Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

But if he was telling the truth he was being honest (as 'suicidal' for a killer as telling transparent lies). Would he really have fallen into the trap of giving himself enough time to waylay and kill Nichols if that is exactly what he did during those spare minutes? The real killer would surely have had the sense to lie about his departure time in such a scenario, effectively giving himself an alibi which would have been nigh on impossible to disprove.

Love,

Caz
X

Been there, done that, Caz. What if his wife waved farewell to him at 3.30 that morning, just as a nearby bell tolled the half hour? What if Mrs Lechmere said "3.30, dear, time for you to go" - how would he handle that at the inquest, if he wanted his actions to stay hidden from his wife?

You could just as easily say "Why would he kill, thatīs just dumb and the police may take you". You can say "He would not have been as stupid as to kill out in the open street".

Well, somebody did, Caz.

This reasoning of yours dovetails with Trevors absolutely ingenious suggestion that if I am wrong, then my theory falls. It came as a major shock to me when I realized he was right. The exact same applies here: If he was known as Cross at work, then that part of the theory falls. If he had no reason to say 3.30 to the coroner, then it would not have been very clever of him.

But we have no evidence at all for him having called himself Cross at work, so why would I buy that? And we have no way to know if there were reasons for him to say 3.30, so why should I accept that his doing so points away from him being the killer?

I will ask you the exact same thing I asked Trevor:

Lechmere has a number of aniomalies attaching to him. He lied about his true name, he seemingly fooled Mizen to pass him. He has the geography screaming "killer", just as the chronology pans out. Nicholsī blood was running from her cut neck at least five minutes after Lechmere had left her.

It works eminently, thus. But you still wonīt accept him as the probable killer, and you even make the odd attempt at mocking me. Why is that? Whatīs your problem with Lechmere? Why is it important to fight any suggestion that he was the killer, when men like Andy Griffiths and James Scobie clearly point a finger at him?

Why have so many posters forgotten to recognize a logical chain of guilt implications, when they are so very apt at throwing all kinds of muck at any theory? How could it be so very important to suggest that he may have used a name that we have no proof that he ever used, when we KNOW that he used another name? Why MUST Mizen be the liar, and not Lechmere?

These are in many ways more interesting questions than whether Lechmere had one, two, five, fifteen or twenty minutes on his hands to kill Nichols.

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

He lied about his true name

He did not.

[Robert]

What if Mrs Lechmere said "3.30, dear, time for you to go" - how would he handle that at the inquest, if he wanted his actions to stay hidden from his wife?

Is this the wife who, for all we know, he used to beat up, forcing one or two sons to stay living at home in order to protect her? (your idea, Fish)

[Fisherman]

Robert:

Fish, the correct use of the phrase 'by the side of' in the English language will depend on context and common sense. I recommend both to you.

Really? And what exact maximum distance between bodies will context and common sense dictate in our case? And who gets to decide it?

BTW, I noticed your 'Paul stumbling over Cross outside Brown's yard' remark on the other thread. Naughty, Fish.

Given the things you notice, it is odd how you consistently fail to notice the really important matters. One can actually stumble over a piece of information, Robert, but you rarely seem to do so if it represents anything of value to the case.

Now, that exact maximum distance, Robert. Please? Can we have it now, at long last? Is it not true that this is something we may interpret on our own? And that every interpretation that is not way of the mark is as viable as any other interpretation? Because that is what I think applies.

I sleep by the side of my wife every night, Robert. But our bed is a very broad one, so there can be a considerable distance inbetween us at times.

Would you care to tell me at what distances we are by each otherīs side, and at which we are not?

Or could you expand on the distance issue in a more precise way than jsut to say "it depends". One of the worst posters I have encountered out here often used to say that common sense ruled that he was right, but his common sense and my common sense differed wildly, so that wonīt do as an explanatory model.

If Lechmere sat on Nichols belly, and got up when he heard Paul, moving away from Nichols - at what exact distance did he loose the possibility to say that he was by Nichols side? Three inches? Seven? One foot? Two feet? Half a yard? A yard? Two yards? Three?

In all honesty, Robert - can there be a uniform answer to that question? And if the answer is "no", letīs move on and leave it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

He lied about his true name

He did not.

Yes, he did. His true name was Lechmere. The very best you can do is to present a hunch on your behalf that he may have used a name that he otherwise used at work.

And you know what? Even if this rather lofty suggestion is correct, it would not make Cross his true name anyway.

And why do you persist to throw the suggestion forward, when you have nothing to show for it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

What if Mrs Lechmere said "3.30, dear, time for you to go" - how would he handle that at the inquest, if he wanted his actions to stay hidden from his wife?

Is this the wife who, for all we know, he used to beat up, forcing one or two sons to stay living at home in order to protect her? (your idea, Fish)

No, thatīs not my idea. I have mentioned to you that Peter Kürten treated his wife as a queen, just as Gary Ridgway did with HIS wife.
And I have mentioned that some women are beaten up on and abused by their husbands.
Which applies - if any - in this case, is not something I canīt form any idea about.
But I CAN point out that we may need to form a broader understanding of case specifics than what is sometimes suggested out here. It is - as I keep pointing out - a complex world, Robert. What we think is by the side of something else, may not be so in other peopleīs eyes.

If he left home at exactly 3.30, and if his wife knew that, and if he tried to hide his killings from her - just how wise would it be to lie in this case?

Maybe you should ponder that?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

No, Fish, let's not move on. Your constant accusations that Crossmere was found by the side of Nichols is an attempt to describe a situation where he is taken unawares by Paul, a few inches from Nichols. No defence barrister would allow it.

Likewise your 'Paul stumbling over Cross' remark (note over Cross, not over a piece of information) is designed to convey an image of Crossmere being taken by surprise and of him being down low close to the ground, when in fact we know that Crossmere was the one who drew Paul's attention to Nichols.

Crossmere did not lie about his true name. He didn't call himself Charles Holmgren. He called himself Charles Cross and used his stepfather's surname.

And the wife-beating business arose when I suggested that Crossmere bore a good character inasmuch as he raised a large number of children and stayed with his wife and family. You replied that it proved nothing, as for all we knew he may have come home of an evening and beaten his wife and children. When I pointed out that this terrible family beater still had one or two adult children living with him in 1911, you suggested they may have stayed home to protect their downtrodden mother. Now however you are theorising that Crossmere may have been concerned what his wife would think if she found him in a lie. I suppose your meaning is either that he didn't want her to be worried, or that he himself was worried she might tell the police - neither of which fits in with a battered wife scenario.

Come on, Fish, you can do better than this.

[DRoy]

If he left home at exactly 3.30, and if his wife knew that, and if he tried to hide his killings from her - just how wise would it be to lie in this case?

Been there, done that, Caz. What if his wife waved farewell to him at 3.30 that morning, just as a nearby bell tolled the half hour? What if Mrs Lechmere said "3.30, dear, time for you to go" - how would he handle that at the inquest, if he wanted his actions to stay hidden from his wife?

Fish,

I thought he said 'around 3:30'?

You'd assume he'd leave for work every day at roughly the same time so why wouldn't he know what time it was on this day? Since he couldn't be specific, I can't see his wife knowing specifically when he left either. If she didn't know then why would he not save himself the trouble and just say he left later so there would be no time gap?

I also thought you suggested Lech using the name Cross so his wife wouldn't know it was him who found the body and had to testify at the inquest? If she knew about Lech testifying (as Cross, not Lech) then she could catch him in a lie when he said he left. If she didn't know about Lech testifying then the only person to back up when he left was himself. So again, why not give a later time to avoid the time gap?

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Robert: No, Fish, let's not move on. Your constant accusations that Crossmere was found by the side of Nichols is an attempt to describe a situation where he is taken unawares by Paul, a few inches from Nichols. No defence barrister would allow it.

Donīt be daft, Robert - you know full well that I am quite aware that no such scenario could be presented out here without people protesting vehemently - and correctly to an extent.

I know, you know and anybody who masters the fine art of reading and who has an interest in the case know that Lechmere was not taken unawares by Paul. It is in the records that he was out in the street, and he himself professes to having waited for Paul to come up to him. So he was anything nut unawares.

It would be stupid of me to lead on that he was. I have said numerous times that we should NOT expect him to be very close to Nichols, since he had a lot to win deceptionwise by moving away from her.

So donīt accuse me of doing something I never did, Robert. Stick to the truth, if you please!

I happen to think that you are extremely ridiculous to quibble over the semantics when it comes to Lechmereīs proximity to Nichols. Whether we say that he was found be her side, close to her. near her or something else, is totally uninteresting. The one and only thing that matters is that he was close enough to have been her killer!!!

If I am forced to make a guess about the distance between Lechmere and Nichols, I would NOT go with just a few inches. I would predispose that Lechmere followed plan once he had decided to try and con Paul, and that he would therefore be some was apart from her. Two, three yards would be a fair guess, I thin, but it could equally be four yards. I do NOT think that he was just a yard or less from her - but I can of course not prove that he wasnīt.

To me, two or three yards qualifies as by her side, and it qualifies as in close proximity to - but that is of no material consequence anyway. He was close ENOUGH, and that is ALL that will matter in the end.

Likewise your 'Paul stumbling over Cross' remark (note over Cross, not over a piece of information) is designed to convey an image of Crossmere being taken by surprise and of him being down low close to the ground, when in fact we know that Crossmere was the one who drew Paul's attention to Nichols.

No, it is not designed to convey anything else than how Paul did not expect to find a man in Bucks Row. You are being totally paranoid here, Robert!

Crossmere did not lie about his true name. He didn't call himself Charles Holmgren. He called himself Charles Cross and used his stepfather's surname.

And that name was NOT his real name. Lechmere was. And you KNOW that he used Lechmere in his contacts with authorities. If he never used his stepfathers surname otherwise, it is just as big a lie to say Cross as it would have been to say Holmgren. It would be using a name he otherwise NEVER used.

And the wife-beating business arose when I suggested that Crossmere bore a good character inasmuch as he raised a large number of children and stayed with his wife and family. You replied that it proved nothing, as for all we knew he may have come home of an evening and beaten his wife and children. When I pointed out that this terrible family beater still had one or two adult children living with him in 1911, you suggested they may have stayed home to protect their downtrodden mother. Now however you are theorising that Crossmere may have been concerned what his wife would think if she found him in a lie. I suppose your meaning is either that he didn't want her to be worried, or that he himself was worried she might tell the police - neither of which fits in with a battered wife scenario.

I am pointing out to you, Robert, that you produce the one simplistic "truth" after the other (if your boys stay at home, then you are a good father, if you earn money by being industrial, then you are a good guy). That wonīt do. We donīt know what he was about, but we DO know that there are lots of models that can explain how a family father with two boys at home can be a bad man! And we know that rich people can be bad eggs.

Come on, Fish, you can do better than this.

Says the man who is accusing me of consciously and deviously trying to mislead people. Nice, Robert. Really, really nice.

Now, Robert, go on and have a Merry Christmas. It is the time of year when we are supposed to harbour charitable thoughts about our fellow men. Maybe you should give that some long, hard afterthought before you think up the next sinister explanation to why I say things.

Personally, I wonīt go near this place over the holidays. I have better things to do than to have narrowminded people conjuring up a picture of me as a lying propagandist with an intent to lead the world astray.

All the very best, Robert. In all manners.
Fisherman

PS. Can I have that exact distance after the holidays?

[Fisherman]

Fish,

I thought he said 'around 3:30'?

You'd assume he'd leave for work every day at roughly the same time so why wouldn't he know what time it was on this day? Since he couldn't be specific, I can't see his wife knowing specifically when he left either. If she didn't know then why would he not save himself the trouble and just say he left later so there would be no time gap?

I also thought you suggested Lech using the name Cross so his wife wouldn't know it was him who found the body and had to testify at the inquest? If she knew about Lech testifying (as Cross, not Lech) then she could catch him in a lie when he said he left. If she didn't know about Lech testifying then the only person to back up when he left was himself. So again, why not give a later time to avoid the time gap?

Cheers
DRoy

And a Merry Christmas to you too, DRoy. My Christmas gift to you will be the revelation that the answers to your questions are in this thread and a number of other threads too.

The best,
Fiosherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Does it matter who the body was it could have been Aunt Ethel the cisrcumatance would still be the same and the opinion given would still be the same.

Thatīs where you will be wrong, Trevor. If the pathologist had commented on Nichols, he would have said so. He did in his former post, when he said that the bleeding would be over in the initial couple of minutes.

The question was again

You stated that a body could continue to bleed for up to 20 minutes after death. Is that the max time or could it be dependent on other factors?

What he says is

"I think that, though it might seem unlikely for a significant quantity of blood to be flowing out of a body several minutes after death, it would certainly be possible for blood still to be dripping / oozing out of a body 20 mins later. This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that was able to come out would have done so much sooner"

Yes, thatīs what the man says. He is NOT speaking of Nichols here, but instead of a generalized view, comprising his whole experience.

Now

Pc Neil --Blood oozing

Blood running, according to the Morning Advertiser, that quotes ad verbatim. My own belief is that BOTH running and oozing may have been mentioned, and I have pointed out various times that oozing need not mean that only a little blood flows - oozing points to the speed of the blood coming out, and it comes out slowly from a dead body.
On the net, you will find more than 800 exaples of the wording "oozed profusely", which should tell you that "ooze" relates primarily to the speed of the flow, and not to the amount.
If we want to disbelieve the Morning Advertiser, then we can turn to Mizen, who said that the blood was still running and appeared fresh. As he saw the body AFTER Neil, it could hardly had bled less when Neil saw the body, could it?

Dr Llewellyn -- Very Little blood around the neck

Llewellyn was there around fifteen to twenty minutes after Mizen. What did you expect?

Cross Notice no blood
Paul -Notices no blood

In neither case does it mean that it was not there, Trevor, We actually KNOW that it would have bee. - but it is interesting that Paul does not see the stream of blood running from the pool under Nicholsī neck down to the gutter.
Could it be that it had not yet flowed over when Paul was there? I find that a very useful suggestion.

So who is right I guess by the way you want your theory to pan out it must be Mizen.

NO, NO, NO, NO ,NO!!! My theory pans out eminently whether Mizen saw the blood running or not - we would STILL have Neil seeing it happen, and we would still know that she had in all probability been cut very close in time. Of course, Mizenīs testimony isolated Lechmere as the probable killer even further, but the crash and burn of my theory you seem to spend your nights dreaming about, would not happen even if Mizen had been blind, Trevor.

But of course even if your times are spot on, what you cant calculate for, which no one seems to have mentioned is the fact that Cross could have unintentionally disturbed the real killer. If that be the case no matter how much you champion your times as being correct you still cant prove Cross was the killer and still cannot dismiss the above alternative scenario.

There is always the possibility of a freak scenario, yes. Even if Nichols bled for an unexpectedly long time, as implied by Mizens words, she COULD always have bled three minutes longer. There are always these possibilitites. But why should we look for a freak possibility when we have a man like Lechmere in the frame, a man who lied about his name, who seemingly lied his way past the police, who had geographical and chronological ties to all the murders, who Andy Griffiths said had a lot of things pointing towards him and who Scobie said acted suspiciously, even saying that what we have on him would warrant a modern day trial?

Why on earth would we predispose that something freakish is to prefer to a man with this kind of pointers surrounding his appearance in the Ripper saga?

You keep saying that it must not have been him, Trevor. But why do you so utterly desperately not WANT it to have been him? Whatīs the lure? Why try and exonerate him at any cost?

I donīt get it.

The best,
Fisherman

Well get this, and look at it another way, in a nutshell you cannot prove Cross killed Nicholls you have not one scrap of tangible evidence to support this. Yes, you put him at the crime scene he found the body so what, someone had to find the body did they not?

Furthermore you cannot disprove the fact that Cross was not the killer and that perhaps he disturbed the real killer.

You experts were undoubtedly misled by what was presented to them. As a result of what they did say, you have got carried away with this theory, to the point you have become blinkered to all others things that relate to this, important things which you are not prepared to accept, things which go along way to negate your theory.

You also seem to rely heavily on press reports which we know can also be unreliable.

And the main smokescreen you have put up is with regards to the body bleeding.You keep being told that the evidence from the witnesses about what blood they did see or didn't see is unreliable yet you seem to want to interpret all of this in your own way to suit your own theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert]

Donīt be daft, Robert - you know full well that I am quite aware that no such scenario could be presented out here without people protesting vehemently - and correctly to an extent.

Well, you have presented that scenario, Fish, and I have protested vehemently, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. With respect, Fish, if this is not what you mean, then stop saying it.

Not everyone reading these threads has been into the matter as deeply as you or Ed. Some will be newcomers. I think it behoves us to try and describe these things neutrally. Phrases become established in Ripperology, and once established they can be difficult to shake off. "In close proximity to" would be fine.

And that name was NOT his real name. Lechmere was. And you KNOW that he used Lechmere in his contacts with authorities. If he never used his stepfathers surname otherwise, it is just as big a lie to say Cross as it would have been to say Holmgren. It would be using a name he otherwise NEVER used.

It is certainly not a lie to use one's stepfather's name. But if you think there was anything sinister in it, please present proof. Please show me the evidence that Crossmere was never known as 'Cross,' and that he did not mention the name 'Lechmere' when he gave his police statement.


I am pointing out to you, Robert, that you produce the one simplistic "truth" after the other (if your boys stay at home, then you are a good father, if you earn money by being industrial, then you are a good guy). That wonīt do

No, it won't - so it's just as well that I never said it. As I recall, we were discussing Mizen (he of the good grade) and I said that we were entitled to take Crossmere's character into account too, so far as we knew it - just as you had taken Mizen's character into account, as far as you knew it.

Now then, Fish, I wish you a Happy Christmas.

Can I have that exact distance after the holidays?

You must check your stocking, Fish, for Santa may give it to you as a gift - provided he is a cyborg.

[pinkmoon]

Well get this, and look at it another way, in a nutshell you cannot prove Cross killed Nicholls you have not one scrap of tangible evidence to support this. Yes, you put him at the crime scene he found the body so what, someone had to find the body did they not?

Furthermore you cannot disprove the fact that Cross was not the killer and that perhaps he disturbed the real killer.

You experts were undoubtedly misled by what was presented to them. As a result of what they did say, you have got carried away with this theory, to the point you have become blinkered to all others things that relate to this, important things which you are not prepared to accept, things which go along way to negate your theory.

You also seem to rely heavily on press reports which we know can also be unreliable.

And the main smokescreen you have put up is with regards to the body bleeding.You keep being told that the evidence from the witnesses about what blood they did see or didn't see is unreliable yet you seem to want to interpret all of this in your own way to suit your own theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,I think you have just summed up this whole situation an idea has just turned into case solved without any evidence I think the police would have looked at this at the time and quickly decided Mr cross wasn't the man they were looking for.Let's face it lack of evidence has never stoped anyone for proposing someone for the crown of jack the ripper before.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In ans wer to your post 1063.
There is no parallel that you speak of,in the case of Nicholls killing.There w as never a nine or so minute,on the way to work period,in which a serial killing took place,be it Sutcliffe or any other.You are getting irrational and ridiculous in your comparisons...Either Cross set out from home with an intent to find and kill a victim,or the idea came to him after he had left home that morning.Which was it?It's your theory.Clealy there was intent,on the part of someone.

[Tom_Wescott]

With all the bandwidth wasting quoting of 10 paragraphs only to reply with 10 words, to say nothing of the repetition, I thought I'd draw attention to something David Orsam posted on here recently that well and truly puts the brakes on the current version of the Lechmere theory. Most of us agree that the only reason found yet to suspect Lech is that he was found by Paul to be standing a few yards from Nichols' body. However, Fisherman states that the blood evidence is an even better reason and to support this he quotes newspapers showing Thain and Mizen to be stating the blood was still running at the time they came to the body. I interpreted Thain's words to be something different, but couldn't put the kabosh on Fish's interpretation.

But then Orsam posted another article from the Star that has Mizen referring to the blood as 'congealed' at the time he arrived. This means that Nichols had indeed been dead for a good amount of time and was not still dying when Mizen got on the scene. Pretty powerful stuff! In short, it means she was likely murdered well before Cross came on the scene.

The question this raises is why didn't Fisherman bring the Star article to our attention instead of Orsam? Fish and Ed have been ALL OVER the Nichols reports for years. They couldn't have missed it. What else are they hiding from us that might be exculpatory, I wonder?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott