The Lechmere trail - so far

[Bridewell]

the only factually viable suspect who has ever come to light in the Ripper hunt.

Why are Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety and Hutchinson not 'factually viable'? How are they conclusively eliminated? Anyone who was in the area without a concrete alibi is 'factually viable' surely?

[Bridewell]

It belongs to the long list of "coincidences" that by it´s sheer lenght is VERY odd.
Per se, it s not odd or suspicious, but in the overall context, it is the event that starts everything off.

It's not suspicious. Full stop. Finding a body is not suspicious. A body has to be found by someone.

Having read my posts and often commented on them, you will be acuteely aware that I do not consider finding a dead body incriminating in the least - unless it is combined with a surrounding set of circumstances that changes that.

Nothing changes that. Finding a body is not suspicious.

Any comment on the other 30 points, Colin? Or on the ones I didn´t list, like for example how it was very coincidental that the words he is supposed to have told Mizen about another PC should be so perfectly in line with him trying to con his way past the police.

I'll comment on Mizen in much the same way as I have done before. Mizen said what he did in order to justify his failure to take prompt action in response to what Lechmere really said.

I think others, notably Trevor, have covered the other points well enough.

[GUT]

Why are Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety and Hutchinson not 'factually viable'? How are they conclusively eliminated? Anyone who was in the area without a concrete alibi is 'factually viable' surely?

And other than Hutch were named as suspects by senor police who had access to material lost to us.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Your post 141.Who are these people of authority you speak of,that have presented incriminating evidence against Cross,and what have they presented?
I accept there are many more knowledgeable and educated posters here than I,but I have yet to notice a concentrated effort by them to dismiss my claims regarding Cross.Only you have,so what does that make you.A self proclaimed person of Authority?Of what stature?
What has been presented is good information,but it is of negative value in incriminating anyone.You seriously need to learn the difference between what is information,and when it becomes incriminating evidence.
Yes I do think it possible that Hutchinson killed Kelly.I also think it possible that she was killed by someone else.You,on the other hand is fixated on Cross,and will not consider others in the killing of Nichols.
Muleshaw,for instance?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=harry;351765]Fisherman,
Your post 141.Who are these people of authority you speak of,that have presented incriminating evidence against Cross,and what have they presented?

You need to read more carefully, Harry. You yourself wrote:

and at this point in time,no incriminating evidence has been presented.

...and I answered:

Yes, it has. And it has been recognized by men with a lot more authority that poster Harry.

So it was not the men I mention who presented the evidence, it was Edward and I. And Andy Griffiths and James Scobie would seem to have accepted that evidence, would you not say?

So often space is taken up here for no good reason. If we only to tke care to read before we ask, we will be much more economic with each others time and patience.

I accept there are many more knowledgeable and educated posters here than I,but I have yet to notice a concentrated effort by them to dismiss my claims regarding Cross.Only you have,so what does that make you. A self proclaimed person of Authority? Of what stature?

I have? When did I dismiss your claims? That would mean that I said that you were wrong, and I do not. I say that you have a much worse case, not that you are wrong.
Well, when you misread me, you will get things wrong. But overall, you will just be more LIKELY to be wrong, Harry.

This of course also meas that your speculation about me being a person of Authority is just discourteous and ill informed.


What has been presented is good information,but it is of negative value in incriminating anyone.

No, it is not.Much as no crime has been proven, a lot of circumstntial evidence has nevertheless indicated that thee is a clear opportunity that Charles Lechmere killed Nichols.
You really need to be able to tell these things apart.

You seriously need to learn the difference between what is information,and when it becomes incriminating evidence.

See the above.

Yes I do think it possible that Hutchinson killed Kelly.I also think it possible that she was killed by someone else.You,on the other hand is fixated on Cross,and will not consider others in the killing of Nichols.
Muleshaw,for instance?

So let´s consider "Muleshaw", then! Was he found by the victims side? No he was not. Is he therefore a less worthy suspect than Lechmere in this respect? Yes he is.
Are there any anomalies clinging to Mulshaw? No there is not. Is he therefore a less worthy suspect than Lechmere in this respect? Yes he is. Are there any indications that he lied? No. Is he therefore a less worthy suspect than Lechmere in this respect? Yes he is. Are there any idications that he gave a name that he wasn´t registered by? Is he therefore a less worthy suspect than Lechmere in this respect? Yes he is.

There you are, Harry, I did exactly what you asked from me. I considered Mulshaw, and I compared him to Lechmere.

It turned out that he is nowhere near as good a suspect.

It also turned out that you once more saw to it that space was taken up for no good reason at all. And it turned out that you seem to have no grasp at all about then case. The suggestion that Mulshaw would be a useful suspect seems to point in that direction.

Do you disagree that Lechmere is a better suspect than Mulshaw? Or?

You are welcome to produce any other suspect, and I can do the same for you. Will that stop you complaining?

[Fisherman]

I'm still struggling with the blood evidence. Mainly because I still don't believe that we have blood evidence.

Fisherman, you keep referencing the blood "evidence". I've been through a lot of material in the past few days and I'm not seeing anything that I'd term "evidence". For the purposes of this discussion, I'll remain agnostic with respect to what the blood "evidence" indicates. I'd simply like to see a list of what we're being asked to view as "evidence" along with it's source. Let's go from there.

I'm asking this because I do think it's a compelling point and not one I think should be dismissed out-of-hand.

If it was evidence then, it is evidence now, Patrick. The Eddowes apron, what about that - it was there then, it is gone now. Does it belong to the evidence?

[Fisherman]

A further point regarding blood, going to back a few posts to discuss blood spurt, splatter, etc. There was good discussion there and I think in the interests of moving forward a few concessions have to be made.

1. Even though it's not a provable fact that Nichols heart was not beating at the time her throat was cut, let's suppose that she was DEAD, no heartbeat.

2. Fisherman posted Dr. Llewellyn quote stating that Nichols had NO blood on the front of her clothing. Let's accept that as true.

3. Let's assume that Nichols' killer was NOT sprayed by blood as he cut her throat and that ALL of the blood from the veins and arteries of the neck were under very low or NO pressure, and affected by gravity.

So, even conceding all this, I do not believe that:

A. The killer had no blood on his person. The throat was cut. Abdominal mutilations were made. This occured in the dark. It would have been very difficult if not impossible to have SEEN the blood in order to have avoid it.

B. Even if the killer HAD successfully avoided getting blood on his person, he would have not have KNOWN that he'd avoided getting blood on is person. Therefore, I think it's highly unlikely that the killer would have approached Robert Paul (who had not to that point even noticed the body) in the street, placed his HAND on him (Paul did not testify that he found blood on his clothing where Cross had touched him - or anywhere for that matter: thus, we know that - SECONDS after the murder - Charles Cross' hand(s) were free of blood), and gone looking for a policeman (who carried with him a latern).

C. Clearly a murder weapon was used. It was not found with the victim. It was not found at he scene. If Charles Cross was the killer than we can assume with almost total certainty that he carried the murder weapon on his person as he dealt with Paul and Mizen. Fisherman, you state that Cross did not run as he heard Paul 30-40 yards off, as he entered Buck's Row. Instead, he decided, to play innocent bystander and APPROACH Paul. It follows, then, that he did not THROW the knife. Paul would have certainly heard a metal knife hitting the pavement or a building and the police would most certainly have found the knife during their subsequent searches. He had now time to scurry into a corner a hide it. If that's the case then he had to have heard Paul, hurried some distance from the body (a few feet or yards), hid the knife (quietly), returned to the body, then approached Paul. I think a rational person can conclude that Cross - if we assume he killed Nichols - hid the weapon on his person. I think we can assume then that the KNIFE was bloody. Thus, Cross hid the knife, perhaps cleaning it first with a rag he ALSO had stowed on his person, without getting blood on his hands or clothing. And he's so confident - after all this - that he did not get blood on himself (in total darkness) that he approaches - TOUCHES - Paul and seeks out a PC with a lantern.

Jason Payne-James: The killer could have had very little or indeed no blood on hos person.
That - or something very similar - is what Jason Payne-James states in the documentary.

I accept it.

I also think that Lechmere was a psychopath IF (there you go, Robert - if) he was the killer. And a psychopath is a risktaker and a liar by definition. I am quite confident that he may have thought "I´ll just rub my hand on that uster, and then the idiots will be none the wiser".

[Fisherman]

No Fish. As has been stated multiple times Scientist are unsure of which effects would outweigh which. My post very clearly states just this, which I quoted for you. There are simply too many factors that have not been looked into on an individual basis.

You CHOOSE to accept the results that support your theory because you want your theory to be true. The truth, which I have clearly stated is WE DO NOT KNOW how Nichols body would have responded. Could she have clotted more? Yes. Could she have clotted less? Yes.

This was my point. We do not know how her body would have responded and therefor no blood "evidence" can be determined. You are being outright false to people in pretending that this so called blood "evidence" matches your theory and pretending it can only match your theory. It is at its core, far too inconclusive to match anything.

Not that I believe you will accept any of this. You have too much invested in Lechmere. This will be my last time speaking with you in this thread. I am happy you have a place to keep your ramblings on the subject Fish. Good day.

The consensus is very clear that alcoholism clots blod. It is futhermore scientifically proven. So your point is somewhat lost.

I ca understand why you withdraw, but it really would have been better if you owed up to your mistake instead of hoping that it would go unnoticed.

[Fisherman]

Nothing to do with being hard to kill, Fisherman. Did I even hint at such a thing? You must think Prosector is a right chump. Or do you not know what a prosector actually is and that Prosector is aptly named as he specialises in the field?

If you are so interested in the blood evidence, you should be equally interested in the evidence left by the wounds inflicted on Chapman and in particular Eddowes, and what this demonstrates to Prosector about certain learned techniques used by the killer, which he would have had to pick up by observation if not hands-on experience. The way the umbilicus was avoided and the kidney extracted are examples that don't lend themselves to a smash and grab artist, slicing and dicing by trial and error.

You can look up all Prosector's posts on the subject right here on casebook if you really want to known exactly what he said. I'm only the messenger, but he makes a whole lot of sense to me.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz, you may have worded yourself a bit vaguely or I may have misunderstood.

As for Prosectors thoughts, it remains that other medicos have been of a different meaning.

Should we ditch the others and go with Prosector? Who has a theory to defend? I am in no way accusing him of anything at all, but it remains that people with suspects must be regarded with a bit more care than those who stand free of such things.

I, for one, should know that.

[Fisherman]

Why are Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety and Hutchinson not 'factually viable'? How are they conclusively eliminated? Anyone who was in the area without a concrete alibi is 'factually viable' surely?

No, anyone who was in the area is potentially interesting. It is not until you can actually be tied to one of the murders that you become factually viable in my eyes.

Out of the men you mention, we can actually not see that any one of them must have been in the area on the murder days. There is even doubt that Hutchinson was.

He still remains the person out of these where I would acknowledge a possible factual viability.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: It's not suspicious. Full stop. Finding a body is not suspicious. A body has to be found by someone.

So there are no bodies that were never found?

That aside, Colin, yes normally a body must be found by somebody.

I agree.

And that is per se not suspicious.

It is only the circumstances under which the body is found, and the facts relating to the case otherwise, that can put the finder of a body under suspicion.

Am I wrong or am I right, Colin? You are the ex-copper.

Nothing changes that. Finding a body is not suspicious.

I'll comment on Mizen in much the same way as I have done before. Mizen said what he did in order to justify his failure to take prompt action in response to what Lechmere really said.

That is your conjecture, but there was nothing wrong with what Mizen did, so he needed no excuse. What happens here, though is that we get another anomaly that is very damning if true. And therefore suspicion is added.

I think others, notably Trevor, have covered the other points well enough.

Yes, he is a real master detective, that Trevor! You should cling to him and you will be fine!

[harry]

Fisherman,
It was you that brought things to a personell level,by making comparrisons between other people and myself,but if those you mentioned are willing to post,I'll be happy to reply.So what makes anyone of more authority than myself,and on what basis,and who are they.So if space is wasted,remember it w as you that initiated the subject,and it is you who is now complaining.

I repeat.Up to this point in time no evidence of an incriminating nature has been presented against Cross.

Mulshaw,lets see.
About 30 years of age,matching e stimates given by witnesses.
Born in the area,still living and working in the area.
On the night of Nichols murder,night watchman in an adjoining street.
Working alone,enabling him to be absent without notice.
Work place enabled him to retreat to and clean up unobserved.
Presented himself at the murder scene while body still there.
Claimed to have been told of the murder,claims that could not be substanciated.
Workplace only minutes from the latter murders of,Tabram,Chapman,and Kelly.
Lived in Rupert Street near the Stride,Mckenzie,and Pinchin street killings.
A ll good information,but useless, unless incrminating evidence ca n first be e stablished,but much more suggestive than the information on Cross.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
It was you that brought things to a personell level,by making comparrisons between other people and myself,but if those you mentioned are willing to post,I'll be happy to reply.

So would I be.

So what makes anyone of more authority than myself,and on what basis,and who are they.So if space is wasted,remember it w as you that initiated the subject,and it is you who is now complaining.''

I think anybody out here should be awarded the right to have an opinion, and from what is said and done, I tend to make an assessment of my own as to how well read up people are are.

Who are Andy Griffiths and James Scobie? I think that has been explained a number of times already. They were approached with the special request not to be engaged in the Ripper case - so that they would have no prejudices the way you and I do - but instead to represent extremely able people in the fields of crime investigation and legal procedures.
That is why there is every reason to accept that the Lechmere is a good case, since Andy Griffiths thought so - he would be able to see it´s merits and it´s downsides, and to weigh them against each other. There were some things he thought pointing very much to Lechmere and others where he was less enthusiastic. The overall verdict, though, was one of Lechmere being the man who needed to be cleared before other suspects were looked into.

Scobies credentials are also very well known, as is his verdict - a prima faciae case could be built, implying that Lechmere was the killer.

This you know. This I have repeted numerous times. And still you ask for me to repeat it. Why?

I repeat.Up to this point in time no evidence of an incriminating nature has been presented against Cross.

No definitive proof has been presented. Noone says it has. It is you and a number of others who keep saing that I claim that Lechmere was the killer. I claim that it is the best suggestion there is, not that it is proven.
You also claim that I dismiss your alternative explanations to his behaviour. I don´t. I point out that they are inferior suggestions to the more sinister ones.

Mulshaw,lets see.
About 30 years of age,matching e stimates given by witnesses.
Born in the area,still living and working in the area.
On the night of Nichols murder,night watchman in an adjoining street.
Working alone,enabling him to be absent without notice.
Work place enabled him to retreat to and clean up unobserved.
Presented himself at the murder scene while body still there.
Claimed to have been told of the murder,claims that could not be substanciated.
Workplace only minutes from the latter murders of,Tabram,Chapman,and Kelly.
Lived in Rupert Street near the Stride,Mckenzie,and Pinchin street killings.
A ll good information,but useless, unless incrminating evidence ca n first be e stablished,but much more suggestive than the information on Cross.

I can only lament that you think that this makes for a more compelling case. But I neverthless thank you for enlightening everybody about your capacity to make a viable comparison.

The single fact that Lechmere was found alone next to the body while it was still going to bleed for five minutes or more, outweighs your whole list with the greatest of ease.

You apparently do not understand this. That is absolutely remarkable.

[Fisherman]

Oh, and here is a useful comment on Mulshaws age:

"The Casebook Wiki suggests that Patrick Mulshaw was born c.1857 in Spitalfields, the second of eight children born to Patrick (1834-1890) and Margaret (b.1833) Mulshaw. His siblings were Francis (1855-1912), Kate (b.1858), Jane (b.1862), John (b.1866), Richard (b.1868), Mary Ann (b.1871) and William (b.1874).

In 1861, the family were living at 5 Thrawl Street, Spitalfields. Ten years later they were residing at 17 Goulston Court.

As an aside Goulston Court no longer existed by 1888, its entrance from Goulston Street being built on with the erection of the Wentworth Model Dwellings where a part of Eddowes’ apron and the ‘Juwes’ message were left on the night of the ‘double event’.

In 1891 the family were living at 33 John Street, St George North with Patrick Mulshaw senior not mentioned and Margaret listed as a widow, so Patrick senior had died by then.

However taking a look at more details for Mulshaw we see an entry in the Whitechapel Infirmary records for a Patrick Mulshaw suffering from an ulcerated leg admitted on 14th April 1888 and living at 51 Church Street at the time.

His age was given as 60. In the infirmary record he was said to be married and his job is given as Watchman.

This would suggest that it was Patrick Mulshaw senior (1834-1890) and not his son who was the watchman that night in August 1888. The age given in the infirmary record of 60 correlates with the age of Mulshaw senior given in the 1881 census."

Now, to whom would that passing man say "Watchman, old man, there is..."? To a 31 year old - or to a 60 year old man?

I think that it is much more credible that it was Mulshaw senior who was the watchman, not least since we know that he WAS a watchman.

[caz]

Caz, Fish
you two are talking about two different things.

Caz is talking about the surgical skill demonstrated
Fish is talking about how easy it would be to kill the victims.

You don't say, Abby. It was Fisherman who totally misunderstood this in his responses to me, which is why I had to explain again - and again - that I was asking how Lechmere learned the techniques required to do what was done to subsequent victims after killing them. I never even mentioned the ease of overpowering these desperate women in the first place, which would have been stating the beedin' obvious.

Love,

Caz
X