Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

In at least one important sense, the action of Lechmere if he was the killer and that of Dahmer are very much alike: They both are examples of how a serial killer puts himself in harms way although he could have avoided to do so.

It is claimed that there are no - or the fewest - examples of killers who have done what is suggested that Lechmere did. The fact is that there are numerous examples of serial killers doing things that are unique for one reason or another. If we were to claim that such a thing rules out that Lechmere was the killer, we would be doing things the wrong way altogether. It is only if what Lechmere was suggested to do was in any way physically very hard or impossible to do that we may start saying that it makes him an unlikely killer.

Do we have any other example than Dahmer of a serial killer approaching the police and talking them into letting him take possession of a person in their custody, in order to enable the killer to proceed with his murderous intentions for the person in question?
No, we donīt.
Does that mean that Dahmer was not the killer?
No, it doesnīt.
Do we have any other examples of serial killers inserting pebbles into his victims vaginas than Ridgway?
No we donīt (as far as I know).
Does that mean that Ridgway was not the killer?
The suggestion would be ludicrous.
Do we have any other example of serial killer gouging his victims eyeballs out than Charles Albright?
Maybe we do, but it is nevertheless extremely rare.
And if it is extremely rare, does that not mean that Albright was not the killer?
No, it does not.

Every case is unique. Whatever inclusion a case has that is also unique is not an obstacle for a suspect to be the killer, unless it involves inclusions that are physically hard or impossible to realize for the suggested killer. Otherwise, when we have an inclusion such as the suggested staying put and conning Robert Paul, if we think it is an unlikely thing for Lechmere to have done, we move on and we look to see if there are OTHER factors that may point to guilt on his behalf.
Such as the suspect hiding his real name real name in contacts with the law.
Such as having a PC pointing to how that he was misinformed and conned by him.
Such as how the victim had her clothing pulled down to cover the wounds - in this case only.
Such as how the timings are off.
Such as how the victim bled for many minutes after Lechmere left her.
Such as how Lechmere said he wouldnīt touch Nichols when Paul asked him to help prop her up - although he already HAD touched her.

Once we see that there is one thing after another that do not look right (the kind of things a jury would NOT like), we do the litmus test: Does the geography seem to match? Do the timings?

In fact, if we really want to find a good suspect, there is very little that Lechmere could have done differently to match that wish. And THAT is what we should find if we think that he perhaps would not have stayed put.

The WHOLE picture, gentlemen, please! Not the "letīs pick the matters of one by one"-approach, because that way, we miss out on the real issue - how there are too many things to explain away for it to be a healthy exercise.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I believe that perfectly sound comments have been previously made to cover the "such as" issues above, and we would just be repeating ourselves to pursue further.

[Fisherman]

I believe that perfectly sound comments have been previously made to cover the "such as" issues above, and we would just be repeating ourselves to pursue further.

As I say, taken one by one, it is easy to produce ”perfectly sound” comments about these matters. It is however perfectly sound to also state that they should not be around in swarms if you are innocent.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Christer, the "maybes" and "what ifs" are only "around in swarms", if you are looking for issues that quite possibly don't really exist. For example, you talk of Mizen "pointing to how he was misinformed and conned by him". Nope, you mean Mizen alleged this, it is certainly not a proven fact. The facts are that Lechmere openly admits to finding the body and being alone with it, so if the police believed that he then lied to Mizen, Lechmere would have been a clear suspect from the start. He wasn't, and therefore we must assume that the police were more inclined to believe Lechmere than their own officer! This is almost certainly because the statements taken separately from Lechmere and Paul confirmed each other's story. But that is my assumption. What seems clear is that the police did not suspect Lechmere, and they had detailed statements from him, Paul and Mizen. We don't have these.

Lechmere "hiding his real name in contacts with the law". Not demonstrated, I'm afraid. If Lechmere had grown up using the name Cross, started work at Pickfords in the name of Cross, and was therefore generally known as Cross by friends and colleagues, then his use of that surname at the inquest of the dead child would have been expected, and would be good evidence that this was the name by which he was generally known. If he had been known as Lechmere at Pickfords, I do not think it is at all likely that he could have given evidence under the name of Cross. The police and Pickfords were also closely involved and must have discussed the accident and shared all related details. Christer, you say you have over a hundred proofs that Cross was really Lechmere, and there is no doubt that he knew his legal name had to be used on legal cerificates etc, but that isn't the issue her. The issue is clear. We need to know what name Lechmere was using in his ordinary day to day life between say 1873 and 1888. If you have proof that he was Lechmere at Pickfords, or that his friends called him Lechmere etc, that would be good evidence for your case. Otherwise its just a possibility.

"Timings are off" - if we accept the evidence of Harriet Lilley, which is very likely to be accurate as it makes good sense and explains why no-one else heard anything, we have a murder at about 3. 30 am, and no real time problems.

The blood issues are best ignored, I think. We can be sure that police officers and the doctor would have done things like lift Nichols' hand off the ground to feel the temperature, and to check for a pulse. The raising of the hand would cause some blood to ooze from the wounds for some time after the event.

The point about Lechmere not wishing to move Nichols is a far from certain one. We don't have the official inquest transcript, and not all papers report that it was Lechmere who didn't wish to move her. Paul never said anything about it, the story comes from Lechmere himself, so if he did say it, it is odd for a guilty person to implicate himself when he has no reason to even mention the incident. For what it is worth, Rumbelow believes it was Paul who didn't wish to move her.

I really don't want us all to make this debate into an argument like the one on the Kate's Apron thread, where different opinions seem to have resulted in frayed tempers. I hope that on this thread we can debate like adults and agree to disagree. I believe that it is reasonable to consider Lechmere as a suspect, but I haven't seen any good evidence yet that sways me. As I said previously, the man who murders on his way to work, puts his bloodied knife in his pocket, and possibly with fresh blood on his hands and clothes, goes to work and does a full shift as if nothing had happened, is not the most likely modus operandi of JtR. However, a witness statement -which we don't have - of a carman in his working clothes chatting up a prostitute in the Tabram, Chapman or Kelly investigations would have helped you enormously. The absence of such is very unhelpful.

[Fisherman]

Christer, the "maybes" and "what ifs" are only "around in swarms", if you are looking for issues that quite possibly don't really exist. For example, you talk of Mizen "pointing to how he was misinformed and conned by him". Nope, you mean Mizen alleged this, it is certainly not a proven fact.

I am very much aware about what facts are. WHich was why I did not write that Lechmere lied to Mizen but instead that what Mizen pointed out would be in line with a lie. Whether or not Mizen was correct to point it out is another matter.

The facts are that Lechmere openly admits to finding the body and being alone with it, so if the police believed that he then lied to Mizen, Lechmere would have been a clear suspect from the start.

No, Lechmere never admitted that he was alone with the body as such. He said that before Paul arrived, he was not in contact with it. Oauls arrival is very convenient for Lechmere: close enough to give him a makeshift alibi and a reason to say that he was NOT alone with the body. It is but one of the "coincidences" that surround the case.

He wasn't, and therefore we must assume that the police were more inclined to believe Lechmere than their own officer! This is almost certainly because the statements taken separately from Lechmere and Paul confirmed each other's story. But that is my assumption. What seems clear is that the police did not suspect Lechmere, and they had detailed statements from him, Paul and Mizen. We don't have these.

If it had been a done deal from the outset, then why did a member of the jury askabout whether it was true or not that Lechmere had told Mizen about another PC? If said jury member already had had it cleared up, why ask? If Lechmere had been looked into, then why did the police think he was named Cross?
You say that the police would have taken detailed statements from Lechmere, Paul and Mizen, but we do nbot know for how long the police had been aware of Lechmereīs presence as the inquest started. Furthermore, as Lechmere testified, Paul had not been heard, we know that much. And there are plenty of pointers to how the errand had NOT been cleared up at the time of the inquest. One such marker is how we know that Mizen specifially remarked that the carman had said nothing about any murder or suicide. I think you are being overoptimistic about what the police knew and understood. As for believing Lechmere over one of their own, it may well be that Mizen himself became doubtful about what he had heard, and said so to his colleagues, and then that would likely have been it.
Robert Linford used to say that how Lechmere was not suspected will have owed to how it had all been cleared up. Just like you, he was unable to substantiate the suggestion, though.

Lechmere "hiding his real name in contacts with the law". Not demonstrated, I'm afraid. If Lechmere had grown up using the name Cross, started work at Pickfords in the name of Cross, and was therefore generally known as Cross by friends and colleagues, then his use of that surname at the inquest of the dead child would have been expected, and would be good evidence that this was the name by which he was generally known. If he had been known as Lechmere at Pickfords, I do not think it is at all likely that he could have given evidence under the name of Cross. The police and Pickfords were also closely involved and must have discussed the accident and shared all related details. Christer, you say you have over a hundred proofs that Cross was really Lechmere, and there is no doubt that he knew his legal name had to be used on legal cerificates etc, but that isn't the issue her. The issue is clear. We need to know what name Lechmere was using in his ordinary day to day life between say 1873 and 1888. If you have proof that he was Lechmere at Pickfords, or that his friends called him Lechmere etc, that would be good evidence for your case. Otherwise its just a possibility.

We have around a hundred examples of how Lechmere always called himself Lechmere in contacts with the authorities. If he called himself Cross at work, that had no influence at all when it came to what he called himself in authority contacts, therefore. he was always Lechmere and never Cross unless there were cases of violent death involved. As I keep saying: The WHOLE picture, please!

"Timings are off" - if we accept the evidence of Harriet Lilley, which is very likely to be accurate as it makes good sense and explains why no-one else heard anything, we have a murder at about 3. 30 am, and no real time problems.

The problem that arises is how Nichols bled for many minutes after Lechmere leaving her, in combination with two pathologists saying that she would be likely to bleed for 3-5 minutes. Not twenty minutes! And whichever way we cut it, the fact remains that Lechmere said that he left home at 3.30, and so he should have been in Bucks Row at 3.37. That means that the timings are off, Iīm afraid.

The blood issues are best ignored, I think. We can be sure that police officers and the doctor would have done things like lift Nichols' hand off the ground to feel the temperature, and to check for a pulse. The raising of the hand would cause some blood to ooze from the wounds for some time after the event.

..and that would make Mizen go "The blood was still running and looked fresh, and it was partly coagulated"?

The point about Lechmere not wishing to move Nichols is a far from certain one. We don't have the official inquest transcript, and not all papers report that it was Lechmere who didn't wish to move her. Paul never said anything about it, the story comes from Lechmere himself, so if he did say it, it is odd for a guilty person to implicate himself when he has no reason to even mention the incident. For what it is worth, Rumbelow believes it was Paul who didn't wish to move her.

It is worth nothing, I am afraid. Rumbelow will have gone on the Daily Telegraph article, thatīs all. The ad verbatim version in the Morning Advertiser is in line with ALL the other reports that mention this, and it is abundantly clear who did what:
"I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."
If you are going to hang your hat on how it is not clear who it was that refused to prop Nichols up on account of what is a clear misconception on behalf of the DT, then that has to stand for yourself only.

I really don't want us all to make this debate into an argument like the one on the Kate's Apron thread, where different opinions seem to have resulted in frayed tempers. I hope that on this thread we can debate like adults and agree to disagree.

Done. I disagree.

I believe that it is reasonable to consider Lechmere as a suspect, but I haven't seen any good evidence yet that sways me. As I said previously, the man who murders on his way to work, puts his bloodied knife in his pocket, and possibly with fresh blood on his hands and clothes, goes to work and does a full shift as if nothing had happened, is not the most likely modus operandi of JtR. However, a witness statement -which we don't have - of a carman in his working clothes chatting up a prostitute in the Tabram, Chapman or Kelly investigations would have helped you enormously. The absence of such is very unhelpful.

When taken all together, there is enough to hang Lechmere, that remains my conviction. What you do not bring up, for example, is the geographical correlation. In my book, a mathematician established that there was a one in five million chance that an alternative killer would just happen to place all the four Whitechapel murders along the twenty or so streets that I suggest Lechmere did his morning treks on.
The common thing to do for those who dismiss Lechmere to a smaller or larger degree is to say that thousands of people would have walked those routes. The problem is that we only compare SUSPECTS geographically, not the many thousands of non-suspects. Thousands of people will have walked Oxford Street too, so why was there no murder there?

I am all for discussing this intelligibly. I rarely get the chance to do so. And I stand by what I said - no innocent man has such a large heap of potential pointers to his person.

[Fisherman]

Doctored Whatsit suggests that we should look upon the matter of who it was that suggested to prop Nichols up and who it was that rejected the idea as an unsettled one, since there are reports pointing in both ways.

In order to allow people to make their own minds up, letīs recap the various reports from the various sources:

1. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her." Daily News


2. The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her", meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her." East London Observer


3. The other man put his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if it is." The man suggested that we should move her, but I would not touch her. Eastern Argus & Borough of Hackney Times


4. The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart and remarked, "I think she is breathing, but very little, if she is." He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her." The Echo


5. The other man put his head on her heart saying, "I think she's breathing, but it is very little if she is." The man suggested that they should "shift her," meaning to set her upright. Witness answered, "I am not going to touch her." Illustrated Police News


6. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." Morning Advertiser


7. The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes - over her heart - and said, "I think she's breathing, but very little." He suggested they should shift her - set her up against the wall - but witness said, "I'm not going to touch her. The Star


8. The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said "I think she is breathing." He wanted witness to assist in shifting her, but he would not do so. The Times


9. The other man felt her heart, and said he believed she was dead. The witness's companion suggested that they should raise her, but the witness declined to do anything until a policeman arrived. The Woodford Times


10. Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Daily Telegraph

From this, we can see that nine out of ten papers have Paul as the one who suggests to prop Nichols up and Lechmere as the one who rejected the idea. In some papers, we even have Lechmere speaking of himself as "I", making it easy to see what happened.

The one source that is out of sync is the Daily Telegraph, but here it is not spoken. of "I" and "he", but instead of "witness" and "his companion", making it easier to get things wrong. We can furthermore see that this error is followed by another error that is often spoken about; where it says "Just then they heard a policeman coming", something no other paper verifies and also something that cannot be correct - they had decided to look for a PC, so if one was coming their way, why not speak to him?

I would suggest that this latter error is a muddling of where Lechmere said that he would not help prop Nichols up, but instead suggested that they should go looking for a PC. It fits that suggestion quite well.

Anyhow, the suggestion made by Doctored Whatsit is a very easy one to dismiss; it is abundantly clear that Lechmere himself was the one who refused to help prop Nichols up. If we cannot reach that conclusion based on the reports, we are in real trouble.

[FrankO]

The WHOLE picture, gentlemen, please! Not the "letīs pick the matters of one by one"-approach, because that way, we miss out on the real issue - how there are too many things to explain away for it to be a healthy exercise.

Oops, the shoolmaster's back. I'm off...

[Fisherman]

Oops, the shoolmaster's back. I'm off...

Iīd rather you stayed, Frank.

[GBinOz]

Oops, the shoolmaster's back. I'm off...

Your opinion is always valued Frank, even if it is of the opposing viewpoint.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Christer, thanks for your response, and as I previously said, I am happy for Lechmere to be regarded as a suspect, but I don't regard the evidence against him to have any real strength. As I said, Mizen alleged that Lechmere lied to him, but after the police had taken statements from Lechmere and Paul, there is no evidence that the police suspected Lechmere, and if the man who says he found the body is then suspected of lying to a policeman, then he would have been a major suspect. I agree with your suggestion that Mizen probably subsequently claimed to have misunderstood. If the statements of Paul and Lechmere agreed, Mizen had no choice. Mizen was in a bit of a corner, wasn't he? He was advised about what turned out to be a murder, and he hadn't taken any details whatever from the two who had advised him. With hindsight, he knew he had made a big mistake, and he needed the story that he was wanted by another policeman to cover his error. What he was actually told will forever be unknown, as will the rest of the contents of the police statements made by Lechmere and Paul. For Lechmere not to be a suspect, the statement he made must have been corroborated by Paul, I think.

We are splitting hairs to suggest that Lechmere didn't admit to being alone with the body. He clearly did, but only for a minute or so perhaps, but enough for the police to suspect that it could have been longer, if they had any evidence.

The jury member had only the statement of Mizen immediately before Lechmere to use as evidence, so asking Lechmere what he said to Mizen was perfectly natural. It could hardly be a "done deal" at this point. Interestingly, it wasn't the coroner or a policeman who asked this very relevant question as we might have expected.

We can have as many examples as we like of Lechmere using his birth surname, but what we need to know is what name was he using at that time in his private and working life. We don't know, but the evidence of the child death inquest suggests he was Cross at Pickfords, which suggests he used the name Cross in everyday life - not a fact, but a strong possibility, if not a probability. That is why I suggest we need evidence of the name he used in his day to day existence. We know his birth name, and so did he, but we need evidence that he was using the name Lechmere routinely for all ordinary purposes between say 1873 and 1888. I haven't seen any evidence that he was anything other than Cross at work, for example. Prove me wrong with one of your one hundred proofs, and I will immediately concede this point to you.

On the blood issue, it is clear that moving any part of the body like raising a hand to check the temperature or pulse, would result in a little blood oozing from the wound. On the time issue, I simply consider that all time estimates in 1888 from people without a watch must be regarded as very approximate. We don't know how accurate the clocks at home for Paul and Lechmere would have been. We don't know whether Lechmere was fully fit or whether he walked with a slight limp for example. On the issue of who wanted to prop Nichols up, I didn't "hang my hat" on any opinion, I merely pointed out the potential of different statements. I also pointed out that the evidence of the refusal to prop the body up came from Lechmere, and only Lechmere, and was offered voluntarily. He didn't have to say it, no-one else knew about it,and it would be very odd for a guilty man to implicate himself, whereas an innocent man would think he had nothing to hide.

You are quite right that I didn't mention the geographical and mathematical calculation. I only dealt with the examples you quoted above. But as you raise it, I don't find it as impressive as it seems at first glance. We don't know that Lechmere used those particular routes, we don't know the exact times of the other murders, we don't know Lechmere's shift pattern for certain, or even if he worked those days. No-one believes that Kelly was killed and mutilated in a ten minute detour on the way to work, so her existence on the route map seems irrelevant. Is there agreement that the modus operandi of JtR was to murder on his way to work, put the blood stained knife in his pocket, and regardless of probable fresh blood on his hands and clothes, carry on to work and to do a full shift as if nothing had happened? It is, like many other suggestions here, possible but nowhere near a fact. Tabram is not a universally agreed JtR victim anyway. Any one of these little unknowns would remove Lechmere from consideration.

Let's both be adult and agree to differ, but if you find fresh evidence, I would be interested. I have read Cutting Point, and was impressed by the research it contained, even if I remain unconvinced.

[rjpalmer]

You are quite right that I didn't mention the geographical and mathematical calculation. I only dealt with the examples you quoted above

I brought up the statistical argument on the 'Framing Charles' thread and received no response, but, as with the ridiculous claims of the Maybrick Diary believers, this is clearly and obviously a misuse of statistics. The odds of the murders happening near the streets that Lechmere walked aren't anywhere near 5,000,000 to 1, or even 500 to 1. It's just more misleading statistics by over-zealous theorists.

Fish's mathematician friend appears to be dividing the 900 streets in the East End (how he settled on this number I do not know) by the 19 or so streets Lechmere used for his daily commute, which superficially comes to roughly 47 to 1 odds for any given murder happening on a street where Lechmere walked; Fish then multiplies this three more times (for three more murders) coming up with roughly 5,000,000 to 1 odds.

The logic here is clearly flawed. Using 900+ streets in the East End is grossly misleading, because prostitution was not spread evenly among those 900 streets. Many of those streets had no prostitution whatsoever. Yet, in Fish's calculations, all the 900 streets in the East End are given the same weight. Whitechapel Road is given the same value as some tiny respectable street off Fournier Street or anywhere else that no one has heard of and where no women were known to solicit.

This is clearly ridiculous because East End women solicited where they would expect to find the greatest amount of foot-traffic at night--which, of course, were the same main streets where hundreds if not thousands of people walked daily. Whitechapel Road, Commercial Street, Brick Lane, etc. The choice wasn't 900 streets, it was 10 or 20. The vast majority would be found on only 2 conduits: as I previously noted, it can be convincingly argued that all the victims, with the exception of Liz Stride (and Rose Mylett) were picked up on the main two drags (Aldgate/Whitechapel Road and Commercial /Leman Street) which would render any such argument null and void; these streets must have accounted for a huge percentage of solicitation on any given night, yet, for the purpose of statistics, the Lechmere theorists give them no more weight then some obscure residential backstreet that never logged a single instance of street prostitution.

The most that can be said is that Lechmere walked through the main drags known for prostitution on nearly a daily basis--the same streets an unknown killer would frequent to find a victim. But this is a far cry from claiming the odds are 5 million to 1 or any other completely imaginary number.

----

Let's say only 10 people die worldwide in skateboarding accidents in any given year. The kid in New York who skateboards down three flights of stairs while doing backflips is going to try and tell his mother that since there are 6 billion people on the planet and only 10 deaths per year, it is 600,000,000 to 1 that he will kill himself in a skateboarding accident. I hope she isn't stupid enough to believe him; he's clearly cooked the books. As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Fisherman]

Christer, thanks for your response, and as I previously said, I am happy for Lechmere to be regarded as a suspect, but I don't regard the evidence against him to have any real strength.

You are of course free to make your own calls in that department. But keep in mind that James Scobie said that the case was good enough to take to court and suggested that Lechmere was guilty, just as he said that a jury would not like Lechmere. I am of the exact same meaning, and the case has grown even stronger after adding in the Torso series.

As I said, Mizen alleged that Lechmere lied to him, but after the police had taken statements from Lechmere and Paul, there is no evidence that the police suspected Lechmere, and if the man who says he found the body is then suspected of lying to a policeman, then he would have been a major suspect.

It would have been good if he had been regarded as such, but the evidence points away from it. And I think one of the reasons will lie in how the police embarrased themselves rather badly in the Nichols case. Not only did the coroner have to reprimand them for not having interviewed more than a tiny fraction of the people living in Bucks Row, but there is also the fact that they denied that anybody else than Neil would have been the finder of the body. In doing so, they actually dismsissed Pauls claims in Lloyds Weekly, and it was only when Lechmere surfaced that they understood that they were wrong. After that scare, I think they were anxious to get the whole matter out of the world as soon as possible.
The idea that the police would immediately have identified Lechmere as a suspect once he disagreed with Mizen needs to be viewed against the backdrop of how long it took for ripperologists to realize the potentially explosive character of the so called Mizen scam. Nobody thought twice about it until it was picked up on some years ago, and that should tell us how there was always a great risk of the matter getting overlooked. The police suddenly had a man who had approached them on his own account not once but twice, purportedly to help out, and they were not going to question him. The jurymans question was in all probability all there was, and then it was all forgotten about. Of course, it would be nice if the police always lived up to our expectations, but they simply donīt. Iīm sure I donīt need to exemplify that any further, or weīll be here for ages. And keep in mind that Andy Griffiths never once said "but the police would have cleared that up!" as he commented on the case when we shot the docu. He should be the best judge possible of such matters.

I agree with your suggestion that Mizen probably subsequently claimed to have misunderstood.

It is a very likely possibility. If he had pressed the point that he had been lied to, it may well have been another matter.

If the statements of Paul and Lechmere agreed, Mizen had no choice.

Pauls statement was not at hand on the 3rd, Iīm afraid, and so that could not be weighed in.

Mizen was in a bit of a corner, wasn't he?

I donīt think so, no.

He was advised about what turned out to be a murder, and he hadn't taken any details whatever from the two who had advised him.

That in itself is a very good indicator of how Lechmerer played down the seriousness of the errand, which in itīs turn was why Mizen at the inquest pointed out that the carman had not said a iot about any murder or suicide. If he had, then Mizen would in all probability have acted differently - he got a very good grade as he left the police and that points away from him being sloppy in any way.

With hindsight, he knew he had made a big mistake...

No, we donīt. Experts on the police have stated that he did nothing at all wrong if he was not told about the seriousness of the errand - and he was not, going on his testimony. I have seen this claim before and it can only be true if Mizen had reason to suspect foul play. Otherwise, he was not dutybound to do anything at all more than what he actually did. Consequently, he is not reprimanded by either coroner or jury, and as I said, he left the police with a very good grade. Very evidently, Mizens actions are in sync with not having been told the true story.

...and he needed the story that he was wanted by another policeman to cover his error.

No, he did not as per the above.

What he was actually told will forever be unknown, as will the rest of the contents of the police statements made by Lechmere and Paul. For Lechmere not to be a suspect, the statement he made must have been corroborated by Paul, I think.

I disagree. I think Lechmere was thanked for his contribution and left unresearched. I donīt think the police ever contacted him again, and that they did not entertain any suspicion at all against him, not becasue Paul had bailed him out, but because of how Lechmere had provided what the police thought was the true picture, as opposed to the one they had concocted themselves, with Neil as the finder and Pauls information being thrown out as untrue.

We are splitting hairs to suggest that Lechmere didn't admit to being alone with the body. He clearly did, but only for a minute or so perhaps, but enough for the police to suspect that it could have been longer, if they had any evidence.

He said that at the same time that he stepped into the street and realized that the shape on the pavement was a woman, he heard Paul arriving. That effectively eradicates any chance that he was the killer - if we choose to believe him. However, the time schedule is against him and it would be convenient in the extreme if Paul arrived exactly so as to provide an alibi but without having noticed Lechmere before. It all seems to good to be true, and when something seems to good to be true, it normally isnīt. But basically, yes, he did admit to being alone in the vicinity of the victim for a miniscule time, not enough to be the killer. Such luck!

The jury member had only the statement of Mizen immediately before Lechmere to use as evidence, so asking Lechmere what he said to Mizen was perfectly natural. It could hardly be a "done deal" at this point. Interestingly, it wasn't the coroner or a policeman who asked this very relevant question as we might have expected.

Do you think the police were in the know whereas the juryman was not? Although Paul had still not been found and could not be used as corroboration? I donīt think so. If the police had secured some sort of evidence that Lechmere was not their man, then the coroner would have known it and so would the jury, reasonably. And why would Mizen say that the carman did not say anything about murder or suicide in such a case? Would he not be content with having had everything cleared up together with Lechmere, as you suggest? Why point that out in such a case? Why would he furthermore say that Lechmere told him that another PC was already in place? Why not say "I originally thought that carman Cross said that another PC was in place, but since we have worked out what really happened, I have now changed my mind"?
You see, the evidence points very clearly to how Mizen was not prepared for what Lechmere would say as he took the stand. If Mizen lied, as you propose, then why would he not understand that Lechmere would immediatly deny what he claimed - and that with Paul waiting in the wings, it would spell disaster for Mizen if he was revealed as a liar by Paul corroborating Lechmere in retrospect?
Nothing at all points to how the errand was cleared up before Mizen and Lechmere took the stand. All the evidence is in conflict with that suggestion.

We can have as many examples as we like of Lechmere using his birth surname, but what we need to know is what name was he using at that time in his private and working life.

But speaking to the police was NOT his private or working life. And when he was not taking part of his private or working life, he called himself Lechmere, end of. It is suggested that he occasionally called himself Cross, but it is PROVEN that he called himself Lechmere in contacts with authorities. There is a difference, you know.

We don't know, but the evidence of the child death inquest suggests he was Cross at Pickfords, which suggests he used the name Cross in everyday life - not a fact, but a strong possibility, if not a probability.

The report is from the inquest. Once again, he was involved in a matter involving authorities. Once again, he failed to give his correct name. Otherwise he ALWAYS called himself Lechmere with authorities, unless there was violent death involved. It is imperative that we understand this.
We should also take heed of how he was the only one involved who at the inquest did NOT give his home address. Does that ring a bell with you? I know it does with me. The picture is VERY consistent once you take a close look.

That is why I suggest we need evidence of the name he used in his day to day existence.

No, we really donīt. We have established a conundrum once we see that the only exceptions he makes from the rule of calling himself Lechmere in contacts with authorities is when he is involved in cases of violent death. I very much want to know WHY he did this. It is not as if there is no conundrum, it is VERY apparent, no matter how we look upon it.
After that, it would be interesting to know if he called himself Cross at any stage in his life (which I suspect he did not). But even if we actually could establish that he DID call himself Cross at work, it would STILL not take away the anomaly! It remains.

We know his birth name, and so did he, but we need evidence that he was using the name Lechmere routinely for all ordinary purposes between say 1873 and 1888.

No, we donīt. What we need to know is why he only made an exception to the rule of always calling himself Lechmere with authorities when there was violent death involved. That is what we need to know.

I haven't seen any evidence that he was anything other than Cross at work, for example. Prove me wrong with one of your one hundred proofs, and I will immediately concede this point to you.

You actually havent seen any evidence that he was called Cross at work either, to begin with.

On the blood issue, it is clear that moving any part of the body like raising a hand to check the temperature or pulse, would result in a little blood oozing from the wound.

No, it is not clear at all. Maybe it would, maybe it would not, it all depends on the volume of blood already lost and the position on the street. Regardless of that, we have Mizen saying that the blood was "still running" as he saw her.
Would he surmise that it had been running for half an hour, taking into account that the blood under her neck was a completely clotted mass at that stage?
Would he say that the blood "looked fresh" half an hour or more after she was cut, when he would have been quite aware that the blood could not have been fresh?
Would he say that the blood was partly coagulated in the pool, when we know that this pool was cleansed from the street in the shape of a large clot? Surely you can see that this is all deeply illogical?

On the time issue, I simply consider that all time estimates in 1888 from people without a watch must be regarded as very approximate.

So do I. But that does not affect how the times given are not in sync. What we have is what we have.

We don't know how accurate the clocks at home for Paul and Lechmere would have been.

We know that Paul was impressed enough with his choice of timepiece to say that it was "exactly" 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row. It may of course have been wrong, but overall, it fits very well with the rest of the timings as well as with the coroners and the police' s estimations.

We don't know whether Lechmere was fully fit or whether he walked with a slight limp for example.

He was apparently able to keep up with Paul, who was hurrying to his work, though.

On the issue of who wanted to prop Nichols up, I didn't "hang my hat" on any opinion, I merely pointed out the potential of different statements. I also pointed out that the evidence of the refusal to prop the body up came from Lechmere, and only Lechmere, and was offered voluntarily. He didn't have to say it, no-one else knew about it,and it would be very odd for a guilty man to implicate himself, whereas an innocent man would think he had nothing to hide.

Lechmere knew that Paul could well be hauled in to testify. How do you think it would look if Paul was the one who disclosed the matter? Prevention is sometimes a clever tactic.

You are quite right that I didn't mention the geographical and mathematical calculation. I only dealt with the examples you quoted above. But as you raise it, I don't find it as impressive as it seems at first glance. We don't know that Lechmere used those particular routes, we don't know the exact times of the other murders, we don't know Lechmere's shift pattern for certain, or even if he worked those days.

But we know that Lechmere traversed the smallish area where four of the murders took place, presumably on a daily basis. And there were tens of thousands of other streets and areas where the murders could have occurred, none of which had any link to Lechmere. If we look at all of London, there would have been a thousand non-Lechmereian alternative streets and more for each murder. But instead they ALL were carried out in places he would be able to reach either as a direct result of his morning trek or as a result of a two minute deviation from it.
If you think that is in any way weak evidence, then you really need to think again!
And then we have Stride a stones thrown from his mothers lodgings. Coincidence? Could he afford more coincidences?
And Eddowes along his old working route, more or less? Another coincidence?
And the Goulston Street rag is placed roughly between the murder scene and his home. More coincidences?
You say yes. I say no, not gonna happen in a million years.

No-one believes that Kelly was killed and mutilated in a ten minute detour on the way to work, so her existence on the route map seems irrelevant.

Gareth Williams, posting as Sam Flynn out here for many years, believed it was a quick affair, so you are wrong, Iīm afraid. Regardless if he was correct or not, who is to say that Lechmere actually left home at 3.30 if had murder in mind? Why could he not have left at 3.00, giving himself time to indulge?

Is there agreement that the modus operandi of JtR was to murder on his way to work, put the blood stained knife in his pocket, and regardless of probable fresh blood on his hands and clothes, carry on to work and to do a full shift as if nothing had happened? It is, like many other suggestions here, possible but nowhere near a fact. Tabram is not a universally agreed JtR victim anyway. Any one of these little unknowns would remove Lechmere from consideration.

But you can't remove him, because there is nothing standing in the way for how he could have done precisely what I suggest. Of course, if we can prove that he flew to the moon on the murder days but for that of Nichols, that would also remove him from consideration. But we must prove these matters before that time comes! Plus we have to explain how there was such a lot of pointers in his direction if he was on the moon. How can there be so many coincidences if he was not even in London? That is what we need to explain.
Again, taken one by one, it is an easy job. But once we reach the station where James Scobie says that it becomes one coincidence too many, we need to listen to him.

Let's both be adult and agree to differ, but if you find fresh evidence, I would be interested. I have read Cutting Point, and was impressed by the research it contained, even if I remain unconvinced.

If you are not convinced by the existing evidence but instead ask for paper articles of how a carman was accosting prostitutes in the East End, I fear you will remain unconvinced. Others are not, and my money is on how that latter group will wash away the old idea that the Ripper case can never be solved. As for the reoccurring demands that I need to agree to disagree, I fail to see that it is not exatly what Iīm doing - I do not deny you the right to have another opinion than I have, but I eqially reserve myself the right to point to why I believe you are wrong, sometimes massively so.
As for being an adult, Iīm 64, and so I have been an adult for a very long time - long enough, almost, to wish I was a little less adult. I hope that disagreeing with you and explaining exactly why does not mean that you detract sixty years from my tally...?

[Fisherman]

Fish's mathematician friend appears to be dividing the 900 streets in the East End (how he settled on this number I do not know) by the 19 or so streets Lechmere used for his daily commute, which superficially comes to roughly 47 to 1 odds for any given murder happening on a street where Lechmere walked; Fish then multiplies this three more times (for three more murders) coming up with roughly 5,000,000 to 1 odds.

What Fishīs mathematician friend did is explained in detail in the book, and it is using the binomial distribution method when calculating - the method numerous statisticians agreed is the correct one to use in this kind of case (it is not the first time this kind of estimation is made). Oh, and there were a round thousand streets in Whitechapel, not 900. So youīll be happy to hear that he never settled on that number in the first place. The reason he settled on 1000 is that it is the number of inhabited streets named in the 1891 census listings (actually, it is slightly more than 1000, but thatīs another matter).
In my book, I VERY clearly point out that there are matters (like the ones you mention about how unfortunates favoured various streets over others) that will affect the matter - but I also pointed out that if we for instance weigh in the time factor, we will get even larger numbers.
But all of this you need to read my book before you start criticizing ... oh, wait - you already did.

As Disraeli said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

There is no evidence that it was Disraeli who said that, but plentiful evidence that others (like Charles Dilke and Joseph Munro) worded more or less the same thing before Disraelis time in office.
But what the hell, R J!

[rjpalmer]

There is no evidence that it was Disraeli who said that, but plentiful evidence that others (like Charles Dilke and Joseph Munro) worded more or less the same thing before Disraelis time in office.
But what the hell, R J!

Yes, we know, Fish. The Victorian wits were infamous for stealing each other's quips--Monte Python even did a skit about it, with James Whistler, no? And, of course, there are always debates over various attributions.

Either way, the statistical method you use is clearly flawed, and I don't even have to see the details to know this. Your friend is giving undue weight to streets not known for prostitution, just as in my skateboarding analogy, the kid from New York is counting old Nigerian women who never saw a skateboard in their life.

How is this not blindingly obvious? If a man is forced to walk through the main red-light district in the city where he lives in, OF COURSE his route is going to coincide with the murder sites of someone preying on that same district.

I will return to this subject when I see your entire thesis, which should be soon.

[rjpalmer]

When taken all together, there is enough to hang Lechmere, that remains my conviction.

Nothing personal, Fish, but this is terrifying.

This is the reason why people hesitate before helping the police. They find a dead body or see something suspicious and are terrified that some over-zealous profiler or detective will put a rope around their neck if they "become involved." So they keep their mouths shut and say nothing. After reading the Lechmere threads, I think if I was unfortunate enough to find a dead person while out on one of my walks, I'd seriously consider buying one of those cheap throwaway phone cards before dialing it in! There are people here who would soon have me on the gallows next to Charles.

In the past three weeks, we've seen commentators ready to lynch Lechmere because 1) he walked on the north side of the street; 2) wore his work clothes to an inquest; 3) tapped an approaching bystander in a darkened street instead of screaming his lungs out.

How can this be anything other than the gratuitous suspicions of an arm-chair psychologist?

Personally, I'm with those who don't see anything suspicious in Lechmere's behavior--maybe I'll give him a pale pink flag for using his stepfather's name--but even if he did act a little strange, can you appreciate that finding a dead body is a traumatic experience for many people? That they usually don't act 'normally'?

Read all about it here in this link to The Guardian. One of these people--entirely innocent--even admits to feeling guilt after finding a drowning victim. Why? It's totally irrational, but it happens because we are human.


Dead bodies: People who find corpses and body parts | UK news | The Guardian