Was he lying?

[FrankO]

I don't know why Jack chose to do what he did, I only observed that that's what he did.

Hi George,

Good to know, because I was under the strong impression that you were trying to make a point.

I was looking at where the victims lived rather than where they were murdered.

I'm not saying Jack couldn't have been a familiar face for one or even all of his victims, just that he certainly doesn't need to have been and, maybe in the case of Nichols, being so relatively far from her home, it seems a bit less likely that her killer was someone whose face she knew. But, of course, if she, for whatever reason, could wander far from home, then so could he.

Best regards,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Both points are irrelevant, in my opinion. Even if it would take a second or two, that would be two precious seconds he could have used to get away or for some other thing that would have been more important at that point. Plus, what would the second (or the first) cut really add? And why would a signature like that, which he quickly dropped, be important in the situation he was supposedly in (having to return to Nichols and do things as quickly as possible)? Why cut down to the vertebrae in that situation? Why not just a more shallow cut in the right place? Why not just stab her once in the heart? Or even twice? That would have been quicker than cutting her throat twice and as deep as he did. Or why not stamp down very hard on her throat? Or just kick her head very hard, like a football?

I don't know why Jack chose to do what he did, I only observed that that's what he did.

I’m not convinced. There’s no way of knowing they knew Jack from the local pub. Had she been killed close to home and all the pubs close to it, then your point would be stronger.

Hi Frank,

I was looking at where the victims lived rather than where they were murdered.

Best regards, George

[Geddy2112]

In Cutting Point on page 92 he says:
“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”
And yet on here he said to me:
“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”

I think it is actually mentioned in two, with the regards to the 3:20, but since they are nearly word for word the same it could be accepted from the same source. I also believe there are six who go with the 'about 3:30.'

This is one point I've never 'understood', sorry it's not, there are many but one main reason I do not understand with the Lechmere theory is why they did not go more with the 3:20am leaving time. They argue it took him 40 mins to get to work so surely 3:20am would fit better. The problem there of course is the so called blood evidence and Christer's massive reliance on the time of death 'not far of 3:45am.' He relies on one thing and builds around it. That shows how weak the theory is, it actually tends to contradict itself.

So what has changed between then and now? What newspapers are available to him now that weren’t available then? Or was his abacus missing a few beads so that he couldn’t count properly? How could this ‘absolute bulk’ not only have escaped his attention at the time that he was researching then writing his book? He apparently had no problem finding and counting the one newspaper that mentioned 3.20 and was keen to mention it though. But this ‘absolute bulk’ apparently and very mysteriously eluded him.

I was reading a few old feuds with him vs Rob Clack the other day, sorry my mistake some 'threads' and Christer states back in 2017 on numerous occasions more new evidence has come to light and he can't mention it before 'publication.' What this new evidence is I'm not too sure as for me nothing has been updated since the book and fakeumentary. More fibs methinks...

[FrankO]

I'm not sure that the extra cut would consume very much time, and it did become one of Jack's signatures.

Hi George,

Both points are irrelevant, in my opinion. Even if it would take a second or two, that would be two precious seconds he could have used to get away or for some other thing that would have been more important at that point. Plus, what would the second (or the first) cut really add? And why would a signature like that, which he quickly dropped, be important in the situation he was supposedly in (having to return to Nichols and do things as quickly as possible)? Why cut down to the vertebrae in that situation? Why not just a more shallow cut in the right place? Why not just stab her once in the heart? Or even twice? That would have been quicker than cutting her throat twice and as deep as he did. Or why not stamp down very hard on her throat? Or just kick her head very hard, like a football?

If the victim did not know Jack I see the validity of your objection. My belief is that the victims knew Jack from being fellow drinkers at a local pub - The Tens Bells, Ringers, The Queen's Head, or, they knew him as a member of the local constabulary.

In considering Llewellyn's statement that any one of the abdominal wounds were sufficient to cause death, I am put in mind of the movie Spartacus (1960) where the trainer is demonstrating sword strikes on an opponent - "This is a kill, but your opponent may live long enough to kill you first". Emma Smith was delivered of a fatal injury, but lived long enough to say that it was a gang of youths that attacked her.

I’m not convinced. There’s no way of knowing they knew Jack from the local pub. Had she been killed close to home and all the pubs close to it, then your point would be stronger. But, even if Jack’s face was a familiar one to Nichols, it sure wouldn’t mean she would be able to describe him so distinctively as him, unless, as I wrote before, he had some very distinctive & remarkable characteristic as a scar, outstanding face form or eyes, a limp or his height. Otherwise, he would just be a man with a moustache, whiskers, maybe a beard, rather shabbily dressed in dark clothes and probably wearing a peaked cap – in short, the general East Ender of the day. But seeing the damage he’d done to her abdomen, there’s also the question of whether she would ever regain consciousness to begin with and, if she would have, if she would be conscious long enough to do him any damage at all. But let’s suppose she would give an accurate description of him and the police would have been able to trace him (even though he could have changed his appearance or have moved away), then what would they have? They’d have only her word and that’s all they would have had. And if she'd died by then, then that would really have been all. They wouldn't have anything they could prove and he would know it.

Of course, cutting the throat would be the safe thing to do, but considering everything, I have doubts that it would have gone as you've suggested.

Both these possibilities would explain the puzzlement of the victims allowing Jack to gain their confidence.

Of course, but I think Jack didn't need any puzzlement. As long as he didn't act too suspiciously and showed his victims the money, he'd be alright.

If Lechmere was Jack, it must have given him pause when Paul suggested that he detected a faint suggestion that Polly was still alive.

This, to me, seems another point against your scenario rather than anything else: even cutting her twice and as deep as he did, didn’t properly do the job.

Much has been said about hearing the footsteps created by hobnail boots in a narrow street, and there are contingencies to consider:

Was Jack wearing hobnail boots, or rubber soled shoes purchased for that purpose.
While hobnail boots were noisy at a normal working pace, could some stealth be obtained with careful slow footsteps.
While Cross testified that he heard Paul about 40 metres away, he could only have been estimating as it is unlikely that he could see him at that distance. As a result of my re-enactment, I have serious doubts about being able to distinguish a man's shape standing any more than about 15 metres away in that light - within the limitation that my re-enactment setup was only an approximation of the Buck's Row conditions. I have to say that I was surprised at the extent to which my preconceptions were dashed by that re-enactment.

I also wonder if Lechmere's estimate of 30 or 40 yards is accurate, partly, as you propose, because it would have been difficult to make an accurate estimate under the conditions and partly because I wonder if he would have been able to distinguish Paul's dark figure from the gloom immediately after turning towards the sound of the footsteps he heard.

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry I must object... forgetting to put the word 'about' in the book twice, once on the fakeumentary and of course in the notes to Scobie Doo. This is what, unfortunately makes me think Christer is being 'less than honest.' He actually admits on FB that he simply forgot to put the 'about' in the book when he was challenged about it. Till I pointed out there was another three instances at least. That is some amnesia.
This is also what makes me think he is being economical with the truth regarding giving his notes either first or second hand to Scobie (you can see the 'about' is missing on the screen grab,) he claims he did not but unless the researcher (here is another fib) forgot exactly the same which I do not buy, then they are his 'words' given to Scobie. In the long thread about the documentary he states he does not know anything about a researcher (or what was given to Scobie Doo) but then admits on FB the researcher is the woman sitting next to him in the opening few shots of the film.
I'm sorry I do not believe a word that bloke says, he's been caught out too many times... of course you get plenty of abuse and word twisting on reply.

In Cutting Point on page 92 he says:


“Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3.30, but the time 3.20 is also mentioned in one paper.”



And yet on here he said to me:


“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”


So what has changed between then and now? What newspapers are available to him now that weren’t available then? Or was his abacus missing a few beads so that he couldn’t count properly? How could this ‘absolute bulk’ not only have escaped his attention at the time that he was researching then writing his book? He apparently had no problem finding and counting the one newspaper that mentioned 3.20 and was keen to mention it though. But this ‘absolute bulk’ apparently and very mysteriously eluded him.

[Geddy2112]

It’s not in the same ball park as forgetting to include the word ‘about’ in the section of a documentary where a non-existent gap was being invented and then forgetting to use the word ‘about’ in a book in a section where a non-existent gap was being invented. Those are the best examples of intentional forgetting in the whole history of the subject. The pinnacle of barrel-scraping. The epitome of desperation and self-interest.

Sorry I must object... forgetting to put the word 'about' in the book twice, once on the fakeumentary and of course in the notes to Scobie Doo. This is what, unfortunately makes me think Christer is being 'less than honest.' He actually admits on FB that he simply forgot to put the 'about' in the book when he was challenged about it. Till I pointed out there was another three instances at least. That is some amnesia.
This is also what makes me think he is being economical with the truth regarding giving his notes either first or second hand to Scobie (you can see the 'about' is missing on the screen grab,) he claims he did not but unless the researcher (here is another fib) forgot exactly the same which I do not buy, then they are his 'words' given to Scobie. In the long thread about the documentary he states he does not know anything about a researcher (or what was given to Scobie Doo) but then admits on FB the researcher is the woman sitting next to him in the opening few shots of the film.
I'm sorry I do not believe a word that bloke says, he's been caught out too many times... of course you get plenty of abuse and word twisting on reply.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Good thinking out of the box. But this scenario would have a flaw or two for me. Why not just walk back, cut the throat once and be on his way out of there again? Or, at least, why cut the throat twice and loose precious seconds? Or why even return to the body at all? If he had no outstanding characteristics about his face or way that he moved, he would have been just a face in the crowd – if this drunk woman would have survived all the cutting that he knew he did, that is. Remember, Llewellyn later stated that any one of the abdominal wounds were sufficient to cause death. And - depending on the distance between Paul & Lechmere, of course - how much could he expect Paul not to hear or even see from his returning and then, in the end, moving into the middle of the road.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I'm not sure that the extra cut would consume very much time, and it did become one of Jack's signatures. If the victim did not know Jack I see the validity of your objection. My belief is that the victims knew Jack from being fellow drinkers at a local pub - The Tens Bells, Ringers, The Queen's Head, or, they knew him as a member of the local constabulary. Both these possibilities would explain the puzzlement of the victims allowing Jack to gain their confidence. If Lechmere was Jack, it must have given him pause when Paul suggested that he detected a faint suggestion that Polly was still alive.

In considering Llewellyn's statement that any one of the abdominal wounds were sufficient to cause death, I am put in mind of the movie Spartacus (1960) where the trainer is demonstrating sword strikes on an opponent - "This is a kill, but your opponent may live long enough to kill you first". Emma Smith was delivered of a fatal injury, but lived long enough to say that it was a gang of youths that attacked her.

Much has been said about hearing the footsteps created by hobnail boots in a narrow street, and there are contingencies to consider:

Was Jack wearing hobnail boots, or rubber soled shoes purchased for that purpose.
While hobnail boots were noisy at a normal working pace, could some stealth be obtained with careful slow footsteps.
While Cross testified that he heard Paul about 40 metres away, he could only have been estimating as it is unlikely that he could see him at that distance. As a result of my re-enactment, I have serious doubts about being able to distinguish a man's shape standing any more than about 15 metres away in that light - within the limitation that my re-enactment setup was only an approximation of the Buck's Row conditions. I have to say that I was surprised at the extent to which my preconceptions were dashed by that re-enactment.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s not in the same ball park as forgetting to include the word ‘about’ in the section of a documentary where a non-existent gap was being invented and then forgetting to use the word ‘about’ in a book in a section where a non-existent gap was being invented. Those are the best examples of intentional forgetting in the whole history of the subject. The pinnacle of barrel-scraping. The epitome of desperation and self-interest.

[Mark J D]

All Lechmere would know about what Robert Paul might say would be based on the interview in the 2 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News.

-- That has to be the year's best example of motivated forgetting.

M.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

I would depend on when he initially heard Paul. He wouldn't have been certain if Paul had spotted him.

Cheers, George

I don't think that it would matter if Paul spotted him or not. In either case, fleeing would have been the safest choice.

[FrankO]

As I have stated, I don't have a dog in this fight, so I hope that I will not be considered a "Lechmerian".

It appears to me that the principle bone of contention is "If Lechmere was the perpetrator, why didn't he just walk away??"

Suppose that he did....but before he had gone too far he heard signs that Polly wasn't dead. What would he do? What would you do? Would you keep walking away from someone who could possibly identify you? While I can't speak from the point of view of a potential serial killer, I would imagine that he would be unwilling to incur the risk that Polly may live long enough to edict him. After a brief period of weighing his options, he returns to her body, retrieves his knife from his clothing and cuts her throat. Pure speculation.....but wait.....isn't that what Llewellyn said happened? That the throat cut was after the mutilations. On what basis, 130 years after the event, can we dispute the opinion of the only medical person to examine the body?

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just looking at the facts...with a little speculation thrown in for good measure.

Hi George,

Good thinking out of the box. But this scenario would have a flaw or two for me. Why not just walk back, cut the throat once and be on his way out of there again? Or, at least, why cut the throat twice and loose precious seconds? Or why even return to the body at all? If he had no outstanding characteristics about his face or way that he moved, he would have been just a face in the crowd – if this drunk woman would have survived all the cutting that he knew he did, that is. Remember, Llewellyn later stated that any one of the abdominal wounds were sufficient to cause death. And - depending on the distance between Paul & Lechmere, of course - how much could he expect Paul not to hear or even see from his returning and then, in the end, moving into the middle of the road.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I don't think that's what happened, but even if it did happen, the question would still remain as to why Cross didn't just walk away after returning to cut her throat.

Hi Lewis C,

I would depend on when he initially heard Paul. He wouldn't have been certain if Paul had spotted him.

Cheers, George

[Lewis C]

As I have stated, I don't have a dog in this fight, so I hope that I will not be considered a "Lechmerian".

It appears to me that the principle bone of contention is "If Lechmere was the perpetrator, why didn't he just walk away??"

Suppose that he did....but before he had gone too far he heard signs that Polly wasn't dead. What would he do? What would you do? Would you keep walking away from someone who could possibly identify you? While I can't speak from the point of view of a potential serial killer, I would imagine that he would be unwilling to incur the risk that Polly may live long enough to edict him. After a brief period of weighing his options, he returns to her body, retrieves his knife from his clothing and cuts her throat. Pure speculation.....but wait.....isn't that what Llewellyn said happened? That the throat cut was after the mutilations. On what basis, 130 years after the event, can we dispute the opinion of the only medical person to examine the body?

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just looking at the facts...with a little speculation thrown in for good measure.

Cheer, George

Hi George,

I don't think that's what happened, but even if it did happen, the question would still remain as to why Cross didn't just walk away after returning to cut her throat.

[Fiver]

It appears to me that the principle bone of contention is "If Lechmere was the perpetrator, why didn't he just walk away??"

Suppose that he did....but before he had gone too far he heard signs that Polly wasn't dead. What would he do? What would you do? Would you keep walking away from someone who could possibly identify you? While I can't speak from the point of view of a potential serial killer, I would imagine that he would be unwilling to incur the risk that Polly may live long enough to edict him. After a brief period of weighing his options, he returns to her body, retrieves his knife from his clothing and cuts her throat. Pure speculation.....but wait.....isn't that what Llewellyn said happened? That the throat cut was after the mutilations. On what basis, 130 years after the event, can we dispute the opinion of the only medical person to examine the body?

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I'm just looking at the facts...with a little speculation thrown in for good measure.

Cheer, George

Llewellyn's idea that the throat wounds were inflicted last was questioned at the time by Coroner Baxter, so I have no problem with questioning Llewellyn 130 years later.

If the throat wounds were inflicted last to ensure Nichols couldn't identify her killer, that would imply she knew her killer and/or that the killer had a very distinctive appearance. It does not require the killer starting to leave and then turning back. It does not imply Lechmere was the killer and makes more sense the farther away the killer saw or heard someone else approaching down Bucks Row.

[Fiver]

And if we’d add, for instance, the fact that Lechmere stated at the inquest that he would have heard anybody walking away from the crime spot, had anybody been there, it becomes even less than convincing. What he stated, obviously, could easily have triggered the coroner or someone from the jury into asking: OK, but why didn't you hear Paul walking behind you, then?

Or the fact that Lechmere would have had no influence on what Paul would exactly say to inquest, police or journalist. He could not have known Paul would not state to any or all of them that he’d heard no one ahead of him during his entire walk down Buck’s Row.

All Lechmere would know about what Robert Paul might say would be based on the interview in the 2 September 1888 Lloyds Weekly News.

"It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth."

If Lechmere was the killer, I would expect him to interpret "standing where the woman was" as Robert Paul seeing him standing over the body of the victim, facing west towards Paul. Which would leave the option of admit the position right next to the body, but attempt a plausible excuse for it, or else never contact the police.

But Lechmere did neither of those. He told of getting no closer than the middle of the street before contacting Paul, something that a guilty Lechmere would expect Paul to denounce as a lie.