The Lechmere trail - so far

[Fisherman]

Eh? I said your case does go down the plughole if Prosector is even half right. Unless of course you are holding back evidence that Lechmere attended public dissections or had a shelf full of books on the subject.

Love,

Caz
X

Aha, it goes down the plughole IF he is half correct. Now, where have I seen that word before...?

You are really producing a lot of very hands-on evidence, Caz. As always.

[Fisherman]

I take it you are the steward then - or just the doorman? Thanks, but I won't come in, old man. I was just passing and wondered what the latest Lechmere buffoonery was all about.

Love,

Caz
X

Now, why would I strip you of these honours, Caz, when they so clearly belong to you?

Whereīs my answer to the question of whether you really put Lechmere and Mulshaw on equal footing, or if something else lies behind? Answer it, and then you can resume your duties at the club.

[Fisherman]

caz: This is a great point, Pcdunn, which I can't recall being made before.

You are having a field day, my dear: Great listings, great points. There is greatness all around you. Lucky you.

Letīs not ruin the moment by saying that we A/ cannot tell where he found Nichols and B/ point out how all you helpful people have made the point that THOUSANDS of men would have used these streets.
Are you really going to help me reduce those numbers now? Thatīs about time. So, Lechmere would never kill in a street that would give him away that very easily?


It kind of makes your reasoning belong to some club. Somewhere.

[caz]

...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.

Good points, Patrick. Lechmere the ripper is beginning to look not so much like Fisherman's reckless, ridiculously lucky psychopathic everyman, and more like the supernatural, all-powerful fiend of legend.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sally]

Springheeled Charlie??

[Fisherman]

Good points, Patrick. Lechmere the ripper is beginning to look not so much like Fisherman's reckless, ridiculously lucky psychopathic everyman, and more like the supernatural, all-powerful fiend of legend.

Love,

Caz
X

You really canīt get a break, can you?

A reckless man leaves traces behind himself. Did the killer? No.

A reckless man cares not about noise. Did the killer? Yes.

Tell me, how "supernatural" is it to con somebody? Has it been tried with success by killers before? How "supernatural" is it to hide the murder weapon?

I donīt know, Caz. It seems that you are extremely impressed by rather everyday occurences.

A psychopath, Caz, is normally fearless, an accomplished and compulsive liar, fond of playing games with people, totally unlikely to panic and he could not care less about other peopleīs feelings. He is however NOT "supernatural".

You are getting absolutely nowhere, Caz. You are unable to clarify what yu mean, you blame ME for it, you cannot tell resourceful and lucky from supernatural, you elevate anything that opposes the Lechmere theory to greatness, you conpare Mulshaw to Lechmere, and all the while you cannot for the life of you present one single point that isnīt laughable.

Keep it coming, Toots. Itīs an intellectual striptease, the like of which I have not seen for quite some time.

[caz]

So when did the family, including Patrick senior, move to 3 Rupert Street? That's where our watchman was living when Nichols was murdered.

That would be somewhere between 1871 and 1891, for the rest of the family, Caz. Whereas it seems reasonable that Patrick Senior could have moved in with them at a later stage. Really...!

The expression 'old man' does not necessarily refer to age. In fact it was/is used like 'old sport', more so by the middle and upper classes, to address anyone regardless of their age, and not meant unkindly or as an insult. Mrs Prater was reported to say to the youthful Mary Kelly: "Good night, old dear", so I wouldn't read too much into it.

Of COURSE you wouldnīt! I do, however. I also take very careful note of how Mulshaw senior was listed as a watchman in the infirmary records of April 1888, so we have an A/ Old man, who was a B/ Watchman and who quite probably lived with his son at the time of the murder.

Quite probably? Mulshaw junior was 30/31 in 1888. Do you know if he was still living with his father by then, and the whole family was at 3 Rupert Street? Or is it 'quite probable' that he moved there after leaving the parental home? Didn't sons often go into the same kind of work as their fathers?

Fill in the gaps and let's eliminate young Mulshaw together!

Love,

Caz
X

[Pcdunn]

Springheeled Charlie??

Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

I think how Cross/Lechmere located Polly needs to worked into this theory, and that may impact the timings. Even if there are ten extra minutes unaccounted for of his time, would that be enough to leave home, go to the busier street, get Polly, bring her to Bucks Row, and attack her?

Maybe, maybe not.

[Fisherman]

Quite probably? Mulshaw junior was 30/31 in 1888. Do you know if he was still living with his father by then, and the whole family was at 3 Rupert Street? Or is it 'quite probable' that he moved there after leaving the parental home? Didn't sons often go into the same kind of work as their fathers?

Fill in the gaps and let's eliminate young Mulshaw together!

Love,

Caz
X

There is no filling in the gaps. It canīt be done. We are left with Mulshaw himself saying that the man he met called him "Watchman, old man" and with actually KNOWING that senior was a watchman. The son MAY have been anything, including a watchman.

It matters extremely little in the end, since neither man is anywhere near Lechmere in weight of evidence. The mere suggestion is ridiculous, and you know it, donīt you, Toots?

[Fisherman]

Doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

I think how Cross/Lechmere located Polly needs to worked into this theory, and that may impact the timings. Even if there are ten extra minutes unaccounted for of his time, would that be enough to leave home, go to the busier street, get Polly, bring her to Bucks Row, and attack her?

Maybe, maybe not.

The problem is, PC, that we have only Lechmereīs own timings to go by. That will inevitably affect the issue.
However, straying down to Whitechapel Road and back from Bucks Row would occupy two minutes only, if thatīs what you are asking.

There can be no working out how and where Polly and Lechmere met, at least not on the evidence we have.

[caz]

caz: You see but you do not observe, Fisherman.

Still, that must be better than doing neither...

Don't mention it.

Oh, but I will: The ensuing discussion was clearly about KILLING and not about eviscerating.

These two are different matters, you see.

But you, apparently, preferred not to see. The discussion began with my post about what was done to Chapman and Eddowes after they were killed. All my subsequent posts to you on the subject of anatomical and technical know-how related back to this one and what Prosector (big clue in the name there) has had to say about it. I can see why you chose the safer ground of ignoring all this and pretending I was actually discussing the killing process with you all along. But I wasn't, and I'm not now.

Great as a diversionary tactic, but only a temporary one. If you'd still prefer to avoid the Prosector spectre like the plague, I'd understand completely. It's a real bugger.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

But you, apparently, preferred not to see. The discussion began with my post about what was done to Chapman and Eddowes after they were killed. All my subsequent posts to you on the subject of anatomical and technical know-how related back to this one and what Prosector (big clue in the name there) has had to say about it. I can see why you chose the safer ground of ignoring all this and pretending I was actually discussing the killing process with you all along. But I wasn't, and I'm not now.

Great as a diversionary tactic, but only a temporary one. If you'd still prefer to avoid the Prosector spectre like the plague, I'd understand completely. It's a real bugger.

Love,

Caz
X

The discussion revolving around Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes was about how the women were KILLED. Not about how they were eviscerated. It was a simple mistake on your side, and it is not going to throw the world into chaos. **** happens. Live with it.

As for Prosector, why would I think him a real bugger, and why would I avoid him? As far as I understand, he is just another man chipping in his five pence in the old anatomical expert/not anatomical expert game. How revolutionary can that be, Caz?

Back in the day - and I think we need to live with how commentators back then actually SAW the victims and were thus more fit to comment on them with authority - it was said that the killer did not even possess the skill of a butcher.

Surely you can see that there is a large span in the errand? Surely you have noticed that when there is such a span, there is also liberty for each poster to make his own call about the level of skill?

I think there was a possible anatomical interest on behalf of the killer, and that he possibly had some little anatomical knowledge. I fail to see how your devote faith in Prosector is going to change that.

You are free to reason that it was a man with a Gladstone bag and a top hat, performing amazing pavement surgery. Itīs just that I do not agree. As far as I can understand, that goes for scores of other posters too.

You keep going on about how I should not put too much faith in what you see (or claim that you see) as very doubtful evidence against Lechmere. And yet, here you are, demanding me to believe in Prosector and his thoughts, while all the time you know that Ripperology remains totally divided on the issue?

Is that intellectually viable, Caz? Have you asked yourself that?

Look, I will strike a deal with you: If you concede that Lechmere in all probability was the killer, then I will concede that he would in all probability have picked up some surgical knowledge somewhere.

If he was also the Torso killer, that actually makes some little sense.

[Fisherman]

I donīt know if you remember it, Caz, but a stiff year ago - or perhaps two years - the old anatimical expertise question was up for grabs.

I recall how Edward at that stage posted how there were a number of example sof murder hunts where the police and medicos frantically looked for people with anatomical expertise - but what they found was men who had no such knowledge at all.

If I donīt misremember, Danny Rolling was one of these men, of whom it was thunk that he must be a medical wizard, with unsurpassed knife skills.

He was in fact a simple drifter.

If I was you, I would hold on for ear life to my ideas on the subject. But I would save a lot of time not trying to argue about it.

[caz]

The discussion revolving around Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes was about how the women were KILLED.

Not on my part it wasn't. The evidence is right there in my posts, Fisherman. For me it was always about the dissection techniques used on Chapman and Eddowes afterwards. You didn't address any of that, and wanted instead to discuss how the women were killed. Well count me out and ask someone else to discuss it with you.

It was a simple mistake on your side, and it is not going to throw the world into chaos. **** happens. Live with it.

Nice try.

As for Prosector, why would I think him a real bugger, and why would I avoid him? As far as I understand, he is just another man chipping in his five pence in the old anatomical expert/not anatomical expert game. How revolutionary can that be, Caz?

Up to you, Fisherman. It's your loss, not mine.

Back in the day - and I think we need to live with how commentators back then actually SAW the victims and were thus more fit to comment on them with authority - it was said that the killer did not even possess the skill of a butcher.

Wasn't that Bond? Remind me, how many victims did he actually SEE? Did he SEE Chapman or Eddowes - the two in question? Don't think he did.

I think there was a possible anatomical interest on behalf of the killer, and that he possibly had some little anatomical knowledge. I fail to see how your devote faith in Prosector is going to change that.

No, I'm beginning to realise it won't change anything you already 'think' about anything.

You are free to reason that it was a man with a Gladstone bag and a top hat, performing amazing pavement surgery. Itīs just that I do not agree. As far as I can understand, that goes for scores of other posters too.

Is that really the best you can do? Proving once again that you haven't read or understood a single word of the prosector dissection discussion?

Look, I will strike a deal with you: If you concede that Lechmere in all probability was the killer, then I will concede that he would in all probability have picked up some surgical knowledge somewhere.

If he was also the Torso killer, that actually makes some little sense.

Circular, I'm afraid. No deal. Find some evidence that Lechmere did pick up some dissection techniques and I would certainly consider him a person of interest.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Not on my part it wasn't. The evidence is right there in my posts, Fisherman. For me it was always about the dissection techniques used on Chapman and Eddowes afterwards. You didn't address any of that, and wanted instead to discuss how the women were killed. Well count me out and ask someone else to discuss it with you.

You could quite easily have avoided any problems vy speaking of eviscerations instead of kills. And I was not exactly hard to interpret, was I, asking why it would be hard to kill by knocking somebody over the head?

Up to you, Fisherman. It's your loss, not mine.

Or the other way around. The point being, and read my lips: WE-CANīT-KNOW!!!

Wasn't that Bond? Remind me, how many victims did he actually SEE? Did he SEE Chapman or Eddowes - the two in question? Don't think he did.

He saw Kelly. If the killer had demonstrated any skill at all, it was there fore him to see, cut for cut, stab for stab, severing for severing. Plus he spoke to and read the reports from the other medicos. He lived in 1888, Caz, and he was in the best possible position to make that call. So itīs him or you. And guess who I go with? Neither, since there are too many differing views, contemporary and modern. It is effectively much of a non-issue to me, as long as nothing can be proven either way. Saves time, you know.

No, I'm beginning to realise it won't change anything you already 'think' about anything.

And in that respect, you are so much more flexible? Or?

Is that really the best you can do? Proving once again that you haven't read or understood a single word of the prosector dissection discussion?

Actually, I can do a lot better, but I pick my fights. Make of that what you will.

Circular, I'm afraid. No deal. Find some evidence that Lechmere did pick up some dissection techniques and I would certainly consider him a person of interest.

Show me why he needed to. You go first. A person of interest and much more than so, he is already. But shoot anyway, Caz. Spend time. Have fun. But donīt expect the rest of the world to bow to your insightfulness...