Evidence of innocence

[Dickere]

But in the absence of anything incriminating it is not enough to build a case against the man.

It's a good starting point.

[JeffHamm]

wrong. he was seen alone next to a freshly killed victim, and only raised the alarm when he saw paul coming close.
its unlike any other innocent witness not only in the ripper case, but in any true crime case ive ever heard.

Not quite Abby. He was seen standing in the middle of the street, while Nichols was found up against the gate on the pavement (sidewalk) at the side of the road, so he wasn't "next" to her, which implies he too was on the pavement at the side of the road with the body at his feet, making him much closer to her than Paul testified he was. Given the testimony, it appears more that Cross/Lechmere and Paul were within a minute of discovering the body simultaneously.

Also, given how close Paul was, given Cross/Lechmere doesn't even yet know if Nichols is in need of any assistance, he was not yet at a point where an alarm had to be raised; he needed to assess the situation. And he calls Paul over to help him do that. Between the two of them, they are concerned enough that they decide to alert the police, and they do. What more of an alarm should we be expecting? Is he supposed to raise a hue and cry for every drunk he passes in the street?

To look at it another way, in no other case do we have a witness who corroborates the events around the discovery of the body, we only have the testimony of one person, whose actions were not observed by anyone else (similar to how the murder was not observed by anyone else - "Coincidence? You decide. Film at 11:00." - sorry, old joke, just supposed to sound like a signing off from a news story there ). Anyway, failed humour aside, with Cross/Lechmere we actually have someone whose testimony is consistent with how Cross/Lechmere describes how he came across Nichols, and yet for some reason that additional evidence leads some to suspect Cross/Lechmere rather than recognize it as the one case where we have the discovery actually witnessed by another person! It's like less is more for the other cases, but with this one more is less.

Anyway, I get what you mean though, but the testimony by both Cross/Lechmere and Paul correspond so well, and any differences are minor and well within the sort of discrepancies two people will have when describing the same event.

- Jeff

[John Wheat]

It's a good starting point.

There is nothing else though. Lechmere is clearly an innocent man.

[Fiver]

pc neil was never seen alone with a victim before raising any kind of alarm and we know lech was thats the whole point. as a matter of fact i cant think of any case where an innocent witness was.

Unless PC Thain was blind, then PC Neil was seen alone with a victim before raising any kind of alarm. Thain would not have known anything was wrong unless Neill called him over, just like Paul would not have known anything was wrong unless Lechmere called him over.

[Fiver]

garys response makes perfect sense if lech was the killer. not just with old neighbors but with anyone. if he was commonly known as lechmere, using cross could help hide his identity whether he gave address or not.

He identified himself as Charles Allen Cross, carman for Pickford's at the Broad Street Station, who lived at 22 Doveton Street.

After that, who could possible suspect that he might be Charles Allen Lechmere, carman for Pickford's at the Broad Street Station, who lived at 22 Doveton Street?

The idea that using the last name Cross would fool anyone is ludicrous.

and underpants gnomes dont come up with this cunning plan, if you knew anything about the history of true crime, you would know that its common for criminals to use aliases to avoid detection. at least here in the real world.

Lechmere was making no attempt to avoid detection. He came forward voluntarily. He gave his correct home and work addresses. Using his stepfather's surname would do nothing to hide his identity from the police, the press, his employers, his coworkers, his family, his friends, or his neighbors.

[Abby Normal]

Not quite Abby. He was seen standing in the middle of the street, while Nichols was found up against the gate on the pavement (sidewalk) at the side of the road, so he wasn't "next" to her, which implies he too was on the pavement at the side of the road with the body at his feet, making him much closer to her than Paul testified he was. Given the testimony, it appears more that Cross/Lechmere and Paul were within a minute of discovering the body simultaneously.

Also, given how close Paul was, given Cross/Lechmere doesn't even yet know if Nichols is in need of any assistance, he was not yet at a point where an alarm had to be raised; he needed to assess the situation. And he calls Paul over to help him do that. Between the two of them, they are concerned enough that they decide to alert the police, and they do. What more of an alarm should we be expecting? Is he supposed to raise a hue and cry for every drunk he passes in the street?

To look at it another way, in no other case do we have a witness who corroborates the events around the discovery of the body, we only have the testimony of one person, whose actions were not observed by anyone else (similar to how the murder was not observed by anyone else - "Coincidence? You decide. Film at 11:00." - sorry, old joke, just supposed to sound like a signing off from a news story there ). Anyway, failed humour aside, with Cross/Lechmere we actually have someone whose testimony is consistent with how Cross/Lechmere describes how he came across Nichols, and yet for some reason that additional evidence leads some to suspect Cross/Lechmere rather than recognize it as the one case where we have the discovery actually witnessed by another person! It's like less is more for the other cases, but with this one more is less.

Anyway, I get what you mean though, but the testimony by both Cross/Lechmere and Paul correspond so well, and any differences are minor and well within the sort of discrepancies two people will have when describing the same event.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

Not quite Abby.

Quite.

He was seen standing in the middle of the street, while Nichols was found up against the gate on the pavement (sidewalk) at the side of the road, so he wasn't "next" to her, which implies he too was on the pavement at the side of the road with the body at his feet, making him much closer to her than Paul testified he was. Given the testimony, it appears more that Cross/Lechmere and Paul were within a minute of discovering the body simultaneously.

oh god, down the semantics rabbit hole we go. The street is next to the sidewalk is it not Jeff?. so if shes on the sidewalk and hes in the street, then hes also next to her. But if it makes you feel better, I can use the word near.

Also, given how close Paul was, given Cross/Lechmere doesn't even yet know if Nichols is in need of any assistance, he was not yet at a point where an alarm had to be raised; he needed to assess the situation. And he calls Paul over to help him do that. Between the two of them, they are concerned enough that they decide to alert the police, and they do. What more of an alarm should we be expecting? Is he supposed to raise a hue and cry for every drunk he passes in the street?

it makes no difference whether lech knows or not if she is in any need of assistance. she is in fact dead, or dying. and hes seen near her. and the point isnt that he should be screaming for help, its that hes seen before hes actually doing anything, except lingering near her, which obviously puts him in the frame for her murderer. cmon you know the point Im making. it aint rocket science. and he dosnt "call paul over" either. he waits till he approaches, blocks his way, and taps him on the shoulder. thats kind of odd too. and btw, after they check her out, they know shes in obvious need of help, and vulnerable.but what does lech do?-Oh late for work, if I see a copper Ill tell him. so spare me the "concern" lech showed.

To look at it another way, in no other case do we have a witness who corroborates the events around the discovery of the body, we only have the testimony of one person, whose actions were not observed by anyone else (similar to how the murder was not observed by anyone else - "Coincidence? You decide. Film at 11:00." - sorry, old joke, just supposed to sound like a signing off from a news story there ). Anyway, failed humour aside, with Cross/Lechmere we actually have someone whose testimony is consistent with how Cross/Lechmere describes how he came across Nichols, and yet for some reason that additional evidence leads some to suspect Cross/Lechmere rather than recognize it as the one case where we have the discovery actually witnessed by another person! It's like less is more for the other cases, but with this one more is less.

This is an astounding response Jeff, especially coming from someone whos usually very astute at reasoning. how you can turn an obvious guilt pointer of the person seen near a freshly killed victim into "more is less" (for innocence)is beyond me. first of all, a guilty person, once theyve committed the crime out in the open like this to their satisfaction isnt going to linger around and wait for someone else to show up nor go look for someone for help nor raise an alarm. they are going to skidaddle. the whole point with lech is that if guilty he was caught in the act and or froze for a moment and tried to then bluff it out. you know that. secondly, what paul does first is see lech lingering near a freshly killed victim. Lech is in the frame for being Pollys killer. FACT and end of. pointing out that they corroberate the rest is meaningless-of course they do theyre together from that point on lol!

Look im no Lechmerian,but there are facts here that are discrepencies and oddities that point to possible suspicion. Innocent explanations for it all? probably. but remain they do. No big wup. not sure why it sends the anti lechers into a tizzy and makes alot of them lose their normal good reasoning.

[Abby Normal]

He identified himself as Charles Allen Cross, carman for Pickford's at the Broad Street Station, who lived at 22 Doveton Street.

After that, who could possible suspect that he might be Charles Allen Lechmere, carman for Pickford's at the Broad Street Station, who lived at 22 Doveton Street?

The idea that using the last name Cross would fool anyone is ludicrous.



Lechmere was making no attempt to avoid detection. He came forward voluntarily. He gave his correct home and work addresses. Using his stepfather's surname would do nothing to hide his identity from the police, the press, his employers, his coworkers, his family, his friends, or his neighbors.

The idea that using the last name Cross would fool anyone is ludicrous

tell that to the thousands of criminals using and aliases over the years.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff



Quite.



oh god, down the semantics rabbit hole we go. The street is next to the sidewalk is it not Jeff?. so if shes on the sidewalk and hes in the street, then hes also next to her. But if it makes you feel better, I can use the word near.



it makes no difference whether lech knows or not if she is in any need of assistance. she is in fact dead, or dying. and hes seen near her. and the point isnt that he should be screaming for help, its that hes seen before hes actually doing anything, except lingering near her, which obviously puts him in the frame for her murderer. cmon you know the point Im making. it aint rocket science. and he dosnt "call paul over" either. he waits till he approaches, blocks his way, and taps him on the shoulder. thats kind of odd too. and btw, after they check her out, they know shes in obvious need of help, and vulnerable.but what does lech do?-Oh late for work, if I see a copper Ill tell him. so spare me the "concern" lech showed.



This is an astounding response Jeff, especially coming from someone whos usually very astute at reasoning. how you can turn an obvious guilt pointer of the person seen near a freshly killed victim into "more is less" (for innocence)is beyond me. first of all, a guilty person, once theyve committed the crime out in the open like this to their satisfaction isnt going to linger around and wait for someone else to show up nor go look for someone for help nor raise an alarm. they are going to skidaddle. the whole point with lech is that if guilty he was caught in the act and or froze for a moment and tried to then bluff it out. you know that. secondly, what paul does first is see lech lingering near a freshly killed victim. Lech is in the frame for being Pollys killer. FACT and end of. pointing out that they corroberate the rest is meaningless-of course they do theyre together from that point on lol!

Look im no Lechmerian,but there are facts here that are discrepencies and oddities that point to possible suspicion. Innocent explanations for it all? probably. but remain they do. No big wup. not sure why it sends the anti lechers into a tizzy and makes alot of them lose their normal good reasoning.

Hi Abby,

While my town might be next to the town where a murder occurs, that doesn't mean I'm next to the body. Cross/Lechmere was never seen next to the body until joined by Paul and they go to examine her together. He was, of course, near the body as being in the middle of the street was not far, but that doesn't mean he's next to it (which is to say beside the body). Also, as neither of them noticed her wounds, given their fairly lackadaisical search for the police, it seems clear neither really thought she was dead at the time. As such, their lack of great concern for her is because they seem to believe there's not much to be concerned about - she's probably just drunk and passed out. It may have seemed a bit strange, hence they harbour the notion he could be dead, but they probably didn't really believe that. When they find PC Mizen, again, they pass on their information but don't, at the time, act concerned if he doesn't rush off, again suggesting neither of them really think she's dead. When they find out later she was, then they go "Well, we thought she was", which of course is not quite true given their actions at the time suggest they thought she was passed out. They might have discussed the idea of her being dead, but it seems likely they both thought that unlikely at the time. But, hindsight is 20/20, and I think their bluster against PC Mizen after the fact reflects that they considered the possibility of her being dead, but their actions at the time indicate they didn't think that at all likely.

And he does "call Paul over". He doesn't yell to him, he waits for Paul to approach and asks him to check out the woman in the street. That's calling him over to the body to me, so who is playing the semantic card now, me or you or both of us? .

I'm not "anti-" anyone. I've said in the past that Cross/Lechmere is worth looking at. We've looked at him in minute detail, and in my view, none of the "suspicious" interpretations are plausible or reasonable suspicion, while the innocent explanations are by far the ones that more reasonably follow from what we know. The guilty stories all tend to hinge on word choice, like placing him "next" to the body when the evidence we have doesn't place him next to the body at all, he's in the middle of the street, meaning he's near the body at best. It would be even better if we could come up with an accepted distance, which we've tried to do in the past, and I think we had something in the range of 7 or 12 yards (I could be completely misremembering the numbers though). George tried some recreations, and felt the shorter was more consistent with his conditions, but we're dealing with so many unknowns it's hard to know how closely his conditions match the conditions of the day (always a problem, still a shout out to George for his efforts). And so, being seen in the middle of the street acting in a way that is consistent with finding the body isn't an indicator of guilt. Had he been seen crouched next to the body, sure, that would be different. Next to would be concerning, at some distance but near, not really a smoking gun. Given Paul is also coming down the street, he to was going to be near the body at some point even if Cross/Lechmere wasn't there; for all we know, others went by as well and either didn't notice her or didn't bother to check on her, so there may have been others pass near the body as well. This is what I mean, simply being near the body, in the area he was seen in, is not an indicator of guilt, but I do get that it does mean he's worthy of further examination.

With debates around Cross/Lechmere, I think word choice ends up very important to examine, in part because the presentation of the "cases for and against" entirely hinge upon word choice to describe the same evidence set. The whole case against him is semantics leading the interpretation of the evidence to allow for a desired line of speculation to emerge.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

While my town might be next to the town where a murder occurs, that doesn't mean I'm next to the body. Cross/Lechmere was never seen next to the body until joined by Paul and they go to examine her together. He was, of course, near the body as being in the middle of the street was not far, but that doesn't mean he's next to it (which is to say beside the body). Also, as neither of them noticed her wounds, given their fairly lackadaisical search for the police, it seems clear neither really thought she was dead at the time. As such, their lack of great concern for her is because they seem to believe there's not much to be concerned about - she's probably just drunk and passed out. It may have seemed a bit strange, hence they harbour the notion he could be dead, but they probably didn't really believe that. When they find PC Mizen, again, they pass on their information but don't, at the time, act concerned if he doesn't rush off, again suggesting neither of them really think she's dead. When they find out later she was, then they go "Well, we thought she was", which of course is not quite true given their actions at the time suggest they thought she was passed out. They might have discussed the idea of her being dead, but it seems likely they both thought that unlikely at the time. But, hindsight is 20/20, and I think their bluster against PC Mizen after the fact reflects that they considered the possibility of her being dead, but their actions at the time indicate they didn't think that at all likely.

And he does "call Paul over". He doesn't yell to him, he waits for Paul to approach and asks him to check out the woman in the street. That's calling him over to the body to me, so who is playing the semantic card now, me or you or both of us? .

I'm not "anti-" anyone. I've said in the past that Cross/Lechmere is worth looking at. We've looked at him in minute detail, and in my view, none of the "suspicious" interpretations are plausible or reasonable suspicion, while the innocent explanations are by far the ones that more reasonably follow from what we know. The guilty stories all tend to hinge on word choice, like placing him "next" to the body when the evidence we have doesn't place him next to the body at all, he's in the middle of the street, meaning he's near the body at best. It would be even better if we could come up with an accepted distance, which we've tried to do in the past, and I think we had something in the range of 7 or 12 yards (I could be completely misremembering the numbers though). George tried some recreations, and felt the shorter was more consistent with his conditions, but we're dealing with so many unknowns it's hard to know how closely his conditions match the conditions of the day (always a problem, still a shout out to George for his efforts). And so, being seen in the middle of the street acting in a way that is consistent with finding the body isn't an indicator of guilt. Had he been seen crouched next to the body, sure, that would be different. Next to would be concerning, at some distance but near, not really a smoking gun. Given Paul is also coming down the street, he to was going to be near the body at some point even if Cross/Lechmere wasn't there; for all we know, others went by as well and either didn't notice her or didn't bother to check on her, so there may have been others pass near the body as well. This is what I mean, simply being near the body, in the area he was seen in, is not an indicator of guilt, but I do get that it does mean he's worthy of further examination.

With debates around Cross/Lechmere, I think word choice ends up very important to examine, in part because the presentation of the "cases for and against" entirely hinge upon word choice to describe the same evidence set. The whole case against him is semantics leading the interpretation of the evidence to allow for a desired line of speculation to emerge.

- Jeff

hi jeff
i stopped reading after your first sentence. im not interested in engaging in this sort of silliness. like i said, i dont know what it is about lech that makes normally astute posters like you lose it.

[Fiver]

tell that to the thousands of criminals using and aliases over the years.

Congratulations on attacking a position I never held.

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
i stopped reading after your first sentence. im not interested in engaging in this sort of silliness. like i said, i dont know what it is about lech that makes normally astute posters like you lose it.

No worries Abby. But, for what it's worth, you might have written a different 3rd sentence had you read what I posted but of course, maybe you wouldn't have. Guess we'll never know.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Congratulations on attacking a position I never held.

oh i thought your position was

"The idea that using the last name Cross would fool anyone is ludicrous".

is not his name cross an alias? yes of course it is. was he more commonly known as Lechmere? seems like it. hence using the name Cross, he could fool people who only knew him as lechmere, into not knowing that he, lechmere, was involved in a murder.

but if this still is "attacking a position youve never held" please clarify, so I can.

[Fiver]

oh i thought your position was

"The idea that using the last name Cross would fool anyone is ludicrous".

That is my position. Your point that criminals do use aliases is irrelevant and does not refute my point in any way.

[Fiver]

hi jeff
i stopped reading after your first sentence.

And you think this makes Jeff look bad?

[Abby Normal]

That is my position. Your point that criminals do use aliases is irrelevant and does not refute my point in any way.

yes it does. destroys it actually.