Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[John Wheat]

The classic maneuver, dismissing inconvenient evidence as insignificant “tiny points,” while wrapping it all in a tidy package labeled “the whole of the evidence.” Convenient, isn’t it?

But the problem here is glaring: if we abandon every detail that complicates the narrative, we are not building a picture of events, we are painting over it entirely!

"Fancied” in 19th century parlance didn’t mean idle whimsy. It meant he perceived, believed, detected something real, subtle, but tangible enough for him to feel compelled to act. That’s worlds apart from dismissing it as a flight of fancy.

Now, about Paul allegedly “changing his mind” later, this isn’t some ironclad contradiction, it’s a man simplifying matters under other circumstance, is it shocking he’d lead with the conclusion instead of inviting a philosophical debate about life and death?

Of course not. And yet, you frame this as if it invalidates his earlier observations. It doesn’t. It only underscores the fluidity of human reactions in a chaotic, grim situation.

Let's not pretend this is a case of wild invention. Are we to believe they simply fabricated the "felt sure" account out of thin air? Unlikely. If Paul had been adamant she was unquestionably dead from the start, there would’ve been no reason for any paper to introduce the idea of detected breathing, unless you think victorian journalists were time-traveling modern tabloid writers.

Paul’s statement about detecting breathing, whether he "felt sure" or "fancied" it, was reported. We can debate linguistic nuances all day, but the core point doesn’t vanish into the ether just because you’d prefer it did.

The “whole of the evidence” doesn’t mean discarding pieces that don’t fit your preferred narrative. It means grappling with all of it, including the messy, contradictory, and uncomfortable parts. Pretending otherwise is not analysis, it’s denial.



The Baron

This is totally incorrect.

[FrankO]

The classic maneuver, dismissing inconvenient evidence as insignificant “tiny points,” while wrapping it all in a tidy package labeled “the whole of the evidence.” Convenient, isn’t it?

But the problem here is glaring: if we abandon every detail that complicates the narrative, we are not building a picture of events, we are painting over it entirely!

"Fancied” in 19th century parlance didn’t mean idle whimsy. It meant he perceived, believed, detected something real, subtle, but tangible enough for him to feel compelled to act. That’s worlds apart from dismissing it as a flight of fancy.

Now, about Paul allegedly “changing his mind” later, this isn’t some ironclad contradiction, it’s a man simplifying matters under other circumstance, is it shocking he’d lead with the conclusion instead of inviting a philosophical debate about life and death?

Of course not. And yet, you frame this as if it invalidates his earlier observations. It doesn’t. It only underscores the fluidity of human reactions in a chaotic, grim situation.

Let's not pretend this is a case of wild invention. Are we to believe they simply fabricated the "felt sure" account out of thin air? Unlikely. If Paul had been adamant she was unquestionably dead from the start, there would’ve been no reason for any paper to introduce the idea of detected breathing, unless you think victorian journalists were time-traveling modern tabloid writers.

Paul’s statement about detecting breathing, whether he "felt sure" or "fancied" it, was reported. We can debate linguistic nuances all day, but the core point doesn’t vanish into the ether just because you’d prefer it did.

The “whole of the evidence” doesn’t mean discarding pieces that don’t fit your preferred narrative. It means grappling with all of it, including the messy, contradictory, and uncomfortable parts. Pretending otherwise is not analysis, it’s denial.



The Baron

As I said before, there's no doubt that Paul stated that he felt a slight movement of the chest. So, the only thing he possible did as a result of that was suggest that he and Lechmere sat her up. But, after Lechmere refused, he did no other thing to follow up on the movement he'd felt, according to the evidence.

According to Paul's evidence, it was while he was pulling down the dress that he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement. According to Lechmere, Paul tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs before they left, which seems to correspond with Paul's own testimony. Based on this, it's no sure thing that Paul suggested to sit her up right after pulling the clothes down, but rather before.

I'm sure you'll see some contradiction or contortion of the evidence on my part (do your best!), but the bottom line is that Paul, at best, did very little as a result of the fact that he felt a slight movement of the chest - if anything at all. And, therefore, the only conclusion we can draw from the evidence, is that Paul didn't think much of the movement he felt, if anything at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I make no morality judgement about their actions, but if pressed, would suggest they did far more than most would. It would not surprise me one bit if a number of others had walked passed her without so much as a thought about checking in her at all. Even today, people will walk past a drunk sleeping in the street without checking on them. As you say, what more could they do? Given they did not see her wounds, they did all they could, and what they could do would take little time In my opinion.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I agree. I recall that comment had been made previously about their ‘callousness’ but people aren’t all entirely selfless. They are tied up in their own world and their own issues. The priority for those two men would have been - get to work on time. Employers weren’t as forgiving in those days and workers rights were almost non-existent. A boss in a bad mood could sack a worker for what would today be seen as something trivial with no fear of being taken to a tribunal for unfair dismissal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I said before, there's no doubt that Paul stated that he felt a slight movement of the chest. So, the only thing he possible did as a result of that was suggest that he and Lechmere sat her up. But, after Lechmere refused, he did no other thing to follow up on the movement he'd felt, according to the evidence.

According to Paul's evidence, it was while he was pulling down the dress that he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement. According to Lechmere, Paul tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs before they left, which seems to correspond with Paul's own testimony. Based on this, it's no sure thing that Paul suggested to sit her up right after pulling the clothes down, but rather before.

I'm sure you'll see some contradiction or contortion of the evidence on my part (do your best!), but the bottom line is that Paul, at best, did very little as a result of the fact that he felt a slight movement of the chest - if anything at all. And, therefore, the only conclusion we can draw from the evidence, is that Paul didn't think much of the movement he felt, if anything at all.

Hi Frank,

Can a woman be strangled followed by having her throat cut twice (once all the way back to her backbone) followed by some abdominal mutilation and still be alive? I realise that lives were hard and these women were tough but still…

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Can a woman be strangled followed by having her throat cut twice (once all the way back to her backbone) followed by some abdominal mutilation and still be alive? I realise that lives were hard and these women were tough but still…

Hi Mike,

Even if the mutilations were inflicted first, at least one of the cuts, according to Dr. Llewellyn's testimony, would cause instantaneous death. So the answer's 'no'.

Cheers,
Frank

[Fiver]

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.

Which is yet another false statement by Lechmerians. The Stride murder is a several block detour away from the route between his mother's house and Cross's home. The Eddowes murder is even further off route. And contrary to what some Lechmerians claim, the Goulston Street graffito was not on a direct line between Mitre Square and 22 Doveton Street.

That's before we consider how nonsensical the timing would be for Cross visiting his mother. To commit the Double Event, he would have to stay up 23+ hours or get up 3+ hours early on his only day off work.

[Fiver]

Let’s face it: Lechmere fits the profile perfectly. He was a man on his way to work, just another pedestrian going about his routine. But that routine, that time-bound, monotonous walk was exactly what a killer could use to conceal his monstrous actions. A brief 20-minute window just enough to kill, The thrill of murder in that small, narrow space of time becomes addictive. The killer’s compulsion grows in direct proportion to their ability to act quickly, something Lechmere could have done easily within his daily schedule.


The Baron

Robert Paul was a man in his way to work, just another pedestrian going about his routine. No doubt so were many others.

There is no reason to single out Cross from all those other men going to work. There is no reason to ignore men going home from work, men living or working nearby, men on their way to market, or men sleeping rough in the streets.

This is evidence of a double standard by Lechmerians, not of anybody's guilt.

[Geddy2112]

The classic maneuver, dismissing inconvenient evidence as insignificant “tiny points,” while wrapping it all in a tidy package labeled “the whole of the evidence.” Convenient, isn’t it?

But the problem here is glaring: if we abandon every detail that complicates the narrative, we are not building a picture of events, we are painting over it entirely!

"Fancied” in 19th century parlance didn’t mean idle whimsy. It meant he perceived, believed, detected something real, subtle, but tangible enough for him to feel compelled to act. That’s worlds apart from dismissing it as a flight of fancy.

Now, about Paul allegedly “changing his mind” later, this isn’t some ironclad contradiction, it’s a man simplifying matters under other circumstance, is it shocking he’d lead with the conclusion instead of inviting a philosophical debate about life and death?

Of course not. And yet, you frame this as if it invalidates his earlier observations. It doesn’t. It only underscores the fluidity of human reactions in a chaotic, grim situation.

Let's not pretend this is a case of wild invention. Are we to believe they simply fabricated the "felt sure" account out of thin air? Unlikely. If Paul had been adamant she was unquestionably dead from the start, there would’ve been no reason for any paper to introduce the idea of detected breathing, unless you think victorian journalists were time-traveling modern tabloid writers.

Paul’s statement about detecting breathing, whether he "felt sure" or "fancied" it, was reported. We can debate linguistic nuances all day, but the core point doesn’t vanish into the ether just because you’d prefer it did.

The “whole of the evidence” doesn’t mean discarding pieces that don’t fit your preferred narrative. It means grappling with all of it, including the messy, contradictory, and uncomfortable parts. Pretending otherwise is not analysis, it’s denial.

Your response to Herlock Sholmes's point is entirely wrong Baron, in my opinion. You wrote:

"Fancied” in 19th century parlance didn’t mean idle whimsy. It meant he perceived, believed, detected something real, subtle, but tangible enough for him to feel compelled to act. That’s worlds apart from dismissing it as a flight of fancy”

Just 3 examples for you - I could have posted more:

“Mr. Jaggers's own high-backed chair was of deadly black horse-hair, with rows of brass nails round it, like a coffin; and I fancied I could see how he leaned back in it, and bit his forefinger at the clients.”

This is the speaker imagining that he could see how Mr. Jagger sat in his chair whilst dealing with clients. He is clearly using ‘fancied’ as ‘imagined’. This is from Great Expectations which first appeared in print in 1860.

Then we have:

“I fancied I could see a long, dusky, shapeless thing stretched upon the floor. A cold shiver went through me. I turned my face to the wall. That did not answer. I was afraid that that thing would creep over and seize me in the dark.”

Another example where the speaker uses ‘fancied’ for imagined. This is from The Innocents Abroad by Mark Twain, first published in 1869.

This is a character created by Tolstoy in his novel Childhood in 1852 imagining that he could see his dead mother:

“I fancied I could see her--now here, now there, alive, happy, and smiling.”

That’s just three examples of ‘fancied’ being used to mean ‘imagined’ exactly as Herlock Sholmes said and that you disputed because you want the evidence shaped to suit yourself as usual. I assume that you won’t respond to this or acknowledge your obvious error as you never do when you’re proven totally wrong.

[Geddy2112]

And contrary to what some Lechmerians claim, the Goulston Street graffito was not on a direct line between Mitre Square and 22 Doveton Street.

Close but no cigar... and to be fair IF he was going home from Mitre Square he would have probably gone slightly South East towards Whitechapel High Street trying for a hat-trick and not looking out of place covered in blood carrying the odd kidney and what not...

That's before we consider how nonsensical the timing would be for Cross visiting his mother. To commit the Double Event, he would have to stay up 23+ hours or get up 3+ hours early on his only day off work.

Isn't it possible one of the torso victims was dumped in Scotland Yard on that night as well, if so Charlie Boy had been rather busy, swapping M.O. like a true Serial Killer Super Hero...

[Geddy2112]

So before we start dismissing Lechmere as a non-suspect based on his daily commute, let’s remember this: serial killers thrive in these narrow timeframes, using their ordinary lives as a cover for their extraordinary crimes. Lechmere had the perfect cover, and anyone who dismisses this possibility outright is failing to grasp the opportunistic nature of many serial killers.

But our killer Jack only killed 'prostitutes.' That means he is not an opportunistic killer. He has a type, he has to kill a certain type of women. To be an opportunistic killer he would not discriminate between victims and killed whoever came across his path. This is not Jack, this is not Charles Cross. Sorry...