Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[FrankO]

Left strictly to Mizen alone, it took Paul 316 yards to find him, 316 yards for Mizen to return to the site and 193 yards to the entrance of London Hospital, a total of...let's see...825 yards...nearly half a mile.

As opposed to Robert Paul traveling 193 yards.

As we say in Dutch, Roger: a child can do laundry (it's childishly simple).

[Geddy2112]

The peculiarity about Paul is that in his initial statement to Lloyd's on the afternoon of the murder, he said that he left Cross with the body and he alone went on and found Mizen. He then suggested that Mizen virtually ignored him and kept up his "knocking up" activity. He also insinuated that Neil might have been skiving because the body was so cold. Baxter must have been aware of the Lloyd's statement but did not raise the matter of the conflicting evidence.

Are you suggesting Paul orchestrated the Mizen Scam? We bet get Holmgren on the phone, we have a better suspect...

[The Baron]

Lechmere:

"Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart and remarked, "I think she is breathing, but very little, if she is." He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him." When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left."


We know from Mizen’s inquest testimony that both Lechmere and Paul spoke to him after finding Nichols body. And yes, they walked off in the same direction afterward. But that doesn't mean they were side by side the entire time, joined at the hip like a pair of synchronized walkers.

Picture the scene, it’s early in the morning, it’s dark, and these two men are total strangers. This wasn’t a cheerful stroll through the park. Paul was clearly in a rush to get to work, probably not the kind of guy who would slow his pace for a random man he just met over a corpse. Meanwhile, Lechmere might have been hanging back slightly, taking his time or even deliberately positioning himself for a private moment with Mizen.

We don’t need to imagine them walking shoulder to shoulder, sharing secrets like lifelong friends. Maybe Paul was striding ahead, muttering about being late. Maybe Lechmere lagged a few steps behind, looking for his chance to slip in a quiet word. Let’s be real, if you’ve ever walked anywhere with someone who’s in a hurry, you know they don’t slow down to make sure you hear every single word they’re saying.

And when they reached Mizen, the scene likely wasn’t some grand theatrical moment with both men speaking in unison. Paul probably blurted out the basics "There’s a woman in Buck’s Row, better check it out!" and then got frustrated when Mizen didn’t seem to care “a great shame.” Meanwhile, Mizen was busy calling people up, probably thinking, “Great, another interruption before my shift is over.” In this peculiar moment, it’s easy to imagine Lechmere stepping closer to Mizen while Paul was either distracted or standing a bit apart.

It’s not like Paul would have been staring at Lechmere the entire time, watching his every move. He wasn’t his babysitter. Lechmere could have leaned in, whispered something like, “Another officer’s already on it in Buck’s Row,” and then stepped back as if nothing had happened. A quick, subtle exchange like that! Easy to miss especially if Paul was too busy grumbling about Mizen’s apparent indifference.

So yes, they walked the same road, but that doesn’t mean they were marching in perfect sync like a victorian era marching band.

People move differently, especially in stressful situations. And in this case, that small difference in pacing might have given Lechmere the perfect opening to say something Paul never even heard.



The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Picture the scene, it’s early in the morning, it’s dark...
;

So complete fiction then... it's Story Time in the Lechmere household, gather round Charles, Elizabeth, Mary Jane, Thomas, George, James, Louisa, Charles, Harriot, Albert, Harriot

[Doctored Whatsit]

Lechmere:

"Her face was warm. I said to the man, "I believe the woman is dead." The other man at the same time, put his hand on her breast over her heart and remarked, "I think she is breathing, but very little, if she is." He then said, "Sit her up," I replied, "I'm not going to touch her. You had better go on, and if you see a policeman tell him." When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left."


We know from Mizen’s inquest testimony that both Lechmere and Paul spoke to him after finding Nichols body. And yes, they walked off in the same direction afterward. But that doesn't mean they were side by side the entire time, joined at the hip like a pair of synchronized walkers.

Picture the scene, it’s early in the morning, it’s dark, and these two men are total strangers. This wasn’t a cheerful stroll through the park. Paul was clearly in a rush to get to work, probably not the kind of guy who would slow his pace for a random man he just met over a corpse. Meanwhile, Lechmere might have been hanging back slightly, taking his time or even deliberately positioning himself for a private moment with Mizen.

We don’t need to imagine them walking shoulder to shoulder, sharing secrets like lifelong friends. Maybe Paul was striding ahead, muttering about being late. Maybe Lechmere lagged a few steps behind, looking for his chance to slip in a quiet word. Let’s be real, if you’ve ever walked anywhere with someone who’s in a hurry, you know they don’t slow down to make sure you hear every single word they’re saying.

And when they reached Mizen, the scene likely wasn’t some grand theatrical moment with both men speaking in unison. Paul probably blurted out the basics "There’s a woman in Buck’s Row, better check it out!" and then got frustrated when Mizen didn’t seem to care “a great shame.” Meanwhile, Mizen was busy calling people up, probably thinking, “Great, another interruption before my shift is over.” In this peculiar moment, it’s easy to imagine Lechmere stepping closer to Mizen while Paul was either distracted or standing a bit apart.

It’s not like Paul would have been staring at Lechmere the entire time, watching his every move. He wasn’t his babysitter. Lechmere could have leaned in, whispered something like, “Another officer’s already on it in Buck’s Row,” and then stepped back as if nothing had happened. A quick, subtle exchange like that! Easy to miss especially if Paul was too busy grumbling about Mizen’s apparent indifference.

So yes, they walked the same road, but that doesn’t mean they were marching in perfect sync like a victorian era marching band.

People move differently, especially in stressful situations. And in this case, that small difference in pacing might have given Lechmere the perfect opening to say something Paul never even heard.



The Baron

You will be aware, of course, that you are introducing a rather desperate faint possibility here, rather than a likely fact!

[The Baron]

You will be aware, of course, that you are introducing a rather desperate faint possibility here, rather than a likely fact!

"Desperate" ? Hardly. I’m presenting a valid interpretation of the evidence. Just because it challenges your perspective doesn’t make it any less plausible.

But hey, feel free to keep marching in sync with your own perspectives. If that’s too much of a stretch for you, well, maybe you need to loosen up a bit...



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you suggesting Paul orchestrated the Mizen Scam? We bet get Holmgren on the phone, we have a better suspect...

We know that the Mizen Scam is a pure invention Geddy. Christer wanted to have his cake and eat it. Firstly he tried to sell the idea that it was perfectly normal behaviour for a killer not to want to flee the crime scene given a very obvious and very easy opportunity, but then as a back up, and because he realised how unlikely this was, he felt the need to create a scenario which explained why he might have stuck around. Cross, faced with the approaching Paul, said to himself “shall I escape? Nah, I know, I’ll hang on here and have a bit of a chat with this complete stranger (ignoring the possibility that this guy might have just decided to yell ‘murder’ hoping to attract a nearby Constable leaving Cross stranded at a murder scene with no way of ditching the knife) then when we’ve finished our chat we will no doubt go to look for a Constable which presents me with the problem of having this large, bloodied knife in my pocket, so I’ll manipulate the situation so that I can talk the Constable without this bloke hearing and I can tell him that she was only a drunk.”

That’s the Mizen Scam….invented on the spot by the criminal genius Charles Cross. How anyone can give this even a fraction of a seconds credence is beyond all reason and common sense. The answer of course is very, very simple and very, very obvious. Cross didn’t flee the scene because he’d done absolutely nothing wrong. Everything points to this. Nothing else matters. We can forget the dishonest nonsense about the name…that’s gone. The gap is a ‘proven in black and white’ creation arrived at by the manipulation of evidence…that’s gone. All that’s left is an everyday, bog standard, very minor communication difference of opinion (and of course, according to highly selective supporters…a Constable couldn’t possibly have made a mistake could he)

He could easily have fled….he didn’t….therefore he was innocent. That’s game over. Then again, it was never on in the first place because Christer was absolutely, 100% correct…when he said:

“No, Cross is not a very good suggestion as the Ripper. To begin with, at the inquest Cross stated that he heard the approaching footsteps of Paul from around forty yards away - but still waited for him to come up to the spot where Nichols lay. It was pitch dark - so dark that the two men did not see the blood running from her neck - and there must have been every chance to leave the scene unseen had he been the Ripper.

Also, if he WAS the Ripper, it would be a very strange thing to go looking for a policeman carrying the knife that killed Nichols on his person - for it was not found at the murder site.”

I think that we can safely write off Cross as a contender.

We certainly can.

[Doctored Whatsit]

"Desperate" ? Hardly. I’m presenting a valid interpretation of the evidence. Just because it challenges your perspective doesn’t make it any less plausible.

But hey, feel free to keep marching in sync with your own perspectives. If that’s too much of a stretch for you, well, maybe you need to loosen up a bit...



The Baron

You are looking at the known facts, and trying to find a way in which it is possible that the apparent truth is wrong, then twisting it so that your version of events could possibly have happened. That is you "marching in sync with your own perspectives", and nobody else.

For someone who claims he doesn't believe Cross is JtR, your comments are remarkablly confusing. I must move on!

[John Wheat]

So complete fiction then... it's Story Time in the Lechmere household, gather round Charles, Elizabeth, Mary Jane, Thomas, George, James, Louisa, Charles, Harriot, Albert, Harriot

Hi Geddy2112

The case against Cross is complete fiction.

Cheers John

[Geddy2112]

Hi Geddy2112

The case against Cross is complete fiction.

Cheers John

99.9% of it is. I mean he was 'there'

[Geddy2112]

We know that the Mizen Scam is a pure invention Geddy.

It must be true, Holmgren told me Mizen could not possibly be incorrect because he had made notes in his little notebook...

Christer wanted to have his cake and eat it.

You mean like the Mizen Scam being true because it's 'substantiated' by his notebook and under oath but his timings of being with Paul and Cross at the end of Hanbury street at least 4 mins away from the murder scene at 3:45am is not true? Damn pesky notebooks and oath thingies...

[Herlock Sholmes]

It must be true, Holmgren told me Mizen could not possibly be incorrect because he had made notes in his little notebook...






You mean like the Mizen Scam being true because it's 'substantiated' by his notebook and under oath but his timings of being with Paul and Cross at the end of Hanbury street at least 4 mins away from the murder scene at 3:45am is not true? Damn pesky notebooks and oath thingies...

Then i assume that he must be confident that Mizen’s time was correct too then? And that Cross and Paul approached him at 3.45. After, according to Paul, no more than 4 minutes of walking? Therefore he must believe that Cross discovered the body at around 3.40/3.41? Mustn’t he?

And he surely wouldn’t be so biased as to suggest that Cross’s ‘about 3.30’ was just as likely to have been 3.32 as 3.31 or as 3.30 or as 3.29 or as 3.28.

And he surely wouldn’t presume to know exactly how quickly Cross walked. So the journey could have taken him 7 or 8 or even 9 minutes (as per Orsam). Surely?

Therefore he surely must admit that the gap is an invention and should never have been stated as a fact.

Mustn’t he?

[A P Tomlinson]

How can that be right? Paul never spoke to Mizen remember, he was out of earshot of Cross lying to the Policeman...

The same Paul whose acute hearing would have noticed the sound of footsteps in the night above the sound of his own footsteps as he walked down the street. Deaf as a post when it comes to two people talking a few feet away.
Or at we already at the point where the argument has reached the inevitable point where; "No one said he DIDN'T lead Mizen off down a sidestreet to talk in private, so you need to prove hat he DIDN'T do that!"

[FrankO]

Deaf as a post when it comes to two people talking a few feet away.

Or when it comes to hearing someone ahead of him moving around a body and then away from it to the middle of the street, AP.

[Geddy2112]

And he surely wouldn’t be so biased as to suggest that Cross’s ‘about 3.30’ was just as likely to have been 3.32 as 3.31 or as 3.30 or as 3.29 or as 3.28.

I probably would argue is someone said 'about 3:30am' then 3:30am is the least likely time they meant or they would have said '3:30am' or am I wrong?

Therefore he surely must admit that the gap is an invention and should never have been stated as a fact.

Well common sense would dictate that, I mean taking an unknown (Cross' time of leaving home) adding another unknown (his walking speed) and another (his route to Bucks Row) to equal a solid fact of being in Bucks Row at 3:38am is what I could call unsound methodology but who am I to argue with the Mighty Swede.