Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman:


He just happened to find Nichols.

Everyone who finds a body ‘just happens to find a body.’

She just happened to bleed for many minutes after he left her.

How do you know how long she bled for? You don’t know when she was killed.

She just happened to be the only Ripper victim with the damage hidden by the clothing.

She was the only one called Polly Nichols too. Can you find anything more irrelevant.

Paul just happened to arrive at the perfect moment to supply an alibi.

Unless you’re suggesting that Cross somehow planned this then you’ve just made yet another glaringly pointless point. Can’t you see this Baron? Everyone else can.

He just happened not to see or hear Lechmere, 30 or 40 yards in front of himself.

Cross had no control over that either. Do you know how loud Paul’s footsteps were? Do you know how good Cross’s hearing was?

Lechmere just happened to feel and touch the body of Nichols - and he just happened to decline to help prop her up when Paul suggested it.

Now, in a previous post you admitted and accepted that we get different versions of this because in another paper it says that Paul refused to prop her up. Now you are becoming a true Lechmerian. You are doctoring evidence. Fisherman and Stow would be proud of you.

He just happened to disagree about having told Mizen that a second PC was in place in Bucks Row.

So when two people disagree you assume a lie?You also assume which one was right.

He just happened to disagreee with Mizen about whether or not he told the PC that it was a grave errand.

What are you talking about?

He just happened to leave out that he was the finder himself when speaking to Mizen.

They told Mizen that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row. How could it matter to Mizen which one of the two had actually found the body. This is the worst kind of desperation just to increase your number of ‘points.’

He just happened to traverse the exact small area where the Spitalfields murders took place.

Because that’s where he lived and worked. If the murders had occurred in the West End and Cross had been discovered there at the time of one of the murders then that would have been interesting. Your point isn’t in the slightest.

He just happened to have all sorts of links to the exact area where Stride died.

He was a local man. Is it an unknown fact that serial killers only kill at locations where they have links to? Someone forgot to tell Peter Sutcliffe and Ted Bundy and…well, most serial killers actually.

He just happened to use the name Cross with the police and inquest, whereas he otherwise ALWAYS used Lechmere in any contacts with the authorities.

You can’t prove that. In another post you mentioned the carriage accident as involving Cross. So that negates your point straight away. If he’d gained some advantage from using the name Cross then you might have had a point. But he didn’t…so you don’t.

He just happened to give a departure time that should have seen him halfways down Hanbury Street at 3.40, not to speak of 3.45.

Cross gave an APPROXIMATE time. So if he left the house at say 3.32 he gets to Bucks Row around 3.40 which is when the body was found…not at 3.45. This is another bit of Fisherman evidence twisting for the terminally gullible.

He just happened to surface at the second day of the inquest - after Pauls interview in Lloyds

And your point is? He turned up. That’s all that matters.

- To add to this excellent list of Fisherman…that you said were all nonsense.



It just happened that he was spotted alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman

Because he’d found a body. People who find bodies are always near that body at some point unless you would have expected him to have found the body from 200 yards away using ‘night sight’ binoculars?

It just happened that Paul detected what he thought a faint breath

And?

It just happened that he didn't tell Mizen that the woman looked as if she was outraged

And? Neither did Paul either. Was he the ripper too?

It just happened that while they were by the body he heard a policeman coming and left the scene

That you mention this is utterly contemptible. You’ve taken one press report that was clearly in error and ignored the inquest reports. Are there no depths that you won’t stoop to Baron. I suppose not now that you are in league with Fisherman and Von Stow.

It just happen that his true name remained unknown for more than 100 years

Might have something to do with no one looking into it until 100 years later. Please come back if you have something relevant.

It just happened that he didn't notice any blood or the wide open eyes

Neither did Paul. Was he the ripper too.

It just happened that he was involved in an accedent that killed a boy

A) so people who are involved in accidents are more likely to be murderers. It’s a new one on me. And B) under the name of…..Cross

It just happened that he chose to wait and look at the body and wait for Paul and take him to examine the woman, even though he was behind time

Are you really trying to make this huge point for his innocence into a point for his guilt? Surely not? I’m not even going to explain why that’s a joke.

It just happened that he didn't dress up for the inquest

It was an inquest…not a dinner dance at Downton Abbey. Not one single person has been able to explain what is suspicious about his wearing his work clothes to an inquest. I bet PC’s Mizen, Thain and Neill were wearing their work clothes too. Perhaps they should have slipped on the top hat and tails?

It just happened that Nichols was not seen with anyone that night before he was spotted near her dying body alone in the dark

Why do you keep saying ‘it just happened?’ Either no one saw her or if anyone had seen her they might not have wanted to get involved. People at the lower end of society weren’t all big fans of the police.

Tonight Baron I ‘just happened’ to have lamb chops for my evening meal, then my brother ‘just happened’ to call round,’ then I ‘just happened’ to do a bit of reading whilst listening to music. About half an hour ago I ‘just happened’ to have a glass of Jura whisky. It must seem to you like I ‘just happened’ to have a very suspicious evening?


The Baron

I can see why you don’t actually debate points Baron. It’s because you can’t. You just keep posting stuff like the above. But I tell you what I do expect Baron…and what we should all now expect. When Fisherman returns you need to offer him a heartfelt apology for all of the times that you have said that Cross is a terrible suspect and when you have specifically accused him of invention.

I look forward to reading it.

[The Baron]

Lechmere is a person of interest, he was there, and it is perfectly reasonable to look further into him.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you suddenly think this because?

[Fiver]

Lechmere is a person of interest, he was there, and it is perfectly reasonable to look further into him.


The Baron

Agreed. Anyone who finds a body needs to be investigated. But the case against Lechmere is built out of irrelevancies, assumptions, and outright lies, There is no evidence against him.

[Fiver]

Fisherman:


He just happened to find Nichols.

That is no more suspicious than any of the other men who found a victim.

She just happened to bleed for many minutes after he left her.

If people bled out as fast as Fisherman claimed, then the most likely killer is PC Neil.

She just happened to be the only Ripper victim with the damage hidden by the clothing.

This is provably false. Nichols throat wound was never covered. Her abdominal wounds were covered by Robert Paul pulling her dress down.

Paul just happened to arrive at the perfect moment to supply an alibi.

So how is this a point against Lechmere?

He just happened not to see or hear Lechmere, 30 or 40 yards in front of himself.

You repeating a false statement does not make it true. Paul was never asked and never stated what distance he saw and heard Lechmere at.

Lechmere just happened to feel and touch the body of Nichols - and he just happened to decline to help prop her up when Paul suggested it.

Robert Paul did a lot more touching the body than Lechmere. Refusing to touch the body points towards Lechmere's innocence. A guilty man would have jumped at an innocent explanation for blood on his hands or clothes.

He just happened to disagree about having told Mizen that a second PC was in place in Bucks Row.

Irrelevant. This has no bearing on who killed Nichols.

He just happened to disagreee with Mizen about whether or not he told the PC that it was a grave errand.

He just happened to leave out that he was the finder himself when speaking to Mizen.

He just happened to traverse the exact small area where the Spitalfields murders took place.

Which makes Lechmere exactly like Paul. Your double standard is noted.

He just happened to have all sorts of links to the exact area where Stride died.

This is provably false. Charles Lechmere had no links to Dutfield's Yard or the International Working Men's Educational Club.

He just happened to use the name Cross with the police and inquest, whereas he otherwise ALWAYS used Lechmere in any contacts with the authorities.

We have one census and a inquest that prove your statement is false.

He just happened to give a departure time that should have seen him halfways down Hanbury Street at 3.40, not to speak of 3.45.

If he left exactly at 3:30am, to be halfway down Hanbury at 3:40am would require a walking at 6mph, which is laughable. But Lechmere did not give an exact time.

He just happened to surface at the second day of the inquest - after Pauls interview in Lloyds

Showing up for the inquest points towards Lechmere's innocence. Neither Mizen nor Paul knew who he was.

- To add to this excellent list of Fisherman

It just happened that he was spotted alone in the dark near a freshly killed woman

You are just an inaccurately restating of one of Fisherman's points.

It just happened that Paul detected what he thought a faint breath

Irrelevant. It tells us nothing about who killed Nichols.

It just happened that he didn't tell Mizen that the woman looked as if she was outraged

Which makes Lechmere exactly like Paul. Your double standard is noted.

It just happened that while they were by the body he heard a policeman coming and left the scene

This is provably false.

It just happen that his true name remained unknown for more than 100 years

Irrelevant. It tells us nothing about who killed Nichols.

It just happened that he didn't notice any blood or the wide open eyes

Which makes Lechmere exactly like Paul. Your double standard is noted.

It just happened that he was involved in an accedent that killed a boy

You just proved that Fisherman's claim that "he otherwise ALWAYS used Lechmere in any contacts with the authorities" is false. And that you knew it was false when you tried to use it as evidence against Lechmere.

It tells us nothing about who killed Nichols.

It just happened that he chose to wait and look at the body and wait for Paul and take him to examine the woman, even though he was behind time

This still points towards Lechmere's innocence.

It just happened that he didn't dress up for the inquest

People didn't dress up for inquests.

It just happened that Nichols was not seen with anyone that night before he was spotted near her dying body alone in the dark

Irrelevant. It tells us nothing about who killed Nichols.

[Geddy2112]

Seriously Baron this is getting rather tedious. 99.999% of Fisherman's posts since 2012 regarding Lechmere have been debunked many many times. Why keep dragging them up?

[A P Tomlinson]

Lechmere is a person of interest, he was there, and it is perfectly reasonable to look further into him.


The Baron

And what has been uncovered by all the further looking into him that has been done down the years?
ANYTHING that suggests he was violent, mentally ill, psychotic, had any sort of unsavoury "vices", a drunkard, a wife beater, a thief, a misogynist?
NO...
We have... what? The best these periods of "further looking into" have revealed has been, "Well, you can't prove any of it ISN'T true!" and a relentless pressing of the non-evidence like "He lied about the time he left for work..." as if it's the Rosetta Stone of crime

There is no "Theory" there are a few "notions" that aren't backed up by anything of substance.
A Theory requires substance. Something tangible that can support the initial idea.
Not just "Well, he MIGHT have had time to step back from the body before Paul saw him."

Just demonstrate ANY of the accusations without making it up. Support the "What Ifs" with something of substance that shows that he ever committed a crime. That would at least be a start!

All you lot do is create lists of trivia in the hope you can score just ONE point so that you can then claim that winning that one point validates the entire "case" against him. None of which suggest that the man killed anyone.

[Geddy2112]

If anyone has access to the required data can anyone find at least one person from anyone of the following streets who in 1888 or thereabouts were listed as a carman? (Or let me know the best way to do so...)

Collingwood Street
Fellbrigg Street
Bath Street
Darling Row
Lisbon Street
Devonshire Street
Buckhurst Street
King Street
Key Street
Oxford Street
Octagon Street
Coventry Street
Faith Street
Northampton Street.

Many thanks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lechmere is a person of interest, he was there, and it is perfectly reasonable to look further into him.


The Baron

I’ll re-phrase that.

Cross, as the person that found the body, would always be a person of interest requiring further investigation. In modern investigations someone like him would be dismissed quickly as they are easily investigated and exonerated. The issue with Cross, and any long dead witness for that matter, is that we have almost no chance of finding an alibi so we cannot categorically eliminate them. This isn’t a point in favour of Cross because it applies to every person that found a body whilst alone. So we are left to look for other facts which might point toward or away from a likeliness that he might have been the killer. Therefore Cross has to be considered and treated like other witnesses. We ask questions.

Question - At the time of the murder was Cross at a location where his presence might be questioned. To put it another way, would it be reasonable to ask: “what was he doing in Bucks Row at that time of the morning?”

Answer - No. He was in a street where we would have expected to have found him 6 days a week at around that time.

Question - Could he have been at the scene earlier than he claimed?

Answer - Yes, it’s not impossible but this is another point which would apply to all witnesses who discover a body whilst alone. To be suspicious of Cross we would need evidence that led us to believe that he was possibly/probably there earlier but no such evidence exists. ‘Might have been’s’ are useless if presented as evidence.

Question - Is there anything about Cross as a person which might suggest that he might have been the type of person to commit murder?

Answer - Absolutely not. Everything that we know about Cross speaks of a very normal, average man.

Question - Were Cross’s actions on discovering the body at all suspicious?

Answer - Clearly not. If guilty he had a very easy opportunity to escape but he waited for a complete stranger to arrive, introducing many, completely unnecessary personal risks. This alone screams out ‘innocent.’

Question - Were his actions around the body in any way suspicious?

Answer - Not at all. We also have to remember that he had someone with him who wasn’t a ‘collaborator,’ so how suspicious could he have been without Paul becoming suspicious (and Paul had already stated that he was nervous in that situation and had tried to walk on - surely he’d have been alert to anything suspicious from Cross?) The question of the prop is moot because we have conflicting newspaper reports but even if Cross refused there can be nothing suspicious about a man not wanting to handle a body.

Question - Was there anything strange about his decision on finding the body?

Answer - Absolutely not. There were two of them there so it’s difficult to be certain who made the decision but the decision to head to work and speak to a Constable on the way is entirely normal. This was a time when most streets were covered by Constable’s on beats.

Question - So what about the confusion with what was said to Mizen?

Answer - These kind of things happen all the time, every second of every day. When they occur near to a body being found some people go into ‘conspiracy’ mode and weave plots around them. It was an inconsequential misunderstanding and nothing more.

Question - What about the fact that Cross gave his step-father’s surname instead of his surname.

Answer - Research has amply shown that this was far from unusual at that time but the question in this case can only be ‘did Cross, if guilty, gain any advantage from using Cross?’ The answer is categorically no. This is a complete red herring which shouldn’t keep getting mentioned but when someone is utterly desperate they often scrape the bottom of every barrel.

Question - Apart from the fact that he didn’t escape when he had the opportunity is there anything else that points away from Cross’s guilt?

Answer - Yes. In crime cases we often look at precedents as potential guides. Fisherman does it when it suits him to do so. So can we find any examples of a serial killer murdering 20 minutes or so before being due at work and with a distance still to walk? No we can’t. Can we find an example of a serial killer killing at a spot that he was known to have passed 6 days a week at the same time. No we can’t. Can we find an example of a person finding a body brutally murdered in the street and the finder turned out to have been the killer? No we can’t. And can we find an example of a serial killer, with the opportunity of escape, who decides to wait for a stranger to arrive knowing that he has the bloodied knife concealed on his person? No we can’t.

This would make Cross a unique serial killer ….or an innocent man.

Simple choice….innocent. Not a single reason to suspect him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And what has been uncovered by all the further looking into him that has been done down the years?
ANYTHING that suggests he was violent, mentally ill, psychotic, had any sort of unsavoury "vices", a drunkard, a wife beater, a thief, a misogynist?
NO...
We have... what? The best these periods of "further looking into" have revealed has been, "Well, you can't prove any of it ISN'T true!" and a relentless pressing of the non-evidence like "He lied about the time he left for work..." as if it's the Rosetta Stone of crime

There is no "Theory" there are a few "notions" that aren't backed up by anything of substance.
A Theory requires substance. Something tangible that can support the initial idea.
Not just "Well, he MIGHT have had time to step back from the body before Paul saw him."

Just demonstrate ANY of the accusations without making it up. Support the "What Ifs" with something of substance that shows that he ever committed a crime. That would at least be a start!

All you lot do is create lists of trivia in the hope you can score just ONE point so that you can then claim that winning that one point validates the entire "case" against him. None of which suggest that the man killed anyone.

The bigger question AP is “why until very, very recently was The Baron constant mocking and deriding Fisherman and his suspect?”

Thats the question that he won’t answer because he knows what his own motive really is and it’s not to have a fair-minded look a person as a suspect (because he’s already done that and dismissed him) It’s simply a wind-up. Nothing more. Just like the attempt to dismiss Bury as a suspect by assuming that as long as a person had a beard at some point in their lives then he must always have had a beard.

[jmenges]

This thread is being locked pending Admin review.

JM