Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Geddy2112]

Yes. I'm sure that everything about those two shops and their staff looked exactly like that, all the time.

I'm sure it didn't and you will note all the blood on the floor hidden by the sawdust.. The fact is it's another point of interest to dispel yet another 'red flag' in the long line of dispelled red flags. Now if Cross had been a slaughter or a knacker that is another question alas he was not.

[GBinOz]

Who needs speculation when we can just go straight to the violent criminals’ roster, right?

Next up: suspecting anyone who’s ever been involved in a fistfight, just in case we’re missing the obvious answer.

It’s almost as if we’re playing ‘Guess the Ripper’ bingo and looking for the most obvious suspects possible.




The Baron

Winner of the best "Sarcastic but True" award.

[Geddy2112]

1) He was at the scene of a murder not long after a victim had been killed.

2) His testimony was at odds to PC Mizen's.

3) He was 'forced' to go to the inquest.

4) Some of the murders happened close to his probably route to work.

5) We do not know what time he left home on the 31st Aug 1888.

6) He refused to prop up Polly Nichol's body.

7) We can't account for his movements prior to 3:40am on 31st Aug 1888.


....who are we talking about here? Charles Lechmere or Robert Paul?

[GBinOz]

1) He was at the scene of a murder not long after a victim had been killed.

2) His testimony was at odds to PC Mizen's.

3) He was 'forced' to go to the inquest.

4) Some of the murders happened close to his probably route to work.

5) We do not know what time he left home on the 31st Aug 1888.

6) He refused to prop up Polly Nichol's body.

7) We can't account for his movements prior to 3:40am on 31st Aug 1888.


....who are we talking about here? Charles Lechmere or Robert Paul?

All very good points!

[Pcdunn]

1) He was at the scene of a murder not long after a victim had been killed.

2) His testimony was at odds to PC Mizen's.

3) He was 'forced' to go to the inquest.

4) Some of the murders happened close to his probably route to work.

5) We do not know what time he left home on the 31st Aug 1888.

6) He refused to prop up Polly Nichol's body.

7) We can't account for his movements prior to 3:40am on 31st Aug 1888.


....who are we talking about here? Charles Lechmere or Robert Paul?

I'd say Paul, because the police had to track him down at home, following his interview, and get him to the inquest.
Lechmere went on his own.

[Geddy2112]

I'd say Paul, because the police had to track him down at home, following his interview, and get him to the inquest.
Lechmere went on his own.

Indeed, however Team Lechmere tend to argue he was 'forced' to go to the inquest because he read the 'Remarkable Statement.' (Which of course we have no evidence to support.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

As is too often the case, we are polar opposite in our opinions on this subject. JtR murdered his victims without coming to the notice of the police, so murdering and mutilating his wife and turning himself into the police fails to fit the profile. I see nothing exceptional about Bury. He was a drunken little no-hoper that married a woman to secure access to her inheritance, and disposed of her when he had squandered that inheritance and she had outlived her usefulness. He was the type of person that our American cousins would describe as a dime a dozen on any street corner - brainless and heartless. He is only obvious in that he fulfils the need to endlessly and interminably re-examine named suspects while the actual perpetrator buries himself in obscurity. Sorry for the rant my friend. I guess there was just one too many "there is no evidence against anyone but Bury".

Cheers, George

Hi George,

My point wouldn’t be that anyone should be considered as a A+ suspect but whatever anyone’s opinion of Bury he can’t fail to be a better suspect than Cross. Whatever the circumstances of Bury’s murder of his wife he still killed and mutilated her. He was still a violent man. He still had a connection to prostitutes and his move to Dundee provides an explanation for the cessation. Cross was in Bucks Row, just like every other man, woman or child in the history of crime who found a body outdoors (and he did it at just the place and time that we would have expected to have found him - which increases further the likelihood of his innocence)

I don’t get it George. I genuinely don’t. There’s not a single, solitary thing that suggests that Cross should be considered and a whole pile that suggests that he was innocent. Compare this to a murder/mutilator living in Bow. My opinion would be - could Bury have been the ripper, possibly. Could Cross have been the ripper, almost certainly not.

We could go on like this forever George but there’s no real point is there. We have a difference of opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

1) He was at the scene of a murder not long after a victim had been killed.

2) His testimony was at odds to PC Mizen's.

3) He was 'forced' to go to the inquest.

4) Some of the murders happened close to his probably route to work.

5) We do not know what time he left home on the 31st Aug 1888.

6) He refused to prop up Polly Nichol's body.

7) We can't account for his movements prior to 3:40am on 31st Aug 1888.


....who are we talking about here? Charles Lechmere or Robert Paul?

If Cross was cunning enough to come up with the silly Mizen Scam then why couldn’t Paul have been cunning enough a killer to have killed Nichols and then doubled back to ‘come upon’ whoever discovered the body? There is more that is ‘suspicious’ about Paul. There is more that is ‘suspicious’ about Richardson.

Time to let go of Cross and let him go sit with Gull and Sickert and Mann and Barnado and Lewis Carroll and Hardiman under a tree somewhere. For me a suspect should have to have at least some of the criteria of a killer (violence, insanity, hatred of women/prostitutes, etc) or the police should have shown some interest in them (unless they can be dismissed by an alibi that the police weren’t aware of at the time) This would leave us with a shorter list devoid of people who were simply alive and in the area at the time.

[DJA]

you call that a knife - Google Search

[Geddy2112]

If Cross was cunning enough to come up with the silly Mizen Scam then why couldn’t Paul have been cunning enough a killer to have killed Nichols and then doubled back to ‘come upon’ whoever discovered the body?

According to HoL that would have been impossible, the idea is in the 'nutty column.' Even though basic maths proves he could have done it with about 10 mins to spare in between PC Neil visits.

Why do you think he gave the paper the 'exactly 3:45am' timing, for an alibi, he knew PC Neil would be on scene at that time... no stop I best not go there...

[The Baron]

Let’s cut through any ambiguity. If Nichols was still faintly breathing when Paul examined her, the fatal wound had been inflicted just moments before. And who was standing there at that precise moment? Lechmere.

If the cut occurred moments before Paul examined her, there could still be a small reserve of oxygenated blood in her system. The brain might retain enough oxygen to trigger reflexive, agonized gasps for a very brief period.

The killer would have had no time to flee unseen, he would have had seconds, mere seconds, to cut her throat and vanish without a trace before Paul’s arrival. That kind of vanishing act is impossible, the timing is crystal clear here, Nichols was just attacked, and Lechmere was right there. If Paul’s observation is correct, then Lechmere was not a passerby, he was caught red-handed in the aftermath of his own crime.

This isn’t speculation, it is basic logic. A faint breath means the murder had just happened. And if the murder had just happened, then Lechmere was the only person who could have done it.

Anything less than calling this what it is, a damning implication, is a refusal to face the facts.



The Baron

[rjpalmer]

This isn’t speculation, it is basic logic. A faint breath means the murder had just happened. And if the murder had just happened, then Lechmere was the only person who could have done it.

Not so. Even if we accept the unlikely explanation of agonal breathing, here is what Dr. Thiblin told Christer back in 2021:

"A few minutes" is the answer Thiblin gives on the question how long [agonal breathing] can go on for, and so it does not rule out an alternative killer preceding Lechmere..."

---Christer Holmgren 8/20/2021 "How Sure Was Paul?"

(Fisherman then resorts to his blood oozing argument for a more recent time of death)

[Geddy2112]

Let’s cut through any ambiguity. If Nichols was still faintly breathing when Paul examined her, the fatal wound had been inflicted just moments before. And who was standing there at that precise moment? Lechmere.

If the cut occurred moments before Paul examined her, there could still be a small reserve of oxygenated blood in her system. The brain might retain enough oxygen to trigger reflexive, agonized gasps for a very brief period.

The killer would have had no time to flee unseen, he would have had seconds, mere seconds, to cut her throat and vanish without a trace before Paul’s arrival. That kind of vanishing act is impossible, the timing is crystal clear here, Nichols was just attacked, and Lechmere was right there. If Paul’s observation is correct, then Lechmere was not a passerby, he was caught red-handed in the aftermath of his own crime.

This isn’t speculation, it is basic logic. A faint breath means the murder had just happened. And if the murder had just happened, then Lechmere was the only person who could have done it.

Anything less than calling this what it is, a damning implication, is a refusal to face the facts.

Is this a copy and paste? Some posts today do not seem in your style Baron. My Spidey sense is tingling.

Ah the faint breath. The one Holmgren refers to as agonal breathing. I had the luck of been shown the transcript of his conversation with Prof Thiblin regarding said subject... after years of refusing to give it up he eventually did..

My question is: For how long a time after the throat is cut can the body perform something that can be interpreted as breathing movements? I am aware that there is something called agonal breathing, but I am uncertain whether or not it can be a question of agonal breathing in this case. Nichols had her throat severed at least half a minute or a minute before Robert Paul was sure that he felt movement as of breathing. Can it be that such movement remained at this stage, or could Paul have felt something else, a weak heart beat or a chemical/electrical reaction of sorts?

If it is correct that oxygen deprivation in the brain at a heart stop causes agonal breathing, it is also reasonable that oxygen depletion following on bleeding out also causes it. It is fully conceivable that a shallow breathing could be felt a couple of minutes after the bleeding out, which in its turn could have taken some minutes after the damage was inflicted. Other explanations, such as weak heart beats or an electrical reaction, I would regard as highly unlikely.

These are both Holmgren's translations as the original was of course in Swedish. Shall we examine them? Ok, for kick off the good Prof answers with 'If it is correct...' so he is not sure then is he? Remember this is the same Prof who when asked about 'bleeding out time' admitted to having 'no empirical data to go off.' Holmgren states Polly had her throat cut 30 to 60 seconds before Paul arrived, erm he is making that up. We do not know at what time the throat was cut. Please read Prof Thiblin's answer, like in the case with Payne-James the Prof is not actually answering Holmgren's question is he? He never mentioned 'agonal breathing.'

From the Sudden Cardiac Arrest Website on what is Agonal Breathing -

Agonal breathing refers to irregular, gasping breaths that happen during cardiac arrest. It is the body’s automatic reflex as the heart stops pumping adequate blood to the brain and vital organs. These sporadic gasps may persist for several minutes after someone loses consciousness. Agonal breaths sound like snorting, gurgling, or moaning noises. The chest may appear to rise and fall.

Does this sound like faint breathing to you? Like from a child as Paul testified? The term 'agonal' comes from the word 'agony.'

The agony of agonal respiration: is the last gasp necessary? R.M. Perkin, D.B. Resnik. "It may be as brief as one or two breaths to a prolonged period of gasping lasting minutes or even hours."

So that begs the question, why did Cross, PC Neil or the good Doctor not witness this 'breathing' I mean they all had a good enough look at Polly. It also means that the breathing could have started a while before Cross and Paul got there. Meaning someone else killed Polly and fled. You have to remember in the corroborated evidence Cross never approached the body alone.

Aberdeen Free Press 4th Sept 1888 - "Cross, cabman ,stated that about half-past three on Friday morning he passed down the back road, and discovered the body simultaneously with another man. They found a constable, and informed him of their discovery."

[Geddy2112]

rjpalmer Apologies our posts overlapped.

I have the transcripts here and Thiblin never actually answers if he is referring to agonal breathing or not. Bit like Payne-James never actually directly answers the questions put to him, and of course Holmgren just makes up the replies as if they have. Lechmere Theory should be on Jackanory.

[The Baron]

Let’s be clear, I will not engage with anyone who has shown disrespect in any form, whether in the past or present. If you've crossed that line, don’t expect a response.



The Baron