The Lechmere trail - so far

[harry]

Thank you Drstrange,you have demolished all the points put by Fisherman.I'll only add that 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.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

Where was Paul's "speaking with knowledge", "no guesswork about it" "certainty, exactitude"and "no other timing given in combination with the murder that has this quality to it" when it came to the acid test of swearing under oath?
Suddenly, when it REALLY counted, Paul became evasive and vague.

Bravo, Dust! You have seen the light! Yes, yes and yes again - when Paul attended the inquest, his heroic one-man show from Lloyds Weekly was no longer on display. Very well noted - and absolutely essential in trying to understand what Paul was about.
Other posters out here have exhibited a great amazement at how I have stated that Paul would have been less than truthful either with the papers or with the inquest. But to those of us who can read, it is abundantly clear that Robert Paul told an untrue story on at least one of these occasions.
Of course, since Mizen and Lechmere both corroborate the inquest story, it stands the much better chance of being true, and the paper story therefore will be untrue to a smaller or larger extent.

So why was it untrue?

The answer is equally easy: Because either

- Paul wanted to have his fifteen minutes of fame, and so he painted himself in the light of a powerful hero, in command of the situation and issuing the orders.

- The reporter wanted to spice the story up.

I can see no other viable explanations. Can you?

In both cases we would get a picture of a man who acted promptly and in control of a serious situation, a man who realized the woman was dead and who took care of things commandably.

But let´s look at your examples - and then let´s add the inquest versions of them to the picture!

“I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.” (Lloyds) as opposed to "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman." (Inquest)

“I told him what I had seen” (Lloyds) as opposed to "they... told him what they had seen." (Inquest)

“I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not” as opposed to "they... told him what they had seen." (Inquest)

“I had told him the woman was dead” (Lloyds) as opposed to "they... told him what they had seen." (Inquest)

“The woman was so cold that she must have been dead sometime” (Lloyds) as opposed to "he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint" (Inquest)

“she was plain enough to see” (Lloyds) as opposed to It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. (Inquest)

"no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time" (Lloyds) as opposed to "he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint"[/I] (Inquest)

What is the common denominator of these quotes? Exactly, they all have Paul in the heroes role in Lloyds but not at the inquest.

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.

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 had a bearing on the overall picture and it was an essential piece of information.

The Times have it "He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning" and the Morning Advertiser has it " I left home just before a quarter to four".

It therefore dovetails perfectly with the time he gave in Lloyds - one of the few bits and pieces where Paul could not big up his own role. And therefore also one of the very few bits he did NOT change between paper and inquest.

And if that is irrelevant, then I am The Green Lantern.

Finally, you claim: If Paul could say with "exactitude" etc. the time he was in Buck's Row, that was what was the only relevant time and he avoided giving it.

Avoiding to do something is a conscious choice. If Paul was never asked at what time he entered Bucks Row, he never "avoided" answering that question. He did not ADD this information at the inquest, but why would he - if he was never asked? He informed the inquest that he left home just before 3.45, and he had but a minutes walk to Bucks Row. Do the maths, Dust.

A jury would not like that.

No jury would be happy about your reasoning, Dust, seeing as you tend to forget and leave out things that are essential to the understanding of the case.

But why would we lend the phrase? It belongs to Scobie, who said that the carmans behaviour was suspicious - and that a jury would not like that.

[drstrange169]

- Did he have to be the man who found Nichols? No- but somebody would find her, so there is nothing strange with that.

Agreed


- Did he have to find her at a remove in time that fits the blood evidence?

There is no such thing as “blood evidence”. It is an artificially manufactured excuse. Selected carefully, not only to avoid all the known evidence, but avoid Baxter’s official finding in the inquest.


- Did the blood have to be somewhat congealed some six minutes after Lechmere left her? Absolutely not. Bad luck on his behalf again - an unlucky coincidence. Or?

… was it simply made up by Lechmereites.
Two people described blood running to the gutter and blood congealing.Thain made it VERY plain that this happened when the body was lifted onto the ambulance. The newspaper reports claim Mizen said the same thing,

“(Mizen)…and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck.”
Evening Post 3 Sept 1888


- The wounds to the abdomen were covered by Nichols´ 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?

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


- After having called upon Paul to help see to the woman, Lechmere suddenly refuses to help prop her up. Was it a coincidence that the carmans helpfullness should stop at this exact point?

Why would a guilty man volunteer that information when Paul never mentioned it? Where in either man’s testimony does it say Xmere was being helpful? He was just curious, no more, no less.


- Did Lechmere have to come forward after the Lloyds Weekly interview? No, he could - and should if he read the papers - have come forward long before that. Was it just a coincidence that he didn´t?


Prove he didn’t. There is nothing odd or unusual about Xmere’s timings. Loss of pay in the East End in 1888 was not just inconvenient, it was crucial to families, a matter of eating or not eating.
Xmere worked Friday and Saturday, as Paul verified, going to the police tied up your time. The first available time for Xmere to conveniently go to the police was Saturday after work or Sunday.
As noted before, the newspapers reported that Abberline told Baxter new evidence had just come to light late Saturday. As Reynolds Newspaper put it,
“Evidence of a rather singular character is expected to be given at tomorrow’s (Monday) adjourned hearing.”
Could that "evidence of a rather singular character" be that Xmere not Neil discovered the body? What else was new at Monday’s inquest other than that?


- Did Lechmere have to reiterate stuff from Pauls interview? Was that just a coincidence?


What should two people who experienced the same thing be expected to say? Did Paul when he entered the stand contradict ANYTHING that Xmere said?

- Did the carman have to give the inquest a name that was not the one he was registered by?

Interesting point I’ve just discovered, you can give any surname but you must give your real Christian names, which, of course is exactly what Xmere did.
"A man may have divers names at divers times, but not divers Christian names. Any one may take on himself whatever surname or as many surnames as he pleases, without statutory licence"
Dictionary of American and English Law, definitions.


-Was it a coincidence that Lechmere and Mizen should disagree on whether one or to of the carmen spoke to the PC? Or should we accept that both spoke to him, and accept that Mizen coincidentally forgot to mention Paul in this respect?

Where there is a disagreement between two parties, turn to the third witness for the answer.
Xmere spoke the truth. Mizen either lied or misunderstood.


- Is it a coincidence that the only paper that places Paul physically during this part of the story, actually places him walking down Hanbury Street?

Isn’t it a fact that Mizen stated the two men were together?


-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 saidthey didn’t know for sure she was? Xmere gave an accurate description of what they found.


- In his inquest testimony, Paul never says exactly what Mizen was told and he never says that he himself spoke to the PC.

Do you have a full account of Paul’s testimony? The newspapers gave it scant coverage, how do you know Paul didn't say he spoke to Mizen?



- If Stride and Eddowes had the same killer, then that killer would have walked to Mitre Square along the same route that Lechmere took to work for twenty years.

Prove that sentence is actually true.
Prove he worked at Broad Street for twenty years.
Prove that the most obvious route from James Street to Braod Street isnm't Houndsditch.



- Was it a coincidence that the murders started in combination with Lechmeres move away from a close proximity to his mother?

Lechmere moved socially upward, why would that spark a killing spree?


... on each and every one of these issues you have to answer "Yes, that was just a coincidence!"

No you just have to see if they are actually true claims.


Remember how James Scobie saw it? "When the coincidences stack up, mount up against somebody - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

I wonder what Scobie would say if I presented evidence to him?

[drstrange169]

>>Paul said that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he walked into Bucks Row, and that phrasing has nothing of guesswork about it. It speaks of knowledge, certainty and exactitude ...<<


Paul also said without guesswork, but with certainty and exactitude,


“I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw.”

“I told him what I had seen”

“I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not”

“I had told him the woman was dead”

“The woman was so cold that she must have been dead sometime”

“she was plain enough to see”

"no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time"


And so we have the dictionary definition of "cherry-picking".

Where was Paul's "speaking with knowledge", "no guesswork about it" "certainty, exactitude" and "no other timing given in combination with the murder that has this quality to it" when it came to the acid test of swearing under oath?

Suddenly, when it REALLY counted, Paul became evasive and vague and contradictory.

The inquest wasn't interested in when he left home, it was irrelevant. If Paul could say with "exactitude" etc. the time he was in Buck's Row, that was what was the only relevant time and he avoided giving it.

A jury would not like that.

[Fisherman]

harry: We know that Cross contacted the police very shortly after finding the body.He contacted Mizen.So it is incorrect to imply he never contacted the police at any time.

You are absolutely correct here, Harry. But I don´t think that anybody has suggested that Lechmere never contacted the police. He did so twice, going by the looks of things.

That he didn''t give,or wasn't asked for a name at that time is immaterial.It certainly isn't suggestive of guilt.

No, it is not suggestive of guilt in any way. I completely agree. It is only when you are asked by the authorities to state your name and either refuse to do so or give them a wrong name that we have reasons to become suspicious.

We do not know what transpired that weekend,or what Cross's thoughts were on the matter of reporting further,but certainly on the Monday he appeared at the inquest.

All very true.

Why that is,we can't be sure,but the probability is that he felt he had to do something,talked it over with someone,and the authorities were informed.No guilt there whatsoever.

I think the part about talking it over with someone is not something that must belong to the picture, otherwise I agree. He would have felt that he needed to step forward - but your reason for that and my reason for it are quite different. I will once more point to the fact that this decision seemingly came about in the direct aftermath of the Paul interview in Lloyds Weekly. There is also the interesting fact that a number of the things that Paul says in that interview are echoed by Lechmere at the inquest, suggesting that he may have read what Paul had to say. And among what Paul had to say was that Lechmere had been standing where the body was.

Oh! but the working clothes.Great clue that.He must have been the killer otherwise he would have worn a suit.

The clothing was remarked upon by a paper, implicating that he would have been expected to dress more appropriately. It can be suggested that he did not want to show his wife that he was not goinf to work that day, something that would be in accordance with our suggestion that he kept his real name and address from the papers too. You can mock all you want about that, but it changes nothing.

What you seem to be doing now is something that has been done a million times already, so I am going to save you some time and breath: Do not use up any more space by saying that the different details in the Lechmere theory may all have had innocent explanations, taken one by one.

That has already been pointed out - by me, for example.

What you need to address is the full amount of implications - would they ALL have been coincidentally pointing to the carman? Or produce something that proves that one or more of the points we are making is/are wrong. That´s when you will produce something of weight - not before.

Listen here, Harry:

-Did he have to be the man who found Nichols? No- but somebody would find her, so there is nothing strange with that.

-Did he have to find her at a remove in time that fits the blood evidence? Certainly not - the blood would not have run for more than a couple of minutes, so it was a sad coincidence that he should stumble over the corpse at that stage. If he had been only a few minutes later, then she would reasonably not have been still bleeding and he would have walked free.

-Did the blood have to be somewhat congealed some six minutes after Lechmere left her? Absolutely not. Bad luck on his behalf again - an unlucky coincidence. Or?

- The wounds to the abdomen were covered by Nichols´ 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?

- Did Paul have to say that he just found Lechmere standing in the middle of the street as he arrived outside Browns? No, he could have said "there was this man who walked in front of me - I first noticed him in Bath Street when he passed under the lamps of the brewery as I stepped out into the street - and who stopped shorth up at the stable yard...". But no, if this was what Paul saw, then he coincidentally forgot to tell the papers and inquest. Or they coincidentally forgot to take note of it.

- After having called upon Paul to help see to the woman, Lechmere suddenly refuses to help prop her up. Was it a coincidence that the carmans helpfullness should stop at this exact point?

- Did Lechmere have to come forward after the Lloyds Weekly interview? No, he could - and should if he read the papers - have come forward long before that. Was it just a coincidence that he didn´t?

- Did Lechmere have to reiterate stuff from Pauls interview? Was that just a coincidence? For example:

"I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle." (Paul)
"the deceased looked then as if she had been outraged, and had gone off in a swoon." (Lechmere)

"He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth." (Paul)
"I waited for the man, who started on one side as if afraid that I meant to knock him down. (Lechmere)

Was this coincidental too?

- Did the carman have to give the inquest a name that was not the one he was registered by? Especially since we know that he otherwise always used his real name when contacting the authoritites? Was it a coincidental slip of the tongue? Or did he think that it was about time that he for once used another name than Lechmere when speaking to the authorities? If so, was it coincidental that the inquest became the chosen starting point?

- Was it a coincidence that no other paper got his address than the Star? Did all the other papers coincidentally miss out on it? They all wrote down all the other addresses, regardless if they had gotten them right or wrong.

-Was it a coincidence that Lechmere and Mizen should disagree on whether one or to of the carmen spoke to the PC? Or should we accept that both spoke to him, and accept that Mizen coincidentally forgot to mention Paul in this respect?

- Is it a coincidence that the only paper that places Paul physically during this part of the story, actually places him walking down Hanbury Street?

- 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? Or did Mizen by coincidence hear just half of what Lechmere told him?

- In his inquest testimony, Paul never says exactly what Mizen was told and he never says that he himself spoke to the PC. He simply states that Mizen was informed about "what they had seen". Not a word about what it involved, no confirmation that the PC was told that the errand was potentially one of death, no specific stating that Paul himself talked to the PC.
This opens up for Paul not having spoken to the PC at all and for Lechmere having played down the message. Is it just a coincidence that Paul was not able to lay these suspicions to rest?

- Is it a coincidence that Mizen witnessed about how the carman he did speak to told him that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row? Did Mizen mishear that? If so, is it just a coincidence that this was one of three things Lechmere and the PC disagreed on?

- If Mizen lied about it all, is it just a coincidence that he should choose a lie that simultaneaously sounds like the ultimate wording for taking Lechmere past the police?

- When Charles Lechmere walked to work, he would pass precisely by the murder site of Chapman, at a time that seemingly tallied very well with the given TOD for her, as per Bagster Phillips. Was that just an unlucky coincidence?

- If Lechmere wanted to make a shortcut to Broad Street from Hanbury Street, then he would pass right by Dorset Street where Mary Kelly was killed, and at a time that seems to tally with when she died. Was that a coincidence?

-If Lechmere used the shortest route to work on the 7:th of August, he would also have passed right by the spot where Tabram was killed - and at a time that tallied roughly with her TOD. Was that a coincidence?

- Liz Stride was killed in the midst of the houses where Lechmere had grown up. Was that a coincidence too?

- If Stride and Eddowes had the same killer, then that killer would have walked to Mitre Square along the same route that Lechmere took to work for twenty years. Was that a coincidence too?

- Two of the six victims Tabram-Kelly, were killed on times that did NOT dovetail with Lechmeres trek to work. Is it a coincidence that these two murders were the only ones that did not happen along his logical working treks?

- Was it a coincidence that the murders started in combination with Lechmeres move away from a close proximity to his mother?


You see, Harry, on each and every one of these issues you have to answer "Yes, that was just a coincidence!"

If you fail to do so throughout, and instead just once say "No, that was probably no coincidence", then you are at the same time saying that Lechmere was the probable killer.

This leaves us with one very pertinent question: How unlucky can a man get before we start to think that we are not dealing with rotten luck? How many coincidences can stack up against somebody, without one single or all of them being damning?

Remember how James Scobie saw it? "When the coincidences stack up, mount up against somebody - and they do in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many".

When Lechmere was fist suggested as the killer, many, many of the bits we list today were not in place. It was still enough for a justified suspicion.

After that, it has been added that he gave the wrong name to the coppers. It does not help his cause.

It has been added that he had reason to visit the area where Stride died. That does not help his cause.

It has been added that Eddowes died along his old working route from James Street. That does not help his cause.

It has been added that he seemingly served Jonas Mizen a lie to pass him by. That is not a good thing on his record.

It has been pointed out that the bloodflow pattern seemingly would not offer much - if any - space for another killer. And it can be shown that Lechmere fits the bloodflow. That was not what he needed.

The coagulation also seems to point directly in Lechmeres direction. It is not something that helps. Not at all.

More and more pressure is added, more and more circumstantial evidence points directly to the carman.

When somebody comes under suspicion by the police, this somebody will be subjected to intense scrutiny. If the material that surfaces is in accordance with this person being the culprit, then the police will dig further into him. If more circumstantial evidence is added, and if nothing surfaces to exonerate the person in question, the police will consider their suspicions confirmed. After that, it is another question whether the evidence is enough for a conviction.

What we have is a QC, James Scobie, saying that there is a prima faciae case, suggesting that Lechmere was the killer.

Interestingly, that was before the blood evidence was looked into. So in a sense, Trevor Mariott is correct - Scobie did not see all there was to see.

Now, Harry, ALL of these matters are what you need to address. I already know that he may have wanted to use the name Cross because he liked the sound of it, and I know that liking the sound of a name is not equal to being a killer. But I dont want any more alternative explanations to isolated parts - I want to know if a list like the one I just provided can be one where all the parts represent just unlucky coincidences, one after the other.

Plus I want to know why in the whole wide world Lechmere would not be the prime suspect, when a list like this can be compiled against him. Who is a better prime suspect, and what is it grounded on?

That is what you need to answer.

[harry]

We know that Cross contacted the police very shortly after finding the body.He contacted Mizen.So it is incorrect to imply he never contacted the police at any time.That he didn''t give,or wasn't asked for a name at that time is immaterial.It certainly isn't suggestive of guilt.
We do not know what transpired that weekend,or what Cross's thoughts were on the matter of reporting further,but certainly on the Monday he appeared at the inquest.Why that is,we can't be sure,but the probability is that he felt he had to do something,talked it over with someone,and the authorities were informed.No guilt there whatsoever.
Oh! but the working clothes.Great clue that.He must have been the killer otherwise he would have worn a suit.

[Patrick S]

I would also suggest that PC John Thain misreprested the events near Buck's Row on the morning of August 31, 1888.

There is obvious disagreement in the testimonies of Henry Tompkins and PC John Thain. Both testify that Thain arrived at Harrison, Barber & Co to retrieve his cloak. Thain tells us he did this as he left Buck’s Row on his way to retrieve Dr. Llewellyn. PC Thain testified at the Nichols inquest that did not tell Tomkins, Mumford, and Britten that a woman had been murdered. Yet, Tomkins testified that he was told of the murder by Thain. He specifically stated that Thain had told him of the murder at the slaughterhouse when he stopped there to retrieve his cloak.

We know for certain that the three men did learn of the murder as they reported to Buck’s Row and remained there until the body was taken to the mortuary. It seems likely that they were given the information by Thain. It seems likely also that Thain denied telling the men of the murder to avoid embarrassment, not wishing to appear unprofessional or indiscreet.

Police are under scrutiny. They are expected to behave and react in a certain manner, especially during an emergency or crisis. PCs Mizen and Thain were not the last policemen to tell what amounted to inconsequential "white lies" that did no harm to the victim or the investigation as a whole in order to protect their reputations and careers. It is likely also that both these men's superiors were aware of these issues and allowed them to manage them in order to save the Metropolitan Police, as a whole, bad publicity and needless embarrassment.

[Patrick S]

It should be noted that the official records of the inquest into Mary Ann Nichols’ death have not survived. The information we have comes to us from press coverage of the inquest and the media statements made by those involved. There are some notable inconsistencies contained in this information. Many of them involve the meeting in Baker’s Row involving Paul, Lechmere, and PC Mizen.

Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing that “a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”. Lechmere stated that Mizen replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”

Both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. Such information might lead Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by the policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he’d let the men go on their way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified after Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in the 'Telegraph' on Tuesday, September 4:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.
“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. 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.”

Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively inferring that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was likely not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. His subsequent inaction with respect this meeting reinforces this point: Mizen did not relate this meeting to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body. PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with Paul and the heretofore unnamed “other man” (Lechmere) in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31.

It seems likely that Jonas Mizen, himself, upon learning that the woman he’d been told about by the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had been murdered, judged his response to be potentially embarrassing. Thus, he did not volunteer his information to PC Neil in Buck’s Row. He did not inform his superiors that he’d met two men who had claimed to have found the body before Neil’s arrival. He allowed Neil to testify to the fact that he and he alone had discovered Nichols’ body at the inquest into her death the following day. Mizen was not compelled to share his information until after Paul had related his version of events in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’, the day after Neil’s inquest testimony.

[Fisherman]

caz: And it's a piss poor one, Fish, if I may be so bold.

You may be just as bold as you wish to, Caz. If "bold" is the word for it. The wording in the papers was that nobody had been seen leaving or entering the street so as to attract attention. We don´t know how the question was put to the PC:s and watchmen. It could have been the exact same wording, but it could equally have been "Did you see anybody running away or acting strangely?"

In neither case is it a piss poor explanation for why Mizen could have denied that such a thing happened. You must not loose track of how he would have predisposed that Neil would have told the story about the carmen, and you must not forget that there must have been an explanation for why he never mentioned the carmen.

Remember, at this point Mizen appears to have told nobody about his little conversation with Lechmere (Paul, according to Mizen, not taking any part in it).

That is correct. It is in line wtih how he would not have told Neil about the carmen either, two minutes after he left them in Bakers Row. He would have considered it unneccesary, and that may well have coloured his thinking throughout. He knew that Neil had been interviewed, and he MUST have predisposed that Neil had mentioned the carmen to his superiors. He could thus not hope to keep them under wraps - if anybody should feel like suggesting such a thing for whatever reason.
Are we agreed on that?

So even if Mizen interpreted the question to mean: "Did you see anyone suspicious leaving the murder scene", and not: "Did anyone leave Buck's Row to attract attention" (to which he should have replied: "Yes, two workmen left Buck's Row to attract my attention"), it is still very odd that he didn't mention them, given that they had come from the murder scene, were total strangers to him, and nobody else (PC Neil et al) had mentioned seeing either of them. Certainly less than thorough, at the very least.

Odd? Yes, I agree that it was slightly odd. Or perhaps unfortunate is the better word. But if he was sure that his colleague had spoken about them with his superiors, and described the role they had played, how he had sent them for a colleague etcetera - and how could he NOT be sure that this had happened? - then we may at least say that Mizen would have been totally justified to think that the carmen already belonged to the knowledge of the police command.

Making what you will call a circular argument, I think we must accept that if the Ripper was able to sail through the net of the police, then he would have had to be lucky in a number of matters. A thing like this fits that reasoning eminently: it is slightly out of what we may have accepted to have happened, and so it may have helped built the bridge that gave the killer a flight route.
This is a relatively subtle argument, I realize that - but the inability to catch the killer on behalf of the police and the inability to find him on behalf of the many people who have tried since needs an explanation.

If you mean had Mizen asked Neil about the carmen, I agree.

That is what I mean, yes, thank you.

But remember, if Lechmere invented the PC at the scene, he wasn't expecting Mizen to find one there, in the convenient shape of Neil, in which case he must have anticipated Mizen finding just a murdered woman and no PC with her and getting highly suspicious anyway.

Absolutely! That must have been a very real option in his eyes. There is every chance that he had kept track of Neil and hoped for him to be in place (which is where that interesting passage in the Daily Telegraph is tantalizing: Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased...
Was that Neil they heard? If so...

In the end, though, no matter if he felt there would have been another PC in place or not, it remains that he will have had the knife on his person when meeting Mizen. And in that case, he needed to get past the PC no matter what. That would have been the top priority. Afterwards, he could always deny having spoken about another PC - just as we know he actually DID. Remember that the inquest would in both cases know quite well that any information about another PC would have been wrong, no matter if there was such a man in place or not. And if they could believe Lechmere when a man WAS in place, why would they not believe him when a man was NOT in place...?

No, because Mizen would be crapping himself at the realisation that he had sent on their way two men who should have been asked some serious questions about their 'discovery'.

No, he would not, Caz - he did nothing wrong and he had a very good explanation and justification for his actions. He had been told that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row, and that PC had cleared the carmen from any role in the drama. Otherwise, he would not have sent them on their way.

[Patrick S]

I prefer sense to apologies, to be frank. Could you point me to any comment I have made where I have called Lechmere a super serial killer?

I don´t mind the odd addition of some humour, PcDunn - on the contrary. And I can clearly see how it can be entertaining to jointly try and make fun of somebody who has a conviction, the way I do.

I have however been subjected to a lot of comments that have been very lacking in the humour department. There is and has been trolling and smearing in relation to the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, a behavior that is as ill informed as it is sad.

I am having serious trouble telling these matters apart at times. Maybe it is just me and maybe it lies upon me solely to make the correct calls about what is malicious slander and what is humour. I can only suggest that you present suspect of your own and stand by him - and find out what Ripperology is really about in this context.

Of course, now that you say that it was meant as a humorous remark, I accept what you say and I thank you for being clear about it.

I prefer sense, too, Christer! Try showing some. No one is buying this lemon. That should tell you something.

By the way, I miss our talks.

[caz]

There were two carmen who did NOT leave the spot to attract attention - they instead acted very responsibly.
That is the only explanation I can offer.

And it's a piss poor one, Fish, if I may be so bold.

Remember, at this point Mizen appears to have told nobody about his little conversation with Lechmere (Paul, according to Mizen, not taking any part in it).

So even if Mizen interpreted the question to mean: "Did you see anyone suspicious leaving the murder scene", and not: "Did anyone leave Buck's Row to attract attention" (to which he should have replied: "Yes, two workmen left Buck's Row to attract my attention"), it is still very odd that he didn't mention them, given that they had come from the murder scene, were total strangers to him, and nobody else (PC Neil et al) had mentioned seeing either of them. Certainly less than thorough, at the very least.

If I am correct, and if the Mizen scam went down the way I suggest, then these exact seconds would have been where the case really hung in the balance. If Lechmere had asked Neil about the carmen, he would get the answer that Neil had not seen any carmen. And that should have had Mizen and the police getting highly suspicious.

If you mean had Mizen asked Neil about the carmen, I agree. But remember, if Lechmere invented the PC at the scene, he wasn't expecting Mizen to find one there, in the convenient shape of Neil, in which case he must have anticipated Mizen finding just a murdered woman and no PC with her and getting highly suspicious anyway.

If Lechmere had NOT told him that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row - if there had been no scam, that is - then Mizen would have been baffled to read how Neil took the honour of having found the body, when he himself knew that the carmen had found it first.
Rationally resoning, he would in such a case have gone to his superiors and told them about the carmen. But that never happened.

No, because Mizen would be crapping himself at the realisation that he had sent on their way two men who should have been asked some serious questions about their 'discovery'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

It is the impression of Lechmere which I have received from reading your comments about him over several months. It was also intended as a humorous comment. My apologies for misinterpreting your comments, if I have done so.

I prefer sense to apologies, to be frank. Could you point me to any comment I have made where I have called Lechmere a super serial killer?

I don´t mind the odd addition of some humour, PcDunn - on the contrary. And I can clearly see how it can be entertaining to jointly try and make fun of somebody who has a conviction, the way I do.

I have however been subjected to a lot of comments that have been very lacking in the humour department. There is and has been trolling and smearing in relation to the suggestion that Lechmere was the killer, a behavior that is as ill informed as it is sad.

I am having serious trouble telling these matters apart at times. Maybe it is just me and maybe it lies upon me solely to make the correct calls about what is malicious slander and what is humour. I can only suggest that you present suspect of your own and stand by him - and find out what Ripperology is really about in this context.

Of course, now that you say that it was meant as a humorous remark, I accept what you say and I thank you for being clear about it.

[Fisherman]

I´ll tell you what, Caz. You are being rather lazy here, throwing forward suggestions on isolated timings.
Put them all together for me, and make it work as well as possible, using the given timings as closely as you can. All of it, not just a randomly picked detail. The PC:s, the blood, Paul, Lechmere (includin his given time of departure), Llewellyn (including what he said about the people surrounding the site), Thain (including his stop at the horseknackers), Mizen (including his return route to Bethnal Green police station), the information that Llewellyn spent ten minutes only at the site, the suggested correlation between his departure and Mizens arrival back with the ambulance, etcetera. All of it.

Bring that together and make sense of it as best as you can. And don´t blame me if it leaves you with the impression that Lechmere is the probable killer.

[Pcdunn]

Where did you get that from? If Lechmere was the killer, it would seem that he simply was cool enough to handle upcoming situations plus he had a good deal of luck. Like more or less all serialists who have had a significant number of victims. It also applies that his case was handled by a police force that made a number of mistakes and who worked form a prejudiced agenda.

I look forward to hear your explanation about why he would have been a super serial killer who made no missteps. Surely you would not say something like that with no substantiation.

Or would you?

It is the impression of Lechmere which I have received from reading your comments about him over several months. It was also intended as a humorous comment. My apologies for misinterpreting your comments, if I have done so.

[Fisherman]

caz: But what if Paul was not always completely truthful , or the timepiece he was using not always 100% accurate to the minute?

What if it was the 1:st of September, what if the carmen walked very slowly, what if Neil was trying to save face after not having been in Bucks Row at 3.15, what if...

Of course, Caz, once we alter one entity, the others will be affected. However, if the puzzle is broken and makes no sense at all, then we should assume that we chamged a detail that was correct before our changing it.

What we must look for is a way to make sense of as many bits and pieces as possible. The further we reach in that respect and the more pieces can be fit into the puzzle, the better chance we stand of having it correct.

Did he check the time just as he closed his front door, or a minute or two before he was ready to leave, guessing that interval? Did he check the time again when he came across Cross, or did he guess afterwards how many seconds it had probably taken him to get to the scene from the last time he checked?

We can´t possibly know. We only know that Pauls picture of things was that he left home close in time to 3.45 and that it was exactly 3.45 as he came into the street.
As I have demonstrated, these timings make eminent sense when coupled to the timings of LLewellyn. They make less sense when compared to the PC:s, so some sources must be out on the time to an extent.
However, Paul said that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he walked into Bucks Row, and that phrasing has nothing of guesswork about it. It speaks of knowledge, certainty and exactitude, and there is no other timing given in combination with the murder that has this quality to it.

As I said before, maybe Paul heard a clock strike the quarter hour as he entered Bucks Row, and maybe the PC:s heard that strike too. And then it stuck in their minds as the clockstrike close to the ensuing drama. It COULD be that simple.

Coupled with the habit people had back then of timing things by the hour, half-hour or, at best, the quarter-hour, when they had no fail-safe method of taking it down further to the nearest minute (unless like Dr. Blackwell they had a special reason to keep an accurate watch on them and to consult it on arrival at a murder scene, for example - 1.16 am precisely in Stride's case), I wouldn't feel confident in basing any theory on the seemingly universal 3.45 time given for the discovery (by anyone) of Nichols.

Confident? That is a word that leads the thought to somebody being certain of something, and as I said, there can be no absolute certainty here. We do, however, have Pauls wording (exactly 3.45), endorsed by Baxter and Swanson, and we do have the fact that it seemingly fits with Llewellyns given timings. The 3.45 is in a manner of speaking the firm anchoring around which the other timings revolve.

Would it not have suited Robert Paul to stick with 3.45 regardless of any possible inaccuracy on his part, in support of his beef that the police (PC Neil) came late to the party but claimed to be first? If Paul had arrived just two, three, four or five minutes earlier, then left with Lechmere to fetch Mizen, there would have been little wrong with the cops arriving at 3.45 (or thereabouts) and saying so.

There would have been a lot wrong with that timing, since it would require that Thain would have spent a whole lot of time covering a two-minute stretch. Once again, ALL the parts must make sense, and they fit better in some ways than they do in others.
There are many bits and pieces that must be fit in for the timing schedule to make an overall sense. Once we do the work it will lead us to 3.46 being a very good suggestion for the time Paul found Lechmere.

Assuming Nichols was on the main Whitechapel Road looking for likely doss tokens when she met her killer, how can anyone be sure Lechmere would have had enough time to leave home, get solicited by her and agree to go to Buck's Row (a street where he might encounter familiar faces he has seen before on his walk to work - Robert Paul was luckily a stranger who used that route at the same time) and attack her there before the next person happened along?

To rule out the possibility that Lechmere could have managed this, you need to stretch things rather dramatically. And sure enough, sometimes things go down in a very stretched manner. If the body was found at 3.38 by Lechmere, it would tally with his given time of departure. Then, Paul may have arrived at 3.38.30, being very confused about the time and thinking for some reason that it was 3.45 exactly.
Then Paul could have been very mistaken about the time it took to examin the body and walk to Mizen - maybe it took six and a half minutes and not "no more than four" as he said.
If so, Mizen would have been contacted at 3.45, just as he said.
And then Mizen could have knocked up people for another five minutes before departing, so that he reached Browns at around 3.52.
And up there, Neil and Thain could have spoken for six minutes about the weather, the latest football game and law enforcing on the whole. If so, Thain could have left the minute before Mizen arrived, that is to say 3.51. If he then spent the time between 3.51.30 and 3.56, four and a half minutes, with the butchers, having a cup of tea and brushing off his cape, he may actually have arrived at Llewellyns place at around 3.58 - which would tally with what Llewellyns implicates.

Who am I to say that this was not what happened? I really cannot swear it did not.
But I CAN say that such a schedule looks much like a mockery. And I CAN add that I can provide a schedule that works from Paul having arrived at Browns at 3.46 that is very much more in accordance with the given evidence.

Maybe we can allow us to dribble away the implication of the timings given like this. But guess what?
If these mock timings are correct, then Paul arrived at 3.38.30.
If these mock timings are correct, then Mizen saw the body at 3.52.

It would mean that you and those who think and argue the way you do, would be provided with a timeline that allowed for Lechmere to look innocent - in regards of the timings.

But it would equally mean that Polly Nichols bled from the wounds in her neck THIRTEEN AND A HALF MINUTES after Pauls arrival up at Browns. To this time, we must then add at least a minute or two if we are hoping to introduce another killer. That takes us up to a bleeding time of around a quarter of an hour.

Jason Payne-James said that if the neck was cut first, she would bleed out in a minute or so. There is also the very clear and real possibility that the neck was NOT cut first, and that the blood that left through the neck oozed out after she had been cut subsequently to the abdominal wounds having been inflicted.

On hearing my question whether she would be likely to bleed three, five or seven minutes, Payne-James said that he could see the first two timings work, whereas seven minutes was a suggestion that was not very realistic.

I wonder what he would say about the suggestion of a fifteen minute bleeding?

The simple truth, Caz, is that your best chance to introduce an alternative killer lies with accepting the timings I suggest. If there was a "mere" gap of around six minutes between Pauls finding Lechmere and Mizens seeing the body bleed from the neck cuts, then we may just be able to cram another man in. It remains less likely than Lechmere being the killer, but sometimes "less likely" proves to be the real solution.

So maybe there was another killer. And maybe Lechmere´s giving the wrong name, disagreeing with Mizen and not being heard by Paul are just coincidences.

Or maybe I am correct: It is ridiculous not to accept that the carman is now the prime suspect for the Nichols murder, that he is very probably the killer of Polly Nichols and that he is the absolutely best bid for the role of Jack the Ripper.