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

[harry]

Fisherman
What is unique about the Nichol's murder?Your often comments drawing comparisons with other murderers and other crimes,plus the views of Griffith,make it seem anything but unique.That I do understand.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman
What is unique about the Nichol's murder?Your often comments drawing comparisons with other murderers and other crimes,plus the views of Griffith,make it seem anything but unique.That I do understand.

When you sit and wonder about these things it sometimes makes you ask very odd questions, Harry. I could give you an answer to your question (all murders are per se unique, but some are more unusual than others), but since I don´t know why you are asking it, I may as well let you explain further. I have a sneaking feeling that you may be thinking along the lines that as Griffiths spoke generally when he said that matters of crime will always come down to what was said by those involved, you want to keep the possibility ajar that Griffiths would not have applied that thinking to the Nichols murder specifically.
But as I said, I really don´t know down which paths your thinking exercises have brought you and so you may need to clarify why you feel you must protest against my take on things.
If there is any possibility at all that you can express this clearly and succinctly, I would be grateful.

[Fisherman]

Frank, for the police to invest in Pauls story, I would have thought that they should have spoken to him in person. If they did, then why was he not at day two of the inquest? My money is on Lechmere coming forward to the inquest only very late.

Of course, just like you say, if the police had gotten hold of Mizen and had him confirm that there had been two men passing him by on the murder morning, one of them giving him the information about a woman on her back in Bucks Row, then that would be the point at which they had to alter their belief in Neil as the finder. Meaning - at least to me - that when Neil on the evening of the 2nd said that it was not true that he had been shown to the body by two men, this had still not occurred. And the 2:nd was the day when Lloyds Weekly had been published, so it makes a lot of sense - to me, at least - that the information Neil gave was given in relation to how the interview therein had reiterated a claim that had already leaked out before - and been refuted.

After this, it may be that the police gave it some afterthought and said "Well, it can´t harm to ask the copper who was in Bakers Row/Hanbury Street that night", in which case the police may have had their answer to the enigma late in the evening of the 2nd. It does not seem they had such intentions, but the possibility must be there. If this was so, how do we explain that they managed to find Lechmere before next day´s inquest proceedings in the morning?

One possible answer would be that they could have staked out Bucks Row on the Monday morning at 3-4 AM, Mizen of course included as the only policeman who could identify Lechmere, and gotten hold of the carman in that way. Then they either took him into custody and awaited the opening of the inquest in the morning hours of the 3rd, perhaps five hours or so afterwards, or they summoned him to be in place at that inquest, and he duly arrived.

To me, there are two things that are not in line with this scenario. The first thing is that Paul was not at the inquest on the 3rd. If the police hauled Lechmere in, then why did they not do so with Paul? Surely, they would have wanted both men to testify together?
The otter matter that does not sit right with me concerning this scenario is that if this was what happened, and Mizen identified Lechmere who was told that he needed to appear at the inquest later that day, then that identification would have been made there and then. The identification process would have been over and done with. But! In the Evening Standard of the 4th, it says:

Police constable George Maizen, 55H, said - On Friday morning, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and the witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question.) I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station, and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

If the identification process was already over and done with, I´d suggest that there was no need to make a further indentification at the inquest. Therefore, my guess is that Lechmere himself called in to the inquest at a very late time, and the identification was only certified there and then for that exact reason.

(Another, entirely unconnected, matter of interest is how we can see here how Mizen speaks of how Neil shone his light on the pavement. He does not say that he had been signalled down by that light before this, making it clear that he came to Brown´s on his own accord after having been directed there by Lechmere).

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course, just like you say, if the police had gotten hold of Mizen and had him confirm that there had been two men passing him by on the murder morning, one of them giving him the information about a woman on her back in Bucks Row, then that would be the point at which they had to alter their belief in Neil as the finder. Meaning - at least to me - that when Neil on the evening of the 2nd said that it was not true that he had been shown to the body by two men, this had still not occurred. And the 2:nd was the day when Lloyds Weekly had been published, so it makes a lot of sense - to me, at least - that the information Neil gave was given in relation to how the interview therein had reiterated a claim that had already leaked out before - and been refuted.

After this, it may be that the police gave it some afterthought and said "Well, it can´t harm to ask the copper who was in Bakers Row/Hanbury Street that night", in which case the police may have had their answer to the enigma late in the evening of the 2nd. It does not seem they had such intentions, but the possibility must be there. If this was so, how do we explain that they managed to find Lechmere before next day´s inquest proceedings in the morning?

One possible answer would be that they could have staked out Bucks Row on the Monday morning at 3-4 AM, Mizen of course included as the only policeman who could identify Lechmere, and gotten hold of the carman in that way. Then they either took him into custody and awaited the opening of the inquest in the morning hours of the 3rd, perhaps five hours or so afterwards, or they summoned him to be in place at that inquest, and he duly arrived.

To me, there are two things that are not in line with this scenario. The first thing is that Paul was not at the inquest on the 3rd. If the police hauled Lechmere in, then why did they not do so with Paul? Surely, they would have wanted both men to testify together?
The otter matter that does not sit right with me concerning this scenario is that if this was what happened, and Mizen identified Lechmere who was told that he needed to appear at the inquest later that day, then that identification would have been made there and then. The identification process would have been over and done with. But! In the Evening Standard of the 4th, it says:

Police constable George Maizen, 55H, said - On Friday morning, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and the witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question.) I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station, and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

If the identification process was already over and done with, I´d suggest that there was no need to make a further indentification at the inquest. Therefore, my guess is that Lechmere himself called in to the inquest at a very late time, and the identification was only certified there and then for that exact reason.

.

The longer this discussion progresses the more panic stricken your posts become in an attempt to prop up your theory. From this latest post, I have highlighted all of your conjecture which seems to form a great pary of your theory

Of course, just like you say, if the police had gotten hold of Mizen and had him confirm that there had been two men passing him by on the murder morning, one of them giving him the information about a woman on her back in Bucks Row, then that would be the point at which they had to alter their belief in Neil as the finder. Meaning - at least to me - that when Neil on the evening of the 2nd said that it was not true that he had been shown to the body by two men, this had still not occurred. And the 2:nd was the day when Lloyds Weekly had been published, so it makes a lot of sense - to me, at least - that the information Neil gave was given in relation to how the interview therein had reiterated a claim that had already leaked out before - and been refuted.

You constant use of the term "at least to me and "to me at least" proves my point read on

After this, it may be that the police gave it some afterthought and said "Well, it can´t harm to ask the copper who was in Bakers Row/Hanbury Street that night", in which case the police may have had their answer to the enigma late in the evening of the 2nd. It does not seem they had such intentions, but the possibility must be there. If this was so, how do we explain that they managed to find Lechmere before next day´s inquest proceedings in the morning?Again conjecture on your partOne possible answer would be that they could have staked out Bucks Row on the Monday morning at 3-4 AM, Mizen of course included as the only policeman who could identify Lechmere, and gotten hold of the carman in that way. Then they either took him into custody and awaited the opening of the inquest in the morning hours of the 3rd, perhaps five hours or so afterwards, or they summoned him to be in place at that inquest, and he duly arrived.

They would have had no power to arrest and detain him and take him before the inquest, and again I have higllighed your conjecture

To me, there are two things that are not in line with this scenario. The first thing is that Paul was not at the inquest on the 3rd. If the police hauled Lechmere in, then why did they not do so with Paul? Surely, they would have wanted both men to testify together?
The other matter that does not sit right with me concerning this scenario is that if this was what happened, and Mizen identified Lechmere who was told that he needed to appear at the inquest later that day, then that identification would have been made there and then. The identification process would have been over and done with. But! In the Evening Standard of the 4th, it says:

If the identification process was already over and done with, I´d suggest that there was no need to make a further indentification at the inquest. Therefore, my guess is that Lechmere himself called in to the inquest at a very late time, and the identification was only certified there and then for that exact reason.

Crimes are not solved on guesswork alone, or what someone believes, or by trying to fit square pegs into round holes. You have continually been told that based on what is still available from police and newspaper records from 1888. There was never any suggested suspicion against Lechmere, yet you continue to suggest there is, but you cannot produce any hard evidence to warrant him being labelled a supect in the true definition of a suspect

All those in Ripperology are fully entitled to believe what they want to believe and accept what they want to accept and those who postulate suspects myself included should realise and accept any valid critisicms or evidence which may be forthcoming to either confirm or reject the suspect, or at least cause a major re think by whoevers work is being scrutinized. At the end of the day it all comes down to proving or disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is there any evidence from 1888 which leads us to suspect Lechmere?

Is there any evidence from 1888 to suggest the police suspected Lechmere?

Has there been any 21st Century evidence uncovered to suggest the original police investigation into Nicholls murder was flawed

Is there any 21st Century evidence to show Lechmere should be regarded as a prime suspect in the Nicholls murder, and in fact all the other murders, and not forgetting the torsos which you have gone out on a limb stating you belive the same killer was responsible for both series

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The longer this discussion progresses the more panic stricken your posts become in an attempt to prop up your theory. From this latest post, I have highlighted all of your conjecture which seems to form a great pary of your theory

Of course, just like you say, if the police had gotten hold of Mizen and had him confirm that there had been two men passing him by on the murder morning, one of them giving him the information about a woman on her back in Bucks Row, then that would be the point at which they had to alter their belief in Neil as the finder. Meaning - at least to me - that when Neil on the evening of the 2nd said that it was not true that he had been shown to the body by two men, this had still not occurred. And the 2:nd was the day when Lloyds Weekly had been published, so it makes a lot of sense - to me, at least - that the information Neil gave was given in relation to how the interview therein had reiterated a claim that had already leaked out before - and been refuted.

You constant use of the term "at least to me and "to me at least" proves my point read on

After this, it may be that the police gave it some afterthought and said "Well, it can´t harm to ask the copper who was in Bakers Row/Hanbury Street that night", in which case the police may have had their answer to the enigma late in the evening of the 2nd. It does not seem they had such intentions, but the possibility must be there. If this was so, how do we explain that they managed to find Lechmere before next day´s inquest proceedings in the morning?Again conjecture on your partOne possible answer would be that they could have staked out Bucks Row on the Monday morning at 3-4 AM, Mizen of course included as the only policeman who could identify Lechmere, and gotten hold of the carman in that way. Then they either took him into custody and awaited the opening of the inquest in the morning hours of the 3rd, perhaps five hours or so afterwards, or they summoned him to be in place at that inquest, and he duly arrived.

They would have had no power to arrest and detain him and take him before the inquest, and again I have higllighed your conjecture

To me, there are two things that are not in line with this scenario. The first thing is that Paul was not at the inquest on the 3rd. If the police hauled Lechmere in, then why did they not do so with Paul? Surely, they would have wanted both men to testify together?
The other matter that does not sit right with me concerning this scenario is that if this was what happened, and Mizen identified Lechmere who was told that he needed to appear at the inquest later that day, then that identification would have been made there and then. The identification process would have been over and done with. But! In the Evening Standard of the 4th, it says:

If the identification process was already over and done with, I´d suggest that there was no need to make a further indentification at the inquest. Therefore, my guess is that Lechmere himself called in to the inquest at a very late time, and the identification was only certified there and then for that exact reason.

Crimes are not solved on guesswork alone, or what someone believes, or by trying to fit square pegs into round holes. You have continually been told that based on what is still available from police and newspaper records from 1888. There was never any suggested suspicion against Lechmere, yet you continue to suggest there is, but you cannot produce any hard evidence to warrant him being labelled a supect in the true definition of a suspect

All those in Ripperology are fully entitled to believe what they want to believe and accept what they want to accept and those who postulate suspects myself included should realise and accept any valid critisicms or evidence which may be forthcoming to either confirm or reject the suspect, or at least cause a major re think by whoevers work is being scrutinized. At the end of the day it all comes down to proving or disproving beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is there any evidence from 1888 which leads us to suspect Lechmere?

Is there any evidence from 1888 to suggest the police suspected Lechmere?

Has there been any 21st Century evidence uncovered to suggest the original police investigation into Nicholls murder was flawed

Is there any 21st Century evidence to show Lechmere should be regarded as a prime suspect in the Nicholls murder, and in fact all the other murders, and not forgetting the torsos which you have gone out on a limb stating you belive the same killer was responsible for both series

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"Panick stricken"?

Here´s how panick stricken I am, Trevor:

I consider it proven beyond resonable doubt that Charles Lechmere was not only the Ripper but also the Thames Torso killer. I have a book coming out in a few weeks time, making that point.

Is that what "panick stricken" looks like in your world, Trevor?

I point out in a number of instances that the view I am speaking for is MY view, in cases where other interpretations can be made, and where I don´t want to have other posters saying that I present suggestions as fact. It is common courtesy and a way to allow for an intelligible discussion.

Then again, what would you know about such matters?

I lean against circumstancial evidence - lots of it, so there´s your the answer to that question. It should be good for you to know, since you have repeatedly claimed that finding the body is the one thing that I have to point a finger at Lechmere.
It is as remarkable a failure to pick up on the most obvious of things as it is totally expected, coming from you.

So here we are again, set for another round of - not factbased discussion and intelligible debate, as was always the intent of these boards - primitive mudslinging based on forgetting about all the aspects of he case and prioritizing accusations on a level that is so very hard for me to remember since I left it behind as a six-year old boy.

That does not make me a genius on any level, I´m afraid. Which is horrific news for you, if you take my meaning.

"Valid criticism", don´t make my laugh me lungs out, please!! Try and read the posts by Frank van Oploo on this thread, Trevor. He is anything but a Lechmerian, but he offers considered criticism and valid interpretations, the way it was always supposed to look. Read and learn, Trevor, read and learn!

[FrankO]

Of course, just like you say, if the police had gotten hold of Mizen and had him confirm that there had been two men passing him by on the murder morning, one of them giving him the information about a woman on her back in Bucks Row, then that would be the point at which they had to alter their belief in Neil as the finder. Meaning - at least to me - that when Neil on the evening of the 2nd said that it was not true that he had been shown to the body by two men, this had still not occurred.

Quite so, Christer.

After this, it may be that the police gave it some afterthought and said "Well, it can´t harm to ask the copper who was in Bakers Row/Hanbury Street that night", in which case the police may have had their answer to the enigma late in the evening of the 2nd.

That’s how I see it. The easiest & most certain way to find out if Paul had indeed spoken to a PC in "Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row", would be to find the copper in question.

It does not seem they had such intentions, but the possibility must be there.

As far as I've seen, there’s no suggestion whatever whether they had such intentions or not, although it is a possiblilty. The only evidence we have, is that the next day both Mizen and Lechmere appeared at the inquest. I may have missed evidence, so if you can put me right, please do so.

If this was so, how do we explain that they managed to find Lechmere before next day´s inquest proceedings in the morning?

One possible answer would be that they could have staked out Bucks Row on the Monday morning at 3-4 AM, Mizen of course included as the only policeman who could identify Lechmere, and gotten hold of the carman in that way. Then they either took him into custody and awaited the opening of the inquest in the morning hours of the 3rd, perhaps five hours or so afterwards, or they summoned him to be in place at that inquest, and he duly arrived.

This possibility would explain why Lechmere appeared at the inquest in his working outfit.

To me, there are two things that are not in line with this scenario. The first thing is that Paul was not at the inquest on the 3rd. If the police hauled Lechmere in, then why did they not do so with Paul?

We can’t possibly know, but it seems that Paul was “fetched up in the middle of the night”. This seems to mean at his home, not in Buck’s Row on his way to work.

Surely, they would have wanted both men to testify together?

Possible of course, but I don’t know if the police necessarily wanted both men to testify. I think they would be more concerned about having spoken to him in person and having his statement. The inquest was governed by the coroner, as far as I understand.

If the identification process was already over and done with, I´d suggest that there was no need to make a further indentification at the inquest.

You may well be right, Christer, I don’t know how the official identification process worked. Perhaps the identification at the inquest was according to the inquest rules. Maybe the coroner ordered it.

Therefore, my guess is that Lechmere himself called in to the inquest at a very late time, and the identification was only certified there and then for that exact reason.

I understand your guess and you may well be correct.

(Another, entirely unconnected, matter of interest is how we can see here how Mizen speaks of how Neil shone his light on the pavement. He does not say that he had been signalled down by that light before this, making it clear that he came to Brown´s on his own accord after having been directed there by Lechmere).

I’ve never doubted that Mizen did go to Buck's Row on his own accord, even though he seems to have dawdled before he left Hanbury Street.

[Trevor Marriott]

"Panick stricken"?

Here´s how panick stricken I am, Trevor:

I consider it proven beyond resonable doubt that Charles Lechmere was not only the Ripper but also the Thames Torso killer. I have a book coming out in a few weeks time, making that point.

Is that what "panick stricken" looks like in your world, Trevor?

I point out in a number of instances that the view I am speaking for is MY view, in cases where other interpretations can be made, and where I don´t want to have other posters saying that I present suggestions as fact. It is common courtesy and a way to allow for an intelligible discussion.

Then again, what would you know about such matters?

I lean against circumstancial evidence - lots of it, so there´s your the answer to that question. It should be good for you to know, since you have repeatedly claimed that finding the body is the one thing that I have to point a finger at Lechmere.
It is as remarkable a failure to pick up on the most obvious of things as it is totally expected, coming from you.

So here we are again, set for another round of - not factbased discussion and intelligible debate, as was always the intent of these boards - primitive mudslinging based on forgetting about all the aspects of he case and prioritizing accusations on a level that is so very hard for me to remember since I left it behind as a six-year old boy.

That does not make me a genius on any level, I´m afraid. Which is horrific news for you, if you take my meaning.

"Valid criticism", don´t make my laugh me lungs out, please!! Try and read the posts by Frank van Oploo on this thread, Trevor. He is anything but a Lechmerian, but he offers considered criticism and valid interpretations, the way it was always supposed to look. Read and learn, Trevor, read and learn!

Your views, interpretations, and your opinions on the case are not in line with the facts and the evidence, there is no mudslinging other than by you, which you continually use to deflect away from the reality of what you have been told and will not accept. You are inventing scenarios, creating a mystery surrounding each part of Nicholls murder where there is no mystery to be created.

The police did not have any grounds for suspecting him and they were at the front line of the investigation, accept it and move on, still time to stop the publication of the book.

https://www.trevormariott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Your views, interpretations, and your opinions on the case are not in line with the facts and the evidence, there is no mudslinging other than by you, which you continually use to deflect away from the reality of what you have been told and will not accept. You are inventing scenarios, creating a mystery surrounding each part of Nicholls murder where there is no mystery to be created.

The police did not have any grounds for suspecting him and they were at the front line of the investigation, accept it and move on, still time to stop the publication of the book.

www.trevormariott.co.uk

Yes, its a bummer that I dont accept what I am told, is it not?

And what´s with that obsession of yours to have my book stopped, Trevor? Surely you don´t think people will believe in what I write, and in such a case, what would you lament but for the waste of good paper?

[Fisherman]

Quite so, Christer.


That’s how I see it. The easiest & most certain way to find out if Paul had indeed spoken to a PC in "Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row", would be to find the copper in question.

As far as I've seen, there’s no suggestion whatever whether they had such intentions or not, although it is a possiblilty. The only evidence we have, is that the next day both Mizen and Lechmere appeared at the inquest. I may have missed evidence, so if you can put me right, please do so.

This possibility would explain why Lechmere appeared at the inquest in his working outfit.

We can’t possibly know, but it seems that Paul was “fetched up in the middle of the night”. This seems to mean at his home, not in Buck’s Row on his way to work.

Possible of course, but I don’t know if the police necessarily wanted both men to testify. I think they would be more concerned about having spoken to him in person and having his statement. The inquest was governed by the coroner, as far as I understand.

You may well be right, Christer, I don’t know how the official identification process worked. Perhaps the identification at the inquest was according to the inquest rules. Maybe the coroner ordered it.

I understand your guess and you may well be correct.

I’ve never doubted that Mizen did go to Buck's Row on his own accord, even though he seems to have dawdled before he left Hanbury Street.

I note that we cover a lot of common ground here, Frank, which I of course welcome. The first issue I have with your post is when you write, in answer to my question:

To me, there are two things that are not in line with this scenario. The first thing is that Paul was not at the inquest on the 3rd. If the police hauled Lechmere in, then why did they not do so with Paul?

...that:

We can’t possibly know, but it seems that Paul was “fetched up in the middle of the night”. This seems to mean at his home, not in Buck’s Row on his way to work.

It seems you believe that Paul was fetched up in the middle of the night before the second day of the inquest, but I think this cannot have been so. If the police were that eager to lay their hands on him, then he would certainly have been put on the stand by the coroner on the 3rd. Let´s keep in mind that the true version of the events was still very fresh to the police and coroner, and so every little bit that could be gleaned in order to put things right would have been absolutely essential.
Furthermore, we know from Walter Dews memoirs that Paul was sought after for quite some time. True, Dew does not remember that Paul was eventually found, but his words about how the police "made repeated appeals for him to come forward" is in perfect line with how Paul only appeared on the 17th - meaning, of course, that the coroner DID want him heard.

There is also the matter of the identification of Charles Lechmere, where you suggest that the coroner could have ordered it. But why would he? The ID would have been made if Mizen had been posted in Bucks Row on the night leading up to the second inquest day, finding Lechmere. The identification would have been certified at that stage. The coroner would have no business at all repeating it, he would know that Lechmere had been found and ID:d.
What the identification of course puts beyond doubt is that Lechmere was not the ordinary witness, who had been looked into and asked numerous questions by the police, mulled over by the coroner and presented at the inquest as a result of these exhaustive processes. He was a last minute addition by the looks of things.

[Observer]

Bit off topic but here's a nice enamel sign you might be interested in Fish. Look like a Victorian one.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-ADVERTISING-SIGN-BOOKING-OFFICE-FOR-PICKFORDS-4920/293901955730?hash=item446debf292:g:liEAAOSw8qVf2hLF

[Fisherman]

Bit off topic but here's a nice enamel sign you might be interested in Fish. Look like a Victorian one.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/VINTAGE-A...EAAOSw8qVf2hLF

I actually collect enamel signs - but smaller ones. That one was particularly nice, I must say, but I’ d feel a bit uneasy hanging it on my wall ...

[Observer]

Haha indeed, the ghost of old Lechmere might have pulled up outside your house on his horse and cart. I've had enamel signs in the past, funnily enough it's mid century Scandinavian glass that I collect now.

[Fisherman]

Haha indeed, the ghost of old Lechmere might have pulled up outside your house on his horse and cart. I've had enamel signs in the past, funnily enough it's mid century Scandinavian glass that I collect now.

Me, my wife and my dog - who is terrified of firecrackers - spent a few days around new years eve in Småland, within walking distance of a glass artisans hut. So now I am collecting glass too. We rented a house for three nights and payed less for it than for the glass we bought ...

[Observer]

Me, my wife and my dog - who is terrified of firecrackers - spent a few days around new years eve in Småland, within walking distance of a glass artisans hut. So now I am collecting glass too. We rented a house for three nights and payed less for it than for the glass we bought ...

I can imagine. Ebay still the best place, been some good reasonably priced mid 20th Century Scandinavian glass of late.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In post 220 you wrote,'you may even understand that each case is unique'. The onus is on you to clarify that claim in respect of the Nichols murder.not myself.It was a claim by you,not Griffith.That I do understand,clearly and succinctly.I simply asked what is unique? It is not an odd question.It may invoke an odd and evasive explanation by you,but that would be expected.
I find nothing unique in a person finding a body,identifying themselves,and giving evidence to that effect before a court.It happens frequently.