Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[The Baron]

Nop, that won't work.

Paul:

"He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint."



The Baron

[Doctored Whatsit]

Nop, that won't work.

Paul:

"He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint."



The Baron

Oh dear, here we go again! We don't have the official record, unfortunately, but the Times records that he "fancied he felt a slight movement" at the time, but after the event he told Lloyds Weekly that he advised Mizen that Nichols was cold and long dead, and Lechmere confirms that Paul told Mizen she was dead. If he told Mizen that she was dead, then he had obviously rejected his earlier thought that she might still be alive.

But as I said previously, it isn't important.

[rjpalmer]

" 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

Hi Baron.

What you are implying is incorrect.

Lechmere being in the area is not circumstantial evidence of his involvement. As far as you can show, or Christer can show, Lechmere was exactly where he should have been.

In reality, there is strong circumstantial evidence that Lechmere was walking to work--just as he said he was.

If you can show that he didn't live in Doveton Street and didn't use that route to work and didn't need to pass up the street at around 3:40-3:45 then Lechmere would have some explaining to do to Inspector Helson, but you can't do that.

He has a perfectly rational explanation as to why he was near the crime scene, just as Paul does or the unidentified watchman for the railroad does, or the horse slaughterer's do, etc.

Failing at finding a reason why these folks shouldn't have been where they were that morning, your next best hope for credibly accusing Lechmere would be to prove he had a prior history of violence. If a woman was murdered along Peter Sutcliffe's route to work, and you could prove Sutcliffe had attacked various women in a similar manner, then the jury probably wouldn't like it. With Lechmere, he has no known history of violence, so the prosecution fails on that score, too.

As for Kozminski, I can't agree there is any 'direct' evidence of criminal liability.

Neither Lawende, nor Schwartz, described an act of homicide. The best it would be, if they saw Kozminski, would be circumstantial evidence. It wouldn't rise to the level of "direct evidence," and even Donald Swanson had doubts about the strength of both men's accounts.

Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

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.

Hi Geddy,

--an aside.

Personally, I invest zero faith in the F.B.I. "profile," but I couldn't help noticing that the calling card has it backwards.

John Douglas wrote that the 'Ripper' wouldn't have committed suicide after the last murder.

So, once again, Lechmere fills the bill (as does every other named suspect other than M.J. Druitt and Edward Buchan).

Cheers.

[The Baron]

The same old gut feeling, that Lechmere wouldn't kill on his way to work.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed Roger. But even then we have no evidence of him being a loner or of having any deformity. And he wasn’t interviewed by the police as a suspect as far as we know because he never was an suspect…and shouldn’t be now. He is no more likely a suspect than John Davis or John Richardson or Louis Diemschitz.

[FrankO]

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?

Hi George,

I don't know if you think that I dismiss Llewellyn's evidence, but if you do, I have to say that I don't dismiss it.

When I read the evidence, then there's the inquest evidence, in which coroner Baxter says:
"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards."

This is carried in more or less the same way by at least 5 newspapers, among which the Daily Telegraph, Morning Advertiser and Times of September 24. None of them say that it actually was Llewellyn's opinion that the mutilations came first, but that he seemed to incline to that opinion. Meaning that it wasn't a sure thing, which is supported further when Baxter said that it surely may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the wounds to the throat came first.

It stands out, to me at least, that in none of the versions of his inquest statement, Llewellyn is quoted as having said which wounds, in his opinion, came first. But it may be that I've missed at least one. If so, I'd be interested to see it.

And then, there are some articles from before his inquest appearance that tell us that he thought the wounds to the throat came first.

Morning Advertiser of September 1:
"Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae.

He does not believe that the woman was seized from behind, and that her throat was then cut; but thinks that a hand was held across her mouth, and the knife then used, possibly by a left handed man, as the bruising on the face of the deceased is such as would result from the mouth being covered, though with the right hand."

Daily News of September 3:
"Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming."

Lloyd's Weekly News of September 2:
"An interview was had with Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London hospital, and he most courteously gave his opinion of the manner of the murder. In effect he said that the woman was killed by the cuts in the throat -"

So, from all this evidence, it surely doesn't seem an established fact that Llewellyn's opinion was that the mutilations came first. He gave the coroner the impression that he leaned towards that opinion - probably by stating that one or more of the wounds to the abdomen was/were sufficient to cause instantaneous death in combination with the relatively small amount under the neck. So, because of that we can't dismiss it, but it's not a given that it was his opinion and that's why it's still discussed from time to time. That's why I said in my previous post "the evidence some of us are less/not convinced of, such as that the throat was cut after the mutilations."

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

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.

Amen to that, Mike.

[John Wheat]

Wether there is a gap or not of time. Lechmere is not guilty of murder.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wether there is a gap or not of time. Lechmere is not guilty of murder.

I can’t think of one single thing that even so much as raises an eyebrow John. He was a man exactly where he should have been at that time of day, walking to work, when he came across a the body of a woman who hadn’t been dead long. The killer had fled (as killers do p unlike Cross) He refuses to flee as a man approaches (proof of his complete innocence) they walked together and informed a police officer. He then turned up at the inquest and relates a 100% believable explanation of what happened. Move on - absolutely nothing to see here.

There’s a very slight disagreement on the wording of what was said to Mizen (he couldn’t have lied unless Paul was in on it - obvious proof that it was no lie. You couldn’t have had Cross telling a pack of lies just hoping that Paul wouldn’t mention it) but this utter triviality makes him guilty to some. Oh, and he uses his stepfathers surname (but he gives his correct forenames and correct address so it’s obvious that he wasn’t trying to deceive)

It’s a sad state of affairs when - three nothings make a clearly innocent man a suspect - he found a body, a slight confusion on wording, his use of his stepfathers name. What have we come to when he is considered a suspect and yet we have your favoured suspect, a man living very nearby who was violent, consorted with prostitutes, drank heavily, murdered and mutilated a woman and the murders stopped when he left town. You often get a response of ‘but it was his wife he killed!’ Oh well that’s alright then…he’s exonerated…it’s clear that his wife doesn’t count as a proper victim. It’s bizarre John but in terms of suspecthood Cross shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath as Bury. Rating Cross over someone like Bury is like saying that Frank Bruno was a better boxer than Muhammad Ali.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I don't know if you think that I dismiss Llewellyn's evidence, but if you do, I have to say that I don't dismiss it.

When I read the evidence, then there's the inquest evidence, in which coroner Baxter says:
"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards."

This is carried in more or less the same way by at least 5 newspapers, among which the Daily Telegraph, Morning Advertiser and Times of September 24. None of them say that it actually was Llewellyn's opinion that the mutilations came first, but that he seemed to incline to that opinion. Meaning that it wasn't a sure thing, which is supported further when Baxter said that it surely may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the wounds to the throat came first.

It stands out, to me at least, that in none of the versions of his inquest statement, Llewellyn is quoted as having said which wounds, in his opinion, came first. But it may be that I've missed at least one. If so, I'd be interested to see it.

And then, there are some articles from before his inquest appearance that tell us that he thought the wounds to the throat came first.

Morning Advertiser of September 1:
"Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae.

He does not believe that the woman was seized from behind, and that her throat was then cut; but thinks that a hand was held across her mouth, and the knife then used, possibly by a left handed man, as the bruising on the face of the deceased is such as would result from the mouth being covered, though with the right hand."

Daily News of September 3:
"Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming."

Lloyd's Weekly News of September 2:
"An interview was had with Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London hospital, and he most courteously gave his opinion of the manner of the murder. In effect he said that the woman was killed by the cuts in the throat -"

So, from all this evidence, it surely doesn't seem an established fact that Llewellyn's opinion was that the mutilations came first. He gave the coroner the impression that he leaned towards that opinion - probably by stating that one or more of the wounds to the abdomen was/were sufficient to cause instantaneous death in combination with the relatively small amount under the neck. So, because of that we can't dismiss it, but it's not a given that it was his opinion and that's why it's still discussed from time to time. That's why I said in my previous post "the evidence some of us are less/not convinced of, such as that the throat was cut after the mutilations."

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Thank for the references. Of the three newspaper references, only one states that Llewellyn thought that the cuts to the throat were made first, the other two stating that the throat cuts were the cause of death (implying not the mutilations???).

Baxter's comments on Sep 19 at the Chapman Inquest:
There is a difference in this respect, at all events, that the medical expert is of opinion that, in the case of Nicholls, the mutilations were made first.

Baxter's comments made of 22 Sep at the Nicholls Inquest:
Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards.

Both reveal Llewellyn's inclination, the second adding some speculation on Baxter's part. Could not "the object of such desperate injuries to the throat" be to silence her after a perceived regaining of consciousness?

Best regards, George

[John Wheat]

I can’t think of one single thing that even so much as raises an eyebrow John. He was a man exactly where he should have been at that time of day, walking to work, when he came across a the body of a woman who hadn’t been dead long. The killer had fled (as killers do p unlike Cross) He refuses to flee as a man approaches (proof of his complete innocence) they walked together and informed a police officer. He then turned up at the inquest and relates a 100% believable explanation of what happened. Move on - absolutely nothing to see here.

There’s a very slight disagreement on the wording of what was said to Mizen (he couldn’t have lied unless Paul was in on it - obvious proof that it was no lie. You couldn’t have had Cross telling a pack of lies just hoping that Paul wouldn’t mention it) but this utter triviality makes him guilty to some. Oh, and he uses his stepfathers surname (but he gives his correct forenames and correct address so it’s obvious that he wasn’t trying to deceive)

It’s a sad state of affairs when - three nothings make a clearly innocent man a suspect - he found a body, a slight confusion on wording, his use of his stepfathers name. What have we come to when he is considered a suspect and yet we have your favoured suspect, a man living very nearby who was violent, consorted with prostitutes, drank heavily, murdered and mutilated a woman and the murders stopped when he left town. You often get a response of ‘but it was his wife he killed!’ Oh well that’s alright then…he’s exonerated…it’s clear that his wife doesn’t count as a proper victim. It’s bizarre John but in terms of suspecthood Cross shouldn’t be mentioned in the same breath as Bury. Rating Cross over someone like Bury is like saying that Frank Bruno was a better boxer than Muhammad Ali.

Hi Herlock

I couldn't agree more with what you're saying.

Cheers John

[drstrange169]

"The same old gut feeling, that Lechmere wouldn't kill on his way to work."

It's not a "gut feeling". It is a statistical probability.
There has never been a recorded case of a serial killer committing their murders minutes before starting work.

For Lechmere to be the killer there needs to be a suspension of disbelief, a series of, "never before", events have to happen.
And that's where the problem lies.

[The Baron]

"The same old gut feeling, that Lechmere wouldn't kill on his way to work."

For Lechmere to be the killer there needs to be a suspension of disbelief, a series of, "never before", events have to happen.
And that's where the problem lies.

Thank you Dusty! I very much appreciate your comments!

I think the disagreement with Mizen about what had been said, the proximity to the TOD, and a possible time gap in witness statements, when the police are against a serie of unsolved murders warrant a suspicion that needs to be cleared.

It still a gut feeling Dusty, statics may enhance it but that is all, there is nothing physically impossible for a man on his way to work to commit a murder.


The Baron

[John Wheat]

Thank you Dusty! I very much appreciate your comments!

I think the disagreement with Mizen about what had been said, the proximity to the TOD, and a possible time gap in witness statements, when the police are against a serie of unsolved murders warrant a suspicion that needs to be cleared.

It still a gut feeling Dusty, statics may enhance it but that is all, there is nothing physically impossible for a man on his way to work to commit a murder.


The Baron

But there is zero evidence Lechmere was the murderer. Lechmere needs to be cleared of nothing he is a witness not a suspect.