The Lechmere trail - so far

[Robert]

Lost 1 - 4 at home, Christer?

The Swedes can be forgiven. Austria started the match will 11 men but finished it with 95 (11 Austrians and 84 Syrians).

[harry]

There is a tendancy for some posters to believe that a person found or admitting to be beside a murdered victim automatically comes under suspicion.That is not true.They come under suspicion only if something invites suspicion.Cross explained his reasons for being beside Nicholls,and the reasons were accepted.Not at any time did he become a police suspect.
In the case of Cross only two things in recent years have been suggested as suspicious,and neither under close scrutiny stand up.The name of Cross and the blood flow.
Trevor has demonstrated w hy the blood question should be disregarded,and the name Cross has no significance as he was entitled to use it.It was not misleading,nor has anyone then or now ,shown that it did mislead.Neither are circumstantial evidence against Cross of murdering Nicholls.
How long would it take for Nicholls to be killed,and a killer to move away before Cross came across the body.I say less than two minutes,and possibly only a minute.Another reason why I believe the blood flow question irrelitive.

[Fisherman]

There is a tendancy for some posters to believe that a person found or admitting to be beside a murdered victim automatically comes under suspicion.That is not true.They come under suspicion only if something invites suspicion.Cross explained his reasons for being beside Nicholls,and the reasons were accepted.Not at any time did he become a police suspect.
In the case of Cross only two things in recent years have been suggested as suspicious,and neither under close scrutiny stand up.The name of Cross and the blood flow.
Trevor has demonstrated w hy the blood question should be disregarded,and the name Cross has no significance as he was entitled to use it.It was not misleading,nor has anyone then or now ,shown that it did mislead.Neither are circumstantial evidence against Cross of murdering Nicholls.
How long would it take for Nicholls to be killed,and a killer to move away before Cross came across the body.I say less than two minutes,and possibly only a minute.Another reason why I believe the blood flow question irrelitive.

Aha, Harry. You would say "less than two minutes" and possibly only one minute.

Fine.

Hereīs the thing. It took two minutes to walk from Browns to Mizen.
It took two minuted to walk back.
It took no more than four minutes to meet Lechmere, examine Nichols and arrive at where Mizen was, said Paul.
Informing Mizen about what had happened would have taken perhaps half a minute.

Letīs do the math here: 4 + 1/2 + 2 = 6,5

That means that if the blood flowed and congealed along a normal schedule, then your killer had no time at all on his hands to do the deed. There is not a second to squeeze him in on. He needed to get out of the street as Lechmere came into it, and it takes a minute to walk from Brady Street to Browns.

That takes us into a period of time where we would have had a stretch of credibility as regards both bloodflow and coagulation.

And keep in mind, Harry, that when we discuss this alternative killer, we must accept that the very last thing he did before he fled would have been to cut the neck! That would have been added the last second - otherwise we need to add even MORE time, making the suggestion even MORE ridiculous.

We really, really, really need to be absolutely certain that there was no way that Lechmere could have done the deed before we start speculating along these lines. Otherwise, the simple solution at hand is that the man who fits the blood evidence, who lied about his real name, who apparently conned Mizen, who Paul could not hear in spite of him walking 30-40 yards ahead of him down an accoustic tunnel like Bucks Row, was also the killer.

The man who came forward only after Pauls article was printed, pointing to his existence.

So there are numerous, numerous matters that point to him. Even a guy like Patrick, who used to fervently deny that anything at all may point to him, now says that there are numerous points that may do so.

When we all know that these things are there, and when we all can see that the bleeding is in line with this man being the cutter, it is perfectly fine to say that it COULD nevertheless have been somebody else.

But it is NOT fine to say that this is in any shape or form the better suggestion. Charles Lechmere is the prime suspect, and he is so on extremely good grounds.

As for Trevor having demonstrated why the blood question should be disregarded, he has done nothing of the sort. He has - true to his nature and abilitites - misunderstood what doctor Briggs said.

Jason Payne-James has pointed to how A/ Lechmere cannot be ruled out in any way or fashion (something Trevor actually proposed not very long ago...) B/ pointed to how it would be more likely for the blood to flow for three or perhaps five than for seven minutes and C/ said that Lechmere fits the bill very well when it comes to the coagulation.

Charles Lechmere, Harry, is right in the eye of the storm. It is no longer any question about whether he COULD have done it. It is a question of how the evidence points to how he WOULD have done it.

As Andy Griffiths put it: before we have any reason at all to look at any other suspect, this man must be cleared.

If you want to clear him, you need to come up with something that takes him off the hook. Is there any such indication at all?

I think not.

[Barnaby]

The fact that timelines can be presented concerning Lechmere is an advantage, not a disadvantage, Jonathan. We can come close to him. That tells him apart and makes him a much better suspect to research than the men where we can do no such thing.
These other so called suspects have one great advantage only - they are universally apliccable in many a way. If we want to suggest that they were in Kew Gardens on August the 9:th 1888, we can do so. If we want to suggest that they were in Mitre Square on the night of the double event - same thing. Those of whom we know nothing can conveniently never be excluded.

Lechmere, however, can be scrutinized in the Nichols case. And that makes him a very much tougher suspect to discuss, since we cannot put him anywhere, make him say or do anything, without the recorded events allowing for it. And that is why it is so compelling that they do.

And this is why I like the Lechmere theory. I don't think we will ever know the truth. In its absence, the best we can do is construct theories and then rigorously analyze and perhaps even test them. The acoustic evidence presented is a great example of this.

In contrast, as much as I like him as a suspect, you can't really test the supposition that James Kelly was the Ripper as he cannot be located and thus could be anywhere at the time of the murders. Convenient, and maybe he is the Ripper, but in the absence of evidence such conjectures leave us exactly where investigators were a century ago. The same could be said for many suspects.

At the very least, this theory presents a plausible suspect in the Nichols murder, and it should be critically analyzed with a skeptical stance. Some critics of the theory are doing just that (and some aren't!); in my opinion the theory is withstanding these criticisms and thus gaining strength.

[GUT]

It is not a theory without merit.

But some issues are so week they should, in my opinion, be dropped. To be told over and over again that the name change is a black mark when there are about 1000 innocent explanations AND he gave his address and workplace in all honesty is a turn off.

[Barnaby]

Aha, We really, really, really need to be absolutely certain that there was no way that Lechmere could have done the deed before we start speculating along these lines.

Here I disagree. Critically evaluating the more accepted account of someone other than Lechmere committing this murder in such a tight time window actually works well for the Lechmere theory and at the very least will cause people to reevaluate their beliefs on this murder.

[Fisherman]

It is not a theory without merit.

But some issues are so week they should, in my opinion, be dropped. To be told over and over again that the name change is a black mark when there are about 1000 innocent explanations AND he gave his address and workplace in all honesty is a turn off.

I would have agreed with that, if it had not been for the more than onehundred signatures we have, telling us that this man did never otherwise approach any authority under the name Cross.

It is the presence of these signatures that tells us that we have an anomaly on hand.

It would require an explanation no matter what the instance was when he used the name Cross - if he had called himself Lechmere at the inquest but Cross on an election form in the early eighties, I would still want to know why, and I would still say I had an anomaly on hand.

As it stands, the only occasion on which he used another name than Lechmere in a contact with the authorities, was in combination with being involved in a murder inquest.

If you think that is not an anomaly and something requiring attention, I donīt mind. But surely you can see why others may differ?

[Fisherman]

Here I disagree. Critically evaluating the more accepted account of someone other than Lechmere committing this murder in such a tight time window actually works well for the Lechmere theory and at the very least will cause people to reevaluate their beliefs on this murder.

That, of course is an interesting point. I was not thinking of it that way, however. I was thinking of a more general reconstruction of the murder and the bloodflow observations.
In that context, I am of the meaning that as long as it is okay to reason that there could have been another unnamed and unknown killer, it is less okay to favour such a suggestion over Lechmere being the culprit.

Of course it would be interesting to see how different suspect believers would go about placing Kosminski, Druitt, Hutchinson, Kelly, Issenschmid, Bury, Carroll, van Gogh, Sickert or anybody else by the side of Nichols, running off down Bucks Row as Lechmere entered the street. For it appears that we now seem to be discussing scenarios where not one but TWO suspects shared the space surrounding the murder spot outside Browns.

Of course, it is as easy as ever - since we do not know where Kosminski et al were at 3.40-3.45 that fateful morning - to reason that they MAY all have been in Bucks Row, and it equally applies that each and every of these suspects may have made the blood run for more than seven minutes from Nicholīs neck when cutting her.

I think we may have had an extremly crowded murder spot.

Kos: Hey, doctor T, what are you doinī here?

Dr T: Erm, nothing, my dear chap, nothing. I was just taking a breether. Like Mr Druitt here, I believe?

Druitt: No, Iīm here to practice cricket, but that guy with the paint brushes got in the way.

Dr T: van Gogh?

Druitt: Nah, the other one. Sickert.

Bury: Boys, boys, letīs not quarrel. There is room for all of us here, surely?

Hutchinson: Seen Mary, anyone?

James Kelly: Mary? What Mary?

Hutchinson: Mary Kelly, Kelly.

James Kelly: Ah! No, I canīt say I have.

Issenschmid: Wait! Lizten! Wat iz zat?

(A tapping sound is heard in the distance)

Oswald Puckridge: Itīs ... STEPS! ITīS THE CARMAN! RUN EVERYBODY, RUN!

van Gogh: Stop! Stop!! Can someone please lend me an ear? Shouldnīt we cover the wounds first?

Like I said, Barnaby, you do have a point. Thanks for calling my attention to it!

[Jon Guy]

I was walking to my car late at night after been in a bar. As I turned the corner into the small parking lot behind some buildings I came across a man standing over a downed man. He seemed somewhat startled and as I got closer he said go get some help. I said what happened he said I don't know I found this guy lying on the ground. I think he's been beat up. So I went back out on the street and found a cop and brought him back. The guy on the ground was getting up and the other guy was gone. It turned out the guy that told me to get help had knocked the other guy out with a brick and stolen his wallet.

So it does happen.The incident made me think of lech immediately and since then I have become more sympathetic to your case.

When you turned this corner, Abby, how many feet or yards were you away from the standing man ?

[caz]

Since Patrick is of the meaning that the work on Lechmere is incredibly interesting, I can only surmise that this is involved in your reaction too.

Did you mean 'Patrick is of the opinion that...'? There is no such expression in English as someone being 'of the meaning', as far as I know.

Anyway, Patrick's opinion of your work on Lechmere is his opinion. Mine was simply that he wrote a great summary.

I might find the work on Lechmere more interesting if it revealed a blessed thing about the man's personality.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

To knock a drunk and defenceless woman over the head and strangle her is hardly something you need to call the SAS for ...

So you've changed your mind about Lechmere going on to kill Chapman and Eddowes then? Or have you taken to Trevor's theory that their organs were harvested by mortuary ghouls?

Have you quite lost the plot, Fisherman?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Did you mean 'Patrick is of the opinion that...'? There is no such expression in English as someone being 'of the meaning', as far as I know.

That will be correct. Thanks!

Anyway, Patrick's opinion of your work on Lechmere is his opinion. Mine was simply that he wrote a great summary.

I am only teasing you, Toots - since he included that judgment in his summary and since you did not think it appaling, I had raised hopes that you were beginning to see the light.

I might find the work on Lechmere more interesting if it revealed a blessed thing about the man's personality.

It may well do - but it is precious hard to check, is it not?

[Fisherman]

So you've changed your mind about Lechmere going on to kill Chapman and Eddowes then? Or have you taken to Trevor's theory that their organs were harvested by mortuary ghouls?

Have you quite lost the plot, Fisherman?

Love,

Caz
X

No. And no. And no.

Do you think it took a lot to kill either of Chapman and Eddowes?

[caz]

Regarding the blood evidence, we actually have a nice collection of information.

Neil says it bled from the neck as he found Nichols.

Mizen notices the same thing two, three minutes afterwards.

So we donīt have to entertain any ideas that the bleeding had stopped and that that illusive alternative killer could have done her in half an hour earlier.

Straw man argument, Fisherman. Tut tut tuttety tut. If you have to put a sodding great 30 minutes between any alternative killer and Lechmere to make your magical blood evidence work in your favour it doesn't bode at all well. If the argument goes that Lechmere cut her throat last, when he became aware of someone (Robert Paul) approaching, your obsession with the blood evidence is for nought, because the alternative killer could have done exactly the same less than a minute earlier, when hearing Lechmere's approach, then wisely made himself scarce instead of hanging around to bluff it out with a completely unknown quantity. What if this unknown quantity were to turn out to be a policeman? Could Lechmere really have known one way or another, and had time to take evasive action, had Paul been a copper, in or out of uniform?

The ripper is the very definition of an 'elusive' killer, so it doesn't help you to mock those who believe he would have tried to be elusive after killing Nichols.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

When you turned this corner, Abby, how many feet or yards were you away from the standing man ?

Hi Jon

15 yards or so