Favorite suspect/s?

[Elamarna]

The Ripper must have got out of Bucks Row pretty smart, as neither Lechmere, nor Paul saw anyone as they approached the Row. And with these guys approached from either end,so which way did or could the Ripper have gone?

Paul and Lechmere did not come from either end Busy Beaver, they both came from Bath street, and entered Bucks Row where it joined Brady Street,

There are lots of escape routes, West, North and South. Indeed one could even escape going East if one went South first.

If someone went West to the Board school and then turned left (South) they would be out of sight of anyone walking East to West along Bucks Row in around 30 seconds without even having to walk quickly.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Beat me to it, Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Paul was not just present, but chipping in to the conversation with Mizen, according to Cross' inquest testimony report (from Daily News);
"He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw the last witness whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row. The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right." The other man left witness soon afterwards."

Thanks for that Joshua

Far too much speculation and wish-thinking has to be done to try and prove the ‘scam.’ I think that we can, with more than a reasonable level of confidence, dismiss it.

[caz]

I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but I wouldn't bet against there having been similar reports of the initial misidentification of bodies in the Victorian press, and Lechmere was literate, so he may not have needed a time machine to have come across one.

Whether he was innocent or guilty Lechmere felt the need to explain why he had approached the body from a spot where it presumably could not be clearly seen - while he on his way to work with not a lot of spare time on his hands.

Not a lot of blood on his hands either, Gary.

So we are either dealing with an innocent witness with not a lot of spare time on his hands, who thinks some object in the street ahead looks like a tarpaulin, goes to investigate, finds it's a woman down, sees Paul approaching and intercepts him to get him involved too, before they go off together to alert the nearest copper and then on to work.

Or... we are dealing with a killer with not a lot of spare time on his hands, but who nevertheless hangs around to do all the above - after finding a suitable victim and killing her - why? Because saving time by walking swiftly on to work, as if he has seen nothing worth stopping for, is not an option? Or not nearly as much fun?

The presumption of innocence, for me, means that if Lechmere's reaction to seeing Nichols is not inconsistent with that of an innocent witness unexpectedly coming across a murder victim on the way to work, then why would I opt for him being a guilty man who is able to react just like an innocent one might?

It isn't enough to say that he could be lying and putting on an act, even though he risks being late for work as a direct result. I'd need evidence that this is what he is doing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I'd pay you to knock up some fish and chips.

From your post #614 :

I think that there is nothing at all gainsaying that the two men arrived in the street in close physical company with each other, and that Lechmere then said "There´s a copper! I´ll talk to him, and you just go on ahead so you won´t be late!"

From your post #601 :

He clearly said that ONE man came up to him and spoke to him, and the coroner asked if there was not another man present as the conversation took place, which Mizen answered with a "yes".

Do you not see any contradiction here, Fish?

No. There would have been a short stretch to walk along Bakers Row before they reached Mizen, and I think that the two may have split up along it. Then they rejoined afterwards again.

It realy, really isn´t rocket science, and you really, really needn´t try to turn it into something very mysterious when it is all very simple.

Why do you do that, Robert? Is it the same kind of thing as when you said that we only had Lechmere´s word for him working in Broad Street? Sort of a wish to obfuscate whenever you can?

Just genuinely curious here.

[Fisherman]

What anomalies?

Those on the list.

[Fisherman]

If Cross had sent Paul ahead up Hanbury Street as he spoke to Mizen, why would he not take this opportunity to carry on alone along his alternative route to work via Old Montague Street?

Depends to a degree where they were, perhaps.

Maybe he had told Paul "Go ahead and I will catch up".

Edward Stow has suggested that he did not want to go down Montague since it could make the police realize that there had been a murder three weeks before.

Lots of options, Joshua.

[Fisherman]

I dont understand how you can say that the need for a ‘scam’ was due to unforseen circumstances? If he told someone about the body surely its a given that the person that he told would wish to find and inform a police officer?

No, it is not. Many would have preferred not to get involved. Dew writes about Paul and his unwillingness to come forward: In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed. He might have been a criminal; or he might have been afraid, as so many were, to risk the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime.

So no, it is VERY far from a given that a PC would be contacted when somebody found a body.

[Fisherman]

Not even remotely approaching it Fish.

It´s a question of judgment, experience, education and knowledge. Putting it otherwise, it´s Scobie versus you.

[Elamarna]

No. There would have been a short stretch to walk along Bakers Row before they reached Mizen, and I think that the two may have split up along it. Then they rejoined afterwards again.

It realy, really isn´t rocket science, and you really, really needn´t try to turn it into something very mysterious when it is all very simple.

Why do you do that, Robert? Is it the same kind of thing as when you said that we only had Lechmere´s word for him working in Broad Street? Sort of a wish to obfuscate whenever you can?

Just genuinely curious here.

Hi Fish,
I am also genuinely curious as to what source or sources lead you to think:

" that the two may have split up along it. Then they rejoined afterwards again".

Is this thought based on any tangible source evidence or just an dea based on a wide interpretation of language?
In essence unsupported by the sources.

Cheers


Steve

[Fisherman]

We can assume that Paul was with CL when he spoke because we have no concrete reason to think otherwise. You accept that even if CL lied that he had a perfectly innocent reason for doing so. Both CL and Paul spoke of their concern at getting to work on time. Mizen, in stating that another man (Paul) was present, is surely making a pretty obvious statement. He was conversing with CL and Paul was present ie. he was in their company and not a few yards away. It cant be much clearer.

No, we cannot assume that Pal was with Lechmere as he spoke.

And no, there can be no knowing how many yards away Paul was. Please sober up! "Present" is not a term that can be translated into yards and inches!

If the two men lied and were found out, they would be up to their eyeballs inshit the next time Mizen saw them. I don´t think they´d risk that. Being held up by a PC was something you had to accept.

[Robert]

So Mizen said that Paul was present during the conversation, but you disagree with Mizen.

[Fisherman]

Paul was not just present, but chipping in to the conversation with Mizen, according to Cross' inquest testimony report (from Daily News);
"He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's row they saw the last witness whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's row. The witness added, "She looks to me either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right." The other man left witness soon afterwards."

Yes. And if Lechmere was the killer, would he stand to gain from lying, Joshua? The point of interest here is that Mizen does not say that Paul spoke, he does not say that the gravity of the errand was disclosed and he says that he was told that another PC had the errand in hand.

No matter how we look upon who lied or mistook things, it remains that the version Mizen gave was absolutely tailormade to take Lechmere past him unsearched. A gem of a lie, if a lie it was.

[Robert]

I see you're also disagreeing with the English language yet again.

[Fisherman]

That's fishy, Fishy, because you claimed - falsely - that Lechmere's opportunity to kill Nichols was proven. And what's this about another killer? If she was already dead or dying when Lechmere first saw her [and you cannot possibly prove she wasn't], then there was no opportunity for 'another killer', or just another man, be it Lechmere or anyone else, to do the deed, was there?

In short, in order to have had the opportunity - the proven opportunity - Lechmere would have had to be seen with Nichols while she was still alive.

How is that so hard for you to grasp?



Eh? Where did you get that idea from? I said the opposite - that the killer would have been unlikely to be able to invent such a plausible lie without knowing what innocent people think they see when first noticing an object from a distance and in darkness, which then turns out, when seen up close, to be a murder victim. The tarpaulin, for me, supports Lechmere as an innocent witness, just telling the truth as he saw it.

Love,

Caz
X

I read the first line and skipped the rest. You get that totally wrong. Lechmere had opportunity to kill as far as a jury would be concerned
It is another matter that he may not even have been in contact with the body. His being placed where he was and not being able to provide a corroborated alibi means that he is going to be regarded as having had opportunity.

And that is exactly as it should be, otherwise any killer could say "Didn´t go near her" and demand to be believed.

That is absolute poppycock, Caz.