The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

well I think we can safely say that according to the blood evidence that polly was probably killed very soon upon being discovered, right? I mean at least within the half hour(or 15 minutes?) at the very most.

and that shortens the window of time someone could have killed her does it not?

The whole Biggs thing started when I raised the issue of whether the evidence about the blood still oozing at 3.45 (when PC Neil said he found the body), or 3.50 when Mizen seems to have arrived, meant that we could rule out Nichols being murdered before a certain time (i.e. 3.30).

In response, Trevor Marriott contacted Dr Biggs who said this:

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 mins previously… but if the 20 min period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case."

For me, this means that no, we cannot "safely" fix a time of death from the evidence of the blood still oozing. If it can leak out at murder scenes "some hours" after death then how can we?

[John G]

Ah! Now I see! I don´t hold those views at all - I recommended them as a bit better than "nonsense", as suggested by Patrick.

"A realistic prospect of conviction", by the way - it would hinge on the defense Lechmere could put up. If he put up no defense at all, then I would think there was a very good chance of a conviction based on the case evidence. On the face of things - "prima faciae" - he looks like the killer.

Okay, fair enough. For what it's worth, I certainly don't consider him to be a hopeless suspect. And, in my opinion, he's certainly a better suspect than, say, James Maybrick, Michael Maybrick or Walter Sickert!

[Patrick S]

well I think we can safely say that according to the blood evidence that polly was probably killed very soon upon being discovered, right? I mean at least within the half hour(or 15 minutes?) at the very most.

and that shortens the window of time someone could have killed her does it not?

I don't disagree that Nichols was killed shortly before Lechmere found her body. It stands to reason that if she'd been killed hours before someone ELSE would have found her body and Fisherman would have done a documentary on them.

[John G]

well I think we can safely say that according to the blood evidence that polly was probably killed very soon upon being discovered, right? I mean at least within the half hour(or 15 minutes?) at the very most.

and that shortens the window of time someone could have killed her does it not?

Yes, absolutely. What I should have said is that it proves nothing as regards the case against Lechmere.

Just out of interest, do you consider John Richardson a lesser suspect? For instance, he admitted to being in possession of a knife and gave contradictory accounts: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html

[Abby Normal]

And, of course, the blood evidence proves absolutely nothing.

well I think we can safely say that according to the blood evidence that polly was probably killed very soon upon being discovered, right? I mean at least within the half hour(or 15 minutes?) at the very most.

and that shortens the window of time someone could have killed her does it not?

[Fisherman]

If you believe the case against Lechmere is proved beyond reasonable doubt, or at least that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction on that basis, I cannot understand why you consider it reasonable to hold a "hard to believe" or "probably not" view.

Ah! Now I see! I don´t hold those views at all - I recommended them as a bit better than "nonsense", as suggested by Patrick.

"A realistic prospect of conviction", by the way - it would hinge on the defense Lechmere could put up. If he put up no defense at all, then I would think there was a very good chance of a conviction based on the case evidence. On the face of things - "prima faciae" - he looks like the killer.

[John G]

I wish I understood what you are talking about - but I don´t. Can you clarify?

If you believe the case against Lechmere is proved beyond reasonable doubt, or at least that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction on that basis, I cannot understand why you consider it reasonable to hold a "hard to believe" or "probably not" view.

[Fisherman]

But this is what I'm struggling to understand. I mean, imagine your on a jury. If a fellow jurist stated, "The prosecution's case is probably wrong", would you respond by saying, "Yes, that's a very reasonable position to hold, but obviously the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt"?

I wish I understood what you are talking about - but I don´t. Can you clarify?

[David Orsam]

Why don't we discuss specifics. What statements do you feel comprise 'blood evidence'? I've stood correct more than few times on these board and - unlike others - I'll admit when I'm wrong.

As long as we are using the phrase "blood evidence" in its widest definition, then my answer is that all and any evidence in which the word "blood" was mentioned comprises the "blood evidence", or as I would prefer to say, the evidence relating to the blood.

[Patrick S]

How would samples of Nichols' blood really have helped us here? What would that have told us about the murderer?

Yes, we obviously don't have any blood itself in the evidence but that doesn't mean we don't have evidence about the blood.

Whether that is described as "blood evidence" or not is surely nothing more than semantics and I don't think a debate about this really progresses the matter.

Every discussion progresses the matter. I've spent the past twenty-five years as an analyst, and that much I've learned. I've also learned that when someone is selling a theory or supposition up the chain of command, semantics matter (especially at the US Department of Defense). It impacts perception and often whether things are accepted or not.

You've just posted an deconstruction of statements made in Christer's program that you feel were untrue or inaccurate. I assume these items bother you in that these alleged misstatements may affect how someone perceives what's presented. It may lead someone to buy Lechmere as the Ripper, when you feel that's not warranted.

Why don't we discuss specifics. What statements do you feel comprise 'blood evidence'? I've stood correct more than few times on these board and - unlike others - I'll admit when I'm wrong.

[David Orsam]

Those false statements discussed:

1. He said at the inquest that he left at 3.30 - No, he didn't. He said it was "about 3.30". When you are attempting to construct an accurate timing of events that is an important difference.

2. some reports say 3.20 - No, they don't.

3. but the more common reports say 3.30. - No, they don't.

4. Okay so we’ve got our start time of 3.30 - No, we haven't.

5. The street layout is the same now as it was over a century ago. - No, it isn't. Bath Street no longer exists.

6. According to Paul’s evidence, Lechmere found the body some sixteen minutes after he claimed he left home. - No, he didn't. Paul did not state in evidence what time Lechmere found the body and Lechmere did not claim he left home sixteen minutes before this unknown time.

7 - And it says 7 minutes, seven seconds. That would have meant that if Lechmere left his home as he said at 3.30 he should have been here at 3.37 - It's not possible to say that Lechmere "should" have been at Bucks Row at 3.37 even if he had left his house at 3.30. There is no evidence as to what speed Lechmere was walking. Anyone who times the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row will discover that different results, minutes apart, will be produced by walking at different speeds. It is not possible, therefore, to precisely say how long Lechmere "should" have taken. In any event, Fisherman refuses to identify the route he and Andy walked which was timed at 7 minutes.

8. Well that’s very interesting because Paul says that he came into the street at 3.45. - Not in his inquest evidence he didn't. Even if he had, how could we possibly know that was an accurate timing?

9. [Graphic on screen says "3:30am Leaves home]." - He did not say he left home at 3:30am.

10. Andy and Christer have found a major gap in Lechmere’s timings. - The funny thing is that even Fisherman does not agree that there is "a major gap" in Lechmere's timings and has confirmed this to me on the forum. There is certainly no "major gap" in the timings.

[David Orsam]

I'll accept David's point. But, I still don't recognize the testimony as "blood evidence". There were no blood samples admitted into evidence. No blood was COLLECTED. Thus, I'm left to ask, "What blood evidence?"

How would samples of Nichols' blood really have helped us here? What would that have told us about the murderer?

Yes, we obviously don't have any blood itself in the evidence but that doesn't mean we don't have evidence about the blood.

Whether that is described as "blood evidence" or not is surely nothing more than semantics and I don't think a debate about this really progresses the matter.

[David Orsam]

And, of course, the blood evidence proves absolutely nothing.

That I can agree with.

[Patrick S]

And, of course, the blood evidence proves absolutely nothing.

I'll accept David's point. But, I still don't recognize the testimony as "blood evidence". There were no blood samples admitted into evidence. No blood was COLLECTED. Thus, I'm left to ask, "What blood evidence?"

I'm open to a more in-depth discussion on this. If you'd like a discussion of which newspaper accounts comprise the "blood evidence", post them and we can kick it around. That might be useful and we may learn more and get some consensus. As of now, though, I reject the idea that there is any blood evidence at all in the Nichols murder.

[John G]

Patrick S: First off, nothing guarantees anything. Nothing is a certainty.

Correct! So why say that Lechmere must have known that Mizen would not take him back? That was why I reacted. It is by no means at all any certainty!

According to your theory, Lechmere had just killed and mutilated Nichols.

Yes.

You also allege that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, the Torso killer, a guy who killed - as you've said - for 25 years or more.

Fifteen when he killed Nichols - if I am correct.

In that he was never caught or suspected in his lifetime we can infer one of two things: either he was NOT Jack the Ripper, the Torso Killer, etc., or, he was a killer and he was pretty good at killing AND avoiding detection, capture, and suspicion.

Indeed. Either or.

So, we can assume that Lechmere, after doing for Nichols, had an objective: escape.

We can assume that, and we may be right - but if you take a look at "The definitive story", it involves a professor who speaks with a Swedish accent, and who says that it may well be that the killer did not care if he was caught or not! So we cannot be certain on this score either.

I do not believe that Lechmere - as the killer - would have had to have known with certainty that Mizen would not haul him back to Buck's Row, search him, arrest him, in order to have tried your ruse.

I don´t think Mizen had any reason at all to suspect any ruse - why would he? At the murder site, it all panned out. There WAS a PC in place, just as Mizen had been told.

All option have some degree of risk.

And THAT is something you should speak to Caz about - she seems to think that no killer would risk anything at all to kill. I agree wholeheartedly - killing in itself involves immense risk, and when you allow the course of events to slip out of your control, the risks will come thick and fast.

It stands to reason that if he'd run upon hearing Paul's footsteps he could have run into the waiting arms of Neil or Thain.

Yup. Absolutely. There was no knowing.

Thus, he'd have had no guarantee of success there either.

Spot on.

I would think that one cannot guarantee himself success in getting away with murder, after all.

No. Nobody can guarantee that. But there IS an element that should be weighed in, witnessed about by many serialists: After having killed numerous times and getting away with it, they may develop a sense of invincibility, causing them to be incredibly outrageous. Many fall prey as a result of this, they get over-confident and do stupid things. But what about those who do outrageously stupid and risky things - and get away with it? They will think themselves divine! Impossible to catch! And such a figure could well lie behind a murder like the Nichols murder, grabbing a woman in the open street and killing and opening her up there.
If such a man is found with his victim, I think that he may well feel extremely confident about his chances of bluffing his way out. Why would he fear the police? They would not catch him if he sat in their lap!
Or, as that professor put it: It seems he didn´t care.

What I am capable of doing is understanding what Lechmere's OBJECTIVE would have been had he killed Nichols: Escape, avoidance of suspicion, arrest.

Yes - but the pertinent question is how far he believed he would be able to go without getting caught. Just how bold could he be? In that respect, thre will be two extremes - those who would leg it, crapping themselves in the process, and those who would meet any challenge with a rye smile and a sense of being in the driving seat, no matter what.

From there I can try and understand his actions and determine if they would have RESONABLY served his achieving the objective.

If he as the killer, the plan would have been:

1. Find woman and kill her.

2. Eviscerate her, and use her body as your belonging, leaving it behind when I´m finished.

3. Leave, and let the idiots in the police try to find me!

Thing is, Paul broke the pattern up, so it was time for a new plan:

1. Fool the damn idiot coming down the street.

2. Leave, and let the idiots in the police try to find me!

Then Paul spoke to the press, so there was a new plan:

1. Read up on what has been said about the murder.

2. Shape a plan.

3. Go to the inquest and fool jury and coroner.

So he would have to reasess time and again. And if the Mizen scam was what I think it was, it is a shining example of the adaptability he was capable of - and the arrogance he had worked up.

Running or walking away into the darkness didn't guarantee success.

No.

But, it was far more likely to succeed than waiting for a stranger to get to where you are and recruit him to join you in looking at your victim and going off to find a cop.

How? If that stranger cried "Oh, murder!" as Lechmere turned the street and walked into the arms of, say, Neil - how would that be likelier to succeed? He WOULD run that risk if he left, and he WOULD dissolve that risk if he did NOT run. If he trusted himself to be able to get out of any trouble, no matter what, staying put was the only real option. Griffiths concluded the same thing, he immediately said that running was no option. I concur.

Leaving the scene is also instinctual.

To some. Not to others. A psychopath is per se unable to panick, and his muscles will not prepare him for flight. He is physically totally different from us in that respect.

You have Lechmere inventing this ruse in seconds, executing it flawlessly, when he could have just.....walked away, and done that without much thought or planning as it's what most anyone WOULD have done and what the killer (i.e. NOT Lechmere) likely DID DO.

There was no other killer to my mind, Patrick. Lechmere was a quick thinker and a good improvisor. Such people exist, and I firmly believe he was such a person. Ther is no need to cram somebody in, somebody who would - on account of the blood evidence - fit the picture worse that Lechmere. And he acts oddly afterwards, lying about the extra PC if Mizen was correct. And WHAT a strange coincidence if MIzen made it all up or misheard, that he came up with the exact type of ruse that would take the carman past the police! How big was THAT chance? And then he goes on to change his name at the inquest. And why, oh why, was Nichols of all the Ripper victims NOT put on display? Why were her wounds hidden?
It all fits, to a tee.

Now we have our killer staying with that man until he did indeed find a cop?

And how innocent it made him look! Think about it!! Going to the inquest later on would enhance that image.

Showing up voluntarily at the inquest to tell - as you allege - LIES about a PC? In order to AVOID arrest? In order to AVOID suspicion?

The alternative would be not to go to the inquest - and risk becoming the prime suspect.
Once at the inquest, the alternative would be to say "Yes, that´s right, I DID say that there was another PC in place. I thought it was a jolly good joke." And then he would become the prime suspect.

He was tied, hands and feet, when it came to what he could do and say. And he played his cards brilliantly.

We've been over this. Again and again. For me, it's nonsense.

For me it´s not. For Scobie, it was not. For Griffiths, it was not. For David MacNab, it was not - it was the solution he never thought would arrive, and one he believed in. For Sam Taplin, it was not - he was certain that we were correct. For a good many people, commenting on the docu, it is decidedly not.

People will differ on these things. You prefer to call it nonsense, which I think very harsh. Hard to believe, I can buy. Probably wrong, I can buy. But I am not buying nonsense, which is good - if I did, you would not have it in your posession any more...

But this is what I'm struggling to understand. I mean, imagine your on a jury. If a fellow jurist stated, "The prosecution's case is probably wrong", would you respond by saying, "Yes, that's a very reasonable position to hold, but obviously the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt"?