Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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…

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Doctored Whatsit]

How can that be right? Paul never spoke to Mizen remember, he was out of earshot of Cross lying to the Policeman...

Oh yes, I keep forgetting that is what Christer told me!

[Doctored Whatsit]

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?


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

Er ... actually, you are dismissing the bulk of the evidence which points clearly in one direction, in favour of one discrepancy which suits your preferred narrative, and allows you to play the devil's advocate. There aren't any obvious messy uncomfortable parts, just the usual inability of all of the press to report in exactly the same way, which happens. We then go with the mainstream, and accept they are probably more accurate. The police didn't query Paul's evidence, did they?

[rjpalmer]

Given they did not see her wounds

Unlike some others here, I don't find it incredible or suspicious that they didn't see the wounds. Three constables, a medical man, and the horse slaughterers were all at the scene shortly afterwards with every opportunity to judge the ambient lighting conditions (far better than we can ever hope) and none of them 'called out' or challenged Cross or Paul on their inability to see the neck wound.

Due to the so-called "Purkinje Effect," our eyes don't see longer wavelengths in the dark, and red is the hardest color of all to see--we don't have the 'rods' for it, and brown isn't much better.

Her frock was brown. If she's flat on her back, with the light source nothing more than distant gaslight, her neck is going to be in a recess between her head and her chest. Her neck, the wound, the color of blood, the collar and upper portion of her brown dress could easily have all been one indistinct blotch of monochrome.

And if either Paul or Cross could see the neck wound the other would have seen it, too, so if they're lying, they are in cahoots about not seeing it, which I find difficult to accept.

[The Baron]

The problem with quoting from newspapers, as we all know, is that they are inclined to produce slightly different versions of events. The Times quotes Paul as saying "he fancied" he felt a slight movement, this is totally different from "he felt sure". So we need to look at the abundance of other evidence to seek the more likely statement.

On the day of the murder, with the memory fresh in his mind, Paul is reported as saying to Mizen, "the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead for some time ... If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time". So you believe that they printed that after he told them that he was sure she was still alive?

Other newspapers quote similar beliefs or possibilities about his observation, and not a certainty, and in any event, he clearly changed his mind. To back up his story that he told Mizen that Nichols was dead, Cross also reported that Paul said she was dead.

We should always look at the whole of the evidence, and reach conclusions or opinions based on the overall picture, instead of basing a judgement on one tiny point in one newspaper, which differs from the others, and doesn't make sense as part of the whole scenario.

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

[JeffHamm]

Hello Jeff,

A point that has been made in the past is concerned with the alleged callousness of our two witnesses and your suggestion of a brief check is in the same territory. Firstly, what more could they really have done? One suggests trying to prop her up but the other objects (we get differing Press versions of who was pro that suggestion and who was against.) Apart from that, these two aren’t medically trained and pretty much immediately they would have both thought the same thing - that a Constable was required. Their first priority, selfish though it might seem by today’s standards, was to get to work, and to get to work on time. I’d suggest that your 10-15 seconds was probably about right. A we have to stress that they were both there side by side. One couldn’t pull the wool over the others eyes.

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

[Geddy2112]

On the day of the murder, with the memory fresh in his mind, Paul is reported as saying to Mizen, "the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead for some time ... If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time". So you believe that they printed that after he told them that he was sure she was still alive?

How can that be right? Paul never spoke to Mizen remember, he was out of earshot of Cross lying to the Policeman...