Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Lechmere]

Gut
Paul testified that he knelt according to the Times.
No one said Broad Street only carted meat but according to the Pickfords historian it was the major part of that business.
You seem to have a recurring problem with reconciling piecing together fragmentary information from long ago to reach reasonable conclusions. That is the nature of the beast.

Robert
The likelihood is that her chin was down hiding the neck wound. If he chin was back it is exceptionally unlikely tgat it would have gone unnoticed as he touched her face. Or do you think something different?

[GUT]

Gut
Paul testified that he knelt according to the Times.
No one said Broad Street only carted meat but according to the Pickfords historian it was the major part of that business.
You seem to have a recurring problem with reconciling piecing together fragmentary information from long ago to reach reasonable conclusions. That is the nature of the beast.

Robert
The likelihood is that her chin was down hiding the neck wound. If he chin was back it is exceptionally unlikely tgat it would have gone unnoticed as he touched her face. Or do you think something different?

See Lechmere there's your problem, Pickford's by any account were general carriers, if meat was a large part of their business how does that prove that that was the part of the business that Cross worked, simply put it doesn't and if that can't be established why claim that t points to him as a suspect.

Part of the contention against Cross is [or at least at one stage was] that he showed up at the inquest in his work gear, and that somehow implicated him, what and no one commented that it was all blood stained, come on we're supposed to buy that that's a reasonable conclusion?

I love how you pick and choose what part of Paul's reports are to be accepted, the Times says he knelt, the papers also give a report of his dissatisfaction with Mizen's response to what Paul told him, but "Oh no that's just Paul big noting himself"?

[Lechmere]

Gut
In general Pickfords were general carriers.
But at Broad Street in particular they generally carried meat.
That doesn't prove that Lechmere specifically carried meat. But it suggests that it is likely. That's how it works.
If you read back to the initial posts you will find that Christer and I were both hesitant to make too much of the meat hauling - and indeed neither of us have. But nevertheless it is an interesting factor the throw in the mix.
As for his strange apron wearing at the inquest, who knows - maybe it had been cleaned - after all it was the first day of a new week.
His inquest attire didn't make it into the documentary with a lot of other incriminating evidence.

As a barrister (practising? You haven't confirmed) you should know the difference between statements which enhance someone's importance, significance and status and ones that don't. Kneeling by a body is not a claim that would in ordinary circumstances 'big up' anyone's status. No.one contradicted his claim to have knelt. In the context of his corroborated behaviour - touching the prone body and pulling the dress down further - it is fairly obvious that he must have knelt - unless he stopped right over.
So in short there is no reason to doubt the knelt reference - whereas we know there is reason to doubt his claims yo have dobe the talking with Mizen.

[GUT]

As a barrister (practising? You haven't confirmed)

Boy don't you have a bee in your bonnet over this.

To quote Rumpole no I don't practice I've been standing up on my back legs in court for so long now that I am actually past the practice wheels.

For what it is worth and for whatever it has to do with you last year I had just over 100 briefs, happy?

unless he stopped right over.

I presume you mean stooped and the above was just a typo [like I make all the time], and if so, why couldn't he have?

So in short there is no reason to doubt the knelt reference - whereas we know there is reason to doubt his claims yo have dobe the talking with Mizen.

With as much, or even more, reason to doubt Mizen. Who had the best reason to lie Paul, to as you put it bignote himself, or Mizen who may have been in hot water if Paul is accepted?

[Lechmere]

GUT
I was curious about your barrister claim that's all, as you made a lot if it and most barristers don't practice - my sister doesn't for example. But her husband does - but his speciality isn't in criminal proceedings - as is the case with another barrister friend. Neither of whom would I regard as having any useful knowledge on weighing up the validity of criminal evidence - even out of amusement.

I did mean stooped you are correct!
I doubt he stooped as it seems the unnatural thing to do and he seems to have said he knelt - and there is no reason to doubt it unless you don't want him to get bloody from the non existent (at that moment) blood.

[Lechmere]

GUT
The reason people say things that are not true are many and varied and not always connected with having something to lose.
It is clear that Paul said a lot if things in his 'Remarkable Statement' that were not true. Deconstructing that statement is an object lesson in this.

[Robert]

Ed, her chin hid the ear-to-ear gash? She was Polly Nichols, not Tessie O'Shea.

[RockySullivan]

In your theory of the rippings...is Lechmere looking for an opportunity on his path to work and when he happens to come across a pro alone he kills her in a secluded spot? What about the Mary Kelly murder? If maxwells witness report was accurate and Kelly was killed later in the morning, would Lechmere have been in work at this time?

I suppose our opinions differ greatly which is ok. I can't see the rippings as crimes of opportunity. To me the ripper had to stalk his prey and Lechmere can't do that if he's coming straight from home. Where would Lechmere carry the organs on his way to work? And I don't see how it's at all possible that Lechmere would know how to remove the uterus & kidney in a few minutes in the dark.

[Djb]

1.I don't think the Ripper would be committing an impromptu murder whilst en route to work.
2. Polly Nichols was more likely picked up from Whitechapel Road area and lured towards the murder location.
3. Lechmere doesn't really fit the profile : no criminal record, why no offences after mary kelly?

[Chris]

2. Polly Nichols was more likely picked up from Whitechapel Road area and lured towards the murder location.

That is a good point. Where would she be more likely to look for custom? Whitechapel Road or Buck's Row?

[Damaso Marte]

1.I don't think the Ripper would be committing an impromptu murder whilst en route to work.
2. Polly Nichols was more likely picked up from Whitechapel Road area and lured towards the murder location.

This is the best argument against Lechmere I've heard

[Fisherman]

I just watched the documantary on YouTube and noticed that much of the "evidence" came from newspapers. But newspapers are no reliable sources.


PS: Fisherman, it's encouraging how you stand getting all that stick here. What would Ripperology be if no one dared to come forward with theories?

What some wish it was.

Thanks, by the way!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I have followed this debate closely. The one thing that doesnt seem to have been mentioned. unless I have missed it. is this. If Lechmere killed Polly Nichols, and then accompanied Paul to find a Policeman. What did he do with his weapon? It wasnt found at the murder scene. or anywhere else for that matter. Do we accept that Lechmere kept the knife and had it still in his possession even when reporting the finding of the body? I dont.
__________________

Thanks for that one, David!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I hope Christer doesn’t mind me butting in…

Never did - never will. On this thread I will normally not answer any questions, so I´m glad if you do it for me!

Fisherman
grateful

[Azarna]

I watched the documentary on Cross yesterday, and found it quite interesting.

However there were big question marks that pinged up for me.

1 - I find it hard to imagine someone committing this type of murder on their way TO work. The nature of the murders implies a strong emotional element for their perpetrator, whether that is sexual arousement, aggression or even fear (of being caught). To then go off to do a day's work? Let alone the risk of being covered in blood - even if you work handling meat you would not normally start the day with fresh blood on you.

2 - To give a false name to avoid detection but then to give the correct address, and your proper forenames.. and use an alias that is connectable to you... again seems unlikely. There are loads of reasons that people regularly used aliases and giving a "false" name does not mean guilt in anything. If one was really trying to avoid detection then either giving a totally false name, or telling the truth would both make more sense.

3 - The business with when Paul saw him is certainly interesting. But a lot seems to hang on timings, and this is an era when people rarely knew the correct time. A minute or two here, a minute or two less there.. and the timings are no long so convenient. It seems risky to base too much on such small discrepancies in timings.

4 - I didn't fully understand how the conclusion was reached that Cross was definitely Lechmere. Is there additional evidence that Lechmere used the alias Cross?