The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Christer

If indeed the killer, why would Cross suggest to Paul that they prop Nichols up?

He wouldn´t, Jon. Try the rest of the sources, not the Daily Telegraph only! Here´s the Morning Advertisers take, for example, Lechmere speaking:

"When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head and touched her hand, which was cold. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, "Yes, she is." He then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman."

Note how Lechmere clais that there was a consensus among the carmen that Nichols was dead. And yet, this is what Mizen says he was told, same paper, same date:

"On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row)."

In none of the papers does Mizen say that he was told that the woman was dead. He was only told that jtere was A/ a woman flat o her back in the street in Bucks Row and B/ that another PC awaited him there.

Those who don´t like the Lechmere theory say that this was because Mizen was a sly liar.

It´s either him or Lechmere.

Just saw a programme on archeology on TV, with an expert by the name of Jon Guy.

You?

PS. Did you know the answer to your question before you asked, or did you really think that Lechmere was the one who suggested the propping up? I would appreciate a straight answer, if you feel up to it, Jon.

[Jon Guy]

Christer

If indeed the killer, why would Cross suggest to Paul that they prop Nichols up?

[Fisherman]

I was just passing through Fish - I have no reason to ignore you or anybody else, for that matter – although I note that your ‘ignore’ list appears to be growing ever longer – if that’s your response to disagreement it’s hardly surprising that so many simply look elsewhere for an engaging debate, other factors aside. You seem to be blissfully unaware that any discourse signifies an interest, whether or not the views expressed therein align with your own– an opportunity, in other words, to win support for your proposal. Yet instead, your response to anybody who questions your views is typically belligerent and combative – a sure way to ensure that people lose interest very quickly indeed. Were it the case that the imaginary Lechmere Hate Group was anything other than a convenient device, they’d be laughing with hysterical delight while you repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot.

You are right. The tings I mentioned in my post to Harry do not align with my views.
Do they align with yours?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Sorry I had to sink to your level to prove you innacurate,but that's life.
I'm sure I understand your reluctance to publish other peoples claims,but with the Cross/Lechmere fiasco falling in tatters around you,I'm sure they wouldn't want to sink with you.

Why would you feel sorry to sink to any level, Harry? No matter which the depths are? De profundis!!

Sadly, you are of course wrong to say that you sunk to my level, since I never would produce an argument like the one you proposed.

That is why my theory is not falling in tatters around me, but instead the criticism against it.

Can you see the logic? Good theory - ridiculous criticism.

It is not the theory that takes the fall in such a case, I can assure you that.

It has been an interesting few years, though: Your suggestion that it is proven that he used the name officially by how he did so at the inquest, others proposing that Lechmere´s timings were in accordance with the development, that he was found standing half a mile from the body, that there is no blood evidence etcetera, etcetera, are all things that go eminently to identify the quality level of the criticism.

Thank you, Harry.

But there is a line to draw in all matters, and I think it goes here. I will peak at what is said on the boards fortwith, and when somebody has something interesting or relevant to say, I will probably do my best to give an answer.

But why would I engage in any more debate with arguments like yours?

That´s correct, I wouldn´t.

[Sally]

Yes, so do I.

Wait! I´ll just ignore it, and then you can do the same!

I was just passing through Fish - I have no reason to ignore you or anybody else, for that matter – although I note that your ‘ignore’ list appears to be growing ever longer – if that’s your response to disagreement it’s hardly surprising that so many simply look elsewhere for an engaging debate, other factors aside. You seem to be blissfully unaware that any discourse signifies an interest, whether or not the views expressed therein align with your own– an opportunity, in other words, to win support for your proposal. Yet instead, your response to anybody who questions your views is typically belligerent and combative – a sure way to ensure that people lose interest very quickly indeed. Were it the case that the imaginary Lechmere Hate Group was anything other than a convenient device, they’d be laughing with hysterical delight while you repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Sorry I had to sink to your level to prove you innacurate,but that's life.
I'm sure I understand your reluctance to publish other peoples claims,but with the Cross/Lechmere fiasco falling in tatters around you,I'm sure they wouldn't want to sink with you.

[Fisherman]

Oh, before we wrap up our "debate" and move on to doing better things, Dust, I would like to leave you with a last comment on the timing of when the body was found.

You say that the only thing pointing away from Lechmere being perfectly in sync with his own story timewise was Robert Pauls "fictitous" account in Lloyds.

That is your stance - the body was not found at 3.45, and Swanson was misinformed or misremembering when acknowledging this time in the ast report we have from him in the errand.

Here´s Wynne Baxter, from his summing up after the inquest, late in September:
"The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data."

Go get him, Dust. You can do it!

Now, goodbye to you.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169: Xmere's timings:

His timings are perfectly in sync with his story and backed up other sources. The only discrepancy was Robert Paul's fictitious account in Lloyds.

I use the word fictitious because testimony from two policemen from two separate divisions dispute Paul's timing, it is reasonable for any unbiased person to consider his story untrustworthy. Add the fact that is interview was laced with an attack on the police and it is easy to see why he might manufacture a time that deliberately questioned the police version.

Yawn. We even have the Swanson report accepting 3.45 as the time when the body was found. It is the official take. The underbuilt take, factually.

And then we have you, placing Lechmere half a mile from the murder spot and conjuring up stories about how the "timings are in sync". The only interest attracted by your ramblings is how far a story can be distorted.


Covering the wounds:

Mrs. Nichols Ulster covered the wounds?
This is brand new information to me. Could you supply a reputable source for it?

I think your story that the wounds would not have been covered before Paul pulled the clothes down is where the real substantiation is needed.

Men alone with the bodies:

You seem to have shifted the goalposts to T.O.D. which you did not mention in your original post.

There are things in life that are so obvious that one hopes that even the daftest of people would be able to see how they work. But alas, no.

Human in ability to accurately estimate sound:

I'll take it that your answer acknowledges I'm right.

This too may have gone unnoticed by you, but I normally disagree with you, favouring facts, sense and contemporary sources instead.
So far it has payed off.

Peripheral sight and vision.

You didn't really answer this, so I need say no more.

I agree - the lesser you say, the better!

"All shoes were loud, as a rule."

Do we know that whether either or both Xmere and Paul had metal on their shoes? I agree with that it was a common practice, but that doesn't mean we should automatically assume it as fact. A questioning mind is a good thing in research.

Then you should be the best researcher ever, suggesting that people who arrived at murder spots many hours after the killings could be the perpetrators. That´s as open-minded as it gets. It is so openminded that a free passage right through the mind is offered up.

Blood evidence:

You neatly avoided addressing the problems with it, with good reason, as there no blood evidence. Why a reasonable person would ignore a doctor's observations and a dozen or so newspaper accounts reporting exactly the same story for one confused and inaccurate report in the Echo is for you to justify.

Confused and inaccurate? Then why would it not appeal to you...? That´s right up your alley!


31 points:

And not a single point that doesn't have an innocent and reasonable answer and therein lies the problem.

Actually, the problem lies to some extent in your using the word answer instead of the appropriate alternative answer. I would also point to how I keep saying that that alternative explanations can apply in each instance - but to opt for 31 innocent alternative answers is foolhardy. It is the combined weight of the so called coincidences that tells the story.

Xmere gave a different name at the inquest, that's odd but not out of the ball park in explainablity. The rest is just selective nitpicking to attempt to build a case. There is nothing wrong with thinking of Xmere as a suspect, the problem lies with the fact that after all this time nobody has managed to come up with ANYTHING concrete against him.

There is the odd concrete brain involved, does that work for you?
Lechmere came under suspicion BEFORE the name issue came up. He came under suspicion before the Mizen scam was discovered, before the blood evidence could be shown to fit Lechmere, before it was known where his mother lived, before it was known that he was closely tied to the cats meat business, before we knew that there were bodies found floating in Regents canal when he worked very close by, before...

You seem to think that it only when the DNA-tainted knife is found in the hand of a dug up skeleton that we can point to a viable link? Asking for conclusive proof is - in all probability - moot.

Using the near certainty that no such proof will never be found to argue that a suspect is bad, is actually very revealing. Not least since I say myself that no such evidence is around when it comes to Lechmere - and the same applies for any other suspect too.

What we can do is to build a circumstantial case. That is what has been done with Lechmere. And no other suspect has come even remotely close to being as viable as the carman is in terms of circumstantial evidence.

James Scobie says that it makes for a prima facie case, suggesting that Charles Lechmere was the killer. Try to find yourself another suspect where a similar case can be made, and you will see the true implications of the Lechmere case.

Charles Lechmere is the prime suspect for the Nichols murder and he is so on very good grounds. It nags you. That changes nothing.

You are doing your best (or is it the worst) to deny that Lechmere is the prime suspect. And the result is the exact same: nothing is changed.

Fifteen years ago, he was an interesting suspect. Since then, lots and lots of research has turned up a good many things that seemingly point to guilt on his acount. Today, the case is much stronger than it has ever been before. Tomorrow, it will be ever stronger.

In that perspective, your loud ignorance and tiresome attitude will be soon forgotten.


Take a look at your post and my answer. Ripperology needs not a iot more of this kind of exchange. Therefore, I will not add more to the rot. Presumably, you will, though, since it seems this is the only way in which you can "debate".

Enjoy.

[drstrange169]

Re Fish's reply 265

Xmere's timings:

His timings are perfectly in sync with his story and backed up other sources. The only discrepancy was Robert Paul's fictitious account in Lloyds.

I use the word fictitious because testimony from two policemen from two separate divisions dispute Paul's timing, it is reasonable for any unbiased person to consider his story untrustworthy. Add the fact that is interview was laced with an attack on the police and it is easy to see why he might manufacture a time that deliberately questioned the police version.


Covering the wounds:

Mrs. Nichols Ulster covered the wounds?
This is brand new information to me. Could you supply a reputable source for it?


Men alone with the bodies:

You seem to have shifted the goalposts to T.O.D. which you did not mention in your original post.


Human in ability to accurately estimate sound:

I'll take it that your answer acknowledges I'm right.


Peripheral sight and vision.

You didn't really answer this, so I need say no more.


"All shoes were loud, as a rule."

Do we know that whether either or both Xmere and Paul had metal on their shoes? I agree with that it was a common practice, but that doesn't mean we should automatically assume it as fact. A questioning mind is a good thing in research.


Blood evidence:

You neatly avoided addressing the problems with it, with good reason, as there no blood evidence. Why a reasonable person would ignore a doctor's observations and a dozen or so newspaper accounts reporting exactly the same story for one confused and inaccurate report in the Echo is for you to justify.


31 points:

And not a single point that doesn't have an innocent and reasonable answer and therein lies the problem.

Xmere gave a different name at the inquest, that's odd but not out of the ball park in explainablity. The rest is just selective nitpicking to attempt to build a case. There is nothing wrong with thinking of Xmere as a suspect, the problem lies with the fact that after all this time nobody has managed to come up with ANYTHING concrete against him.

[Fisherman]

1) Speaking of Pickford's, how did you determine Lechmere worked there? I think I recall seeing on another thread that a fire had destroyed many of the delivery company's records, but do we have his employment record with the place?

2) I have seen references to Lechmere's mother's marriages being "bigamous" , and am curious as to what this means. Is it just that we have no record of a divorce for her? What makes you consider her still married to Lechmere's father at the time of her marriage to Cross?

My interest is in leaving the circumstancial evidence behind and looking more at the documentary evidence you have located in this case.

Best, Pat D.

1. There are no working records left (or found) telling us that he worked in Broad Street. It is the only depot that tallies with his evidence, and in the Times of September 4 1888, it is said that "George Cross, a carman, stated that he left home on Friday morning at 20 minutes past 3, and he arrived at his work, at Broad-street, at 4 o'clock."

2. This has been established by Edward Stow, who no longer posts here. Maria Louisas first husband, Charles´ father, was still alive when she remarried. Bigamy was very common in these times, and the working classes could typically not afford a divorce. A search of the relevant parish information will turn up the divorces, and if there is no such record, then we are looking at bigamy.
But as I said, it is Edward Stow who made the work!

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
In reply to your post 259.
What is the suspicious activity that Scobie says was exhibited by Cross?
Let me again address the issue of the name Cross.Suspicious no.Misleading no,and you are wrong in insisting it was never used in official matters.It w as used at the inquest.In fact,according to you,that he was lying when he used it ,he commited perjury.Why would he risk a prison term, when no suspicion was directed his way,and no gain could ensue?
It is not a question of how many points can be claimed.Only those that show an involvement in the murder of Nichols count,and there were none.All points that you say suggedt guilt,also suggest innocence.You once admitted that yourself.So on what basis can a Prima Facia case be made?

I will not tell you exactly how Scobie weighed the details. How could I? If he thought the name, the timings, the Mizen scam or anything else was the most damning thing, I can´t say. He made the call, not me - which is good, since I would not have ben listened to in the same way.

You say that I am wrong in saying that he never used the name Cross in offical matters, and you point to the inquest.

That is not your greatest moment, is it, Harry? I mean, I do understand how frustrating it must be not to be able to find any real argument, but let´s not sink to this level!

[Fisherman]

But the police didn't take it serious enough to check hs address and Pickford's????

That´s "are" as opposed to "were", Gut. You know quite well that I think that the Victorian police was prejudiced. That was what allowed for their lightheartedness in relation to Lechmere. And I mean allowed for - they would have followed the guidelines of a thinking that had soaked through society for some time.

Plus there is always the fact that Lechmere contacted the police twice. Both then and now, such a thing could have had a large impact. The difference is that today, it would not works as some sort of corroboration of a perceived innocence resting on prejudice.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In reply to your post 259.
What is the suspicious activity that Scobie says was exhibited by Cross?
Let me again address the issue of the name Cross.Suspicious no.Misleading no,and you are wrong in insisting it was never used in official matters.It w as used at the inquest.In fact,according to you,that he was lying when he used it ,he commited perjury.Why would he risk a prison term, when no suspicion was directed his way,and no gain could ensue?
It is not a question of how many points can be claimed.Only those that show an involvement in the murder of Nichols count,and there were none.All points that you say suggedt guilt,also suggest innocence.You once admitted that yourself.So on what basis can a Prima Facia case be made?

[Pcdunn]

Some questions re documentary evidence

But the police didn't take it serious enough to check hs address and Pickford's????

1) Speaking of Pickford's, how did you determine Lechmere worked there? I think I recall seeing on another thread that a fire had destroyed many of the delivery company's records, but do we have his employment record with the place?

2) I have seen references to Lechmere's mother's marriages being "bigamous" , and am curious as to what this means. Is it just that we have no record of a divorce for her? What makes you consider her still married to Lechmere's father at the time of her marriage to Cross?

My interest is in leaving the circumstancial evidence behind and looking more at the documentary evidence you have located in this case.

Best, Pat D.

[GUT]

The police are serious about things like these - it´s another thing that a number of posters out here would go "somebody had to find them".

But the police didn't take it serious enough to check hs address and Pickford's????