Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have a quick disclaimer - I actually like Lechmere as a suspect, but I want to try your exercise here.

So, we have the task of getting Mr. Lechmere off the hook. The problem for any suspect in the Ripper Case is that hypothetically, you have to have a prosecution team and investigatory team that is able to competently get Mr. Lechmere convicted in a court of law. The standard of proof for a murder conviction - and I believe this applies in 19th Century London - is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, it bears mention here, that reasonable doubt means something, it doesn't just mean that any conceivable possibility could present a good alternative. So, if we wanted to interject space aliens, or time travelers, or super powers into our theory of who committed the murders that we are considering - those theories wouldn't really qualify as reasonable. What we're looking for is whether there is any theory that could reasonably explain these homicides to the exclusion of the Lechmere theory.

One of the major pieces of evidence that points to Lechmere as a possible suspect has to do with his discovery of Polly Nichols in Buck's Row. Is there any theory which could reasonably explain the death of Polly Nichols and also doesn't involve Charles Lechmere as her murderer?

Consider the extant suspect list that we have available. Is it reasonably possible that Polly Nichols was murdered by Severin Klosowski? If you don't think that Klosowski did it, what about Aaron Kosminski? It seems to me that if you can't go down the suspect list and look at each entry and say "This suspect definitely/certainly didn't commit this murder based on the evidence available" for every single suspect, then you have a big problem overcoming the barrier of reasonable doubt.

As to the Mizen Scam, are there any other possibilities that could explain Lechmere's statement to Mizen that there was an officer waiting for him in Buck's Row? Could Lechmere have wrongly assumed that one of the local beat cops had already found Nichols by the time that he and Paul came in contact with Mizen? What if Lechmere was up to something else illegal, and just wanted Mizen out of the way, so he made up a quick lie to cover that.... let's say Lechmere wanted to pick Paul's pocket? Or instead, maybe he was carrying a stolen ring or a pocket watch, and he didn't want Mizen to look too closely. Or maybe he was just in a hurry to get to work, and wanted to avoid the bother of getting the fifth degree so he embroidered the truth to get himself down the road a little faster. Being uncaring and irresponsible doesn't necessarily mean that you're a murderer.

So, let's say we're in the role of the defense team for a minute. One really telling moment in a court proceeding would be during the testimony of the official investigators. You need to ask every officer that's up there "I just need a yes or no: In your mind are there any reasonably possible suspects for this murder that are not the defendant?" Now, maybe the officers we're interviewing march in lockstep, and say that there are no other reasonable suspects, but I would argue that you would probably have a few of these guys that would say that they aren't sure if some of the others didn't kill Polly Nichols or not - or any of the other victims for that matter. Also, even if these guys do march in lockstep, there's a reason that the defense is usually allowed to call its own witnesses. So, the defense team needs to call private investigators and trusted newspapermen that have followed the case and ask them that same question

If you can get one or two of the investigators to admit to reasonable uncertainty in open court you need to hammer that home in closing arguments.

One final note. I ask a lot of questions in this post, I don't actually mean for them to be answered - I intend them to be rhetorical. The bottom line of this post would be to get Lechmere off the hook by attempting to present a robust criminal defense that leans on the standard of reasonable doubt. Roll the dice in court, and see how they land.

Hi Templarkommando,

Despite the title of the thread a ‘suspect’ has to be considered innocent until proven guilty and so the burden is with those supporting Cross as a suspect to ‘prove’ him guilty or at least show why he should be considered as a suspect. And so far they haven’t provided a single piece of evidence that raises suspicion.


“One of the major pieces of evidence that points to Lechmere as a possible suspect has to do with his discovery of Polly Nichols in Buck's Row. Is there any theory which could reasonably explain the death of Polly Nichols and also doesn't involve Charles Lechmere as her murderer?”

I don’t think that is a major piece of evidence. How many people in crime history have discovered the body of a serial killers victim and it turned out that the finder themselves was the killer? We haven’t found a single example yet so this would make Cross unique in the annals. Add the fact that we can’t find a single serial killer committing murder/mutilation outdoors 15 or 20 minutes before being due at work. This makes him ever rarer. Then, how many serial killers can we name who stood around waiting for a stranger to show up? It’s none so far. How vanishingly rare can Cross be as a suspect before he enters unicorn territory?

Can we explain the death of Nichols without Cross? 100% yes. An unknown person killed her not long before Cross arrived, walking along a street that he’d walk along six days a week at the same time.


“As to the Mizen Scam, are there any other possibilities that could explain Lechmere's statement to Mizen that there was an officer waiting for him in Buck's Row?”

Numerous. I’d suggested that he’d said something like “you’re needed in Bucks Row,” or “a copper is needed in Bucks Row” and Mizen misheard him as he continued his knocking up. The question has to be how Cross might have told a lie without Paul hearing it? Christer invented the scam to get Cross away from Paul to tell Mizen this lie but it’s nonsense. In the Lloyd’s article Paul claimed actually to have spoken to Mizen. They were at the crime scene together, they left the crime scene together, they found Mizen together, can we really imagine the pushy Paul standing a distance away while Cross told his lie? No way. And Cross certainly couldn’t have relied on his being able to do it therefore it’s not a plan. No one could have believed it a workable scam. It’s a fantasy.

You also ask if there are better suspects than Cross. Certainly, at the time, they probably couldn’t have named one. Then again, any local looney with a history of violence toward women (and there can’t have been a shortage) would have been a better suspect than Cross. Today we have suspects of varying levels of likelihood. I’ll name one..Bury. Living close by we have heavy drinker, traumatic childhood, linked to prostitutes, violent, murdered and mutilated a woman, murders ceased when he left for Scotland. Place Bury next to Cross the delivery driver with no issues that we know of. How can they compare as suspects? How can Cross even be mentioned?

For some reason Cross has been selected and the turned into a suspect by fiction and promoted by a social media propaganda campaign. You’ll probably disagree and that’s up to you of course but I believe that Cross is an appalling suspect. A clearly innocent man. And the promotion of him and the embarrassing lengths that have been gone to and the bottom of the barrels scraped have been to the detriment of the subject as a whole. I’ve genuinely never known a suspect who has had such efforts on his behalf.

[rjpalmer]

One final note. I ask a lot of questions in this post, I don't actually mean for them to be answered - I intend them to be rhetorical. The bottom line of this post would be to get Lechmere off the hook by attempting to present a robust criminal defense that leans on the standard of reasonable doubt. Roll the dice in court, and see how they land.

Speaking strictly for myself, if one of those 'mock trials' were organized and James Scobie, QC, acted for the defense, I have no doubt that he would win an acquittal.

There are oceans of reasonable doubt.

Robert Paul, for one, would be shredded on the stand.

Mr. Paul, if you entered Bucks Row at 3:45, why didn't you see PC Thain approaching the intersection?

Mr. Paul, if you entered Bucks Row at 3:45, why didn't you encounter PC Neil with the body?

Mr. Paul, can you be in two places at once? If you entered Bucks Row at 3:45, how could you have been talking with PC Mizen in an entirely different street at the same time?

Is there anything you wish to tell us, Mr. Paul?

Inspector Abberline, having interviewed all the witnesses, concluded that the body was found at 3.40. Is that not a more likely possibility since your deposition disagrees with everyone else's?

It is nearly 1400 yards from your house in Foster Street to the entrance of Corbett's Court. We timed the walk at 15 1/2 minutes at 3 miles an hour. Why did you leave so little time to arrive at work?

[Abby Normal]

I have a quick disclaimer - I actually like Lechmere as a suspect, but I want to try your exercise here.

So, we have the task of getting Mr. Lechmere off the hook. The problem for any suspect in the Ripper Case is that hypothetically, you have to have a prosecution team and investigatory team that is able to competently get Mr. Lechmere convicted in a court of law. The standard of proof for a murder conviction - and I believe this applies in 19th Century London - is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, it bears mention here, that reasonable doubt means something, it doesn't just mean that any conceivable possibility could present a good alternative. So, if we wanted to interject space aliens, or time travelers, or super powers into our theory of who committed the murders that we are considering - those theories wouldn't really qualify as reasonable. What we're looking for is whether there is any theory that could reasonably explain these homicides to the exclusion of the Lechmere theory.

One of the major pieces of evidence that points to Lechmere as a possible suspect has to do with his discovery of Polly Nichols in Buck's Row. Is there any theory which could reasonably explain the death of Polly Nichols and also doesn't involve Charles Lechmere as her murderer?

Consider the extant suspect list that we have available. Is it reasonably possible that Polly Nichols was murdered by Severin Klosowski? If you don't think that Klosowski did it, what about Aaron Kosminski? It seems to me that if you can't go down the suspect list and look at each entry and say "This suspect definitely/certainly didn't commit this murder based on the evidence available" for every single suspect, then you have a big problem overcoming the barrier of reasonable doubt.

As to the Mizen Scam, are there any other possibilities that could explain Lechmere's statement to Mizen that there was an officer waiting for him in Buck's Row? Could Lechmere have wrongly assumed that one of the local beat cops had already found Nichols by the time that he and Paul came in contact with Mizen? What if Lechmere was up to something else illegal, and just wanted Mizen out of the way, so he made up a quick lie to cover that.... let's say Lechmere wanted to pick Paul's pocket? Or instead, maybe he was carrying a stolen ring or a pocket watch, and he didn't want Mizen to look too closely. Or maybe he was just in a hurry to get to work, and wanted to avoid the bother of getting the fifth degree so he embroidered the truth to get himself down the road a little faster. Being uncaring and irresponsible doesn't necessarily mean that you're a murderer.

So, let's say we're in the role of the defense team for a minute. One really telling moment in a court proceeding would be during the testimony of the official investigators. You need to ask every officer that's up there "I just need a yes or no: In your mind are there any reasonably possible suspects for this murder that are not the defendant?" Now, maybe the officers we're interviewing march in lockstep, and say that there are no other reasonable suspects, but I would argue that you would probably have a few of these guys that would say that they aren't sure if some of the others didn't kill Polly Nichols or not - or any of the other victims for that matter. Also, even if these guys do march in lockstep, there's a reason that the defense is usually allowed to call its own witnesses. So, the defense team needs to call private investigators and trusted newspapermen that have followed the case and ask them that same question

If you can get one or two of the investigators to admit to reasonable uncertainty in open court you need to hammer that home in closing arguments.

One final note. I ask a lot of questions in this post, I don't actually mean for them to be answered - I intend them to be rhetorical. The bottom line of this post would be to get Lechmere off the hook by attempting to present a robust criminal defense that leans on the standard of reasonable doubt. Roll the dice in court, and see how they land.

hi templar
welcome back lol! i dont think lech is a ridiculous suspect, but if im being honest I have to admit i dont think theres enough evidence to even charge let alone convict. and if i was a jury member based on what we know, it would be an easy reasonable doubt and vote of not guilty for me.

more than likely he was just a man on his way to work who found a body. legally, hes a weak suspect. but all the suspects are weak imho.
full transparency..the least weak suspects are bury, hutch, chapman, kelly, koz and druitt in that order in my opinion. id put lech one tier down with the likes of barnett, tumblty, levy etc.

[Geddy2112]

lech being alone with a victim near tod is certainly circumstantial evidence.

Hi Abby, I think that is somewhat slightly 'awkward' wording. It's not full on bias Holmgren style but it's getting there. Was he really alone with her, I think not. If we take his Wool Warehouse mention as Gospel and use simple Pythagoras he was never within 30 feet of her alone and only went to the body with Paul. I have no doubt he would have been quizzed. Once Annie had been murdered surely someone would have gone, hang on a minute didn't the bloke(s) last week from Bucks Row pass along Hanbury Street on their way to work?

[Templarkommando]

Hi Templarkommando,

Despite the title of the thread a ‘suspect’ has to be considered innocent until proven guilty and so the burden is with those supporting Cross as a suspect to ‘prove’ him guilty or at least show why he should be considered as a suspect. And so far they haven’t provided a single piece of evidence that raises suspicion. zz0.llhtgtpasmzz

I think that you've misunderstood the goal of my post. While I think that Lechmere has some things going for him as a suspect, I bought into Fisherman's premise of how would we get Lechmere off the hook. So, virtually everything that I wrote in my previous post is aimed at arguing in Charles Lechmere/Cross's defense.

I don’t think that is a major piece of evidence. How many people in crime history have discovered the body of a serial killers victim and it turned out that the finder themselves was the killer? We haven’t found a single example yet so this would make Cross unique in the annals. Add the fact that we can’t find a single serial killer committing murder/mutilation outdoors 15 or 20 minutes before being due at work. This makes him ever rarer. Then, how many serial killers can we name who stood around waiting for a stranger to show up? It’s none so far. How vanishingly rare can Cross be as a suspect before he enters unicorn territory?

The way that we understand evidence may be different. I consider evidence to be anything that makes a given proposition more likely. Evidence can make a proposition more likely without necessarily proving the proposition. Lechmere's proximity to Nichols at the time of the murder would tend to mean that Lechmere was more likely to have been the murderer than if, say, he had been in Edinburgh at the time of the murder.

As to Lechmere's uniqueness, for the sake of this particular mental exercise - the one where we try to get Lechmere off the hook - I think those are great points about him being unique as far as other serial killers are concerned, and the same goes for murdering someone mere minutes before work.

Can we explain the death of Nichols without Cross? 100% yes. An unknown person killed her not long before Cross arrived, walking along a street that he’d walk along six days a week at the same time.

While I personally think that Lechmere might have possibly been Jack, I'm far from certain about it. So, I do agree that some other person - either one of the other enumerated suspects on this site, or some other unknown could have done the deed.

Numerous. I’d suggested that he’d said something like “you’re needed in Bucks Row,” or “a copper is needed in Bucks Row” and Mizen misheard him as he continued his knocking up. The question has to be how Cross might have told a lie without Paul hearing it? Christer invented the scam to get Cross away from Paul to tell Mizen this lie but it’s nonsense. In the Lloyd’s article Paul claimed actually to have spoken to Mizen. They were at the crime scene together, they left the crime scene together, they found Mizen together, can we really imagine the pushy Paul standing a distance away while Cross told his lie? No way. And Cross certainly couldn’t have relied on his being able to do it therefore it’s not a plan. No one could have believed it a workable scam. It’s a fantasy.

I think that it bears referring to the Polly Nichols inquest here real fast: https://www.casebook.org/official_do...t_nichols.html

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body."

Now, one possibility is that Mizen misunderstood the carman when they spoke, but I'm not convinced that Mr. Holmgren fabricated the basis for the Mizen scam either.

You also ask if there are better suspects than Cross. Certainly, at the time, they probably couldn’t have named one. Then again, any local looney with a history of violence toward women (and there can’t have been a shortage) would have been a better suspect than Cross. Today we have suspects of varying levels of likelihood. I’ll name one..Bury. Living close by we have heavy drinker, traumatic childhood, linked to prostitutes, violent, murdered and mutilated a woman, murders ceased when he left for Scotland. Place Bury next to Cross the delivery driver with no issues that we know of. How can they compare as suspects? How can Cross even be mentioned?

Let me be a little picky here for a second. I don't think that I technically asked for a better suspect. I asked if there were any other reasonably possible suspects in the case. It's not my intention here to rank the viability of suspects. I'm positing that there is a class of suspect that could have reasonably been Jack the Ripper, and if there are suspects in that class other than Lechmere, then reasonable doubt exists.

That said, I don't have any reason to disagree with you about Bury if you mean to say that he is a reasonable candidate for the murders - especially for this exercise.

[Templarkommando]

hi templar
welcome back lol! i dont think lech is a ridiculous suspect, but if im being honest I have to admit i dont think theres enough evidence to even charge let alone convict. and if i was a jury member based on what we know, it would be an easy reasonable doubt and vote of not guilty for me.

more than likely he was just a man on his way to work who found a body. legally, hes a weak suspect. but all the suspects are weak imho.
full transparency..the least weak suspects are bury, hutch, chapman, kelly, koz and druitt in that order in my opinion. id put lech one tier down with the likes of barnett, tumblty, levy etc.

Haha! Yeah, I uh... don't post very often lol.

I think the reasonable doubt problem permeates all of the suspects that I have looked into. I will admit that I don't know everything about this case, but there's also a good reason that charges were never brought against anyone for this.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, I think that is somewhat slightly 'awkward' wording. It's not full on bias Holmgren style but it's getting there. Was he really alone with her, I think not. If we take his Wool Warehouse mention as Gospel and use simple Pythagoras he was never within 30 feet of her alone and only went to the body with Paul. I have no doubt he would have been quizzed. Once Annie had been murdered surely someone would have gone, hang on a minute didn't the bloke(s) last week from Bucks Row pass along Hanbury Street on their way to work?

hi geddy
no need to bring up fish or the other lechmerians when chatting with me, thanks! lol
he was seen by another witness alone near polly nichols near tod. and the circs do not preclude him from being her killer, and no other suspects were seen with her.

and as for circumstantial evidence, thats good enough for me! but again thats just me. cheers.

[Abby Normal]

Haha! Yeah, I uh... don't post very often lol.

I think the reasonable doubt problem permeates all of the suspects that I have looked into. I will admit that I don't know everything about this case, but there's also a good reason that charges were never brought against anyone for this.

agree
as ive often said, all the suspects are weak (especially legally), some just less weak than others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Now, one possibility is that Mizen misunderstood the carman when they spoke, but I'm not convinced that Mr. Holmgren fabricated the basis for the Mizen scam either.

.

As we have no evidence of a scam it can only be an invention but by an invention I mean that it was a speculative creation in order to facilitate an idea. Because Cross ignored the opportunity of fleeing (which is what a guilty man would certainly have done) by hanging around to meet Paul he’d have known that he’d have been taking an insane risk. Bloodied knife in his pocket, no way of ensuring or checking that he hadn’t got wet blood on his clothing etc, whether the Constable would have made him return to the scene with him. So Christer needed a plan that Cross could have used to get him past a Constable without scrutiny. He came up with the Mizen Scam purely for this purpose. The first problem, and it’s a biggie, is that there’s just no way Cross could have come up with this in the time available (the few seconds of Paul’s approach) Can anyone believe that a man would ignore an easy escape with the bloodied murder weapon on him to stand around? It just doesn’t hold water. There’s no way he could have had even the tiniest bit of confidence that he would have been able to manipulate the situation so as to speak to Mizen alone (a prerequisite for the scam) And how could he have lied with a complete stranger standing next to him? Paul was an unknown quantity entirely out of Cross’s influence. Christer tries to suggest that Cross somehow separated himself from Paul to enable him to speak out of Paul’s hearing but this is Christer trying to twist the evidence to fit the theory. Everything points to Cross and Paul being together and not a single thing suggests them being apart.

Another question is - if Christer feels that wasn’t weird (to put it mildly) for a guilty Cross to loiter around for Paul to arrive why did he need to invent the Mizen Scam as an excuse for it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abby and I disagree on very few things but this is one. I absolutely believe that Cross is one of the weakest suspects named and in the 40 years that I’ve been interested in the case I’ve never seen such a propaganda campaign employed to promote him. Id place him below Hutchinson, below Mann, below Levy, below Hyams below Richardson below Diemschitz and I don’t think that any of them were the ripper. Not even on the same planet as some suspects.

[Templarkommando]

As we have no evidence of a scam it can only be an invention but by an invention I mean that it was a speculative creation in order to facilitate an idea. Because Cross ignored the opportunity of fleeing (which is what a guilty man would certainly have done) by hanging around to meet Paul he’d have known that he’d have been taking an insane risk. Bloodied knife in his pocket, no way of ensuring or checking that he hadn’t got wet blood on his clothing etc, whether the Constable would have made him return to the scene with him. So Christer needed a plan that Cross could have used to get him past a Constable without scrutiny. He came up with the Mizen Scam purely for this purpose. The first problem, and it’s a biggie, is that there’s just no way Cross could have come up with this in the time available (the few seconds of Paul’s approach) Can anyone believe that a man would ignore an easy escape with the bloodied murder weapon on him to stand around? It just doesn’t hold water. There’s no way he could have had even the tiniest bit of confidence that he would have been able to manipulate the situation so as to speak to Mizen alone (a prerequisite for the scam) And how could he have lied with a complete stranger standing next to him? Paul was an unknown quantity entirely out of Cross’s influence. Christer tries to suggest that Cross somehow separated himself from Paul to enable him to speak out of Paul’s hearing but this is Christer trying to twist the evidence to fit the theory. Everything points to Cross and Paul being together and not a single thing suggests them being apart.

Another question is - if Christer feels that wasn’t weird (to put it mildly) for a guilty Cross to loiter around for Paul to arrive why did he need to invent the Mizen Scam as an excuse for it?

I think the question of why Paul didn't interject if a scam was intended is a fair one. It's been... a very hot minute since since I've seen that one explained. Do you recall any attempted explanations being given? I seem to remember that there was one about maybe Paul being scared of Lechmere as being the reason for Paul not correcting him. I don't know if that one was offered seriously or not though.

Abby and I disagree on very few things but this is one. I absolutely believe that Cross is one of the weakest suspects named and in the 40 years that I’ve been interested in the case I’ve never seen such a propaganda campaign employed to promote him. Id place him below Hutchinson, below Mann, below Levy, below Hyams below Richardson below Diemschitz and I don’t think that any of them were the ripper. Not even on the same planet as some suspects.

I can respect an opinion that I disagree with. Out of curiosity, how do you compare the Lechmere theory to the Royal Conspiracy?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Now, one possibility is that Mizen misunderstood the carman when they spoke, but I'm not convinced that Mr. Holmgren fabricated the basis for the Mizen scam either.

We can safely forget about the alleged Mizen scam, because Abberline accepted the evidence of Paul and Lechmere, and rejected Mizen's story. He had the opportunity to talk to all three of them, which we don't have, and he didn't believe Mizen, nor did the Coroner.

[Geddy2112]

Do you recall any attempted explanations being given? I seem to remember that there was one about maybe Paul being scared of Lechmere as being the reason for Paul not correcting him. I don't know if that one was offered seriously or not though.

There is absolutely no evidence Paul was scared of Lechmere, he was wary of the area hence he dropped the shoulder in Bucks Row but nothing suggests Paul was afraid of Cross or he would have said 'Here mate I work in the next street, Deal Street so we will be parting company' but no he held on until Corbet Court right near the end of Hanbury Street before parting company.
The Mizen Scam itself is the scam...

[The Baron]

Cross:

"The other man left witness soon afterwards. He appeared to be a carman, but the witness had never seen him before"


The first time that Lechmere and Paul met, although they had the same route same time every day, of all days, it only happened when there was a recently killed still bleeding possibly still grasping for breath murdered woman laying on the ground! And Lechmere was standing there, alone.. in the dark..



The Baron

[Templarkommando]

We can safely forget about the alleged Mizen scam, because Abberline accepted the evidence of Paul and Lechmere, and rejected Mizen's story. He had the opportunity to talk to all three of them, which we don't have, and he didn't believe Mizen, nor did the Coroner.

On the one hand, you're quite likely correct that Abberline believed Paul and Lechmere rather than Mizen, or at least he didn't suspect Paul or Lechmere as a result of what Mizen had to say.

That said, it seems to me that second guessing the police on different presuppositions is kind of par for the course in JTR-related discussions. This doesn't strictly mean that the police were always wrong, but there are a few things that modern hands would have done different, and would have been correct to do differently than the police did - dusting for fingerprints for example, and taking crime scene photos of all the murders for another one. Why is it unfair to second guess Abberline's understanding of Mizen's inquest testimony?