The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Patrick, I am sorry to say that I have not found the time to take part of your wisdoms. I have chosen to be happy about how you have stated that there are many points in the Lechmere theory that may well point to guilt, and how you say that you find my work very interesting.

That´s fine by me.

[Fisherman]

caz: I see no case against Lechmere (yet) for anyone to counter.

So THAT´S why nobody does it? Aha.

[Fisherman]

Then you thought wrong, Fisherman. Have you absolutely no idea that many of my posts are tongue-in-cheek? Have you not grasped the reason for my signature?

You welcomed me to your sad little Buffoon club, which I didn't take seriously. After all, you can only welcome someone to a club if you are the doorman, steward, member or owner. And nobody is obliged to join you there.

Love,

Caz
X

Oh, I don´t think I laid claim to that club, Caz!

And seriously, I have a hard time telling when non-Lechmerites are serious or not. Look at the latest postings and you will see why. Unfortunately, you belong to the contributors with your suggestion that the proposition that the killer could have bluffed goes out of the window when we look at the risks.

Or maybe that was tongue-in-cheek too? Pray tell me, Caz - it is so hard for me to judge!

[Fisherman]

caz:
I would just add that Cross had no idea whose footsteps were approaching, nor how this total stranger might react when confronted with the murdered woman, yet he decided to stay put and bluff it out. Robert Paul could have been almost anyone, including a beat copper for all Cross knew, and/or he could have insisted on Cross staying with him while he made a close enough examination of her to discover what PC Neil would shortly find - 'orrible murder.

Cross's goose would have been well and truly cooked under those circumstances, if he tried to bluff it out with the bloody murder weapon still on him. He would have left himself with no choice but to flee, making his guilt rather obvious, or to silence the stranger with his knife and hope nobody else was approaching by then.

The thing is, the whole control argument goes out of the window with no control over who the stranger would be, and how he would react.

You´d wish it did, of course. It is the same kid of argument employed on many other bits and pieces: If X, then Y, and Lechmere would be done for. If Q, then W, and Lechmere would never have risked that.

The problem is that neither of X, Y, Q or W applies. And is is sligthly disingenuous to suggest that the whole argument goes out of the window with no control.

Ask yourself: Has it happened in the history of mankind that somebody has bluffed it out by not running?

I can answer that one for you: Yes.

Did these people have control over who it was arriving?

I can answer that one for you: No.

Did they do it anyway, taking the chance?

I can answer that one for you too: Yes.

Imagine, Caz, if you will - and can - that Charles Lechmere was the killer. Imagine further that he was into a sort of bubble, cutting away into Nichols as the newcomer walked down the street. Imagine that Lechmere realized that he was in for company thirty, forty seconds before the newcomer arrived. Imagine that Lechmere thought: Damn, there´s someone coming, and here I am with a corpse.

Let´s now make the assumption that he realized that he needed to weigh his situation and make the best of things. He may have chosen between two alternatives:

1. Running.
Pros: He stood a chance of getting away from the murder site uncaught and unidentified.
Cons: He could have the newcomer seeing what had happened and yelling for the police, and if there were PC:s nearby, the game could be up.

2. Bluffing his way out.
Pros: He woud not stir any attention if he could do it. He would perhaps be able to walk along with the newcomer, effectively hiding from the police that he had been on his own on the streets.
Cons: Maybe he could not fool the newcomer. In such a case, he could always kill the newcomer too and make his escape. It could also be that it was a PC who came down the street. In such a case, he could also kill the PC and make his escape. Alternatively, if he thought that a hard task, he could always run for it from his position in the middle of the street, before the PC got close enough to make him out. The PC would of course notice him fleeing, but he would not necessarily give chase, since there was somebody lying in the street who needed attention.

Did you think of that? No?

Now, Caz, please don´t tell me "But that would be DANGEROUS!" The whole business of killing out in the open street is actually dangerous, and if the killer had been squeamish, he would not have done it in the first place. This was a man who was willing to take his chances, and prepared to do the best of things, come what may.
He would have counted on standing a fair chance of being able to do what he came for undisturbed, but the risk of somebody coming upon him must have been obvious to him.

Saying that the proposition that he could have decided to bluff "goes out of the window" equals saying that nobody would bluff in a situation like this.

You may find that somewhat hard to substantiate.

[Patrick S]

Yes, he does. "The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint."

Not very likely to have come from a long dead, stone cold Nichols...!

I'd like to point something out to you, Christer. This is a wholly new element of the case and I' m excited to present it here:

Reporters in 1888 did not utilize recording devices when conducting interviews. The accuracy of their reporting depended to a great degree upon the reporters skill as an active listener as well as their ability to accurately transcribe the words upon the page without changing their meaning. Thus, it may not be purdent to base things like fabled and legendary "Mizen Scam" upon what may have printed in an 1888 newspaper. I'll not even get into what role the editor might play in (inadvertently or otherwise) changing the meaning or inference of the words upon the page. I can get into that later. In any event......

CASE CLOSED! I offer this as proof:

"In 1938, S.J. Begun left Germany and joined the Brush Development Company in the United States, where work continued but attracted little attention until the late 1940s when the company released the very first consumer tape recorder in 1946: the Soundmirror BK 401.[6] Several other models were quickly released in the following years. Tapes were initially made of paper coated with magnetite powder. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company (3M) replaced them by plastic tapes in 1948"

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: I'm not going to read the rest what comes afer my last comment. I'm out of patience and energy. Your Mizen Scam is more.....silly...is that nicer?....that I thought it was. Thanks for explaining it.

You are just a bad judge of things, Patrick. Fair enough. Read what Abby said and try to digest it.

I'd also point out that you should look at the timing of when Cross and Paul met Mizen in Baker's Row. You say it was a max of two minutes for the tree to meet in Baker's Row.

What do you mean? That they spent two minutes together? That it took two minutes to walk from Browns to where Mizen stood?
Either way, you have apparently not read what I have said. And that makes sense. It fits with how you misunderstand things generally sometimes - like the Mizen scam.

Mei Trow said in his book that it takes three minutes to walk the stretch. Careful measuring and comparing with an elevated walking speed speaks more for two and a half minutes. And then we must add some time for the conversation with Mizen, perhas half a minute. That means that we more likely have around five and a half minutes and not four.

This means that in four minutes all of this happened:

1. PC Neil discovered the body of Mary Ann Nichols whilst on beat duty
2. Hearing PC John Thain walking along Brady Street, he summoned him with his lamp
3. Thain was sent by Neil to get Dr. Llewellyn
4. Some residents had heard the commotion and come to view the body

As I said, no, five and a half minutes or something like tht is more likely to be true. Neil could have been in place around two, three minutes after the carmen left. He then immediately summoned Thain, who would take a minute to reach the stable door. That´s three to four minutes gone.
Thain then is informed and leaves, rounding the schoolhouse, add another thrity seconds. We are looking at three and a half to four and a half minutes. Then Mizen comes down Bucks Row, is seen by Neil who flashes his lamp towards him.
It is no rocket science - there is ample time for the schedule to work. And we know that both Baxter and Swanson said the body was found around 3.45.

Now, like you I can draw many conclusion based on this information. Ulike you, I consider the obvious explanations before I start yelling "Case Closed" ala Patricia Cornwell.

You are doing yourself a disservice by lying. I have not said case closed. I say that Lechmere is the prime suspect and the probable killer of Nichols. I also say that I have no conclusive proof, but instead circumstantial ditto.
Please stick to the truth.
Plus regarding Lechmere as the probable killer of Nichols IS the obvious explanation. Ghost killers are much less obvious than the carman.

Christer,

Lest you or anyone feel you were unfairly treated in our one-sided debate, please refer back to this post. Your typical sarcasm, insolence, and condescension was on full display here. And now you're the put-upon victim, taking your ball and sulking home. I hope you get a second wind. I've more when you're ready.

[Pcdunn]

I repeat, a family man with a full time job, whose schedule may have varied, but required "long hours" in both the stables and "standing" while his van was loaded and unloaded would NOT have had the time or energy to have taken up knifing women as a hobby. He probably was mostly worried about being "behind his time" that morning in Bucks Row.

[caz]

Do we know that Lechmere stopped killing?

There goes THAT argument.

Do we know he ever started?

There goes THAT argument.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Christer,

You don't understand the fragility and unreliability of written sources, as opposed to data that comes from physical-forensic evidence.

Which we entirely lack (sorry Russell).

You don't know, and none of us know, how long people took to do this this and that, or how long blood took to flow, and so on.

Your theory is built on shifting sand.

There is no rebuttal required, or counter-theorizing, or explanation as to why Lechmere is not the bets suspect because you have not shown what you must show--that the police of the day, or anybody of the day, missed something incriminating that you have found at this enormous distance.

I agree with you Jonathan and have previously said that I see no case against Lechmere (yet) for anyone to counter. I expect I'll get another long lecture from Fisherman now on why I am totally wrong. Hey ho.

I realize that you have decided not to respond to my posts and that is your right. But it does not change what most people here think and who agree with me --and they loathe me here unlike you, whom they dismiss as a 'mark' who thinks he is a 'smart' -- e.g. that you have failed to provide anything os substance to make your theory viable.

To 'loathe' is a horrible emotion to suffer from, and I sincerely trust you are wrong about this. I for one find it hard to imagine loathing any individual, never mind just for posting their views. I don't even loathe my ex husband, despite being given every provocation. I disagreed with Maggie Thatcher's politics with a passion, but I didn't loathe her for them because we live in a democracy and that's just the way it often goes. I loathe things like wasps, suet and going to the dentist. This is merely a message board for airing personal opinions on the subject of Jack the Ripper, so for me, the idea of anyone loathing you or anyone else for doing so seems so wildly inappropriate that it borders on the comical.

I realise my view of what counts as comical has made me deeply unpopular in some quarters but I can't say it really bothers me. I can't help other people's emotions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Then you thought wrong, Fisherman. Have you absolutely no idea that many of my posts are tongue-in-cheek? Have you not grasped the reason for my signature?

You welcomed me to your sad little Buffoon club, which I didn't take seriously. After all, you can only welcome someone to a club if you are the doorman, steward, member or owner. And nobody is obliged to join you there.

Love,

Caz
X

I agree 100%, caz. In fact, I've made the exact point to Fisherman in past threads: Those steps could very easily belonged to a policeman on the beat. If memory serves, Fisherman's response was that there may have been a light at the entrance to Buck's Row that allowed Cross to clearly see Paul. As well, I made a similar point in this thread. It's struck me all along that Cross' behavior was rational only if he had the knowledge that we have know. We know how things turned out. We know how Paul and Mizen reacted and behaved. There's an old saying about hindsight, isn't there? In any event, it seems as if Cross had - at all times - a crystal ball that told him when to turn left, right, when to zig, when to zag. Here's how I phrased it to Christer (with perhaps a an extra measure of sarcasm):

Add to this the fact that you have Lechmere acting as if he wants to be arrested. He goes to Paul. He invites Paul to view the victim. He doesn't touch Nichols becuase you say he knows that in doing so he'll expose her horrible injuries. Ah! Lechmere's magical crystal ball again. Lechmere didn't know what Paul would do. He could have tried to prop her up without Lechmere's help. He could have shaken her and said, "Madam? Are you okay?" Hell, he could have said, "THAT'S MY WIFE!" He could very well have produced a match and lit it above her body, exposing the blood. Ah! But Lechmere knew he would not do any of things! Becuase he was a psychopath AND...he had that crystal ball. The same one you have except, well, you are operating 127 years later......

[caz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
The information I obtained on Mulshaw,came from reliable sources.It was not,as you appear to believe,a serious attempt to classify him as a suspect.

Then you may need to tell Caz. I think she may seriously believe that you have at long last found the Ripper.

Sadly, now that you bail youself out of the Buffoon club, she will be left alone there, so you have a moral responsibility to live up to.

Then you thought wrong, Fisherman. Have you absolutely no idea that many of my posts are tongue-in-cheek? Have you not grasped the reason for my signature?

You welcomed me to your sad little Buffoon club, which I didn't take seriously. After all, you can only welcome someone to a club if you are the doorman, steward, member or owner. And nobody is obliged to join you there.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If Cross killed Nichols, we can reconstruct a version of what may have occurred in Bucks Row:

At 3:40AM Charles Cross was mutilating Polly Nichols’ abdomen and administering the two cuts to her throat (nearly decapitating her). He was disturbed by Robert Paul, whose footsteps he heard approaching, about 40 yards off. Robert Paul tells us that “he saw in Buck's- Row a man standing in the middle of the road. As (I) drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and (I) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched (me) on the shoulder and asked (me) to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway.

Paul accompanied Cross to Nichols’ body. He felt her hands and face, and described them later as “cold”. Nichols’ clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Paul states later that detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. Paul suggested that they should give her a prop, but Cross refused to touch her.

Cross and Paul then left the deceased. At around this time PC Neil entered Buck’s Row and discovered Nichols’ body. Both Cross and Paul later stated that they had left Buck’s prior to Neil’s arrival and that they had left the victim alone in Buck’s Row. Cross stated later that, in his opinion (Nichols) looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries. Cross detailed why they left the victim under questioning at the Nichols Inquest:

The Coroner: Did the other man (Paul) tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he (Paul) was behind time. I was behind time myself.
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.

Cross and Paul continued on together. In Baker’s Row they PC Mizen. The men informed Mizen that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-Row. Cross said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Mizen, replied, "All right," and then walked on. PC Mizen confirms that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing of Hanbury Street and Baker's Row. He was approached by a carman who passed in company with another man. The men informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-Row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance.

Some things stand out to me:

Cross has either just cut Nichols’ throat or he mutilated her abdomen when he hears Paul approaching. Paul finds him – not standing over the body which was lying against the gate – but “standing in the middle of the road”. It’s unclear if Cross if facing Nichols or Paul. In any event, Paul states that he tried to walk past the man (Cross). But Cross approaches him, touches him, and asks him to “look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway.”

Let’s examine the decisions made by Cross here. Cross has killed Nichols when he hears footsteps approaching. He sees no one but he’s alerted to someone’s approach by the sound of footsteps on pavement. He does not run. Even though it’s “very dark” and he has, as yet, not been observed. He remains close to the body. He then stashes the bloody knife on is person and stands in the middle of street. At this point, Paul is approaching and moves to walk around Cross. Paul is trying to continue walking past Cross, and continue on his way to work. Rather than let Paul pass and continue down Buck’s Row, Cross reaches out and touches him and asks him to come see the woman he’s just killed.

Paul complies and goes with Cross to the body. Cross states that he thinks the woman is dead. Paul can see no blood or an injury of any kind. It's too dark. Paul touches the woman. He finds her hands and face cold. Her clothes are disarranged and Paul (helps to) pulls them down. Paul feels that he detects movement and states that he thinks that Nichols is breathing.

At this point Cross could have decided to agree with Paul on this point. A point that he knows is impossible since he just very nearly decapitated her. In doing this, he could have helped to convince Paul that Nichols was indeed alive. It’s likely that had he done so both men would have continued on to work, with Paul convinced that he’d simply stumbled upon a drunken woman, passed out on the pavement. Instead, Paul and Cross - Nichols’ killer - decide that they’ll stick together and hope to find a policeman.

Approximately four minutes later they meet PC Mizen. Cross has four minutes to take an alternate route, to tell Paul, “I go this way. I’ll continue to look for a policeman and you do the same. Good day.” No. He continues on with Paul, in search of a POLICMEMAN. At this point Cross, who has just killed Nichols and hidden the bloody knife he used to do so on his person, approaches Mizen and tells him that a woman is lying in Buck’s Row, either drunk or dead. Mizen, apparently said, “Alright” and that’s about it. But, Cross did not have a crystal ball. Mizen could very well have said, “And what do you know about it?” He could have asked him to turn out his pockets or asked him to show him where the body was, taking him RIGHT BACK TO THE MURDER SCENE.

Playing it through like this, I just find if hard to believe anyone wishing to avoid immediate arrest would behave this way?

Bravo, Patrick.

I would just add that Cross had no idea whose footsteps were approaching, nor how this total stranger might react when confronted with the murdered woman, yet he decided to stay put and bluff it out. Robert Paul could have been almost anyone, including a beat copper for all Cross knew, and/or he could have insisted on Cross staying with him while he made a close enough examination of her to discover what PC Neil would shortly find - 'orrible murder.

Cross's goose would have been well and truly cooked under those circumstances, if he tried to bluff it out with the bloody murder weapon still on him. He would have left himself with no choice but to flee, making his guilt rather obvious, or to silence the stranger with his knife and hope nobody else was approaching by then.

The thing is, the whole control argument goes out of the window with no control over who the stranger would be, and how he would react.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry to disappoint you, Michael, but many murder cases are settled on "coincidences" only. Or putting it otherwise, on circumstantial evidence. And as you are surely aware, this is a case that QC James Scobie sees as a viable court case, "suggesting that he was the killer".

I think the best guess is that Lechmere would not be convicted in a court of law - but I am not certain of it. Anyway, Lechmeres weight as a suspect has a magnitude that tells him apart from any other suspect, and I´m afraid I will keep pressing that point.

What is your own take, Michael - which other suspect can compete and on what factual grounds? It is a question worth asking yourself.

Wrong as you are, I must admit I have a soft spot for you too!

Not all murder cases are won on circumstantial evidence alone !

Again we go back to what Scobie actually said not just the 30 second clip shown on television. Because he told me that the case would never get to go before a jury based on what he had been told despite the term Prima Facie Case he referred to. Let me try to explain why his 30 second clip is out of context with the rest of what he said.

Firstly he is referring to the modern day workings of the legal system and how the evidence is gathered by the police and examined by The CPS and decisions made by them as to whether to charge or not. Now as you have been told the CPS have to be satisfied that based on the evidence before them there is a realistic chance of them securing a conviction before they will authorize a charge.

So lets look at what you have as evidence and see how Scobie viewed the overall picture. He says there is a prima facie case. Here is just one definition of that "at first view, before investigation" which is where you are at with your theory and the evidence you seek to rely on.

So lets say the police have what you have, and suggest to the CPS that yes there is a prima facie case, what is the next step. The CPS will either agree or disagree. If they agree then the suspect would be charged and the next step would be committal proceedings from a magistrates court to a crown court. The CPS must also consider whether the evidence is admissible and is reliable, what the defence case may be, and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case.

Using the evidence you have on Lechmere if he were ever charged, a defense barrister would likely as not insist on an old style committal proceedings before a magistrate to test and examine the witnesses to try to prove that there was no prima facie case to answer.

This then would give the magistrates the opportunity to decide whether or not there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to trial, or for the case to be thrown out. It will give the defence the opportunity to examine the witnesses and at the conclusion make a submission that there is no prima facie case after hearing the evidence.

In some committal proceeding of this nature statemented evidence can be used if accepted by both parties without the need to bring that witness before the court.

You can now see that the term prima facie which you seek to rely on does not carry as much evidential weight as you seem to think, and based on what Scobie was provided with which was not all we now know, he of course would have, as he did, suggest there was an initial prima facie case.

He uses the term "A jury would not like it" That comment I believe was in relation to Cross giving a different name, of course I suspect he did not know that Cross and Lechmere were one and the same and he was entitled to use both, and therefore this was not as suspicious as he was led to believe, or you in fact make out !

You also have to take into consideration that at no time in 1888 or thereafter did anyone either from the police, or the press, suggest that Lechmere was, or could have been the killer. Now they were privvy to all the same information that you are now, and probably a lot more, yet you and Inspector Gadget seem to be the only ones who think he was the killer and more worrying that he could have killed others.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Hey Fisherman,

You know I am fond of you, Ive made that clear over our years here, but....the bottom line on this issue is that odd coincidences and inconsistent witnesses do not make a murder case against anyone. You really should stop trying to insist there is one anyway.

Cheers amigo

Sorry to disappoint you, Michael, but many murder cases are settled on "coincidences" only. Or putting it otherwise, on circumstantial evidence. And as you are surely aware, this is a case that QC James Scobie sees as a viable court case, "suggesting that he was the killer".

I think the best guess is that Lechmere would not be convicted in a court of law - but I am not certain of it. Anyway, Lechmeres weight as a suspect has a magnitude that tells him apart from any other suspect, and I´m afraid I will keep pressing that point.

What is your own take, Michael - which other suspect can compete and on what factual grounds? It is a question worth asking yourself.

Wrong as you are, I must admit I have a soft spot for you too!

[Fisherman]

That's it?

Yup, that´s it. You are doing a sterling job. and I need add nothing.