If

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

I seem to recall the main issue for me was, did Lechmere say to Mizen, "another policeman needs you in Bucks Row", or was that Mizen's assumption.
Lechmere was specifically asked if he had said that, and he denied doing so.

All Lechmere may have said was, "you are needed in Bucks row". Which can be interpreted in two ways.
Either, there's a situation that needs your attention or, someone in Bucks Row needs to see you.
I think Lechmere meant the former, and Mizen assumed the latter.
Thats my two cents.

I appreciate that this is how you reason, Jon. But the premise of the thread is that we should work from the assumption that Lechmere said exactly what Mizen claimed he said. And if he did, then to what - if any - extent do we think this would sound suspicious or incriminate the man.

[Fisherman]

Not guilty.

Thanks, John. Could you elaborate a bit more? Would you judge the case "not guilty" or would you feel the man was not guilty.

In my cse, I would not be able to convict on such a thing only, so strictly legally, it has to be not guilty.

However, I would be very inclined to think that it was deeply suspicious and a good indicator of guilt. I feel certain that the police would reason in the exact same manner.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, to me one of the remarkable things about this case is that there are a number of witnesses and officers who are either mistaken, lying, or acting inexplicably weirdly in almost every incident.

Do Cross/Lechmere's words and actions warrant further investigation? I think so, and it's therefore a shame that we can't do that more productively now.

Re Pierre's responses, it's amusing that he carefully and willfully avoids one rather obvious inference that could be drawn from Cross' reported statement. The other inferences he lists are all, in their own way, plausible; but the idea that he was resorting to dishonesty because he had something to hide is no less plausible. After all, someone killed her, very shortly before Lechmere is seen in the vicinity of her corpse, and it's not unusual for killers under pressure to invent (and be undone by) some very trivial unnecessary lies. The explanation Pierre eventually settles on hinges on a supposition no less unsupported than the assumption of his guilt.

One thing that always puzzles me when I read Lechmere threads is the repeated and unsupported assertion that his use of 'Cross' must have been investigated and cleared up to the satisfaction of the police. Oh, that's all fine then! We must assume his innocence because we must also assume he was investigated by and satisfied the police - the same police <i>who failed to solve that murder</i>.

Thanks, Henry - it goes without saying that I agree all the way. If I was to add something, it would be that I myself tend to draw a line between the professional witnesses and the civilians. I am much less inclined to think "we need to believe this witness" when it comes to the civilians.
Overall, I think there has been a tendency to award too much trust to the civilian witnesses and too little to the professionals. Once we do, we put ourselves in a very strange situation.
Typical examples would be how we favour two witnesses (Long and Cadosh) who cannot be reconciliated with each other timewise, but who were nevertheless both certain about their timings, over Phillips, and - rather farcically - how we distrust Alfred Long in spite of how there never even was any testimony at all (!) to challenge him over a rather uncontroversial matter.

[Fisherman]

If such a thing existed, Xmere would have a lot of explaining to do.
It's easy to think of other reasons for telling fibs to Mizen. It wouldn't make him guilty of murder by a long shot, but it would put him under pressure to explain why he lied.

Of course the question would be moot because there would also have been a camera in Buck's Row that showed the real murderer running around the corner as Xmere arrived at Browne and Eagle's gateway.

There you go, you just earned your y back, Dusty!

This I appreciate - being able to be a sharp critic of the theory, but nevertheless being able to see and judge different implications correctly.

As for that CCTV camera up at the bend, I have always been amused by the many bids that would attach to it; Kosminski runs around the corner, Michael Maybrick flees, Montague Druitt, Bury and Puckridge all do a runner, Issenschmid scuttles off, having left his mutton behind, William Gull slowly labours his way round the corner, limping after his stroke, Hutchinson yells "Hey, wait for me!" and joins the marathon...

There is not a shred of evidence that either of these men were ever in Bucks Row throughout their whole lives. But they are nevertheless given the upper hand as favoured suspects over a man who WAS there, who WAS found alone with the victim at a stage where she could have been killed seconds earlier, who DID give the wrong name to the police and who WAS did disagree totally with the police over what was said on the murder night, and who DID walk to worh along an axis and at times that dovetail with a number of the other killings, who DID grow up where...

This community of Ripperologists is quite possibly the worst bunch of lousy judges of criminal implications that have ever infested our planet.

That is why I get so enthusiastic about the ones who manage to stay honest and logical the way you just did. Bravo, Dusty. My hatīs off to you.

[GUT]

Guilty as hell.

Hang him without a trial.

[Fisherman]

Hi fish
Don't know why everyone's beating around the bush. if he said that he would not be telling the truth.
As to pointing to guilt? Yes it would to some extant or he could have lied just because he was late and didn't want to be detained.

Simple as. After that, we need to add the other ingredients of the case and make our choice.

It of course applies that if he just thought that he was late for work, he would be taking an immense risk by fooling the police. There would have been only a very faint chance that there WAS a PC in place when Mizen arrived. And if Mizen had arrived up at the murder site to see that he had been fooled, there is zero chance that the hunt for the carmen would not be on. And it would be a hunt for the possible killer/s!

To me, such a totally reckless lie was never to be expected. I donīt know how much value you ascribe to the suggestion yourself, Abby?

It of course nevertheless applies that it IS an option, just as you say.

[Fisherman]

Guilty as hell.

Hang him without a trial.

Thanks, Gut.

Next?

[Pierre]

Fisherman, to me one of the remarkable things about this case is that there are a number of witnesses and officers who are either mistaken, lying, or acting inexplicably weirdly in almost every incident.

Do Cross/Lechmere's words and actions warrant further investigation? I think so, and it's therefore a shame that we can't do that more productively now.

Re Pierre's responses, it's amusing that he carefully and willfully avoids one rather obvious inference that could be drawn from Cross' reported statement. The other inferences he lists are all, in their own way, plausible; but the idea that he was resorting to dishonesty because he had something to hide is no less plausible. After all, someone killed her, very shortly before Lechmere is seen in the vicinity of her corpse, and it's not unusual for killers under pressure to invent (and be undone by) some very trivial unnecessary lies. The explanation Pierre eventually settles on hinges on a supposition no less unsupported than the assumption of his guilt.

One thing that always puzzles me when I read Lechmere threads is the repeated and unsupported assertion that his use of 'Cross' must have been investigated and cleared up to the satisfaction of the police. Oh, that's all fine then! We must assume his innocence because we must also assume he was investigated by and satisfied the police - the same police <i>who failed to solve that murder</i>.

Hi,

Well, if anyone lied, who did?

Lechmere-Cross:

"After Mizen had been told there was a woman lying in Buck's-row he went out and knocked at a door. He did not go towards Buck's-row to do this."

Mizen:

"It was not true that before he went to Buck's-row, witness continued "knocking people up." He went there immediately."

(Star, 3 September 1888)

As you see, this question is not about being a killer but about being a liar. People are often liars and rarely killers.

Killers donīt stay at murderscenes to discuss with people and they avoid coming to inquests.

Liars often tend inquests and thatīs why the are sworn during the inquests.

And as we can all see, the data for Lechmere-Cross being the Whitechapel killer is not sufficient. If it were, we would discuss a whole set of other theoretical problems and implications.

People here need more data, Fisherman. And you want support, so give them the data that shows Lechmere-Cross had a motive. You donīt have data for that, only your own idea of his childhood, of which you know nothing. Give them data that shows the killer wrote to the police, that he actually was at some other crimescene and that he had a motive for his methods too. Being the son of a catīs meat woman is not a motive.

Sorry Fisherman. Would love to support you. Would love to get out of my own research. It is weighing on me and it is hard not to be able do discuss it with anyone. You are lucky who can.

Pierre

[Pierre]

I wouldn't necessarily assume guilt of murder on the basis of one statement given to a police officer on finding a body, either. A relative once had to give evidence of a fatal industrial accident when the police arrived, and believe me, there were muddled and contradictory statements from several of the witnesses. We all don't have instant recall, minds like steel traps and the ability to clearly explain what we saw when a dead body is found.

So no, I wouldn't impute guilt to Lechmere, not unless there was supporting evidence. Also, as drstrange has said, if there were CCT cameras about there would probably have been one in Bucks Row, which would be a great help.

Thanks Rosella,

best post on the subject. And hereīs more of the same:

"For Air Crash Detectives, Seeing Isn't Believing By MATTHEW L. WALD
ASHINGTON

HUNDREDS of people watched the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 near Kennedy International Airport in New York on Nov. 12, and in the course of 93 seconds they apparently saw hundreds of different things.

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, which announced this month that it had gathered 349 eyewitness accounts through interviews or written statements, 52 percent said they saw a fire while the plane was in the air. The largest number (22 percent) said the fire was in the fuselage, but a majority cited other locations, including the left engine, the right engine, the left wing, the right wing or an unspecified engine or wing.

Nearly one of five witnesses said they saw the plane make a right turn; an equal number said it was a left turn. Nearly 60 percent said they saw something fall off the plane; of these, 13 percent said it was a wing. (In fact, it was the vertical portion of the tail.)

The investigators say there is no evidence in the wreckage or on the flight recorders of an in-flight fire or explosion. A plane breaking up in flight, as this one did, might in its last moments produce flashes of fire from engines ripping loose, but the idea that the plane caught fire is a trick of memory, they say.

None of this is surprising, said Dr. Charles R. Honts, a professor of psychology at Boise State University and the editor of the Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology. "Eyewitness memory is reconstructive," said Dr. Honts, who is not associated with the safety board. "The biggest mistake you can make is to think about a memory like it's a videotape; there's not a permanent record there."

http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~bigopp/witness.html

Regards Pierre

[harry]

Of course,putting a question in the manner given,can only result in a positive answer.It's called loading the question or leading the witness.
If it is an attempt to prove the word policeman was used by Cross then it fails.This judges verdict is that it is non admissible evidence.

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't necessarily assume guilt of murder on the basis of one statement given to a police officer on finding a body, either. A relative once had to give evidence of a fatal industrial accident when the police arrived, and believe me, there were muddled and contradictory statements from several of the witnesses. We all don't have instant recall, minds like steel traps and the ability to clearly explain what we saw when a dead body is found.

So no, I wouldn't impute guilt to Lechmere, not unless there was supporting evidence. Also, as drstrange has said, if there were CCT cameras about there would probably have been one in Bucks Row, which would be a great help.

A good post - we cannot convict Lechmere on the Mizen scam only. We need to see more evidence pointing in his direction. ANd there IS more evidence pointing in his direction.

Even if you would not want to convict on it - would you regard it as sounding suspicious? I know I do - a lot.

[Fisherman]

Of course,putting a question in the manner given,can only result in a positive answer.It's called loading the question or leading the witness.
If it is an attempt to prove the word policeman was used by Cross then it fails.This judges verdict is that it is non admissible evidence.

And the judge is... you, Harry?

There are other judges here. I would say that it totally admissible and potentially very important evidence. But you recommend that we forget all about it?

The most important thing you write here is that the question I put can only be answered with a yes. Incidentally, I donīt think it proves him guilty - but it certainly implies that this seems to have been the case.

In all probability, that is why you are afraid of touching it. Or having it touching you.
Letīs deny it instead.

[Pierre]

There you go, you just earned your y back, Dusty!

This I appreciate - being able to be a sharp critic of the theory, but nevertheless being able to see and judge different implications correctly.

As for that CCTV camera up at the bend, I have always been amused by the many bids that would attach to it; Kosminski runs around the corner, Michael Maybrick flees, Montague Druitt, Bury and Puckridge all do a runner, Issenschmid scuttles off, having left his mutton behind, William Gull slowly labours his way round the corner, limping after his stroke, Hutchinson yells "Hey, wait for me!" and joins the marathon...

There is not a shred of evidence that either of these men were ever in Bucks Row throughout their whole lives. But they are nevertheless given the upper hand as favoured suspects over a man who WAS there, who WAS found alone with the victim at a stage where she could have been killed seconds earlier, who DID give the wrong name to the police and who WAS did disagree totally with the police over what was said on the murder night, and who DID walk to worh along an axis and at times that dovetail with a number of the other killings, who DID grow up where...

This community of Ripperologists is quite possibly the worst bunch of lousy judges of criminal implications that have ever infested our planet.

That is why I get so enthusiastic about the ones who manage to stay honest and logical the way you just did. Bravo, Dusty. My hatīs off to you.

Hi Fisherman,

the fact that other so called theories are lousy doesnīt make your theory a good one. And it doesnīt make Lechmere-Cross a killer.

I understand your desperation now.

But Iīm not desperate. I go were history takes me. And I go there even if it takes me to places where I donīt want to be.

As for you, history goes where you take it, where you want it to be.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Pierre: Hi Fisherman,

the fact that other so called theories are lousy doesnīt make your theory a good one. And it doesnīt make Lechmere-Cross a killer.

I canīt remember suggesting it did. Did I?
It is interesting to see how you are now joining the brigade of people who put words in my mouth and claim ideas on my behalf.
What happened to that honest, soul-searching fact idolising you bragged about?

I understand your desperation now.

You do? Letīs hope you are right. It would be nice if you understood something.

But Iīm not desperate. I go were history takes me. And I go there even if it takes me to places where I donīt want to be.

Donīt forget to bring lunch and mosquito repellent.

As for you, history goes where you take it, where you want it to be.

And history follows? Wow.
My understanding is that history is absolute. Once it happens, it donīt change.

I am less and less impressed, Pierre.

[John Wheat]

Thanks, John. Could you elaborate a bit more? Would you judge the case "not guilty" or would you feel the man was not guilty.

In my cse, I would not be able to convict on such a thing only, so strictly legally, it has to be not guilty.

However, I would be very inclined to think that it was deeply suspicious and a good indicator of guilt. I feel certain that the police would reason in the exact same manner.

To Fisherman

I don't believe Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and there is no evidence to suggest he was Jack so hence not guilty.

Cheers John