Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Rosella]

Leaving aside the circumstances of the discovery of Polly Nichol's body for a minute, what proof is there that Lechmere/Cross was ever involved in the deaths of any other Ripper victims?

[Monty]

I am not saying that IF he gave a false name. I am saying that he gave a false name. That is a fact.

No it isn't.

That is personal iterpretation.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Leaving aside the circumstances of the discovery of Polly Nichol's body for a minute, what proof is there that Lechmere/Cross was ever involved in the deaths of any other Ripper victims?

None whatsoever. Proof is conclusive.

What there is, is circumstantial evidence only; his logical treks to work, his motherīs address and his connections to the area in St Georges surrounding Berner Street. And the potential connection between Broad Street and the late discarding of the apron in Goulston Street, as per long.

Therefore, we cannot leave aside the Nichols killing. If we accept that Lechmere was responsible for that, then logic dictates that he must be the prime suspect in a number of other murders too.

One must of course mention here that we do not know which victims were Ripper victims, since the culprit was never caught.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

Nicholls wasn't decapitated was she? she had a deep wound which severed the spinal cord but that's not decapitation. No one back then mentions decapitation its a modern perception based on the injuries noted.

I did not say that she was decapitated. I used decapitation in an example that did not entail Nichols in the least. I have no "modern perception" that either of the Rippers victims were decapitated. I know the exact extent of the damage done, as reported.
If you read what I actually say, you will - hopefully - avoid many misunderstandings.

I am getting fed up with saying this to you because it isn't registering. Time of death cannot be established in the way you seem to think with this bleeding out issue, there are so many factors, which you have been told about which preclude this.

If your pathologist is correct, then Nichols bled out in the initial couple of minutes. Whether you are fed up of hearing it or not is of no interest or consequence.

To me this is your only trump card, that because of what was seen by witnesses when they looked at the body, that death must have only occurred within minutes. It has been pointed out the unreliability of those you seek to rely on to prop this up not only with timings but what they actually saw or could have seen given the light available

Are you saying that Neil, Mizen and Thain ALL mistakenly only thought that she was bleeding? Mizen even said that the blood looked fresh, so he will have looked very closely. As an aside "the light available" was the lamps of the PC:s.

Your theory is a nothing more than a catalog of "If`s"

All suspect theories involve ifīs, Trevor. But the better ones also includes facts.

I am not saying that IF he gave a false name. I am saying that he gave a false name. That is a fact. It is also a fact that the clothes were pulled down over Nicholsī injuries, that Paul never said that he heard ort saw Lechmere walking in front of him, that Mizen said that he was told about a second PC, that Lechmere signed himself Lechmere in all the examples we have but one and so on.

Those are not ifīs - those are facts. I would be pleased IF (!) you understood that.

The best,
Fisherman

And the if`s I referred to all relate to this belief you have that the time of death can be determined by the extent the body was bleeding when found. You are not a medical expert.

All the witnesses who saw the body do not corroborate each other as has also been pointed out to you but you are blinkered.

So we are all clear on this as to where you firmly stand. You say that because blood was oozing/flowing at the time the body was found that suggests to you that death had only just occurred is that correct?

If that were not the case would you accept that Cross could not have been the killer?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No it isn't.

That is personal iterpretation.

Monty

Andy Griffiths said that he was dutybound to give his real name before the inquest. His real name was Lechmere. Other names than the real name were not real names and therefore not admissible at the inquest.

We have been over this all before, though. I have said that my definition is that you can have one real name only - the one by which you are registered with the authorities.

As such, if he did call himself Cross when with friends it would only be odd if he used that name with the police too (because we are fully aware that he normally approached authoritites as Charles Lechmere). It would not be extremely odd, as if would be if he never used the name Cross under any circumstances.

But it would be a false name nevertheless in terms of legal reliability.

That is all I have to say on the matter, and you know it well.

Much as I think that we should leave all doors ajar, I find it extremely strange that an ex-copper should be the one to persistently deny that changing his name the way Lechmere did - the ONLY time we know that he used the name Cross with the authorities, whereas 110 examples tell us clearly and unambiguously that he otherwise always represented himself authoritywise as Lechmere - has potentially very sinister implications.

I would have thought that you should have seen myriads of examples of people keeping their true identitites from the police, and that you should thus know that this is a common trait with people with criminal pasts or intents whereas honest people rarely employ it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

And the if`s I referred to all relate to this belief you have that the time of death can be determined by the extent the body was bleeding when found. You are not a medical expert.

No, but guess who is? Your pathologist! And who was it that said that the blood would flow out for a couple of minutes only with extensive neack damage and no inhibitions to the blood flow, him or me?

All the witnesses who saw the body do not corroborate each other as has also been pointed out to you but you are blinkered.

Who does not corroborate that Nichols was bleeding from the time Neil saw her to the time Mizen did, Thain being tucked in between the two? What further witnesses are there? Did anyway seeing Nichols even BEFORE Neil say that she did not bleed?
If not, what are you going on about? What witnesses do not corroborate that she bled at this stage?

So we are all clear on this as to where you firmly stand. You say that because blood was oozing/flowing at the time the body was found that suggests to you that death had only just occurred is that correct?

You are confusing a lot of things here. The body was "found" by Lechmere, not by Neil.
What I am working from is Neils, Thains and Mizens assertions that she was bleeding as they saw her. And even recognizing that, I can only have a laymanīs view on things.
But your pathologist clearly has a professional perspective, and I tend to go with that evidence - that incidentally dovetails with my laymanīs view, as it stands.
If other pathologists disagree, let me assure you I will adjust my take accordingly.

If that were not the case would you accept that Cross could not have been the killer?

If WHAT was not the case? If Nichols did not bleed when Neil, Thain and Mizen saw her? No, that would not take Lechmere out of the frame, since the pathologist said "the initial couple of minutes". She could seemingly have been cut by Lechmere and bled out in the time it took Neil to get to her, thus. The time between Lechmereīs departure and Neils surfacing outside Browns would have been two minutes or more.

Apart from his own uncorroborated story, there is actually absolutely nothing that can suggest that Lechmere could not have been the killer of Nichols, Trevor. Not a scrap, not a iot. If she had been cold and the blood had been clotted and drying when Neil found her, then such a case could be made, but that was not so. Everything points to her having been cut in close proximity to when Lechmere "found" her - or in the minute or two leading up to that stage, where we have only Lechmereīs own word that he never was with her before he "found" her lying outside the stable doors. And as you know, Pauls failure to see or hear his fellow carman points away from him having told the truth about this.

I realize that you absolutely yearn to call out "It couldnīt have been Lechmere!", but that is not going to happen on account of the evidence relating to the Nichols murder. It can only rule him in, not never out.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Fish, a couple of minutes is a couple of minutes. Since we know that Neil did not kill Nichols, it suggests that there were inhibiting factors. What they may have been we cannot know, without taking Trevor's pathologist back to 1888 in a time machine.

But let's suppose that Trevor's pathologist was using the word 'couple' loosely. I noticed that you originally had the duration as 8 minutes plus - because she still hadn't stopped bleeding when Mizen saw her - but then somehow shaved two minutes off. That was very astute of you, Fish.

Basically, the pathologist sees to it that the window of time for another killer is so dramatically diminished as to more or less disappear. And he strengthens the suggestion that Lechmere WAS the killer in equal proportions. Actually, it is your interpretation of the pathologist that 'sees to it' that the window more or less disappears. If I were uncharitable I'd subject that comment of yours to the same kind of scrutiny that you applied to Crossmere's comments on the blood. But I'm not, so I won't.

Fish, a word about this 'registering with the authorities' thing that you keep bringing up. Britain in 1888 was not the same kind of country that it is now. The notion of a legal name was not nearly so important in people's lives. Nowadays people have not only a name, but a number. Several numbers. NHS number, National Insurance number. It's a whole new world, Fish. And even today there are examples of people's births being registered under two different surnames, if, for example, the mother was unmarried at the time but was clearly in a stable relationship with the father (as evidenced by their subsequently marrying). Crossmere's case was not the same kind of thing, but it does show that even today the concept of a legal name (if 'legal' refers to a birth certificate) is a bit nebulous.

What you have to do, Fish, is to prove that Crossmere did not explain to the police about his having two surnames when he gave the police his statement.

I have a question about Mr Scobie. Did Mr Scobie agree that Paul was out of earshot when Crossmere supposedly told Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row? After all, we can hardly suppose that Crossmere told a brazen lie to Mizen in front of Paul. It seems odd to me that Mr Scobie would say that you have a good case against Crossmere, when the case (as far as the 'lying' is concerned) would clearly rest on asking Paul the simple question "Were you with Crossmere the whole time that he spoke to Mizen, or did you go on ahead?" Maybe Mr Scobie did say that the case would be dependent on first asking Paul this question, but this comment was among the several minutes that ended up on the cutting-room floor?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

And the if`s I referred to all relate to this belief you have that the time of death can be determined by the extent the body was bleeding when found. You are not a medical expert.

No, but guess who is? Your pathologist! And who was it that said that the blood would flow out for a couple of minutes only with extensive neack damage and no inhibitions to the blood flow, him or me?

All the witnesses who saw the body do not corroborate each other as has also been pointed out to you but you are blinkered.

Who does not corroborate that Nichols was bleeding from the time Neil saw her to the time Mizen did, Thain being tucked in between the two? What further witnesses are there? Did anyway seeing Nichols even BEFORE Neil say that she did not bleed?
If not, what are you going on about? What witnesses do not corroborate that she bled at this stage?

So we are all clear on this as to where you firmly stand. You say that because blood was oozing/flowing at the time the body was found that suggests to you that death had only just occurred is that correct?

You are confusing a lot of things here. The body was "found" by Lechmere, not by Neil.
What I am working from is Neils, Thains and Mizens assertions that she was bleeding as they saw her. And even recognizing that, I can only have a laymanīs view on things.
But your pathologist clearly has a professional perspective, and I tend to go with that evidence - that incidentally dovetails with my laymanīs view, as it stands.
If other pathologists disagree, let me assure you I will adjust my take accordingly.

If that were not the case would you accept that Cross could not have been the killer?

If WHAT was not the case? If Nichols did not bleed when Neil, Thain and Mizen saw her? No, that would not take Lechmere out of the frame, since the pathologist said "the initial couple of minutes". She could seemingly have been cut by Lechmere and bled out in the time it took Neil to get to her, thus. The time between Lechmereīs departure and Neils surfacing outside Browns would have been two minutes or more.

Apart from his own uncorroborated story, there is actually absolutely nothing that can suggest that Lechmere could not have been the killer of Nichols, Trevor. Not a scrap, not a iot. If she had been cold and the blood had been clotted and drying when Neil found her, then such a case could be made, but that was not so. Everything points to her having been cut in close proximity to when Lechmere "found" her - or in the minute or two leading up to that stage, where we have only Lechmereīs own word that he never was with her before he "found" her lying outside the stable doors. And as you know, Pauls failure to see or hear his fellow carman points away from him having told the truth about this.

I realize that you absolutely yearn to call out "It couldnīt have been Lechmere!", but that is not going to happen on account of the evidence relating to the Nichols murder. It can only rule him in, not never out.

The best,
Fisherman

Let me put things into perspective with regards to the pathologists answers and how you interpret them. What he says is set out below

"In simple terms, nasty neck wounds can bleed a lot (but don’t always). Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene"

"I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little"

If the murder took place 20 mins before the body was found then by the time it was found the wound could have been trickling could it not thus ruling Cross out

Again I say you fall down because you cant come up with an accurate time of death. your timings you rely on only have to be 5 mins out and you are sunk

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Tom, I've been pondering your post and the conclusion I've reached is that Nichols was murdered by a number of people, including policemen, the slaughterers, and Crossmere and Paul - a kind of "Murder Near the Whitechapel Express" idea. I leave it to you to decide which one had to deliver the atrocious line "For my gentleman."

[Monty]

Andy Griffiths said that he was dutybound to give his real name before the inquest. His real name was Lechmere. Other names than the real name were not real names and therefore not admissible at the inquest.

We have been over this all before, though. I have said that my definition is that you can have one real name only - the one by which you are registered with the authorities.

As such, if he did call himself Cross when with friends it would only be odd if he used that name with the police too (because we are fully aware that he normally approached authoritites as Charles Lechmere). It would not be extremely odd, as if would be if he never used the name Cross under any circumstances.

But it would be a false name nevertheless in terms of legal reliability.

That is all I have to say on the matter, and you know it well.

Much as I think that we should leave all doors ajar, I find it extremely strange that an ex-copper should be the one to persistently deny that changing his name the way Lechmere did - the ONLY time we know that he used the name Cross with the authorities, whereas 110 examples tell us clearly and unambiguously that he otherwise always represented himself authoritywise as Lechmere - has potentially very sinister implications.

I would have thought that you should have seen myriads of examples of people keeping their true identitites from the police, and that you should thus know that this is a common trait with people with criminal pasts or intents whereas honest people rarely employ it.

The best,
Fisherman

Andy Griffiths needs to educate himself a little more on the subject, as do you.

That, or something has been lost in the editing.

Monty

[Robert]

people keeping their true identitites from the police

Fish, you think that by giving his two forenames and his address, he was keeping his true identity from the police by 'changing' his surname? Not much of a cunning stratagem, was it?

"It is I, Leclerc."

[DRoy]

people keeping their true identitites from the police

Fish, you think that by giving his two forenames and his address, he was keeping his true identity from the police by 'changing' his surname? Not much of a cunning stratagem, was it?

"It is I, Leclerc."

Agreed Robert. Plus he said he had worked at Pickford for over 20 years. How hard would it be to track down 'Cross' at work? I doubt there would have been that many carmen who had worked there for 20 years that would fit his description and happened to start work at that time of morning.

Cheers
DRoy

[Robert]

Hi DRoy

Yes, he wasn't being very secretive, was he?

There are three possibilities :

1. The police asked at Pickfords and found he was known as 'Cross.'
2, The police asked at Pickfords and found there was no suitable man called Cross working there. This would have led them on to the name 'Lechmere' and their suspicions would have been aroused.
3. The police never asked at Pickfords.

Guess which possibility Fish will pick.

[David Orsam]

David!

A few points.

Blood is dark, yes. But that does not necessarily mean that is is hard to see in darkness! What we actually do loose in darkness is our ability to see colours. What is left to us is the ability to recognize greyscales.
Basically, what that means is that we will have difficulties seeing dark things against dark backgrounds.
We will, however, easily see dark things against light backgrounds.
It must be VERY dark before we mistkake a zebre for a horse.

Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul did not walk through a city with no light. They did not do their treks by feeling their way against the house facades. They walked briskly along pavements that they could readily see.

When Lechmere was five or six yards from the body outside Browns, he could make it out (of course, I think that he never did see it from there, but anyway...)
He could see Paul and Paul could see him. They could see that the bonnet was off, but close to her head (and it was a black bonnet, so how could they see that one...?) They could see the drawn up clothes, and Paul did not trip over Nicholsī body as he knelt down to check her breath. He could see where her head and mouth were (which is why I said that he could see to check for breath, by the way), and he did not have to fumble with his hands to find her. She looked as if she had been outraged, both men say, and that too was something they assessed by sight.

In the Daily Telegraph, Lechmere says that he could not see that her neck had been cut, on account of it being a dark night. And that is a situation where dark blood would have been present on white skin. He SHOULD have been able to see it - if he looked. The same goes for Paul. That is why I think Lechmere may have covered the neck wounds too.

Look once more at how the two men word things. You quoted that from the Times, but did you see the difference?

Paul: "It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood".

Cross: "He did not notice any blood, as it was very dark".

What Paul says is that it was very dark, and that he did not notice any blood. He does not say that it was so dark that he could not see the blood, he just acknowledges that it WAS very dark, and from there he goes on to say that he did not see any blood. He does not couple the two statements to each other per se. It is af he reasons that he may perhaps have missed the blood on account of the darkness, as if he suggests that this could be so.

Lechmere, however, DOES couple the same statements. It was too dark to see any blood. That was why he did not see it.

But it was NOT too dark to see any blood. If it had been there and if it had been against the skin, it would have been something that he could have made out.

But instead of recognizing this, he feeds the inquest the information that it was too dark to enable for him (or anybody else) to see any blood.

It is an interesting difference. It may be down to how the paper reported it, and the carmen may have expressed themselves differently. But in the end, I find it very typical that this difference is there. Itīs always like that when we look at what was said at the inquest - Lechmere always leaves me with a feeling of having steered things in the direction he wanted to.

Others will laugh at this point, though!

The best,
Fisherman

I truly do not wish to be cruel Fisherman - especially as you always take the time and trouble to respond to my posts in some detail - but I do have to say that there is a noticeable inverse relationship between the length of your response here and the amount of sense it contains. I mean, to quibble about the phrasing of Paul's response in the Times is plain silly when it is perfectly obvious what he was saying, something that can be seen from the Daily Chronicle/Illustrated Police News report which summarises Paul's evidence as: "The night being dark he did not see any blood"(not to mention your favourite LWN interview of 2 Sept which reports that Paul told the journalist "It was too dark to see the blood about her".) Paul has the major advantage over both of us of actually having been in Buck's Row that night and his explanation at the inquest as to why he would not have seen any blood coming from the throat wound is credible, plausible, understandable, rational and, moreover, consistent with the known laws of physics. You are obviously an intelligent man and you must know that some areas of Buck's Row would have been darker than others - so the fact that Paul might have seen Cross standing in the middle of the road is neither here nor there.

[David Orsam]

I fail to see what else any pathologist can now bring to the table with regards to this.

I don't find that a very satisfactory response Trevor. Firstly, let me say that I fully agree with the purpose of your consulting the expert in the first place which was to demonstrate that Dr Llewellyn had no chance of accurately estimating time of death based on body temperature. That much is certain. Ironically, however, you (or your expert) introduced into the equation something which had been puzzling me, namely whether it was possible to draw any conclusions from the fact that Neil saw blood oozing from the throat wound at about 3:45am. I assume there must be a finite time that blood can ooze from the wound of a corpse before it stops or congeals. I mean, is it 24 hours? 10 hours? 5 hours? 1 hour? 30 minutes? 20 minutes? 15 minutes? 5 minutes? If the answer is, say, one hour then we can at least conclude with some certainty that time of death must have been between 2:45am and 3:40am, when the body was discovered. If it is less than one hour then we can narrow it down ever further. Now, your expert seemed to suggest that we can narrow it down to a maximum of about 20 minutes. (If he did not mean to say this then he probably should not have mentioned such a time). More intriguingly, your expert seemed to suggest that different factors (i.e. clamping v non clamping) could actually reduce this time. Now, while I appreciate that an expert might not want to estimate the length of time the blood would have flowed from the neck wound of Polly Nichols, he should be able to provide an interpretation of his own words and explain whether the clamping effect increases or reduces the time of the blood flow. Otherwise we are left in a state of some confusion.