Documentary: Jack The Ripper: Has Christer Holmgren discovered the killer's identity?

[Dr. John Watson]

Stewart Evans Critique of Lechmere as Ripper, posted 2013

In 2013, Stewart Evans presented a carefully written and well documented response to the theory that Lechmere was the Ripper. It refutes, I believe, many of the points relied upon by those suggesting the carman was the killer.

Here is a link to the Evans response and the discussion that followed it, posted in Casebook on September 13, 2013.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7735&highlight=Lechmere

Dr. John Watson

[GUT]

Here we go again!

Columbo

My thoughts exactly.

[Columbo]

In 2013, Stewart Evans presented a carefully written and well documented response to the theory that Lechmere was the Ripper. It refutes, I believe, many of the points relied upon by those suggesting the carman was the killer.

Here is a link to the Evans response and the discussion that followed it, posted in Casebook on September 13, 2013.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7735&highlight=Lechmere

Dr. John Watson

Thanks Dr. Watson, that was very interesting.

Columbo

[John Wheat]

Hey John,

So you don't think the person who was seen by the body should be investigated? Forget the names, the PC being mis-lead etc., does this simple discovery of Lechmere by the body not warrant some questions about him?

Columbo

Lechmere found a body so what someone had to. He's a witness nothing more nothing less. The police at the time didn't suspect him of anything.

[Columbo]

Lechmere found a body so what someone had to. He's a witness nothing more nothing less. The police at the time didn't suspect him of anything.

Of course, but what I'm asking is would you question him about it a little more because he was found in a dark alley with a dead body, or would you say "meh, he just found it, let him go"? The police may very well have checked him out, we just don't know. This is all hypothesis and means nothing. We're just exchanging ideas.

Columbo

[kjab3112]

She still had a heartbeat

The coroner reports clearly state that when Paul met Cross/Lechmere, Paul thought Polly was still breathing (barely) and could feel a faint heartbeat. If Cross/Lechmere was not the killer, he likely disturbed the guilty party and even though he claimed to have heard nothing, I'm sure the 1880s police must have looked into him as a witness at the very least

[Elamarna]

The coroner reports clearly state that when Paul met Cross/Lechmere, Paul thought Polly was still breathing (barely) and could feel a faint heartbeat. If Cross/Lechmere was not the killer, he likely disturbed the guilty party and even though he claimed to have heard nothing, I'm sure the 1880s police must have looked into him as a witness at the very least

Hi,

Yes I am sure he was looked at.

With regards to the issue of heartbeat, all the report does is say that Paul thought he could detect breathing and heartbeat, not that such comments are accurate, however it is entirely possible.

best wishes

steve

[GUT]

The coroner reports clearly state that when Paul met Cross/Lechmere, Paul thought Polly was still breathing (barely) and could feel a faint heartbeat. If Cross/Lechmere was not the killer, he likely disturbed the guilty party and even though he claimed to have heard nothing, I'm sure the 1880s police must have looked into him as a witness at the very least

But we're too stupid to even check his name?

Well that's the theory anyway.

[Fisherman]

But we're too stupid to even check his name?

Well that's the theory anyway.

So what are you saying? That they DID check his name, but omitted to use the real name in their reports, although they had it?

Or that they did NOT check his name?

Beyond that, you are running out of opportunities.

By the way, the theory is not that the police were stupid. It is that they were prejudiced in a prejudiced society, that they were overrun with work and that their routines were not up to todays standards.

It would be stupid not to realize that this is what the theory postulates.

[MrBarnett]

So what are you saying? That they DID check his name, but omitted to use the real name in their reports, although they had it?

Or that they did NOT check his name?

Beyond that, you are running out of opportunities.

By the way, the theory is not that the police were stupid. It is that they were prejudiced in a prejudiced society, that they were overrun with work and that their routines were not up to todays standards.

It would be stupid not to realize that this is what the theory postulates.

Hi Fish,

But the police apparently did investigate the three slaughtermen in great detail, separating them and taking lengthy statements of their activities that night.

Do you think they were scrupulously thorough in their dealings with these men, or is it possible that they merely went through the motions?

Personally I suspect the latter. I can't see how they could be 100% sure that one or other of them hadn't left the yard for ten minutes or so.

At the inquest Henry Tomkins tied Baxter and his jury in knots, and two days later Mumford couldn't even remember how many horses they'd killed that night. And yet we are to be believe that their statements tallied so exactly that a ten minute discrepancy in their timings is out of the question.

It's a pity that Mumford and Britten were never called to give evidence. Mumford was expecting to be, but I suspect that Baxter had had his fill of slaughterhouse language with the obdurate Tomkins.

A slight diversion, sorry, but I suspect that the confidence the police had in the slaughtermen's innocence was based as much on copper's instinct as hard facts. Perhaps they employed the same method with your guy.

Gary

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett: Hi Fish,

But the police apparently did investigate the three slaughtermen in great detail, separating them and taking lengthy statements of their activities that night.

Do you think they were scrupulously thorough in their dealings with these men, or is it possible that they merely went through the motions?

I wish I knew! But I donŽt. In any case, they would have been subjected to a lot of questioning - but did the police check their names and addresses? Was it standard procedure? I guess that would to a degree depend on the levels of suspicion.

Personally I suspect the latter. I can't see how they could be 100% sure that one or other of them hadn't left the yard for ten minutes or so.

If they covered for each other, there was little the police could do about it, IŽll say that much. After that, it would depend to some degree on how close the men worked together and how much they relied on the presence of each other for the different bits of the work. If they all worked tightly together, it would be hard to sneak out for ten minutes, methinks.

At the inquest Henry Tomkins tied Baxter and his jury in knots, and two days later Mumford couldn't even remember how many horses they'd killed that night. And yet we are to be believe that their statements tallied so exactly that a ten minute discrepancy in their timings is out of the question.

Hang on - do you think that one of the knackers was the Ripper...?

It's a pity that Mumford and Britten were never called to give evidence. Mumford was expecting to be, but I suspect that Baxter had had his fill of slaughterhouse language with the obdurate Tomkins.

Haha! Yes, that may well have been the case.

A slight diversion, sorry, but I suspect that the confidence the police had in the slaughtermen's innocence was based as much on copper's instinct as hard facts. Perhaps they employed the same method with your guy.

It seems to have been the case, given that they failed to secure his registered name.
Overall, I think it is likely that somebody at some stage wrote down in detail how a criminal case - any grave such - was handled. But I have not found such a thing myself. It would be interesting to take part of, if it exists.

[MrBarnett]

Hang on - do you think that one of the knackers was the Ripper...?

What on earth gave you that idea?

[Fisherman]

What on earth gave you that idea?

Geniality in combination with an exceptionally slow uptake...? So which of them are you targetting?

[MrBarnett]

Geniality in combination with an exceptionally slow uptake...? So which of them are you targetting?

Describes me to a T.

The fourth one.

[Henry Flower]

Why do you pretend not to know the difference between historically established facts and your interpretation of historically established facts?

This, from the gobby student who has introduced a Hilliard portrait of Mary Queen of Scots as evidence in the MJK killing?

I can't stop laughing. Pierre you take self-satire to new levels. You would be highly amusing.... if you weren't such an arrogant little brat.