Suspect battle: Cross/Lechmere vs. Hutchinson

[Elamarna]

The blood evidence is unreliable there could have been up to thirty minutes between the killer murdering Nichols and Lechmere finding the body.

John,

I will have to disagree with you on that, the evidence is not unreliable, it is however open to a limited amount of interpretation, to say it could be 30 minutes is in my opinion stretching that too far.


However I have made it clear that I do not agree that Lechmere was the killer, and having been arguing with a degree of success that even allowing for the blood evidence as given by Fisherman, the case against Lechmere is far from conclusive.

best wishes


steve

[John Wheat]

Lechmere has been cought over a still bleeding woman that has been killed withen 5 minutes, Paul didn't hear foot steps, and he was also afraid of him.

The blood evidence is unreliable there could have been up to thirty minutes between the killer murdering Nichols and Lechmere finding the body.

[John Wheat]

Its highly unlikely Lechmere didn't kill Nichols, there are enough evidences to send Lechmere to the hangman.

It's highly unlikely Lechmere killed Nichols. There iOS nothing to say Lechmere killed Nichols.

[Rainbow]

Lechmere has been cought over a still bleeding woman that has been killed withen 5 minutes, Paul didn't hear foot steps, and he was also afraid of him.

[Rainbow]

It's highly unlikely Lechmere killed Nichols.

Its highly unlikely Lechmere didn't kill Nichols, there are enough evidences to send Lechmere to the hangman.

[John Wheat]

Lechmere of course! he killed Nichols, but there is no clue that Hutchinson killed Kelly.

It's highly unlikely Lechmere killed Nichols.

[Rainbow]

An idea for a small series of polls I had comparing suspects of the same general 'type', in this case witnesses whose testimony has been called into question by future generations of Ripperologists.

Which of the two is more plausible as a suspect?

Lechmere of course! he killed Nichols, he has been cought red handed while the poor victim was still bleeding, but there is no clue that Hutchinson killed Kelly.

[John Wheat]

An idea for a small series of polls I had comparing suspects of the same general 'type', in this case witnesses whose testimony has been called into question by future generations of Ripperologists.

Which of the two is more plausible as a suspect?

There both witnesses not suspects.

[GUT]

G'day Lechmere

think that out of 4 newspapers 2 reported Mizen as saying "You are needed by a policeman" and Two as saying "You are needed down there".

[Lechmere]

Yes Kaz it is written down in the newspaper reports of the inquest.
The anti Lechmere brigade choose to believe Lechmere over Mizen, despite Mizen being an experienced policeman with an exemplary record who was also a lifelong do-gooding religious Christian.
We have a situation where a man was found very close to a very freshly killed body with the abdominal wounds hidden. He immediately gets into a dispute with a policeman over what was said and then gives a false name.
Response if 'Ripperologists' - dream up excuses for him.

Gut
Did he know the police wouldnt follow up on him? They evidently did not and he may have hoped not but he could hardly be sure.
Pretending that the reports that do not mention a policeman wanting him with the ones that do is I would say being deliberately misleading on your part.

No one, incidentally, has claimed that Lechmere refused to give his address in court. These repetitive ignorant claims are - tiresome. The suggestion is that in the confusion he got away without reading it out.

[GUT]

The programme suggests he mentioned it to officer mizen (sp), assume it was written down somewhere.

G'day Kaz

In a nutshell Mizen in some spots says he did and other reposrts just says that he was told "You are wanted down there". Cross,when asked says he didn't.

[Kaz]

But did he?

I've seen no evidence that he ever admitted this, or indeed was ever questioned about it.

The programme suggests he mentioned it to officer mizen (sp), assume it was written down somewhere.

[Ghost]

What I'm asking for is evidence for the extraordinary claim that Lechmere/Cross could have refused to give his address at the inquest.

Because the explanation suggested by Fisherman above relies on the idea that he could have done that. Otherwise, what would have been the point of giving a false surname, but the correct address?

Why did Ted Bundy tell one woman he was trying to lure that his name was Ted? I agree it's a little strange. But things happen.

[GUT]

Why did he lie about an officer being with the victim?

But did he?

I've seen no evidence that he ever admitted this, or indeed was ever questioned about it.

[Kaz]

G'day Abby



All clear and logical reasons to use Cross that are totally consistent with innocence.

Why did he lie about an officer being with the victim?