The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Elamarna]

Yes. Like Jason Payne-James, for example.

Biggs may be the next Nobel laureate in medicine, and it would not matter - he is NOT properly informed about the Ripper murders OR the torso series. It shows on so many levels, but you seem unable to take that in? Nichols was lying on her back, for crying out loud, and the papers reported about a two-inch wide gap in her neck! In a cut that went down to the spine and severed ALL vessels of importance.
What was there to stop the blood, John? Any ideas?

Fish,

It is your view that Biggs was not given the correct information.

Such may be, we do not know what Trevor supplied or asked; just as we do not know what the experts you use were told.

Steve

[Patrick S]

Yes. Like Jason Payne-James, for example.

Biggs may be the next Nobel laureate in medicine, and it would not matter - he is NOT properly informed about the Ripper murders OR the torso series. It shows on so many levels, but you seem unable to take that in? Nichols was lying on her back, for crying out loud, and the papers reported about a two-inch wide gap in her neck! In a cut that went down to the spine and severed ALL vessels of importance.
What was there to stop the blood, John? Any ideas?

To be clear, there is no conclusion whatever that the blood had not stopped. All we have is one verb. Your "blood evidence" is a verb that appeared in news print: "oozed".

Further, we don't have evidence that any witness actually used that term. We only know that that's what was printed. There is no blood evidence in this case and that's a very simple to understand fact.

Think of this. My son drops a bottle of ketchup on the floor at noon and walks away from it. I come hope from work six hours later, find it, and call my wife and say, "Your son dropped a bottle of ketchup. I got home from work and it had oozed all over the floor!" My wife gets home an hour later, lectures my son and says, "I get a call from your father and he says that he got home from work and ketchup was oozing all over the floor!" If we apply the same logic you use in your 'blood evidence' to this scenario my son would able to argue that he COULD NOT have dropped the ketchup and not cleaned it up because he was at football practice for two hours leading up to my arrival home from work, by which time the ketchup could no longer have been "oozing" from the bottle. And even though I can't remember if I said oozing or oozed that's what my wife told my son that I said...so...case closed. He didn't drop the ketchup. And since no one else was home at all that day, it's a real mystery, one that common sense could solve, were we inclined to employ it.

[Patrick S]

Fish,

It is your view that Biggs was not given the correct information.

Such may be, we do not know what Trevor supplied or asked; just as we do not know what the experts you use were told.

Steve

But we're to rest assured that Scoobie and Andy Griffith had all the information they needed?

[Fisherman]

Fish, it is how I interpreted your comment,that is what matters, you have now said that is not what you meant.

Steve

So you really did believe that I thought the the steps sounded like bomb explosions? You really, really, really did?
I can see how extremely surprised you must have been, Steve.

I have other things to do, so I won´t respond to the rest of your post tonight. I noted that you are doing the same ole, same old again - Fisherman does not answer my questions!!

Implication: I DARE not. I CAN not. You are SO correct and there is nothing I can do about it.

Alternatively: I just can´t be arsed to work up any real interest.

Take your pick. And goodnight.

[Elamarna]

So you really did believe that I thought the the steps sounded like bomb explosions? You really, really, really did?
I can see how extremely surprised you must have been, Steve.

I have other things to do, so I won´t respond to the rest of your post tonight. I noted that you are doing the same ole, same old again - Fisherman does not answer my questions!!

Implication: I DARE not. I CAN not. You are SO correct and there is nothing I can do about it.

Alternatively: I just can´t be arsed to work up any real interest.

Take your pick. And goodnight.

Whatever you say my friend,

Does it matter which, it is clear you are unwilling.
If you don't wish to answer that is your choice, of course. What that says about the arguments is interesting.

Goodnight

S

[David Orsam]

Fisherman does not answer my questions!!

It's most certainly true in my case.

[Fisherman]

Whatever you say my friend,

Does it matter which, it is clear you are unwilling.
If you don't wish to answer that is your choice, of course. What that says about the arguments is interesting.

Goodnight

S

I said I would not answer TONIGHT.

What it "says abot my argument is probably" that I am tired and have other things to do. Unless we want to put a sinister slant on it. And MY do we want to do just that...!

[David Orsam]

Here's a direct quote by Christer Holmgren in the documentary, speaking of Paul and Lechmere in Bucks Row:

"The two should have walked in tandem more or less thirty or forty yards nothing more than that in between them. And yet nobody speaks about having noticed the other man walking right beside them more or less."

So he starts with a false premise that Paul and Lechmere should have been walking "in tandem" whatever that means.

Then, even if Lechmere correctly estimated Paul's distance away of "thirty or forty yards" when he first heard him, Holmgren has ignored the additional distance there must have been between the men due to Lechmere slowing down, stopping to look at the body, thinking about what it was and then walking to the middle of the street.

So to say that the distance should have been "nothing more" than thirty or forty yards is self-evidently factually incorrect.

And where does he get the notion from the Paul and Lechmere would have been more or less walking "right beside" each other? Since when does "thirty or forty yards" equal nothing?

[harry]

In tandem,walking, as in parachute tandem for example,means close contact.
Nonsense to declare 40/+ yards are in tandem.Such exagerations,and continue use of the word evidence,are not accidental use of the expressions,they are deliberate,meant to deceive, and when a poster such as Fisherman uses them,lies.He knows the true meaning.
As for experience and knowledge,in the one hundred+ years since the death of Nichols,scores of such persons,equally of such renown as those mentioned,have studied the details.None have suggested Cross suspect.

[caz]

How would he know that there was nobody about, Caz? How could he tell that there was not a night watchman around the corner?

But your theory is that he was willing and able to risk attacking, killing and mutilating Nichols, and would have learned afterwards that nobody had seen or heard him the whole time, so why should he then fear saying: "I thought I heard footsteps retreating, but couldn't be sure. At the same time I saw what I thought was a tarpaulin and by the time I realised it was a woman, the owner of the footsteps would have been long gone".

Use BOTH eyes, and you will see further!

You cheeky sod.

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

I said I would not answer TONIGHT.

What it "says abot my argument is probably" that I am tired and have other things to do. Unless we want to put a sinister slant on it. And MY do we want to do just that...!

Fisherman


Yes I accept by using the word tonight you implied you would reply today or at some time in the future.

You could of course have just left responding until you were ready to do so, instead you replied which may be considered courteous and said:


"I have other things to do, so I won´t respond to the rest of your post tonight. I noted that you are doing the same ole, same old again - Fisherman does not answer my questions!!

Implication: I DARE not. I CAN not. You are SO correct and there is nothing I can do about it.

Alternatively: I just can´t be arsed to work up any real interest."




If you had left it at the first sentence of that reply as quoted I would not have further replied myself other than possibly to say thanks.

However my followup statement that you were unwilling to answer, which was the same as I said in post 929, at that point is a simply statement of fact.
I was surprised you did not have a clear response to the question asked,
I would have assumed that you would have such an argument/debating point ready.

However maybe you needed time to draft a good reply, that is certainly understandable; or as you said you were tired.


All the best


Steve

[John G]

Yes. Like Jason Payne-James, for example.

Biggs may be the next Nobel laureate in medicine, and it would not matter - he is NOT properly informed about the Ripper murders OR the torso series. It shows on so many levels, but you seem unable to take that in? Nichols was lying on her back, for crying out loud, and the papers reported about a two-inch wide gap in her neck! In a cut that went down to the spine and severed ALL vessels of importance.
What was there to stop the blood, John? Any ideas?

But were your experts fully appraised of the facts? For instance, was James Scobie informed that the use of more than one surname was not uncommon in the late nineteenth century?

Regarding the blood evidence: Ooze ( verb and noun) trickle or leak slowly out. Source: OED

Therefore if blood was simply "oozing" out the heart must have stopped beating, I.e. blood was obviously not exiting the body under pressure. And, as Dr Biggs points out, blood can continue to exit a wound, as a slow trickle, for several minutes post mortem due to gravity.

And, as David has noted, nothing Payne- James has said contradicts this analysis.

[Patrick S]

Here's a direct quote by Christer Holmgren in the documentary, speaking of Paul and Lechmere in Bucks Row:

"The two should have walked in tandem more or less thirty or forty yards nothing more than that in between them. And yet nobody speaks about having noticed the other man walking right beside them more or less."

So he starts with a false premise that Paul and Lechmere should have been walking "in tandem" whatever that means.

Then, even if Lechmere correctly estimated Paul's distance away of "thirty or forty yards" when he first heard him, Holmgren has ignored the additional distance there must have been between the men due to Lechmere slowing down, stopping to look at the body, thinking about what it was and then walking to the middle of the street.

So to say that the distance should have been "nothing more" than thirty or forty yards is self-evidently factually incorrect.

And where does he get the notion from the Paul and Lechmere would have been more or less walking "right beside" each other? Since when does "thirty or forty yards" equal nothing?

Good analysis. I've reckoned - assuming they took the same route - that Paul trailed by something close to or exceeding 100 yards. But, even that - I think - requires assumption. All we know for certain is that both men were walking from their homes to their places of employment and ended up in Buck's Row around the same time.

[Patrick S]

But your theory is that he was willing and able to risk attacking, killing and mutilating Nichols, and would have learned afterwards that nobody had seen or heard him the whole time, so why should he then fear saying: "I thought I heard footsteps retreating, but couldn't be sure. At the same time I saw what I thought was a tarpaulin and by the time I realised it was a woman, the owner of the footsteps would have been long gone".



You cheeky sod.

Love,

Caz
X

There are so many things about Chuck the Ripper meeting Nichols, either IN Buck's Row or (as is most likely) elsewhere and retreating there to conduct their business, killing her, mutilating her, and REMAINING there to engage in his subterfuge, which goes against every human instinct, simple reason, and common sense.

Your point is an excellent one. For instance, we know that Mrs. Green and her family lived at New Cottage, Buck's Row. Her window afforded her a view overlooking the murder site (from her window she was able to see the body after the police arrived). We know that Harriet Lilley slept feet from the murder site. If she had looked out her window she'd have witnessed the murder (she testified she may have heard the murder as well as whispers beneath her window). This is another instance of Lechmere - had he killed Nichols - behaving as if he had knowledge he simply could not have had, knowledge of what people unknown to him were doing, knowledge of the future.

He knew that no one had seen him with Nichols, either in conversation or in the act of killing and/or mutilating her body. Even though windows overlooking the spot are clearly visible to him he knows that no one has looked out and observed him. Therefore, he feels that this "bluff" of his is the best course of action and will lead - ultimately, after much consternation and several close calls including a conversation with a PC and his voluntary testimony at the inquest - to his escape. He knows that while he pulls his fast one on Paul no one will open a window and say, "That man killed that woman! I saw him! POLICE! POLICE!" He knows that no one else will enter Buck's Row and declare, "I just saw you with this woman around the corner! And now she's dead?"

He did all this rather just simply WALK away. It was very dark. He just killed a woman on a spot surrounded by windows. He likely lured his victim to Buck's Row from another spot, where he could have been seen in the dead woman's company. But, rather than simply disappear in the darkness when he hears footsteps, he stops mutilating Nichols, pockets his knife....and he waits for Paul. Somehow he KNOWS that Paul hadn't seen a thing. He KNOWS that he is not a police officer who will search his person and find the weapon that Fisherman tells us was hidden in his clothes. He KNOWS that Paul will not produce a match, see the wounds and notice some trace of blood on Lechmere and begin screaming for a cop. Amazing.

Remember also, that Paul took no notice of the body. Lechmere goes TO Paul. He touches his shoulder. Calls his attention to the body. He asks him to come and see. THIS was how he went about getting away with MURDER?

Then he continues with the man until they succeed in finding a PC and telling them what they'd seen? Let's leave the "Mizen Scam" out of it and just consider the act of going with Paul to find a PC. He could have simply told Paul he worked in the other direction. He could have said he goes left at the top of Buck's Row while Paul goes right. But he sticks with Paul until they do find Mizen..

Lechmere had to have KNOWN that Mizen would not ask them to return to the spot with him. The PC would not inspect his hands and clothing with a torch. He would not search his clothes and find the knife. We are supposed to believe that after successfully pulling his "Mizen Scam" (he's not searched, not detained, not questioned to any extent, not asked HIS NAME), he then shows up at the inquest on Monday morning. He wasn't compelled to do so. He wasn't named. He wasn't described. He was completely unknown.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S:

Lechmere had to have KNOWN that Mizen would not ask them to return to the spot with him.

I only choose this one sentence, and I will leave most of the other post unread and uncommented on.

No, Patrick, Lechmere must NOT have known that Mizen would not take him back

He could not have known that they WOULD run into a policeman - he left it in the hands of destiny.

Once they did, he would have done his utmost to TRY and not to be taken back. He would not be certain that it would work, because you never CAN be - some PC:s are more, some less harsh and demanding.

The lie he seems to have fed Mizen, though, was perfectly shaped to optimize his chances of being allowed to walk on.

That is where the interest must lie for any serious researcher - it seems that Lechmere lied to Mizen, and interestingly, the lie is exactly shaped to allow him to pass by the PC.

What possible reason is there to argue that Lechmere MUST have known that Mizen would let him pass? None. It would be understandable if Mizen did, but it could not have been any certainty.

And why must it have been for Lechmere to try the ploy? Because if he had not been certain that it would work, he would never have risked killing Nichols in the first place? Or was it for some otrher reason?

I would be grateful if you could expand on this small point, Patrick. My excuses to you and others for my inability to work up a will to answer things. As of n ow, I am dealing with this monor issue only, since I find it disturbingly significant.