Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree 100% with David Orsam who, in his excellent Breaking Point article wrote:


“For, in attempting to bolster his attempt to pin the murder of Nichols on Lechmere, Holmgren claims on page 92 of his book:

'Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at 3:30, but the time 3:20 is also mentioned in one paper'.”

That is false. Most papers speak of Lechmere saying that he left home at about 3:30. That is very different and makes a big difference, especially in circumstances where Holmgren's calculations about the time available to Lechmere to commit the murder are down to the minute.”

…

On this very forum however Christer said this:

“We must however accept that since the absolute bulk of the papers spoke of ”around 3.30”, that is by far the likeliest wording to have been given.”


So even Christer accepts the obvious.


David Orsam also said in his article:

“If we translate the number of reporters to their equivalent newspapers then, of the 19 newspapers in my list - which I believe is a complete list of newspapers reporting the evidence of the inquest of 3 September - ELEVEN newspapers used the word 'about'. That's what's known as a majority."

What we have to rely on is simple common sense. What is the likelier scenario - that a minority misheard what was said and missed the word ‘about’ or that the majority just imagined that word? It’s not the most tasking of questions is it?


It is a fact that Cross said that he left home at ‘about 3.30.’

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, sorry but I've just shown the calculations that follow the known evidence, there is no missing time. Even if you pinch a minute here or there it does not add up to the 8 mins the Baron was bleating on about and certainly not enough time to kill Polly. There could be missing time of you say Cross left home at 3:20am or 3:00am but we generally should accept the majority time of about 3:30am. Anything else is speculation.

Another point if we go, as I've mentioned earlier that Cross as a killer heard Paul from 40 yards away, he according to the theory would have to pull her clothes down, cut her throat twice, wipe his hands and knife on a rag, hide his rag and knife about his person, plot his bluff, get back to the middle of the road as Paul did not see him move back and then appear calm and collected. All this in the time it would have taken Paul to encroach on him from 40 yards. What 10 seconds or so, now we really are into Fantasy Island territory if we think he could have done that.

Hi geddy
fair enough we’ll have to agree to disagree. For me the bottom line is we have no witnesses who saw lech until paul , so we don’t know exactly how long he was alone with /near her. Imho taking into account how quickly the killer could have killed and inflicted the wounds on her, seconds or a minute or so, lech is clearly in the frame for being her killer, although I think he probably wasn’t and was just a man on his way to work who discovered her body .

I pretty much agree with your second paragraph though I don’t think it’s impossible. Cheers.

[Abby Normal]

As the person putting more top soil on his garden once said... 'the plot thickens.'

Regarding last night's YouTube claim that Cross spoke to the press the night of the Double Event we now have...



Swiftly followed up by...



So now he claims that Cross gave the name Lechmere to the reporter on the night of the Double Event.... sometimes words are not enough... and I'm not sure what 'late teens' have to do with anything.. crikey.

Ridiculous . I wouldn’t waste your time with these you tube clowns . Save your sanity and avoid!

[rjpalmer]

'the plot thickens.'

Hi Geddy.

"do you want to bet 5k cash on it 5k cash that SOMEBODY who called himself cross gave an interview to a reporter on night of the murder said he heard the police mans whistle that found her..."

Keep me posted on this strange exchange, but it sounds like the poster is in a muddle and is thinking of Robert Paul's interview with Lloyd's Weekly News on the night of the Nichols' murder.

But I'm willing to hold the 10K while you two duke it out.

;-)

[FrankO]

Very true, thank you. I just can't see how the door would have obscured his view like the poster suggested even if it was self closing. It's 19 inches from the floor and like I said if it did as he said he would have hit her in the head as he opened it.

Hi Ian,

I don't know what this Youtuber said and meant precisery, but if Richardson was sitting facing straight forward, then there's no chance that he could have missed Chapman.



Cheers,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

Hi geddy
fair enough we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Hi Abby, that is great. Usually if the missus is involved if I get an 'agree to disagree' comment I class that as a win haha. I won't here though.

[Geddy2112]

Hi Geddy.

"do you want to bet 5k cash on it 5k cash that SOMEBODY who called himself cross gave an interview to a reporter on night of the murder said he heard the police mans whistle that found her..."

Keep me posted on this strange exchange, but it sounds like the poster is in a muddle and is thinking of Robert Paul's interview with Lloyd's Weekly News on the night of the Nichols' murder.

But I'm willing to hold the 10K while you two duke it out.

;-)

I just think he's a looney tune. I just asked him to name the paper it was from and I'll look it up. I also asked for 20g of whatever it was he was taking... Maybe he got muddled up but that means he got the wrong name and occasion... he's not doing to well to be taken as serious source.

I mean if there was a newspaper report given by Charles Cross or as Lechmere regarding the double event I'm sure someone like yourself would have found it by now. I'm convinced he thinks he is correct because he mentioned Cross now Lechmere told the reporter he was at his mother's house on the night of the Double Event so that would be three things he's got muddled up about.. that is some effort.

[Geddy2112]

I don't know what this Youtuber said and meant precisely, but if Richardson was sitting facing straight forward, then there's no chance that he could have missed Chapman.

At first he was bleating on about the door covering Chapman, they he said this is definitely true as it's a self closing door, I mistakenly thought it was not. However since it was apparently a self closing door this would make it worse as according to him if the door was opened it would hit Annie in the head.
You are correct though there is no way you could miss a body lying that close to your feet in moderately decent lighting conditions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

At first he was bleating on about the door covering Chapman, they he said this is definitely true as it's a self closing door, I mistakenly thought it was not. However since it was apparently a self closing door this would make it worse as according to him if the door was opened it would hit Annie in the head.
You are correct though there is no way you could miss a body lying that close to your feet in moderately decent lighting conditions.

It was a self-closing door not a part of a magicians trick.

[Geddy2112]

It was a self-closing door not a part of a magicians trick.

For him to have missed a body where he was and she was there is definitely some smoke and mirrors going on, maybe even some of them 'mushrooms'

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C,

John Davis states at the inquest that the back door was closed but the front door to the street was wide open. Here's the portion from the inquest that covers this:

[Coroner] When you went into the yard on Saturday morning was the yard door open or shut? - I found it shut. I cannot say whether it was latched - I cannot remember. I have been too much upset. The front street door was wide open and thrown against the wall. I was not surprised to find the front door open, as it was not unusual. I opened the back door, and stood in the entrance.

- Jeff

I stand corrected. Thanks for the memory assistance, Jeff.

[JeffHamm]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the memory assistance, Jeff.

Not a problem. I often make similar errors when I rely upon my memory and appreciate it when someone corrects me. So this was one of the rare opportunities for me to return the favour! At times the Chapman case discussions take centre stage, and Davis' was discussed quite a bit at one point so this detail seems to have stuck with me. If only more would!

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

For him to have missed a body where he was and she was there is definitely some smoke and mirrors going on, maybe even some of them 'mushrooms'

Then you have Cadosch. You couldn’t have someone moving around in the yard and not seeing the corpse. Then Long, who I know gets disputed and yes, witnesses can be mistaken, but she still saw a woman who she identified as Long.

As far as Long goes we should consider this, courtesy of Trevor. It’s a mnemonic used by the police to assess the strength of witnesses - ADVOKATE:

Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?


In my opinion she would score higher than Lawende and yet few seem to doubt that he saw Eddowes. So why the greater doubt with Long? I think it’s because she gave a time that was slightly later than Cadosch meaning that they don’t exactly tie up but we all know about the issues with timings and synchronisation. All that it would have taken was Cadosch and Long’s times being 5 minutes or so out which is no big deal and they tie up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not a problem. I often make similar errors when I rely upon my memory and appreciate it when someone corrects me. So this was one of the rare opportunities for me to return the favour! At times the Chapman case discussions take centre stage, and Davis' was discussed quite a bit at one point so this detail seems to have stuck with me. If only more would!

- Jeff

At one point I could have almost recited the entire Chapman inquest transcript Jeff. I spent that much time on it.

[JeffHamm]

At one point I could have almost recited the entire Chapman inquest transcript Jeff. I spent that much time on it.

Yah, I don't doubt that! There were some pretty lengthy discussions, which sometimes became a bit repetitive, but as a result of such "debates", interesting points get raised and create some food for thought.

- Jeff