polly showed signs of life and he then cut her throat?
Paul testified he "detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.". This might suggest that Polly was alive minutes before the carmen found her. Against this is that if she had been still alive when her throat was cut there would have been visible arterial spray.

Cheers, George

[Fisherman]

Not necessarily, George. As per the evidence, Paul was unable to pull the dress down over the knees and, as has been suggested, it may very well have been that the killer wasn’t able to pull it up further than where he left it as it had got stuck under Nichols’s body.[/FONT][/FONT]

It’s also possible, and in line with the evidence, that the killer squatted beside her upper body, facing her feet, and cut her abdomen from that position from the groin to(wards) the breastbone. So, with his left hand he pulled up the dress leaving the hem on the chest area, whilst he cut under the dress with the other. If he did it like that, he didn’t need to get the dress completely out of the way. As long as it was worked up some way between, say, the knees and groin area, it would be fine. He could easily get under the dress with the knife and cut as he pleased and he didn’t need to bend or spread the legs.

If, however, he was crouched beside her legs and facing her head, then it would be more practical to lift the dress completely out of the way or he would have needed to put his knife hand under the dress and then cut downwards towards her groin area. Or he needed to hold the dress up with one hand and got under it with his other to cut and when he was finished he just dropped the dress on her abdomen. If this is what happened, then it may have been by choice or because he didn’t know any better yet, it being his first outdoor victim. But, again, it may also have been because the murderer couldn’t get the dress further up than where Lechmere & Paul found it because it had got stuck under her.

However, Paul’s statement firmly suggests that the hem of the dress was lying on the chest area when he was about to pull the dress down and that, to me, suggests that the murderer just dropped the dress covering he abdomen rather than that he consciously pulled the dress down to cover the abdominal wounds.

Cheers,
Frank

Just making a quick point before I go away again. We have Frank here, commenting on how and why the wounds were covered. Since he always makes considered points, I thought I´d have a look at what he bases this post of his on. And I find it will be the Times article from the 18:th, where it says:
"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement."

The sequence becomes a logical one; it seems Paul had his hands up at the chest in the process of trying to pull the dress down, and Franks suggestion that the hem of the dress would therefore have been placed up there sounds viable on the surface of things.

However, it is not as if the Times actually states where the hem of the dress was. It is something that Frank interprets in the manner, not any matter stated by the Times. What Frank suggests is that the killer squatted beside Nichols, facing towards her feet. He would then have lifted her clothing with one of his hands, grabbing hold of the hem of the dress and lifting it up into the air with, say, his left hand. The he would have used his right hand to push the blade in at the groin, thereafter cutting his way up towards the breastbone underneath the dress. After that, he would have added a number of other cuts to the abdomen, all the while lifting the skirt by the hem until he aborted the cutting, whether on behalf of being disturbed or by choosing not to cut any more, we don´t know. He then let go of the hem, and the dress fell over the abdomen, with the hem ending up at her chest.

Could it have happened this way? Well, it cannot be ruled out, of course. But it is a theory that comes with a fair few difficulties. To begin with, we have another passage in the same Times article that very much belongs to the picture. Paul is quoted as saying that before his efforts to pull the dress down, "Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." He does not say "up to her chest". Which they must have been for Franks suggestion to work. Maybe what Paul meant was that the clothing was doubled up, with the folding being place almost up at the stomach - but that is not what he says. It therefore takes a bit of fiddling to allow for Franks proposition.

Another problem is that of the practicalities involved. I would suggest that cutting the abdomen of a woman open was a desire within the killer, something that he wanted very much to do. And if you have gone through the trouble of finding a victim, spiriting her away from prying eyes and strangling her to finally allow for that cutting, then why would you deny yourself the pleasure of actually seeing what you do? Of course, we know quite well that whoever killed Annie Chapman, Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly did not work under the clothing of these victims. There was no question of any hidden wounds in those cases. And that in itself must cast serious doubt on Franks suggestion.

Furthermore, one of the reasons that the killer saw to it that the abdominal cavities of Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were not obscured by cloth as he cut them would be that he had the intention of carving out inner organs from their bodies. Such a thing is a fiddly business, and you need to be able to see what you are doing. Putting your hands and the knife under clothing while extracting organs would also come with a serious risk of cutting yourself. Meaning that if the killer intended to take out organs from Nichols, he would be poorly served by allowing her dress to stay over the wounds as he worked.

All in all, in my view, Franks suggestion, much as it cannot be ruled out, has very little going for it. The one thing that is compelling is the wording of the Times, that "While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement."

If, as implicated by the Times, the dress was not raised up to the chest but only to just below the abdomen, then there must be alternative explanations for why Paul touched the breast in the process of trying to pull the dress down. And I would suggest that such explanations can easily be provided. If Paul, for example knelt in a ninety degree position to the body, his left arm to the east and his right arm to the west, then it would be the right hand he employed to grab hold of the dress, pulling it towards her feet. And if he felt that the dress would not move as far as he wanted it to, putting his left hand on her body at the chest would provide leverage to pull harder. For example.
There is also the possibility that he pulled with both hands, finding that the dress would not come down, whereupon he tried to grab hold further up the body (at the chest, for example) to try and pull the dress down bit by bit, so to speak.

Anyways, before we go into a "this is the better suggestion - no, THAT is the better suggestion" slanging match, I would point out that the REAL importance of the matter as such lies not in these details, but instead in how the clothing DID obscure the wounds from sight. This in itself is in line with the killer having hidden the damage intentionally, and it is out of line with the other victims. Whatever pointer to guilt on Lechmeres behalf I point out, there is always a platoon of helpful people who rush to limit the damage by providing innocent alternative explanations. The important thing to keep in mind is NOT that such explanations can be provided - they ALWAYS can, otherwise, we would not be speaking of circumstanital evidence but instead of proof - but instead that these innocent alternative explanations are actually called for. And when they are called for in dozens of matters, we have long since passed the point where it is logical to keep providing them. The much more logical thing to do is to accept that Charles Lechmere is a person to whom a bottomless need for innocent alternative explanations clings. And when that is so, we have an extremely good suspect and a very probable killer.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff , Yes so were agreed that he cut her throat which instantly resulted in her death. [ yes he held his hand over her mouth ] . Now while she was ''dead'' all the facial mutilation were then committed .Look at the two illustrations , firstly they are more ''V'' shaped than rounded ,also once shes dead there is no interference while mutilations are takin place therefore they were delibrate and precise are per drawings. Wouldnt you agree ?

I agree she was dead when he slashed her face. However, as the clearer photo shows, the points are rounded, not pointed. A sketch is just that, it's not a precise rendition but capturing the general shape, which is triangular. Also, given the conditions under which the sketch was made, the fine details may have been a bit difficult to discern. So, as to the any of the facial injuries being precise, deliberate, or carefully done, I can't say I believe that with any certainty. They could have been, of course, particularly to the eyes, but the cuts on the cheeks look more like how a slash was made rather than a deliberate carving of a meaningful shape. Also, there's not a lot of time for the murder to take place. The more time attributed to deliberate cuts the less time available to account for the rest of the crime.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree she was dead when he slashed her face. - Jeff

There is no evidence to prove that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

I agree she was dead when he slashed her face. However, as the clearer photo shows, the points are rounded, not pointed. A sketch is just that, it's not a precise rendition but capturing the general shape, which is triangular. Also, given the conditions under which the sketch was made, the fine details may have been a bit difficult to discern. So, as to the any of the facial injuries being precise, deliberate, or carefully done, I can't say I believe that with any certainty. They could have been, of course, particularly to the eyes, but the cuts on the cheeks look more like how a slash was made rather than a deliberate carving of a meaningful shape. Also, there's not a lot of time for the murder to take place. The more time attributed to deliberate cuts the less time available to account for the rest of the crime.

- Jeff

Yes, however my concern is only wether the 'V' shaped cuts [ more ''V'' than round ] and the eyelids were delibrate , the cheek and nose of course the may or may not have been. Also when Dr Brown was asked if the murderer had enough time to perform all the injuries his reply was '' He must have otherwise he wouldnt have nik the eyelids '' .

[FISHY1118]

There is no evidence to prove that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The inquest says there is, read it properly.

[FrankO]

My inference from his testimony is that he was crouched by the legs facing the head, your second suggestion.

Although there is evidence that supports my first suggestion, I’ve always been inclined to go with my second suggestion.

When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. I did not notice any blood.

I’m also inclined to believe that the abdomen was covered, but there’s also this (from Paul): Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.

Anyway, what I find an interesting factor is that Paul deposed that “while he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast”. I would have like to have known your view on it, but I see Christer has beaten you to it, so I’ll have a look at that first.

Did JtR continue the MO of attacking the body as for Tabram, but as he heard someone approaching and covered the wounds Polly showed signs of life and he then cut her throat?
Paul testified he "detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint.". This might suggest that Polly was alive minutes before the carmen found her. Against this is that if she had been still alive when her throat was cut there would have been visible arterial spray.

I'm not sure if there should necessarily have been arterial spray from the throat wound. I’m no medical expert, but I recall discussions on the subject that said the vagus nerve, which runs close to the jugular vein or carotid on the left side in the neck, but not so close on the right side, and which, if cut, is supposed to cause there not being any arterial spray. I don’t know if that’s true, but there you go. And I think that if Nichols was partially strangled, it might have some influence on arterial spray, too.

What I'd find odd, if the throat was only cut after Lechmere heard Paul, is the fact that the throat was uselessly cut twice. Why loose precious time when time was of the essence?

Cheers,
Frank

[Trevor Marriott]

Also, there's not a lot of time for the murder to take place. The more time attributed to deliberate cuts the less time available to account for the rest of the crime.
- Jeff

So now the cuts to the face are introduced into the questionable time frame as being specific

So we have Eddowes potentially meeting her killer at the entrance to Church passage at a time given as approx 1.35am, a time which may not have been accurate and of course as they were seen standing talking we have no accurate time to show how long they were standing talking before walking down the passage to the crime scene and every minute they stood talking after being seen is crucial to the murder and what the killer is alleged to have done therefater

On arrival at the crime scene the killer carries out the murder,rifles her pockets, cuts a piece of apron, surgically removes a uterus and and a kidney and then carries out artistic carving to her face. Notwith standing that there is every liklihood that he was disturbed by Pc harvey coming down Church passage in which case he may not have been able tocarry out all that it is sugested he did.

There has to be a serious doubt about the killers actions within the time frame suggested, and given what we now know about the illegal trade in body parts and in particular female body parts, and the activites of Victorian body dealers, the sugestion that the killer removed these organs is now even more in doubt.

I would also urger researcehers to do some serious research into the actions of Victorian body dealers Elizabeth Hurren has done some excellent work on this topic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, however my concern is only wether the 'V' shaped cuts [ more ''V'' than round ] and the eyelids were delibrate , the cheek and nose of course the may or may not have been. Also when Dr Brown was asked if the murderer had enough time to perform all the injuries his reply was '' He must have otherwise he wouldnt have nik the eyelids '' .

Thats a ridiculous comment how did he know that the cuts were not made at the start of the murder?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

The start of the murder was the cutting of the throat causing instant death. Read the inquest. Are you seriously suggesting that he disfigured her befor slitting her throat . How did he manage that without a struggle or a single sound? Show some evidence that supports this theory of yours.

[JeffHamm]

Yes, however my concern is only wether the 'V' shaped cuts [ more ''V'' than round ] and the eyelids were delibrate , the cheek and nose of course the may or may not have been. Also when Dr Brown was asked if the murderer had enough time to perform all the injuries his reply was '' He must have otherwise he wouldnt have nik the eyelids '' .

Hi Fishy,

I don't think the triangular cuts were deliberate, but a by product of how he held the head and slashed across the face (obviously this is just my interpretation, not a fact). While I find it unlikely that any of the cuts were deliberate, the cuts to the eyes are described as being careful, so if any of them were done with care it would be those.

- Jeff