Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

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.

Agreed! The ONLY thing Christer and a few others have latched on to is that at least this "suspect" can be placed at the scene of the crime at or very near the time of the murder. Lechmere may even have known she was dead and gave his stepfather's name because he didn't want to get involved; after all, Emma Smith and Martha Tabram had been murdered and the area was buzzing about the deaths. No other suspect can be placed at the scene of the crime so closely. However, this is not nearly enough to place the noose about his neck. Having said that, he's a damn sight better than other poor souls like Lewis Carroll and Walter Sickert!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed! The ONLY thing Christer and a few others have latched on to is that at least this "suspect" can be placed at the scene of the crime at or very near the time of the murder. Lechmere may even have known she was dead and gave his stepfather's name because he didn't want to get involved; after all, Emma Smith and Martha Tabram had been murdered and the area was buzzing about the deaths. No other suspect can be placed at the scene of the crime so closely. However, this is not nearly enough to place the noose about his neck. Having said that, he's a damn sight better than other poor souls like Lewis Carroll and Walter Sickert!

It’s a case of picking absolutely the lowest hanging fruit. Every single person that ever found a body was ‘there.’ Anyone finding a body in the streets is very likely to have found a ‘freshly killed’ one, to use that unpleasant phrase, because a body in the street couldn’t stay undiscovered for long as compared to, for example, a body found in the countryside by a dog walker. No matter the medical evidence the victim had to have been killed recently after Neil had passed.

So there has to be more than ‘he was there.’

In an area that he shouldn’t have been? Nope. Out and about far earlier than he needed to be to get to work on time? Nope. Behaving suspiciously? Nope. Trying to escape? Nope. Previous record of violence against women (or anyone)? Nope. Sighted near other murder locations? Nope. Suspected by the police or anyone at the time? Nope. Reason for the cessation of the murders? Nope.

Not a thing.

[Geddy2112]

I think the disagreement with Mizen about what had been said

See this is one of the things that gets me with Team Lechmere. They point to all this 'circumstantial' evidence (most of it is not) but they can't say WHY. That is the point here...

1) He lied to Mizen, okay... so what. How does that make you a murderer?
2) He gave a false name in court (he didn't) but so what how does that make you a killer?
3) He wore his apron in court, how is that a sign of guilt?
4) He refused to move a dead body, that proves he is guilty how?

...and the list goes on. You never get the WHY out of them just the same repeated rubbish, they can never quantify their statements with reason or proof. I was told yesterday lots of serial killers change their name. So I asked out of the 3000 or so listed serial killers give me 20 who have changed their names, the reply was two screenshots from the internet of ones WHO HAVE NOT ever changed their names like Hindley and Napper. This is what we are up against and this shining example came from Ms Clapp... dear me.

[FrankO]

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

Hi George,

Thanks for the reference to Baxter’s comment at the Chapman inquest. I missed that, because I was concentrating on (the inquest into) the murder of Polly Nichols. That reference gives us, undeniably, a clear statement and one more reason why not to dismiss Llewellyn’s opinion on which wounds were inflicted first.

What, however, remains curious is that none of Llewellyn’s inquest statement versions clearly support that statement. In fact, they go better with what Baxter said in his summing up: “Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death;”

As to your notion that only one of the three newspaper references states that Llewellyn thought that the cuts to the throat were made first, while the other two state that the throat cuts were the cause of death, I have to say the following.
Llewellyn also clearly stated at the inquest and outside of it that at least one of the abdominal wounds was sufficient to cause death, just as he said that of the throat wounds. So, if he said that the woman was killed by the throat wounds, wouldn’t that imply that they were done first (and then instantly caused death)? Or, the other way around, if he thought that one or even all of the abdominal wounds were done before the cuts to the throat, wouldn’t he have said that at least that abdominal wound was done first (and then caused instantaneous death)?

What I also find interesting is that in the Daily News of September 3 stated that he maintained his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, which clearly implies that this newspaper heard him give that opinion on at least an earlier occasion.

Because of all of this, I think that, unfortunately, we can’t state with any certainty what Llewellyn’s opinion really was. The best I think we might say is what Baxter said: that he “seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death.”


Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

See this is one of the things that gets me with Team Lechmere. They point to all this 'circumstantial' evidence (most of it is not) but they can't say WHY. That is the point here...

1) He lied to Mizen, okay... so what. How does that make you a murderer?
2) He gave a false name in court (he didn't) but so what how does that make you a killer?
3) He wore his apron in court, how is that a sign of guilt?
4) He refused to move a dead body, that proves he is guilty how?

...and the list goes on. You never get the WHY out of them just the same repeated rubbish, they can never quantify their statements with reason or proof. I was told yesterday lots of serial killers change their name. So I asked out of the 3000 or so listed serial killers give me 20 who have changed their names, the reply was two screenshots from the internet of ones WHO HAVE NOT ever changed their names like Hindley and Napper. This is what we are up against and this shining example came from Ms Clapp... dear me.

This is a point I’ve been making for a while. Christer regularly used ‘crime history’ to make a point. Numerous times he ab]nd various supporters have done it but ask them, from crime history, how many serial killers killed and mutilated a victim 15/20 minutes before being due to clock on at work? Ask them how many serial killers, given the opportunity of escape, stood around with the bloodied weapon on him, waiting for a complete stranger to arrive? All of a sudden crime history becomes unimportant or you get an embarrassed silence and an attempt to move the discussion on. Of course the real answers to your 4 are:

1) He didn’t lie. There was a misunderstanding of what was said. Cross couldn’t have told a lie without Paul hearing it and spilling the beans.
2) He didn’t. He gave his stepfather’s name which was likely to have been the name that he used at the time. He also gave his correct first names and address proving that he wasn’t trying to deceive.
3) It’s not. It’s just about the least relevant fact in the entire case.
4) in one newspaper version. In another it’s Paul that refused. It makes no difference as an unwillingness to touch a corpse is a perfectly normal human instinct. One that would obviously be absent in a serial killer.

[FrankO]

I was told yesterday lots of serial killers change their name. So I asked out of the 3000 or so listed serial killers give me 20 who have changed their names, the reply was two screenshots from the internet of ones WHO HAVE NOT ever changed their names like Hindley and Napper. This is what we are up against and this shining example came from Ms Clapp... dear me.

They shouldn't focus on serial killers, Geddy, they should aks themselves how common or uncommon it was for people to use another name than their birth name back in the LVP.

[FrankO]

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

It's clear that he thought he felt some movement in the chest, Baron. No problem there. But, if he actually seriously/strongly felt she was still alive, one might have expected him to have behaved a little different than he actually did according to the evidence we're left with. Yet, he didn't immediately run for someone at the London Hospital, or propose that one of them went there, or run for a copper, or scream for help. And he didn't stress anything of the kind to Mizen. In fact, if we're to believe Mizen, he didn't say anything about the woman possibly still alive to him. So, his known behaviour at least suggests that he didn't really think she was still alive or, at the very least, salvageable. That's where I think we're going.

[Doctored Whatsit]

They shouldn't focus on serial killers, Geddy, they should aks themselves how common or uncommon it was for people to use another name than your birth name back in the LVP.

Agreed. Frankly, I think it is absolutely normal behaviour to take your step-father's name when your true father abandons you and your mother when you are an infant. What respect could he possibly have for his father's name?

[The Baron]

It's clear that he thought he felt some movement in the chest, Baron.




But, if he actually seriously/strongly felt she was still alive, one might have expected him to have behaved a little different than he actually did

Your first sentence contradict your second sentence.

All these exercises, his timings, his observation etc.. are just running about how we can draw an inaccurate Paul and save Lechmere's neck.


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

It's clear that he thought he felt some movement in the chest, Baron. No problem there. But, if he actually seriously/strongly felt she was still alive, one might have expected him to have behaved a little different than he actually did according to the evidence we're left with. Yet, he didn't immediately run for someone at the London Hospital, or propose that one of them went there, or run for a copper, or scream for help. And he didn't stress anything of the kind to Mizen. In fact, if we're to believe Mizen, he didn't say anything about the woman possibly still alive to him. So, his known behaviour at least suggests that he didn't really think she was still alive or, at the very least, salvageable. That's where I think we're going.

...and of course if Lechmere the killer thought Paul thought she was still alive he more than likely would have had to 'silence' them both.

[Templarkommando]

I have a quick disclaimer - I actually like Lechmere as a suspect, but I want to try your exercise here.

So, we have the task of getting Mr. Lechmere off the hook. The problem for any suspect in the Ripper Case is that hypothetically, you have to have a prosecution team and investigatory team that is able to competently get Mr. Lechmere convicted in a court of law. The standard of proof for a murder conviction - and I believe this applies in 19th Century London - is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now, it bears mention here, that reasonable doubt means something, it doesn't just mean that any conceivable possibility could present a good alternative. So, if we wanted to interject space aliens, or time travelers, or super powers into our theory of who committed the murders that we are considering - those theories wouldn't really qualify as reasonable. What we're looking for is whether there is any theory that could reasonably explain these homicides to the exclusion of the Lechmere theory.

One of the major pieces of evidence that points to Lechmere as a possible suspect has to do with his discovery of Polly Nichols in Buck's Row. Is there any theory which could reasonably explain the death of Polly Nichols and also doesn't involve Charles Lechmere as her murderer?

Consider the extant suspect list that we have available. Is it reasonably possible that Polly Nichols was murdered by Severin Klosowski? If you don't think that Klosowski did it, what about Aaron Kosminski? It seems to me that if you can't go down the suspect list and look at each entry and say "This suspect definitely/certainly didn't commit this murder based on the evidence available" for every single suspect, then you have a big problem overcoming the barrier of reasonable doubt.

As to the Mizen Scam, are there any other possibilities that could explain Lechmere's statement to Mizen that there was an officer waiting for him in Buck's Row? Could Lechmere have wrongly assumed that one of the local beat cops had already found Nichols by the time that he and Paul came in contact with Mizen? What if Lechmere was up to something else illegal, and just wanted Mizen out of the way, so he made up a quick lie to cover that.... let's say Lechmere wanted to pick Paul's pocket? Or instead, maybe he was carrying a stolen ring or a pocket watch, and he didn't want Mizen to look too closely. Or maybe he was just in a hurry to get to work, and wanted to avoid the bother of getting the fifth degree so he embroidered the truth to get himself down the road a little faster. Being uncaring and irresponsible doesn't necessarily mean that you're a murderer.

So, let's say we're in the role of the defense team for a minute. One really telling moment in a court proceeding would be during the testimony of the official investigators. You need to ask every officer that's up there "I just need a yes or no: In your mind are there any reasonably possible suspects for this murder that are not the defendant?" Now, maybe the officers we're interviewing march in lockstep, and say that there are no other reasonable suspects, but I would argue that you would probably have a few of these guys that would say that they aren't sure if some of the others didn't kill Polly Nichols or not - or any of the other victims for that matter. Also, even if these guys do march in lockstep, there's a reason that the defense is usually allowed to call its own witnesses. So, the defense team needs to call private investigators and trusted newspapermen that have followed the case and ask them that same question

If you can get one or two of the investigators to admit to reasonable uncertainty in open court you need to hammer that home in closing arguments.

One final note. I ask a lot of questions in this post, I don't actually mean for them to be answered - I intend them to be rhetorical. The bottom line of this post would be to get Lechmere off the hook by attempting to present a robust criminal defense that leans on the standard of reasonable doubt. Roll the dice in court, and see how they land.

[FrankO]

Your first sentence contradict your second sentence.

How, Baron, how? If anyone contradicted himself, it was Paul by first implying that the poor woman was still alive and then what did he do? Nothing to try and save her life. Or do you have evidence up your sleeve saying that he reacted otherwise? Or else tell me how it is that he should have reacted after discovering that she was still alive.

All these exercises, his timings, his observation etc.. are just running about how we can draw an inaccurate Paul and save Lechmere's neck.

Whatever, Baron. Whatever...

[FrankO]

...and of course if Lechmere the killer thought Paul thought she was still alive he more than likely would have had to 'silence' them both.

Exactly, Geddy.

[John Wheat]

Your first sentence contradict your second sentence.

All these exercises, his timings, his observation etc.. are just running about how we can draw an inaccurate Paul and save Lechmere's neck.


The Baron

No there not. There is no evidence whatsoever that Lechmere murdered anyone.

[Abby Normal]

lech being alone with a victim near tod is certainly circumstantial evidence. in todays policing world anyone who "discovers" a body is considered at least a person of interest until cleared. apparently they didnt always follow that back then and it seems he was never cleared. hes clearly in the frame to be pollys killer, especially with no other viable POIs or suspects for her murder or anyone else seen with her around her TOD.