Evidence of innocence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sounds similar to the modern British attitude towards those pesky "illegal" immigrants drowning in the Channel


I don't but that argument at all; regardless of the times, Lechmere and Paul were lacklustre in their "efforts" to get help for Nichols.

That applies to now or then.


It is almost certain that Lechmere and/or Paul were NOT the Ripper, but in trying to make excuses for their atypical reactions, it actually has the adverse effect and tends to lend weight to the idea that Lechmere and Paul behaved suspiciously.

In other words, by making excuses for them, it makes things worse.

No excuses are needed for trying to show Lechmere is innocent, but at the same time is should be okay to question the ethics of their lackluster reaction, relative to the situation they found themselves in the night they discovered a Ripper victim.



RD

But as all people aren’t selfless now RD they certainly weren’t all selfless then. I don’t see how anyone can been seen to be making excuses for 2 men that acted in an entirely normal human way. Do you not think that we are all affected by our environments? I wouldn’t dream of carrying a gun or knifing someone over an argument and neither would you but this happens today. Even kids are behaving like this and it’s not because they’re born bad it’s because of the environment they’ve grown up in and the role models that they’ve had which has de-sensitised them to violence. If a woman had complained of being raped in those days she’d have been told “stop moaning, where’s my supper?” Probably followed by a black eye.

In Cross and Paul’s lives (I’m not talking about childhood) no one helped them. No free medical care, so no money - you suffered. No work no money - you starved or went to the horribly harsh workhouse. There was little or no evidence that politicians gave them a seconds thought until there was a war and then they became prime cannon fodder before losing a leg and spending the rest of their shortened lives as a beggar on the street.

Cross sees a shape that he thinks might be useful to him then when he gets to the middle of the road he finds that it’s a woman that’s no use to him. If he hadn’t heard Paul approaching at that point I wouldn’t have been surprised if he’d just passed by. This is probably what he’d have thought to himself “probably some drunken old ****. Not my problem, I’m not being late because of some gin sodden old ****. Hold on, what if she’s injured? Nah, that’s her problem, shouldn’t be out on the streets. I’m not having her all over me if she wakes up. Anyway there are coppers passing, one of them will find her.”

Cross and Paul acted perfectly normally. There are people today who would think exactly the same RD. I’ve seen footage of people lying in the street and people just walking past. It happens.

[Duran duren]

Sounds similar to the modern British attitude towards those pesky "illegal" immigrants drowning in the Channel


I don't but that argument at all; regardless of the times, Lechmere and Paul were lacklustre in their "efforts" to get help for Nichols.

That applies to now or then.


It is almost certain that Lechmere and/or Paul were NOT the Ripper, but in trying to make excuses for their atypical reactions, it actually has the adverse effect and tends to lend weight to the idea that Lechmere and Paul behaved suspiciously.

In other words, by making excuses for them, it makes things worse.

No excuses are needed for trying to show Lechmere is innocent, but at the same time is should be okay to question the ethics of their lackluster reaction, relative to the situation they found themselves in the night they discovered a Ripper victim.



RD

At the time, they didn't know anything about any ripper though. Makes you wonder if Polly had been say, victim #4, would Cross/Paul had reacted any differently? HS brought up harsh truths that explain the apathy that would have existed in the Whitechapel area back then. Those were different times.

[The Rookie Detective]

Good point, Mike. The harsher the circumstances people live in, the more selfish they become. It's only logical. People stuggling with daily life as it is, just don't need any problems that don't concern them.

Sounds similar to the modern British attitude towards those pesky "illegal" immigrants drowning in the Channel


I don't but that argument at all; regardless of the times, Lechmere and Paul were lacklustre in their "efforts" to get help for Nichols.

That applies to now or then.


It is almost certain that Lechmere and/or Paul were NOT the Ripper, but in trying to make excuses for their atypical reactions, it actually has the adverse effect and tends to lend weight to the idea that Lechmere and Paul behaved suspiciously.

In other words, by making excuses for them, it makes things worse.

No excuses are needed for trying to show Lechmere is innocent, but at the same time is should be okay to question the ethics of their lackluster reaction, relative to the situation they found themselves in the night they discovered a Ripper victim.



RD

[FrankO]

We have to be wary when judging people’s actions and reactions because we live in very different times. These were much harsher, tougher times and people living in the middle of one of Europe’s worst slums would have had little thought for sentiment and so it’s easy for us to look at them as particularly uncaring. Most people would have lost kids and they would all have been aware of (or had first hand experience of) drunkenness, alcoholism, street violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, shortage of work, going without food, being thrown out of lodgings, sleeping rough etc. These kinds of life experiences couldn’t fail but to give these people a ‘look after number one’ attitude which can appear heartless to us. Many were also suspicious of the police and so a desire to avoid contact with them at all costs would have seemed normal to some.

Good point, Mike. The harsher the circumstances people live in, the more selfish they become. It's only logical. People stuggling with daily life as it is, just don't need any problems that don't concern them.

[Geddy2112]

Yes, and you cannot send them PM's either. Basically, it is almost as if they do not exist on the boards, other than existing posts by them are marked by an * instead of the fun labels like "Constable" or "Inspector" etc.

- Jeff

Thanks, on boards using the same software as here that I'm a mod/admin members who are permanently banned cannot read the forums either. In fact non-live members can't either. Apparently that is not the case here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We have to be wary when judging people’s actions and reactions because we live in very different times. These were much harsher, tougher times and people living in the middle of one of Europe’s worst slums would have had little thought for sentiment and so it’s easy for us to look at them as particularly uncaring. Most people would have lost kids and they would all have been aware of (or had first hand experience of) drunkenness, alcoholism, street violence, domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, shortage of work, going without food, being thrown out of lodgings, sleeping rough etc. These kinds of life experiences couldn’t fail but to give these people a ‘look after number one’ attitude which can appear heartless to us. Many were also suspicious of the police and so a desire to avoid contact with them at all costs would have seemed normal to some.

[The Rookie Detective]

That is a good point. Lechmerians never define what they mean by "sounding the alarm". If they did it would probably be another way of showing how weak their case is.

The issue over "sounding the alarm" stems from the contextual reaction of both men comparative to the scenario in which they found themselves.

For example, if they thought Nichols was either "dead or drunk," then their reaction and subsequent choices make perfect sense, because when they inform Mizen of their discovery, there is no hint or suggestion that anything untoward had happened to Nichols. This then explains Mizen's reaction to what he had been told.

However; when we consider that in addition to being either "dead or drunk," that either Lechmere OR Paul may have thought that Nichols had been "outraged," it is at that point where the idea of questioning their reaction; or perceived lack of reaction, becomes warranted.

If a woman is found drunk and unresponsive, then they had no particular reason to urgently seek help from the police.

And even if a woman is found dead, there is still no particular urgency required, because quite frankly, a dead person can't be helped posthumously.


However, when we add the idea that a woman is found "outraged" and unresponsive, then it changes the dynamic quite considerably.

And why is that?

Well because it then implies that a 3RD PERSON has been involved and is almost certainly responsible for the woman being found in the manner in which she was.

Once we cross the threshold from a woman being found "drunk or dead" (that doesn't imply another person is involved) and then add into the mix that a woman has been physically "outraged" and is now unresponsive; it is at that point where at least one of the 2 men should have been more urgent in the immediate aftermath of their discovery.

A typical reaction would have been for at least ONE of the men to raise an audible alarm, by simply shouting "POLICE!"

But they didn't do that.


Why?


Well perhaps if they thought she was just drunk or already dead, then their choice to not seek immediate help, is perfectly warranted and not suspicious in the slightest, especially when it would have been apparent to at least one of them that she was a prostitute, or a woman of a similar class.
The balance of needing to get to work also played a part, because what could be done to help a dead woman anyway?
The phrase "dead or drunk" in combination; would suggest that at least one of them thought that she was dead BECUASE of excessive alcohol consumption.

No 3rd party involved and no suspicion to be found anywhere.

However, once the option of the unresponsive woman having been attacked by a person or persons unknown is thrown into the narrative; it then automatically shines a spotlight on the reaction of the men who found her.

The only thing that would then be suspicious; would be IF either Paul or Lechmere thought that Nichols had been outraged and then chose to not raise an urgent and immediate alarm to get help for the stricken woman.

The fact that Nichols was unresponsive in addition to having been outraged; would then put even more emphasis on a need to get the police involved urgently.

Neither man saw any wounds or blood, which again supported their lack of immediate audible reaction.

But her eyes were open; as evidenced by PC Neil and the mortuary photo, and so based on the very close proximity that the men claimed to have got to Nichols to investigate, it would seem rather strange that neither man mentions seeing her eyes open and staring.

How could they miss that?

The street was dark, but not pitch black; or as dark as Duffield Yard where Stride was found.

There is also the issue of clothing, and IF either man noticed her skirt had been raised, OR either man moved her clothing to cover her dignity; it then strongly indicates that at least ONE of them thought she had been "outraged."
Now IF one of them DID feel she had been "outraged" in combination with her eyes being open and her lack of response; it does warrant questioning WHY neither man sought IMMEDIATE help.


There are different takes on what they did or didn't do, but we do know that it was several minutes after they found her, that they casually approached Mizen and told him he was wanted in Bucks Row.

it seems that at no point did either man indicate or suggest to Mizen that Nichols had been attacked and/or "outraged' and by proxy imply that another person unknown had been involved.

And so, why is that?


It is clear that neither man thought Nichols had been attacked and in need of help, OR they did, but didn't want to be drawn into the fray.
By telling Mizen he is "wanted in Bucks Row," it shows that the men are doing their noble duty as citizens, but at the same time also trying to not get involved.


On balance, it is Paul who should fall under more scrutiny than Lechmere.


Of course, there is another possibility that goes a long way to explain everything...

When Lechmere walks into Bucks Row, the Ripper has just managed to suffocate Nichols by placing his left hand over her face, covering her mouth and nose at the same time, kneeling on her right side. He has just commenced some abdominal cuts when he hears Lechmere approaching...

He manages to hide in a location just west of the murder site because he has no time to flee the scene completely without being heard or seen.
Lechmere notices the body, just as Paul arrives...

They investigate, but at this point Nichols has NO cuts to her throat, and only some minor abdominal slashes and disarranged clothing.

Nichols is still alive, but only just. She is unconscious through having been suffocated.

Her eyes are also closed at this point.

Lechmere and Paul leave, and it at this point where the Ripper chooses to come out of the shadows and then walk over to Nichols and make sure she is dead, so that she can't identify him.

He cuts her throat savagely; which causes Nichols to momentarily regain consciousness; her eyes opening as an automated response to having severe pain inflicted.

The ripper then replaces his knife and walks away in ANY direction, perhaps scaling the wall and onto the train line.

Nichols is therefore murdered SEPARATELY from having been initially attacked and strangled.

Lechmere and Paul are present at the scene BETWEEN the initial attack and the subsequent murder.

It would have taken the Ripper less than a minute to cut her throat and leave.

Plenty of time BEFORE Pc Neil arrives.


All of the above explains the reactions of everybody AND supports the medical evidence based on chronology of wounds inflicted.


The reason why Lechmere didn't see or hear anyone, was because the killer was still there.

And why didn't Lechmere or Paul not seek immediate help?
Well, perhaps because; apart from some disarranged clothing, there were no other signs of anything untoward, ergo, throat cuts, staring open eyes and blood loss.

All of this happened AFTER the pair had left the scene.

The killer waiting in the shadows...for his moment...

But why did the Ripper go back and cut her throat?

Well if he thought that Nichols could identify him, then he perhaps thought he had no choice but to finish the job.

He had no time for abdominal mutilations but had to make sure she was dead.

As an early kill in his spree, it was perhaps from Nichols that he learner the importance of cutting the throat to make sure.


Lots to ponder.



RD

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lewis C - I don't know what people mean when they say that he should have sounded the alarm

Fiver - That is a good point. Lechmerians never define what they mean by "sounding the alarm". If they did it would probably be another way of showing how weak their case is.

We are also asked to believe that Cross was such a genius that he could coolly stand and wait for Robert Paul to arrive, totally confident in his ability to avoid being detained or searched by a PC (via his on-the-spot Mizen Scam plan) and yet, after ample thinking time between the event and the inquest he couldn’t even come up with a childishly simple way of pointing the police away from himself. All that he’d have had to have said was that as he’d approached the body he heard someone running up ahead. Maybe he ‘saw’ a shadowy figure in the distance? No..none of this was within his level of intelligence of common sense. Who wouldn’t have thought of this if they were guilty under those circumstances. An innocent man needs no excuses or lies though. All we get is:

“Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck’s-row he must have heard him.”

Doesn't sound like the actions of a serial killer who remained at liberty does it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, and you cannot send them PM's either. Basically, it is almost as if they do not exist on the boards, other than existing posts by them are marked by an * instead of the fun labels like "Constable" or "Inspector" etc.

- Jeff

Cheers Jeff

[Fiver]

The Baron

Why did you leave out the middle of that sentence by Jeff. Breaking it up and dropping the middle phrase makes no sense.

Jeff said "Doesn't mean he isn't worth a look, but when looked at without all the decorative language, there is really nothing to see."

And that is a common flaw of Lechmerian presentation, and suspectology in general. They use implication and innuendo, trying to bias people to assume the worst about Lechmere.

Another is selectively quoting the sources instead of presenting the whole story.

[Fiver]

I don't know what people mean when they say that he should have sounded the alarm.

That is a good point. Lechmerians never define what they mean by "sounding the alarm". If they did it would probably be another way of showing how weak their case is.

[The Baron]

Doesn't mean he isn't worth a look

there is really nothing to see

The Baron

[JeffHamm]

The latest defence is a twist on one of the most used defences for guilt. We now have 'Lechmere was found alone with a freshly killed victim.'

Ok fair enough. We obviously have two points of bias here from Team Lechmere -

i) Found alone

ii) Freshly killed

I keep going over and over this statement and try to think of how it came about. However, and this is what I'm suggesting here. Was it more in line with the evidence that Cross 'found' Paul in Bucks Row?

Thoughts?

This is why one always needs to go back to source material. A lot of the time, the facts get coloured with adjectives selected to slant the facts in favour of a desired conclusion. All of the points made against Cross/Letchmere are found in the adjectives rather than in the facts.

Doesn't mean he isn't worth a look, but when looked at without all the decorative language, there is really nothing to see
- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Just out of curiosity, when you have been banned/suspended does your name get removed from the members list even though you will return at some point?

Yes, and you cannot send them PM's either. Basically, it is almost as if they do not exist on the boards, other than existing posts by them are marked by an * instead of the fun labels like "Constable" or "Inspector" etc.

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

I don't know what people mean when they say that he should have sounded the alarm. Do they mean that as soon as he realized that he was looking at a woman, he should have screamed for help at the top of his lungs? When he didn't know that she had been murdered? I think that his approach of notifying the next PC that he came across was at least as sensible as the screaming approach. At least he notified someone. When Albert Crow found Martha Tabram's body, he was like, "a sleeping vagrant, what else is new?" and didn't notify anyone.

The 'raising an alarm' is yet another none sign of guilt in a very long line of none signs of guilt that we are supposed to take as evidence of Cross being a multiple murderer...