Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[rjpalmer]

I think the question of why Paul didn't interject if a scam was intended is a fair one. It's been... a very hot minute since since I've seen that one explained. Do you recall any attempted explanations being given? I seem to remember that there was one about maybe Paul being scared of Lechmere as being the reason for Paul not correcting him. I don't know if that one was offered seriously or not though.

The explanation I've seen from Christer is that Lechmere somehow managed to separate himself from Paul long enough to speak to Mizen alone.

It's not convincing due to Paul's own description of what happened.

I don't want to be too hard on Ed and Christer, but I strongly disagree with this 'leveling the playfield' by stating that 'all suspects are weak.'

It's a cloudy way to go about things because there is a very fundamental difference in what make various suspects 'weak' that is seldom appreciated. The term 'weak' is too vague to be useful.

The case against Druitt or the City Suspect or Kosminski are 'weak' in the sense that we don't fully know what it is. There are other suspects mentioned by the police about which there is virtually no discussion, and whom we have next to no information, and thus we have no way of accessing why they were named or what the 'evidence' against them might have been. With Hutchinson, to take one example, there is even doubt about his identity.

Lechmere is an entirely different kettle of fish (no pun).

For good or bad, we know EXACTLY what the 'evidence' against Lechmere is because it is a 'case' developed by modern theorists who are still alive and are telling us--primarily Ed Stow and Christer Holmgren.

If one concludes the case against him is 'weak' it comes from a position of knowledge. We know what they are calling 'evidence' and the discussion becomes heated.

The case against the City Suspect might be labeled 'weak,' but it doesn't come from a position of knowledge, it comes from a position of our shared ignorance. He hasn't even been positively identified, and we don't even have a clear idea as to why he was being watched.

Calling both suspects "weak" is comparing apples to fog, and I don't think that is very meaningful.

[Templarkommando]

There is absolutely no evidence Paul was scared of Lechmere, he was wary of the area hence he dropped the shoulder in Bucks Row but nothing suggests Paul was afraid of Cross or he would have said 'Here mate I work in the next street, Deal Street so we will be parting company' but no he held on until Corbet Court right near the end of Hanbury Street before parting company.
The Mizen Scam itself is the scam...

I will agree with you that there seems to be no evidence that strictly says that Paul was afraid of Lechmere. I was trying to recall whether I had read a given explanation for why Paul didn't speak up if - in fact - Lechmere lied to Mizen about there being a policeman in Buck's Row.

[The Baron]

Cross

"He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down."


The Baron

[FrankO]

The explanation I've seen from Christer is that Lechmere somehow managed to separate himself from Paul long enough to speak to Mizen alone.

That's correct, Roger. He bases the notion that Paul was out of earshot on the term "in the company of/with", which according to him doesn't necessarily means that the two persons who are in company with another, have to be close to each other, meaning within 1, 2 or 3 yards from one another. Of course, he's generally correct, but in this case it simply doesn't seem that Paul and Cross left one another before Paul turned into Corbet Court.

The other thing he used was a phrase (in bold) from Mizen's statement as it was given by the Echo of September 3: "By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

According to him, that phrase could or shoud (I don't remember which) be taken as "Paul went down Hanbury Street whilst Lechmere was talking to Mizen. While that would be a very awkward way of saying such a thing, there are 2 other newspapers that worded the thing more clearly.

The first is the Star of September 3, which has it thus: "Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street."

And the second is the Times of September 4: "When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street."

Cheers,
Frank

[John Wheat]

Abby and I disagree on very few things but this is one. I absolutely believe that Cross is one of the weakest suspects named and in the 40 years that I’ve been interested in the case I’ve never seen such a propaganda campaign employed to promote him. Id place him below Hutchinson, below Mann, below Levy, below Hyams below Richardson below Diemschitz and I don’t think that any of them were the ripper. Not even on the same planet as some suspects.

Hi Herlock

I totally agree with this. Lechmere was a witness and shouldn't have been given suspect status. He's a clearly innocent man.

[Abby Normal]

Abby and I disagree on very few things but this is one. I absolutely believe that Cross is one of the weakest suspects named and in the 40 years that I’ve been interested in the case I’ve never seen such a propaganda campaign employed to promote him. Id place him below Hutchinson, below Mann, below Levy, below Hyams below Richardson below Diemschitz and I don’t think that any of them were the ripper. Not even on the same planet as some suspects.

yes herlock we rarely disagree, but its not that often you are wrong. heehee. just kidding my friend, and i do agree with you re the lech propaganda campaign and over egging!

happy new year buddy! : )

[Abby Normal]

I will agree with you that there seems to be no evidence that strictly says that Paul was afraid of Lechmere. I was trying to recall whether I had read a given explanation for why Paul didn't speak up if - in fact - Lechmere lied to Mizen about there being a policeman in Buck's Row.

i think theres some evidence paul was scared of lech, i mean who wouldnt be!?! paul said he had some fear of the gangs who would rob people, and trepidation (or something like that) when he saw lech, and tried to move around him.

but this made me think. why wasnt lech fearful of paul, i mean he just discovered a downed woman in the dark street, one which apparently had a bad reputation, and here comes someone toward him? i think they should have been a little fearful or at least cautious of each other, no? lech acts almost kind of agressively toward paul.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the question of why Paul didn't interject if a scam was intended is a fair one. It's been... a very hot minute since since I've seen that one explained. Do you recall any attempted explanations being given? I seem to remember that there was one about maybe Paul being scared of Lechmere as being the reason for Paul not correcting him. I don't know if that one was offered seriously or not though.

I don’t know. Maybe someone has tried to use it on social media. Geddy would know as I do t use it.

I can respect an opinion that I disagree with. Out of curiosity, how do you compare the Lechmere theory to the Royal Conspiracy?

A guilty Cross is likelier than the Royal Conspiracy but that doesn’t say much tbh. Very few suspects, no matter how crazy, can categorically be exonerated with an alibi. Lewis Carroll for example is one of the sillier suspects but no one ever found him an alibi. Neil Cream, Van Gogh and Prince Albert Victor all had alibi’s. For me, Cross is one of the closest to being eliminated without a provable alibi. I think that the evidence point massively strongly away from his guilt. I think he should be discarded as a suspect but obviously no one can tell someone else what to think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

yes herlock we rarely disagree, but its not that often you are wrong. heehee. just kidding my friend, and i do agree with you re the lech propaganda campaign and over egging!

happy new year buddy! : )

You too Abby.

I was wrong once by the way…..August 7th 1987…..what a day!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I totally agree with this. Lechmere was a witness and shouldn't have been given suspect status. He's a clearly innocent man.

All you hear is - he was there John.

John Richardson is a better suspect than Cross….and he wasn’t the ripper either.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's correct, Roger. He bases the notion that Paul was out of earshot on the term "in the company of/with", which according to him doesn't necessarily means that the two persons who are in company with another, have to be close to each other, meaning within 1, 2 or 3 yards from one another. Of course, he's generally correct, but in this case it simply doesn't seem that Paul and Cross left one another before Paul turned into Corbet Court.

The other thing he used was a phrase (in bold) from Mizen's statement as it was given by the Echo of September 3: "By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

According to him, that phrase could or shoud (I don't remember which) be taken as "Paul went down Hanbury Street whilst Lechmere was talking to Mizen. While that would be a very awkward way of saying such a thing, there are 2 other newspapers that worded the thing more clearly.

The first is the Star of September 3, which has it thus: "Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street."

And the second is the Times of September 4: "When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street."

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

For someone that speaks and writes very good English Christer has a very ‘quirky’ way of using it when it suits his argument.

[GBinOz]

“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?”

Numerous. I’d suggested that he’d said something like “you’re needed in Bucks Row,” or “a copper is needed in Bucks Row” and Mizen misheard him as he continued his knocking up. The question has to be how Cross might have told a lie without Paul hearing it? Christer invented the scam to get Cross away from Paul to tell Mizen this lie but it’s nonsense. In the Lloyd’s article Paul claimed actually to have spoken to Mizen. They were at the crime scene together, they left the crime scene together, they found Mizen together, can we really imagine the pushy Paul standing a distance away while Cross told his lie? No way. And Cross certainly couldn’t have relied on his being able to do it therefore it’s not a plan. No one could have believed it a workable scam. It’s a fantasy.

Hi Herlock,

I really can't see that Christer "invented" anything. Mizen testified that Cross told him that "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying". Cross testified he said "that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row". Christer was examining the evidence for possibilities.

In the Lloyd’s article Paul claimed actually to have spoken to Mizen. That is because Paul said in that article that he had left Cross with the body and proceeded alone so, according to Paul, who else was available to speak to Mizen. That interview with Lloyd's contained a degree of hostility by Paul towards the Police force in general, so I could imagine Paul isolating himself from the conversation with a member of that force. It should be noted that at the inquest neither Cross nor Paul nor Mizen indicated that Paul had spoken to Mizen.

When I was reviewing the account of Paul's statement to Lloyd's published on Sunday 2 Sep 1888 under the heading "REMARKABLE STATEMENT" and commencing "On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative", I noticed that towards the start of the publication there was this statement:

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.".

Does this repetition cast some doubt on the contention that Paul was difficult to locate after his initial interview?

Cheers, George

[John Wheat]

Hi Herlock,

I really can't see that Christer "invented" anything. Mizen testified that Cross told him that "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying". Cross testified he said "that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row". Christer was examining the evidence for possibilities.

In the Lloyd’s article Paul claimed actually to have spoken to Mizen. That is because Paul said in that article that he had left Cross with the body and proceeded alone so, according to Paul, who else was available to speak to Mizen. That interview with Lloyd's contained a degree of hostility by Paul towards the Police force in general, so I could imagine Paul isolating himself from the conversation with a member of that force.

When I was reviewing the account of Paul's statement to Lloyd's published on Sunday 2 Sep 1888 under the heading "REMARKABLE STATEMENT" and commencing "On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative", I noticed that towards the start of the publication there was this statement:

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.".

Does this repetition cast some doubt on the contention that Paul was difficult to locate after his initial interview?

Cheers, George

I disagree with the Lechmereians there is a lot of bending of the truth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I really can't see that Christer "invented" anything. Mizen testified that Cross told him that "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying". Cross testified he said "that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row". Christer was examining the evidence for possibilities.

In the Lloyd’s article Paul claimed actually to have spoken to Mizen. That is because Paul said in that article that he had left Cross with the body and proceeded alone so, according to Paul, who else was available to speak to Mizen. That interview with Lloyd's contained a degree of hostility by Paul towards the Police force in general, so I could imagine Paul isolating himself from the conversation with a member of that force. It should be noted that at the inquest neither Cross nor Paul nor Mizen indicated that Paul had spoken to Mizen.

When I was reviewing the account of Paul's statement to Lloyd's published on Sunday 2 Sep 1888 under the heading "REMARKABLE STATEMENT" and commencing "On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative", I noticed that towards the start of the publication there was this statement:

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true.".

Does this repetition cast some doubt on the contention that Paul was difficult to locate after his initial interview?

Cheers, George

Hello George,

What I meant was that he invented the idea of a deliberate scam. In effect, when Cross heard Paul approaching, he thought ‘I won’t flee, I’ll wait until this guy gets here and we will end up going for a Constable together but when we find one I’ll manipulate the situation so that I can speak to him on my own and I can lie about the woman being drunk instead of dead.’ Christer came up with the scam to provide an excuse for Cross not fleeing. I don’t find it remotely convincing George (I’m not suggesting that you do of course)

[Herlock Sholmes]

General question - why does everyone but me use the name Lechmere? If a woman has a married name do we persist in using her maiden name? Cross gave that name at the inquest so this was clearly the name that he used at the time. The name that he wanted to be known as. What right have we to change it back to his birth name? We know that he wasn’t just using his stepfathers name because he was guilty because a child could see that it didn’t gain him any advantage.

If we had met him in Whitechapel in 1888 and asked him his name he’d have said Charles Cross. Any attempt to say that he’d have said Lechmere is yet another manipulation of the evidence. The evidence tells us that he said at the inquest that his name was Charles Cross. The evidence tells us that he wasn’t doing this as a means of subterfuge.

Therefore the evidence tells us that he should be referred to as Charles Cross. So, I’m right and all you lot are wrong.

Goodnight all.