The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fiver]

We can only judge by the video itself, and in it Scobie limited the case against Lechmere to only two issues. Firstly, that Lechmere supposedly behaved suspiciously (presumably in Buck's Row) and that the "jury would not like this"; and secondly and more emphatically, that there was an alleged "pattern of offending to which Lechmere is (both) linked geographically" and by "the timings."

Dealing with these points:

* Lechmere's words and actions were those of an innocent man or those of a criminal who repeatedly took stupid and unnecessary risks. None of them were suspicious.
* There was no "pattern of offending" in Lechmere's life.
* Lechmere was not "geographically linked" to any of the murder sites. Two took place along the route he walked to work, but it was also the route Robert Paul and probably dozens of other people walked.
* The timing of the Nichols murder does not hurt Lechmere. Lechmere's time estimate is supported by the testimony of three police officers.
* The timing of the Chapman murder helps Lechmere - it took place after he would have started work.
* The timings of the Stride and Eddowes murders help Lechmere. They would have required him to stay up 23+ hours or get up 3+ hours on his only day off.

All that Scobie's statement proves is that Scobie was given a mixture of falsehoods and speculation masquerading as fact.

[Fiver]

What we have out here is a community, where a substantial amount of the participators can or will not bring themselves to admit that a man who was found all alone and with no alibi, close to a murder victim who had had her throat cut to the bone, but who was nevertheless still warm, bleeding and seemingly faintly breathing, a man who kept his registered name from an inquest and who disagreed with and potentially lied to a serving policeman about what he had done and said, is a very good suspect!

Your statement misrepresents the facts and the views of everyone who disagrees with you.

There is no such thing as a "registered name". Charles Lechmere did not try to hide his identity. There are many examples of men using a different surname in court, including a witness at another Ripper inquest.

Robert Paul disagreed with PC Mizen before Charles Lechmere did. If Lechmere was lying, then so was Robert Paul. And you have been repeatedly asked for and repeatedly failed to provide any reason why Paul would lie to support Lechmere.

If there was only one murder, then Lechmere would be a good suspect. But the timings of the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders argue strongly against him being the killer. Lechmere's behavior also argues against him being the killer. His actions that night were either those of an innocent man or of a killer who repeatedly took stupid, unneccesary risks. Lechmere living three decades after the murders stopped argues against him being the killer. He also has no criminal history and the idead of him being able to hide trophy organs in a house swarming with small children is laughable.

[Fiver]

Alternative explanations to WHY Lechmere stood all alone right by an extremely freshly killed victim who still bled and breathed, to why he had geographical links to the murder sites, to why the victim had her wounds covered, to why he did not help prop her up, to why the GSG was on his way home, to why Paul did not see or hear him and why he did not hear or see Paul, to why he said he left home at around 3.30 but was in Bucks Row at around 3.45, to why he did not come forward un til Paul had spilled the beans in Lloyds Weekly, to why the Pinchin Street victim was found in Pinchin Street, to why there was a bloodstained apron up at St Philips, and so on, CAN be provided - but it is not until they are proven to be the correct explanations to all of these things that the suspicions go away.
And each and every one of the suspicious matters MUST be proven wrong, otherwise we have effective evidence to say that he was the killer.
]

* Charles Lechmere did not have "geographical links" to any of the murders. None were killed at his home, his workplace, the homes of relatives, the church he attended, or his favorite pub.
* Polly Nichols throat wound was never covered. Her abdominal wounds were covered by Robert Paul pulling her dress down.
* Not propping up Nichols body is a sign of Lechmere's innocence. Doing it would have been an excellent chance to have an innocent explanation for blood on his hands or clothes.
* The GSG was not on Lechmere's way home.
* Paul saw and heard Lechmere. We just don't know when or at what distance.
* Lechmere heard Paul behind him. Humans don't see things behind them, eyes are located on the front of the head.
* The testimony of three police officers puts Lechmere in Bucks Row at around 3:40am. There is no time gap.
* Lechmere went to the police before Paul did.
* Lechmere would have been at work when the Pinchin Street Torso was deposited. The arches were built well after Lechmere lived on the street. Lechmere has no known connection to Battersea Park, the Shelley Estate, or the Scotland Yard building.
* The bloodstained apron was found across the street from a hospital. It has no known connection to any murder or any suspect.

It's your theory. The burden of proof is on you. Your "evidence" is a mix of speculation and provably false statements. There is no evidence against Charles Lechmere.

[Fiver]

Alibi basically means ”elsewhere”. And there is no distance involved in the term. If you can prove that you were in the adjacent room to where a murder was perpetrated, you have an alibi - you were elsewhere. The same applies in Lechmeres case: his alibi is that he was on the northern pavement of Bucks Row and then moved into the middle of the road before Paul arrive - ergo, he was not at the murder site, he was elsewhere. However, an suggested alibi only becomes a real alibi when it is proven to be true. And Lechmeres claim cannogt be corroboraed by anybody, meaning that he has no alibi.

Based on your definition Charles Lechmere did not have an alibi for Polly Nichols murder. Based on that definition, neither did Robert Paul. Neither did PC John Neil. Or William Nichols. Or Walter Purkiss. Or Patrick Mulshaw. Or James Green. Or Sergeant Henry Kirby.

The only people in the area with a confirmed alibi are the three slaughtermen.

There are hundreds of Ripper suspects. Only a handful of them have alibis.

Yet you act as if Lechmere is the only man without an alibi.

[Fiver]

The blood evidence should be weighed up by experts, and the experts say that Nichols was likely to bleed for three to five minutes, although she could have bled for a longer period of time too, Ingemar Thiblin putting the max at 10-15 minutes. We therefore have two concurring experts who speak for a time of 3-5 minutes as being the likeliest.

Again, you inaccurately summarize your experts. Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes. James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes, based on you suggesting those numbers to him.

It then applies that she was pushing close to the maximum period suggested by Thiblin, and thst very much puts Lechmere in the crosshairs.

If people bled out as fast as you claim, then the most likely suspect is PC John Neil.

To boot, we have Paul being sure that he felt her breathe faintly.

That is a completely inaccurate description of what Robert Paul said.

"He knelt own to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead." - Robert Paul, 18 September 1888 Times.

"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul, 18 September 1888 Times.

Paul could not hear her breathing, but thought he might have felt it when he touched her chest while pulling down her skirt.

While it is not impossible per se that she was cut very shortly before Lechmere arrived, it is a set of information that does he carman no favors at all. And it deserves pointing out that it is NOT a question of Lechmere versus an identified man who was there at around 3.40. The fat of the matter is thare is no other man identified. Therefore, to dismiss Lechmere as the likely killer - which is in line with the evidence as per the above - we must rule him out in favor of a phantom killer, a man whose existence is not in evidence. It is and remains a suggestion to ditch a very obvious suspect in favor of no suspect at all, just a hunch that there MAY have been a different man there. Ask your local police statio. How that would have solved that equation, R J!

If Lechmere is the Ripper, then a "phantom killer" murdered Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. You don't insist that we must rule out Alfred Crow before considering that anyone else could have killed Martha Tabram. You don't insist that we must rule out John Davis before considering that anyone else could have killed Annie Chapman. You don't insist that we must rule out Lewis Diemshutz before considering that anyone else could have killed Liz Stride. You don't insist that we must rule out Edward Watkins before considering that anyone else could have killed Annie Chapman. You don't insist that we must rule out Thomas Bowyer before considering that anyone else could have killed Mary Kelly.

You assume a "phantom killer" for every murder except Nichols.

[Mark J D]

But it's different with Lechmere. Everything with Lechmere is an indication of guilt

Myself, I put it the other way round. Since the killer really is Lechmere, no correct interpretation of anything factually true will ever rule him out.

You're welcome.

M.

[John Wheat]

Myself, I put it the other way round. Since the killer really is Lechmere, no correct interpretation of anything factually true will ever rule him out.

You're welcome.

M.

Absolutely ridiculous post.

[The Baron]

It is almost unreadable, I even doubt this has a potential meaning either.



The Baron

[Fisherman]

So I am counting 22 posts from Fiver in then last few days, all intent on trying to dismiss the suggestion that Charles Lechmere was the Whitechapel killer. I have no intention of going through them all, but I have found a useful way to deal with Fivers misgivings just the same. The post that caught my eye, when I checked in here today, was Fivers last post 455. It is riddled with faults and misrepresentations and explicit cherrypicking, leaving out important material. Therefore, I am going to answer this post only, and then I am going to extrapolate and say that if Fiver cannot produce more truthful material than that of his post 455, I see no reason at all to engage in any discussion with him. It will have to be enough to step in at times and point out how he does his homework, and that is what I am about to do now. I am copying his post and I am adding my comments in red. There really is no other color for it. Here we go:


Originally posted by Fisherman
The blood evidence should be weighed up by experts, and the experts say that Nichols was likely to bleed for three to five minutes, although she could have bled for a longer period of time too, Ingemar Thiblin putting the max at 10-15 minutes. We therefore have two concurring experts who speak for a time of 3-5 minutes as being the likeliest.

Again, you inaccurately summarize your experts. Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes. James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes, based on you suggesting those numbers to him.

What Thiblin said - and it is in black and white in my book - was that he concurred with Jason Payne James that the likeliest bleeding out time would be in the interval between 3 and 5 minutes. What Jason Payne James said, was that the timings I suggested (3,5,7 and 9 minutes) could per se all be true, but he found the interval between 3 and 5 minutes the likeliest suggestion. So you are misleading badly here.

Originally posted by Fisherman
It then applies that she was pushing close to the maximum period suggested by Thiblin, and thst very much puts Lechmere in the crosshairs.

If people bled out as fast as you claim, then the most likely suspect is PC John Neil.

John Neil found the body around six minutes after Lechmere. Since 3-5 minutes of bleeding was what both experts suggested as the likeliest time of bleeding out, we can all see that Lechmere himself is by far the likeliest cutter. The only way Neil could be likely based on these experts, would be if Nichols had not been cut as Lechmere and Paul saw her. It would then require that Neil cut her at circa 3.51, a good couple of minutes after Lechmere and Paul left the body.
Anybody who thinks that this suggestion makes John Neil "the most likely suspect", be my guest!

Originally posted by Fisherman
To boot, we have Paul being sure that he felt her breathe faintly.

That is a completely inaccurate description of what Robert Paul said.

"He knelt own to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead." - Robert Paul, 18 September 1888 Times.

"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul, 18 September 1888 Times.

Paul could not hear her breathing, but thought he might have felt it when he touched her chest while pulling down her skirt.

Here is where things go from bad to worse. Fiver has cherrypicked the report from the Times to try and prove me wrong. But he has in the process forgotten a fair few other publications! So lets look at them and try to understand what happened:

He and the man examined the body, and he felt sure he detected faint indications of breathing. (Daily News, 18 Sept)

The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. (Daily Telegraph, 18 Sept)

He went and saw the woman lying right across a gateway. He felt her hands and face. They were both cold. The morning was very dark. The other man and he agreed that the best thing to be done was to tell the first policeman they met. He arranged the clothes as well as he could. He put his hand to the woman's breast and felt a slight breath, such a one as might be felt in a child two or three months old. (East London Advertiser, 22 Sept)

So here we get a VERY different picture, a picture that Fiver managed to keep from us. Here we have it on record: Paul DID feel certain that he felt the chest move! None of these articles question this in any way. So what did Paul actually say? Did he or did he not tell the inquest that he felt sure about it?
Well, if he did not, why would the papers say that he did? Have a look at the quote from the East London Observer above, and the explanation will be readily at hand. FIRST Paul says that he felt the hands and face and found them cold. This would also have been the moment described in Fivers quotation from the Times above, where Paul says he could feel no breath. And this was his FIRST impression - but it gave way to another impression when. he felt the chest move. And nowhere does this become clearer than in the Times, where Fiver gave us two cherrypicked snippets, but forgot to tell the whole story. Luckily, I can amend that mistake, so we may see how Fiver does his work. Here it is:

Witness went with him, and saw a woman lying right across the gateway. Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach. Witness felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met. He could not see whether the clothes were torn, and did not feel any other part of her body except the hands and face. They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen. While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement. (Times, 18 Sept)

Heureka! There it is - Paul FIRST felt the hands and face and found them cold, upon which he knelt down to check for brat, but could not feel any. He then concluded - on seemingly good grounds - that the woman was dead. These chosen snippets is where Fiver puts his emphasis. But as we read on, we find that Paul said that as he prepared to leave the body and go search for a policeman, he fancied he felt a slight movement within the chest of Nichols. Here, Fiver presses the point that the Times quotes Paul as saying that he "fancied" he felt a movement. But the Daily News says that he felt sure about it! So what is correct? My suggestion is that coroner Baxter, on hearing about that slight movement, asked Paul if he was sure about this - a question the coroner would be more or less obliged to ask - and then Paul confirmed that he WAS sure about it.

We may also see that in his summary, Baxter referred to Pauls view of this, when describing how long Nichols would have been dead when Paul examined her with Lechmere:

She was only just dead, if life was really extinct. Paul says he felt a slight movement of her breast, and thought she was breathing. (Daily News, Sept 24)

So Baxter took care to add Pauls observation to the scoreboard.

Now, summing this exercise up, who is correct on this score, Fiver - who claims that I am not telling the truth when I say that Paul was sure about what he felt - Or myself, who have no problems giving the FULL picture, without sweeping all important material under the proverbial rug?

There can be no two answers to that - it is in black and white in the papers that my version is covered by the recorded inquest material.


Originally posted by Fisherman
While it is not impossible per se that she was cut very shortly before Lechmere arrived, it is a set of information that does he carman no favors at all. And it deserves pointing out that it is NOT a question of Lechmere versus an identified man who was there at around 3.40. The fat of the matter is thare is no other man identified. Therefore, to dismiss Lechmere as the likely killer - which is in line with the evidence as per the above - we must rule him out in favor of a phantom killer, a man whose existence is not in evidence. It is and remains a suggestion to ditch a very obvious suspect in favor of no suspect at all, just a hunch that there MAY have been a different man there. Ask your local police statio. How that would have solved that equation, R J!

If Lechmere is the Ripper, then a "phantom killer" murdered Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly. You don't insist that we must rule out Alfred Crow before considering that anyone else could have killed Martha Tabram. You don't insist that we must rule out John Davis before considering that anyone else could have killed Annie Chapman. You don't insist that we must rule out Lewis Diemshutz before considering that anyone else could have killed Liz Stride. You don't insist that we must rule out Edward Watkins before considering that anyone else could have killed Annie Chapman. You don't insist that we must rule out Thomas Bowyer before considering that anyone else could have killed Mary Kelly.

You assume a "phantom killer" for every murder except Nichols.

Another falsely and misleading on Fivers behalf - He says that I don't insist on how a number of people must be ruled out before considering (and "considering is the wrong term here, it is about legal suspect viability) that somebody else could have killed the respective victims these people are coupled to. His intention is - obviously - to lead on that I treat Lechmere unfairly and with a bias.

What I am saying is that somebody who is found all alone with a very freshly killed murder victim, so freshly that the person found with the body may well be or is even likely to be the killer, where there is no sign of any other killer and no obstacle for the person found with the body to have been the killer, MUST be ruled out before any other suspect can be brought to justice. Actually, that was also the exact thing that Andy Griffiths worded in The Missing Evidence documentary - no legal case can be put forward against any other suspect until Lechmere is cleared, because otherwise, the defence for the added suspect would have a walk in the park. All they would need to to would be to point at Lechmere and say "What about him, then?" And Griffiths would know about these things.

Now, when it comes to Fivers claims, is it true that I do not say that we need to rule the people he lists out before we can consider somebody else? No, it is not, because the rule I am pointing to does not specifically belong to the Nichols murder and Lechmere only - it is universal: ANYBODY who is found with a victim under the circumstances that Lechmere was, HAS to be ruled out before other suspects can be accused in legal proceedings. And the people Fiver offer vary a good deal in viability:

Crow likely saw the body of Tabram, but that was at 3.30, well after Tabram would have died, according to Killeen. Plus he voluntarily offered that knowledge, knowledge that he could have kept from the police if the killer. Does he compare to Lechmere? Not at all.

Davis found Chapman hours after Phillips thought she died. He too brought them matter to the attention of others, without having to do so. And he had a family who could presumably vouch for him. Does he compare to Lechmere? Not at all.

Diemschutz was heard arriving at the yard by Fanny Mortimer. He too called upon assistance, without having to do so. And he was in Dutfields Yard when Eddowes was killed. Does he compare to Lechmere? Not at all.

Watkins also contacted somebody (Morris) when finding the body, although he did not have to do so. He had a beat that would have disabled him to do the other killings. Does he compare to Lechmere? Not at all.

Bowyer found Kelly long after she died. And he immediately contacted McCarthy about it, although he did not have to do so if he was the killer. Does he compare to Lechmere? Not at all.

All of the people above are also people who have NOT been found to keep their registered names from the authorities, who are not recorded as having disagreed with the police about their doings on the murder occasions and so on. So in this context too, they do not compare to Lechmere.

So in all of these five cases, there is ample space for shoving them aside in favour of any suspect that was found. They would not send in the way of the possibilities of getting a conviction, the way Lechmere would effectively have done for any other suspect of himself. A simple "What about him, then?" would have ended any effort in that direction on the Nichols murder, whereas that does not apply for any one of the five people Fiver disingenuously suggests as parallels to the carman.

If anybody wonders why I have no interest at all in reading Fivers other 21 posts, here is the answer: Because he is anything but truthful, because he misrepresents what I say time and again, and because he leaves out all important evidence that he dislikes, even if that evidence actually proves beyond doubt that he is wrong. Of course, that may well be the primary reason he DOES leave it out in the first place.

That is not how we should do ripperology. None of us. I find it as sad as I find it outrageous.

[The Baron]

But is is of course completely honorable، fair and commendable to accuse persons that are no longer among us to defend themselves of being the infamous Jack the Ripper and the Torso murderer, that is how all of us should do the f.... ripperology.



The Baron

[Fisherman]

But is is of course completely honorable، fair and commendable to accuse persons that are no longer among us to defend themselves of being the infamous Jack the Ripper and the Torso murderer, that is how all of us should do the f.... ripperology.



The Baron

If somebody is convinced that a killer of a number of innocent people has been identified, I would see more problems with clamming up about it than with presenting the case. And I would see even more problems if somebody tried to interfere with that decision. It is interesting how Lechmere only has people lamenting this decision, while other suspects, some of them mentally challenged and poor people, evoke no such motherly affections.
I note how you do not criticize Fivers antics, going instead for me being heartless and cruel.
We all have different takes on what goes, dont we?

[Lewis C]

If somebody is convinced that a killer of a number of innocent people has been identified, I would see more problems with clamming up about it than with presenting the case. And I would see even more problems if somebody tried to interfere with that decision. It is interesting how Lechmere only has people lamenting this decision, while other suspects, some of them mentally challenged and poor people, evoke no such motherly affections.
I note how you do not criticize Fivers antics, going instead for me being heartless and cruel.
We all have different takes on what goes, dont we?

The killer hasn't been identified, so I don't like anyone claiming that he has been whether they claim that he was Lechmere, Sickert, Pedachenko, or whomever.

Given the nature of The Baron's criticism, why would he criticize what Fiver posted when Fiver didn't even name a suspect?

[Abby Normal]

The killer hasn't been identified, so I don't like anyone claiming that he has been whether they claim that he was Lechmere, Sickert, Pedachenko, or whomever.

Given the nature of The Baron's criticism, why would he criticize what Fiver posted when Fiver didn't even name a suspect?

hi lewis

fiver has posted in the past a list of other people who "are better suspects than lechmere" including james hardiman and even another man named lechmere lol and several others which are frankly ridiculous on the face of it, meanwhile obsessed with attacking fishs lechmere, a perfectly valid suspect, to the point where he has fishs and another lechmerians quote as his sigs.

(he does however make many good points amd counterpoints and is usually a good and knowledgeable poster.)

and take a quick look at barons posts on this thread to get an idea of the quality of his arguments, or lack therof, so iwouldnt weep for him either.

[Fisherman]

The killer hasn't been identified, so I don't like anyone claiming that he has been whether they claim that he was Lechmere, Sickert, Pedachenko, or whomever.

It is up to anybody who has a suspect to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to claim that they think that the killer has been identified. As long as one admits that there is no conclusive proof for it, I myself prefer to be completely honest about my take on things. Lying about it is no option for me, nor is clamming up about it. I call it as I see it, and I expect no less from other posters.

Given the nature of The Baron's criticism, why would he criticize what Fiver posted when Fiver didn't even name a suspect?

Because what Fiver posted was an array of false claims, misrepresentations and cherrypicking, obscuring the full picture. What I suggested was that these kinds of things would be better to criticize. I stand by that too.

[John Wheat]

Because what Fiver posted was an array of false claims, misrepresentations and cherrypicking, obscuring the full picture. What I suggested was that these kinds of things would be better to criticize. I stand by that too.

But the case against Lechmere is based on false claims, misrepresentations and cherry picking.