Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

The same false graphics? So they plagiarized the Missing Evidence?

They did and added in a splash of USA style AI policemen and copied nearly word for word the commentary in the Missing Evidence. According to one former member of this board it was a 'compelling film' and 'extremely well made.'

[The Baron]

A thread in which I would like for people to state what speaks against Lechmere as being the Whitechapel killer.

Here is the perfect opportunity to overwhelm me with good hard evidence that he could not have dun it, inklings why he would be innocent, cleverly thought-out scenarios that must exclude Charles the carman, convictions, expertise, experience - anything that tells us why Charles Allen Lechmere could or would not have been the Ripper.

Once it begins dropping in, I aim to process and list it, and at some stage, I will post the outcome.

Itīs a one-in-a-lifetime chance - who would have thought that I would present a thread by such a mouthwatering name...? Go for it and go hard!

On Friday night Robert Paul on his return from work, made the following statement to the press

"It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but, as I knew the dangerous character of the locality, I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot"


There is nothing remains now that can get Lechmere off the hook, the chance has gone, Paul's words are and were clear enough, in fact they are screaming, to anyone there who wants to study this murder.

If he hadn't been searched for a murder weapon at the spot, if he hadn't been carefully watched and investigated further, then they have simply let a person of most interest get away with whatever he may or may have not done.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then Kosminski wasn’t the ripper. Ok.

[Geddy2112]

There is nothing remains now that can get Lechmere off the hook, the chance has gone, Paul's words are and were clear enough, in fact they are screaming, to anyone there who wants to study this murder.

If he hadn't been searched for a murder weapon at the spot, if he hadn't been carefully watched and investigated further, then they have simply let a person of most interest get away with whatever he may or may have not done.

Not sure what you are saying here. To get Lechmere off the hook it would have to have been 'on the hook' so to speak and there is absolutely nothing to suggest he was nothing but a witness.

Your last sentence seems to suggest he was carefully watched and investigated.... I dunno your post is rather confusing to say the least...

[John Wheat]

They did and added in a splash of USA style AI policemen and copied nearly word for word the commentary in the Missing Evidence. According to one former member of this board it was a 'compelling film' and 'extremely well made.'

The film is so bias it is unbelievable.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Lets look at what the witnesses actually said.

"He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed." - PC Mizen, 3 September 1888 Star

"He fetched Dr. Llewellyn. There was a large quantity of congealed blood on the pavement, near the woman's neck;" - PC Thain, 17 September 1888 Echo

"On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter." - PC Thain, 18 September 1888 Times.

Both PCs appear to be describing the blood after the body was moved. Neither is describing blood that is just starting to congeal. Thain is clearly describing blood that was not flowing. Thain appeared to believe the blood was a lot more congealed that Mizen did. If Nichols was killed three minutes before Mizen and Thain's observations of the blood, she was killed by PC Neil after he had showed the body to the other two constables.

Here's a study - Phase separation during blood spreading. It used blood pools with a volume about 1/4 of that described by PC Thain and at a temperature over 5 Celsius higher than the conditions in Bucks Row. These smaller blood pools would have clotted a lot slower than you assume. And blood clots more slowly at lower temperatures.

So what can we conclude from the blood evidence? That Nichols was probably murdered around 3:30am, give or take half an hour. PC Neil's testimony gives us a tighter window than that.

This is, of course, totally in keeping with the only available known evidence of an actual time of death, Harriet Lilley, who described hearing noises, whispers, gasps and a painful moan, muffled by the sound of a passing goods train, at appx 3. 30 am, or about the time Lechmere left his house.

Personally, I distrust the theme of this thread, which implies that Lechmere be considered guilty until proven innocent. As many have said, there is no evidence that he did anything other than find a body, alert a passer-by to the incident and advise a policeman accordingly. This would have been crazy behaviour if he were guilty, because he could have had fresh blood on his hands and clothes, and the murder weapon was in his pocket! Mizen didn't take his identity details, so his appearence at the inquest was entirely his choice, and if he really had lied to Mizen, he was actually inviting suspicion! That he had the potential to have been JtR just puts him in the frame along with almost the entire population of the East End.

Frankly, this theory bores me!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not sure what you are saying here. To get Lechmere off the hook it would have to have been 'on the hook' so to speak and there is absolutely nothing to suggest he was nothing but a witness.

Your last sentence seems to suggest he was carefully watched and investigated.... I dunno your post is rather confusing to say the least...

I think that he mistakenly believes that “standing where the woman was” meant that Paul saw Cross standing next to the body. Obviously his inquest testimony proves this not to have been the case.

Paul: …he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road.

It’s this repeated attempt by Cross supporters (or pretend ones) to invent things. Because they don’t have a solitary piece of evidence (not one) of his guilt they are left desperately to try and create an ‘impression’ to try and convince those with a casual interest in the case. So we get the lie about being him being caught next tothe body as if he was seen kneeling there with a knife in his hands. We know that this wasn’t the case because Robert Paul couldn’t have been clearer on the subject. Then we get the silly phrase freshly killed repeated to create the false impression that she had only been killed seconds before Paul arrived.

If ‘evidence’ has to be manipulated and the language has to be twisted and silly phrases have to be inserted in order to try and create the impression of suspicion then we know how desperate people are. This is how we get joke suspects like Cross. Worth an initial look? Yes, but we’ve had that look and seen that there’s nothing there but huge pointers to his innocence.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is, of course, totally in keeping with the only available known evidence of an actual time of death, Harriet Lilley, who described hearing noises, whispers, gasps and a painful moan, muffled by the sound of a passing goods train, at appx 3. 30 am, or about the time Lechmere left his house.

Personally, I distrust the theme of this thread, which implies that Lechmere be considered guilty until proven innocent. As many have said, there is no evidence that he did anything other than find a body, alert a passer-by to the incident and advise a policeman accordingly. This would have been crazy behaviour if he were guilty, because he could have had fresh blood on his hands and clothes, and the murder weapon was in his pocket! Mizen didn't take his identity details, so his appearence at the inquest was entirely his choice, and if he really had lied to Mizen, he was actually inviting suspicion! That he had the potential to have been JtR just puts him in the frame along with almost the entire population of the East End.

Frankly, this theory bores me!

How people can still support this suspect it beyond me. I think that most of them know that they’re but continue for one of two reasons. They are too embarrassed to admit that they got it wrong or that they know that they are wrong but just like to annoy people genuinely interested in trying to find out the truth. I don’t see how a serious enquirer can support the idea of a guilty Cross. It’s an embarrassment to be honest Doc. They should have given up long before now. It’s mainly down to Stow and his publicity campaign.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m going to try and avoid any talk of Cross from now on. He clearly wasn’t the ripper and should be regarded as irrelevant to the investigation apart from as a witness.

[Fiver]

There is nothing remains now that can get Lechmere off the hook, the chance has gone, Paul's words are and were clear enough, in fact they are screaming, to anyone there who wants to study this murder.

If he hadn't been searched for a murder weapon at the spot, if he hadn't been carefully watched and investigated further, then they have simply let a person of most interest get away with whatever he may or may have not done.

The Baron

Robert Paul's statements make it clear that Lechmere was either an innocent man or an incredibly stupid murderer.

And the parts of the article you don't quote clearly exonerate Lechmere.

"The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time..." - Robert Paul.

Robert Paul is not describing a freshly killed victim.

[Geddy2112]

I think that he mistakenly believes that “standing where the woman was” meant that Paul saw Cross standing next to the body. Obviously his inquest testimony proves this not to have been the case.

Paul: …he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road.

It’s this repeated attempt by Cross supporters (or pretend ones) to invent things. Because they don’t have a solitary piece of evidence (not one) of his guilt they are left desperately to try and create an ‘impression’ to try and convince those with a casual interest in the case. So we get the lie about being him being caught next tothe body as if he was seen kneeling there with a knife in his hands. We know that this wasn’t the case because Robert Paul couldn’t have been clearer on the subject. Then we get the silly phrase freshly killed repeated to create the false impression that she had only been killed seconds before Paul arrived.

If ‘evidence’ has to be manipulated and the language has to be twisted and silly phrases have to be inserted in order to try and create the impression of suspicion then we know how desperate people are. This is how we get joke suspects like Cross. Worth an initial look? Yes, but we’ve had that look and seen that there’s nothing there but huge pointers to his innocence.

The problem is according to testimony Cross spotted the bundle (P) when he was at the corner of the wool warehouse (X.) Now it's been a while since I dabbled in Pythagoras theory but it's fairly simple using the measuring tool from the map to work out that cross was approx 61 feet away from the body when he first spotted it and then advanced to the middle of the road (so if he follows the blue line in the diagram) would have been approx 30 feet from the body when he first heard Robert Paul.

Charles Cross was never at the body alone, the closest he would have been is approx 30 feet which is about 10 yards. I know Holmgren and Stow want us to believe this was as close as 4 yards but no one is going to walk at 90 degrees perpendicular to cross a road if they have spotted something on the other side, they are going to head diagonally in a direct line towards it. Stow's and Hologram's maths is staggeringly inaccurate.

[Geddy2112]

How people can still support this suspect it beyond me. I think that most of them know that they’re but continue for one of two reasons. They are too embarrassed to admit that they got it wrong or that they know that they are wrong but just like to annoy people genuinely interested in trying to find out the truth. I don’t see how a serious enquirer can support the idea of a guilty Cross. It’s an embarrassment to be honest Doc. They should have given up long before now. It’s mainly down to Stow and his publicity campaign.

You are absolutely correct and why does he do it, for the clicks on his channel and his wanting to be in the limelight. YouTube is littered with Lechmere Sheep or Yanks having to have HH Holmes doing it, they can't bear a serial killer not being a Yank. The Missing Evidence, Cutting Point and HoL have a lot to answer for in damaging Ripperology. It's not quite Russel Edwards level but it's up there.

I’m going to try and avoid any talk of Cross from now on. He clearly wasn’t the ripper and should be regarded as irrelevant to the investigation apart from as a witness.

..I cried a little bit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem is according to testimony Cross spotted the bundle (P) when he was at the corner of the wool warehouse (X.) Now it's been a while since I dabbled in Pythagoras theory but it's fairly simple using the measuring tool from the map to work out that cross was approx 61 feet away from the body when he first spotted it and then advanced to the middle of the road (so if he follows the blue line in the diagram) would have been approx 30 feet from the body when he first heard Robert Paul.

Charles Cross was never at the body alone, the closest he would have been is approx 30 feet which is about 10 yards. I know Holmgren and Stow want us to believe this was as close as 4 yards but no one is going to walk at 90 degrees perpendicular to cross a road if they have spotted something on the other side, they are going to head diagonally in a direct line towards it. Stow's and Hologram's maths is staggeringly inaccurate.

There’s no way that Cross would have risked Paul seeing him walk away from the body had he ever been near it in the first place. There’s only one thing that a guilty Cross would have done - left the scene immediately and without a seconds hesitation. He stayed because he was entirely innocent. Any talk of him ‘choosing’ to stay and talk his way out of trouble is waffle and they all know it. If it wasn’t waffle why would Christer have to go to such ludicrous lengths as to create the excruciatingly desperate Lechmere Scam. This comedy ‘scam’ allegedly gave Cross a safe way to stick around (although why he’d want to us anyone’s guess) and avoid a Constable but what Christer never considered when he invented this was that Cross would have had to have invented this on the spot. Instantaneously. Because for every second that passes Paul gets nearer.

So, in effect, we would have to have Cross saying something like this to himself “damn, there’s someone coming. Shall I run or stay? If I stay we’ll end up going for a Constable. I know, I’ll hide my knife and then when we find a Constable I’ll find some excuse to separate myself from this bloke and talk to the Constable alone. I’ll tell hi. that woman was only drunk and that another Constable in Bucks Row wants him. Then he’ll let us carry on to work.”

He’d have to go through something like the above in his head before coming to an on the spot decision to stay. And even that doesn’t include the possibility of Paul just shouting murder and waiting for a beat Constable to arrive.

The fact that Cross stayed put is close to cast iron proof that he was entirely innocent. The position now is as it’s always been….game over for Cross.

[GBinOz]

The problem is according to testimony Cross spotted the bundle (P) when he was at the corner of the wool warehouse (X.) Now it's been a while since I dabbled in Pythagoras theory but it's fairly simple using the measuring tool from the map to work out that cross was approx 61 feet away from the body when he first spotted it and then advanced to the middle of the road (so if he follows the blue line in the diagram) would have been approx 30 feet from the body when he first heard Robert Paul.

Charles Cross was never at the body alone, the closest he would have been is approx 30 feet which is about 10 yards. I know Holmgren and Stow want us to believe this was as close as 4 yards but no one is going to walk at 90 degrees perpendicular to cross a road if they have spotted something on the other side, they are going to head diagonally in a direct line towards it. Stow's and Hologram's maths is staggeringly inaccurate.

When Cross initially approached Paul he said something like "come and look, there is a woman lying here". About three years ago I wondered how close Cross would have had to be to what he thought was a tarpaulin to determine that it was actually a woman. I did a re-enactment, and posted the result ( Page 360, Post #5395) here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...360#post779536

As a consequence of my practical experiment, I cannot be persuaded that Cross could determine that the shape that he saw in the dark was a woman from a distance of 10 Yards.

[The Baron]

When Cross initially approached Paul he said something like "come and look, there is a woman lying here". About three years ago I wondered how close Cross would have had to be to what he thought was a tarpaulin to determine that it was actually a woman. I did a re-enactment, and posted the result ( Page 360, Post #5395) here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...360#post779536

As a consequence of my practical experiment, I cannot be persuaded that Cross could determine that the shape that he saw in the dark was a woman from a distance of 10 Yards.

This is how a good post looks like


The Baron