Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere in Mitre Square

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Yes, thatīs true enough. If one wants to, Castle Alley fits in too.
    You have to get around the PC Andrews problem there, though.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Pierre View Post
      And yet you have not one single source for anyone of those. No indication Lechmere was there.

      Thank heavens you are not an historian.

      Regards, Pierre
      You have not shared a single source here, so to all intents and purposes, neither do you.

      Thank heavens he is not a coward and a hypocrite like you.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by jerryd View Post
        You have to get around the PC Andrews problem there, though.
        Yes, it is a tight one, as you have shown!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
          I doubt Fisherman will take the bait but I will, and the answer is obvious. Thousands. Tens of thousands.
          And thatīs in the Whitechapel area only. In Greater London, there were around 5 million people living in 1888. In England, there were some 26 million. In the world as a whole, around 1,5 billion people were living back then.
          Out of these 1,5 billion people, one (1) person only was found alone with a freshly killed Ripper victim: Charles Lechmere.
          Making the point, as Pierre does, that Lechmere was not alone in the world, is somewhat disingenuos against that backdrop. There is not a single implication on forensic grounds against a single soul, apart from Lechmere, of being involved in the death of Polly Nichols. Consequently, there is no immediate need to clear any of the many thousands of residents in Whitechapel of the Nichols murder.
          There is, however, such a need when it comes to Lechmere. And that need arises before we even start to discuss his suspect status - it is the task of the police to try and clear anybody who is found in the kind of situation Lechmere was found in. And much as people sometimes donīt like to hear what Andy Griffiths had to say, it remains that he made the important point that in a modern day investigation, nobody else could be prosecuted until the carman had been cleared.

          Pierre wastes time with these posts of his, and that is why I stay away from responding directly to him or debating with him. Sometimes, that means that he will make "points" like this one, that unfortunately may sway those who are not familiar with the full case facts.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            And thatīs in the Whitechapel area only. In Greater London, there were around 5 million people living in 1888. In England, there were some 26 million. In the world as a whole, around 1,5 billion people were living back then.

            Out of these 1,5 billion people, one (1) person only was found alone with a freshly killed Ripper victim: Charles Lechmere.
            Well. Let's not overstate things in order to try and make things sound damning for Lechmere. After all, of the 5 million or so people living in London, how many had a perfectly good reason to be walking through Buck's Row at that time of the morning? It's not as if he was, say, a famous impressionist claiming to have been out for an early morning stroll in the East End when Paul happened upon him. Also, let's leave the 26 million Englanders and 1.5 billion inhabitants of the planet out since, well, we'd be having a different conversation had an African bushman walked up to Paul and asked him to come see this woman.

            And let's not forget that bit, as well. Lechmere did exactly what John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Edward Watkins, and Thomas Bowyer did upon seeing what they saw: They told someone, as quickly as they could. Thus, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that Lechmere was "found" with a body by Paul. Paul tried to avoid Lechmere. Lechmere called his attention to the body, just as John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Edward Watkins, and Thomas Bowyer called attention to the bodies they'd found.

            I suppose the operative words here are "was found"? After all, John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Edward Watkins, and Thomas Bowyer all "found" and were all "alone" for some measure of time with "killed" Ripper victims. Diemschutz and Watkins were "alone" with "freshly killed" Ripper victims, in fact. The only aspect that is different in Lechmere's case is that he was closely followed down Buck's Row by another man, Robert Paul. After all, had George Morris stepped outside Kearley and Tonge to smoke his pipe just as Watkins shined his lantern upon Katherine Eddowes, he too would have been "found alone with a freshly killed Ripper victim. If Isaac Kozebrodsky had stepped out of the club for a pee just as Diemschutz struck his match over Stride's body, he also would have been "found alone with a freshly killed Ripper victim".

            There are some interesting things to discuss and some things that may - from some angles - appear worth further investigation. But, overstatement is not really necessary, and it does more to repel others from the theory than it does to attract them.

            Comment


            • #36
              Also P.C. Ernest Thompson was with Frances Coles still bleeding body. We have only his testimony that he heard footsteps hurrying away in the distance and that she seemed to open and shut one eye thus he had to stay with her.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                After all, of the 5 million or so people living in London, how many had a perfectly good reason to be walking through Buck's Row at that time of the morning?
                This has always been one of the biggest sticking points for Lechmere as Ripper. Had Lechmere taken a circuitous route to work that day and been found somewhere he shouldn't have been that could certainly be viewed with suspicion. But that wasn't the case. Lechmere was precisely the kind of person to stumble on a murder victim in Buck's Row at that hour.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Patrick S: Well. Let's not overstate things in order to try and make things sound damning for Lechmere.

                  I donīt. Finding a murdered body is not incriminating in the least, but it does produce a need to clear the finder from any involvment in the death, if he found the body at a remove in time that is consistent with being the perpetrator. That is why I found it disingenuous to ask how many people lived in the are. It does not matter how many they were, since none of them did the finding - Lechmere did. Itīs that or he killed Nichols.

                  After all, of the 5 million or so people living in London, how many had a perfectly good reason to be walking through Buck's Row at that time of the morning?

                  The fewest, apparently. The streets were deserted and quiet as per Neil, Green, Purkiss and Tomkins, unusually so even. However, since Nichols managed to sneak in unnoticed, so could anybody else have, so we cannot say that nobody else was there. Neither must we look for somebody who had a reason to pasas through Bucks Row - if it was another killer than Lechmere, he may have passed through Bucks Row for the first and last tie in his life. We just donīt know.

                  It's not as if he was, say, a famous impressionist claiming to have been out for an early morning stroll in the East End when Paul happened upon him. Also, let's leave the 26 million Englanders and 1.5 billion inhabitants of the planet out since, well, we'd be having a different conversation had an African bushman walked up to Paul and asked him to come see this woman.

                  Itīs hard to draw the line, though, is it not? A Whitechapel man, an Eastender, a Londoner, an Oxford man - it COULD have been any of those. And it could have been a bushman from Africa; the freak shows took pride in presenting exotic people on the streets of London. Merrick, the Elephant Man, was exhibited in a place adjacent to Dr Llewellynīs practice, more or less.
                  All we know is that the streets seemed more or less empty, and that Lechmere and Paul seems to have been more or less alone in Bucks Row at the time. Someone else may have snuck in, but as long as we cannot produce evidence of such a man, Lechmere has to be the better bid. The evidence we used to produce for the existence of the man I call the Phantom killer, is the damaged body of Nichols - somebody had to have done that, so somebody had to have been there.
                  But Lechmere WAS there. He may be all we need to lay the puzzle. The absolute need for a Phantom killer is gone.

                  And let's not forget that bit, as well. Lechmere did exactly what John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Edward Watkins, and Thomas Bowyer did upon seeing what they saw: They told someone, as quickly as they could. Thus, I don't think it's quite accurate to say that Lechmere was "found" with a body by Paul. Paul tried to avoid Lechmere. Lechmere called his attention to the body, just as John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Edward Watkins, and Thomas Bowyer called attention to the bodies they'd found.

                  When Paul arrived outside Browns, he noticed Lechmere - he had not done so before. If we say that Lechmere was noticed by the body or that he was found by it is kind of immaterial, I think. Lechmere was there, Paul was not there, Paul arrived and saw that Lechmere was there.
                  We should not be afraid of calling things by their correct names, I find - just as it is not damning to find a murdered body, it is just as little damning to be found by it.

                  I suppose the operative words here are "was found"? After all, John Davis, Louis Diemschutz, PC Edward Watkins, and Thomas Bowyer all "found" and were all "alone" for some measure of time with "killed" Ripper victims.

                  Davis, Diemschutz and Watkins found bodies - they were not found themselves by bodies.

                  Diemschutz and Watkins were "alone" with "freshly killed" Ripper victims, in fact.

                  Yes! Absolutely. And so they are better suspects than, say, Bury in my eyes on account of that. There is a proven opportunity.
                  But Diemschutz was heard arriving by Mrs Mortimer, which kind of helps him out, and Watkins was a serving officer of the police, who was walking a beat that would have taken up his time and his possibilities to lure Eddowes to her death. They are less interesting suspects, and they have not been shown to have given false names or to have been in conflict with the police over what was said. Nor is there any evidence in Watkinsī case that eddowes was still bleeding when he saw her.

                  The only aspect that is different in Lechmere's case is that he was closely followed down Buck's Row by another man, Robert Paul.

                  No, there are a few other bits and pieces too, as stated above.

                  After all, had George Morris stepped outside Kearley and Tonge to smoke his pipe just as Watkins shined his lantern upon Katherine Eddowes, he too would have been "found alone with a freshly killed Ripper victim.

                  True - but how does that exonerate Lechmere? He is not a suspect on account of finding a murder victim, he is a suspect on account of changing his name, on account of having told a different story than Mizen, on account of not having been noticed by Paul, on account of the hidden wounds and on account of how Jason Payne-James said that the bleeding time puts him in the eye of the storm. Plus a few more bits and bobs.

                  If Isaac Kozebrodsky had stepped out of the club for a pee just as Diemschutz struck his match over Stride's body, he also would have been "found alone with a freshly killed Ripper victim".

                  See the above.

                  There are some interesting things to discuss and some things that may - from some angles - appear worth further investigation. But, overstatement is not really necessary, and it does more to repel others from the theory than it does to attract them.

                  I am not overstating the case, Patrick. I am calling it as I see it, and I myself am conviced. That does not mean that others must be.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Fisherman: "True - but how does that exonerate Lechmere?

                    I cannot "exonerate" Lechmere. That holds true for even the most far-fetched "suspects" that have been presented over the years.

                    He is not a suspect on account of finding a murder victim

                    I agree with that. But that doesn't preclude you from continuing to reference the fact that he was "found with a freshly killed Ripper victim".

                    he is a suspect on account of changing his name

                    That's also overstatement. He did not "change" his name. You were more accurate when you called it - in a recent post - giving "an alternative name". However, it's more accurate to say that neither he nor Paul gave any name at all because Mizen didn't ask their names. He was REFERRED to as "Cross" in the press coverage of the inquest. We don't know if he gave that name and only that name. And if he did give only that name, there are many reasons other than him having been Jack the Ripper for him having done so. We don't know. I'm not saying it's not interesting. I'm not saying that I "exonerate" him. I'm saying that I - unlike you - am far from "convinced". But, that's what makes the world go 'round, right?

                    on account of having told a different story than Mizen,

                    Let's remember, though, that in order for your "Mizen Scam" to have happened then we must make assumptions that have Lechmere manipulating and directing Paul so that he (Paul) is unable to corroborate Mizen's version of events. So, while the stories are different, there is a great deal we don't know and a great deal of assumption and interpretation required for us point a finger at Lechmere.

                    on account of not having been noticed by Paul,

                    I don't find this in bit the least odd or interesting. It's dependent upon exact timings that were at the time - frankly - impossible, assumptions about footwear, available light.

                    on account of the hidden wounds

                    Again, I view this as somewhat irrelevant. Was the nearly severed head "hidden"? Would the wounds have remained HIDDEN had Paul struck a match when he - AS LECHMERE ASKED HIM TO DO - came to "see this woman"? There was very little light. It was pitch black. But Lechmere reasoned his only chance at escape through these (as you yourself call them) darkened, deserted streets was to go FETCH a passerby, ask him to come see, CONFIDENT he hadn't a match as Diemschutz produced readily enough (so we know it would not have been an ODD occurrence for a man to carry a MATCH....what on earth did Morris use to light his pipe?)!

                    and on account of how Jason Payne-James said that the bleeding time puts him in the eye of the storm.

                    Based upon adjectives in newspapers 130 years old. That's not blood evidence.

                    Plus a few more bits and bobs."

                    Maybe one of those bits and bobs will convince me and - more importantly - many, many others. I'm perfectly willing to hang the man should you present something that clarifies what we already know, casting Lechmere into a more suspicious light.
                    Last edited by Patrick S; 12-09-2016, 10:36 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Patrick S:
                      Fisherman: "True - but how does that exonerate Lechmere?

                      I cannot "exonerate" Lechmere. That holds true for even the most far-fetched "suspects" that have been presented over the years.

                      Well, yes - but what I was after here was the reoccurring statments that other victims were also found by somebody, be that Watkins, Diemschutz or anybody else. The argument is used to somehow dilute Lechmereīs presence by Nichols body - anyone can find a victim, it means nothing, sort of. And to a degree, I concur. Anybody CAN find a victim, but if you are found with a victim, then it means that you are a person who needs to be cleared, if that can be accomplished.
                      So I am saying that the fact that other people found other victims, and could indeed have been found by other victims, does not have an impact on the Lechmere affair. Each case on itīs own. And we all know that finding a murder victim is not per se suspicious - it is not until more information is added that suspicion can arise. And IF it does arise, then what was initially not looked upon as suspicious, will suddenly add to the overall suspicion.

                      He is not a suspect on account of finding a murder victim

                      I agree with that. But that doesn't preclude you from continuing to reference the fact that he was "found with a freshly killed Ripper victim".

                      True. And he was. As I say, had it not been for the changed name, for the disagreement with Mizen, for the fact that Paul did not notice Lechmere in front of himself over a stretch och a couple of hundred yards, for the fact that the clothing was pulled down, for the near total absense of any observation of another man on the streets who could have been the killer, for the fact that his logical routes seem to cover the nurder sites and -times and for the fact that Jason Payne-James says that the bleeding places the carman in the eye of the storm, it would be easy to sweep Lechmereīs finding the body of a freshy slain victim under the carpet. As it stands, that cannot be done. It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

                      he is a suspect on account of changing his name

                      That's also overstatement. He did not "change" his name. You were more accurate when you called it - in a recent post - giving "an alternative name". However, it's more accurate to say that neither he nor Paul gave any name at all because Mizen didn't ask their names. He was REFERRED to as "Cross" in the press coverage of the inquest. We don't know if he gave that name and only that name. And if he did give only that name, there are many reasons other than him having been Jack the Ripper for him having done so. We don't know. I'm not saying it's not interesting. I'm not saying that I "exonerate" him. I'm saying that I - unlike you - am far from "convinced". But, that's what makes the world go 'round, right?

                      We have 110 signatures and signings of gis name by others when in contact with the authorities. Lechmere therefore is well documented as the name he used in official circumstances. The police is an authority and represents official circumstances. But here, he used the name Cross instead. In a murder case. With no suspect.
                      He may have had other reasons than sinister ones for doing so, but the fact remains that we are dealing with an unexplained anomaly here. And unexplained anomalies, inconsistencies, lies, changed stories... these are all the kind of matters that form a suspect in the eyes of the police.
                      What the ones who say that it is not suspicious at all would need is any example of him having used the name Cross in any case at all. There are no examples of it, and that weighs heavily against the carman.
                      I can only conclude that the name affair must result in suspicion. Maybe that suspicion could have been cleared up if the police had checked him out, and maybe it was not what I am saying it looks like. But a stain is a stain until it is washed away. And it is not the only stain there is, which tends to reinforce the reason to be wary with him. Scobie: "A jury would not like that". Scobie "When the coincidences mount up - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".
                      Thatīs the problem with the carman - clear one thing away, and theres a large number of others that remain.

                      on account of having told a different story than Mizen,

                      Let's remember, though, that in order for your "Mizen Scam" to have happened then we must make assumptions that have Lechmere manipulating and directing Paul so that he (Paul) is unable to corroborate Mizen's version of events. So, while the stories are different, there is a great deal we don't know and a great deal of assumption and interpretation required for us point a finger at Lechmere.

                      To me, the proof of the pudding lies in the ensuing actions on behalf of Mizen. He accepted Neils testimony even though he would have known that Neil was wrong - IF, that is, he was not lied to by Lechmere (or misheard/misunderstood).
                      The interpretation problem is there for both sides, by the way. And there are major obstacles to overcome if we choose Mizen as the liar. Why would he persistently claim that ONE man spke to him, not two, for example?

                      on account of not having been noticed by Paul,

                      I don't find this in bit the least odd or interesting. It's dependent upon exact timings that were at the time - frankly - impossible, assumptions about footwear, available light.

                      Lechmere fixed the distance between the two men as thirty, forty yards. And Neil heard Thain from 130 yards away. So there are a number of given things. It also seems that Lechmere volunteered the distance numbers, which makes me wonder why he did so. I note that if he had heard Paul turning into the street, he would have had a full minute or more to cut Nichols. So, basically, he has Paul arriving at the optimal time for not having enabled himself to be the killer. Of course, there was no law saying that Paul should not arrive at such a time. It is, as I always say, what it is.

                      on account of the hidden wounds

                      Again, I view this as somewhat irrelevant. Was the nearly severed head "hidden"? Would the wounds have remained HIDDEN had Paul struck a match when he - AS LECHMERE ASKED HIM TO DO - came to "see this woman"? There was very little light. It was pitch black. But Lechmere reasoned his only chance at escape through these (as you yourself call them) darkened, deserted streets was to go FETCH a passerby, ask him to come see, CONFIDENT he hadn't a match as Diemschutz produced readily enough (so we know it would not have been an ODD occurrence for a man to carry a MATCH....what on earth did Morris use to light his pipe?)!

                      Lechmere gambled if he was the killer. There can be no knowing what he would have done if Paul had had a match. He may well have planned to kill him if he did. Or he may have played surprised "Good Lord, sheīs been cut! You stay here and Iīll go for a policeman!"
                      After that, he could have either fled, and become the prime suspect, or disposed of the knife somewhere before fetching a policeman. Any blood on his hands could be explained by the examination the carmen made.
                      We are dealing with a killer who was apparently an opportunist, ready to strike and hope for the best - and quite probably with a plan for what to do if it went awry.
                      Of course, the Mizen scam is not proven, but IF he was the killer, then what he did up at Bakers Row is a nice example of how he was able to con his way out of things.
                      The wound in the neck was probably covered, the way I see it. I donīt think Paul could possibly have missed it otherwise, it was a gaping wound and it would have been dark against the white skin. The carmen sw the black hat some way away, remember.
                      My best guess is that if Lechmere covered the abdominal wounds, then he would be asinine not to hide the neck wound. I believe that it WAS covered, and that the covering came down as Paul pulled the dress down over the knees.

                      and on account of how Jason Payne-James said that the bleeding time puts him in the eye of the storm.

                      Based upon adjectives in newspapers 130 years old. That's not blood evidence.

                      What we have is what we have. Mizen testified in rather an exact manner about the blood, it was still running, it looked fresh (so he saw the colur of it, which reasonably means he shone his light on Nichols), it ended up in the pool under her neck and it was partly congealed. That is an impressive listing of the blood, and it must be regarded as blood evidence. Otherwise, we would need to disregard every written report on the blood as not being blood evidence.
                      You seem to think that we must be able to touch the blood in order for it to be blood evidence. I have it the other way around - the detailed testimony of Mizen is clear and irrevocable evidence to me. People have been convicted on the evidence given by serving police officers about the blood issue, so itīs evidential value cannot be contested in my eyes.

                      Plus a few more bits and bobs."

                      Maybe one of those bits and bobs will convince me and - more importantly - many, many others. I'm perfectly willing to hang the man should you present something that clarifies what we already know, casting Lechmere into a more suspicious light.

                      I wonīt hang him myself just yet. Scobie, once again (and I donīt remember if it made the docu): If he could provide satisfactory answers to the questions raised by his behaviour, then he would walk free.
                      I concur. But I want to see those answers before I let go of him. And frankly, I donīt think he would be able to provide them. But that is my take on things, and I know full well that others disagree on a number of points.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                        This has always been one of the biggest sticking points for Lechmere as Ripper. Had Lechmere taken a circuitous route to work that day and been found somewhere he shouldn't have been that could certainly be viewed with suspicion. But that wasn't the case. Lechmere was precisely the kind of person to stumble on a murder victim in Buck's Row at that hour.
                        Yes, he was. And it would work to his advantage regardless if he was the killer or not.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                          Also P.C. Ernest Thompson was with Frances Coles still bleeding body. We have only his testimony that he heard footsteps hurrying away in the distance and that she seemed to open and shut one eye thus he had to stay with her.
                          Yes, true again. And what does that mean? That he could have been the killer since he had opportunity and that he would need to be cleared from the investigation if no killer was found?
                          Precisely.
                          Does it in itīs turn affect the probability that Lechmere was or was not the killer? No, not in the least, since we already knew that murder victims are sometimes found very close in time to their deaths by innocent people. The argument is a meta-argument, therefore.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I'd say we've covered it. Although, we always seem to end up back in Buck's Row, I think that you've provided some interesting stuff with respect to how one - in the context of Lechmere as the Ripper - may view Eddowes and Mitre Square. Thanks.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Patrick S View Post
                              I'd say we've covered it. Although, we always seem to end up back in Buck's Row, I think that you've provided some interesting stuff with respect to how one - in the context of Lechmere as the Ripper - may view Eddowes and Mitre Square. Thanks.
                              My pleasure, Patrick. Bucks Row is and remains the nave, so itīs natural that it will be revisited over and over again. No Bucks Row, no Lechmere. No Lechmere, no Ripp...
                              Think I may be gettinī ahead of myself ever so slightly again.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                                Yes, he was. And it would work to his advantage regardless if he was the killer or not.
                                Is it your supposition that Lechmere was trolling for victims that morning, or that he happened opportunistically on a prostitute worse for wear?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X