Was he lying?

[GBinOz]

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

[The Rookie Detective]

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

Interesting post George.


I guess the question is; how reliable and credible was Dr Llewellyn?
Not necessarily in terms of his integrity; but rather his judgment based on his medical opinion.

If it was Dr Phillips then I would be more likely to negate his opinions as he was often wrong in his judgement.
Dr Llewellyn however I am not so sure can be as easily discredited.

There is of course another option that would fit in with the medical evidence, the chronological timeline and the statements given by both Lechmere and Paul.

It is as follows...


Lechmere finds Nichols and Paul arrives less than a minute later. They approach and examine the body, and at least one of them believes she may still be alive.

They notice no wounds or blood...and so walk away in seemingly no great hurry and then alert Mizen that he's wanted in Bucks Row.

And then PC Neil finds her shortly after Lechmere and Paul leave the scene.

But what if when Nichols was found by the pair, that she had not yet received any cuts to the throat?

What if her killer had made her unconscious through strangulation and managed to incapacitate her. He lays her down and begins to attack her abdomen, but just then he hears Lechmere approaching and so has to flee and hide in the shadows.


After Lechmere and Paul exit the scene, the Ripper then comes out of the shadows and walks over to Nichols and then attacks he throat twice to ensure that she is dead because he fears that he may now be identified by Nichols if she were to wake from her unconscious state.

The question is... how long is the time gap BETWEEN Paul and Lechmere leaving, to the time PC Neil finds her?

If there's no time for it to have been another unidentified individual, then it may have been PC Neil himself....or a certain plain clothed Sargent who was also patrolling the area at the time.

Could Nichols have suffered her fatal throat wound/s AFTER Lechmere and Paul left?

And could the Ripper have been Pc Neil or the police sergeant?


Just another idea to throw into the pot




RD

[GBinOz]

I guess the question is; how reliable and credible was Dr Llewellyn?
Not necessarily in terms of his integrity; but rather his judgment based on his medical opinion.
On what basis do you question his medical opinion. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

If it was Dr Phillips then I would be more likely to negate his opinions as he was often wrong in his judgement.
Dr Llewellyn however I am not so sure can be as easily discredited.
Excepting opinions, who has proven Phillips was often wrong. I, for one, do not accept this as a given.

There is of course another option that would fit in with the medical evidence, the chronological timeline and the statements given by both Lechmere and Paul.

It is as follows...


Lechmere finds Nichols and Paul arrives less than a minute later. They approach and examine the body, and at least one of them believes she may still be alive.

They notice no wounds or blood...and so walk away in seemingly no great hurry and then alert Mizen that he's wanted in Bucks Row.

And then PC Neil finds her shortly after Lechmere and Paul leave the scene.

But what if when Nichols was found by the pair, that she had not yet received any cuts to the throat?
One of my previously expressed but unpopular proposals.

What if her killer had made her unconscious through strangulation and managed to incapacitate her. He lays her down and begins to attack her abdomen, but just then he hears Lechmere approaching and so has to flee and hide in the shadows.
Alternatively, it is Lechmere that is the attacker, and he hears Paul approaching, and is uncertain as to whether he has assured Polly's transition to the next life.

After Lechmere and Paul exit the scene, the Ripper then comes out of the shadows and walks over to Nichols and then attacks he throat twice to ensure that she is dead because he fears that he may now be identified by Nichols if she were to wake from her unconscious state.
Or, Lechmere lets Paul walk away, cuts Polly's throat and quickly follows after him, giving Paul the impression that they left together.

The question is... how long is the time gap BETWEEN Paul and Lechmere leaving, to the time PC Neil finds her?

If there's no time for it to have been another unidentified individual, then it may have been PC Neil himself....or a certain plain clothed Sargent who was also patrolling the area at the time.

Could Nichols have suffered her fatal throat wound/s AFTER Lechmere and Paul left?
Or just after Paul left?
And could the Ripper have been Pc Neil or the police sergeant?
I don't think so.

Just another idea to throw into the pot




RD

Hi RD,

While I always appreciate your out-of-the-box ideas, and we can kick around speculations, I'm not on board for Neil or the police sergeant as suspects. I also appreciate that my speculations may not be on board with many of our colleagues on this forum, or even your good self.

Cheers, George

[Geddy2112]

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

I suspect the killer, Lechmere or not would be well aware of the 'attacks' he had made and thus would certainly know she was dead or not going to survive enough to identify him. I'm not in the camp the throat came last as surely he would have been covered in blood hand/sleeves wise and Robert Paul never mentioned anything of the kind. Of course unless Lechmere was NOT the killer.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.