Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

He may have possibly lied to Mizen about another PC being there but that's not concrete. that's a "he said he said" argument and not provable as to who's right.
Columbo

Iīll just comment on this before I take a five-day holiday in Milan...

Some will have it that there is a fifty-fifty chance that Lechmere was the liar. This is not so. He is significantly more likely to be the liar than Mizen is, for a number of reasons.

A/ Mizen was a policeman with a twenty-year record and with an excellent grading. He is not a good suggestion for a sloppy or careless PC.

B/ We know that Lechmere did not use the name he otherwise used with the authorities, so there is an indicator for him not being truthful.

C/ After Mizen had spoken to Lechmere (or, as the carman would have it, to him AND Paul), he did not detain the men, nor did he take down their names and addresses. This is not in line with what he should have done if he had been informed that a possibly dead woman had been found by the carmen in Bucks Row. Such a thing would not look good if it was subsequently found out, and there was every risk it would. So the better assumption is that he was told that another PC had sent the carmen (and therefore this other PC would have decided whether the carmen should give their names and addresses or not).

D/ PC John Neil said at the inquest and in a newspaper article that HE was the finder of the body. If Mizen had been informed that the carmen were the finders, he would have reason to tell his superiors that Neil was wrong. Apparently, he never did. It applies that he therefore was probably entertaining the idea that PC Neil WAS the finder. And that would owe to the information he got from Lechmere on the murder morning.

E/ Mizen and Lechmere disagreed about whether one or two of the carmen had delivered the information. Mizen stood to gain nothing from lying about this, whereas Lechmere looked innocent by claiming this.

So there you are - just about everything points to Lechmere being the liar, and not the other way around. And if Lechmere lied...

Hello, Milan - here I come!

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not saying anyone of the "suspects" I listed did it, I'm only pointing out the reason why others consider them better suspects then Cross. Since we unfortunately do not have the official police records containing the interview with Cross before the inquest, or even the inquest itself we can't be for sure that he was even suspected of anything.

I do have to disagree with you somewhat on your last statement. If the person who finds the body is cleared of any wrongdoing the police will then look at people who have a history of violence towards women, who have assaulted or even murdered before and who might have violent tendencies because of a mental problem. That's me being a little nitpicky though.

I think we need more info on Cross himself and go on from there. We've covered no new ground with this thread on the Nichols murder and Cross, except we know that Trevor thinks all of our entrails are packed in our bodies like a spring in a phony can of peanuts.

Columbo

I got news for you they are. Do your medical research and see how long the intestines are, and how they are tightly packed into the abdomen, you might be surprised

[Trevor Marriott]

Darkness

were these murders carried out in complete darkness? The only one I see that was completely dark would've been Eddowes.

Chapman was killed while people were getting up, lighting lanterns, boiling water. That back yard was not pitch black. Especially right before dawn.

You dont know the exact time of death

Nichols has been discussed. MJK had plenty of light to be killed by as well as Stride.
Do you know that for a fact, you dont, but to remove and find these organs would need a considerable amount of light, and did the killer have three hands one to hold a lamp and the other two to remove the organs?

Tabram might be similar to Eddowes but I'm not sure.

These murders may not have been committed in broad daylight, but I'm sure there was enough ambient light provided to get the job done.

You cannot be certain


Columbo

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

I am not suggesting he said the same thing. I used it as an example to prove the point, but if it were the case no organs were missing he must have said it at some point but that does not appear to be recorded, as there is no record of anyone saying the heart was missing from the room. So who do we believe ?

Echo London Middlesex November 13, 1888

[Elamarna]

I am not suggesting he said the same thing. I used it as an example to prove the point,

And of course you have proved nothing at all, as you do not have any such data/information and with out that, such a scenario may as well be fiction.

but if it were the case no organs were missing he must have said it at some point but that does not appear to be recorded, as there is no record of anyone saying the heart was missing from the room. So who do we believe ?

"if it were the case no organs were missing he must have said it at some point"


Trevor, you have ceratainly not proved that there were no missing organs, so that is no evidence at all, its a circular argument.


Lets be clear you do not have primary sources for it.

You should not then cite it saying "icing on the cake"


It is nothing of the sort.

If I am conducting a cold case review and I trace a witness who gives new material evidence and goes to court with that evidence it is regarded as primary, age has no bearing on that evidence. Of course the defence might want to question that persons memory but that doesnt change what the evidence is.

If that person goes to court and gives hearsay evidence that is secondary.

We are not talking about a judicial situation, we are discussing history, and historical research.

You are again showing all that you do not understand the difference between Primary and Secondary sources, nor it appears the difference between Evidence and Sources.

Historical facts do not come into it. This is part of the trouble with Ripperology for years researchers have been readily believing and accepting almost everything that has been written and said over the years. History is there to be challenged.

They are not facts; they are sources, do you not understand the difference between a Fact and a Source as well as not understanding Primary and Secondary sources and Evidence and Sources.


If historical sources /facts do not come into it, then we might as well all give up on research now!


Yes history is there to be challenged, but we should not do so just for the sake of it, but where needed, because of new data or scientific advances which allow data to be reinterpreted.

We should not challenge by portraying fiction as fact



steve

[Elamarna]

I got news for you they are. Do your medical research and see how long the intestines are, and how they are tightly packed into the abdomen, you might be surprised

Yes they are very long, but they don't spring out over ones shoulder when one opens the abdomen.

Steve

[Columbo]

Iīll just comment on this before I take a five-day holiday in Milan...

Some will have it that there is a fifty-fifty chance that Lechmere was the liar. This is not so. He is significantly more likely to be the liar than Mizen is, for a number of reasons.

A/ Mizen was a policeman with a twenty-year record and with an excellent grading. He is not a good suggestion for a sloppy or careless PC.

B/ We know that Lechmere did not use the name he otherwise used with the authorities, so there is an indicator for him not being truthful.

C/ After Mizen had spoken to Lechmere (or, as the carman would have it, to him AND Paul), he did not detain the men, nor did he take down their names and addresses. This is not in line with what he should have done if he had been informed that a possibly dead woman had been found by the carmen in Bucks Row. Such a thing would not look good if it was subsequently found out, and there was every risk it would. So the better assumption is that he was told that another PC had sent the carmen (and therefore this other PC would have decided whether the carmen should give their names and addresses or not).

D/ PC John Neil said at the inquest and in a newspaper article that HE was the finder of the body. If Mizen had been informed that the carmen were the finders, he would have reason to tell his superiors that Neil was wrong. Apparently, he never did. It applies that he therefore was probably entertaining the idea that PC Neil WAS the finder. And that would owe to the information he got from Lechmere on the murder morning.

E/ Mizen and Lechmere disagreed about whether one or two of the carmen had delivered the information. Mizen stood to gain nothing from lying about this, whereas Lechmere looked innocent by claiming this.

So there you are - just about everything points to Lechmere being the liar, and not the other way around. And if Lechmere lied...

Hello, Milan - here I come!

That's still a he said/he said argument, and the interpretation is an opinion not a fact.

Milan's nice this time of year. Have fun!

[Columbo]

Darkness




www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You can say but you really don't know.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

That's still a he said/he said argument, and the interpretation is an opinion not a fact.

Milan's nice this time of year. Have fun!

I didnīt say it was a fact, I said that much more speaks for Lechmere being the liar than for Mizen. So it is an overwhelming probability only.

When a boy says "That boy hit me!", itīs also a he said/he said argument. But there is a difference when there is no damage as opposed to when there is a bloody nose. And there are a few bloodied noses in Lechmereīs case ...

I will have fun in Milan. Any tips, directions...?

[John Wheat]

John,

You may argue that blood loss at the scene means nothing, I would however like to see some backup for this from a few scientific papers, rather than the word of one "expert".

However even if the view Trevor puts forward were true: if the blood loss means nothing, then logically one can not set anytime based on it at all,


So it is not:

"likely to have been a sizeable gap between the killer absconding and Lechmere finding the body",

It is just as likely there was a no gap as there is that there was very sizable one.

Just for the record, I am not supporting Fisherman in anyway on his Lechhmere theory, as I hope I have made clear.



Steve

Hi Steve

That's all fair enough. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the blood evidence at least from Trevor's expert suggests that the one thing that the supporters of the Lechmere theory blither on about with Lechmere being near the body shortly after the victim was murdered is not necessarily true. And could be completely wrong.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

As a suspect, Lechmere is a good candidate.

No Colombo he isn't. He's one of the worst Ripper suspects of them all.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Iīll just comment on this before I take a five-day holiday in Milan...

Please don't rush back. You know take your time. Have a nice break etc.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

That's all fair enough. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the blood evidence at least from Trevor's expert suggests that the one thing that the supporters of the Lechmere theory blither on about with Lechmere being near the body shortly after the victim was murdered is not necessarily true. And could be completely wrong.

Cheers John

John,

If I had to pick, based upon my work in natural science and medical schools, I would sway more toward Fisherman's Payne-james than Trevor's expert on this occasion.

When one looks at the degree of mutilation, it hints, no more I have to say, that the killer may have been disturbed.

So if not Lechmere, (No for me at present) it must have been someone who heard or saw him, unless we care to postulate another unknown person who may have disturbed a killer.

so on this point alone I tend to favour Fish, and say it is probable the killing took place very close to Lechmere appearing.

I am happy to say I could be wrong on that.


cheers



Steve,

[Fisherman]

so on this point alone I tend to favour Fish, and say it is probable the killing took place very close to Lechmere appearing.
Steve,

Thatīs not favouring me. Favouring me involves the very clear possibility that the cutting took place after Lechmere arrived at the scene... (I am a hard man to please).

[John Wheat]

John,

If I had to pick, based upon my work in natural science and medical schools, i would sway more toward Fishermans Payne-james than Trevors expert on this occasion.


When one looks at the degree of mutilation, it hints, no more I have to say, that the killer may have been disturbed.

So if not Lechmere, (No for me t present) it must have been someone who heard or saw him, unless we care to postulate another unknown person who may have disturbed a killer.

so on this point alone I tend to favour Fish, and say it is probable the killing took place very close to Lechmere appearing.

I am happy to say I could be wrong on that.


cheers



Steve,

Hi Steve

But the way proponents of The Lechmere Theory go on it's as though they believe that it was a matter of seconds after the murder that Lechmere was with the body. This is simply a possibility and one that seems rather remote to me. In the absence of anything that actually points to Lechmere he is poor suspect.

Cheers John