The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

>>I can see no other viable explanations. Can you?<<

Since you asked, yes I can, the most important one.
It is clear to any reader of Paul’s Interview that Paul had an agenda against the police.

>>How does the "It was exactly 3.45" sentence cast Paul in the heroes role? Exactly - it does not. It is not something that can be used to big him up.<<

Au contraire, by claiming “it was exactly 3:45” he was challenging the police version of events. There is no mistaking this as he returns to the allegation towards the end of his interview,
“If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

>>Now, Dust, you write "The inquest wasn't interested in when he left home, it was irrelevant." That is of course silly to propose. How could it be irrelevant? <<

It was irrelevant because it was a non-specific time as opposed to his VERY specific,“exactly 3:45”.

That time was essential information because it changed everybody else's testimony. By refusing to repeat his claim under oath the claim goes into the same grandstanding bag his other untrue quotes are stuffed into.


>>… And therefore also one of the very few bits he did NOT change between paper and inquest.<<

See above. By suddenly altering this testimony under oath he allowed himself wriggle room to avoid being charged with perjury.

The 3.45 time was not much of a challenge of the police, methinks. There was a difference of five minute only, and any coroner would know that such a difference could easily be explained with no sinister implications,
Plus, it was not out of sync with the other timings on the whole - it was IN sync with the implications of Llewellyn.

[Fisherman]

Hey Chister, I was flipping through the channels during the ad breaks the other night and I found an unscheduled showing of your programme. It was significantly different from the version I have. There were several extra scenes.

Do you know how long the show should be? My version is 45 mins. which is a normal commercial TV hour. The new version I saw was closer 50 mins.

I love to get a copy of the longer version.

Iīve seen fragments of the longer version, but the one I have on DVD is the shorter one, aired in Britain last autumn.

Just like you say, it seems there are differences. There is another narrator, for instance, and he does not follow the exact same script as the original version does.

I will contact David McNab, the producer, and see if has a link to provide, and then Iīll get back to you once I have an answer.

[Patrick S]

This is always fun. For awhile.....this thing with Christer. After taking some time away I was able to come back and make another attempt to understand this thing. I'm confident that I have. Alas, it's gotten really, really, boring again.

Most of us continue to apply common sense thinking, thus we arrive at logical conclusions. Christer continues to respond with backwards logic, assumptions, and invention. He's like a politician under the impression that if just repeats the same things again and again, strenuously, with plenty of venom and conviction they will eventually be accepted. Yet, the voters usually respond accordingly and so have we: No one is buying it ("interationally sent documentary" or no).

I remain interested in Lechmere, only as he is part of the fabric of Nichols, Buck's Row, 1888, Jack the Ripper, etc. As has been discussed, to expect a viable, realistic solution at this point is likely naive. For me personally, while I'm attracted to the mystery, I'm also attracted to the time and place, the people involved, examining and undertanding their actions.

I think many positive things have come from Christer's 10,000+ (mostly) Lechmere posts, his documentary, and his research in general. The photo of Lechmere is a valuable find. The information we have about the man is very interesting - although it more supports the 127 year old conclusion that the man is not a viable suspect in any crime whatsoever. From a personal persepctive, its given me the impetus to more closely exmaine the police behavior as a whole. I think there are some very obvious conclusions to be drawn. Not the kinds of conclusions that Christer and the lads as 'Super Sleuths' seek. It doesn't point to a killer. That's the kind of simplistic thinking that has given us Sickert, et al.

Christer's repetition of nonsense and foolishess is maddening, yes. But, it's also sad. The man is either blinded by a conclusion that he simply will not abandon or he's a got something to sell and he just won't admit that it's not worth the pricetag (or the paper it's written on).

[drstrange169]

Hey Chister, I was flipping through the channels during the ad breaks the other night and I found an unscheduled showing of your programme. It was significantly different from the version I have. There were several extra scenes.

Do you know how long the show should be? My version is 45 mins. which is a normal commercial TV hour. The new version I saw was closer 50 mins.

I love to get a copy of the longer version.

[drstrange169]

>>Thank you Drstrange, you have demolished all the points put by Fisherman.<<

Hello Harry, Christer is a smart man, no doubt about it, but he gets so fixated with his theory that he loses sight of what is obvious to everyone else.


>> courts usually expect a person appearing there, to be presentable. There is nothing printed in the papers of that time, that Cross, although in working clothes, was not presentable. I'm sure Baxter would have passed some remark, had it been otherwise.<<

The key thing to remember here is that these were real people. Going to an inquest for someone like Xmere, meant a loss of money. If he regularly started work at 4 a.m. Xmere could put in 5 hours before the inquest started. The inquest paid a shilling a day, that combined with whatever work he could squeeze in beforehand would have covered his costs, perhaps even made a slight profit.



There would be nothing odd about Xmere turning up in his apron given the circumstances.

[drstrange169]

>>I can see no other viable explanations. Can you?<<

Since you asked, yes I can, the most important one.
It is clear to any reader of Paul’s Interview that Paul had an agenda against the police.

>>How does the "It was exactly 3.45" sentence cast Paul in the heroes role? Exactly - it does not. It is not something that can be used to big him up.<<

Au contraire, by claiming “it was exactly 3:45” he was challenging the police version of events. There is no mistaking this as he returns to the allegation towards the end of his interview,
“If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

>>Now, Dust, you write "The inquest wasn't interested in when he left home, it was irrelevant." That is of course silly to propose. How could it be irrelevant? <<

It was irrelevant because it was a non-specific time as opposed to his VERY specific,“exactly 3:45”.

That time was essential information because it changed everybody else's testimony. By refusing to repeat his claim under oath the claim goes into the same grandstanding bag his other untrue quotes are stuffed into.


>>… And therefore also one of the very few bits he did NOT change between paper and inquest.<<

See above. By suddenly altering this testimony under oath he allowed himself wriggle room to avoid being charged with perjury.

[Fisherman]

I've edited my last post to add a bit, Fish. I haven't read yours yet as I'm still catching up and have to go now.

See you next week!

Love,

Caz
X

Looking forward to it. Constant dropping wears away a stone.

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fish,

I think you are missing the point. We know that Paul did not discover the horrible truth, even after examining Nichols with your conventional, unremarkable 'grey' man at fairly close quarters. So with the wounds covered, 'grey man' could have walked past or away from the stranger with his head down, and let him see the woman in his own good time if there was little chance of him missing her entirely, and by the time he realised she had been murdered (or rather if he realised - we know he didn't), 'grey man' could have been streets away, virtually unidentifiable.

"Could", yes. But "would"? If Lechmere had left, he would have put his fate in the hands of the newcomer. Whoīs to say that this man would not immediately try and prop Nichols up - as we know Paul wanted to do?

Three seconds and the game would have been up.

I still think itīs a bit academic, since the wounds were covered. Therefore the decision was taken before the newcomer arrived. There was never any intention at all of fleeing on Lechmereīs behalf - or so it seems, at the very least.

Even in the highly unlikely event that the stranger saw him again and thought he recognised him, a simple denial would have sufficed with no other evidence to connect him to the crime. You can't be hanged for hurrying past what looks like a tarpaulin on your way to work without stopping to see if it might be a dead prostitute. Paul certainly wouldn't have been, in those circumstances.

No, but you WILL get hanged if you still have a bloody knife on your person, or if you throw it away in the chase. It appears that Lechmere simply did not want to deal with a scenario where he was not in the overall control. And that is sooo typical psychopath behaviour. It fits that way.

And here it comes again, with the regularity of a bowel movement - your bottom line argument for 'grey man' being the killer and staying to bluff it out with the stranger, followed by the most dependable, yet most gullible policeman in the force - PC Mizen, followed by everyone at the inquest, when he could so easily have disappeared without trace and never become associated with the case, is that if he was a psychopath it might explain such behaviour and how he could have got away with all the murders. But there's one more coming before you can wipe: if he was the ripper, he must also have been a psychopath to explain such behaviour, and an arsehole lucky one to get away with it.

Unfortunately, no male alive in 1888 without a rock solid alibi can be safe from exactly the same circular reasoning, so it doesn't help to elevate your 'grey man' above the unremarkable.

That elevation comes with - among other things - the name swop, the correspondance of the streets he would have walked and the murder spots, the bloodflow etcetera, etcetera. There is just too much for him not to be the prime suspect and the probable killer. Some of it is purely circumstantial, other matters represent physical evidence.
It is all very comfortable to wave the psychopath suggestion aside with a bit of used toilet paper, but the fact of the matter is that very many serialists ARE psychopaths, and the Ripper killings had psychopathy written all over them, so IF Lechmere was the killer, than he would with near 100 per cent certainty have been a psychopath.
Nota bene - again - that I am NOT saying that it is a proven thing that Lechmere was a psychopath. I am going nowhere near saying such a thing.

I AM saying that the Ripper was clearly a psychopath, and it THEREFORE applies that Lechmere would have been one if he was the killer.

It would have been a circular resaoning if I said that Lechmere was a psychopath, without adding "if he was the killer". But I donīt, do I?

You need to recognize that difference, subtle though it may seem.

[caz]

I've edited my last post to add a bit, Fish. I haven't read yours yet as I'm still catching up and have to go now.

See you next week!

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz:

... forgive me if this has already been dealt with, but Tabram had been found murdered (near Whitechapel High Street) just over three weeks before Mizen was allegedly told that a fellow police officer needed his assistance with a woman who had been found lying in Buck's Row (near the Whitechapel Road). I don't think he could have felt very well when he realised it had happened again and he had not responded as he could or should have done, taking the men's details for example before going straight to the scene.

Mizen had no reason to take the mens names, and he made no professional error, as per Monty. Unless, that is, he was NOT lied to about the second PC. That in itself speaks - at least to my mind - about how he WAS lied to, as do the ensuing steps he took.
Letīs not try and perpetuate the myth that Mizen did not follow protocol, shall we?

Ten times worse if he wasn't told there was a policeman already with her, and he carried on knocking up, leaving her alone and at the mercy of any passing ruffian, rapist or murderer, if she was drunk or sleeping.

I would not want to try and quantify it but yes, that would have been worse. But look at the fact that Mizen said that Lechmere was the one approaching him and sepaking to him, whereas Lechmere himself said that both he and Paul did. Explain to me why Mizen would lie about that - and then I can tell you why Lechmere would!

Hell, if the two men had told him she might just be drunk, he may have been terrified that she could have been attacked and murdered between the men leaving her to fetch him and his tardy arrival at the scene, perhaps even while he was still knocking up. I doubt the 'blood evidence' would have reassured him that wasn't the case.

Why do you put quotation marks around the blood evidence, Caz?
Mizen was told that there was a woman lying flat on her back in the street in Bucks Row. Nothing was said about any conversation between the carmen and the woman. It would therefore stand to reason that Mizen expected to have found her the way the carmen left her. I donīt think for a moment that he would speculate that she had been killed inbetween - it is all too fanciful to my taste.

[caz]

Do I think that Mizen did something terribly wrong? Absolutely not. He perhaps made a snap judegement that this was another false alarm. A woman lying drunk, no more. He then simply omitted information that may lead one to conclude that he didn't act he himself probably felt - after the fact - that he should have.

Prior to Nichols there has been Smith and Tabram. Tabram (most recently) had occured almost two months prior. One can understand Mizen's reaction.

Hi Patrick,

I'm only up to page 43, so forgive me if this has already been dealt with, but Tabram had been found murdered (near Whitechapel High Street) just over three weeks before Mizen was allegedly told that a fellow police officer needed his assistance with a woman who had been found lying in Buck's Row (near the Whitechapel Road). I don't think he could have felt very well when he realised it had happened again and he had not responded as he could or should have done, taking the men's details for example before going straight to the scene. Ten times worse if he wasn't told there was a policeman already with her, and he carried on knocking up, leaving her alone and at the mercy of any passing ruffian, rapist or murderer, if she was drunk or sleeping. Hell, if the two men had told him she might just be drunk, he may have been terrified that she could have been attacked and murdered between the men leaving her to fetch him and his tardy arrival at the scene, perhaps even while he was still knocking up. I doubt the 'blood evidence' would have reassured him that wasn't the case.

Being able to put Neil at the scene before he was told about the woman (by putting the words in Lechmere's mouth) would have suited Mizen down to the ground, because in that case his delay could not possibly have left a drunken Nichols alone to face her killer after Lechmere and Paul had gone to seek help.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Point one. Paul was not likely to miss the woman. He said that she was impossible to miss, more or less: "If a policeman had been there he must have seen here, for she was plain enough to see."

Hi Fish,

I think you are missing the point. We know that Paul did not discover the horrible truth, even after examining Nichols with your conventional, unremarkable 'grey' man at fairly close quarters. So with the wounds covered, 'grey man' could have walked past or away from the stranger with his head down, and let him see the woman in his own good time if there was little chance of him missing her entirely, and by the time he realised she had been murdered (or rather if he realised - we know he didn't), 'grey man' could have been streets away, virtually unidentifiable. Even in the highly unlikely event that the stranger saw him again and thought he recognised him, a simple denial would have sufficed with no other evidence to connect him to the crime. You can't be hanged for hurrying past what looks like a tarpaulin on your way to work without stopping to see if it might be a dead prostitute. Paul certainly wouldn't have been, in those circumstances.

Caz, in discussing all of this you need to respect that my suggestion is that we are dealing with a psychopath. They thrive on playing games, lying, playing the upright citizen etcetera. If Lechmere decided long before Paul reached the stable gate to bluff the oncomer - and the hiding of the wounds indicates this - then we can be sure that this was a man who had nothing at all against taking his chances and playing a dangerous game.

There is nothing at all untenable about it, Iīm afraid.

And here it comes again, with the regularity of a bowel movement - your bottom line argument for 'grey man' being the killer and staying to bluff it out with the stranger, followed by the most dependable, yet most gullible policeman in the force - PC Mizen, followed by everyone at the inquest, when he could so easily have disappeared without trace and never become associated with the case, is that if he was a psychopath it might explain such behaviour and how he could have got away with all the murders. But there's one more coming before you can wipe: if he was the ripper, he must also have been a psychopath to explain such behaviour, and an arsehole lucky one to get away with it.

Unfortunately, no male alive in 1888 without a rock solid alibi can be safe from exactly the same circular reasoning, so it doesn't help to elevate your 'grey man' above the unremarkable.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hereīs another whopper:

- The wounds to the abdomen were covered by Nicholsī clothing. In the other evisceration cases, no such effort was made. Rather, the victims were left on display. Was it just a coincidence that Nichols had her damage hidden? (My phrase)

No, Paul covered them. And he was the only witness in all the murders to admit doing so. (Dustīs phrase)

That, Harry, is the quality you need to opt for. Why give a damn about Lechmere himself saying: "When I found her, her clothes were above her knees."

No, Paul was the ONLY man who pulled the dress down, and before that, the abdominal wounds were on display but the carmen did not see of feel them in the darkness.

When arguments like these come crawling out from under stones on a rainy day, we have a duty to set things straight.

I personally very much like how Scott Nelson put it in an earlier post:

"Just to reiterate my opinion without going into detail: Charles Cross is an excellent suspect for the murder of Polly Nichols. If you try to push it to Annie Chapman, it's somewhat feasible in my opinion. Beyond that (further murder victims), it's very questionable."

A sound and courageous judgement from a sound and courageous poster. And then there are the extremes on the other side of that line, on whom I have already spent far too much time and effort ...

Good day to you, gentlemen.

[Fisherman]

Thank you Drstrange,you have demolished all the points put by Fisherman.

Yeah, right.

Letīs take just one example:

-Is it purely coincidental that Lechmere and Mizen disagreed about how much of the gravity of the situation that was divulged to the PC by the carman?

Facts Christer, stick with the actual facts. Xmere and Paul claimed they weren’t sure she was was dead, in fact both said under oath they thought she might be alive. How could Xmere and Paul tell Mizen she was murdered or dead when they said they didn’t know for sure she was? Xmere gave an accurate description of what they found.

How does this even touch on the question I asked? I asked about why Mizen and Lechmere presented different versions of how much of the involved gravity of the errand was divulged by the carman. Mizen only says that he was told that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row. He does not say that he was told anything about the woman perhaps or probably being dead.

Can you see any answer to that question here, Harry? I know I canīt.

But itīs right up your pitch dark alley, so I can see why you gratefully accept and welcome it.

[Fisherman]

Your other post is not very interesting. I will just pick the one thing out (here I go, cherry-picking again) to show what you are all about:

"There is no such thing as “blood evidence”.

Did Mizen say or did not Mizen say that she bled from the neck as he saw her?

Did Mizen say or did he not say that the blood in the pool underneath Nichols was somewhat congealed?

Did Neil say that she bled from the neck as he saw her?

Did Thain say that the blood was a congealed mass as it was cleaned away, off the pavement?

Does what PC:s say at an inquest count as evidence or does it not count as evidence?

Answer those questions with a set of yesīs or noīs, please!