Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[John Wheat]

I haven't read anything that can dispute this possibility, there is nothing on the other side except a gut feeling that Lechmere couldn't have been the ripper, he seemed quite innocent, he was a hard working guy, he wouldn't kill on his way to work.



The Baron

There's no evidence Lechmere murdered anyone though.

[The Baron]

" Types of evidence


There are two major types of evidence used in establishing in criminal liability.

1. Direct evidence — directly proves a fact. This type of evidence can include eyewitness testimony (Kosminski), video recordings, or confessions. It is considered the most reliable form of evidence and can be used to prove a defendant’s guilt or innocence.
2. Circumstantial evidence — suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. This type of evidence relies on inference and logical reasoning to draw conclusions. For example, if a defendant is seen in an area where a crime occurred (Lechmere), this could be circumstantial evidence of their involvement."

Added mine in brackets.


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

[*]Circumstantial evidence — suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. This type of evidence relies on inference and logical reasoning to draw conclusions. For example, if a defendant is seen in an area where a crime occurred (Lechmere), this could be circumstantial evidence of their involvement."

Awesome, you see I've been having this argument most of the day regarding circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence has to be able to be recorded and apply only to a small cohort of 'suspects.' Saying all the murder sites were on Lechmere's routes to work IS NOT circumstantial evidence because we can't record Lechmere's route to work and even if we could it would be open to a large population of Whitechapel at the time. Thinking about it I'm not even sure the Lechmere Theory even has much if any circumstantial evidence.

Charles hates Polly. Charles buys a gun. Polly is later found dead with Charles’s gun by her side having been shot with Charles’s gun. Charles is arrested and is found to have GSR on his hands showing he had recently fired a gun. All those things, Charles’s hatred of Polly, Charles buying a gun, the gun, the bullet fired from the gun which killed Polly and the test results that showed Charles had fired a gun, all of that is circumstantial evidence, and all of it can be recorded and noted.

Charles giving a false name in court cannot because he gave his legal name according to Deed Poll. Charles wearing his apron at the inquest is not because many others did the same at the Tabram and Chapman inquests according to the East London Observer. The more and more you look into the case of Cross the more you realise there is nothing there. It's all smoke and mirrors...

[John Wheat]

" Types of evidence


There are two major types of evidence used in establishing in criminal liability.

1. Direct evidence — directly proves a fact. This type of evidence can include eyewitness testimony (Kosminski), video recordings, or confessions. It is considered the most reliable form of evidence and can be used to prove a defendant’s guilt or innocence.
2. Circumstantial evidence — suggests a fact but does not directly prove it. This type of evidence relies on inference and logical reasoning to draw conclusions. For example, if a defendant is seen in an area where a crime occurred (Lechmere), this could be circumstantial evidence of their involvement."

Added mine in brackets.


The Baron

There is still no evidence Lechmere murdered anyone though.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

If we're assuming for a moment that Lechmere was guilty, then, yes, yours would be a plausible scenario, nicely fitting the evidence some of us are less/not convinced of, such as that the throat was cut after the mutilations. As you say, it's speculation, but there you go.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

It was, however, the opinion of the doctor who was actually there and conducted the autopsy. If it is assumed that Cross and Paul were only witnesses, it also fits the theory that Jack may have hidden and re-emerged after their departure, which would explain why they saw no throat wound and no blood.

On what basis can the medical evidence of the attending doctor be dismissed?

Best regards, George

[The Baron]

If Paul was right, and he detected what seemed to him as a faint breath, I am inclined to believe the throat cut was inflected after the mutilation.

And if Paul was right, oh that would leave Lechmere in a very very difficult situation!

But let's go with IF Paul was NOT right,... exactly as we did with Lechmere and Paul's timings.


The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some love to pick a cherry or two..



Holmgren warns about the use of cherry-picked data, evidence and information.

1) Holmgren believes Paul with regards to the time he entered Bucks Row - exactly 3:45am.
2) Holmgren does not believe Paul when he said 'The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.'
3) Holmgren does not believe Paul when he claims he went to Mizen alone.
4) Holmgren does not believe PCs Neil, Thain and Mizen with regards their times.
5) Holmgren believes 'so many independent data' is Paul and Llewellyn only. There are people who cite five witnesses more in line with 'so many.'
6) Holmgren does not believe Mizen with regards the 3:45 timing as Paul said he was in Bucks Row. (Notebook support.)
7) Holmgren however does believe Mizen with regards Lechmere telling him a Policeman wanted him in Bucks Row. (Notebook support.)
8) Holmgren does not believe Lechmere with regards him not killing Polly Nichols.
9) Holmgren does not believe Lechmere with regards his conversation with Mizen.
10) Holmgren does not believe Paul with his account of the meeting with Mizen.
11) Holmgren however does believe Lechmere regarding when he left home.
12) Holmgren does not believe Llewellyn with regards time of death because it could take time of death to about 3:30, 3:35 am.
13) Holmgren does believe Llewellyn that the abdominal wounds came first.
14) Holmgren does believe Baxter when he states the body was found not far from 3:45 am.
15) Holmgren does not believe Baxter when he doubts Llewellyn stating the abdominal wounds came first.
16) Holmgren does believe Mizen with regards to the blood evidence.
17) Holmgren believes PCs Mizen, Thain and Neil regarding the blood evidence but NOT as mentioned in respects to the timings.



So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Paul twice, but thinking he is a liar 3 times.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Mizen 3 times, but thinking he is a liar 3 times.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Lechmere once, but thinking he is a liar 3 times.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Llewellyn twice, but thinking he is a liar twice.
So from just 17 points we have Holmgren believing Baxter once, but thinking he is a liar once.

This is by far not an exhaustive list of Holmgren’s cherry-picking of the evidence. I find it astonishing he believes three Policemen when they give evidence on something they are not trained to do so in i.e. the blood. However he does not believe the very same three Policemen in regards timings, which of course would be a vital part of their jobs, especially Mizen as he was ‘knocking up’ folk for work duties.

Oh and the cherry to top all cherries from the latest Ripperologist is Holmgren claiming Baxter was a lair - “it must be noted that Coroner Baxter is not being entirely truthful.”

We know exactly what Baxter’s opinion was of course Geddy because it’s there to be read in black and white.

“The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

As I’ve said before this can only mean the three Constable’s and the Paul and certainly not Paul and Llewellyn (at no time can 2 be described as ‘so many’). I really can’t see how Dr. Llewellyn can be used as he gave an approximate time - ‘about 4.00.’ This fits the evidence. Neill called Thain at 3.45 and so probably sent him for the Doctor at around 3.46. David Orsam timed the walk at 5 minutes so he’d have arrived at around 3.51 which is ‘about 4.00.’ Of course we don’t know how Llewellyn’s clock/watch was in sync with the ones used by the Constables. So Dr. Llewellyn should trouble no one unless an attempt is being made to create a mystery where none exists.

This supports Baxter’s very clear position that the body was found around 4 or 5 minutes before Cross and Paul found Mizen. Paul said that no more than 4 minutes elapsed between the time that he met Cross and when they reached Mizen. So the discovery time, as per the Coroner had to have been at around 3.40 - 3.41. Few things in this case can be clearer that what Baxter was talking about.

Attempting to push the time back doesn’t fit the known evidence. So why is it done? I think that we all know why.

At the other end we have the time Cross walked from his home to Bucks Row. The problem with any suggestion of a gap is all about the difference between saying that something is possible or that something might have existed and stating as a fact that it did exist.

As far as I’m aware no one has ever said that it’s proven that Cross couldn’t have had enough time to have killed Nichols. This has never been one of the objections to him as a suspect (we have enough). The problem arises because in both book and documentary it’s stated that there must have been a gap. Which isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s a statement of fact and it’s simply wrong. There is a huge difference between the two positions. One side says “yes, it’s entirely possible that Cross had time to kill Nichols but we can know if he did or not.” While the other side says “ the evidence tells us that there must have been a suspiciously long gap of time.” The former is perfectly correct. The latter is perfectly incorrect.

Apart from the fact that we don’t know when Cross left the house (and neither did he) we don’t even know for anything like certain how long it would have taken him to walk from home to work. In 2014 David Orsam walked the route from Doveton Street to Bucks Row (allowing for the fact that he couldn’t get right to the murder site due to the work being done on the then new Elizabeth line) He first walked at a brisk pace (what he described as a good ‘decent aerobic workout’). He did it in 7 minutes.

We don’t know how quickly Cross walked though and of course we don’t know how tall he was compared to David to compare stride length. David describes himself as someone who tends to walk at quite a fast pace so he tried walking at a slower pace but keeping it to a pace that many people do naturally walk at (controlling his own inclination to walk quicker). An average kind of pace. He took 9 minutes 50 seconds to get to Bucks Row. So it’s reasonable to assume that Cross walked somewhere between the two but none of us should presume to say which unless we state that we know something that we cannot possibly know.

So…no one alive knows how long it took Charles Cross to walk from his home in Doveton Street to Bucks Row. It could have been as little as 7 minutes or up to 10 minutes. This is from someone actually walking the route and who was only looking to be as accurate as possible.

I won’t list the permutations (although I did it once before but without using the variations in walk time) But we would have to include examples like:

Left house at 3.30 - 8 mins walk - arrive 3.38 - Paul arrives 3.39 - find Mizen 3.43

Left house at 3.30 - 9 mins walk - arrive at 3.39 - Paul arrives 3.40 - find Mizen 3.44

Left house at 3.29 - 9 mins walk - arrive at 3.38 - Paul arrives 3.39 - find Mizen 3.43

Left house 3.31 - 8 minute walk - arrive at 3.39 - Paul arrives 3.40 - find Mizen 3.44

Left house 3.31 - 9 minute walk - arrive at 3.40 - Paul arrives 3.40 - find Mizen 3.44

Left house at 3.42 - 8 minute walk - arrive at 3.40 - Paul arrives 3.41 - find Mizen 3.45

Left house at 3.42 - 9 minute walk - arrive at 3.41 - Paul arrives at 3.42 - find Mizen at 3.45


There are many more variants which show no gap. But there are also variants that do show a gap of course.


Left house at 3.28 - 8 minute walk - arrive at 3.36 - Paul arrives at 3.40 - find Mizen at 3.44

Left house at 3.27 - 8 minute walk - arrive at 3.35 - Paul arrives at 3.41 - finds Mizen at 3.44


There are more examples of ‘gap’ and ‘no gap’ of course but the point is that none of us can possibly know which one actually occurred. And yet in the documentary and book it was claimed that this unknown was known. That there definitely was a gap. And THIS is the problem that we face. I’ll put it this simply:

I can’t possibly know if there was a gap or not.

Christer claims to know that there was a gap.


Only one of those two positions are correct and it’s not Christer’s.

[GBinOz]

We know exactly what Baxter’s opinion was of course Geddy because it’s there to be read in black and white.

“The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data.”

As I’ve said before this can only mean the three Constable’s and the Paul and certainly not Paul and Llewellyn (at no time can 2 be described as ‘so many’). I really can’t see how Dr. Llewellyn can be used as he gave an approximate time - ‘about 4.00.’ This fits the evidence. Neill called Thain at 3.45 and so probably sent him for the Doctor at around 3.46. David Orsam timed the walk at 5 minutes so he’d have arrived at around 3.51 which is ‘about 4.00.’ Of course we don’t know how Llewellyn’s clock/watch was in sync with the ones used by the Constables. So Dr. Llewellyn should trouble no one unless an attempt is being made to create a mystery where none exists.

This supports Baxter’s very clear position that the body was found around 4 or 5 minutes before Cross and Paul found Mizen. Paul said that no more than 4 minutes elapsed between the time that he met Cross and when they reached Mizen. So the discovery time, as per the Coroner had to have been at around 3.40 - 3.41. Few things in this case can be clearer that what Baxter was talking about.

Attempting to push the time back doesn’t fit the known evidence. So why is it done? I think that we all know why.

At the other end we have the time Cross walked from his home to Bucks Row. The problem with any suggestion of a gap is all about the difference between saying that something is possible or that something might have existed and stating as a fact that it did exist.

As far as I’m aware no one has ever said that it’s proven that Cross couldn’t have had enough time to have killed Nichols. This has never been one of the objections to him as a suspect (we have enough). The problem arises because in both book and documentary it’s stated that there must have been a gap. Which isn’t a matter of opinion; it’s a statement of fact and it’s simply wrong. There is a huge difference between the two positions. One side says “yes, it’s entirely possible that Cross had time to kill Nichols but we can know if he did or not.” While the other side says “ the evidence tells us that there must have been a suspiciously long gap of time.” The former is perfectly correct. The latter is perfectly incorrect.

Apart from the fact that we don’t know when Cross left the house (and neither did he) we don’t even know for anything like certain how long it would have taken him to walk from home to work. In 2014 David Orsam walked the route from Doveton Street to Bucks Row (allowing for the fact that he couldn’t get right to the murder site due to the work being done on the then new Elizabeth line) He first walked at a brisk pace (what he described as a good ‘decent aerobic workout’). He did it in 7 minutes.

We don’t know how quickly Cross walked though and of course we don’t know how tall he was compared to David to compare stride length. David describes himself as someone who tends to walk at quite a fast pace so he tried walking at a slower pace but keeping it to a pace that many people do naturally walk at (controlling his own inclination to walk quicker). An average kind of pace. He took 9 minutes 50 seconds to get to Bucks Row. So it’s reasonable to assume that Cross walked somewhere between the two but none of us should presume to say which unless we state that we know something that we cannot possibly know.

So…no one alive knows how long it took Charles Cross to walk from his home in Doveton Street to Bucks Row. It could have been as little as 7 minutes or up to 10 minutes. This is from someone actually walking the route and who was only looking to be as accurate as possible.

I won’t list the permutations (although I did it once before but without using the variations in walk time) But we would have to include examples like:

Left house at 3.30 - 8 mins walk - arrive 3.38 - Paul arrives 3.39 - find Mizen 3.43

Left house at 3.30 - 9 mins walk - arrive at 3.39 - Paul arrives 3.40 - find Mizen 3.44

Left house at 3.29 - 9 mins walk - arrive at 3.38 - Paul arrives 3.39 - find Mizen 3.43

Left house 3.31 - 8 minute walk - arrive at 3.39 - Paul arrives 3.40 - find Mizen 3.44

Left house 3.31 - 9 minute walk - arrive at 3.40 - Paul arrives 3.40 - find Mizen 3.44

Left house at 3.42 - 8 minute walk - arrive at 3.40 - Paul arrives 3.41 - find Mizen 3.45

Left house at 3.42 - 9 minute walk - arrive at 3.41 - Paul arrives at 3.42 - find Mizen at 3.45


There are many more variants which show no gap. But there are also variants that do show a gap of course.


Left house at 3.28 - 8 minute walk - arrive at 3.36 - Paul arrives at 3.40 - find Mizen at 3.44

Left house at 3.27 - 8 minute walk - arrive at 3.35 - Paul arrives at 3.41 - finds Mizen at 3.44


There are more examples of ‘gap’ and ‘no gap’ of course but the point is that none of us can possibly know which one actually occurred. And yet in the documentary and book it was claimed that this unknown was known. That there definitely was a gap. And THIS is the problem that we face. I’ll put it this simply:

I can’t possibly know if there was a gap or not.

Christer claims to know that there was a gap.


Only one of those two positions are correct and it’s not Christer’s.

Hi Herlock,

A comprehensive analysis. Christer also came up with a 7 minute walk, so that may be a fair estimate, but I struggle to see the relevance. It is unlikely that the killer picked Polly up in Bucks Row, so the relevant walk time is more probably from Doveton St to wherever Polly was picked up (Whitechapel Rd??) plus the time from there to Brown's stable yard where perhaps she hoped the door may not be locked. The only exception I can think of is she was rough sleeping in the gateway. But the entire exercise revolves around an assessment with Cross as the killer, so why should we accept a killer's word for the time that he left home? Even if the whispering that Harriet Lilley heard at 3:30 involved Cross, which fits Llewellyn's estimate (or guess if current thinking is adopted), it doesn't mean that Cross couldn't have been there, just that he left home earlier than stated. I tend to agree with you that if a gap exists its size is imponderable. Also, the walked path selected for timing is probably incorrect anyway. To my mind, the aural considerations regarding hard soled boots of two men walking in an enclosed street approximately 50-60 yards apart is far more relevant.

Cheers, George

P.S. Good win for Australia over India in the fifth test. A shame Bumrah was injured and couldn't make it a more even contest. We have regained the Border-Gavaskar trophy and qualified for the WTC against.....South Africa?? I'm looking forward to the Ashes later this year.

[John Wheat]

When was Lechmere on the hook? Why is a witness being entertained as a suspect with no evidence whatsoever that they murdered anyone? Lechmere is so clearly an innocent man that it's in bad taste to acuse him of murder.

[Doctored Whatsit]

If Paul was right, and he detected what seemed to him as a faint breath, I am inclined to believe the throat cut was inflected after the mutilation.

And if Paul was right, oh that would leave Lechmere in a very very difficult situation!

But let's go with IF Paul was NOT right,... exactly as we did with Lechmere and Paul's timings.


The Baron

Paul may have momentarily considered the possibility that Nichols was still alive, but he totally rejected that possibility. According to Lloyds Weekly, he told them, "I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold.... I thought she had been outraged and died in the struggle." He then went on to say that he found a policeman and was disappointed to see him respond so slowly, "after I had told him she was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead for some time." Lechmere confirms what Paul said to Mizen, saying that he thought she was either drunk or dead, but the other man (Paul) said she was dead.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

A comprehensive analysis. Christer also came up with a 7 minute walk, so that may be a fair estimate, but I struggle to see the relevance. It is unlikely that the killer picked Polly up in Bucks Row, so the relevant walk time is more probably from Doveton St to wherever Polly was picked up (Whitechapel Rd??) plus the time from there to Brown's stable yard where perhaps she hoped the door may not be locked. The only exception I can think of is she was rough sleeping in the gateway. But the entire exercise revolves around an assessment with Cross as the killer, so why should we accept a killer's word for the time that he left home? Even if the whispering that Harriet Lilley heard at 3:30 involved Cross, which fits Llewellyn's estimate (or guess if current thinking is adopted), it doesn't mean that Cross couldn't have been there, just that he left home earlier than stated. I tend to agree with you that if a gap exists its size is imponderable. Also, the walked path selected for timing is probably incorrect anyway. To my mind, the aural considerations regarding hard soled boots of two men walking in an enclosed street approximately 50-60 yards apart is far more relevant.

Cheers, George

P.S. Good win for Australia over India in the fifth test. A shame Bumrah was injured and couldn't make it a more even contest. We have regained the Border-Gavaskar trophy and qualified for the WTC against.....South Africa?? I'm looking forward to the Ashes later this year.

Hi George,

It’s all about incorrectly stating something as a fact which is what was done when in book and documentary. We don’t know when he left the house, we don’t know how long it took to walk so we can’t know what time he arrived. It’s possible that he had time to kill Nichols; it’s possible that he didn’t. Those that don’t think that Cross was the killer aren’t making an unfounded claim because we are saying that we don’t know. Christer and co. are making an unfounded claim. It couldn’t be less complicated.

Yes, a good result for the Aussies (the absence of Bumrah is always going to help an opposition but it’s certainly not to say that Australia still wouldn’t have won had he been playing.) I always look forward to an Ashes series though I have a bad feeling for England on the upcoming contest. Bazball is even more of a risk against the Aussies. England play to entertain and win. The Aussies play to win (failing that, not to lose) They entertain but it’s a secondary consideration to the result.

[The Baron]

Paul may have momentarily considered the possibility that Nichols was still alive, but he totally rejected that possibility. According to Lloyds Weekly, he told them, "I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold.... I thought she had been outraged and died in the struggle." He then went on to say that he found a policeman and was disappointed to see him respond so slowly, "after I had told him she was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead for some time." Lechmere confirms what Paul said to Mizen, saying that he thought she was either drunk or dead, but the other man (Paul) said she was dead.

So where are we going from here exactly?! That Paul didn't detect what he thought might have been a faint breath?!

And are you sure you didn't get this mixed up?!

Cross:

"They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is"

As predicted, we adopt the IF Paul was Not right approach.


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

So where are we going from here exactly?! That Paul didn't detect what he thought might have been a faint breath?!

That is the huge problem with this particular case, the press reports vary. In Steven Blomer's book Inside Bucks Row he has listed all the newspaper reports, it's all we have left and like I said unfortunately some differ. Some say Cross walked down Parson St on his way to work, no such street existed at the time. Two papers say he left him at 3:20am but most state about 3:30am. For me the safe choice is to take what the majority do.

Of course the golden nugget here is the Remarkable Statement by Paul which was not under oath. Holmgren in Cutting Point, page 66 states:


The Lloyd's article “contains material that needs to be treated with caution.”

However on page 89 he relies 100% on the very same article being 100% accurate for the timings to suit the mythical gap regarding Paul's exactly 3:45am timing for getting to Bucks Row. Seriously you can't make it up, although Holmgren has tried bless him.

[Geddy2112]

If I may I was going to post this on the other thread that got shut down. There rjpalmer suggested some form of issue with Lechmere's appearance re a possible physical abnormality.

I found this...



...so yes if Roger is correct then it's safe to say Lechmere was Jack The Ripper.

[Doctored Whatsit]

So where are we going from here exactly?! That Paul didn't detect what he thought might have been a faint breath?!


The Baron

We are going exactly where I said. Paul may have momentarily considered the possibility that Nichols was still alive, but his statement afterwards seems to demonstrate clearly that he totally rejected this possibility. He told Mizen that she was long dead according to what he told the journalist, and Lechmere says also that Paul told Mizen that she was dead. That was what I wrote, what was printed in Lloyds Weekly, and what Lechmere said on oath.

It isn't important, but the evidence available suggests that he considered a possibility, and then shortly afterwards had rejected it. We've all done that.