Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Hi Roger,

A fair point as ever. I know that Christer argues vehemently for an earlier ToD because for most of that time he was arguing against me but I do know that from my own experience I can’t recall him discussing the possibility of Cross killing Chapman after 4.00 but I seem to recall him saying that even if Chapman had been killed after 5.30 then this wouldn’t exonerate Cross. I remember agreeing but adding that it would have made it at best extremely unlikely.

I’ve discussed the cart theory briefly with Gary but I’ve never discussed Cross at all with Ed Stow (only other topics) so I do take your point about getting it right about ‘who thinks what’ and not falling into the trap of assuming that everyone who favours Cross agree on every aspect and issue. There are differing variations of being wrong of course.

Holmgren certainly favours the earlier ToD. Like you say though, even without giving 'brief' reasons why he does not rule out the later time. Stow seems to fluctuate on the 'cart' theory. I think his latest attempt at making this believable in one of his videos was that carmen visited coffee shops for long periods of time throughout their shifts which would have provided the opportunity to kill. I've looked on the old map but can't see a Costa Drive Thru located near Hanbury Street.

[GBinOz]

I know that Christer argues vehemently for an earlier ToD because for most of that time he was arguing against me

Hi Herlock,

The less charitable amongst us may look at your statement and wonder if there is some degree of paranoia involved...not me...of course. As you are well aware I lean towards the earlier TOD, not from any desire to "get up your nose" on the subject, but as a result of what I consider to be a logical analysis of the available date. I fully accept that your analysis propels you to a fuller acceptance of the later TOD, which I accept in the spirit of the purpose of membership of this forum.

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

I'm fairly certain as soon as the Police found out there was a murder in Hanbury Street they will have remembered the two men from the previous murder stating they walked along Hanbury Street and made the connection to question them. Since neither of them met the noose I think we can assume the Police cleared them both.

Hi Ian,

Besides the notion that the police already would have had reason to clear up why he hadn’t told Mizen that he & Paul had examined the body, what you mention here is another good reason why the police would have wanted to talk to them.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The less charitable amongst us may look at your statement and wonder if there is some degree of paranoia involved...not me...of course. As you are well aware I lean towards the earlier TOD, not from any desire to "get up your nose" on the subject, but as a result of what I consider to be a logical analysis of the available date. I fully accept that your analysis propels you to a fuller acceptance of the later TOD, which I accept in the spirit of the purpose of membership of this forum.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I just re-read my post and I can see why you mentioned paranoia. What I actually meant, but didn’t make it clear enough, was - the reason that I know that Christer favours an earlier ToD is because I was involved in the debates with him (and others) on that subject - it did read as if I was saying that the only reason that Christer favoured the earlier ToD purely because he was arguing against me though.

[rjpalmer]

Stow seems to fluctuate on the 'cart' theory. I think his latest attempt at making this believable in one of his videos was that carmen visited coffee shops for long periods of time throughout their shifts which would have provided the opportunity to kill.

Hmm. If Ed is now toying with the later time of death in the Chapman murder along with a horse and cart, he's forgotten his own theory and is seriously undermining it.

In the 'Missing Evidence' episode, one of the major marks against Cross was that there was supposedly a 'pattern of offending' (James Scobie QC's phrase) where the murders were occurring between roughly 3:00 and 4 a.m. along Cross's route to work. This became 'one coincidence too many.' The women were supposedly dying while he was walking past.

Christer Holmgren even went so far as to once call this Lechmere's "schedule," and tended to include the Tabram murder being within this 'pattern.'

But if Ed instead accepts that Annie Chapman was murdered at 5.30, what happens to Scobie's "pattern of offending"?? It becomes increasingly murky. (And did it ever exist in the first place?)

It's like a game of musical chairs. This 'schedule' or 'pattern' supposedly implicates Lechmere, but if anyone points out that Chapman or one of the other murders falls outside of that pattern, the theory shifts, and the argument changes to "he has no alibi" and he could have later returned to Hanbury Street with a horse and cart, etc. It's irritating.

--

Here is one of Ed's remarks on the Bury, theory, 12-07-2010, 10:45 AM. Draw your own conclusion.

"He would not have been able to ‘park’ his horse and cart at random places while he slept off his drink. The various yards were privately owned. The horse and cart would have been an encumbrance not and asset in carrying out his crimes. There is not a single witness who remembers seeing a horse and cart."

[Geddy2112]

I think Holmgren in his defence [spit] sticks to one story and when challenged spouts off loads of 'word salad' to try and confuse the questioner. I'm sure he thinks we all are beneath him and intellectually inferior.

Here is one of Ed's remarks on the Bury, theory, 12-07-2010, 10:45 AM. Draw your own conclusion.

"He would not have been able to ‘park’ his horse and cart at random places while he slept off his drink. The various yards were privately owned. The horse and cart would have been an encumbrance not and asset in carrying out his crimes. There is not a single witness who remembers seeing a horse and cart."

Oh dear. That's rather unfortunate. The Lechmere Theory does love some 'cake and eat it' situations. Holmgren's famous post from 31-3-08 is a classic. He completely rejects the idea Cross is the killer. Of course it's to be admired that folk can change their minds of course however the exact reasons he gives as Cross not being the killer have never changed. Truly bizarre.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How does the Double Event fit the ‘schedule’?

[Fiver]

The same old gut feeling, that Lechmere wouldn't kill on his way to work.



The Baron

Nichols was probably killed while Lechmere was on his way to work. Lechmeme was not the only man on his way to work at that time.

Chapman wasn't killed while Lechmere was on his way to work. Stride and Eddowes were not killed while Lechmere was on his way to work.

There is no pattern of the murders occurring while Lechemre was on his way to work. It's just smoke and mirrors.

[Geddy2112]

How does the Double Event fit the ‘schedule’?

It kind of does not, but I've sure Fiver will be along with his 23 hours, 3 hours early mention.

[Fiver]

Agreed! The ONLY thing Christer and a few others have latched on to is that at least this "suspect" can be placed at the scene of the crime at or very near the time of the murder.

Lechmere is not unique for being near the scene of the Nichols murder near the time of the murder.

PC Thain saw a couple men "down Brady-Street shortly before I was called by Neale." Mulshaw was told of the murder by an unknown man. Mrs Lilley heard two people in Bucks Row around 3:30am. An unknown man passed by shortly after the body was found. Sergeant Henry Kirby, Walter Purkiss, Patrick Mulshaw, James Green, and the watchman at Essex Wharf were all nearby with no known alibi. That's not counting Robert Paul, the various constables, or the horse slaughterers.

[Lewis C]

Hi Mike,

to be fair, is it possible that you and Lewis C. are mixing up Gary Barnett's commentary with the theories of Ed and Christer?

Personally, I've only ever seen Gary suggest the horse-and-cart theory and the later time of death in Hanbury Street--and he did that in order to combat the idea that Lechmere had an 'alibi.'

The last I heard, and admittedly I haven't seen all the videos, Ed's theory is that Lechmere killed Chapman in No. 29 Hanbury Street to implicate Robert Paul (the turn into Corbett's Court being a short distance away), so C.A.L. presumably timed this to coincide with Paul's commute--ie., around 4.00 a.m. Killing Annie at 5.30 a.m. while Robert Paul was at work would have defeated the whole purpose of his evil design.

Christer Holmgren has also vehemently argued for the earlier time of death.

Ed specifically argued (in a post about W. H. Bury) that Bury wouldn't have found it easy to park his cart in Hanbury Street because the yards were privately owned, so I doubt he thinks too favorably of the horse and cart theory.

There are now a number of competing Lechmere theorists, and their ideas don't always agree, and since most of them are banned from this site, we are largely or entirely arguing with ghosts who cannot respond or clarify their positions, and thus things get muddled.

Cheers.

Hi RJ,

I was posting from memory on that one, and as I recall, someone several months ago, or maybe a year ago, posted in this forum a complaint that Ed made about us mischaracterizing his position, and that he said that he never claimed that Lechmere left his cart unguarded, and would have had someone guarding it if he committed the murder while at work. Since I didn't see the quote directly from him, but saw it second hand, and I'm relying on memory, it probably is better if I don't quote it, so I'll avoid that in the future.

[Lewis C]

How does the Double Event fit the ‘schedule’?

I believe that in The Missing Evidence. they grant that it doesn't. Instead (as I recall) they argue that the one instance that doesn't fit his work schedule also happens to be the one instance where the location of the murders isn't on his way to work. So they say that since it was the weekend, he could have been visiting his mother, and the Stride murder is on his way home from his mother's house.

[Fiver]

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.

Some good points. Some of the period police had favored suspects. Others plainly said that nobody knew who the Ripper was. When it comes to reasonable doubt, we can call Frederick Abberline, Robert Anderson, John Littlechild, Melville Macnaghten, Edmund Reid, Henry Smith, Donald Swanson, and Robert Sagar for the defense.

[Fiver]

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?

Or if we want to focus on a Lechmere, his cousin George Capel Scudamore Lechmere makes a much better suspect - a semi-employed drunken barber who was in and out of workhouses and tried to murder his wife in 1890 by slitting her throat while she was nursing their baby. GCSL claimed he was so drink he didn't remember anything and that "sometimes he was not responsible for his actions". GCSL got 18 months hard labor for assault and appears to have died not long afterwards.

Which doesn't mean that George Capel Scudamore Lechmere was the Ripper. He was probably just an alcoholic would-be murderer.

[Fiver]

I'm not sure who came up with the idea that Cross and Paul were separated, or that Paul never spoke to Mizen.

In his inquest deposition, Charles Cross clearly indicates that Robert Paul also spoke to Mizen. It's in every or nearly every version: the Daily Telegraph, the Daily News, the East London Observer, The Times, etc.

For instance, in the ELO:

"He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they saw the last witness, [Mizen] whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's-row. The witness added, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right."

I suppose one could argue that Cross was lying to the Coroner's Court about Paul speaking to Mizen, but that would have been remarkably reckless, wouldn't it?

The two men were clearly together and within earshot.

In the disagreement, it's not Cross versus Mizen. There was also Robert Paul, who would have known if Cross was lying and who hadn't testified yet. Paul would have had no conceivable reason to lie to support Cross. Yet Paul's testimony supported Charles Cross, not PC Mizen.