Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why is the possibility of Lechmere interrupting the ripper so often discarded?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

    Except that the police would want to clear things up as you say yourself in a previous post Gary. Which to my mind means at the very least they would have dispatched a police officer to Pickfords to check they had an employee who started work at 6 am on the morning of Polly's murder with the surname Cross.

    Regards Darryl
    The more of an investigation into Cross is argued, the less sense it makes that Swanson only mentioned him in passing.

    Why a bullet point for Mulshaw and not one for the finder of the body whom you have thoroughly checked out at home and at work?

    I’ll tell you why, because Mulshaw was linked to the horse slaughterers who for some reason were in the frame. CAL was not.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      He didn’t ‘seek out’ a policeman, though. That’s just more spin.
      I wasn't talking about why he sought out (or not) a policeman, Gary.
      Last edited by FrankO; 02-14-2022, 03:04 PM.
      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        ‘There’s a woman in Buck’s Row who needs your attention.’

        ‘There’s a woman lying in Buck’s Row, as I approached her a man who was standing over her ran away.’

        Which statement is more likely to get you past a PC?
        Why would Lechmere need to have said he saw someone run or walk away?
        Last edited by FrankO; 02-14-2022, 03:02 PM.
        "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
        Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
          Hi Abby,

          I think there are other things that might be found a bit odd, whether you’re looking at things with a guilty or innocent Lechmere in mind, but this isn’t one for me, at least. I mean, Tabram (if you count her as a Ripper victim) and Kelly weren’t seen either with anybody in the last hour or so before they were murdered and the Nichols inquest, just like all the others except Stride’s, produced not even a handful of witnesses that were up & about around the time of the murder. To me, it just means that there were very few people up and about when/where they were all killed, except in Stride’s case.

          Cheers,
          Frank
          Hi frank
          Youve completely lost me with this post.

          I mean, Tabram (if you count her as a Ripper victim) and Kelly weren’t seen either with anybody in the last hour or so before they were murdered
          what?! tabram (and yes, I count her as a ripper victim) was seen with a soldier-both Pearly Poll and another cop actually coroberate that. Kelly was seen with blotchy, aman and we have hutch who himself admits he was hanging around. stride was seen with numerous suspects, eddowes was seen with sailor man. chapman was seen with mr shabby genteel.

          to me seems like theres quite a few people always up and about- but no suspects seen with nichols- except lech. so yes again I find that somewhat odd.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

            I wasn't talking about why he sought out (or not) a policeman, Gary.
            No, sorry, that was Dusty. But you replied to his post and didn’t challenge it. Do you think it’s accurate to say he ‘sought out a policeman’ or that in company with Paul he came across one?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
              Why would Lechmere need to have said he saw someone run or walk away?

              ‘…given the chance to alibi himself, why did he say he didn't see or hear anyone?’

              Whether he was innocent or guilty, saying that he had seen/heard someone would have increased the likelihood of his being detained by Mizen.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                I’ll tell you why, because Mulshaw was linked to the horse slaughterers who for some reason were in the frame. CAL was not.
                Yes, so why Mulshaw ? Someone who was nearby but not someone who found the body ?

                Have we come on leaps and bounds in evolutionary thinking since 1888 ?
                I would argue that the police relied more on instinct, groundwork, local knowledge and the interviewing of witnesses far more than we do now .
                So bearing all that in mind my own thoughts are that Lech was cleared pretty quickly
                Off the top of my head Paul was interviewed [ being knocked up in the night ] . It seems very unlikely that the police wouldn't do the same to lech.

                Regards Darryl

                Comment


                • Following on from my last post, if Paul was interviewed in the early hours. Perhaps Lech was at the same time. So the two witnesses could corroborate each other but separately. To see if there were any discrepancies etc which may cast suspicion on one or both.
                  I think it is a technique the police still use.
                  Regards Darryl

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


                    ‘…given the chance to alibi himself, why did he say he didn't see or hear anyone?’

                    Whether he was innocent or guilty, saying that he had seen/heard someone would have increased the likelihood of his being detained by Mizen.
                    It would also give him an alibi

                    Comment


                    • If Lech didn't want to be detained by a copper he wouldn't have taken the chance to go to Mizen in the first place.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                        It would also give him an alibi
                        Actually, no. An alibi is a confirmation that a person was elsewhere at the time concerned. 'Alibi' = Latin, literally ‘elsewhere’.

                        Why are people using the term to mean something different? Did I miss yet another triumphant act of logocide?

                        M.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          Whether he was innocent or guilty, saying that he had seen/heard someone would have increased the likelihood of his being detained by Mizen.
                          Isn't this a rather irrelevant observation?

                          What CAL had seen or not seen in Buck's Row only became relevant once it was determined that Nichols had been murdered. That hadn't happened yet.

                          Whether guilty or innocent, CAL wouldn't have mentioned who he had seen, since he supposedly wasn't yet aware there had been a murder.

                          He was only quizzed about it later, once it was discovered that a crime had been committed.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            Isn't this a rather irrelevant observation?

                            What CAL had seen or not seen in Buck's Row only became relevant once it was determined that Nichols had been murdered. That hadn't happened yet.

                            Whether guilty or innocent, CAL wouldn't have mentioned who he had seen, since he supposedly wasn't yet aware there had been a murder.

                            He was only quizzed about it later, once it was discovered that a crime had been committed.
                            So if she’d been raped or assaulted and robbed what Lechmere had possibly seen wouldn’t have been relevant? Is that really what you’re saying RJ?

                            You discover a woman lying unconscious or dead in the street and before you reach her you see a man making a hasty departure from the scene. The man’s departure is of no significance to you or a passing PC until it’s determined that the woman was murdered?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                              Actually, no. An alibi is a confirmation that a person was elsewhere at the time concerned. 'Alibi' = Latin, literally ‘elsewhere’.

                              Why are people using the term to mean something different? Did I miss yet another triumphant act of logocide?

                              M.
                              They also call it an alibi that Chapman may have been killed after Lechmere’s shift had started.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                                So if she’d been raped or assaulted and robbed what Lechmere had possibly seen wouldn’t have been relevant? Is that really what you’re saying RJ?

                                You discover a woman lying unconscious or dead in the street and before you reach her you see a man making a hasty departure from the scene. The man’s departure is of no significance to you or a passing PC until it’s determined that the woman was murdered?

                                You seem to be arguing from the perspective of hindsight, Gary. You referred to what CAL didn't report to PC Mizen.

                                When meeting up with Mizen, CAL, if innocent, didn't know that Polly had been raped, assaulted, or robbed. She may have been simply drunk. And CAL certainly didn't see any man "making a hasty departure" from Buck's Row.


                                So why on earth would CAL have felt the need to mention to Mizen the man he had not seen, involving a crime that he did not yet know had occurred?

                                Whether guilty or innocent, why mention any of that, since CAL hadn't seen anyone fleeing the scene and was ostensibly still ignorant to the fact that Polly had her throat cut?

                                People seem to be trying to glean some meaning from the non-disclosures of a man who didn't yet know what had happened.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X