Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

>>... 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<<

Yet Neil specifically mentioned the street light in the street and PC Lamb was specifically asked about the lighting in Berner Street.


>>One could construe, from the EN report of 7 Sept<<

The same newspaper that on Sept 1 said the lighting was poor in the street.

Looking at the Sept 7 report it says. "every tenant being an old inhabitant, and of good class. In addition to well-to-do artisans ..." whereas the Booth map lists the row of houses as being populated by the "poor".

Interestingly, this is the same newspaper that listed a neighbour on Berner Street, subject of much debate on another thread, with the same words, "apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan".

[Fisherman]

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.

To say that the police did not find a scintilla of evidence against Lechmere is along the lines of how you always do your ripperology. If they did not look into him, that would provide a very good explanation, but why bother about such trifles, eh? Let´s instead make up a scenario where Lechmere was actually cleared in 1888!

You also hint at how I would have somehow led on that it would be dishonest to provide innocent alternative explanations. Of course that is also completely untrue, and likely shaped to misrepresent me as best as you can. I have never said such a thing at all, and the proof of that can be found on the boards. What I have said is that it is completely and utterly disingenuous to do so, since it is ALWAYS the case that circumstantial evidence can be provided with alternative innocent explanations. Otherwise, the evidence would not be circumstantial in the first place. And I have also said that there comes a time when it becomes a sign of lacking insight into matters criminal to provide innocent alternatives; once there is a mountain of things that need to be explained away, the by far likeliest explanation for that is that the suspect is guilty. And that is the only time that the element of dishonesty can enter the discussion, if somebody says that no matter how many pointers to guilt there are, if innocent alternative explanations can be provided, they are always the best explanation. Which is of course more or less what you do. So yes, there is a possibility that you are dishonest about it, but it may equally well be that you are just ignorant and fail to see how this works. It is not for me to say what applies. This is, however, why I say that your view amounts to nothing. It is nothing but a simple statement that people are normally nice. And that is not a contribution that serves ripperology very well. It is a trivial and uninteresting presentation of a trivial fact that may well have no bearing at all on the Ripper case.

You also accuse me of "the biggest case of exaggeration in criminal history"! So let me walk you through my case again, and we will see.

-Any person who is found at a murder site at the approximate time of death of the murder victim, and who cannot prove him- or herself innocent, are immediately persons of interest - GREAT interest! - if no other perpetrator can be found and if there are no obstacles for the person at hand to have done the killing. If you find this exaggerated, please explain why.

-If such a person as described above is identified by the police, they will look further into that individual. If you find this exaggerated, then please explain why.

-What the police will be looking for is anomalies, potential lies, inconsistencies and such in the persons behavior and testimony. If you find this exaggerated, then please explain why.

-In Lechmere´s case, we know that he used a name that he otherwise never used with the authorities. We know that the wounds of Nichols were hidden, which is in line with staying put at the murder site and bluffing his way out. We know that Nichols went on to bleed for many minutes, around twice as long a time as suggested as the likely one by two forensic specialists. We know that he disagreed with what a serving PC claimed he said, and we know that this disagreement involved claiming on Lechmeres behalf that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row (something that would tell PC Mizen that the carman had been sent by his fellow PC, clearing Lechmere), that the errand was not severe, and that Lechmere did not tell Mizen that he himself was the finder, all working from the assumption that Mizen told the truth. We furthermore know that he said he left home at around 3.30 and that this should have had him in Bucks Row at around 3.37, not 3.45. We know that Paul only professed to noticing Lechmere as he himself arrived outside Browns Stable Yard, although he had walked behind his fellow carman down Bucks Row for a longish time and stretch, with a lamp burning outside Schneiders Cap Factory. We know that Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up, although Robert Paul had told him that he felt a faint heartbeat or faint breathing within her body. We know that he walked straight through the Spitalfields killing fields on his workdays. We know that he had his mother staying together with his daughter very close to the Berner Street murder site. We know that he grew up in St Georges and had intimate knowledge of and many links to the area. If you find any of this exaggerated, then please explain why.

-So what we have is a large array of anomalies, potential lies and inconsistencies clinging to the carman, which is exactly what the police are looking for. Nobody can deny this, all that can be done is to provide an equally large array of excuses for the carman; "Oh, he probably used that name at work" (no proof provided), "Mizen probably was the liar" (no proof provided), "There were so many people passing through Spitalfields" (but one only was found standing close to a freshly killed Ripper victim) and so on, and so on.

Far from me exaggerating the case, I would instead say that I have never seen such a very strong case denied by so many posters who had so very little to say when it comes to argumental weight. It is thinner than air. The top of Everest would feel over oxygenated in comparison.

So, to round off, does nsot you saying one thing and me saying another weigh equally much? No, it does not. Alternative innocent explanations are nothing but that - made up excuses - until they are proven to be the correct explanations. Before that happens, the suspicious material stays put. It goes nowhere - and it suggests guilt.

As a matter fo fact, we even have a well known QC and barrister who says that the case would warrant a modern day trial! And so you need another alternative innocent explanation to that one. And how to shape it? Ah, yes: Scobie was LIED to and provided with skewed and misleading material, don´t ya know?

This is and remains the pinnacle of the dubious, false and misrepresenting defense for Charles Lechmere provided out here. You make this claim and you have NOTHING to prove it. Not a scintilla of proof! Nichts, nada, rien, inget. And you think that Scobie would not have asked to see how he was represented before the docu aired!

It is as shameful and low an argumentation as can be found. Although it is of course not unique. The last year, another guy has shown how he works along the exact same line, a man called Donald Trump:

"I won that election. The other guy is not honest, he misleads us all!"

And, again, NO proof at all to show for it!

Can you see how that is the exact same reasoning that you apply to Scobie? Once an expert says that you are dead wrong, that expert has obviously been misled and lied to. Because like your infamous american counterpart, you cannot be wrong. If experts say you are, then THEY are wrong. Not you. NEVER you.

I have no interest at all in any further debate with you and those who reason along those same lines. It is a complete waste of time. Until the time comes that a sounder climate prevails on Casebook, I will not participate in any debates or discussions out here. What I may do is to present new finds out here - but never with the intention of discussing them with people who are not able to debate soundly.

So, Herlock, that should please you. You and the likes of you are now handed the chance to, well: Make Ripperology great again!

[Fisherman]

As those of you who read my post 5612 will gather, I am retracting from debating on Casebook until further notice. Whatever contributions I make will be new finds and suchlike, and I will in such cases not go on to debate the material until I find that the debating climate out here has changed for the better.

To those who struggle on with good and sound intentions, the best of luck. The truth tends to prevail, even though much work is produced out here to hinder it.

All the best!

PS. Dusty! Now you can claim that your questions finally became so very hard to answer that I decided to leave for good! You should be happy!!

PPS. My excuses if I leave something unanswered that deserved an answer. You can always contact me with a PM if that is the case.

[The Baron]

The moment Dusty came in here it became clear this will be the end of the lechmerians!




The Baron

[mpriestnall]

The moment Dusty came in here it became clear this will be the end of the lechmerians!




The Baron

Done and dusted?

[MrBarnett]

>>... 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<<

Yet Neil specifically mentioned the street light in the street and PC Lamb was specifically asked about the lighting in Berner Street.


>>One could construe, from the EN report of 7 Sept<<

The same newspaper that on Sept 1 said the lighting was poor in the street.

Looking at the Sept 7 report it says. "every tenant being an old inhabitant, and of good class. In addition to well-to-do artisans ..." whereas the Booth map lists the row of houses as being populated by the "poor".

Interestingly, this is the same newspaper that listed a neighbour on Berner Street, subject of much debate on another thread, with the same words, "apparently the wife of a well-to-do artisan".

I doubt the ‘good class’ was meant to mean middle class. It meant respectable working class.

The far more detailed Booth survey of late 1886 lists occupations such as:

Foreman
Manager of yard
Shop assistant
Caretaker
Engineer and railway man
Brass finisher
Tailor
Tailoress
Lamplighter
Farrier
Carpenter
Warehouseman
Bricklayer
Labourers

This was summarised as ‘fairly comfortable but poor’.


The EN assessment of Winthrop Street was rather dubious:

Winthrop-street, on the other hand, is very narrow and very dark, and tenanted by many of the worst characters in London, and there seems to be no doubt whatever that the murder was committed there, and the body brought round the corner and left a few yards up Buck's-row.

[Mark J D]

I doubt the ‘good class’ was meant to mean middle class. It meant respectable working class.

-- Do we (by which I mean you...) have a Booth or a Goad for Foster Street? I'm more than a little curious to know about this Paul fellow and how he was viewed...

M.

[MrBarnett]

-- Do we (by which I mean you...) have a Booth or a Goad for Foster Street? I'm more than a little curious to know about this Paul fellow and how he was viewed...

M.

Very rough apparently.

‘Poor class of people. Casual and migratory people.’

Should be ‘black rather than d[ark] b[lue] of map.’

[MrBarnett]

Annoyingly, the 1887 Booth comment for James Street is ‘much the same as last’ and the street immediately before, William Street, was ‘similar to Langdale Street.

Langdale Street was ‘ Decent working people on whole - 3 or 4 families poorer class Jews, others comfortable and some well to do.’

And as we know, the comment against the Lechmere household was ‘v. decent.’ There were only two positive comments in the whole street - Lechmere and his next door neighbour a carpenter at no. 22 were both ‘v. decent’.

[MrBarnett]

In 1887, the Lechmeres were the sole occupants of 20, James Street, occupying 6 rooms.

In 1891, CAL, his wife and 8 of his 9 children were living in 4 rooms in 22, Doveton Street. Another family were occupying 3 rooms at the same address.

You have to wonder how a carman with 9 kids managed to keep his family up to a ‘v. decent’ standard in James Street and could afford to rent a 6-roomed house - and whether the downsizing to Doveton Street was prompted by financial necessity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To say that the police did not find a scintilla of evidence against Lechmere is along the lines of how you always do your ripperology. If they did not look into him, that would provide a very good explanation, but why bother about such trifles, eh? Let´s instead make up a scenario where Lechmere was actually cleared in 1888!

All that I did Fish was to make a statement of absolute fact. Despite being alone with the body, which would of course have made him, initially at least, a person of interest, the Police held no suspicion or interest in Lechmere. If that had occurred today we would be saying “well the Police obviously looked into him and confirmed his story.” So I’ve just stated a fact. The Police at the time, with powers to question face to face; to check alibi’s; to investigate differing versions of events, times etc, did not believe that Lechmere was Nichols killer. Much as it might bother you it is nonetheless a fact.

You also hint at how I would have somehow led on that it would be dishonest to provide innocent alternative explanations. Of course that is also completely untrue, and likely shaped to misrepresent me as best as you can. I have never said such a thing at all, and the proof of that can be found on the boards. What I have said is that it is completely and utterly disingenuous to do so, since it is ALWAYS the case that circumstantial evidence can be provided with alternative innocent explanations.

And just because innocent explanations are always available it doesn’t call into question their validity. You’re the one who gets annoyed by them for some reason.

Otherwise, the evidence would not be circumstantial in the first place. And I have also said that there comes a time when it becomes a sign of lacking insight into matters criminal to provide innocent alternatives; once there is a mountain of things that need to be explained away, the by far likeliest explanation for that is that the suspect is guilty. And that is the only time that the element of dishonesty can enter the discussion, if somebody says that no matter how many pointers to guilt there are, if innocent alternative explanations can be provided, they are always the best explanation. Which is of course more or less what you do. So yes, there is a possibility that you are dishonest about it, but it may equally well be that you are just ignorant and fail to see how this works.

Dishonest or ignorant. Typical condescension. I know ‘how it works’ Fish. We all know how the ‘incriminate a witness’ plan works.

It is not for me to say what applies. This is, however, why I say that your view amounts to nothing. It is nothing but a simple statement that people are normally nice. And that is not a contribution that serves ripperology very well. It is a trivial and uninteresting presentation of a trivial fact that may well have no bearing at all on the Ripper case.

Trivialities like pointing out the fact that when Lechmere said that he’d left the house ‘about 3.30,’ you managed in both the documentary and your book to ‘forget’ the about part. Or how your quite happy to suggest that Lechmere might have been interrupted by Paul but for some ‘strange’ reason you take exception to the suggestion that Lechmere himself might have interrupted the killer. Nice to see that you can look and things from all angles and that you’re not biased at all.

You also accuse me of "the biggest case of exaggeration in criminal history"! So let me walk you through my case again, and we will see.

-Any person who is found at a murder site at the approximate time of death of the murder victim, and who cannot prove him- or herself innocent, are immediately persons of interest - GREAT interest! - if no other perpetrator can be found and if there are no obstacles for the person at hand to have done the killing. If you find this exaggerated, please explain why.

Ive never disputed this and you know it.

-If such a person as described above is identified by the police, they will look further into that individual. If you find this exaggerated, then please explain why.

And you might want to explain why this doesn’t appear to apply in Victorian times as you don’t appear to accept that the Police looked into Lechmere more than we’re aware of and had a damn good reason for exonerating him. And they did exonerate him of course.

-What the police will be looking for is anomalies, potential lies, inconsistencies and such in the persons behavior and testimony. If you find this exaggerated, then please explain why.

See above post.

-In Lechmere´s case, we know that he used a name that he otherwise never used with the authorities.

Which, if he had gained some kind of advantage from would be an issue, but he didn’t did he, so it’s not an issue.

We know that the wounds of Nichols were hidden, which is in line with staying put at the murder site and bluffing his way out.

Hold on. This is nonsense. The fact that the clothes were down could equally have been because the killer dropped the clothes back down when he heard Lechmere approach.

I’ll say it again Fish, I’ve lost count of how many times during Lechmere-related debates you’ve provided examples from serial killer history to make your point and yet you’ve still to provide an example of, a) a serial killer who, given the opportunity of fleeing, hung around to call over a passerby? Or b) a serial killer who butchers a woman in the streets on his way to work with around 15 minutes left to get there?

We know that Nichols went on to bleed for many minutes, around twice as long a time as suggested as the likely one by two forensic specialists.

But the suggested times were not exclusive. You ignore Dr Biggs of course. Bodies can bleed out for longer. Maybe shorter times do occur more often but this doesn’t preclude a longer time. Even a shorter time doesn’t particularly favour your case because because Lechmere could have disturbed the real killer which would still have meant a shorter bleeding time.

We know that he disagreed with what a serving PC claimed he said, and we know that this disagreement involved claiming on Lechmeres behalf that another PC was already in place in Bucks Row (something that would tell PC Mizen that the carman had been sent by his fellow PC, clearing Lechmere), that the errand was not severe, and that Lechmere did not tell Mizen that he himself was the finder, all working from the assumption that Mizen told the truth.

Disputed testimony impossible to prove either way. A hated innocent explanation is totally plausible.

We furthermore know that he said he left home at around 3.30 and that this should have had him in Bucks Row at around 3.37, not 3.45.

This is dishonesty. Pure and simple. You say ‘around 3.30’ then proceed to set the timing at exactly 3.30! How does that piece of twisted logic work. It was ‘about 3.30,’ which means an estimation and we should not try to narrow this down. It’s shoehorning. He could very easily have left the house at 3.34 and arrived at 3.42 or he might have left at 3.35 and got there at 3.43. The gap issue is a dishonest manufacturing of evidence against Lechmere. It should be conclusively and permanently crossed off any list of points in favour of his guilt.

We know that Paul only professed to noticing Lechmere as he himself arrived outside Browns Stable Yard, although he had walked behind his fellow carman down Bucks Row for a longish time and stretch, with a lamp burning outside Schneiders Cap Factory.

Another nothing point manufactured to shoehorn. None of us were there to judge how dark it was. Victorian street lamps were hardly modern day neon.

We know that Lechmere refused to help prop Nichols up, although Robert Paul had told him that he felt a faint heartbeat or faint breathing within her body.

Another nothing point. Many people are reluctant to handle a dead body. There’s just nothing suspicious about this.

We know that he walked straight through the Spitalfields killing fields on his workdays. We know that he had his mother staying together with his daughter very close to the Berner Street murder site. We know that he grew up in St Georges and had intimate knowledge of and many links to the area. If you find any of this exaggerated, then please explain why.

Not exaggerate, just irrelevant. Do serial killers only kill at locations of personal significance? Did Sutcliffe? Did Bundy? How many people walking around that area at any time wouldn’t have had local knowledge.

-So what we have is a large array of anomalies, potential lies and inconsistencies clinging to the carman, which is exactly what the police are looking for. Nobody can deny this, all that can be done is to provide an equally large array of excuses for the carman; "Oh, he probably used that name at work" (no proof provided), "Mizen probably was the liar" (no proof provided), "There were so many people passing through Spitalfields" (but one only was found standing close to a freshly killed Ripper victim) and so on, and so on.

Gap - should be crossed off the list, blood - should be crossed off the list, disputed statements - carry next to no weight, clothes pulled down - utterly meaningless, he was at that place - so was every single discoverer of a body.

You’re left with an empty sack.

Far from me exaggerating the case, I would instead say that I have never seen such a very strong case denied by so many posters who had so very little to say when it comes to argumental weight. It is thinner than air. The top of Everest would feel over oxygenated in comparison.

It’s a manufactured case. Created from manipulations, exaggerations and trivialities.

So, to round off, does nsot you saying one thing and me saying another weigh equally much? No, it does not. Alternative innocent explanations are nothing but that - made up excuses - until they are proven to be the correct explanations. Before that happens, the suspicious material stays put. It goes nowhere - and it suggests guilt.

Utter rubbish. The innocent explanations carry far more weight of reason than the manufactured sinister ones.

As a matter fo fact, we even have a well known QC and barrister who says that the case would warrant a modern day trial! And so you need another alternative innocent explanation to that one. And how to shape it? Ah, yes: Scobie was LIED to and provided with skewed and misleading material, don´t ya know?

If he was told that Lechmere left the house at 3.30 - and the evidence of the documentary points undeniably to that fact - then categorically he was misinformed.

This is and remains the pinnacle of the dubious, false and misrepresenting defense for Charles Lechmere provided out here. You make this claim and you have NOTHING to prove it. Not a scintilla of proof! Nichts, nada, rien, inget. And you think that Scobie would not have asked to see how he was represented before the docu aired!

Ask him how he would view the case against Lechmere using what Lechmere actually said. Remove the ‘gap’ and see what kind of ‘case’ exists against Lechmere. The ‘questions to answer’ have been answered.

You don’t have a single piece of evidence, not a single, solitary one that points to Lechmere’s guilt. Which is why the Police exonerated him.

It is as shameful and low an argumentation as can be found. Although it is of course not unique. The last year, another guy has shown how he works along the exact same line, a man called Donald Trump:

"I won that election. The other guy is not honest, he misleads us all!"

And, again, NO proof at all to show for it!

The documentary is proof. The book is proof. You deliberately omitted ‘about.’ This is highly significant and cannot be brushed under the carpet or ignored.

Can you see how that is the exact same reasoning that you apply to Scobie? Once an expert says that you are dead wrong, that expert has obviously been misled and lied to. Because like your infamous american counterpart, you cannot be wrong. If experts say you are, then THEY are wrong. Not you. NEVER you.

Ive seen the documentary and read the book - ‘3.30’ instead of ‘about 3.30.’ QED.

I have no interest at all in any further debate with you and those who reason along those same lines. It is a complete waste of time. Until the time comes that a sounder climate prevails on Casebook, I will not participate in any debates or discussions out here. What I may do is to present new finds out here - but never with the intention of discussing them with people who are not able to debate soundly.

Of course you won’t. Everyone knows from posting history that you conveniently disappear whenever your case is exposed.

So, Herlock, that should please you. You and the likes of you are now handed the chance to, well: Make Ripperology great again!

It would please me if people with theories and suspects could retain a balanced view of things. This is often not the case though. You see everything in terms of ‘guilty’ and then treat those that disagree as idiots. Experience has taught me and others about your posting tactics. Your sitting on your high horse whilst manipulating that facts in favour of a guilty Lechmere. It doesn’t bother me at all that Lechmere is considered. We cannot eliminate him with facts but you can say this about almost every suspect. You should guard against gross exaggerations though. Which is what the case against Lechmere is.

[MrBarnett]

I hope this image is legible. If not, it’s bit clearer here (post 364) https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...;s-lair/page25


Although the Booth 1886 survey notebook has both James Street and Doveton Street as ‘purple’, the map clearly shows James Street as more prosperous/respectable.

The map of Jewish East London shows that CAL moved from a predominantly Jewish area to a predominantly non-Jewish one.

[MrBarnett]

It would please me if people with theories and suspects could retain a balanced view of things. This is often not the case though. You see everything in terms of ‘guilty’ and then treat those that disagree as idiots. Experience has taught me and others about your posting tactics. Your sitting on your high horse whilst manipulating that facts in favour of a guilty Lechmere. It doesn’t bother me at all that Lechmere is considered. We cannot eliminate him with facts but you can say this about almost every suspect. You should guard against gross exaggerations though. Which is what the case against Lechmere is.

Hi Mike,

I would say the police had obviously looked into someone and cleared them if there was evidence that they had done so. There is no such evidence in Lechmere’s case. Being truly objective in these matters is not always easy.

Gary

[MrBarnett]

Looking more closely at the Jewish East London map (ca 1900) and the censuses etc you can see the area where Lechmere grew up - Pinchin Street/Mary Ann Street - remained largely non-Jewish while the streets around James Street became progressively more so.

(Deep red = least Jewish; dark blue = most Jewish)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Mike,

I would say the police had obviously looked into someone and cleared them if there was evidence that they had done so. There is no such evidence in Lechmere’s case. Being truly objective in these matters is not always easy.

Gary

Hello Gary,

But what official records do we have of the Police’s investigations?