Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, we canīt have that, can we?

So let me tell you what exactly it is you are doing and what it amounts to in terms of clearing Lechmere as a suspect.

When a murder is committed and the culprit is not apprehended in combination with it, it rests upon the police to identify viable suspects.

The police will primarily be interested in two categories of people; those who have a relationship to the victim and those who are proven to have been present at or close to the murder site at the relevant hours.

What we have is a series of murders, with no known connections inbetween the victims. Therefore, we are in all probability looking at a killer of strangers. So letīs for simplicity sake rule out the family members and aquaintances of Nichols in our own investigation, although the police would surely have spoken to them in their investigation.

Now, what we have to go by is the selection of people who could be shown to have been at or cloose to the murder site at the relevant time.The many other suspects who people sense are the correct types are secondary suspects, and they come into play only when there are no suspects available who are known to have been present at the site at the correct time. That means that Druitt, Levy, Feigenbaum; that sort of people, are secondary suspects.

We have a person who belongs to the category of people who were there at the correct time, and who has a number of matters pointing to potential guilt; Charles Lechmere. What the police will do when faced with such a suspect is to try and see if he can be cleared. if he cannot, they will instead look for further indicators of guilt, and eventually arrest the person in question if the evidence presented is enough for such a thing. He will then be looked into by the prosecution, and if they feel they have a case, he will be prosecuted. If the case is good enough, he will also be convicted.

Now, what is it that starts this chain of events (if there is no absolute proof)? Correct, it is anomalies, inconsistencies, potential lies and suchlike on behalf of the suspect.
One example in our case would be the disagreement with Mizen; Lechmere was said to have told him that another PC awaited Mizen at the murder site. According to Mizen, no mention was made of how it was a serious errand. Nor was it said that Lechmere himself was the finder of the body. All in all, this is reason for suspicion.

The suspicion as such may be wrong and it may be right. And it is the duty of the police to try and investigate which of the options apply.

What they will NOT do is to reason "well, people are normally good, and so the idea that this particulaar one should be a killer is an unlikely one".

That, however, is how you reason, Herlock. You say that the innocent explanation is the most likely one by a country mile, to be more exact. So what you do is not to investigate the underlying facts - you instead simply opt for thinking that Lechmere was more likely to not be a killer than he was to be a killer. Or, to cut it short: most people are good people.

This is what your stance amounts to. Nothing more, nothing less. You believe that Lechmere was a good guy. End of.

it is of course something you are welcome to think. But it does not change the facts for a split second. The carman did and said a number of things that made him look suspicious, and not a single of those suspicions are dispelled by you reasoning that Charles Lechmere was more likely to be good than bad. The onus of proof is instead on you to PROVE that he was good.

Me, I donīt have to prove anything beyond what I have already brought to the table: the many reasons for suspicion. Once they are there, we have a suspect. And the more they are, the better the suspect becomes. If they are many enough, they form a good ground for conviction.

Your idea that he was probably innocent therefore counts for absolutely nothing, Iīm afraid. Itīs uninformed chitter-chatter, much like the kind of reasoning people do in the TV-sofas before Paradise Island; "He really should pick her, she seems nice!"

Thatīs what your view amounts to.

It becomes painfully obvious if we again look at the so called Mizen scam. It is suggested that the dicrepancies between what Lechmere and Mizen said points to how the carman wanted to pass the police by; the potential lies I point to were extremely well shaped to get Lechmere past Mizen.
But you and others instead say that it could just as well be that Mizen heard Lechmere wrong. Or that Mizen lied to save his behind - although the PC was not in any way reprimanded by the coroner.

But what is the underlying motivaation for this stance of yours? Well, it is that it is likelier that peiopkle are good people than bad people. Nothing else. All very uncomplicated.

And all totally uninterested of how we know that a woman had been viciously slayed by SOMEBODY, and that Lechmere had been found alone close by her body, that he did not give the police his registered name, a name that he always otherwise gave to the authorities, that he passed through the killing fields etcetera, etcetera.

We have a murder.

We have a man who has lots and lots of suspicion clinging to himself.

But people are normally nice, so no.

What was it you wrote about me the other day? Ah, yes: Genius.

No one would dispute that all issues would have to be looked into. No one can doubt that the police had all of the information that we have and probably more. No one can also doubt that we have no records of what the police did or didn’t do during their investigation. And no one can doubt that a police force utterly desperate to catch Jack the Ripper; a police force being mocked and castigate from above and below - didn’t find anything even slightly concerning about Lechmere. Of course you’ll dismiss this by saying that police would have been looking for some kind of salivating monster, and yes they didn’t have the benefit of 21st century knowledge, but they weren’t complete cretins Fish. They saw all of the facts, the interviewed witnesses face to face, they knew exactly what witnesses said or didn’t say. They heard the exact wordings they could check timings, weigh up how accurate or inaccurate witnesses might have been. And they concluded without a doubt that Lechmere was a man that discovered the body.

So yes you can dismiss my opinion (and the opinions of others) as a ‘let’s look on the bright side’ attitude as you appear to be of the opinion that it’s somehow dishonest to suggest innocent explanations. Or that it’s somehow stretching it to use a few innocent explanations. The problem is that a few are required when so many points are works of fiction.

”If” Lechmere left the house at x and “if” he arrived at y then there would have been a gap - is not a point in favour of Lechmere’s guilt. It’s a complete and utter fabrication. Totally made up. It’s no more a point in his favour than say “if Paul was carrying a knife then he was probably the murderer.” The ‘gap’ should never be mentioned in terms of the case against Lechmere. The blood evidence proves nothing. You have no unanswerable facts. Therefore you’re constantly clutching at straws. The case against Lechmere is probably the biggest example of exaggeration in the history of true crime.

[Doctored Whatsit]

One example in our case would be the disagreement with Mizen; Lechmere was said to have told him that another PC awaited Mizen at the murder site. According to Mizen, no mention was made of how it was a serious errand. Nor was it said that Lechmere himself was the finder of the body. All in all, this is reason for suspicion.

The suspicion as such may be wrong and it may be right. And it is the duty of the police to try and investigate which of the options apply.

.....

It becomes painfully obvious if we again look at the so called Mizen scam. It is suggested that the dicrepancies between what Lechmere and Mizen said points to how the carman wanted to pass the police by; the potential lies I point to were extremely well shaped to get Lechmere past Mizen.
But you and others instead say that it could just as well be that Mizen heard Lechmere wrong. Or that Mizen lied to save his behind - although the PC was not in any way reprimanded by the coroner.

Why do we have to keep ignoring the known facts?

The coroner, Swanson, and Abberline studied the known facts - including information we don't have - and concluded that both Lechmere and Paul found Mizen, and told him what they had seen. They ignored Mizen's allegation. They had more information than us, so I accept they were probably correct. Paul, presumably confirmed Lechmere's story, and said he was with him talking to Mizen, otherwise the unanimous conclusion of three very experienced people makes no sense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, we canīt have that, can we?

So let me tell you what exactly it is you are doing and what it amounts to in terms of clearing Lechmere as a suspect.

When a murder is committed and the culprit is not apprehended in combination with it, it rests upon the police to identify viable suspects.

The police will primarily be interested in two categories of people; those who have a relationship to the victim and those who are proven to have been present at or close to the murder site at the relevant hours.

What we have is a series of murders, with no known connections inbetween the victims. Therefore, we are in all probability looking at a killer of strangers. So letīs for simplicity sake rule out the family members and aquaintances of Nichols in our own investigation, although the police would surely have spoken to them in their investigation.

Now, what we have to go by is the selection of people who could be shown to have been at or cloose to the murder site at the relevant time.The many other suspects who people sense are the correct types are secondary suspects, and they come into play only when there are no suspects available who are known to have been present at the site at the correct time. That means that Druitt, Levy, Feigenbaum; that sort of people, are secondary suspects.

We have a person who belongs to the category of people who were there at the correct time, and who has a number of matters pointing to potential guilt; Charles Lechmere. What the police will do when faced with such a suspect is to try and see if he can be cleared. if he cannot, they will instead look for further indicators of guilt, and eventually arrest the person in question if the evidence presented is enough for such a thing. He will then be looked into by the prosecution, and if they feel they have a case, he will be prosecuted. If the case is good enough, he will also be convicted.

Now, what is it that starts this chain of events (if there is no absolute proof)? Correct, it is anomalies, inconsistencies, potential lies and suchlike on behalf of the suspect.
One example in our case would be the disagreement with Mizen; Lechmere was said to have told him that another PC awaited Mizen at the murder site. According to Mizen, no mention was made of how it was a serious errand. Nor was it said that Lechmere himself was the finder of the body. All in all, this is reason for suspicion.

The suspicion as such may be wrong and it may be right. And it is the duty of the police to try and investigate which of the options apply.

What they will NOT do is to reason "well, people are normally good, and so the idea that this particulaar one should be a killer is an unlikely one".

That, however, is how you reason, Herlock. You say that the innocent explanation is the most likely one by a country mile, to be more exact. So what you do is not to investigate the underlying facts - you instead simply opt for thinking that Lechmere was more likely to not be a killer than he was to be a killer. Or, to cut it short: most people are good people.

This is what your stance amounts to. Nothing more, nothing less. You believe that Lechmere was a good guy. End of.

it is of course something you are welcome to think. But it does not change the facts for a split second. The carman did and said a number of things that made him look suspicious, and not a single of those suspicions are dispelled by you reasoning that Charles Lechmere was more likely to be good than bad. The onus of proof is instead on you to PROVE that he was good.

Me, I donīt have to prove anything beyond what I have already brought to the table: the many reasons for suspicion. Once they are there, we have a suspect. And the more they are, the better the suspect becomes. If they are many enough, they form a good ground for conviction.

Your idea that he was probably innocent therefore counts for absolutely nothing, Iīm afraid. Itīs uninformed chitter-chatter, much like the kind of reasoning people do in the TV-sofas before Paradise Island; "He really should pick her, she seems nice!"

Thatīs what your view amounts to.

It becomes painfully obvious if we again look at the so called Mizen scam. It is suggested that the dicrepancies between what Lechmere and Mizen said points to how the carman wanted to pass the police by; the potential lies I point to were extremely well shaped to get Lechmere past Mizen.
But you and others instead say that it could just as well be that Mizen heard Lechmere wrong. Or that Mizen lied to save his behind - although the PC was not in any way reprimanded by the coroner.

But what is the underlying motivaation for this stance of yours? Well, it is that it is likelier that peiopkle are good people than bad people. Nothing else. All very uncomplicated.

And all totally uninterested of how we know that a woman had been viciously slayed by SOMEBODY, and that Lechmere had been found alone close by her body, that he did not give the police his registered name, a name that he always otherwise gave to the authorities, that he passed through the killing fields etcetera, etcetera.

We have a murder.

We have a man who has lots and lots of suspicion clinging to himself.

But people are normally nice, so no.

What was it you wrote about me the other day? Ah, yes: Genius.

But what is lacking from the police investigation is any suggestion that Lechmere could be the killer, not then, and not in the years that followed, why do you think you are better equipped to carry out this cold case review than the police did in 1888, after all they had access to a lot more information than you did?

The medical evidence you seek to rely on has been proved to be unsafe
The experts you have used, their input has also been proved to be unsafe
The timings you seek toi rely on are not conclusive
The TOD cannot be established

All you have is nothing more than a wild speculative theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

Hello George,

I don't have any problem with Neil describing seeing a figure. No where does he say, getting closer he saw it was a woman. The Evening News makes it clear it was woman he could see.

>>the wool warehouse gates is exactly where he was standing when Paul came up.<<

On reflection, I was a tad careless typing"exactly". As my post#5497 shows have have him moving diagonally forward from the spot and I have already commented elsewhere, that just how far forward he moved is the question. So no, I have no problem with not being "exactly" by the wool warehouse gates.

[drstrange169]

>>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. <<

Part of a patrolling policeman's duty was to report defective street lights, had there been lights not working in Buck's Row he would have been obliged to say so.

[drstrange169]

>> I had in mind was that the murderer would have grabbed the hem with his left hand, pulled the dress up and put the hem of the dress on the chest area. The fold of the dress would then have been somewhere between the knees and the breasts and he would have grabbed the dress at the fold to hold it up and then start cutting.<<

What people forget Frank, is that Mrs Nichols was a unique case.

It wasn't just a question of lifting her dress, she was the only victim recorded as wearing stays. This necessitated holding the dress and stays up to inflict any abdominal wounds. To "display" the wounds the stays would have to be taken off or undone. Because of their design, you wouldn't be able to push them up, if they were loose you would be able to lift them. We know from the inquest that Mrs. Nichol's one was loose.

"The stays did not, however, fit tightly, and he was able to see the wounds without unfastening them."
Sergeant Enright

Mrs Nichols wounds were always going to be covered to some degree.

[FrankO]

Thats good to hear. I was wondering if you had sonething more substantial, but you donīt, it seems.

Well, at least, it’s more substantial than your “The other man, who went down Hanbury-street”.

The problem here is that you seemingly fail to see that all the Times does is to say that Pauls touching the breast of Nichols happened in connection with when he was trying to pull her dress down.

I don’t fail to see that, Christer. It’s just that, to me, the evidence reads as if Paul tried to pull the dress down by taking hold of the lower part of the dress or the hem of it, that was apparently lying on the chest area, and while he was doing so he touched the breast and thought he felt a slight movement - all in a sort of fluid motion.

To me, it doesn’t read as if he tried to pull the dress down, but when he noticed he wasn’t getting it any further down than just a couple of inches perhaps, he laid his left hand on the breast in order to be able to put more force into the attempt with his right hand. Or 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.

It does NOT say that any of the clothing was up at the breast; instead it says that the clothing was "almost up to the stomach". Which is emphatically NOT up at the breast.

I agree that “Her clothes were raised almost up to the stomach” doesn’t necessarily mean that the hem of the dress was lying on the chest, but I don’t agree that it HAS to mean that. In fact, the two go together very well.

So he would lift the dress by the hem up to the chest? Sort of fold it up upwards? But not lift away the last bit of cloth, allowing full freedom to see and work?

Correct. And seeing that Paul wasn’t able to get the dress down over her knees, I don’t think we can exclude the possibility that it wouldn’t move upwards either, beyond some point, as it had got stuck under Nichols’s body.

I find it a strange proposition that he would not want to make use of both his hands to cut and work at the body, instead opting for holding a garment up in the air with his one hand. Maybe thatīs just me.

What I suggested doesn’t preclude the murderer to have worked with both hands under the dress. I’m just going with the “While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.", and the fact that Paul wasn’t able to get the dress down over her knees, which we do have in evidence. It’s a bit like your own supposition of ‘Lechmere is guilty’ and see where it takes us. I take tthe quote to mean what I’ve written and if true, it would mean that the murderer for one reason or another didn’t or couldn’t work the dress completely out of the way, however strange a proposition you might find that, too.

No, it does not. If the clothing was up at the chest, then the Times should not have said "almost to the stomach", because that is way further down.

Maybe it means something else to you, but “her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach” to me means that the part of the body just below the stomach and downwards was uncovered, which doesn’t in any way preclude the hem of the dress to be laying on the chest, which was covered.

Furtherore, why did the paper not write that the clothing was thrown up over her? Why did they say it was "raised" to under the stomach instead? It just does not work the way you suggest.

How should I know why the Times or many of the other newspapers were so stingy with details? If only they hadn’t been…

Are you saying that because the other victims were different, they are best looked away from, Frank? Why would they NOT be extremely relevant?

I think you know exactly what I’m saying, Christer, so there’s no need to mock me. But, if you really want me to, I’ll say it again in a slightly different manner. What I say is that, if there’s evidence pertaining to a case in a series we’re discussing, then I prefer that evidence over evidence that pertains to other cases in the same series. Unless we can dismiss it out of hand, the evidence pertaining to the case we’re discussing makes the evidence pertaining to the other cases in the series less important.

It’s similar to you saying: if Lechmere was the killer, then he stayed put and bluffed things out. The evidence leaves enough room for that possibility, which is why we can never dismiss it. As far as I’m concerned, the same goes for this. There’s enough room in the quote “While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement" for it to mean that the hem of the dress was lying on the chest when Paul took hold of it to pull the dress down and, so, we can never dismiss this possibility.

There would not have been any reason for Paul to think that the clothes would be difficult to pull down. Lifting them with one hand and lowering them further down should be easy enough. Therefore, he would not necessarily position himself the way you suggest. But maybe he did - after having tried the way I suggest. All that matters is that there ARE alternatives to your suggestion. And what it is that will not go away you already know: the fact that the wounds were hidden in Bucks Row, which fits perfectly with the suggestion of Lechmere bluffing his way out. No alternative explanations can change that - until they are proven.

And what it is that will not go away, you already know: the fact that the wounds were hidden in Bucks Row, which fits perfectly with the suggestion of the hem of the dress being left on the chest by the murderer. No alternative explanations can change that - until they are proven.

[FrankO]

All there is is what there always is: alternative innocent explanations. And they count for nothing, since the nature of circumstantial evidence is precisely that: evidence where alternative innocent explanations can always be provided, more or less likely.

I take it that works both ways and not only for us "naysaying folk".

[FrankO]

How about this: while adjusting the dress, it occurred to Paul to reach as far as was necessary to see if he could detect a heartbeat.

Hm, nah Gary. Of course it's possible, but it's unconvincing as far as I'm concerned. And, according to Christer, it counts for nothing.

[MrBarnett]

Hm, nah Gary. Of course it's possible, but it's unconvincing as far as I'm concerned. And, according to Christer, it counts for nothing.

Why unconvincing? What’s the question that would arise in anyone finding an unresponsive person lying on the street?

Are they dead?

And what might the response to that be?

To feel for a heartbeat.

[FrankO]

Why unconvincing? What’s the question that would arise in anyone finding an unresponsive person lying on the street?

Are they dead?

And what might the response to that be?

To feel for a heartbeat.

It's not the question that would arise that's unconvincing, Gary; it's the timing.

"Witness (Paul) felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead."

So, he was examining her and even knelt right besides the chest area, but only felt for her heartbeat as some sort of afterthougt? And why feel for a heartbeat when he already thougt she was dead? That's what I find unconvincing.

[MrBarnett]

It's not the question that would arise that's unconvincing, Gary; it's the timing.

"Witness (Paul) felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead."

So, he was examining her and even knelt right besides the chest area, but only felt for her heartbeat as some sort of afterthougt? And why feel for a heartbeat when he already thougt she was dead? That's what I find unconvincing.

So you think it would be more natural for a man to place his hand on a woman’s chest before he had come to the conclusion that she was very likely dead?

[FrankO]

What people forget Frank, is that Mrs Nichols was a unique case.

It wasn't just a question of lifting her dress, she was the only victim recorded as wearing stays. This necessitated holding the dress and stays up to inflict any abdominal wounds. To "display" the wounds the stays would have to be taken off or undone. Because of their design, you wouldn't be able to push them up, if they were loose you would be able to lift them. We know from the inquest that Mrs. Nichol's one was loose.

"The stays did not, however, fit tightly, and he was able to see the wounds without unfastening them."
Sergeant Enright

Mrs Nichols wounds were always going to be covered to some degree.

Good point, Dusty.

[FrankO]

So you think it would be more natural for a man to place his hand on a woman’s chest before he had come to the conclusion that she was very likely dead?

I think It would have been more logical to feel for the heart while he was examining her, not as a sort of afterthougt or when he thought she was already dead.

[GBinOz]

>>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. <<

Part of a patrolling policeman's duty was to report defective street lights, had there been lights not working in Buck's Row he would have been obliged to say so.

I agree it was part of his duty. But, as has been pointed out, there were criteria for evidence at an inquest and the reporting of street lamp functionality was not one of them. One could construe, from the EN report of 7 Sept, that the non-functionality of the street lamps had been reported, but just not at the inquest. The state of functionality of the street lamps a week after the murder does not impinge on the level of the lighting on the night of the murder defined by the primary evidence of PC Neil.

Cheers, George