Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[FrankO]

I donīt suggest that Lechmere contacted the police to play games, though, Frank. I suggest that he did it to save his behind - but that he may actually have enjoyed doing so.

Sorry if I was unclear, Christer. I was talking about the situation where Lechmere waited for Paul, not about him contacting the police.. You suggested that he would be (more) inclined to play games if he heard Paul entering Buck's Row (because he would have had more time to split).

Take care,
Frank

[Patrick S]

Sorry if I was unclear, Christer. I was talking about the situation where Lechmere waited for Paul, not about him contacting the police.. You suggested that he would be (more) inclined to play games if he heard Paul entering Buck's Row (because he would have had more time to split).

Take care,
Frank

This touches upon an aspect of the Lechmere theory that I continue to find problematic, and it ties in with Herlock's discussion around Nichols' clothing discussed in this thread, as well.

I don't think that anyone disputes that Cross/Lechmere was near Nichols' body in Buck's Row at the time Paul entered, walking toward the spots upon which Nichols lay and Cross/Lechmere stood. Those who believe Cross/Lechmere her killer believe he'd killed her and was mutilating her. Those who do not believe he was standing close by, realized she was not a "tarpaulin" and was, in fact, a woman... and waited for Paul to arrive where he was.

Exploring this scenario from the standpoint that Cross/Lechmere HAD just killed Nichols, I find what's proposed to have happened next somewhat incredible. The theory represents that Cross/Lechmere undertook a series of actions in order to not be caught. Leaving aside the fact that, as Christer states, "he may have enjoyed" it, his primary objective was to get away with his crime so that he could commit others, not be killed, etc. I don't think that's controversial and can be agreed upon by both those supportive and non-supportive of him as Jack the Ripper.

Now, in order to get away with this crime, it's suggested that Cross/Lechmere covered Nichols' wounds to some extent, stood near her body, and awaited Paul's arrival. This may seem plausible if Cross/Lechmere were trapped on that spot. Yet, we can be reasonably certain, I think, that he was not trapped. He could have chosen to simply walk away toward Baker's Row in the direction that he and Paul would ultimately head together, or toward Paul, passing him before he (Paul) reached Nichols. Enabling him to then choose from two options: Should Paul reach the body and "raise the alarm" he could then walk/run away or, should he wish play out a bluff (which it's suggested he enjoyed), return to Nichols' body and Paul... and play things out similarly to how they've been alleged claiming he'd not seen the body or that he'd assumed it was another drunk on the pavement.

We know also that it was very dark in Buck's Row. Neil tells us he was only able to see Nichols' wounds with the aid of his lamp: "It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east....Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat."

Yet, in this darkness, with two directions in which to walk into the darkness, not only did Cross/Lechmere remain on the spot, he refused to allow Paul to walk past him WITHOUT ALERTING HIM to the fact that a woman was lying on the pavement. Paul's statement in Lloyd's: "The man (Cross/Lechmere), however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." Paul says more in his inquest testimony, stating that he tried to avoid contact with Cross/Lechmere: "As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

As we know, Cross/Lechmere then inspected the body with Paul, remained with Paul on their errand to find a PC, informed the PC (Mizen) that a woman was lying in Buck's Row (either with a PC in Buck's Row or not, this is agreed upon by all) either dead (as stated by Paul and Cross/Lechmere) or not dead (Mizen). And after, remembering that the primary objective was to get away with his crime, he turned up at the inquest the following Monday even though he'd not been asked or provided a name to Mizen on the night of the murder and had been allowed to leave with without a question from Mizen and with no description of him had been included in any published reports.

I know what Christer's contentions are around these circumstances. I've just been unable to find them credible... thus far.

[caz]

He did not have to go to the top of the cellar steps to look down, as per his mother - he could see the lock from the top of the stairs leading into the house hall.

The DN also says that Richardson claimed about the visit to the stairs: "The Witness-No, sir; it was shut. So was the back door. I opened it and sat on the back steps to cut a piece of leather off my boot."

On the back step. Would that not be the TOP steps?

Plus we have the statement: (Coroner) -Did you go into the yard at all?
(Richardson) -Not at all, sir.
(Coroner) -I thought you went there to see that the cellar was all right?
(Richardson) -Yes; but you don't need to go into the yard to see that. You can see the padlock of the cellar door from the back door steps.

Donīt you think that clinches the matter, Joshua? Richardson didnīt stand on top of the cellar steps, as far as I can tell. And he may have sat on the "back steps"!

Any which way we cut this, I cannot for the life of me see that there can be any certainty at all either way. He must certainly not have seen Chapman. It is not written in stone or anything even close to it.

Hi Fish,

I'm still gamely trying to catch up with all the posts on this thread, so someone may already have addressed the above.

If Richardson could see, in the darkness of 4.45am, if a padlock was on the cellar door securely, from his position at the top of the stairs, where Davies was when he later saw a whacking great corpse immediately upon opening the door, I fail to see how Richardson could have failed to see the same sight, had Chapman been there at that earlier time.

In short, Richardson would have had to be wildly out in his timing, or lying - for some odd reason - about having taken a knife [?!] to his boot so very close to the scene of this murder by knife. He knew precisely where Davies had seen the body, and also precisely where he was putting himself in relation to it, so he'd also have known for certain whether he could have missed it or not, and would have been very unwise to tell an obvious lie about this.

If Richardson did see the body, but pretended he didn't, why include the boot cutting in his story? If he didn't see the body for whatever reason, his best bet would still have been to leave out the boot cutting operation. He was leaving himself wide open by claiming he couldn't have missed the woman, and therefore she wasn't there at 4.45am, and with nothing apparently to gain. In the event that other evidence - including, but not restricted to the opinion of Dr Phillips - directly contradicted his account and had been accepted, he could have found himself in the boots Lechmere is now being squeezed into.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Sorry if I was unclear, Christer. I was talking about the situation where Lechmere waited for Paul, not about him contacting the police.. You suggested that he would be (more) inclined to play games if he heard Paul entering Buck's Row (because he would have had more time to split).

Take care,
Frank

I see it as a toss-up, Frank, for the simple reason that I do not know when Lechmere DID hear Paul. The closer he was, the lesser the possible inclusion of welcoming an opportunity to play games.
I donīt think it would be wise to paint myself into a corner, and so I keep the door open for more than one possibility.

[Fisherman]

While i am prepared of course to accept that some may have been beyond your control, as the lead participant and the one put forward as the "man with the theory", there is a high degree of collective responsibility for all that is said and portrayed in the production.

The inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Documentary are certainly not minor, a look at the comments on Facebook after every repeat showing, highlight that people take what is said as being major points in the case.

Why should i be ashamed of truth?


Steve

If you think that what people out here say represents a fair judgment, then think again. Whoa!

As for the "high degree of collective responsibility, I take full repsonsibility for what I say in the docu and the film team has to take full responsibility for what THEY say. I asked to get a preview before the docu was aired, but I never got to do that.

I have taken full responsibility for what I should take full responsibility for, and what you think falls in my domain without me having had any influence over it is quite frankly of no consequence to me. To you, however, trying desperately to fault me, I can see the allure.

Enough quibbled over this.

[Fisherman]

Hold on... just want to make sure I get it right... Is THIS an example of how we debate? Again, just want to makes sure I follow your rules of engagement.

Sorry to apall you, but Caz and I have a long story of throwing manure on each other. We make our own rules in that department, and as long as the administrators are fine with it, then so are we.

[Fisherman]

That has a significant bearing on the matter, so why shouldn't it be taken into consideration?So would many, many other people living in Spitalfields and its immediate vicinity. In contrast to Cross, however, none of these "others" would necessitate family or work ties to explain their presence at any of the Canonical murder sites, because they're within easy walking distance of one another. That's more than can be said of someone living in Doveton Street, Bethnal Green, who would need such devices as family/work ties to exist in order to bring them into the "killing fields" in the first place.

That is only definitely known in ONE case; the others are tenuous at best.

Tenuous? The idea that he may have walked to work from Doveton Street to Broad Street in the mornings? Tenuous?

I see.

You obviously have no grip whatsoever on this or - more likely - you choose not to acknowledge simple facts when they do not suit you.

Example: A man in the village A, three miles from village B, is spotted to arrive home late in the nights with blood on his person.

In village B, people are stabbed to death one by one, always at night.

The police are tipped off about the blood on his clothes and his nocturnal excursions, and they start to suspect him. And so they check his paths, and it turns out that he regularly visit village B at nights.

Now, what reaction does that fact spark with the police?

A/ They donīt see the relevance at all and wonder why they have been provided with the information.

B/ They note that the man does visit village B on a regular basis, but they reason that he will only be one of several people that do so, and so they donīt think it relevant.

C/ They reason that the mans reoccurring presence in village B raises the suspicions against him significantly, and start feeling that they have their man.

Give it some real afterthought, and remember that if you want to stay true to your thinking, alternative B is the one to go for!

[Fisherman]

Of course, as you well know, Elamarna is completely correct here. Everything springs from this "name swap" idea. As many have said here before, it's interesting... until you look further and realize it's not. There is, quite simply, nothing else. Nothing factual, that is to say. Nothing that's not some interpretation of someone's actions and words viewed the the prism of a "false name" was given because the person giving said "false name" killed Polly Nichols. Without this supposition, your suspect becomes what he his and always has been: a man who found a body on his way to work.

He was under suspicion long before the name swap was discovered. On no grounds at all, of course, of course!

[Fisherman]

No....to stop clutching at straws.

Are we speaking of the same straws that made James Scobie say that there was a prima faciae case against him that suggested he was guilty? Or are you speaking of some other straws...?

[Fisherman]

This touches upon an aspect of the Lechmere theory that I continue to find problematic, and it ties in with Herlock's discussion around Nichols' clothing discussed in this thread, as well.

I don't think that anyone disputes that Cross/Lechmere was near Nichols' body in Buck's Row at the time Paul entered, walking toward the spots upon which Nichols lay and Cross/Lechmere stood. Those who believe Cross/Lechmere her killer believe he'd killed her and was mutilating her. Those who do not believe he was standing close by, realized she was not a "tarpaulin" and was, in fact, a woman... and waited for Paul to arrive where he was.

Exploring this scenario from the standpoint that Cross/Lechmere HAD just killed Nichols, I find what's proposed to have happened next somewhat incredible. The theory represents that Cross/Lechmere undertook a series of actions in order to not be caught. Leaving aside the fact that, as Christer states, "he may have enjoyed" it, his primary objective was to get away with his crime so that he could commit others, not be killed, etc. I don't think that's controversial and can be agreed upon by both those supportive and non-supportive of him as Jack the Ripper.

Now, in order to get away with this crime, it's suggested that Cross/Lechmere covered Nichols' wounds to some extent, stood near her body, and awaited Paul's arrival. This may seem plausible if Cross/Lechmere were trapped on that spot. Yet, we can be reasonably certain, I think, that he was not trapped. He could have chosen to simply walk away toward Baker's Row in the direction that he and Paul would ultimately head together, or toward Paul, passing him before he (Paul) reached Nichols. Enabling him to then choose from two options: Should Paul reach the body and "raise the alarm" he could then walk/run away or, should he wish play out a bluff (which it's suggested he enjoyed), return to Nichols' body and Paul... and play things out similarly to how they've been alleged claiming he'd not seen the body or that he'd assumed it was another drunk on the pavement.

We know also that it was very dark in Buck's Row. Neil tells us he was only able to see Nichols' wounds with the aid of his lamp: "It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east....Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat."

Yet, in this darkness, with two directions in which to walk into the darkness, not only did Cross/Lechmere remain on the spot, he refused to allow Paul to walk past him WITHOUT ALERTING HIM to the fact that a woman was lying on the pavement. Paul's statement in Lloyd's: "The man (Cross/Lechmere), however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." Paul says more in his inquest testimony, stating that he tried to avoid contact with Cross/Lechmere: "As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

As we know, Cross/Lechmere then inspected the body with Paul, remained with Paul on their errand to find a PC, informed the PC (Mizen) that a woman was lying in Buck's Row (either with a PC in Buck's Row or not, this is agreed upon by all) either dead (as stated by Paul and Cross/Lechmere) or not dead (Mizen). And after, remembering that the primary objective was to get away with his crime, he turned up at the inquest the following Monday even though he'd not been asked or provided a name to Mizen on the night of the murder and had been allowed to leave with without a question from Mizen and with no description of him had been included in any published reports.

I know what Christer's contentions are around these circumstances. I've just been unable to find them credible... thus far.

Aaaah, the old "he-would-have-run" suggestion again!

See GRIFFITHS, Andy, ex-murder squad leader, professor, criminologist.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

I'm still gamely trying to catch up with all the posts on this thread, so someone may already have addressed the above.

If Richardson could see, in the darkness of 4.45am, if a padlock was on the cellar door securely, from his position at the top of the stairs, where Davies was when he later saw a whacking great corpse immediately upon opening the door, I fail to see how Richardson could have failed to see the same sight, had Chapman been there at that earlier time.

In short, Richardson would have had to be wildly out in his timing, or lying - for some odd reason - about having taken a knife [?!] to his boot so very close to the scene of this murder by knife. He knew precisely where Davies had seen the body, and also precisely where he was putting himself in relation to it, so he'd also have known for certain whether he could have missed it or not, and would have been very unwise to tell an obvious lie about this.

If Richardson did see the body, but pretended he didn't, why include the boot cutting in his story? If he didn't see the body for whatever reason, his best bet would still have been to leave out the boot cutting operation. He was leaving himself wide open by claiming he couldn't have missed the woman, and therefore she wasn't there at 4.45am, and with nothing apparently to gain. In the event that other evidence - including, but not restricted to the opinion of Dr Phillips - directly contradicted his account and had been accepted, he could have found himself in the boots Lechmere is now being squeezed into.

Love,

Caz
X

There are a number of posts for you to catch up on, so I must direct you to those.

[Patrick S]

He was under suspicion long before the name swap was discovered. On no grounds at all, of course, of course!

Then he joins a long an ignominious list on that front.

[Fisherman]

While i am prepared of course to accept that some may have been beyond your control, as the lead participant and the one put forward as the "man with the theory", there is a high degree of collective responsibility for all that is said and portrayed in the production.

The inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the Documentary are certainly not minor, a look at the comments on Facebook after every repeat showing, highlight that people take what is said as being major points in the case.

Why should i be ashamed of truth?


Steve

I forgot to ask - that mistake you say I made in combination with the Mizen issue? Can you jog my mind, please, since I canīt remember what you are talking about. What horrendeous mistake did I make? Is it up there together with the misquoted source you speak of or is it less flagrant?

I just got to know, the suspense is killing me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are we speaking of the same straws that made James Scobie say that there was a prima faciae case against him that suggested he was guilty? Or are you speaking of some other straws...?

James Scobie, who was presented with a one-sided case for the prosecution and came to his conclusion based upon that. As I’ve said before on here, if as Scobie had read each point allegedly in favour of Lechmere he’d heard the full opposing viewpoint would he have come to the same conclusion? I find it almost impossible to believe that he would have.

[Patrick S]

Aaaah, the old "he-would-have-run" suggestion again!

See GRIFFITHS, Andy, ex-murder squad leader, professor, criminologist.

Aaaah! How silly... this idea that a guilty man might flee. This GRIFFITHS fellow... he's the chap employed for the documentary about how it was Lechmere what done it, right?

John Henry Wigmore was an American legal scholar, widely considered a pioneer in the field of evidentiary law. In 1904 he published his 'Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law'.

"Flight from justice, and its analogous conduct, have always been deemed indication of a consciousness of guilt. The wicked flee, even when no man pursueth; and the righteous are as bold as a lion."

"A criminal act leaves usually on the mind a deep trace, in the shape of a consciousness of guilt, and from this consciousness of guilt we may argue to the doing of the deed by the bearer of the trace."

So. Perhaps the idea is not quite as laughable as you need it be.

As with much of your scenario. The apparent, reasonable, SIMPLE explanation is never used because it condemns your theory. He approached Paul even as he tried to avoid the situation not because he had found the body but because he'd just done murder and had to employ a ruse, a bluff... on a man he could have walked away from in the dark... or simply ALLOWED to walk away from HIM in the dark, as he tried to do.