Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Personally, I don't see the above as constituting any kind of conundrum.

I'm scratching my head to think of another serial killer in history who has flip flopped his M.O. at will. The Police at the time discounted it and most of the Big Wig Ripperoligists of fairly recent times have discounted it. I believe there is only Holmgren and Stow from 21 Fantasy Road, Fabrication Estate, Speculation City on Fantasy Island who think someone did...

[rjpalmer]

Great post! a Jewel in its own!

Yep, Lechmere must have been familiar with the place if he delivered cat meats there often, something way in favour of Lechmere compared to other suspects.

The Baron

Hi Baron,

Why does the author of this 'jewel' repeatedly refer to No. 25 Hanbury Street? Annie Chapman was found in the backyard of No. 29.

Setting that aside, Drew Gray and Andrew Wise might like a word.

Cheers.

[Geddy2112]

It’s a rather glaring bit of cherry picking isn’t it Roger?

Some love to pick a cherry or two..



Holmgren warns about the use of cherry-picked data, evidence and information.

1) Holmgren believes Paul with regards to the time he entered Bucks Row - exactly 3:45am.
2) Holmgren does not believe Paul when he said 'The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.'
3) Holmgren does not believe Paul when he claims he went to Mizen alone.
4) Holmgren does not believe PCs Neil, Thain and Mizen with regards their times.
5) Holmgren believes 'so many independent data' is Paul and Llewellyn only. There are people who cite five witnesses more in line with 'so many.'
6) Holmgren does not believe Mizen with regards the 3:45 timing as Paul said he was in Bucks Row. (Notebook support.)
7) Holmgren however does believe Mizen with regards Lechmere telling him a Policeman wanted him in Bucks Row. (Notebook support.)
8) Holmgren does not believe Lechmere with regards him not killing Polly Nichols.
9) Holmgren does not believe Lechmere with regards his conversation with Mizen.
10) Holmgren does not believe Paul with his account of the meeting with Mizen.
11) Holmgren however does believe Lechmere regarding when he left home.
12) Holmgren does not believe Llewellyn with regards time of death because it could take time of death to about 3:30, 3:35 am.
13) Holmgren does believe Llewellyn that the abdominal wounds came first.
14) Holmgren does believe Baxter when he states the body was found not far from 3:45 am.
15) Holmgren does not believe Baxter when he doubts Llewellyn stating the abdominal wounds came first.
16) Holmgren does believe Mizen with regards to the blood evidence.
17) Holmgren believes PCs Mizen, Thain and Neil regarding the blood evidence but NOT as mentioned in respects to the timings.



So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Paul twice, but thinking he is a liar 3 times.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Mizen 3 times, but thinking he is a liar 3 times.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Lechmere once, but thinking he is a liar 3 times.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Llewellyn twice, but thinking he is a liar twice.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Baxter once, but thinking he is a liar once.

This is by far not an exhaustive list of Holmgren’s cherry-picking of the evidence. I find it astonishing he believes three Policemen when they give evidence on something they are not trained to do so in i.e. the blood. However he does not believe the very same three Policemen in regards timings, which of course would be a vital part of their jobs, especially Mizen as he was ‘knocking up’ folk for work duties.

Oh and the cherry to top all cherries from the latest Ripperologist is Holmgren claiming Baxter was a lair - “it must be noted that Coroner Baxter is not being entirely truthful.”

[rjpalmer]

I did a similar exercise in August of 2021, based on Lechmere arriving at 4 o’clock at work, just as he’d stated (as opposed to the ‘about 3:30’ he used for leaving his home) and using the distance from where the carrmen met Mizen to 3 possible entrances at Broad Street Station: one in Worship Street, 1280 metres from the meeting point; one in Finsbury Avenue, 1460 metres from the meeting point and the one in Eldon Street, 1750 metres from the meeting point.

Many thanks, Frank. I'll study your timings further. Interesting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some love to pick a cherry or two..



Holmgren warns about the use of cherry-picked data, evidence and information.

1) Holmgren believes Paul with regards to the time he entered Bucks Row - exactly 3:45am.
2) Holmgren does not believe Paul when he said 'The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.'
3) Holmgren does not believe Paul when he claims he went to Mizen alone.
4) Holmgren does not believe PCs Neil, Thain and Mizen with regards their times.
5) Holmgren believes 'so many independent data' is Paul and Llewellyn only. There are people who cite five witnesses more in line with 'so many.'
6) Holmgren does not believe Mizen with regards the 3:45 timing as Paul said he was in Bucks Row. (Notebook support.)
7) Holmgren however does believe Mizen with regards Lechmere telling him a Policeman wanted him in Bucks Row. (Notebook support.)
8) Holmgren does not believe Lechmere with regards him not killing Polly Nichols.
9) Holmgren does not believe Lechmere with regards his conversation with Mizen.
10) Holmgren does not believe Paul with his account of the meeting with Mizen.
11) Holmgren however does believe Lechmere regarding when he left home.
12) Holmgren does not believe Llewellyn with regards time of death because it could take time of death to about 3:30, 3:35 am.
13) Holmgren does believe Llewellyn that the abdominal wounds came first.
14) Holmgren does believe Baxter when he states the body was found not far from 3:45 am.
15) Holmgren does not believe Baxter when he doubts Llewellyn stating the abdominal wounds came first.
16) Holmgren does believe Mizen with regards to the blood evidence.
17) Holmgren believes PCs Mizen, Thain and Neil regarding the blood evidence but NOT as mentioned in respects to the timings.



So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Paul twice, but thinking he is a liar 3 times.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Mizen 3 times, but thinking he is a liar 3 times.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Lechmere once, but thinking he is a liar 3 times.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Llewellyn twice, but thinking he is a liar twice.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Baxter once, but thinking he is a liar once.

This is by far not an exhaustive list of Holmgren’s cherry-picking of the evidence. I find it astonishing he believes three Policemen when they give evidence on something they are not trained to do so in i.e. the blood. However he does not believe the very same three Policemen in regards timings, which of course would be a vital part of their jobs, especially Mizen as he was ‘knocking up’ folk for work duties.

Oh and the cherry to top all cherries from the latest Ripperologist is Holmgren claiming Baxter was a lair - “it must be noted that Coroner Baxter is not being entirely truthful.”

Another point worth making (I can’t recall who made it first) is that how could Cross be such a devious schemer to come up with the Mizen Scam on the spot and yet, with plenty of time to think before the Inquest, he doesn’t firm up his time to remove any doubt? If he was guilty (and he clearly wasn’t) he’d be thinking over events to ensure that there was no way that he was giving the game away. He knew that Mizen would have given a time for their meeting. If he’d read the paper he’d have known about Neil. So why didn’t he say “it was 3.35 when I left home”? It would hardly have taken a criminal genius would it? Not for the creator of the scam.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Many thanks, Frank. I'll study your timings further. Interesting.

I do have David’s timings btw if you wanted them Roger.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

If that would have been the purpose, then, yes, of course he would have had plenty of time to do all he thought he needed to do and do it silently. And he would have known he would have enough time to do it, because he knew how much time it took, approximately, to arrive from Brady Street to the crime spot.

That's not whanot'd argue against. I'd argue against the idea that, with enough time on his hands to even just walk away and cover the 100 yards or so that it would have taken Paul to arrive at the crime scene, he decided tostay put instead. My stance is that serial killers only stay put and play a game when they feel forced to, not when they also have the opportunity to get away. But that's just my stance.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

As you know, I don't have a suspect, only persons of interest. IF Cross is to be considered a person of interest, the question of why he didn't just walk away is a valid objection. I don't have a definitive answer, but pursuing a line of possibility that the doctor was correct in saying that the throat cut was after the mutilations, I can proffer a speculation. Perhaps Cross was had strangled Polly and was proceeding with the mutilations. He hears footfalls, but is unsure if his preoccupation with his grisly task has diverted his attention, and he is thus unsure how far away the person in the boots may be. He starts to leave, but as he does Polly stirs. He walks back and double cuts her throat. He is now even less sure how far away might be a potential witness so decides to pull down her skirt to cover the mutilations, step back from the body and attempt a bluff. He approaches the figure emerging from the dark in order to see if he will run away in an attempt to determine what, if anything, he may have seen. He spins a tale to Mizen and then accompanies Paul down a longer route to work, again in attempt to determine what, if anything, he may have seen.

I seem to call that I may have presented this speculation before resulting in a resounding lack of favourable response, but there you have it.

Best regards, George

[John Wheat]

Hi Frank,

As you know, I don't have a suspect, only persons of interest. IF Cross is to be considered a person of interest, the question of why he didn't just walk away is a valid objection. I don't have a definitive answer, but pursuing a line of possibility that the doctor was correct in saying that the throat cut was after the mutilations, I can proffer a speculation. Perhaps Cross was had strangled Polly and was proceeding with the mutilations. He hears footfalls, but is unsure if his preoccupation with his grisly task has diverted his attention, and he is thus unsure how far away the person in the boots may be. He starts to leave, but as he does Polly stirs. He walks back and double cuts her throat. He is now even less sure how far away might be a potential witness so decides to pull down her skirt to cover the mutilations, step back from the body and attempt a bluff. He approaches the figure emerging from the dark in order to see if he will run away in an attempt to determine what, if anything, he may have seen. He spins a tale to Mizen and then accompanies Paul down a longer route to work, again in attempt to determine what, if anything, he may have seen.

I seem to call that I may have presented this speculation before resulting in a resounding lack of favourable response, but there you have it.

Best regards, George

The resounding lack of favourable responses is because Cross was a witness, not a person of interest and definitely not a suspect. I've said this before but there is nothing whatsoever to suggest Cross murdered anyone.

[Pcdunn]

Great post! a Jewel in its own!

Yep, Lechmere must have been familiar with the place if he delivered cat meats there often, something way in favour of Lechmere compared to other suspects.



The Baron

Nonsense. Lechmere didn't deliver cat's meat for his company. Thst tended to be sold from barrows, not brought in vans.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Great post! a Jewel in its own!

Yep, Lechmere must have been familiar with the place if he delivered cat meats there often, something way in favour of Lechmere compared to other suspects.



The Baron

I assume that we have someone playing the devil's advocate here, and this is not a serious proposal!

Two things were suggested for this "jewel", both of which seem to be erroneous - that the killer chose the location, and that Lechmere delivered cats' meat to 29 Hanbury Street "often".

Firstly, there is almost total acceptance that the prostitute chose the venue, as there would be no point in her soliciting at any particular spot unless she had a convenient hideaway nearby to do the deed. Secondly I know of no evidence that Lechmere ever delivered anything to 29 Hanbury Street. Pickfords delivering cats' meat to individual houses for cutting up seems totally unlikely.

Lechmere killing Chapman requires a huge stretch of reality with the known evidence. That he did it on the way to work is contradicted by Richardson's statement that the body was not there at 4. 45 am. The combined evidence of Richardson, Davis, Cadosch, Long, and an unnamed dustman who saw a man appearing to hurry away with fresh blood on his person, puts the ToD at appx 5. 30 am. As far as I know, there are absolutely no other eyewitness accounts suggesting any other time. So the potential score seems to be, ToD at 5. 30 am - 5, any other time - nil. We can find reasons to contest individual accounts, but can we really reject all five of them, and replace them with.....well nothing!

I cannot imagine Lechmere parking his Pickfords wagon in the street at about 5. 30 am, and not being noticed. If he had a second man on board, then there was a witness to his act, and if he didn't have a second person, parking an unattended loaded wagon in the East End would be an invitation for thieving, putting his job at risk.

No "jewels" here.

[The Baron]

but pursuing a line of possibility that the doctor was correct in saying that the throat cut was after the mutilations, I can proffer a speculation. Perhaps Cross was had strangled Polly and was proceeding with the mutilations. He hears footfalls, but is unsure if his preoccupation with his grisly task has diverted his attention, and he is thus unsure how far away the person in the boots may be. He starts to leave, but as he does Polly stirs. He walks back and double cuts her throat. He is now even less sure how far away might be a potential witness so decides to pull down her skirt to cover the mutilations, step back from the body and attempt a bluff. He approaches the figure emerging from the dark in order to see if he will run away in an attempt to determine what, if anything, he may have seen. He spins a tale to Mizen and then accompanies Paul down a longer route to work, again in attempt to determine what, if anything, he may have seen.

I haven't read anything that can dispute this possibility, there is nothing on the other side except a gut feeling that Lechmere couldn't have been the ripper, he seemed quite innocent, he was a hard working guy, he wouldn't kill on his way to work.



The Baron

[The Baron]

there is almost total acceptance that the prostitute chose the venue, as there would be no point in her soliciting at any particular spot unless she had a convenient hideaway nearby to do the deed

And here exactly where you missed the shining rays of this Jewel.


The Baron

[FrankO]

Many thanks, Frank. I'll study your timings further. Interesting.

If you want to see "the whole exercise", Roger, then I can post it here. Just let me know.

[Doctored Whatsit]

And here exactly where you missed the shining rays of this Jewel.


The Baron

You have the remarkable gift of being able to confuse me every time!

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

As you know, I don't have a suspect, only persons of interest. IF Cross is to be considered a person of interest, the question of why he didn't just walk away is a valid objection. I don't have a definitive answer, but pursuing a line of possibility that the doctor was correct in saying that the throat cut was after the mutilations, I can proffer a speculation. Perhaps Cross was had strangled Polly and was proceeding with the mutilations. He hears footfalls, but is unsure if his preoccupation with his grisly task has diverted his attention, and he is thus unsure how far away the person in the boots may be. He starts to leave, but as he does Polly stirs. He walks back and double cuts her throat. He is now even less sure how far away might be a potential witness so decides to pull down her skirt to cover the mutilations, step back from the body and attempt a bluff. He approaches the figure emerging from the dark in order to see if he will run away in an attempt to determine what, if anything, he may have seen. He spins a tale to Mizen and then accompanies Paul down a longer route to work, again in attempt to determine what, if anything, he may have seen.

I seem to call that I may have presented this speculation before resulting in a resounding lack of favourable response, but there you have it.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

If we're assuming for a moment that Lechmere was guilty, then, yes, yours would be a plausible scenario, nicely fitting the evidence some of us are less/not convinced of, such as that the throat was cut after the mutilations. As you say, it's speculation, but there you go.

Cheers,
Frank