So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

more than likely the witness, like he said at the time of the sighting wouldn't know him if he saw him again.

he probably said that kos may have been the man but I cant swear to it, especially if it might get him accused and hanged falsely.

Or he said something else, or somebody else said something else and Anderson muddled it, or there was some core of truth in it all, but maybe not decisive, or...

Itīs La-La Land. Nothing will ever come of it and as a lead in the case it is 100 per cent worthless until more evidence can be added. And letīs face it, that is not going to happen some time soon.

[Fisherman]

An ex-murder squad leader who was not infallible and may have been led astray by producers looking to frame their subject matter.

See? Thatīs where you invariably end up on account of not being able to accept that you may be a worse judge of the case than me and Griffiths.

You have to resort to this kind of sad, sad things the way sad, sad people will do when cornered and unable to find a way out.

Then again, you are probably paid by Gareth to do it. (A joke, aimed at showing you what kind of path you have taken).

Well, it saves me the time of debating any further with you.

[Fisherman]

On the contrary. If someone dies from a cut throat, that is invariably how it's described; indeed, I've heard of cut throats frequently, but rarely of a "cut neck". Google searches can be quite handy as a guide:

"Cut neck" - 466,000 matches (many of which hits relate to items of clothing with a cut neck)

"Cut throat" - 4,530,000 matches

Invariably? Didnīt Batman just write "neck"? Donīt I do it? And 466 000 others?

I am sure that 4 500 000 of the Google hits for cut throat is derived from anglers sideīs about cutthroat trout fishing.

I am going to rename that fish cutneck trout, by the way.

[Abby Normal]

According to the aforementioned officers it was a technicality. The killer had been identified, the witness just didn't have the balls to testify against him.

more than likely the witness, like he said at the time of the sighting, wouldn't know him if he saw him again.

he probably said that kos may have been the man but I cant swear to it, especially if it might get him accused and hanged falsely.


and it changed over the years in Andersons big head that he had the ripper.

[Harry D]

An ex-murder squad leader is not better suited to comment on the matter than me, Harry D!

An ex-murder squad leader who was not infallible and may have been led astray by producers looking to frame their subject matter.

[Fisherman]

What in God's name are you on about, Fish? My argument is that if they knew him at Pickfords as Charles Cross, it would make perfect sense for him to have used that name in connection with a fatal accident while working [the child's death in 1876, assuming the same Charles Cross was involved] or the discovery of a murder victim on his way to work. Neither of those events happened while he was only 'thinking' about going to work, or making preparations before leaving the house, nor would he be needing to identify himself as one name or the other in connection with such circumstances. That would truly be bonkers: "I always go by the name of Lechmere when I'm undressed for bed at night and again when I wake up in the morning." Another thing is, if he was known as Cross to his boss and workmates, as is perfectly plausible, his wife would almost certainly have been aware of the fact, so it wouldn't matter whether he thought of himself as a Lechmere or a Cross at any particular time of day, or during any particular activity. I sign myself Caz here on the boards but am only known as Caroline outside ripper world. I only think of myself as Caz while I'm here on the boards. Make something of it.



This is assuming the police would have made Lechmere aware if they had any concerns about him as an honest witness 'once he had spoken' to them - or if they had no such concerns. You appear to assume they would have paid him a visit if they wanted to check him out, so he'd have known about it and been ready with a credible explanation for using a false name when asked for one. But that would by no means have been a given. He couldn't have satisfied them with any explanation if he wasn't asked for one. If they could have discovered his use of a false name without him knowing he'd been rumbled, what else might they have gone on to discover while he didn't even know they were looking? The false name would have been the least of his worries if it had resulted in the police watching him on his walk to work the following weekend. What credible explanation could he possibly have had up his sleeve when they arrested him standing over Annie Chapman, holding the knife he had been keeping up his other sleeve?

"You stupid constable! I was about to give this lady the kiss of life, after wresting from the real villain his shiny knife."

"Hell's bells, here's another compensation claim form for you. Use whichever surname you are more comfortable with. You'll not be bothered again."

Love,

Caz
X

Why is it that I never find any logical line in your posts that I can criticize? Itīs like swimming in a diarrhea.

And you always write little plays with funny characters saying stupid things that are totally unrelated to what I have stated.

Somehow, you are trying to get away with the idea that Charles Lechmere always had to think about how jobrelated a matter he commented on was before he could decide whether to think of himself as Charles Cross or Charles Lechmere.

I could write a REALLY funny sketch about that.

But why would I? All the laughter it could bring down from the rest of the posters could never hide the fact that you - the target for the sketch - would probably not be able to understand it.

[Fisherman]

Quite right. No matter what rational arguments are made against Lechmere you will perform the necessary mental gymnastics and wild speculation to keep your little fantasy in tact. Truly a waste of time and space.

The mental gymnastics applied are not mine:

An ex-murder squad leader is not better suited to comment on the matter than me, Harry D!

That is acrobatics that would have earned you a gold medal in the Olympics.

Out here, it earns you a coneshaped hat.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Lech was certainly in the wrong job. What with all this bluff and double bluff to the authorities he should have been a secret agent

[Fisherman]

[Sam Flynn: Clearly it wouldn't have helped, but unless a major abdominal artery had been severed, the blood lost via the abdominal cuts would have been trivial compared to that lost via the horrific wounds to the throat...
[/QUOTE]

Very, very, VERY true!

And what do we have? A horrific bloodloss from the neck, leaing spatter on the sidewalk and a huge pool of blood under her neck, combined with an abdomen with bīvery little blood in it?

Or an abdomen into which the blood had flowed, no spatter on the sidewalk and a very modest pool of blood under her neck?

[Fisherman]

Another point worth making here is that Lechmere would not necessarily have known if the police checked the records at Pickfords and learned that he had given them a false name in connection with his claimed discovery of the murder victim. For all he could have known at the time, the police might well have decided to keep this intelligence to themselves and to ask Pickfords not to mention it to the carman while enquiries were ongoing. No sense in alerting a potential suspect that they might be onto him, when they knew enough to keep a discreet eye on him instead. He must surely have realised that they might check, and what they would find out about him if they did. But he couldn't rely on them coming back to him and asking for an explanation for the false name, even if he had a convincing one up his sleeve. He could only cross his fingers and hope they wouldn't bother checking.

So the argument that he wasn't using a false name to hide anything from the police is specious, because - as we are constantly being asked to acknowledge - the very use of one would immediately arouse suspicions that the user has something to hide. How could Lechmere, under such circumstances, have had the first clue that the police a) wouldn't find out that he had used a false name; or b) hadn't already found out, within a day of his coming forward as Charles Cross; or c) were not keeping tabs on his movements to and from home and work, thanks to his own stupidity in giving them both addresses alongside a false name?

Love,

Caz
X

You HAVE overstrained yourself.

You see complications where there are none. Lechmere had not signed any paper telling the police that he was called Cross at Pickfords, Caz. All he needed to do would be to say that he sometimes used the name or that he simply did so to honour his old stepfather.

It was a risk that could/would involve further interest from the police, but what could they prove, once he had left Mizen behind after having lied to him?

Thatīs correct: Nothing.

[Fisherman]

But would you have used your real first and middle names and given not one, but two addresses where you could be found? Or would that be more like something a child of six might do?

How much more trouble would you have been in with whoever paid you a call [as in visited either address] and found you had lied to them about your surname, but stupidly not about the rest?

Fish's argument that Lechmere would not have been trying to fool the police in this way [because it wouldn't have worked had they checked - obviously] doesn't wash, because the police would not have known this, and he could hardly have explained who he was trying to fool and why:

"Oh sorry, officers, I never intended to deceive you, or to put you to any trouble working out who the hell I was, when Pickfords denied employing anyone called Cross. I used that name to deceive the missus/my relatives/my friends/my workmates, so they wouldn't associate me with the murder and suspect I had something to do with it."

"Right you are then, Mr Lechmere. It's our turn to apologise, because as a result of our enquiries at the addresses you provided, your missus and your workmates now know all about it, and they also know you gave us a false name. Would you like to fill out this compensation claim form?"

Love,

Caz
X

I asked you a question before. How much was he able to do if he was intent on not presenting the police with obviously false information but wanted to keep paper readers out of the know as much as possible?

So far, I have seen no answer to that question.

You say "Fish's argument that Lechmere would not have been trying to fool the police in this way [because it wouldn't have worked had they checked - obviously] doesn't wash, because the police would not have known this, and he could hardly have explained who he was trying to fool and why".

What are you on about? The police would not have known what? That it would not have worked if they checked?

You may have strained yourself.

[Sam Flynn]

Speaking about neck cutting is a common thing

On the contrary. If someone dies from a cut throat, that is invariably how it's described; indeed, I've heard of cut throats frequently, but rarely of a "cut neck". Google searches can be quite handy as a guide:

"Cut neck" - 466,000 matches (many of which hits relate to items of clothing with a cut neck)

"Cut throat" - 4,530,000 matches

[Fisherman]

Good for you for not going with Fisherman on this one.

Homicide by persons unknown or something like that is the conclusion of these inquests. It's what the jury agreed on.

The details of Nichols death got revised for Chapman's inquest.

No, they did not. Baxter simply asked the question whether it was not more likely that the neck came first. He revised nothing, he offered a possibility.

[Fisherman]

Ad hominem, Abby.

Put your own personal prejudices aside. Both Anderson & Swanson named Kosminski as the suspect identified by a witness who refused to testify. That's a damn sight more going for him than Lechmere.

"Him"? Which "him"?

Aaron Kosminski?

Some other Kosminski?

David Cohen?

P Hantom?

Maybe we should find the person supposedly identified as having done something we donīt know about, before we speak about a "him"? And letīs acknowledge that we can only say that this ID:ing person was Andersons baby - Swanson may well have had no personal conviction about this manīs possible guilt.

How that trumps Lechmere, I canīt say. Itīs a foggy and possibly misleading bog of conjecture against a clear-cut presence at a murder site where the victim was freshly killed in combination with a number of anomalies that "a jury would not like", allowing for a prima faciae case.

Santa Claus, how about him? Do you believe in him too?

[Fisherman]

Throat cutting, please, Batman. Don't swallow Fisherman's bait

Speaking about neck cutting is a common things, Gareth. Maybe it was never a question about baits? Maybe he did what many others do, simple as that?