Lechmere validity

[GUT]

I think I once found about 12 different paths he could have easily taken, or just slipped into the shadows till Cross and Paul moved on and went the opposite direction.

[APerno]

Is it possible that he moved through the doors and down the halls of the residential buildings (on the one side of the street)? I read somewhere that some of the housing had street entrances that were never locked (like possibly the case with 29 Hanbury for example) and that one could enter through one street, move down the hallway and out the backdoor on to the next block over. I wonder if that was possible from Buck's Row? I do believe one side of the street were residentials.

[JeffHamm]

OK so Lechmere is exonerated, where did the Ripper go?

Polly's extremities are still warm enough to be mistaken for life; did the murder simply walk away, off towards Baker's Row and Mizen, or does he walk the other direction, right past Paul unnoticed? From which direction came Lechmere? Was the murder standing in the shadows watching the two examine Polly's body? If not, how did he get by Lechmere unnoticed?

See fooled again, I thought you guys had this figured out, I was all ready to yell 'final solution' yet again, but no, I can't depend on you guys; all that reading and listening to you argue, and nada!

What next?

What if Paul actually doubled back behind Lechmere and then . . .

Ha ha! If the case was solved simply by ruling one person out then knowing where JtR went would be revealed. But, in all likelihood he headed westward initially, away from Cross/Lechmere. After that, he may have turned north and yes, there's no reason why PC Mizen would stop him. Ppeople are going to work (he's knocking them up for that reason after all) so one more person passing him isn't going to be suspicious as he's unaware of a murder. However, I would think if someone had passed him prior to Cross/Lechmere and Paul showing up he would have noted that after the fact. But, if he went in that direction, PC Mizen would be further back on Old Montague (I think that's the street he was coming along while knocking people up) so he could have continued on Hanbury. Or, he may have turned South towards Whitechapel (if he wasn't noticably bloodied, which he may not have been, hands in pockets and probably nothing to see) and off he goes, or down towards and passed Tabram's murder (particularly if he was responsible for her murder, just to relive things maybe?). There are so many options once he's on the move that he would vanish pretty quick.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

OK so Lechmere is exonerated, where did the Ripper go?

Polly's extremities are still warm enough to be mistaken for life; did the murder simply walk away, off towards Baker's Row and Mizen, or does he walk the other direction, right past Paul unnoticed? From which direction came Lechmere? Was the murder standing in the shadows watching the two examine Polly's body? If not, how did he get by Lechmere unnoticed?

See fooled again, I thought you guys had this figured out, I was all ready to yell 'final solution' yet again, but no, I can't depend on you guys; all that reading and listening to you argue, and nada!

What next?

What if Paul actually doubled back behind Lechmere and then . . .

lol. either the ripper killed her or just possibly lechmere AP its not that complicated. if it was the ripper he simply left in the opposite direction of lech and slipped past knocking up Mizen.

[APerno]

OK so Lechmere is exonerated, where did the Ripper go?

Polly's extremities are still warm enough to be mistaken for life; did the murder simply walk away, off towards Baker's Row and Mizen, or does he walk the other direction, right past Paul unnoticed? From which direction came Lechmere? Was the murder standing in the shadows watching the two examine Polly's body? If not, how did he get by Lechmere unnoticed?

See fooled again, I thought you guys had this figured out, I was all ready to yell 'final solution' yet again, but no, I can't depend on you guys; all that reading and listening to you argue, and nada!

What next?

What if Paul actually doubled back behind Lechmere and then . . .

[GUT]

Every single bit of evidence is consistent with innocence.

[JeffHamm]

All correct. I mean, why seek out a PC in order to pull this "scam"? We keep hearing Christer say that the "scam" was meant to "take him past the police".... even though he sought out the police rather than employ any of the myriad, simple alternatives available to him that didn't involved finding a policeman and lying to him while hoping the guy he forced to get involved in this errand in the first place, a complete stranger, went along with it.

Hi Patrick S,

That's the problem with the Lechmere/Cross as JtR theory. It keeps tripping over the data and requires very convoluted, complex, and unsupported reasoning to get by one hurdle and then, that complex set of arguments results in it tripping over itself on the very next step, so a new set of complicated, convoluted arguments are made to try and get through that tangle, only to get worse and worse as we journey from Buck's Row to Old Montague Street. Compare that to the alternative, that Lechmere/Cross was innocent, and all of the actions and behaviours and testimonies are more or less straight forward to understand, with only a few minor wrinkles here and there that seem to reflect the idiosyncrasies of the situation. Having read the arguments put forth for Cross/Lechmere's guilt, and those against, and also having looked at the evidence and testimonies myself to draw my own inferences, then it's clear, the current evidence only allows one to exonerate Cross/Lechmere. So unless something new is found, changing the evidence we have, I don't see any indication of Cross/Lechmere being anything other than an innocent party trying to do what a decent fellow would do, draw the attention of the police and others to a woman who is in need of assistance that he himself cannot provide.

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

The "scam", which is specifically the claim that Lechmere/Cross told PC Mizen a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, was also entirely unnecessary for purpose. The goal, according to Fisherman, is to get PC Mizen to move on as quickly as possible so he's not searched. But getting searched is more likely as soon as he mentions she might be dead, which he testifies that he did. Now, if his claim that Paul said "I think she's dead", that would mean they're both right there, hearing what each other says to PC Mizen. Cross/Lechmere, to avoid being searched, just needs to downplay the dead part (because the more PC Mizen is made to believe there's a dead woman on the street, the more probable the risk of him also taking names, and doing a quick search), so he would only have to say something like "Maybe, she's probably drunk, but she is certainly near death and needs your assistance". If, we ignore all the coroborating statements that put Lechmere/Cross and Paul both talking to PC Mizen at the same time, and make Paul vanish, then again, all the more reason why all Lechmere/Cross has to do is report a drunk woman, passed out who appears near death is in Buck's Row. This isn't something a cop is going to take names for, or search someone, it's just someone doing their civic duty.

The "scam", as a scam, is both illogical and unwarrented by the overall evidence. It does not logically follow from anything we have, and is specifically designed to remove from consideration a large amount of the limited evidence we have (testimonies that Cross/Lechmere and Paul walked together, were in company as described by PC Mizen, and indications that both Cross/Lechmere and Paul spoke to PC Mizen, some of that coming from newspaper reports, others from the inquest testimony itself). The bits of testimony that become questionable are greatly reduced (PC Mizen saying he was told he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row) are of the sort that occur in spoken testimony (when he got to Buck's Row he was indeed wanted by a policeman, PC Neil sent him off to the ambulance, and there was indeed a dead woman in the street - human memory, being what it is, would easily conflate these two events resulting in PC Mizen simply either misremembering, so not lying per se, or even simply misspeaking.

Comparing the unnecessary complexity of the "scam" hypothesis with the alternative shows that the scam hypothesis is neither evidence based nor necessary, and results in a large scale culling of indpendant bits of data/evidence. It is designed to make disconfirming evidence "go away" in order for a chosen theory to remain in consideration. Therefore, unless new evidence comes to light to corroborate it, it should be considered falsified. Mind you, it's creative, and it would make for good TV.

- Jeff

All correct. I mean, why seek out a PC in order to pull this "scam"? We keep hearing Christer say that the "scam" was meant to "take him past the police".... even though he sought out the police rather than employ any of the myriad, simple alternatives available to him that didn't involved finding a policeman and lying to him while hoping the guy he forced to get involved in this errand in the first place, a complete stranger, went along with it.

[Elamarna]

With that kind of detailed knowledge Steve you should consider writing a book on the events in Bucks Row.

Now that's an idea, should only take 30 months



Steve

[JeffHamm]

I’ve mentioned this before but why didn’t Lechmere simply say to Paul as they walked away from the body “to increase our chances of finding a Constable you go that way and I’ll go this way”? Then Lechmere would have just had to avoid a Constable and any chance of being searched.

Or better yet, why didn't he just take off the moment he saw someone in the distance coming down Buck's Row and avoid all the complications of having someone see his face in the first place? Or let Paul pass when it was clear he was going to?

Nothing in Lechmere/Cross's behaviour is at all consistent with the conclusion of guilt.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve mentioned this before but why didn’t Lechmere simply say to Paul as they walked away from the body “to increase our chances of finding a Constable you go that way and I’ll go this way”? Then Lechmere would have just had to avoid a Constable and any chance of being searched.

[JeffHamm]

Of course this is all correct, Herlock. The whole premise begins with Cross, having just killed and mutilated Nichols, hearing footsteps forty yards off and deciding to simply stay on the spot with his victim, despite the fact that he had no idea WHO was approaching. As we now know, Christer does NOT endorse Griffiths' very clear statements in the internationally sent documentary that Lechmere HAD NO CHOICE but to remain because someone else (Paul) was in Buck's Row. Griffith's, the narration tells us, believes Lechmere COULD NOT escape due to the police presence in the area. So we have Lechmere killing and mutating Nichols, hearing footsteps forty yards off in the dark, and immediately CHOOSING to cede control of the environment by introducing this unknown person to the events in real time. And I'm supposed to avoid words like "laughable". I'm sorry... but I simply cannot.

The "scam", which is specifically the claim that Lechmere/Cross told PC Mizen a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, was also entirely unnecessary for purpose. The goal, according to Fisherman, is to get PC Mizen to move on as quickly as possible so he's not searched. But getting searched is more likely as soon as he mentions she might be dead, which he testifies that he did. Now, if his claim that Paul said "I think she's dead", that would mean they're both right there, hearing what each other says to PC Mizen. Cross/Lechmere, to avoid being searched, just needs to downplay the dead part (because the more PC Mizen is made to believe there's a dead woman on the street, the more probable the risk of him also taking names, and doing a quick search), so he would only have to say something like "Maybe, she's probably drunk, but she is certainly near death and needs your assistance". If, we ignore all the coroborating statements that put Lechmere/Cross and Paul both talking to PC Mizen at the same time, and make Paul vanish, then again, all the more reason why all Lechmere/Cross has to do is report a drunk woman, passed out who appears near death is in Buck's Row. This isn't something a cop is going to take names for, or search someone, it's just someone doing their civic duty.

The "scam", as a scam, is both illogical and unwarrented by the overall evidence. It does not logically follow from anything we have, and is specifically designed to remove from consideration a large amount of the limited evidence we have (testimonies that Cross/Lechmere and Paul walked together, were in company as described by PC Mizen, and indications that both Cross/Lechmere and Paul spoke to PC Mizen, some of that coming from newspaper reports, others from the inquest testimony itself). The bits of testimony that become questionable are greatly reduced (PC Mizen saying he was told he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row) are of the sort that occur in spoken testimony (when he got to Buck's Row he was indeed wanted by a policeman, PC Neil sent him off to the ambulance, and there was indeed a dead woman in the street - human memory, being what it is, would easily conflate these two events resulting in PC Mizen simply either misremembering, so not lying per se, or even simply misspeaking.

Comparing the unnecessary complexity of the "scam" hypothesis with the alternative shows that the scam hypothesis is neither evidence based nor necessary, and results in a large scale culling of indpendant bits of data/evidence. It is designed to make disconfirming evidence "go away" in order for a chosen theory to remain in consideration. Therefore, unless new evidence comes to light to corroborate it, it should be considered falsified. Mind you, it's creative, and it would make for good TV.

- Jeff

[Patrick S]

And to restate the obvious, we have the complications of the Scam, like the fact that Lechmere couldn’t have known that he’d have been able to somehow speak to Mizen out of Paul’s hearing. And the fact that, in the darkness of the murder site, he couldn’t have known for anything like certain that he didn’t have blood on him when he came face to face with Mizen. We might even add that how could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have panicked and started accusing him of murder in Buck’s Row? Then we have to weigh all of this against the undoubted fact that Lechmere could have simply walked away to safety and avoided it all.

Of course this is all correct, Herlock. The whole premise begins with Cross, having just killed and mutilated Nichols, hearing footsteps forty yards off and deciding to simply stay on the spot with his victim, despite the fact that he had no idea WHO was approaching. As we now know, Christer does NOT endorse Griffiths' very clear statements in the internationally sent documentary that Lechmere HAD NO CHOICE but to remain because someone else (Paul) was in Buck's Row. Griffith's, the narration tells us, believes Lechmere COULD NOT escape due to the police presence in the area. So we have Lechmere killing and mutating Nichols, hearing footsteps forty yards off in the dark, and immediately CHOOSING to cede control of the environment by introducing this unknown person to the events in real time. And I'm supposed to avoid words like "laughable". I'm sorry... but I simply cannot.

[Patrick S]

What you see is how I say that it must be accepted that the PC in case may have told the truth. But you prefer to word it as if I am saying that we MUST believe the PC over the carman.
It is called misleading and it is closely linked to propaganda.

Something I've found "misleading" and perhaps acting as "propaganda" helping to inspire all those Lechmere fans to leave "two thumbs up" reviews for the "internationally sent documentary".

We're told, "When Christer discovered that his suspect's real name was Charles Lechmere, he could confirm where he lived and where he worked." This is clearly "misleading" in that it gives one the idea that his home and work addresses hadn't previously been known, and would have remained a mystery but for Christer's research. Then we're shown Christer and Andy determining timings based on the revelations that Lechmere originated from 22 Doveton Street and was bound for Pickford's in Broad Street.

Alas, we know that Christer's "suspect" gave his real address and place of employment AT THE INQUEST. These were never a mystery, were widely reported at the time, and have been known for 130 years. Of course, this information makes the revelation that he "gave a FALSE NAME at the inquest" far less damning (and less entertaining), doesn't it? "Closely linked to propaganda" indeed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And to restate the obvious, we have the complications of the Scam, like the fact that Lechmere couldn’t have known that he’d have been able to somehow speak to Mizen out of Paul’s hearing. And the fact that, in the darkness of the murder site, he couldn’t have known for anything like certain that he didn’t have blood on him when he came face to face with Mizen. We might even add that how could Lechmere have known that Paul wouldn’t have panicked and started accusing him of murder in Buck’s Row? Then we have to weigh all of this against the undoubted fact that Lechmere could have simply walked away to safety and avoided it all.