The Lechmere trail - so far

[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"

[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.

Youīd 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, thereīs someone coming, and here I am with a corpse.

Letīs 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 donīt 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.

[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 donīt 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 see no case against Lechmere (yet) for anyone to counter.

So THATīS why nobody does it? Aha.

[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.

Thatīs fine by me.

[Patrick S]

Christer's Lechmere Law Number 6: The blood in the pool under her neck was ”somewhat congealed” according to Mizen. Normally, blood congeals fully around minute seven whereas the congealing starts to show after three or four minutes.
A logical timing suggests that Mizen reached the body some six minutes after Lechmere had left it. This means that if the normal coagulation scheme applied, then it is very hard to see that anybody else than Lechmere could have been the killer.
Of course, deviations may apply here too, but we know that the blood had turned into a congealed mass, a clot, at the time it was washed away, so the blood had no problems to coagulate. We also know tgat much as alcohol can prolong the coagulation time, a more excessive intake of alchol, such as in alcoholism, will instead make the blood coagulate more easily.

Now, did you mean to say "Mizen" here? So, even more of your theory depends on the opinion of Jonas Mizen? It should be clear by now that Mizen fibbed a bit while recounting his interactions in Baker's Row with Cross and Paul.

We have Paul saying:

“I saw (a policemen – PC Jonas Mizen) 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, 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.”

We have Cross saying:

"They (Cross and Paul) informed (PC Jonas Mizen) that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before."

Now, for the moment, I'm going to pretend that both Cross and Paul aren't lying, as you say. I know that's a stretch in that Cross was in the midst of perpetrating his "Mizen Scam" while Paul unwitting corroborated Cross' impressions later through his dishonest, police-hating, diatribe to the press.

So now we have two (Cross and Paul) sources claiming independently that:

1. Mizen was told that Nichols may be dead, and that

2. upon hearing this, Mizen reacted with something falling far short of urgency

Now, I’d like to pause here to mention that I feel that it is folly to put much stock in what was reported. One cannot put complete stock in Paul’s statement, even though it appears to be a direct quote, because there were no recording devices (as I have PROVEN!) in 1888. We rely completely on the reporter and the editor. We do not know if they were capable of getting a quote down verbatim. We do not know if they had any axes to grind or what they may or may not have included in order to sell newspapers. Thus, we must take the detail with a grain of salt. However, it's clear that Paul did stress his point. And it's clear his recollection of Mizen's actions in Baker's Row reflect a distinct lack of urgency/seriousness from the good, honest, Christian Jonas.

So, now we learn tha your earth-shattering "BLOOD EVIDENCE" rests upon....who? Jonas Mizen. It's clear we have very strong reason to believe that the dear, sweet, god-fearing Jonas may have been somewhat later in arriving back in Buck's Row than he reported. I know that you play fast and loose with timeframes in order to pin guilt on our hero, Charles Cross.

But, it's possible for kind Jonas to get a repreive. The judgement of history may ultimately be somewhat more favorable to The Lord's Favorite, PC Mizen, speaker of truths, fighter of evil. It could be that his words with respect to the state of the blood didn't accurately make it onto the page. This is why I say, again, that there IS NO BLOOD EVIDENCE. By the time Mizen arrived, we have Neil finding the body. We have Neil signalling to Thain. We have Thain responding to the signal and going to Neil. We have this happening: "With the aid of his lamp, he (Neil) noticed the wound to Nichols' throat and that blood was still oozing out. He felt her arm, which he claimed was still warm and noted that her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was lying nearby." We then have Neil dispatching Thain to get Llewellyn. At some point, a few of the fellas from the neighborhood pop by to have a chat and look at Nichols dead body. Around this time, Mizen comes ambling around the corner. Based on what he saw when he arrived, it sounds as if the timing of his arrival is pretty reflective of the attitude both Killer Chuck (Cross) and Liar Bob (Paul) say displayed in Baker's Row. That is to say, pretty unconcerned. Despite his pious nature, he told what was - in the end - a white lie that cast both he and the police in better light. Well, it was a white lie, that is...until you built not only the daring and complex MIZEN SCAM around his words and actions, but also based the validity of your rock-solid BLOOD EVIDENCE on his observations.

[Patrick S]

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.

Thatīs fine by me.

That's what I'd do if I were you. I'll keep up the barrage though, for other's who may bought into the "Christer Scam".

[Fisherman]

One may of course ask oneself WHY people respond to the Lechmere threads, running them up into hundreds of posts.

I say that I think that a number of things point to guilt on the carmans behalf. I take it I am allowed to do so.

I say that I think he is the prime suspect for the Nichols murder, speaking on factual grounds, and I urge anybody to present a better suspect. Generally, nobody does. (There WAS an exception from the rule when a man who cannot be shown to have had anything to do with any of the victims and who cannot be shown to have been at any of the murder sites , was suggested as being a better choice that Lechmere who WAS at the murder site and who IS thereby connected to one of the victims - ha!)
So surely I am allowed to think he is the prime suspect.

I say that there must be room for another killer, although personally I think that room is very small. Once again that is my view, and I should be entitled to it.

I say that I think that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, and that too must be a right of mine.

For some reason this has people going berserk. And all the while, they assure me that they find the suggestions I make laughable. And they stress how little stock they put in it, how untouched they are by it and how ridiculous it is of me to think that anybody would listen to my theory.

Overall, it is all very strange how people go out of their way to flood these threads with all sorts of posts, when the suggestion that Lechmere is the killer is supposedly so uninteresting to them. But there you are.

Of course, personally, I think that most people realize that the killer has probably been identified, at least in the Nichols case. I even think that some are hypocritical enough not to admit it, and that some are afraid that it will be bad for business. Some are just ill-informed loud megaphone types of people with a much larger gift for insulting than they have for intellectually understanding the implications of the case.
But of course, that too is just my take on things.
And once again I AM entitled to it.

[Fisherman]

Patrick! A little something for you:

Yestarday, you spilled gall over me. The general idea was that I was an idiot for claiming that Robert Paul could also have lied.

Robert Paul said in his paper interview that "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row..."
It is thus apparent that Paul claims to have made the trek up to Bakers Row himself in this interview.

At the inquest Paul said that "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."
It is apparent here that Paul now claims that both of the carmen wlked to Baker Row together.

You say that I have a problem indicating that Paul lied.

I think your problem is to explain how both versions of the trek can be true.

But donīt spill any time on it, Patrick. There is no mending it, you have sold out, and it is better to try and let it pass unnoticed.

It is always better to have people suspecting that you donīt know the first thing about the Ripper case than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Right, now you can go back to safeguarding people from my suggestions. Keep up the ... ehrm, barrage. A noble quest indeed!

[Hercule Poirot]

[B]...Now, I’d like to pause here to mention that I feel that it is folly to put much stock in what was reported. One cannot put complete stock in Paul’s statement, even though it appears to be a direct quote, because there were no recording devices (as I have PROVEN!) in 1888. We rely completely on the reporter and the editor. We do not know if they were capable of getting a quote down verbatim. We do not know if they had any axes to grind or what they may or may not have included in order to sell newspapers. Thus, we must take the detail with a grain of salt. However, it's clear that Paul did stress his point. And it's clear his recollection of Mizen's actions in Baker's Row reflect a distinct lack of urgency/seriousness from the good, honest, Christian Jonas...

They didn't have tape recorders but shorthand was widely used in the 19th century by the UK press and would allow for a totally reliable 'record' of any verbatim.

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;352289]One may of course ask oneself WHY people respond to the Lechmere threads, running them up into hundreds of posts.

Because its interesting. Even if Cross is eliminated as a suspect (and I think that eliminating suspects is amost as foolish an exercise as NAMING one), he's still part of fabric of the case. Thus, any and all research into him is valuable, interesting, and excellent fodder for discussion and debate.

I say that I think that a number of things point to guilt on the carmans behalf. I take it I am allowed to do so.

I say many more point elsewhere. The majority agree with me...but, hey, whose keeping score, right?

I say that I think he is the prime suspect for the Nichols murder, speaking on factual grounds,

FACTUAL GROUND? I think we've established THAT'S not the case. But, I'd have been disappointed had you given up so easily.


and I urge anybody to present a better suspect.

Its not for anyone to present a 'better suspect'. The supect you present has to withstand scuitiny. He hasn't. That's clear. The ABSENCE of a BETTER SUSPECT does not, therefore, recommend a poor suspect. You know this....right? RIGHT?

Generally, nobody does. (There WAS an exception from the rule when a man who cannot be shown to have had anything to do with any of the victims and who cannot be shown to have been at any of the murder sites , was suggested as being a better choice that Lechmere who WAS at the murder site and who IS thereby connected to one of the victims - ha!)

So surely I am allowed to think he is the prime suspect.

Of course. Most disagree with you, as they disagree regarding Sickert, Van Gough, Carrol, et al.

I say that there must be room for another killer, although personally I think that room is very small. Once again that is my view, and I should be entitled to it.

And you are entitled to it. No doubt!

I say that I think that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, and that too must be a right of mine.

Indeed. And it's my right to bet on the field.

For some reason this has people going berserk. And all the while, they assure me that they find the suggestions I make laughable.

I think that's me. And to be fair, it was just the Mizen Scam. But, I'll own up. I find it laughable. More so now that I've put it through the wash a few times.

And they stress how little stock they put in it, how untouched they are by it and how ridiculous it is of me to think that anybody would listen to my theory.

Overall, it is all very strange how people go out of their way to flood these threads with all sorts of posts, when the suggestion that Lechmere is the killer is supposedly so uninteresting to them. But there you are.

I'm incredibly interested. I've said it again and again. I wouldn't have printed reams of information and combed through it to see if I could buy into what you've been selling. I'm entitled to refute what you say.

Of course, personally, I think that most people realize that the killer has probably been identified, at least in the Nichols case.

I doubt that. But, hey. I can only speak for me.

I even think that some are hypocritical enough not to admit it, and that some are afraid that it will be bad for business.

Everything is good for business, Christer. Even you.

Some are just ill-informed loud megaphone types of people with a much larger gift for insulting than they have for intellectually understanding the implications of the case.

Ah! Dismissing both the 'intellctual understanding' and the complete eviseration of your concusion because you got your feelings hurt. Nice ploy if it works.

But of course, that too is just my take on things.
And once again I AM entitled to it.

Indeed you are!


This post smacks of self-pity. Cry me a river, Christer. There's an old saying about dishing it out and not being able to take it. It's not a Klingon Proverb or anything...but most people know it.

[Patrick S]

They didn't have tape recorders but shorthand was widely used in the 19th century by the UK press and would allow for a totally reliable 'record' of any verbatim.

I think there are enough inconsistencies through out the reporting of the murders to indicate that there problems in reporting. Rober BAUL. GEORGE Cross. Incorrect street names. Total fabrications in many cases. The point being that to call something 'blood evidence' based on what you read in the papers may be problematic, to say the least.

[Patrick S]

Patrick! A little something for you:

Yestarday, you spilled gall over me. The general idea was that I was an idiot for claiming that Robert Paul could also have lied.

Robert Paul said in his paper interview that "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row..."
It is thus apparent that Paul claims to have made the trek up to Bakers Row himself in this interview.

At the inquest Paul said that "The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman."
It is apparent here that Paul now claims that both of the carmen wlked to Baker Row together.

You say that I have a problem indicating that Paul lied.

I think your problem is to explain how both versions of the trek can be true.

But donīt spill any time on it, Patrick. There is no mending it, you have sold out, and it is better to try and let it pass unnoticed.

It is always better to have people suspecting that you donīt know the first thing about the Ripper case than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Right, now you can go back to safeguarding people from my suggestions. Keep up the ... ehrm, barrage. A noble quest indeed!

This is like fishing with TNT, Christer. Really.

First off, I'm not naming a killer (much less a suspect) after 127 years based on what Robert Baul...er...PAUL...said either in court (and reprinted in the papers because....the OFFICAL record is lost) or in an interview. I'm also not convinced that the press got all the details and syntax correct. But, that's not vital, either.

You don't seem understand that I'm not interested in which version of his trek is true. What is that Cross and Paul agree on two very high level details that are not flattering to Mizen or the police:

1. They both indicate that Mizen was told Nichols either was or may be dead
2. They both indicate that Mizen didn't spring into action and head to Buck's Row

What's most consipicuous is that you ignored what Paul said to the press when you spelled out your.....(sorry.....I'm surpressing a chuckle)..uh...Mizen Scam. Now, it's part of the story.....only now...Paul is liar. So we have Mizen, correct in all things at all times approached in Baker's Row by a serial killer and police-hating liar with an axe to grind. Sorry. Doesn't work for me, or anyone else it seems. Glad you're back though. Don't take your ball and go home again as we move forward. I get worried about you.

[Fisherman]

This is like fishing with TNT, Christer. Really.

First off, I'm not naming a killer (much less a suspect) after 127 years based on what Robert Baul...er...PAUL...said either in court (and reprinted in the papers because....the OFFICAL record is lost) or in an interview. I'm also not convinced that the press got all the details and syntax correct. But, that's not vital, either.

You don't seem understand that I'm not interested in which version of his trek is true. What is that Cross and Paul agree on two very high level details that are not flattering to Mizen or the police:

1. They both indicate that Mizen was told Nichols either was or may be dead
2. They both indicate that Mizen didn't spring into action and head to Buck's Row

What's most consipicuous is that you ignored what Paul said to the press when you spelled out your.....(sorry.....I'm surpressing a chuckle)..uh...Mizen Scam. Now, it's part of the story.....only now...Paul is liar. So we have Mizen, correct in all things at all times approached in Baker's Row by a serial killer and police-hating liar with an axe to grind. Sorry. Doesn't work for me, or anyone else it seems. Glad you're back though. Don't take your ball and go home again as we move forward. I get worried about you.

Iīm sure that this little diversion of yours is very interesting. But the issue we are speaking of is how you tried to paint me out as a dunce for saying that Paul would not have told the truth.

So returning to the question: Is it or is it not apparent that he must have lied on at least one of the occasions I quoted?

[Fisherman]

They didn't have tape recorders but shorthand was widely used in the 19th century by the UK press and would allow for a totally reliable 'record' of any verbatim.

Ah, but Hercule, now you are making sense. But sense is not what Patrick is primarily after.