Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proving that Charles Lechmere is a very good suspect

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post


    B. When I wrote that most papers said 3.30, it is in relation to the 3.20 or 3.30 issue, not in relation to the ”about” issue.
    That's fine. So all this discussion about how many papers said "at" and how many said "about" have obviously been a complete waste of time!


    When you wrote in your book: 'Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3:30, but the time 3:20 is also mentioned in one paper' do you agree that what you should have written was: "'Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at or about 3:30, but the time 3:20 is also mentioned in at least one paper'?


    If you agree to this without prevarication or additional commentary - because it's really a very simple yes or no question - that will be very helpful and there'll be nothing more to be said about the papers.

    Regards

    Michael🔎


    " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
      Commenting on how you presonally want all the pointers to potential guilt on Lechmeres behalf, it must first be estabished that the very definition of circumstantial evidence is that it can be subsituted by innocent alternative explanations. Always. Without exception. And it is never hard to do so either, it is the most comfortable of exercises and anybody can do it.

      However, once we know that a murder has been committed, we also know that not everybody who was present at the murder site, identified or unidentified, can have innocent explanations for what may look suspicious about them. One person, at least, is guilty, and gor him, there are no truthful alternative explanations, they are all lies for that person.

      Your misunderstandings/misrepresentations in order, and how a prosecutor would present them to the jury:

      The refusal to help prop Nichols up. The jury knows that anybody who props Nichols up is likely to note that her head is hanging on by the spine only, and so the murder will be revealed by such a maneuver. And they also know that when Lechmere says "I will not touch her" he is serving up an anomaly becasue he has already touched the body. This combination of circumstances will not look good and a jury will not like it - but the prosecutor will.

      The disagreement with the police. The three questions on which Lechmere and Mizen disagreed - who found the body, how severe coud it be and was there another PC in place - all look like tailormade points designed to take Lechmere past the police. The idea that it would be likelier with a misunderstanding on Mizens behalf than a murderous intent on Lechmeres does not wash. To begin with, people are statistically much more likely to understand than misunderstand. Carrying on, yes, statistically mishearings are more common than murder - but that rule only applies until a murder occurs. After that, the rues are changed and we KNOW that there is a murderer at large. These poits will all look very bad to a jury - but they ensure a field day on behalf of the prosecution.

      The covered up wounds. You here say that Lechmere did not pull them down himself, it was only Paul who did so. A slight alteration is needed here - it is only in evidence that Paul did so. But it is also in evidence that somebdy had already pulled the dress down before Pau arrived, making this "intended evisceration murder", if you will, differ dramatically from the others. The jury would be told that one man and one man only had a practical use for such a thing, and that was a murderer who was trying to hide his deed from the oncoming Robert Paul, and the jury would not like to hear that. It would sound very bad for Lechmere. The prosecutor, however, would celebrate with champagne, being able to point out what he would describe as an obvious lie.

      The lacking information that either man noticed the other before meeting outside Browns. This factor has already been commented on. It would confirm the suspicions the jury would have had at this stage about how Lechmere seems to have had a time gap of AROUND eight minutes on his hands before Paul arrived - and that, the prosecutor would say, explains why Paul did not notive Lechmere until he arrived outside the stable gates; because as he walked down Bucks Row, Charles Lechmere was wiping the blood from Polly Nichols body from his knife before he stashed it on his person, and then he covered the wounds so as to be able to fool Paul, before stepping quietly out into Bucks Row.
      A jury would look very intently at Lechmere at this stage, trying to meet his eyes and having a very bad feeling about the carman. And the prosecutor would call his wife and tell her to get a nice bottle of claret up from the cellar to celebrate when he arrived back home that night.

      Now, Michale, we have done this jig before, but to slightly different music. All you have to bring to the table is complete denial of the obvious and tirades of "nonsense", "desperate" and "none points". Bluster with no substance - and no chance at all to have an impact on anybody with any sort of insight in how evidence works and how it impacts a jury.

      it is not - and it never was - any question of how you are able to present innocent alternatives to the plethora of matters that point to Lechmere. It always was - and always will be - about how there is not a realistic chance that anybody is as unlucky as Lechmere would have been when it comes to how many matters there can be that reeks of guiltwithout any guilt being there. You have a mountain to climb, whereas a prosecutir would have a steep downhill snow-slope and a toboggan taking him home to that claret.

      But by all means, if you feel the need for more thrashing, then go on. It is fascinating per se to see how far flat out denial can take a person.
      Every one of those points have been rebutted so I’m not going through them all again. You’re simply regurgitating nonsense. Gross exagerations and terminally biased interpretations. The case against Lechmere has always been a fit-up job. Opportunist fantasy.

      Btw, simply touching a body to check for breath is hugely different to getting your arms around it to sit it up.



      Regards

      Michael🔎


      " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

        The Daily News post is irrelevant because it was on a different topic. So instead of putting this quote in the section about the ‘gap’ you bizarrely dropped it into a different section hoping that casual readers would just connect the two?

        2 out of 9 said 3.30

        5 out of 9 said ‘about 3.30.’

        You say most of the papers said 3.30.

        Nothing wrong there of course.
        Maybe you have not noticed Chris Phillips´ hint that we need to stop this, Michael? I will explain what it is you misunderstand once more, and then you can perhaps let it go.

        When I say that most of the papers said 3.30, what I am pointing out is that some papers said 3.20, but MOST PAPERS SAID 3.30. I am weighing 3.30 against 3.20, and I am finding that 3.30 is more common than 3.20. That is the comparison I am making. I am not comparing the papers that said "3.30" to the ones that said "about 3.30". I am not even touching on the matter at all, since it never entered my mind - which I have explained a fair few times by now.

        Can you see now what it is I compare - and how it results in the 3.30 timing winning the bout?

        If you can, good. If you can´t, I will not explain it any more.
        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

          That's fine. So all this discussion about how many papers said "at" and how many said "about" have obviously been a complete waste of time!

          If you wanted to prove any "obfuscation" on my behalf, yes. Emphatically so.


          When you wrote in your book: 'Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3:30, but the time 3:20 is also mentioned in one paper' do you agree that what you should have written was: "'Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at or about 3:30, but the time 3:20 is also mentioned in at least one paper'?


          If you agree to this without prevarication or additional commentary - because it's really a very simple yes or no question - that will be very helpful and there'll be nothing more to be said about the papers.
          I have already given my answer to that, as Chris Phillips VERY clearly pointed out to you (and everybody else) - in retrospect, I would have wanted to add the "about", and for two reasons:

          1. It would bring more clarity to the matter.

          2. It would have stopped a whole bunch of unwarranted allegations of foul play on my behalf. I do not deal in that commodity, as I have pointed out numerous times by now.

          Do I think that I have materially influenced the matter? No, I don´t. As I have - also repeatedly - pointed out, what happens is that instead of 3.30 inferring an eight minute gap, we instead get "about 3.30", inferring an approximate gap of eight minutes.

          Are we done now?
          "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
            Maybe you have not noticed Chris Phillips´ hint that we need to stop this, Michael?
            The problem is nothing to do with a hint.

            It's that both of you are continually aiming personal criticisms and accusations of dishonesty (sometimes veiled, sometime not) at each other, despite repeated explicit requests to stop.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post
              I have already given my answer to that, as Chris Phillips VERY clearly pointed out to you (and everybody else) - in retrospect, I would have wanted to add the "about", and for two reasons:
              Please don't give the impression that I am on anyone's side here. I an just telling you both to stop the personal criticisms and accusations of dishonesty.

              If it's done within the site's rules, of course anyone is free to discuss the topic of the thread for as long as they want, regardless of my personal opinion of how worthwhile that is.

              But if it can't be done within the rules, then it can't go on.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

                Every one of those points have been rebutted so I’m not going through them all again. You’re simply regurgitating nonsense. Gross exagerations and terminally biased interpretations. The case against Lechmere has always been a fit-up job. Opportunist fantasy.

                Btw, simply touching a body to check for breath is hugely different to getting your arms around it to sit it up.
                From "Oxford Languages": Rebut - to claim or prove that (evidence or an accusation) is false.

                Yes, you have made the claim that my accusations against Lechmere are false. But proving it is another thing. I myself find I prefer to rely on QC James Scobie and how the police method of flushing out a prime suspect in cases of serial murder where there is no forensic evidence points out Charles Lechmere as the one and only Ripper suspect there has ever been who ticks all the three boxes the police examine. They are professionals and you are not (nor am I, which is why I point to Scobie and the police - i regard neither of them as likely opportunists, by the way).

                As for how touching a body differs from propping it up, yes that is correct. But once we know that the carman was quoted as having said that he "would not touch" Nichols, we nevertheless have an anomaly that would not be to the liking of a jury.
                "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                Comment


                • I don't think the issue of "missing time" has been coherently stated--or at least not very often.

                  It doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not Lechmere had the time to kill Nichols. This is a misstatement of what we are up against.

                  As has been admitted at least a zillion times, CAL could have left home at 3.00 or even 2.00 a.m. Elsewhere, Ed Stow seems to suggest that CAL picked up Nichols in the Whitechapel Road, which would mean that he had been trawling the area for some time.

                  The real question is that the Lechmere theorists believe Lechmere has been caught in a lie at the inquest.

                  In other words, that in saying that he left home at 'about 3.30',and given that his travel time would only have been about 7 1/2 minutes from Doveton Street to where he was seen in Buck's Row (provided he hadn't stopped to tie his shoes or relieve himself or to smoke a pipe) he must have been lying, as Robert Paul muttered something about having left home at 'about 3.45' and this would put Lechmere at that spot at around 3.46 rather than around 3.37.

                  So it's not really a question of missing time, per se--it is a question of Lechmere being so dense and such a bad liar that he has supposedly incriminated himself by giving a ridiculous and irrational time of departure.

                  In brief, Lechmere is being implicated--not by his own testimony, really--but by the testimony of a man who was so far off in his time estimate that he had himself not leaving home until Thain had already discovered the body!

                  Paul is the 'timeclock' on which Lechmere is being marched to the gallows, and that timeclock is faulty.

                  The data we have to work with is so uncertain and so incomplete there is no way a reasonable person can fairly conclude that Lechmere has been shown to have been definitely lying.

                  His account could be entirely correct and innocent.

                  And even if Lechmere DID give a lousy estimate of time, does that make him a killer? Does it make Robert Paul a killer?

                  I think that does it for me.

                  Comment


                  • One other thing.

                    I also think that the suggestion that Lechmere would have had an excellent sense of time due to his work as a carman is a questionable one.

                    Years ago, I worked in a shipping office for about two years. I never noticed the delivery drivers or truck drivers having a better sense of time than anyone else.

                    If anything, all those years of being stuck in traffic and waiting to pick up loads that weren't ready to go, etc. etc. resigned them to a cynical view of what "on time" meant. They were always late or early or made promises they couldn't keep.

                    It's not like Lechmere would have kept a copy of Bradshaw's Guide to Freight Trains or had to negotiate the uncertainty of London traffic to be at Broad Street at carefully synchronized times. There would have been loading and unloading docks and he wouldn't have been the one physically unloading the trains so they could keep to a well-regulated timetable.

                    Robert Paul is also listed as a 'carman' in one census, and his time estimate appears to have been quite wide-of-the-mark.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                      I don't think the issue of "missing time" has been coherently stated--or at least not very often.

                      It doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not Lechmere had the time to kill Nichols. This is a misstatement of what we are up against.

                      As has been admitted at least a zillion times, CAL could have left home at 3.00 or even 2.00 a.m. Elsewhere, Ed Stow seems to suggest that CAL picked up Nichols in the Whitechapel Road, which would mean that he had been trawling the area for some time.

                      The real question is that the Lechmere theorists believe Lechmere has been caught in a lie at the inquest.

                      In other words, that in saying that he left home at 'about 3.30',and given that his travel time would only have been about 7 1/2 minutes from Doveton Street to where he was seen in Buck's Row (provided he hadn't stopped to tie his shoes or relieve himself or to smoke a pipe) he must have been lying, as Robert Paul muttered something about having left home at 'about 3.45' and this would put Lechmere at that spot at around 3.46 rather than around 3.37.

                      So it's not really a question of missing time, per se--it is a question of Lechmere being so dense and such a bad liar that he has supposedly incriminated himself by giving a ridiculous and irrational time of departure.

                      In brief, Lechmere is being implicated--not by his own testimony, really--but by the testimony of a man who was so far off in his time estimate that he had himself not leaving home until Thain had already discovered the body!

                      Paul is the 'timeclock' on which Lechmere is being marched to the gallows, and that timeclock is faulty.

                      The data we have to work with is so uncertain and so incomplete there is no way a reasonable person can fairly conclude that Lechmere has been shown to have been definitely lying.

                      His account could be entirely correct and innocent.

                      And even if Lechmere DID give a lousy estimate of time, does that make him a killer? Does it make Robert Paul a killer?

                      I think that does it for me.
                      SInce I (and Edward) have repeatedly (just as you say) pointed to how Lechmere is quite likely to have left home at an earlier time than he stated, that is the lie I suspect existed. When it comes to the stated 3.30ish time, what I suspect is that it is an invention, because I think he likely started out earlier.

                      When it comes to the 3.30ish time, my take on things is that he invented it after having read that it was thought that he had found Nichols at around 3.40. Ergo, he needed to make up a departurte time that was consistent with that timing, and so he chose 3.30ish. That is what I suspect.

                      Then, as Baxter concluded that the original assessment of Lechmere finding the body at 3.40 was wrong, and that he likely found it at 3.45 instead, that timing forms a noose around the neck of Lechmere.

                      So there is no suggestion that Lechmere was dense. Instead, he was observant and clever - but as fate would have it, the timing he used for his estimation was altered. That has nothing at all to do with him being dense.

                      I as well as coroner Baxter and Donald Swanson jointly agree that Pauls given time was spot on, as you may now realize. Nothing wrong with that timing, it was the PC:s who were corrected.

                      Does Lechmeres giving a lousy time estimate make him a killer? Not on it´s own, no - but it is part of a much broader picture, with a lot of elements pointing to guilt, and so, just as I have pointed out, a jury would not like the time schedule he suggested. Because it suggests that there was an around eight minute gap that was unaccounted for. And regardless of whether or not the carman was guilty, a jury that dislikes you is very prone to giving you a killers status in their verdict.
                      As for me, I don´t think that there can be any realistic doubt about it; as far as I´m concerned, he was the killer. I cannot compromise my sense of fairness to the degree where I uncritically swallow a mountain of coincidences.
                      "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                        One other thing.

                        I also think that the suggestion that Lechmere would have had an excellent sense of time due to his work as a carman is a questionable one.

                        Years ago, I worked in a shipping office for about two years. I never noticed the delivery drivers or truck drivers having a better sense of time than anyone else.

                        If anything, all those years of being stuck in traffic and waiting to pick up loads that weren't ready to go, etc. etc. resigned them to a cynical view of what "on time" meant. They were always late or early or made promises they couldn't keep.

                        It's not like Lechmere would have kept a copy of Bradshaw's Guide to Freight Trains or had to negotiate the uncertainty of London traffic to be at Broad Street at carefully synchronized times. There would have been loading and unloading docks and he wouldn't have been the one physically unloading the trains so they could keep to a well-regulated timetable.

                        Robert Paul is also listed as a 'carman' in one census, and his time estimate appears to have been quite wide-of-the-mark.
                        I won´t make any other observation than the one I already have made - far from him being wrong, Baxter and Swanson came to the conlusion that Paul was spot on.
                        "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Christer Holmgren View Post

                          I have already given my answer to that, as Chris Phillips VERY clearly pointed out to you (and everybody else) - in retrospect, I would have wanted to add the "about", and for two reasons:

                          1. It would bring more clarity to the matter.

                          2. It would have stopped a whole bunch of unwarranted allegations of foul play on my behalf. I do not deal in that commodity, as I have pointed out numerous times by now.

                          Do I think that I have materially influenced the matter? No, I don´t. As I have - also repeatedly - pointed out, what happens is that instead of 3.30 inferring an eight minute gap, we instead get "about 3.30", inferring an approximate gap of eight minutes.

                          Are we done now?
                          Thank you Christer but I wasn't asking you what you wanted to do when writing your book. I was asking you what you should have done. Do you understand the difference?

                          What I'm saying is that what you wrote in your book was inaccurate whereas my suggested amendment is accurate.

                          As to Chris Phillips' point, if you go back and look at your "absolutely" admission, it's not clear what you were admitting to because you seemed to be only addressing the issue of whether to have included in your book the word "about" in respect of Lechmere's evidence, or at least it was ambiguous. I've been trying to achieve finality on a very simple factual matter which is what the majority of newspapers in 1888 actually said. The short point is that it's inaccurate to say that 'most papers' said that Cross left his house at 3.30. It seems that you have a problem directly admitting that something in your book was inaccurate. It's not simply that it was unclear, it was wrong, especially in circumstances where you maintain that Lechmere might actually have said in his evidence that he left his house at (exactly) 3.30.

                          But if you really can't bring yourself admit this, with a simple one word answer of "yes", which is all I was asking for, let us indeed move on.
                          Regards

                          Michael🔎


                          " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael Banks View Post

                            Thank you Christer but I wasn't asking you what you wanted to do when writing your book. I was asking you what you should have done. Do you understand the difference?

                            What I'm saying is that what you wrote in your book was inaccurate whereas my suggested amendment is accurate.

                            As to Chris Phillips' point, if you go back and look at your "absolutely" admission, it's not clear what you were admitting to because you seemed to be only addressing the issue of whether to have included in your book the word "about" in respect of Lechmere's evidence, or at least it was ambiguous. I've been trying to achieve finality on a very simple factual matter which is what the majority of newspapers in 1888 actually said. The short point is that it's inaccurate to say that 'most papers' said that Cross left his house at 3.30. It seems that you have a problem directly admitting that something in your book was inaccurate. It's not simply that it was unclear, it was wrong, especially in circumstances where you maintain that Lechmere might actually have said in his evidence that he left his house at (exactly) 3.30.

                            But if you really can't bring yourself admit this, with a simple one word answer of "yes", which is all I was asking for, let us indeed move on.
                            Neither you nor me know if Lechmere said that he left home about 3.30 or if he said that he left home at 3.30. Consequently, neither you nor me know which version is accurate. So if your question is whether or not my wording was accurate, there can be no yes or no answer. The only option left open to me is an "I cannot say which applies and neither can Michael Banks".

                            If the question is instead whether or not the matter could have been given a more informative wording, I have already answered that with a yes.

                            As for including the word "about" in Cutting Point, I did so. It is on page 94. It is not as if it is not there.
                            "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                            Comment


                            • Here is a bumping up of post 198:

                              Very few have commented on the basis of this thread - how the threefold police method of flushing out a prime suspect in cases of multiple murder where there is a lack of forensic evidence proves that Lechmere is a very good suspect since he ticks each and every one of the criteria. And he is the only identified suspect who does so.

                              It would be nice if we could keep our eyes at that sparrow for a change.
                              "In these matters it is the little things that tell the tales" - Coroner Wynne Baxter during the Nichols inquest.

                              Comment


                              • On the subject of timings, can I suggest people watch the talk I have at the recent East End Conference. it's on Rippercast.

                                Some will not like it, but it puts some of these comments into context.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X