Lechmere's Behavior in Buck's Row

[Cogidubnus]

All I'll say Ed, is that you seem to have a most peculiar concept of neutrality...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

demeanour

Hello Edward. Thanks.

I was referring to their demeanour. But they WERE a bit cooler as they were not sure she was dead.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mad

Hello Joe. Mad? I'm with you.

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

I try to use neutral terms.
I would suggest...
'Found by the body'
is considerably more neutral than...
'Found a body.'

Compare and contrast:

"Found by a smoking gun"

"Found a smoking gun"

[Lechmere]

'Found by a smoking gun' does not need to suggest it was his or anything to do with him (or her) - it leaves the possibility open. You may think it implies guilt. It certainly carries with it the possibility of guilt. But then if you were found by a smoking gun there would have to be the possibility of guilt, so it is only natural that the possibility should exist in the description.
The person's innocence would have to be established by more than their position next to the gun.

'Found a smoking gun' clearly exonerates and states blankly that it was not his (or her) gun and that he was not responsible for the blue-grey acrid smoke lazily drifting from the barrel. No further examination of the person is required.

The fact that you and Cog can't see the very obvious meaning of the second option is a very good illustration of the power of words. With respect to Lechmere it demonstrates the strong aversion to any construction that does not definitely portray innocence.

[Lechmere]

The 'found by the body' against the 'found a body' dichotomy has much in common with the scrounging the tarpaulin canard.
For generations Lechmere (obviously under the name Cross) is described as going up to Nichols' body as he though she was an tarpaulin which he wanted to scrounge. This implicitly eliminated at the outset any possibility that he may he be guilty - as he didn't even know that the body was a body and wanted to put the tarpaulin to some use.
While Lechmere testified that he thought the body was a tarpaulin, he said nothing about wanting to scavenge it. Taking his testimony further, adding the scrounging aspect, effectively clears him.
It is a classic example of unconscious suspect bias in the same way as can be seen in 'found a body'.

[sleekviper]

Lechmere,
That depends on the type situation. If the killer tends to lure, he adjusts to the situation with complete control. For the killer that tends to invade, that control extends to the death of those around. So they have Ramirez that will kill a child, Son of Sam that can instantly kill one, a flesh wound on another, or Zodiac who may have been bent on killing someone even if the boyfriend happened to be there also. That is not a Fish or Chikatilo type method, and concern over family probably lends to the latter where complete control is needed to extend that double life. As always it is what I alone see and think, but if I have the self preservation of concern over family, I am more than likely going to lure a person to a safe spot inside, than kill in the streets. If I do chose to kill outside for some reason, a witness, such as Paul, is a threat to my control and self preservation and must die. Just how I see it.
Lynn,
Hope all is well!

[Fisherman]

If you re-read my response to Rainbow, my point is that using such phrases as "Cross was found by a body" immediately casts a sinister air over the situation; a sinister air which all but disappears if we say "Cross found a body".

This may seem to be fair and wise at first glance, Gareth. But it is in fact no such thing at all.
Saying that he "was found by a body" is factually established, whereas saying that he "found a body" tries to make a fact out of something we cannot check.

If he "found" the body, he could not be the killer. People do not first kill somebody, only to thereafter discover the body of the person they just killed, do they?

This issue belongs very much to what has had Lechmere shielded from a critical examination for more than 120 years. All Ripper books invariably begin by telling the story of how "Cross" on an early morning "found" a body on his way to job. It is laid down and treated as fact by author after author.
Which is sheer madness - Lechmeres story was uncorroborated up til the moment that Paul got on the scene.

Early on the morning of the 31:st of August, Charles Lechmere EITHER found a body on his way to job, OR he killed Polly Nichols, only to minutes later have Paul arriving upon him in Buck´s Row.

The corroborated version of the carmen and Nichols story actually only begins with Paul finding Lechmere standing by Nichols dead body in Buck´s Row (which is the exact same as "standing where the body was", as Paul put it in the interview).

To claim that Lechmere found the body is to readily accept working from a bias.
To claim that he was found by the body is to accept that we should never work from such a bias, bit instead prioritize corroborated evidence over uncorroborated ditto.

Did Lechmere find the body? We don´t know.
Did he stand by the body as Paul arrived? Arguably yes, we DO know that.

Is the "found by a dead body" expression something that should contain an accusation? Well, I am told, over and over again, that somebody HAD to find the body, but apparently, the same posters who propose this, are very uncontent with the fact that this somebody who has found a body may also be found by that body by the next person on the scene.

As such, the expression does not necessarily imply guilt of any kind. But it has people all edgy anyhow.

All the best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

vicinity

Hello Christer. Then why not cut the Gordian knot and say, "Found in the vicinity of a body"?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Then why not cut the Gordian knot and say, "Found in the vicinity of a body"?

Cheers.
LC

The point I want to press is that we cannot treat it as an overall truth that he actually found the body.

"Found in the vicinity of a body" is better than "found the body", but being found on Batty Street on the night of September last would be being found in the vicinity of Stride´s body, so it is a bit inexact.
Being "found in the immediate vicinity of a body" would be better, but it would nevertheless be less accurate than "being found by the body" or "being found where the body was".

Why would we not say as it is? Why would we need to haggle in this context? To get more proselytes for our theory? That would be uninteresting, if it would mean that would sell out or dilute facts that attach to it.

I don´t think that Lechmere very nearly killed Nichols. I think that he killed her.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

The point I want to press is that we cannot treat it as an overall truth that he actually found the body.

Well, if he killed her, then he was better-placed than anyone to be the first to find her body

Seriously, though, the problem with "he was found by the body" definitely implies a sinister conclusion. "He found the body" adheres to the principle of "presumed innocent until proven guilty".

Starting off an argument with the equivalent of "he was found with a smoking gun" is loading the dice. If you're going to present a good argument, then it pays to present - and evaluate - the facts as dispassionately as possible.

[Sam Flynn]

Why would we not say as it is?

Because you're not saying it as it is, Fish. You're stating a fact in a manner that has distinctly incriminating overtones; the written equivalent of the "knowing wink".

[Lechmere]

Gareth
Your suggested wording unequivocally declares innocence. End of story.
The other option implies guilt perhaps - it allows for argument and discussion.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth
Your suggested wording unequivocally declares innocence. End of story.

You forgot to say it, Ed, so I'll type it for you: "Nyah!"

Have it your way. Hang 'em all

[Cogidubnus]

Concur...

It is the emotive certainty of the alleged Crossmere case presented, as opposed to the distinct lack of real evidence, which deters me...and has done right from the start...

All the best

Dave