Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

And Paddy reminded me of my list.

The nine things to swallow if you believe Lechmere’s was 100 % fully upfront about matters:

A. Lechmere not hearing Paul coming up from the rear, over the course of 1 minute, when PC Neil heard footsteps at almost 3 times the distance away along Buck’s row …. as just one of those things

B. Lechmere finally hearing Paul at an unlikely point - while his brain was processing visual info at the midpoint of the street: our brains doing a poor job of multitasking between visual and auditory information …… as just one of those things.

Links have already been provided showing that the science supports Lechmere. You ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away.

C. Paul, failing to include important information about seeing or hearing Lechmere in front, before Lech appeared by the body of Polly Nichols …. as just one of those things.

This is not evidence of Lechmere's guilt. It merely shows that Paul didn't think it was important enough to mention and neither the Coroner nor the Jury thought it was important enough to ask about.

D. Paul having to gain 15 - 20 yards on Lechmere, before Lechmere stopped, while walking up Bath street & Buck’s row - quite a bit, even though Lechmere’s average speed in order to make it to work on time would have been clearly faster than Paul’s …. as just one of those things.

* the case where Lechmere is too far ahead of Paul to spot him on Bath street.

E. The mood swings by Lechmere, from concern for the woman (enough to block Paul’s path), to callous indifference towards her plight, a minute later - leaving her lying there in an undetermined state without knocking people up, and then fortuitously encountering Mizen a quarter mile away…. as just one of those things.

These are speculation on your part, not evidence of Lechmere's guilt.

F. The use of the name Cross over Lechmere, when the court & legal system, by all indications, preferred that plaintiffs, accused and witnesses use their baptized surname, or their name on a birth certificate in official proceedings ….. and not the surname of a stepfather, even when that name was the one that they clearly preferred and used on a daily basis …… as just one of those things.

This has been repeatedly debunked long before you joined Casebook. You have been given links to multiple threads covering this.

G. Showing up at an important Victorian era social event, an inquest, in an apron sack, when raised by Ma Lechmere: the daughter of Thomas Roulson, butler to the Clive family for 35 years, and inheritor to his will, who married a member of a grand herefordshire family, the Lechmeres, and whose household in Tiger Bay was accorded the rating of a ‘v’ decent label …… as just one of those things.

This has been repeatedly debunked. Many examples have been given to you that people did not consider an inquest am important social event and showed up in every day, or even horribly shabby clothing.

You also badly misrepresent Charles Lechmere's status. He was a carman who grew up in tone of the worst parts of London. His father was a bootmaker who negligently got a police officer killed, went bankrupt, deserted the family to shack up with a teenager, and likely was an alcoholic. Maria Roulson was the daughter of an illiterate servant whose legacy to her and her sisters was probably long gone in the 40 years since her father's death. Her second and third marriages were to a police constable and a shoemaker. In between she was a struggling single mom, working prestigious jobs like bonnet maker, dress maker, horse flesh dealer, and corn chandler. Money was tight enough that even when married, she continued to work and was still working at age 77, a year before her death.

H. Lech discovering the body getting expunged from the oral history of the family ...... as just one of those things.

Evidence has been provided that there was no oral history of the Lechmere family. All this shows is that you are assuming a deliberate omission for nefarious reasons.

I. Lech's home address during his inquest testimony being reported by none, save one newspaper, when the general habit was to provide the home address of the witnesses bearing testimony, save officials .... as just one of those things.

It proves Lechmere gave his home address in open court even though he had the right to not state his address publicly. This is not evidence against Lechmere.

and then you have the misunderstanding between Lechmere & Mizen.

You omit that Robert Paul's testimony supported Lechmere and contradicted Mizen.

Your points are just another rehash of repeatedly debunked Lechmerian claims.

[The Baron]

A. Lechmere not hearing Paul coming up from the rear, over the course of 1 minute, when PC Neil heard footsteps at almost 3 times the distance away along Buck’s row …. as just one of those things

B. Lechmere finally hearing Paul at an unlikely point - while his brain was processing visual info at the midpoint of the street: our brains doing a poor job of multitasking between visual and auditory information …… as just one of those things.

C. Paul, failing to include important information about seeing or hearing Lechmere in front, before Lech appeared by the body of Polly Nichols …. as just one of those things.

D. Paul having to gain 15 - 20 yards on Lechmere, before Lechmere stopped, while walking up Bath street & Buck’s row - quite a bit, even though Lechmere’s average speed in order to make it to work on time would have been clearly faster than Paul’s …. as just one of those things.

* the case where Lechmere is too far ahead of Paul to spot him on Bath street.

Absolutely great 4 points there Newbie!




The Baron

[A P Tomlinson]

He was a delivery driver on a route.

Working part day means handing over the delivery route to whom, and where?
Your substitute intercepts you on your route (at Spitalfields?), and then you return later in the day to take over somewhere along commercial street?

Or do you just drive the cart back to Pickfords, and tell them you've got an inquest to attend and you'll comeback in the afternoon?

It was pretty well established somewhere here in casebook that a carman was expected to pay for his substitute if he attended the inquest.
Some here used that fact to explain why the carmen might try to avoid seeking out a PC.

See Robert Paul's 2nd interview with Lloyd's weekly to refresh your memory about missing out on pay.

If Lechmere went to his job early Mondy morning to explain about the situation ..... go back home, rest up,
and head off to the inquest later that morning, leaving behind your apron.

Unless its a good luck charm.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that your half arsed theory actually happpened, rather than the more likely scenario of him swapping shifts with someone, and explain how any of that is an indicator of guilt in the Whitechapel Murders and BINGO!
You have the very first piece of evidence against him!

[A P Tomlinson]

And Paddy reminded me of my list.

The nine things to swallow if you believe Lechmere’s was 100 % fully upfront about matters:

A. Lechmere not hearing Paul coming up from the rear, over the course of 1 minute, when PC Neil heard footsteps at almost 3 times the distance away along Buck’s row …. as just one of those things

> Yes. Police boots were loud. It wasn't called "Pounding the Beat" because of police brutality. Car men wore normal work boots, (not hobnail boots!)

B. Lechmere finally hearing Paul at an unlikely point - while his brain was processing visual info at the midpoint of the street: our brains doing a poor job of multitasking between visual and auditory information …… as just one of those things.

> It was quiet, not silent, they were about 350 feet from the busy Whitechapel Road, so there would have been low level ambiant noise. It wasn't the opening scenes from 28 Days Later.
If his not hearing Paul had been questionable or suspicious, someone at the INQUEST would have known that and pressed him on it. THEY lived that reality and would know whether he was talking bollocks or not.

C. Paul, failing to include important information about seeing or hearing Lechmere in front, before Lech appeared by the body of Polly Nichols …. as just one of those things.

> What important information? He probably saw glimpses of several people on his walk to work. It was VERY dark, and most would be mere silhouettes. If he had seen Lechmere from behind earlier, he has no way of knowing if they are the same person as one he has already seen. And he would have been recalling moments of peripheral vision from over two weeks prior.
If he HAD recalled seeing or hearing Lechmere earlier you lot would using that very point to mark his observations as being unreliable. "How could he tell WHO it was that far ahead, with his back to him, in the dark? Especially two weeks later... it's nonsense!" etc.

D. Paul having to gain 15 - 20 yards on Lechmere, before Lechmere stopped, while walking up Bath street & Buck’s row - quite a bit, even though Lechmere’s average speed in order to make it to work on time would have been clearly faster than Paul’s …. as just one of those things.

> When you understand how dark it was, and that no one would be clomping up a Street like Bucks Row at that time in the morning, this is irrelevant

* the case where Lechmere is too far ahead of Paul to spot him on Bath street.

E. The mood swings by Lechmere, from concern for the woman (enough to block Paul’s path), to callous indifference towards her plight, a minute later - leaving her lying there in an undetermined state without knocking people up, and then fortuitously encountering Mizen a quarter mile away…. as just one of those things.

> There is no change in his mood. This idea of waking people or shouting for help that people think he should have done... What good would it have done? Other than to piss off everyone in Bucks Row? No one had a phone. The most obvious course of action to somoene in 1888 would be to tell a police officer. Encountering a copper on the streets of London in 188 was not a matter of fortune it was simply a matter of time. NOT seeing one would have been unusual.

F. The use of the name Cross over Lechmere, when the court & legal system, by all indications, preferred that plaintiffs, accused and witnesses use their baptized surname, or their name on a birth certificate in official proceedings ….. and not the surname of a stepfather, even when that name was the one that they clearly preferred and used on a daily basis …… as just one of those things.

> This is the point I'm fairly sure you are either incapable of conceding anything or are just a troll. This has been shown to be false, and is now just the last vestige of the grasping at straws that might go down on Reddit or Facebook, but not in a group where the documentation is available to show how much of a straw man this is it is theweakest of points.

G. Showing up at an important Victorian era social event, an inquest, in an apron sack, when raised by Ma Lechmere: the daughter of Thomas Roulson, butler to the Clive family for 35 years, and inheritor to his will, who married a member of a grand herefordshire family, the Lechmeres, and whose household in Tiger Bay was accorded the rating of a ‘v’ decent label …… as just one of those things.

> See above/ You choose to ignore that Mizen was to identify him at the heraring, that many examples of people wearing work clothes in newspaper reports of inquests and hearings of the period exist, (and NONE are accompanied by an editorial note to the effect that it was unseemly to do so) you choose to think that he would have had to take the full day off work rather than the hour or two it would have taken to attend the inquest. As if his "Route" were one conitnuous 14 hour drive, or that if he had swapped shifts with someone at the depot, Pickfords would not have wanted him to come back in and found something else for him to do till his van came back in and he was able to recommmence his route.

H. Lech discovering the body getting expunged from the oral history of the family ...... as just one of those things.

> I don't understand this. It was public knowledge he found the body. it was in the papers. It in no way implicated him in the murder. It's only idiots who think that him using Cross as a name was a lie, therefore only the same people would consider this a problem. His family would have known, so if the tales round the family fireside of his violence DID exist, surely they would have been accompanied by, "AND he found one of Jack The Rippers Victims... makes you wonder..."
Has anyone ever asked them about George Lechmere? HE was in the papers giving his real/legal/true/registered/official name.
He may be the ancestor from that period who they were told about being violent. I mean if there were stories about Charles, there MUST have been family tales of old George... right?
(Ask Fiver...)

I. Lech's home address during his inquest testimony being reported by none, save one newspaper, when the general habit was to provide the home address of the witnesses bearing testimony, save officials .... as just one of those things.

> If that had been in any way contrary to norms the coroner would be the first to realise that, and simply have said, "...and can we have your address for the record!"
This is such a none point, the idea that the court itself would make such a basic, fundamental ****-up, and transposing that onto Charlie as a means to show his criminal genius is simply ridiculous.
If you think Wynne Baxter would have allowed such a glaring error in protocol, then I suggest you go read about some of the other cases he presided over and get a better idea of the man.
Baxter had only learned about this man from the Sunday papers having been told on the Saturday that PC Neil had found the body. If there were ANY impropriety in Cross' statement, evidence or appearance. Baxter would have been on it in an instant. He would certainly have made a sarcastic quip about his attire... IF IT HAD BEEN IMPROPER!

Besides, the newspapers had his address, so he must either have given it to the clerk of the court when he turned up at the inquest, or given it to a reporter.
Neither option suggests an attempt at hiding it.
If he gave it to a bloody reporter what did he think that reporter would do with it? And that would have been his easiest opportunity to lie and give a false address while not under the threat of perjury... Think it through!!!
The fact he didn't give a false address only backs up the point that giving his stepfather's surname was not an attempt at hiding his identity.

and then you have the misunderstanding between Lechmere & Mizen.

> So, Mizen misunderstanding him means he was lying? I don't get this, or how it suggests any evidence of guilt. This is EXACTLY the sort of nonsense point scoring I mentioned before.
The ecidence of Cross and Paul along with PC Neil announcing on the Saturday that HE had found the body shows the Police were not aware that it had been found by someone else. Who was the first Police Officer to know that it had? Mizen. The "confusion" is at best wholly on Mizen's part, or at worst, an attempt by Mizen to cover his arse for carrying on knocking and not hurrying to the scene.

None of this proves that he was the murderer or Jack the Ripper, but it does suggest strongly that ...

> None of this even suggests he might have commited any crime at any point, least of all the murder of five women, or in the case of the hard core nutters... ALL the women.
It suggests those who have been convinced of his guilt need to concoct all manner of wonderful stories to create even the possibility of the link to some sort of aberrant behaviour and thereby "Prove" that he was evil and that therefore he was Jack the Ripper.

A. he arrived at the body well before Paul

> Your twisting of it might do, but the reality of all those points certainly doesn't.

B. he was trying to hide the fact that he went to the inquest from people who only knew him as Charles Lechmere.

> Only to someone who refuses to accept that the points you have made are deeply, deeply flawed and have been shown to be so to the point where repetition of them displys a level of ignorance that's hard to believe.
You seriously... SERIOUSLY now... think that his family wouldn't have known that he also went by the name Charles Cross? I think that is possibly the most stupid part of the theory I've ever read. And that is some achievement considering the aboslute bobbins others have come out with.

- No home address provided at the inquest
- fails to use the name he most undoubtedly went by among his new neighbors
- comes to court dressed in a sack apron when he wouldn't be able to go out on his route that day,
and Paul expressly tells Lloyd's weekly that he lost days of work
- no history of him discovering Polly Nichols body in family oral history.
- his wife was illiterate and would get her information on newspaper stories from other people.

>Paul lost work because he was dragged out of bed by the police and held to attend the inquest more than a fortnight after the murder. Cross turned up on the first day he would have had the opportunity to, did his bit, then left.

and yet, we are accused of being brain washed conspiracy freaks .... Oop ack!

>I'm not going to argue with THAT. Have you ever stopped to wonder WHY?

And the most frustrating part is, that even if ANY of those points of concern you have WERE accurate, not one suggests any evidence of guilt. It's just about finding something that you can score a point with.

Now, if only you could just establish that any of your "What Iffery" had a grain of substance and then establish that point to an actual crime... you might be closer to actually finding one piece of evidence that even vaguelly SUPPORTS the idea that he may have murdered someone.

[Geddy2112]

For any carman paying for sex with a street prostitute, they would take the apron off... it would be an obvious encumbrance in that respect and it would be an encumbrance putting it back on in the dark.

Would they? And how do you know? Did they take it off every time they went for a pee as well? I personally would imagine they would just lift it up for both scenarios. However if you believe Charles Cross, Carman would have to remove his apron to murder Polly Nichols then you have just completely and utterly ruled him out as Jack The Ripper. 1) Because he did not remove his apron according to witnesses and 2) The mythical time gap which is required did not give him time to do so...

GAME OVER - INSERT COIN.

If a certain carman was a serial killer, disposed towards knifing a prostitute, and then disembowelling her:

A. he would take it off because that's what the prostitute would expect and he wouldn't want to prematurely alarm her

How do you know?

B. he would take it off to not get blood stains on it, and then use it to cover up the blood stains incurred in the act: although Christer believes the blood would be minimal and he'd only get it on his hands and cuffs... why not be cautious?

I suggest he would have kept it on for that very reason - again time!

C. he would take it off because when he kneeled it would roll a bit up and get in the way of his disembowelling, and blood would more easily get transferred to it.

Dear God...

[FrankO]

Hi Franko,

The double event was Saturday night .... so rule out looking for a carman in that one.
There were no people identified as possible suspects in the Polly Nichols murder, except poor leather apron ..... so rule that out.
Was there any credible witness to Mary Kelly's murderer? ..... that seems extremely shaky. Its not far fetched to rule that out,
and its not clear if it was a holiday.

That leaves only the Annie Chapman murder and the person identified by Liz Strong, who obviously was not a carman.

There is also information on suspects that didn't come out during the inquests, and that the police didn't reveal to the public that are now lost to us. There must have been a deluge of people coming forth with suspicious figures to the police and were summarily dismissed.

Would Annie Chapman and Polly Nichols have turned away a carman with his apron? Probably not.
Carmen were probably frequent customers, like many professions .... why assume otherwise?
I preferred not to imagine how carmen would perform the act, and if it required taking off the apron and putting it back on.

But now, it points to another small delay in the flight option of a carman on Buck's row ... which I hadn't really thought of before.


And btw.

Yes, the issue involving blood is a problem for Lechmerites.

Take the apron off before feigning the act, put it on after the murder to cover up.
Go to some private cubby at Pickford's for a shirt/pants change - that's the perks of being a devoted employee for 20 years.

Tell the wifey it got ripped to shreds and you need a new one.

An enterprising serial killer has options.

Hi Newbie,

You're missing the point. The fact of the matter is as I wrote: we know of no accounts of men looking like carmen who acted oddly with the ladies, no accounts of failed attempts by such men. Nor any witness in the cases of the Ripper victims who ever saw a man wearing an apron or looking like a carman.

In other words, no man looking like a carman can be linked to the whole Ripper case, other than Lechmere and Paul. No men looking like that reported as acting suspiciously with any woman, no reports of possibly failed attempts by any men looking like a carman, no reported 'suspects' looking like a carman in any of the Ripper murders (leaving out the murders of Stride & Eddowes).

So, if Lechmere's is supposed to have been Jack the Ripper, then we'll have to assume he very likely decided to not wear his apron any more on the nights he killed after Nichols.

The best,
Frank

[John Wheat]

Hi Newbie,

You're missing the point. The fact of the matter is as I wrote: we know of no accounts of men looking like carmen who acted oddly with the ladies, no accounts of failed attempts by such men. Nor any witness in the cases of the Ripper victims who ever saw a man wearing an apron or looking like a carman.

In other words, no man looking like a carman can be linked to the whole Ripper case, other than Lechmere and Paul. No men looking like that reported as acting suspiciously with any woman, no reports of possibly failed attempts by any men looking like a carman, no reported 'suspects' looking like a carman in any of the Ripper murders (leaving out the murders of Stride & Eddowes).

So, if Lechmere's is supposed to have been Jack the Ripper, then we'll have to assume he very likely decided to not wear his apron any more on the nights he killed after Nichols.

The best,
Frank

Hi Frank

While I think Lechmere is a ridiculous suspect. We don't know if any witnesses saw Jack and witnesses are notoriousulously unreliable.

Cheers John

[The Baron]

Hi Frank

While I think Lechmere is a ridiculous suspect. We don't know if any witnesses saw Jack and witnesses are notoriousulously unreliable.

Cheers John

Bury's beard comes to mind, right John?



The Baron

[John Wheat]

Bury's beard comes to mind, right John?



The Baron

We don't know if Bury had a beard in London.

[Geddy2112]

We don't know if Bury had a beard in London.

Sorry I'm laughing out loud at that statement if you know the 'alternative' use of the word 'beard'

[FrankO]

Hi Frank

While I think Lechmere is a ridiculous suspect. We don't know if any witnesses saw Jack and witnesses are notoriousulously unreliable.

Cheers John

Hi John,

While I completely agree with your second sentence, the point was that Lechmere looked like a carman to Mizen, so he was, apparently, easily recognizable as a carman. As we know of no carman-like men seen or, at least, reported in connection to the whole case or reported to have harassed or threatened women in the area during the period in question, it seems Lechmere either wasn't the culprit or, after Nichols, he decided to not wear his apron on the nights that he went to work with murder & mutilation on his mind.

As to witnesses being notoriously unreliable, I completely agree with that, unless there's a particular characteristic that stands out - like, for instance, an apron or not wearing a hat, being neatly & well dressed or being tall.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bury's beard comes to mind, right John?



The Baron

As you have absolutely no evidence that Bury had a beard at the time of the murders, and yet you want to eliminate him because he wore a beard at some points in his life, I wonder if you remember this?

”…he goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread out of the gutter and eats them, he drinks water from the tap & he refuses food at the hands of others. He took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He has not attempted any kind of work for years."

So here we have a man who was described as very dirty and who wouldn’t wash. Would a man like that have bothered shaving? I’d suggest that we can say with confidence that he wouldn’t have.

Therefore it’s likely to the point of certainty that for some periods Kosminski had a beard.

Therefore by your own thinking it makes it possible/likely that he had a beard around the time of the murders.

Therefore by your own thinking we can eliminate Kosminski.


So as long as you’re being constant and fair.

[The Baron]

As you have absolutely no evidence that Bury had a beard at the time of the murders, and yet you want to eliminate him because he wore a beard at some points in his life, I wonder if you remember this?

”…he goes about the streets and picks up bits of bread out of the gutter and eats them, he drinks water from the tap & he refuses food at the hands of others. He took up a knife and threatened the life of his sister. He is very dirty and will not be washed. He has not attempted any kind of work for years."

So here we have a man who was described as very dirty and who wouldn’t wash. Would a man like that have bothered shaving? I’d suggest that we can say with confidence that he wouldn’t have.

Therefore it’s likely to the point of certainty that for some periods Kosminski had a beard.

Therefore by your own thinking it makes it possible/likely that he had a beard around the time of the murders.

Therefore by your own thinking we can eliminate Kosminski.


So as long as you’re being constant and fair.

I only look at photos, if you have a photo of Kosminski then put it, your deductions, your suspects preferences are yours to deal with.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I only look at photos, if you have a photo of Kosminski then put it, your deductions, your suspects preferences are yours to deal with.



The Baron

It’s called cherry picking.

Show me proof that Bury had a beard at the time of the murders. Not years before or months later. A man can go from ‘not having a beard’ to ‘having a beard’ in a very few days. You are twisting reason, logic and evidence to suit the agenda that you’ve set for yourself. To eliminate Bury.

Most prefer an unbiased approach though.

[Fiver]

In other words, no man looking like a carman can be linked to the whole Ripper case, other than Lechmere and Paul.

John Davis, who found Chapman's body, was also a carman.