Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Doctored Whatsit]

The way I read it, DW, is that he wasn't necessarily at the gate all the time, but that he went there to speak to the two men, at which point he had opportunity to look in the direction of the murder spot. I imagine that his responsibility as a night watchman included the whole area at the rear of Brown & Eagle's, too, so, he may very well not have been at the gate the whole time, that way not listening for or hearing any sounds in Buck's Row.

Cheers,
Frank

What you say is quite logical, of course, but it isn't what the nightwatchman actually said. He said that he heard nothing and was wide awake. That is in keeping with his being in earshot all of the time, and feeling the need to defend himself by claiming not to have dozed off. If your version of events is correct, he surely would have said that he heard nothing but was on a fairly distant patrol much of the time.

The fact that he heard nothing, a policeman nearby at the railway heard nothing, local residents awake at the time heard nothing, and the general consensus was that it was a quiet night is, I think, a very important point. A woman was murdered in a quiet street, people should have heard something and are adadmant that they didn't. This is why, on every Lechmere thread I stress this and then point out that Harriet Lilley explains this by telling of the muffled whispers and groans when a goods train passed by. This is the only logical explanation of why nobody else heard anything, and it sets the murder at 3. 30 am, when Lechmere says he was just leaving his house. It makes no sense that he started off ten minutes earlier, murdered Nichols at 3. 30 am, and was still standing there at about 3. 40 am when Paul arrived.

There is no evidence that Lechmere did anything wrong, and there is clear evidence that he appears to be innocent.

[FrankO]

While I appreciate that the watchman felt that he would have seen the body at 20 metres if it had been there, his notion was only an assumption as the body wasn't there. I was unable to see a shape of any description at 18 metres, and a replica body was there. My preconceived notions at the time, which were similar to yours, were all shown to be incorrect by my observations, so I am confident that cognitive dissonance was not a factor.

Hi George,

If what the newspaper wrote is true, the watchman actually said that “there was no body lying in the stable gateway”. To me, that would mean that he was able to see that there was nothing lying there. Furthermore, the snippet would corroborate what Lechmere himself said according to the Echo of 3 September:
“As I got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse, I saw someone lying at the entrance to the gateway. It looked like a dark figure.”

So, you may want to treat it as ‘only an assumption’ on the part of the night watchman, I put a little more stock in it. I think that someone who was there on the very night of the murder, who knew the lighting conditions of the spot, who, apparently, looked in the direction of the murder spot and who corroborated what another person said with regards to the lighting conditions from his vantage point, should count for more than our ponderings on the subject, however interesting they may be. If anything, the testimonies of both witnesses should be part of those ponderings and any re-enactments. Anyway, that’s how I see it.

Have a great ending of 2024 & a happy newyear in all senses!

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Imagine being the constable assigned to walking the Buck's Row beat the following night, or the following week (whether it was PC Neil or someone else).

Wouldn't human nature dictate that they would be keenly aware of the lighting every time they walked opposite the gate, and stared over at the spot?

I would think that if Lechmere's story of seeing the woman was wildly improbable, someone familiar with the street at 3-4 a.m. would have picked up on it.

Hi Roger,

If by 'seeing the woman' you mean 'seeing the woman from somewhere more than 4 metres away', then I agree with you.

All the best,
Frank

[John Wheat]

I still don't know when Lechmere was on the hook. There is absolutely zero evidence whatsoever that Lechmere murdered anyone.

[FrankO]

What you say is quite logical, of course, but it isn't what the nightwatchman actually said. He said that he heard nothing and was wide awake. That is in keeping with his being in earshot all of the time, and feeling the need to defend himself by claiming not to have dozed off. If your version of events is correct, he surely would have said that he heard nothing but was on a fairly distant patrol much of the time.

The thing is that we just can't know which possible explanation for not hearing anything is the correct one. Of course, if we assume that he'd been wide awake the whole time and heard nothing, then that may have been due to the goods train passing while the deed took place, just as you suggest, or it may have been due to the fact that he wasn't at the gate at that time and just wasn't listening for sounds in the street then. If the latter is true, I don't know if he would, necessarily, have added that he was on a fairly distant patrol, though. If he was doing rounds around the perimeter every now & then, he may not have remembered where he was exactly at any given time. Another possibility, of course, is that the murder of Nichols was simply very silent, just as Eddowes's seems to have been.

The fact that he heard nothing, a policeman nearby at the railway heard nothing, local residents awake at the time heard nothing, and the general consensus was that it was a quiet night is, I think, a very important point. A woman was murdered in a quiet street, people should have heard something and are adadmant that they didn't. This is why, on every Lechmere thread I stress this and then point out that Harriet Lilley explains this by telling of the muffled whispers and groans when a goods train passed by. This is the only logical explanation of why nobody else heard anything, and it sets the murder at 3. 30 am, when Lechmere says he was just leaving his house.

This would explain why nobody would have heard a thing, so in that sense it's a good point. It's a pity that the police didn't pick up on her account (as far as I'm aware) and put any stock in it.

It makes no sense that he started off ten minutes earlier, murdered Nichols at 3. 30 am, and was still standing there at about 3. 40 am when Paul arrived.

Entirely agree with you here, DW.

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Neil heard Thain in Brady St 110 yards away, but Neil had just discovered a body and his senses would have been heightened to what was happening around him. If Cross and Paul were walking, say, 50 yards apart, they walked 60 yards down Buck's Row without being aware of each other. Was this because they were so used to hearing other walkers on their morning journeys that other footfalls became white noise? The other alternative is that Cross wasn't walking when Paul turned into Buck's Row.

As far as Cross seeing Paul in the dark at a distance of 40 metres, the result of my experiments would not allow me to support that notion. If you can find a contained street, go there on a dark night and see what you can see. I dare say that, like myself, you might be surprised at what you can't see.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Loitering alone around dark streets where I live isn’t a sensible idea. Another thing to factor in I’d suggest is hearing. Neil might have had better hearing than Cross.

Here’s a question George (and I’m just about to head out so I can’t double-check at the moment, a question for anyone:

Can we be certain that Cross didn’t know that another man was possibly walking somewhere behind him? When people are being followed they offer aren’t sure if there’s someone there or not. They hear footsteps only sporadically especially if the distance that separates them is such that it’s on the border between being able to hear and not being able to hear. Cross is never asked whether he’d know of Paul’s presence, only that when he heard him he heard him when he was around 40 yards away. Given that Cross stopped and moved to the middle of the road this allowed Paul a bit of ‘catching up’ time which was when Cross heard him.

So how can we know that Cross wasn’t aware that (or suspect that) a man was walking somewhere behind him and probably in the same direction. He never mentioned it but he was never asked. Is there anything in the evidence that definitely proves this impossible or makes it unlikely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

An excellent idea, Hurley. I'll take the pledge along with you.

Here's to the New Year

Paddy

And to you Paddy

[Geddy2112]

No need to post anything that “ gets Lechmere off the hook and establishes his innocence.
There is a book a documentary and a Q.C that’s already done that to a high standard.

Yeah, they rather made a huge mess of that documentary. I think I found over 30 mistakes and it was only 42 mins long haha.



Sorry I was a fraction of a second late with the freeze frame but that says 'at 3:30' not the correct version which should say 'about 3:30' so it's clear Scobie Doo was lied to by whomever provided the 'evidence' to him. The narrator states:

It is highly unlikely that there will ever be the definitive proof to convict anyone suspect but James Scobie suggests the evidence drawn together by Christer [Holmgren] could take Charles Lechmere to a murder trial.

However Holmgren has always denied this and actually claims in one post it was Stow, regardless Scobie was definitely given a pack of lies to base his opinion on. Opps. Evidence suggests a lot of fibbing going on here...

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

If what the newspaper wrote is true, the watchman actually said that “there was no body lying in the stable gateway”. To me, that would mean that he was able to see that there was nothing lying there. Furthermore, the snippet would corroborate what Lechmere himself said according to the Echo of 3 September:
“As I got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse, I saw someone lying at the entrance to the gateway. It looked like a dark figure.”

So, you may want to treat it as ‘only an assumption’ on the part of the night watchman, I put a little more stock in it. I think that someone who was there on the very night of the murder, who knew the lighting conditions of the spot, who, apparently, looked in the direction of the murder spot and who corroborated what another person said with regards to the lighting conditions from his vantage point, should count for more than our ponderings on the subject, however interesting they may be. If anything, the testimonies of both witnesses should be part of those ponderings and any re-enactments. Anyway, that’s how I see it.

Have a great ending of 2024 & a happy newyear in all senses!

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I found the thread that contained your transcription of the Sunderland Daily Echo article. I was a little surprised at the extent of the errors and inaccuracies such as "the woman was found by two men, who at first supposed her to be drunk, but closer inspection showed first a pool of blood in the gutter just before her, and then the deathly whiteness of the woman’s face stained with blood. One of them remained by her, while the other found Constable Neil. ". It was also strongly promoting the discredited blood trail/killed elsewhere theory.

The report of the Cross's inquest statement in the Echo is at odds with the reports in other publications that refer to him saying that he saw something that looked like a tarpaulin.

The corroborations that I used for my ponderings were:

Emma Green in the Evening Standard - looking from her window only feet from the body:
Coroner: Did you see any body on the ground?
Witness: I saw something like a body but it was very dark at the time, and I could hardly distinguish it.

Neil at the Inquest:
I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east.
I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat.

Cross at the Inquest:
The Coroner - Did you not see that her throat was cut?
Witness - No; it was very dark at the time.
It's 10 minutes to midnight here. All the best for the New Year.

Best regards, George

[drstrange169]

Re Emma Green:

"Witness also saw the body of a person lying on the ground. It was, however, too dark for her to see who it was."
Echo

"She saw the body of deceased lying on the ground, but it was still too dark to clearly distinguish what had happened."
The Times

Purkiss, who was further away than Green, stated,

"He could see the deceased, and there were two or three men there besides three or four constables."
The Times

And Purkiss from the same Evening Standard edition as Green's testimony,

"I could see all there was to see from my window."

Happy 2025! (Hopefully)

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Loitering alone around dark streets where I live isn’t a sensible idea. Another thing to factor in I’d suggest is hearing. Neil might have had better hearing than Cross.

Here’s a question George (and I’m just about to head out so I can’t double-check at the moment, a question for anyone:

Can we be certain that Cross didn’t know that another man was possibly walking somewhere behind him? When people are being followed they offer aren’t sure if there’s someone there or not. They hear footsteps only sporadically especially if the distance that separates them is such that it’s on the border between being able to hear and not being able to hear. Cross is never asked whether he’d know of Paul’s presence, only that when he heard him he heard him when he was around 40 yards away. Given that Cross stopped and moved to the middle of the road this allowed Paul a bit of ‘catching up’ time which was when Cross heard him.

So how can we know that Cross wasn’t aware that (or suspect that) a man was walking somewhere behind him and probably in the same direction. He never mentioned it but he was never asked. Is there anything in the evidence that definitely proves this impossible or makes it unlikely?

Hi Herlock,

Happy New Year to you and yours my friend. I am sorry to hear that you live in a situation that makes going out at night a prospect that prompts caution. I am fortunate that I live in an area where this is not a matter for concern.

I do relate your question to my white noise alternative, but it really is a matter of what Paul may have seen and heard IF he was in fact walking 30-50 yards behind Cross, rather than what Cross heard. If there was, as Neil testified, only one gas lamp working on the night, and it was at the end of the row as he testified, it would be reasonable to assume that it was in the area of opposite the school building rather than the less relevant possibility that it was near the Roebuck. If such was the case one would wonder why Paul was not able to see a silhouette of someone walking in front of him and, given that the area was renown for muggings, why he would not have been on the alert for foot falls in front of him. Contrary to this possibility, Paul seemed to testify that he was unaware of anyone preceding him down the Row and was taken unawares by the figure that presented itself in the dark. One alternative is that he wasn't paying attention in an area that he nominated as subject to disrepute. However, we cannot reasonably discount the alternative possibility that the reason than he did not hear footfalls in front of him, or see any silhouette, was that Cross was not moving at the time. Presented as a "without prejudice" possibility.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Re Emma Green:

"Witness also saw the body of a person lying on the ground. It was, however, too dark for her to see who it was."
Echo

"She saw the body of deceased lying on the ground, but it was still too dark to clearly distinguish what had happened."
The Times

Purkiss, who was further away than Green, stated,

"He could see the deceased, and there were two or three men there besides three or four constables."
The Times

And Purkiss from the same Evening Standard edition as Green's testimony,

"I could see all there was to see from my window."

Happy 2025! (Hopefully)

Hi Dusty,

Happy 2025 to you too....and I share your "hopefully" reservation.

It seems that, as always, we are subject to different press reports as to the opinions of witnesses, and different perceptions as to what could and couldn't be seen.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Happy New Year to you and yours my friend. I am sorry to hear that you live in a situation that makes going out at night a prospect that prompts caution. I am fortunate that I live in an area where this is not a matter for concern.

I do relate your question to my white noise alternative, but it really is a matter of what Paul may have seen and heard IF he was in fact walking 30-50 yards behind Cross, rather than what Cross heard. If there was, as Neil testified, only one gas lamp working on the night, and it was at the end of the row as he testified, it would be reasonable to assume that it was in the area of opposite the school building rather than the less relevant possibility that it was near the Roebuck. If such was the case one would wonder why Paul was not able to see a silhouette of someone walking in front of him and, given that the area was renown for muggings, why he would not have been on the alert for foot falls in front of him. Contrary to this possibility, Paul seemed to testify that he was unaware of anyone preceding him down the Row and was taken unawares by the figure that presented itself in the dark. One alternative is that he wasn't paying attention in an area that he nominated as subject to disrepute. However, we cannot reasonably discount the alternative possibility that the reason than he did not hear footfalls in front of him, or see any silhouette, was that Cross was not moving at the time. Presented as a "without prejudice" possibility.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

A Happy New Year to you to.

I think that if we look at Cross and Paul’s individual statements it’s important that we take them as they were given. We could both speculate but there isn’t any hint there of either of them had or hadn’t previously been aware of the others presence.

Cross - He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement.

Paul - ..he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him.

No one was interested in whether they had previously been aware of each other’s presence for obvious reasons so we have no way of deducing either way. All the points that you’ve made though are entirely valid George and while I know that you certainly aren’t jumping to conclusions, I still think it’s worth us all being cautious as to what witnesses might or might not have seen or heard.

[The Baron]

He left just before 3.45 as per the inquest, he was in Bucks Row exactly 3.45 as per the interview - which is what would happen if he left just before that time - and whatever Abberline may have thought or felt, the fact remains that Swanson ultimately opted for the body being found at 3.45, as per his 19:th of October report.

Fisherman has a point, so what was Lechmere doing since he left home 3:20-3:30 ?!

Meditating?!


The Baron

[FrankO]

Hi George,

The report of the Cross's inquest statement in the Echo is at odds with the reports in other publications that refer to him saying that he saw something that looked like a tarpaulin.

And what would that mean? That he didn’t mention the gateway to the wool warehouse? Or that we should ignore that bit? I hope not.

There’s one version (carried by the Morning Advertiser of 3 September & the Evening Standard of 4^th), that says:
“As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side in the gateway to a w/tool warehouse.”

We know this isn’t true: Cross was walking on the north side and saw something lying on the south side. However, the Echo makes it clear why he actually mentioned the gateway to the wool warehouse.

“As I got to Buck's-row, by the gateway of the wool warehouse, I saw someone lying at the entrance to the gateway. It looked like a dark figure.”

I don’t know why the Echo failed to mention Cross thought it was a tarpaulin at first and went straight to ‘someone’ and ‘a dark figure’, but I have no doubt that he actually did mention the tarpaulin, just as I’m quite sure he mentioned that he was ‘by the gateway of the wool warehouse’ when he saw something lying.

And the snippet from the Sunderland Daily Echo happens to be the only snippet that corroborates what Cross says according to the Echo (with regards to what he was able to see from the gateway of Brown & Eagle’s), regardless of any inaccuracies that the SDE or the Echo also carry.

I think that, if we’re supposed to dismiss parts of articles based on the fact that the newspaper carrying the article reports inaccuracies outside of the snippet in question, then we might just about dismiss everything.

Of course, we don’t know if the bit about what the watchman is supposed to have said is accurate, a lie or wishful thinking on the part of the watchman or even a reporter’s invention, but it does corroborate what Cross says: that he was able to see well enough whether there was someone or something lying at the crime spot or not. I, for one, think that’s an important point and not something to dismiss lightly. But, that’s just me.

All the best!
Frank