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

  • >> I’m not seeing any consistency in the explanations or his character traits if he’s guilty, which to me makes it the less credible hypothesis.<<

    Having heard Jeff's summation, the jury returned a verdict of, not guilty.
    dustymiller
    aka drstrange

    Comment


    • if this was a court of law, and I was a jurist-based on all the evidence i would have to say not guilty. but I would say that about all the suspects, including my personal favorites, hutch and blotchy (not working together-one or the other). however I think theres a case to be made for them, lech, chapman, Koz, bury and Kelly.
      but this isnt a court of law, and lech is as valid a suspect as any other, and IMHO theres no way personally I could call him innocent.
      "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 Mark J D View Post
        See what happened there? By slow degrees,



        was transformed into



        Amazing, eh?

        I tell you, if Darwin had witnessed such remarkable acts of evolutionary mutation, he'd have called his great book 'The Origin of Specious'...

        M.
        Actually, if you take the trouble to read what I wrote, it makes perfect sense. There was no transformation whatsoever. CAL said that he was sure he would have heard anyone moving away, therefore he was insistent about it. He didn't mention the alternative of seeing anyone, which suggests that in the darkness he was more likely to have heard someone than see someone. Therefore there is nothing whatever wrong with that statement.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

          Uh, no. For reasons discussed on all those previous occasions...
          I've seen those, and they've focused on the notion that Cross/Lechmere would tell PC Mizen he saw someone, and the speculation is that he wouldn't because it would raise the risk of him being detained. However, if Cross/Lechmere wanted to minimize the risk of being detained then separating from Paul at the first opportunity, which would be for him to turn left and head towards Whitechapel when Paul turns right and finds PC Mizen, would make the most sense. Regardless, if we accept the argument that telling PC Mizen about possibly seeing someone leaving the area finally raises the risk to an unacceptable level, there is nothing to prevent him from including it in his testimony. Just by showing up at the inquest, if that's what he's done, will ensure he's going to have to answer questions from the police, so indicating he might have seen someone would be an opportunity to try and control the direction of the investigation. That is, after all, supposed to be what he's trying to do - divert suspicion from himself.


          Again, no. Even a half-intelligent criminal knows to stay as close to the truth as possible, and not tell unnecessary lies -- especially unnecessary lies that set hares running.

          M.
          Again, yes. He's made himself a target for police questioning if he's just shown up at the inquest or even if he presents himself before the inquest. That, in terms of risk, is huge. If he's guilty, he must therefore have a reason for taking that course of action. Given Paul's Lloyd's interview downplays his involvement, doesn't identify him, and so forth, it's hard to see how he could presume that the police could locate him based upon what Paul has said. He would know if he gave Paul any information that might lead to him, and as you say, even a half-intelligent criminal would know that's just not the done thing. Going to the police, either before the inquest or just by showing up, reveals himself unnecessarily. If he's willing to take that risk, then it must be to serve some purpose. Whatever that purpose, he has to avoid the police focusing on him as being the only person there - something a guilty Cross/Lechmere would be well aware of. So whatever his primary reason for getting involved, if he's guilty he's going to want to deflect the police, and suggesting he may have seen someone else is the most obvious way to do that. And, it is close to the truth - all he has to say is he thought he saw someone up ahead and that's when he noticed the tarpaulin, etc. Just inject the notion that someone else might have just left the area, don't give a description (too dark), and don't even be positive.

          Basically, talking to PC Mizen is not the only opportunity Cross/Lechmere had to try and control the direction of the investigation, and yet, despite potentially putting himself under the microscope, he makes no real effort to prevent that from happening. That is not how criminals work. They lie, that's also generally how they get caught, even the smart ones, so the idea that intelligent ones don't lie runs against how things are. When they don't lie, it's called a confession.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

            He'd have everything to lose by lying in such a way in such a situation. As any kid brought up by a copper would know perfectly well.

            We've done all this before.

            M.
            He has just as much to lose by showing up at the inquest unannounced, which I believe is often argued for, alternatively, he showed up to the police station and he was summoned to the inquest. Either way, he has just as much to lose by doing either of those. Criminals get caught because they have to lie, otherwise it's a confession. Suggesting someone else was there before him is hardly a drop in the risk bucket compared to revealing himself to the police in the first place.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Nichols wouldn't have been touting for business in the middle of a quiet dark street, she would have been on the nearby main thoroughfare, and would have gone to Bucks row with a client? So we presume directionality that the killer would have been also heading along that stretch.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wiggins View Post
                Nichols wouldn't have been touting for business in the middle of a quiet dark street, she would have been on the nearby main thoroughfare, and would have gone to Bucks row with a client? So we presume directionality that the killer would have been also heading along that stretch.
                This is one great reason why Lechmere didn't do it. There is simply no way (no matter how drunk) would a woman looking for 'the business' would do so on a dark secluded back street. It is where you would bring clients for a secluded spot. Nichols was not dragged there, she was murdered on that spot. She would have been on the Whitechapel Road heading East when she met her killer.

                From my recollection of Lechmere's route, that would have been some detour from his usual route, whereas Bucks Row is perfectly feasible as being on his route at the time he reached there.
                Author of 'Jack the Ripper: Threads' out now on Amazon > UK | USA | CA | AUS
                JayHartley.com

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wiggins View Post
                  Nichols wouldn't have been touting for business in the middle of a quiet dark street, she would have been on the nearby main thoroughfare, and would have gone to Bucks row with a client? So we presume directionality that the killer would have been also heading along that stretch.
                  Lechmere is resourceful though. He gets up extra early to look for victims, as per Tabram, despite having worked (supposedly) a 10 plus hour shift the day before on both occasions (7th Aug was a Tuesday and 31st a Friday). People have claimed Lech was Blotchy, so he would have been up even earlier for that (or out very late on one of his wild nights hooking up with the local prostitutes)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post
                    The moment a man says anything like that to a copper, he sets hares running.
                    You mean, just like contradicting a copper would or only later adding stuff you didn't tell on the first possible occasion?

                    It is very, very obvious that Lechmere knew a lot more about coppers than most people here.
                    So, then surely he would be able to come up with stuff to tell them and how to serve it to them?

                    "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


                    • I don't know enough Lech to comment on him, I suspected he was an amusing red herring put up by some witty contributers here to prove that anyone could be made to a suspect, I didn't realise people were serious.
                      I will do some swatting up but my first impression is at least he knew the area, great deal more than most suspects here, but also abit like shooting the messanger? what about that guy at the Chapman murder scene who was cleaning his shoe with a knife on the steps shortly before she was found?
                      ​​​​​

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        I've seen those, and they've focused on the notion that Cross/Lechmere would tell PC Mizen he saw someone, and the speculation is that he wouldn't because it would raise the risk of him being detained.
                        Hi Jeff,

                        Besides the notion that it would raise the risk of them being detained, one might also wonder how important it would have been to tell Mizen that he’d heard or saw someone, as, whoever it was that he was supposed to have heard or seen, would have been long gone at that point. And he wasn’t able to give any description of the person he heard or saw, anyway, which would have been the truth. They were telling the first copper they’d meet, because they wanted to put the case into the hands of the proper authorities to handle it and he & Paul could continue on their merry way to work.

                        Cheers,
                        Frank
                        "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 Jeff,

                          Besides the notion that it would raise the risk of them being detained, one might also wonder how important it would have been to tell Mizen that he’d heard or saw someone, as, whoever it was that he was supposed to have heard or seen, would have been long gone at that point. And he wasn’t able to give any description of the person he heard or saw, anyway, which would have been the truth. They were telling the first copper they’d meet, because they wanted to put the case into the hands of the proper authorities to handle it and he & Paul could continue on their merry way to work.

                          Cheers,
                          Frank
                          Simple facts. Paul and CAL did not see the injury and the blood, and were not reporting a murder as such. They just reported that there was a woman lying in Buck's Row who was drunk or dead. Mizen didn't ask any questions of them, and just said "alright". This allowed CAL if he was guilty to invent any simple story he wished before he volunteered his information to the police a few days later. He could, and if guilty surely would have said something like there was someone in the distance that he heard or vaguely saw in the darkness, but who he thought was just a man on his way to work, for example. But he said that he saw and heard nobody. Odd behaviour for a guilty man one would think! But natural behaviour for an honest innocent man who didn't think he had any reason to lie.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                            ... But he said that he saw and heard nobody. Odd behaviour for a guilty man one would think! ...
                            No. For the nth time: saying he saw and heard nobody was a guaranteed totally safe option. It shut down that possible line of enquiry in one go and, since it was likely totally true, could never bite him on the arse as a result of someone coming forward with unexpected information. If he'd said he'd seen/heard someone, the police -- having literally nothing else to go on -- would have tried to get everything they could out of it.

                            I genuinely can't decide whether the amount of utter silliness being posted on this topic is just an outbreak of 'while the cat's away' anti-Lechmerian flailing, or the result of none of you ever having had to face the police in a real-world situation.

                            M.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                              Actually, if you take the trouble to read what I wrote, it makes perfect sense...
                              You wrote:

                              "... CAL insisted that the sound of footsteps carried clearly..."

                              I consider that shocking.

                              M.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                                No. For the nth time: saying he saw and heard nobody was a guaranteed totally safe option. It shut down that possible line of enquiry in one go and, since it was likely totally true, could never bite him on the arse as a result of someone coming forward with unexpected information. If he'd said he'd seen/heard someone, the police -- having literally nothing else to go on -- would have tried to get everything they could out of it.

                                I genuinely can't decide whether the amount of utter silliness being posted on this topic is just an outbreak of 'while the cat's away' anti-Lechmerian flailing, or the result of none of you ever having had to face the police in a real-world situation.

                                M.
                                You are walking past a shop at night and you see the door is open. You think, ‘What a careless man that shopkeeper is.’

                                Or:

                                Before you reach the shop you see a man running away from it. When you realise the door is open you think, ‘That man was trying to rob the shop.’

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X