Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[GBinOz]

General question - why does everyone but me use the name Lechmere?

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.

Not so fast my friend. If you check my recent posts you will see that I also use the name "Cross". So you are batting one right, one wrong. Huh?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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)

Hi Herlock,

I'm not convinced about anything in this case.

Since this is a "Cross" thread, I try to look at alternatives. I'm not remotely convinced by gap theories. I am interested in the mutual non hearing of footfalls. I've just read that Llwellyn said that the blood pool was very small but the throat wound was 2 inches wide, so I'm interested in how two men up close to the body managed to not see that wound (if it was there at the time). I'm interested in why Paul, in an area that he described as dangerous, would allow Cross to approach and touch him, and why Cross would do that rather than just talk to him. I found it interesting that when it was reported that Paul suggested propping up the body and Cross refused, until I read the Lloyd's account of the Cross testimony which stated "Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.". IF Cross was guilty, I don't believe he considered an encounter with a PC when deciding whether to flee or stay. IF Cross was guilty he was lying about what he said to Mizen. Alternatively, Mizen may have been lying to proffer a reason for not questioning/searching Cross and Paul and not taking them back to the scene of the described death. Or maybe it was a communication breakdown. As I said, I'm not convinced about anything.

I note that you have compared Cross with Bury. I have been reviewing the case on Bury and came across your post #26 on this Bury thread:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/bury-w-h/765013-william-bury-jack-the-ripper/page2

I can't find disagreement with any of your points. However, you probably operate with the same disclaimer as myself, that being that my opinions are subject to change at any time.

Cheers, George

[The Baron]

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?

And this is also not ultimately true, on one account we have Paul who suggested to seat the woman up after he detected a breath but Lechmere refused.


""I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her.""

And Paul went mad when the Police didn't react instantly.


All those are attempts to make Paul looks confused disoriented inaccurate contradicted, and give Lechmere a pass.


The Baron

[FrankO]

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.

You might sure say that, Mike.

[Doctored Whatsit]

And this is also not ultimately true, on one account we have Paul who suggested to seat the woman up after he detected a breath but Lechmere refused.


""I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is." He suggested that they should "shift her," meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her.""

And Paul went mad when the Police didn't react instantly.

The Baron

This is why "Paul went mad". "He (Mizen) continued calling people up ... after I had told him the lady was dead". He told Mizen that Nichols was dead, not still breathing.

[Geddy2112]

General question - why does everyone but me use the name Lechmere?

I'm half guilty of this, I tend to use both and have no rhyme or reason why. Technically yes he should be referred to as Charles Cross and he was until about 15 years ago.

[Geddy2112]

Since this is a "Cross" thread, I try to look at alternatives. I'm not remotely convinced by gap theories. I am interested in the mutual non hearing of footfalls. I've just read that Llwellyn said that the blood pool was very small but the throat wound was 2 inches wide, so I'm interested in how two men up close to the body managed to not see that wound (if it was there at the time). I'm interested in why Paul, in an area that he described as dangerous, would allow Cross to approach and touch him, and why Cross would do that rather than just talk to him. I found it interesting that when it was reported that Paul suggested propping up the body and Cross refused, until I read the Lloyd's account of the Cross testimony which stated "Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.". IF Cross was guilty, I don't believe he considered an encounter with a PC when deciding whether to flee or stay. IF Cross was guilty he was lying about what he said to Mizen. Alternatively, Mizen may have been lying to proffer a reason for not questioning/searching Cross and Paul and not taking them back to the scene of the described death. Or maybe it was a communication breakdown. As I said, I'm not convinced about anything.

Absolutely, there is a lot in this case that does not make sense. Or rather missing from the evidence. The Newspaper reports are all over the place and hence I believe 'how' the Lechmere Theory is possible to 'invent.' The ambiguity of it all makes it possible. If we look at Cross and Paul's actions its fair to assume wave one of the kill had happened and wave two happened when they left to find Mizen. Not saying this definitely happened. Was it PC Neil who swooped in to finish her off? There are too many things that do not add up. Even in the dark, and I know you have done your tests. I'm sure if you touched the face you would notice the fact she was nearly decapitated. If the clothes were up to her stomach, which is just under your ribs then surely if you felt her chest you would notice the abdominal wounds. I know I must not entertain Trevor's idea the abdominal wounds were done at the morgue but really it does kind of make sense.
For me there are too many very important pieces of the jigsaw missing here and a great amount of misquoting going on. There is of course by Team Lechmere a good amount of cherry-picking happening as well, but that is to be expected. I'm sure if we all tried we could come up with half a dozen scenarios that fit the evidence of what happened that night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not so fast my friend. If you check my recent posts you will see that I also use the name "Cross". So you are batting one right, one wrong. Huh?

Cheers, George

Point conceded George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I'm not convinced about anything in this case.

Since this is a "Cross" thread, I try to look at alternatives. I'm not remotely convinced by gap theories. I am interested in the mutual non hearing of footfalls. I've just read that Llwellyn said that the blood pool was very small but the throat wound was 2 inches wide, so I'm interested in how two men up close to the body managed to not see that wound (if it was there at the time). I'm interested in why Paul, in an area that he described as dangerous, would allow Cross to approach and touch him, and why Cross would do that rather than just talk to him. I found it interesting that when it was reported that Paul suggested propping up the body and Cross refused, until I read the Lloyd's account of the Cross testimony which stated "Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her.". IF Cross was guilty, I don't believe he considered an encounter with a PC when deciding whether to flee or stay. IF Cross was guilty he was lying about what he said to Mizen. Alternatively, Mizen may have been lying to proffer a reason for not questioning/searching Cross and Paul and not taking them back to the scene of the described death. Or maybe it was a communication breakdown. As I said, I'm not convinced about anything.

I note that you have compared Cross with Bury. I have been reviewing the case on Bury and came across your post #26 on this Bury thread:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/bury-w-h/765013-william-bury-jack-the-ripper/page2

I can't find disagreement with any of your points. However, you probably operate with the same disclaimer as myself, that being that my opinions are subject to change at any time.

Cheers, George

Absolutely George, I recall at that time reacting to the guy who does the Bury website (I think his name is Steve Earp?) It’s a very good site but I found his overconfidence jarring. He’d have the kind of approach that began with ‘now that we know that Bury was the ripper….’ That kind of thing.

I wouldn’t put money on any suspect tbh George.

[rjpalmer]

I'm not sure who came up with the idea that Cross and Paul were separated, or that Paul never spoke to Mizen.

In his inquest deposition, Charles Cross clearly indicates that Robert Paul also spoke to Mizen. It's in every or nearly every version: the Daily Telegraph, the Daily News, the East London Observer, The Times, etc.

For instance, in the ELO:

"He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they saw the last witness, [Mizen] whom they told that a woman was lying in Buck's-row. The witness added, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk," and the other man remarked, "I think she's dead." The policeman answered, "All right."

I suppose one could argue that Cross was lying to the Coroner's Court about Paul speaking to Mizen, but that would have been remarkably reckless, wouldn't it?

The two men were clearly together and within earshot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At what point did an allegedly guilty Cross move from the location of the body back to the middle of the road as he would have had to have done? It can’t have been before he became aware of the presence of Robert Paul because even the hardiest of Cross proponents wouldn’t attempt to suggest that he just decided to go stand in the middle of the road until someone turned up? He could only have made this move after hearing Cross approaching.

So he hears the approaching footsteps. He has to wipe his knife, put it into a pocket or down the waistband of his trousers and move to the middle of the road a distance of a few feet, and he does this while the unknown man is getting closer at a reasonably brisk pace. And he does this rather than fleeing into the dark away from, as opposed to towards the oncoming stranger. At any second this guy is going to come into view and there is no way that Cross could have known at what point he had become visible to this stranger. For all that he knew the stranger might have seen him as soon as he stood up from the body. Or as he was wiping his knife? He absolutely positively couldn’t have had even the slightest confidence that this stranger hadn’t seen him walking from the location of the body to the middle of the road.

Are we expected to believe that Charles Cross, after just murdering and mutilating a woman at a spot that he passed 6 days ago week at pretty much that exact time, given the very simple opportunity of escaping into the darkness decided to stop, clean his knife, conceal it on his person and then walk to the middle of the road in front of stranger walking briskly in his direction? Absolutely unaware of at what point this stranger could have observed him? He then goes on to say that he had stopped at that point in the middle of the road and had never gone over to the body, risking the gallows after Paul said ‘when I first saw him he was walking away from the body to the middle of the road.’

It’s utter nonsense of course. There is just no way that a guilty Cross would have done this. It would have been an act of unbelievable stupidity. It would have been suicidal insanity. To quote Herlock’s maxim No 2 - “ A theory is usually weakened if it relies on the suggestion of acts of egregious stupidity by those involved at the time.”


I’d say weakened to the point of being totally eliminated. We can safely eliminate Cross as a suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not sure who came up with the idea that Cross and Paul were separated, or that Paul never spoke to Mizen.
.

I’ll give you a clue Roger. He’s Swedish.

[Geddy2112]

So he hears the approaching footsteps. He has to wipe his knife, put it into a pocket or down the waistband of his trousers and move to the middle of the road a distance of a few feet, and he does this while the unknown man is getting closer at a reasonably brisk pace. And he does this rather than fleeing into the dark away from, as opposed to towards the oncoming stranger. At any second this guy is going to come into view and there is no way that Cross could have known at what point he had become visible to this stranger. For all that he knew the stranger might have seen him as soon as he stood up from the body. Or as he was wiping his knife? He absolutely positively couldn’t have had even the slightest confidence that this stranger hadn’t seen him walking from the location of the body to the middle of the road.

I've studied this scenario quite a bit and done some experiments with the missus, yes she is still alive. I had her do the Robert Paul approaching as she has a 'Post Office' walk which means she walks faster going to the Post Office haha. Paul was in a hurry we are led to believe.
Similar to your version but to add in a few Team Lechmere points. In the time it took Paul to see Lechmere in the middle of the Road or shall we say it took Paul to encroach on Lechmere from those 40 or so yards when first heard, Lechmere as the killer, according to Holmgren would have had to -

1) Pull her clothing down to hide the abdominal wounds.
2) Cut her throat twice.
3) Wipe his knife and hands on a rag (no smearing was seen on Polly's clothing)
4) Hide knife and rag about his person.
5) Plot what he was going to say to the passer-by.
6) Jump back at least 4 yards to the middle of the road.
7) Appear calm and collected to be able to approach Paul.

All this in approx 10-12 seconds. Maybe less as we do not know how far away Paul was when he clocked Lechmere. Likely?

[Geddy2112]

I’ll give you a clue Roger. He’s Swedish.

Him?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've studied this scenario quite a bit and done some experiments with the missus, yes she is still alive. I had her do the Robert Paul approaching as she has a 'Post Office' walk which means she walks faster going to the Post Office haha. Paul was in a hurry we are led to believe.
Similar to your version but to add in a few Team Lechmere points. In the time it took Paul to see Lechmere in the middle of the Road or shall we say it took Paul to encroach on Lechmere from those 40 or so yards when first heard, Lechmere as the killer, according to Holmgren would have had to -

1) Pull her clothing down to hide the abdominal wounds.
2) Cut her throat twice.
3) Wipe his knife and hands on a rag (no smearing was seen on Polly's clothing)
4) Hide knife and rag about his person.
5) Plot what he was going to say to the passer-by.
6) Jump back at least 4 yards to the middle of the road.
7) Appear calm and collected to be able to approach Paul.

All this in approx 10-12 seconds. Maybe less as we do not know how far away Paul was when he clocked Lechmere. Likely?

I’ve never been keen on the abdominal wounds first idea Geddy. Surely he’d have gone for the throat first. With abdominal attack we have risk of her screaming out of course which no one heard. His first thought would surely have been to silence then kill or both simultaneously.

If you get two people in a dimly lit street with shadows no one would assume that A saw B at the same time that B saw A because it’s never a given. Cross wouldn’t needed to have been a genius to work out something so obvious. So he’d have been fully aware that when speaking to a police officer or at an inquest if he’d have said that he stopped at a point in the middle of the road but never approached the body and then Paul had said ‘I saw a man up ahead who was walking away from the body to stop in the middle of the road’ then Cross would have been deep in the brown stuff.

So we are asked to not only believe that he’d taken this idiotic risk but that he didn’t simply walk away in the darkness. He could even have run because a) if Cross only initially noticed a shape then Paul might not even have looked in that direction, or b) he might have seen it and not given it a second thought, or c) gone over, seen that it was a woman and decided not to get involved and walked on. These are all possibles but what would have been the chances at 3.40 or so, in that dark street, of a man finding a woman stabbed and then deciding to chase a knife wielding maniac through those streets? To catch him, take the knife from him? And this would have been after Paul had walked to the scene, gone over to the body then checked her over giving Cross a considerable head start. I’d say about as likely as Wayne Rooney winning the Nobel Prize for Literature.

But these are the kinds of things that we are always being asked to believe. These are the constant stream of ever weaker excuses invented to shoehorn in an obviously innocent man. So would a guilty Cross have stood around to wait for Paul to arrive. The answer is no. Categorically no. It would have been an act of simply unbelievable stupidity and anyone that terminally thick couldn’t have hoped to have remained at large. No way. Cross stayed put and approached Paul because he was entirely innocent. Doubts? Not a single one.