Charles Lechmere, finally vindicated, proof ?

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"I just think everything has to be so exactly the way you need it to be, or the whole theory collapses."

But Caz, everything that happens, happens in a totally exact way! Killer´s dont kill the same victim by means of knife, strangulation and rifle - one thing, and only one, is what kills in each case. It is therefore exact.

And to be fair, there is slack in a good many departments in our theory too. And in other parts, slack can be created! I suspect that one thing that has you thinking along these lines is that we "need" to put space inbetween Lechmere and Paul. But to be fair, who´s to say that Lechmere did not tell Paul on the way down Buck´s Row that he thought the police were lazy buggers, suggesting that they should tell te first PC they saw that a colleague of his had requested help. "That should put fire in his tail", sort of. And then it´s hush-hush if somebody asks something.

The possibilities are there. The more important thing is to see the relevance in shaping the lie the way he did - it tallies very well with a man who wants to stay away from police interest.

"You know next to nothing about what went on inside the ripper's head; nothing at all about what was going through Cross's head from the time when he first saw Nichols (dead or alive); yet in order for Cross to be turned into the ripper you have to have an exact series of thoughts going through this man's head, followed by an exact series of actions, that combined to allow him to get away with this and all the subsequent ripper murders."

As I have shown, this is not true. Well it´s true that we can´t tell what went on in the mind of the Ripper or Lechmere (though I think it is one and the same mind we speak of here ...), but it is not true that the scenario is a locked one. But the closer we get to the guy, the more exactly we must pinpoint him, in a sense.

"The circumstantial evidence you have presented could equally be used to argue that Cross was an innocent passer-by who wanted to get to work on time and didn't particularly want to get himself involved with this dead or drunk low class woman lying in Buck's Row. That doesn't make Cross innocent, or even much more probably innocent, but it does mean that more is needed to make his guilt the likelier proposition."

I don´t see it that way - but I understand if you do. You see, what I do is that I recognize the pulled-down dress, the refusal to prop up, the fact that he chose to accompany Paul, the false name, the lie to Mizen as things that ALL look like pointing to guilt, although I admit that taken one by one, they may all be explained as unsinister.
But then I ask myself if there is any way to check this, and I realize that there is: If he killed Nichols, then he is probably the Ripper. Can we then in any manner couple him to any of the other deeds? And lo and behold - there is that almighty correspondance inbetween the murder spots and times and the routes that seem likely that he used PLUS the times it is likely that he used them!!!
And this tallies perfectly.
Why did not Nichols die on a Saturday night, and Stride at 3.40 on a Tuesday in Berner Street? Such things would cast doubt about the validity of our bid. But this never happened!
Why did not some of the victims die a mile north of Hanbury Street? Why did not one of them fall prey a mile west of Broad Street, at 3.00? Because, I think, that was not along his working route.

You see, much as we hve all the parts from the Nichols murder morning that we may interpret as innocent (with a stretch - lying to a PC is not a small thing, nor is it to give a false name to an inquest!), we still have to realize that the follow-up test fails the man totally - he ticks ALL the other murder boxes. All of them. The Pinchin Street Torso included, geographically.
The much more reasonable argument is - according to me of course - that if you have all that bad luck with the Nichols case, making you look like a liar and con artist, then you can´t possibly have as bad luck as to nail all other murder places too!

So he did it, if you ask me, Caz. Make the experiment of comparing him to Montague Druitt, and see how many murder spots you can place Monty in. Check how many times he used an alias. Find out if he ever lied to the police.
His name appears on a document that tells us that a senior policeman favoured him, whereas other senior policemen favoured others, and in no case are we allowed to know exactly why. We only know that they cannot even be put on the spot the way Lechmere can.
And in that respect, yes, these suspects are EXTREMELY open to any interpretation, and nothing has to be exact at all, since we have not a iota on them, practically speaking. But that, I don´t see a a land of opportunities - I see it as barren wasteland until something useful surfaces.

Which it already HAS in Lechmere´s case.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Fishy,

I was asking Lech, but you'll do I suppose.

I just think everything has to be so exactly the way you need it to be, or the whole theory collapses.

You know next to nothing about what went on inside the ripper's head; nothing at all about what was going through Cross's head from the time when he first saw Nichols (dead or alive); yet in order for Cross to be turned into the ripper you have to have an exact series of thoughts going through this man's head, followed by an exact series of actions, that combined to allow him to get away with this and all the subsequent ripper murders.

The circumstantial evidence you have presented could equally be used to argue that Cross was an innocent passer-by who wanted to get to work on time and didn't particularly want to get himself involved with this dead or drunk low class woman lying in Buck's Row. That doesn't make Cross innocent, or even much more probably innocent, but it does mean that more is needed to make his guilt the likelier proposition.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"So, Lechy, you don't think that it is setting 'too exact a view' to see the ripper as someone who would wait for a stranger to reach him and his victim, then bluff it out with him, before doing the same with a police officer, and eventually with everyone at the inquest - namely Charles Allen Lechmere?
How much more exact a view can one set? Or do you just enjoy living dangerously?"

I think that if you give this some afterthought (when will somebody invent pre-thought?), you may realize that poster Lechmere may have meant that although an identity can be suggested on basis of the circumstantial evidence, we cannot possibly know what exact type of person he was.
I know you, Caz, since you post out here, and I can identify you by those means - but I am not inside your head.

Or am I?

"how important is it to the theory in general that Paul was too far away to hear what Cross was telling Mizen? As I see it, if Cross needed to lie to Mizen, he also needed Paul to have shifted himself first, and we don't know that Paul obliged. If he did so, that would have been down to Paul and a lucky break for Cross, since Cross could hardly have engineered things that way.
It's all a bit tenuous, isn't it?"

I don´t see that this applies. Not at all, in fact. If the scenario we suggest applies to some - or even a substantial - degree, then we are dealing with an opportunist, a man that shaped his plan according to what happened around him.
He could not have know that Paul would have arrived in Buck´s Row. Does that make the suggestion that he was the killer "tenuous"? No, it only tells us that he met with something he could not predict - and dealt with it.

When looking for a PC, he may well have shaped the plan to lie about the PC, and decided to tell Paul to go on ahead, and this seemingly was how it went down - the Echo is pretty clear on the point. But that is not to say that Lechmere did not have a plan B, is it?

There is nothing at all tenuous about the Lechmere bid, Caz. It presents an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that takes us down a very logical path, from the extra time he would have had at hand in Buck´s Row and all the way down to the Mizen scam. Along the way he HAD to take risks, but every killer takes a risk. It comes with the game, and it will open up possibilities to get caught. That applies to every killer throughout history, no exceptions. And in that respect, they all face a situation where they choose risk over safety.
If you see that in itself as "tenuous", then you have some sort of point. But it is not a point that detracts from the Lechmere theory.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

On the bubble issue. I would suggest it is dangerous to set too exact a view of what sort of person the Ripper was.

So, Lechy, you don't think that it is setting 'too exact a view' to see the ripper as someone who would wait for a stranger to reach him and his victim, then bluff it out with him, before doing the same with a police officer, and eventually with everyone at the inquest - namely Charles Allen Lechmere?

How much more exact a view can one set? Or do you just enjoy living dangerously?

Also, how important is it to the theory in general that Paul was too far away to hear what Cross was telling Mizen? As I see it, if Cross needed to lie to Mizen, he also needed Paul to have shifted himself first, and we don't know that Paul obliged. If he did so, that would have been down to Paul and a lucky break for Cross, since Cross could hardly have engineered things that way.

It's all a bit tenuous, isn't it?

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

That doesn’t mean that I expect the answers to have pointed at Cross as at least Nichols, but who knows?

Of course, that should have read: '...at Cross as at least Nichols' killer,...'

Now, off to bed...

[FrankO]

But just like you honestly say, Frank, I also say that this is MY take. If you disagree, I know that a very useful thinker, rational and wise, holds another opinion than I do. And that is something to give some long, hard afterthought.

Thanks, Christer. To be perfectly honest, I’m not denying there are oddities in this whole business with especially Cross, Paul and Mizen, and questions that I would have liked to have seen answered; questions that we – so far away from those gloomy and troubled nights in 1888 – are now unable to answer adequately. That doesn’t mean that I expect the answers to have pointed at Cross as at least Nichols, but who knows? I have left the door to that possibility just ajar.

Vi ses, Fish!
Frank

[moonbegger]

Fisherman , Dave ,

Now i know this is a bit off the wall !! But is there the slightest of chances that Mizen was told twice , once by Paul ( almost flippantly ) and then more thoroughly by Cross who was a short distance behind ?

so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

It would certainly account for the confusion in regards to who said what !

If Paul was unaware of Cross following him up the road , it could well have been Paul that said to Mizen "your wanted in bucks row " meaning he thought the other man (Cross) was still there with the body ?

just a thought !

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

!"Fish ,
There really was no need for your last post .. I fully and appreciatively accepted your answer ! Thain's inquest statement put it to bed thanks .."

Aha? Well, seeing as you reposted an uncomplete quotation that seemingly spoke of Neil calling out, I thought you were still on that track. So sorry for misunderstanding you, Moonbegger!

The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

We know from Paul's two newspaper interviews that he was anti-police and accordingly may have been reluctant to speak to Mizen or even go too close.

He may have been reluctant to speak to Mizen, Lechmere, but that doesn’t mean he had to dislodge himself from Mizen and Cross, let alone out of earshot.

It is clear that the bulk if not all of the talking was between Cross/Lechmere and Mizen.

That seems to have been the case, yes.

We have one newspaper account which puts Paul walking off in front of Charles Lechmere from the Hanbury Street corner.

We have one paper that just says “The other man, who went down Hanbury-street”. It doesn’t state at what point exactly Paul went down HS. What was written in the Times of 4 September nullifies what the Echo said. And since there’s one paper, the Star of 3 September, that corroborates the Times in the sense that it says that both went down HS instead of just Paul, and there are none to corroborate the Echo, I put more stock in the Times than the Echo.

We have Mizen saying that Cross told him he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row. Charles Lechmere denied saying it. Paul wasn't asked. If Lechmere did say it then he was taking a risk if he did so in the hearing of Paul, whether he was guilty or not.
There is no real indication that Paul repeats any of the dialogue.

The simple explanation is that Paul couldn''t hear what was said.

Obviously, you’re entitled to your view, but I don’t see how one follows the other per se: Mizen claims Cross told him he was wanted by a PC, Cross denies this, Paul doesn’t seem to have said anything about it – so, Paul couldn’t hear what was said? No, the simple explanation is that Paul wasn’t asked anything about the meeting and conversation, which is a pity. If he would have been and the papers would have carefully recorded what was said, then we wouldn't have needed to discuss this point.

Certainly it cannot be denied that a credible case can be presented that Paul did not hear.

For what it's worth, it just won't be one that’s going to convince me, Lechmere.

All the best,
Frank

[moonbegger]

Hi Dave ,
Thanks again , for clearing up the inquest proceedings..

Fish ,
There really was no need for your last post .. I fully and appreciatively accepted your answer ! Thain's inquest statement put it to bed thanks ..

Lech,

Time for bed Moonbeggar

Said Zebedee .. What's this the Magic ****ing Roundabout

cheers

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Thanks for posting this, Dave - much interesting and enlightening!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Dave O]

So from this , is it also safe to assume that the 22nd inquest date and the one previous was already set in stone on the 3rd , and therefore there was no reason to contact Cross to inform him of the inquest date ?

Hi Moonbegger,

No, it would have all been done at the end of each session. When they've heard all the evidence for that day, the coroner would propose adjourning, and that's when they'd have determined when the next session would be. The jury would have had some input on this. The witnesses who were there would be bound over to the next session. Essentially the coroner would have set an obligation on them, probably a financial one--"you owe the Queen this amount, but you can avoid paying it by being here at this date and time". (I'm paraphrasing the form of recognizance in Jervis, pg 225 of the 5th edition, 1888). And so on, each time they adjourn.

Hi Fisherman,

Me: "So nothing's set in stone, eh?"

That is true. Meaning, amongst other things, that it is no certainty that Lechmere WAS summoned for three occasions. But much points to this being the case!

Right, this is not fact and there's no certainty because we don't have have documentation of Baxter's expenses. This is merely my opinion and involves some speculation. I feel it's very likely based on the Lloyd's article (which shows some variance in the procedure with Davis), the research I'm doing with Macdonald's records, and contemporary reference books, but it's opinion all the same.

Here is a detail from one of Macdonald's inquests that adjourned, the expenses for the inquest on Abraham Wrigley held June 16 and 20 1888 (lma/mj/spc/ne 8a from Box 1). It illustrates some of what the Lloyd's article talks about, showing the lay witnesses receiving 2 shillings (there are more witnesses involved, but they were relatives or servants in the residence where the death took place, and received no payment). These people were there on the 16th and would have been bound over for the 20th, receiving a shilling for each day. The coroner's officer would've paid the 2 shillings to them on the 20th.

I've also attached the request for an inquest, showing the date for adjournment among other things (lma/mj/spc/ne 8b).

Hope this is helpful,
Dave

[Lechmere]

Time for bed Moonbeggar

[Fisherman]

Hi Moonbegger!

I see that you persist by posting this snippet:

"I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him,"

If you had taken the trouble to post the whole thing, we could have read:

"I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance"

So, what Neil "said" was not a cry for Thain´s help - he was giving Thain directions AFTER the latter had come down to Brown´s Stable Yard. Neil even tells us that he did not whistle - a clear indication that he wished not to disturb the sleeping people along the street. So why would he start shouting instead?

Let´s put this one to bed, Moonbegger - it is high time.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Frank
Regarding the Cross-Mizen conversation and Paul's ability to hear it, the only point that needs to be made in support of the 'Lechmere culprit theory' is that given what we know from the various accounts can a credible scenario be established where Paul did not actually hear exactly what transpired between Charleas Lechmere and Mizen.

We know from Paul's two newspaper interviews that he was anti-police and accordingly may have been reluctant to speak to Mizen or even go too close.
It is clear that the bulk if not all of the talking was between Cross/Lechmere and Mizen.
Paul was insistant that he was late for work and may have been eager not to tarry with Mizen.
We have one newspaper account which puts Paul walking off in front of Charles Lechmere from the Hanbury Street corner.
We have Mizen saying that Cross told him he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks Row. Charles Lechmere denied saying it. Paul wasn't asked. If Lechmere did say it then he was taking a risk if he did so in the hearing of Paul, whether he was guilty or not.
There is no real indication that Paul repeats any of the dialogue.

The simple explanation is that Paul couldn''t hear what was said. Certainly it cannot be denied that a credible case can be presented that Paul did not hear.

On the topic of witnesses at inquests, I somewhat doubt that all witnesses would have been routinely summonsed and expected to appear at all sittings, even after they have given their evidence. The court at the Whitechapel Lads Institute was small and cramped besides anything else.
There is something in Paul's treatment that suggests a gratuitous punishment from the police for his giving them the run around and because he slagged them off in the press.

Also Moonbegger we know that Paul wasn't apprehended as a result of a dragnet - he was dragged out of his bed.