The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Scott Nelson: OK, fine. Just to reiterate my opinion without going into detail: Charles Cross is an excellent suspect for the murder of Polly Nichols.

You ARE aware that this is a deeply controversial stand, are you not? I mean, I am ever so grafeful for every sound voice, but there is soundness and there is etiquette...

If you try to push it to Annie Chapman, it's somewhat feasible in my opinion.

Since they were both killed along a track we know the carman used? Yes, that is true. Technically, we need to rate the viablity in a falling line: Nichols - Chapman - Kelly - Tabram - Stride - Eddowes for this exact reason. I fully agree with that.

Beyond that (further murder victims), it's very questionable.

It IS questionable. Then again, I think we can both agree that if we were to make the call that Charles Lechmere killed Polly Nichols, then it would follow that A/ a fair number or possibly all of the other named murders in this post of mine were probably by the same hand, and B/ this fair number (or all) were probably also killed by Lechmere.

The drawback is that we cannot place him at the other sites, but the advantage is that we can point to very logical and reasonable reasons for him to have been at the sites at the relevant hours. Stride and Eddowes are the weakest links, because they predispose that he had an interest to visit St Georges that we cannot know was a reality. The combination of his mother and daughter staying together in the vicinity is, however, a very good reason to assume that he had such an interest.

I would go as far as to say that there will realistically never be another suspect to whom logical reasons to have been present at all six sites can be ascribed.

BTW, you should solicit Ben Holm's opinion on the Charles Cross theory, if you haven't done so already. He's strangely (?) silent on it for some reason. I know he likes debating with you.

The last time I heard from him, he was researching one of those suspects who cannot be ascribed to more than (possibly) one of the murder sites on the correct day. Some George something, I really canīt remember...

Seriously, Scott, I am extremely grateful for your courage leading you to share your view on Lechmere and his viability as the killer of Polly Nichols. I may sound ironic and sarcasic in most of my posts, but I can honestly say that I am moved by your post. Thank you.

[Fisherman]

Well, thanks for all the compliments, Fish, but there was really no need. All you needed to say was that we don't know that Crossmere was the only witness in working clothes.

No, that was not all I needed to say.

[Abby Normal]

I have been asked to – once again – compile a comprehensive list of the points I and Edward find odd or suspicious when it comes to Charles Lechmere.
I present a list below, where the different points are not chronologically sorted, but instead given as a number of caserelated details to be looked upon one by one.

I am quite accustomed to how people can, for example, isolate point number 25 – where I point to how Lechmere lacked a father figure - and state that many men have grown up with no father figure and still managed to stay away from serial killing.
That is of course correct, but the point nevertheless adds to the overall understanding of the case, since there IS a clear correlation betwen lacking father figures and serial killings.

My recommendation is that all of the points are taken in before any judgment is passed. Are all of these matters likely innocent coincidences, or was James Scobie correct in saying that when the coincidences mount up, it will sooner or later result in one coincidence too many?

I will not go into any prolonged debates over isolated points, other than to explain matters if they need be explained. The reason I post this is to update the Lechmere case and I do it on the specific request of poster Patrick S.

I have tried to present all the points, but I may have missed out on one or two nevertheless, since there are many to keep track of.

Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

Number 3: As Lechmere approaches the body, he has Robert Paul walking right behind him, thirty to forty yards away, so they are on the same, absolutely silent street. In spite of this, neither man professes to have seen or heard the other. And we know that John Neil heard his colleague Thain walk past the Buckīs Row/Brady Street crossing – 130 yards away! Was it a coincidence that Paul did not hear Lechmere? Or was that due to Lechmere not having walked in front of Paul, but instead having been engaged in cutting away at Nichos as Paul entered the street?
Note how a remark from Paul that he saw and heard Lechmere in front of him, ”There was this man walking right in front of me who suddenly halted outside Browns...”, would have meant that there could be no viable case for Lechmere as the killer.

Number 4: Lechmere must have passed up at the Bath Street/Foster Street crossing at the more or less exact moment Paul exited his lodgings, thirty, forty yards down on Foster Street. There were large lamps outside the brewery situated in the crossing. In spite of this, Paul did not see Lechmere passing.
Had Lechmere already passed the crossing, a second or two before Paul stepped out into Foster Street? If so, why did not Paul at least hear Lechmere, perhaps only thirty yards away? John Neil heard John Thain one hundred and thirty yards off.

Number 5: Nichols bled from the wounds in the neck as Mizen saw her, around five, six minutes after Lechmere had left the body. A pathologist has told me that stretching the bleeding time beyond five minutes is not to be expected. If that is correct, then we are left with very little or no time for an alternative killer. It remains that there can always be deviations in bleeding time, but overall, it must be accepted that the longer time we must accept that the neck bled, the less credible the suggestion is.

Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

Number 7: Lechmere called Paul to the body, as if he wanted to see what they could do for the woman. But when Paul proposed that they should prop her up, Lechmere suddenly refused to do so.
It can be argued that much as Lechmere wanted to look as a helpful man trying to do what he could for the woman, he also knew that propping her up would immediately give away that she had had her neck cut to the bone.

Number 8: Lechmere arrived to the inquest in working clothes, thereby deviating from all other witnesses.
Our suggestion is that he used a false name and avoided to give his adress before the inquest in order to avoid having it known amongst his family and aquaintances that he had been a witness in the Nichols case. If this emerged, then he may have reasoned that there was a risk that his family and aquaintances would be more wary of any future connections to the coming murders. For example, as long as his family and aquaintances did not know about his involvement in the Nichols case, they would not react very much about the Chapman case a week later. But if they had been alerted to his role in the Nichols murder, then it may have seemed odd to them that the next victim should fall along his working route.
In light of this, he may have decided to go to the inquest in working clothes, so that he could give his wife the impression that he was instead headed for work.

Number 9: Lechmereīs fastest routes to work were Old Montague Street and Hanbury Street. The former was arguably a minute or two faster than the latter. Four of the murders happened along these routes or on a short-cut trailing off from one of them (Dorset Street).
There are thousands and thousands of streets in the East End. Lechmere could have had logical routes that excluded one or more of the killings. Instead he seemingly matches them all. Coincidence or not?

Number 10: All of these four murders may well have taken place at removes in time when Lechmere was heading for Pickfords, as far as the medicos given TOD:s are concerned. Coincidence?

Number 11: The Stride and Eddowes murders did not take place along his working routes, ruling out that he committed these murders en route to Pickfords. Instead, they are the only murders to take place on his night off, Saturday night. Coincidence?
If any one of these murders were to change places, Lechmere would be more or less ruled out. If Stride had died on September 8 at 1 AM, it would destroy the pattern pointing to Lechmere. If Kelly had been killed at 1 AM, the same would apply. If Eddowes had been killed at around 2 AM in Hanbury Street on a working day, the theory would be disrupted. Etcetera, etcetera – the fact that the locations, times and victims are all in line with the theory is a strong pointer towards Lechmere.

Number 12: The Stride murder is perpetrated in St Georges in the East, in the midst of the many houses where Lechmere grew up. Once the killings shifted from the Hanbury Street/Old Montague Street area, they could go north, west or east. They did not. They went south. And as they did, they could have gone into any of the areas south of the earlier killing zone. But they didnīt. They went into the exact area where Lechmere grew up and stayed for decades, before moving to Doveton Street. Coincidence?

Number 13: Lechmereīs mother was at the time of the double event living in 1 Mary Anne Street, a stoneīs throw away from Berner Street and directly to the south of the murder spot, meaning that if he had visited his mother, he would have to head north past the murder spot to get home.
It was earlier thought that she had lived in 147 Cable Street on this occasion, but she actually lived very much closer to the Stride murder site than so. We are dealing with less than a hundred yards, if I read the maps correctly.

Number 14: These two murders took place much earlier than the others, dovetailing well with the suggestion that he either visited his mother or searched out pubs in his old quarters – he had moved out a few weeks later only.

Number 15: The murders started in combination with how Lechmere moved away from the close proximity to his mother that had been a factor in all his life.
It can be argued that his mother was a dominant force in his life – she managed to bring her two children up singlehandedly until Lechmere was around ten year old (her husband, Charlesī father, had left the family), and then she married a ten year younger man. After his premature death, she remarried again,with a ten year older man. Both these marriages were bigamous. She also changed occupations on different occasions, all pointing to a strong and resourceful character.
It can be reasoned that the move to Doveton Street released dammed urges within Lechmere.

Number 16: Charles Lechmere gave the name Cross to the police, instead of using his real name. There are around 110 instances where we can follow the carmanīs contacts with different authorities. In all of them but one, he used the name Lechmere.
Is it another coincidence that he should swop to Cross when contacting the police in a murder errand?

Number 17: Charles Lechmereīs family came to be involved in the horse flesh business. His mother was a catīs meat woman, and his children opened a catīs meat business in Broadway market, where Lechmere himself had a stand.
This means that Lechmere would have had a proximity to the butchery business for many a year. And we know that handling dead carcasses can desensitise people.

Number 18: During the time Lechmere had a stand in Broadway Market, two dead women were found floating in Regents canal, passing through the market. Neither death was fully explained and the causes of death were not established.

Number 19: Charles Lechmere did not raise any alarm at the Nichols murder site. He waited until Paul tried to pass him, and only then placed his hand on his fellow carmans shoulder, saying ”Come and look over here ...”
He did not call out to Paul as the latter approached, and neither man contacted any of the dwellers in Bucks Row. They instead left Nichols lying and set out to work, professing to wanting to find a PC on their way.

Number 20: Charles Lechmere was stated to have told PC Mizen that another policeman awaited Mizen in Bucks Row, whereas he himself denied having said this at the inquest.
It is apparent from Mizens actions that he was under the belief that another PC did wait for him in Bucks Row. If he had not been told about the waiting PC in Bucks Row, he would have accepted that the carmen had found the body. It would therefore have sounded odd to him when Neil stated that he had found the body himself.

Number 21: The things Lechmere say at the inquest mirrors the wordings Paul used in his newspaper report to a considerable extent, implying that having read the article was what made him come forward. Coincidence?

Number 22: Lechmere only came forward after Paul had outed him in the newspaper article. Coincidence?

Number 23: Paul saw no blood under Nicholsī neck in spite of kneeling by her side and checking for breath. He saw her clothes and her hat, though.
Could it be that the cuts were so fresh that the stream of blood towards the gutter had not yet formed?

Number 24: In spite of Old Montague street being the shorter route, Lechmere took the Hanbury Street route after having spoken to Mizen, perhaps implicating that he wanted to avoid the Smith/Tabram murder route when the PC watched.

Number 25: Serialists regularly lack a father figure growing up. That fits Lechmereīs life. Coincidence?

Number 26: Lechmere seems not to have given his address in open court during the inquest. Coincidence?

Number 27: The quickest road from Berner Street to Mitre Square is Lechmereīs logical old working route from James Street to Broad Street. Coincidence?

Number 28: The Pinchin Street torso was discovered in a street where Lechmere has lived earlier with his family, and a very short route from 147 Cable Street where his mother, who became a catīs meat woman, had her lodgings. The body had been dismembered with a sharp knife and a fine-toothed bone saw, tools that were used by catīs meat people to cut up horses. Coincidence?

Number 29: The implications are that the Pinchin Street torso was carried manually to the dumping site.

Number 30: Charles Lechmere stated that he had left home at 3.20 or 3.30 on the murder morning. It takes seven minutes to walk to Browns in Bucks Row. He was found by Paul at around 3.46, standing close to the body.
He should have been outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.37, not 3.46, especially since he professed to being late for work. The probable thing is that he normally walked off at 3.20 (the trek to Broad Street is an approximate 40 minute trek and he started work at 4 AM), but that he said that he was ten minutes later that morning, starting out at 3.30.
Why was he outside Browns Stable Yard at 3.46? Was that also a coincidence?

Number 31: Lechmere said that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, but Mizen is clear in saying that ”a carman”, not ”two carmen”, contacted him on the murder morning.

Nice
NICE fISH
CLEAR aND C0NCISE

[harry]

Quite a long post Fisherman,unfortunately all of a negative nature as far as incriminating evidence is concerned.Had he given a name of Brown or Smith for instance ,one could accept him being evasive,but he furnished a name he was entitled to use.Yes he could have been the murderer if we stretch possibilities beyond the norm,but so could many others.Nothing abnormal about his telling of events.A man on his way to work who finds a body. What evidence dictates otherwise?

[Fisherman]

harry: Quite a long post Fisherman,unfortunately all of a negative nature as far as incriminating evidence is concerned.

So you donīt consider it in the least incriminating for a person to be standing beside a freshly killed victim where the blood is still flowing from the neck and where the coagulation is perfectly in line with this person having done the deed?

That is interesting. And revealing.

Had he given a name of Brown or Smith for instance ,one could accept him being evasive,but he furnished a name he was entitled to use.

And a name that he NEVER otherwise used when dealing with any authoritites, as witnessed about bu the more than hundred signatures we have where he is consistently called Lechmere.

Equally interesting and revealing.

Yes he could have been the murderer if we stretch possibilities beyond the norm, but so could many others.

No, he would arguaby have been the murderer because we do NOT have to stretch the evidence beyond the norm. If we DO strech the evidence beyond the norm - for example when it comes to the congealing of the blood - THEN we may have had an alternative killer.

Stretch away, Harry - be my guest.

Nothing abnormal about his telling of events.A man on his way to work who finds a body. What evidence dictates otherwise?

See the 31 points I listed.

[Abby Normal]

Hi again fish

I am especially intrigued by your point # 30.

It seems that lech has about 10 minutes unaccounted for. Which would also go to your other points about why the men did not see or hear each other earlier.
The points corroborate each other.

Lech said he was late, therefor he must have known what time it was and when he left home.

About 10 minutes is about how much time it would have taken to meet her, kill and cut her.


It's a strong point IMHO and I have often been struck by it ever since it came up.


To the point about whether lech would have taken off as soon as he noticed Paul and not stayed and try and bluff. Yes in more liklihood he would of, but perhaps not. I recently had an experience very similar.

I was walking to my car late at night after been in a bar. As I turned the corner into the small parking lot behind some buildings I came across a man standing over a downed man. He seemed somewhat startled and as I got closer he said go get some help. I said what happened he said I don't know I found this guy lying on the ground. I think he's been beat up. So I went back out on the street and found a cop and brought him back. The guy on the ground was getting up and the other guy was gone. It turned out the guy that told me to get help had knocked the other guy out with a brick and stolen his wallet.

So it does happen.The incident made me think of lech immediately and since then I have become more sympathetic to your case.

Keep it up fish and keep digging!

[Fisherman]

Hi again fish

I am especially intrigued by your point # 30.

It seems that lech has about 10 minutes unaccounted for. Which would also go to your other points about why the men did not see or hear each other earlier.
The points corroborate each other.

Lech said he was late, therefor he must have known what time it was and when he left home.

About 10 minutes is about how much time it would have taken to meet her, kill and cut her.


It's a strong point IMHO and I have often been struck by it ever since it came up.


To the point about whether lech would have taken off as soon as he noticed Paul and not stayed and try and bluff. Yes in more liklihood he would of, but perhaps not. I recently had an experience very similar.

I was walking to my car late at night after been in a bar. As I turned the corner into the small parking lot behind some buildings I came across a man standing over a downed man. He seemed somewhat startled and as I got closer he said go get some help. I said what happened he said I don't know I found this guy lying on the ground. I think he's been beat up. So I went back out on the street and found a cop and brought him back. The guy on the ground was getting up and the other guy was gone. It turned out the guy that told me to get help had knocked the other guy out with a brick and stolen his wallet.

So it does happen.The incident made me think of lech immediately and since then I have become more sympathetic to your case.

Keep it up fish and keep digging!

Hi Abby!

Different people see strenght in different points, of course. As I keep saying, the real strength lies in how it would to my eye be imposibble to amass a pile of circumstantial evidence this large pointing against you, without having done the deed.

The good thing is, that once you latch on to one point, you wil get curious about the others too. And then, at some stage, you need to start counting and ask yourself: Is it even remotely possible that he did not do it? Can a man have so much bad luck, to have ALL of these matters seemingly pointing to you...?

Thank you for he story about the robber, by the way. Yes, it does happen! And it does so on medical grounds to some extent, thatīs what I find fascinating. Itīs about that startle reflex; if the robber was a psychopath, then he would simply not prepare muscularly for flight when he heard you arrive. He would not panic, he would not get nervous. It is quite scary when you think of it!

[Harry D]

Look at it this way, Lechmere is found in close proximity to a murder victim. I have a feeling that he knew Nichols was dead and had been inspecting the body. That wasn't something he was going to let Paul in on, though, so he let the two of them 'discover' the corpse together. Fisherman would argue this was the act of a devious murderer covering his tracks, whereas it could be argued that Lechmere was worried about being fitted up for the crime. Before the days of modern science where suspects can be ruled in or out by forensics, it could've taken something as innocuous as Lechmere being stood over the body to land him in trouble. How was he to know? If I was in the same position, I'd daresay I might've acted the same way.

As for providing a false name, an ostensibly upstanding, family man like Lechmere probably didn't want his family to know that he had been involved in a police investigation after finding a dead hooker in a shady part of town. So yeah, although Lechmere's behaviour could be construed as suspicious, it could just as easily have a perfectly innocent explanation.

Also, I just don't believe someone in his profession would murder on his way to work. Serial killers generally don't mix business with 'pleasure'. Taxi drivers and truck drivers, maybe, but Lechmere's job involved pushing a cart along the same old routes on a regular basis. Hardly the same thing. If he was going to murder, I suspect it would be on his day off in a different part of town.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Look at it this way, Lechmere is found in close proximity to a murder victim.

Yeah?

I have a feeling that he knew Nichols was dead and had been inspecting the body. That wasn't something he was going to let Paul in on, though, so he let the two of them 'discover' the corpse together.

Ah! The plot thickens!

Fisherman would argue this was the act of a devious murderer covering his tracks, whereas it could be argued that Lechmere was worried about being fitted up for the crime.

Hmm. Letīs give it some afterthought. You are dead set on getting another killer in, correct? Cause it could not have been Lechmere, come what may, correct? Alright, letīs put it to the test, then.

I take it we are now working from the assumption that Lechmere was just a nice bloke with no evil intentions whatsoever. So he was no psychopath, right?
Then the first question will be why he did not run as he heard Paul approaching. It is psychopaths who stay and bluff things out, not ordinary, easily scared carmen.

The abdominal wounds, Harry, were they already covered? If so, why? If they were not, then we are looking at an innocent carman who not only stayed put in spite of his fear to be implicated, but also tampered with the evidence.

If she was already covered, how is it that Lechmere could see what had happened, whereas Paul could not?
And if Lechmere had not done the covering but could see what had happened nevertheless - why would he risk to invite Paul to take a look?

Why is it that the blood was still running from the neck when Mizen saw the body, in spite of Lechmere having had the time to examine the body and find out that she had been killed before Paul arrived? That will move the time of the cutting very far away from the bleeding Mizen saw, perhaps eight to ten minutes away, a very implausible suggestion.

Furthermore, the blood should have congealed minutes before Mizen arrived at Browns.

How do you explain these things?

As for providing a false name, an ostensibly upstanding, family man like Lechmere probably didn't want his family to know that he had been involved in a police investigation after finding a dead hooker in a shady part of town. So yeah, although Lechmere's behaviour could be construed as suspicious, it could just as easily have a perfectly innocent explanation.

Yes, we have heard that one before! Perfect indeed.

I usually say that the possible discomfort that lay in having it revealed that you were an upstanding citizen, having helped out with a murder case, would be easier to swallow than the result of having the police realizing that you had fed them a name you didnīt otherwise use with the authorities and that was not the name you were registered by.

After such a thing, you may need to explain to your wife that you have been made a suspect in the case of a prostitute murder.

So it is pick and choose - and live with it. Least you are hung for it.

Also, I just don't believe someone in his profession would murder on his way to work. Serial killers generally don't mix business with 'pleasure'. Taxi drivers and truck drivers, maybe, but Lechmere's job involved pushing a cart along the same old routes on a regular basis. Hardly the same thing. If he was going to murder, I suspect it would be on his day off in a different part of town.

If serial killers COULD mix business with pleasure - do you think they may have taken that opportunity?
Taxi driver and truck drivers maybe, you say (and that is not maybe, it is a given; William Bonin, Adam Leroy Lane, Larry Eyler etc), but Lechmere was effectively the 1888 representation of a truck driver, delivering goods.

Maybe you should reconsider?

[Bridewell]

Number 1: Charles Lechmere happens to stumble over the dead body of Polly Nichols.

In what way is this "odd or suspicious"? The body was lying in the street where somebody was certain to find it.

[harry]

Fisherman,
No, standing by the body is not incriminating,as his reasons for being there cannot be proven to have been false.
Giving a name he is entitled to use,what ever the scarcity of that using,is not incriminating of him having cut the victims throat,nor,if intent to mislead cannot be proven,evidence of Cross lying,and no one could be misled as a correct address was included.
The blood flow and appearance is not of major importance.Opinions now are as divided as they would have been then,relying as it does on the sighting of one person.The information is not of such a nature as to totally excude a time frame outside of Cross's presence.
I repeat,your points are of negative value.Cross undoubtably had the physical abilility to cut a woman's throat,possibilities allow he could have done so,but possibilities do not prove.

[Barnaby]

Very nice summary, Fish.

Is there another suspect with that much circumstantial evidence stacked against him? I don't think it would be easy to generate a list comparable in quality.

[Barnaby]

In what way is this "odd or suspicious"? The body was lying in the street where somebody was certain to find it.

Suspicious as part of the overall picture, particularly that he must have lingered there as Paul didn't hear him walking ahead.

[Fisherman]

In what way is this "odd or suspicious"? The body was lying in the street where somebody was certain to find it.

It belongs to the long list of "coincidences" that by itīs sheer lenght is VERY odd.
Per se, it s not odd or suspicious, but in the overall context, it is the event that starts everything off.

Having read my posts and often commented on them, you will be acuteely aware that I do not consider finding a dead body incriminating in the least - unless it is combined with a surrounding set of circumstances that changes that.

Any comment on the other 30 points, Colin? Or on the ones I didnīt list, like for example how it was very coincidental that the words he is supposed to have told Mizen about another PC should be so perfectly in line with him trying to con his way past the police.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
No, standing by the body is not incriminating,as his reasons for being there cannot be proven to have been false.

Or true, Harry. THAT is why such a person will belong to the suspects before he can be cleared. And in Lechmeres case, it applies that he stood there at a remove in time so as to dovetail blood evidencewise with having been the very probable cutter.

Giving a name he is entitled to use,what ever the scarcity of that using,is not incriminating of him having cut the victims throat,nor,if intent to mislead cannot be proven,evidence of Cross lying,and no one could be misled as a correct address was included.

Letīs not get naive here. It is not immediately incriminating unless other circumstances point to guilt - in which case it is added to the suspicions. And at the very least, it is suspicious behaviour, just like all anomalies are.

The blood flow and appearance is not of major importance

Sorry, Harry, but that is just wrong. The bloodflow is always of paramount importance in any case.

Opinions now are as divided as they would have been then,relying as it does on the sighting of one person.

If there is only one person describing it, how can there be different opinions? I think, Harry, that you are speaking of the different levels of willingness amongst us ripperologists to accept the evidence. Which is a VERY different matter. It all seems to boil down to what we want, and not so much to what evidence there is to support it.

The information is not of such a nature as to totally excude a time frame outside of Cross's presence.

The information points to how it would be less likely with another killer than Lechmere. It cannot positively rule out such an alternative killer, but overall, it would stretch the bleeding and coagulation time into borderline territory - and that stretching would be increased with every added minute.

It is only of we feel that it could absolutely not have been Lechmere who was the killer that we need to bring another killer on the stage. Only then! Otherwise, the simple truth is that we should accept that Charles Lechmere in all probability killed Polly Nichols, while leaving the door open for the much smaller possibility that it was somebody else.

I repeat,your points are of negative value.Cross undoubtably had the physical abilility to cut a woman's throat, possibilities allow he could have done so,but possibilities do not prove.

It is not possibilities we are speaking of here, Harry. It is likelihoods. Anything is possible - and it is likely that I will have to hear that many more times.
See the difference?